Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk.

19:11-27) Author(s): Brian Schultz Reviewed work(s): Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 49, Fasc. 2 (2007), pp. 105-127 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25442543 . Accessed: 06/03/2013 09:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Novum Testamentum An International for Quarterly BRILL www.brill.nl/nt

Novum

Testamentum

49

(2007)

105-127

Jesus as Archelaus

in the Parable

of thePounds (Lk. 19:11-27)

Brian Schultz
Jerusalem

Abstract It iswidely accepted that the parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27) tion also reflected in the parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30), second motif based on the life of Herod tian redactor choose Archelaus the ruthless and murderous is a rewriting of a tradi albeit augmented with a a Chris Yet why would

(4 BCE-6 CE). Judean Ethnarch as a type of theMessiah, we will examine how the archaeo so many years after his demise? In this study, especially a context for this parable, reflecting very primitive logical data may well confirm the Lukan stage of the tradition. Keywords Parable of the pounds,

Lk.

19:11-27,

Herod

Archelaus,

Parable

of the talents

1. Introduction The Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27) presents a unique set of problems to the reader.1 First, it has been noted that Lk. 18:15-19:40 follows the In Luke, however, theMarkan order of events order ofMk. 10:13-11:10. has been interrupted by the insertion of the Zacchaeus incident and of the Parable of the Pounds. While the inclusion of the former can be understood on is related as traveling through Jerichowhere geographical grounds?Jesus the incident is said to have taken place, no such obvious reason is apparent

on a doctoral research at fellowship spring semester. Iwish to thank Prof. James during VanderKam and the Univaersity of Notre Dame for having offered me that opportunity. was first An initial portion of my in November 2005 at the Annual presented findings of the Society of Biblical Literature in Philadelphia. Meeting done while theUniversity of Notre Dame the 2005 ? Koninklijke BrillNV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/156853607X185339

1} Most

of the research for this article was

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

106 B. Schultz?NovumTestamentum (2007) 105-127 49 then did Luke add this teaching at this in his narrative? The question is all themore pertinent since particular point Matthew has a similar parable, that of theTalents (25:14-30), but related to a later stage of Jesus' ministry: in during his Eschatological Discourse for the Parable of the Pounds. Why Jerusalem. A comparison between these two parables, that of the Pounds in Luke and that of theTalents inMatthew, reveals that aside from their

This added element raises its own unique 19:12,l4-15a,27). is the throne-claimant, believed to be a type of theMessiah, problem: on the lifeofHerod Archelaus, a ruler remembered above apparently based all else for his brutality. Obviously, he is hardly a model fitting for such a in typology.Why then did Luke preserve this rather embarrassing motif his parable, especially when it is absent in Matthew? In this re-examination throne'?Lk. of the Parable of the Pounds I will use the tools of context criticism2 to show how these two questions, the differing order of events between Luke and Mark, and the inclusion of a type of theMessiah based on the life of

differing contexts, the Lukan version contains another peculiarity: it has added an extra element, that of a 'throne-claimant' (or pretender to the

Archelaus, are in fact directly related, and can only be properly understood in light of each other.

2. The Relationship of the Talents

between the Parable

of the Pounds

and the Parable

There have been several attempts to explain the combination of similarities and differences between Luke's parable of the Pounds and Matthew's parable of the Talents.3 A brief survey of these theories is necessary in order to

some properly understand the issues. At the beginning of the century, such as Alfred Plummer, suggested that it ismore likely that they scholars,
2) For a survey of how this discipline has been used in biblical studies throughout history, even before usefulness and its continued having received this particular nomenclature, see J. in Biblical "The Role of Context and the Promise of Archaeology M. Monson, today,

to Post-Modernity" Iwish to thank John (forthcoming). Interpretation from Early Judaism Monson formaking this article available tome prior to its publication. 3) For a the Parable of the Pounds and the thorough survey of the relationship between see A. Denaux, "The Parable of the Parable of the Talents, complete with bibliography, #18; see Nazarenes, (2002) 35-57. Yet another similar parable is found in the Gospel of the 1 (ed. W. Louisville: Westminster/John New Testament Apocrypha Knox, Schneemelcher; it has it shares some common 161-2. Although 1991) points with the Gospel parables,

ZNW 93 King-Judge(Lk 19,12-28) and ItsRelation to theEntryStory (Lk 19,29-44),"

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Novum Testarnentum (2007) 105-127 107 B. SchultzI 49 reflect two separate, albeit similar, teachings of Jesus, given on different occasions, rather than stipulating that the gospel writers confused the details of the teaching as well as its context.4 Indeed, who among us has not told the same storyor joke on two ormore occasions, each time adapting not to better fit only the presentation but also the details of the story in order the audience before us? N. T. Wright may well be the lone scholar in recent years to highlight that possibility: "It is highly likely that Jesus used such stories like this on numerous occasions (not just 'twice', as cautious conser vative exegetes used to suggest). There is no reason whatsoever to insist that eitherMatthew's or Luke's version was 'derived' from the other, or both from a single original."5 But most of recent critical scholarship has all but with various other theories.6 rejected this possibility, replacing it Most scholars today suggest that the bulk of the similarities between these two accounts

Jesus.8There are two main explanations given as to how the dissimilarities crept into the two accounts. The first claims that the original parable was

is due to the fact that they both emanate from a single occasion of Jesus,7 and the double attestation of the parable in the teaching synoptic gospels raises the probability that itfinds its source in the historical

extensive differences Luke (B. H. Young,

Hendrickson,

as well, and it is toMatthew it relates more than to suggested that The Parables?Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation [Peabody: Since it offers nothing for the purposes of this study, it is not 1998] 87-88). and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke

considered here. 4) A. Plummer, A Critical

5) N. T. Fortress, 1996) 632-633. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: inDenaux, it is "Parable of King-Judge," 38. However, See, for example, the conclusion obvious that a single parable, ifgiven twice (or more often) by Jesus each time in a slightly 6) modified recorded form, would have evidence of structural and verbal two witnesses. These agreements would independently by "the existence of one single parable at the origin of both versions" even when agreements, not necessarily require as Denaux and others

T. (ICC; Edinburgh: & T. Clark, 1922) 437.

claimed. Positive proof cannot be found for the 'single parable' theory in either, especially (see R. Morgenthaler's light of the relatively few verbal agreements as in Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 36-37, nn. 4-5). Thus, one must study quoted to allow for the two in fact reflect two separate continue possibility that the parables do teaching occasions of Jesus. 7) A. "The Parable of theTalents/pounds Reconstruction of the Denaux, (Q 19,12-27)?a The Sayings Source (?and the BETL 157; Leuven: (ed. A. Lindemann; QText," HistoricalJesus before him have University Press, 2001) 430. 8) A. The Parables J. Hultgren, Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) ofJesus?a 278-279. Commentary (The Bible in Its World; Grand

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

108

B. Schultz

INovum

Testarnentum 49

(2007)

105-127

tradition (M) and in the Lukan preserved independently in theMatthean tradition (L), and that it is these traditions which are responsible for the two accounts. The second is that the was discrepancies between the parable a source common to both asQ, and that the preserved in evangelists, such

Matthew Luke, and that (or his source) is the one guilty of themost redac tional work.10 Against him stand the vast majority of commentators who

or various editors before them, are evangelists themselves, responsible for the differences.9 Either of these two positions automatically raises another question: which of the two gospels preserves themost original form of the parable? Almost entirely alone, Marie-Joseph Lagrange has argued that it is

In and of itself, this added motif seems to have little to no connection with an assumed primitive parable, which I am calling here "the parable of the Pounds/Talents",13 the core ofwhich revolves around a master and his

have removed certain elements from the parable which are preserved in Mat Luke, all themore so since these elements were particularly fitting for thew's context.11 Thus, it is thought to be a more reasonable position to assume that the Lukan version was expanded with a second and separate teaching, that of the pr?tendant to the throne'.12

uphold that whatever the original' teaching looked like, itwould have been more similar to Matthew's version than to Luke's. One main argument even a in support of such a view is that no given adequate explanation, tentative one, has been offered to explain why Matthew or his source would

Davies

9) For variants on this see Denaux, particular theory, and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical

"Parable of King-Judge," 39 andW. D. on the Matthew Commentary Gospel of 1921) 490-492.

(AB 28A; New York: Doubleday, source or a editor pre-Matthean who removed the elements preserved only by Luke, so that by the time the parable was inserted into its Matthean context, these elements were no longer present. But this would version is secondary. imply that theMatthean 12) For an examination founda of this teaching as an independent unit, seeMax Zerwick's as well as the B?blica 40 (1959) 654-74, tional study "Die Parabel vom Thronanw?rter," more recent reexamination in "The Parable of the Throne Claimant by Francis Weinert as it is to have reconstruction Denaux's appeared thought suggested see J. M. For an alternate reconstruction, able of theTalents/pounds," 429-60). P. Hoffmann apolis: and J. S. Kloppenborg 524-557. Fortress, 2000) (eds.), The Critical Edition ofQ

Clark, 1997) 3.376. (Edinburgh: T. &T. 10) selon Saint Luc (Paris: Gabalda, M.-J. Lagrange, ?vangile 11) See A. toLuke (X-XXVI) J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According was Matthews 1985) 1230. One may want to suggest that it

(Luke 19:12,12-15a,27)Reconsidered," CBQ 39 (1977) 505-514.

13) Note

inQ

("Par

Robinson, Minne

(Hermeneia;

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Novum Testarnentum (2007) 105-127 109 B. SchultzI 49 servants, as described in the following summary: on the eve of an imminent assets (Lk. 19:12a-13; trip, a master entrusts some of his slaves with his

Matt.

these either choose to invest it so as tomake it 25:14-15); multiply, or to simply safeguard itby hiding it (Lk. 19:16,18,20; Matt. 25:16-18); upon his return, themaster calls his servants to account (Lk. 19:15; Matt. 25:19),

rewarding thosewho made his wealth grow (Lk. 19:17,19; Matt. 25:21,23), and reprimanding those who simply hid it away so that it could not even collect interest (Lk. 19:24; Matt. 26-28,30). The additional teaching of the 'throne claimant', is that of themaster being a nobleman who hopes that as a result of his trip he will inherit a kingdom (Lk. 19:12b). However, he is hated by his citizens who send a delegation after him to prevent his appointment (Lk. 19:14). They fail in their effort,and when the nobleman comes back as king (Lk. 19:15a), he has all the dissenting citizens slaugh tered (Lk. 19:27).14 It is almost unanimously agreed that thismotif is based in 4 BCE the Great, Archelaus set out forRome

on the life of Herod Archelaus:15 Herod

after the death of his father

as ethnarch rather than king (War 2:14-94; Ant. 17:219-339). But ruthlessness, most typified by his ordering the slaughter of the many Jewswho were gathered in and around the temple during the Passover Herod theGreat's death, for fear that theywere intent celebration just after on cost him his position: in 6 CE he was rebelling against him, eventually removed from office and exiled toGaul (War2:111; Ant. 17:339-344; Dio but only Archelaus'

as to be crowned King, just his father had done. Unfortunately for him, a delegation of Jews followed him and, accusing him of unusual brutality, petitioned Caesar not to as their over Judea, appoint him king. Nevertheless, Caesar made him ruler

have looked something like the following: "...A teaching would into a far country to receive kingly power and then return... But his citizens hated him and sent an embassy after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over nobleman went he returned, having received the kingly power, he commanded... 'these enemies did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.'" "Throne Claimant," it is important to note Weinert, (as suggested by 506). However, that this teaching addresses neither the issue of proximity to Jerusalem, nor the expectancy of mine, who of an imminent appearance of the kingdom of God, as suggested by Lk. 19:11. 15) One commentator who denies this connection is Bernhard Scott (Hear Now theParable: us.' When

14)The

reconstructed

on theParables Jesus [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989] 223); another is Fran?ois Commentary of Bovon du Nouveau Testament IIIc; [Commentaire (LEvangile selon Saint Luc [15,1-19,27] Gen?ve: Labor et Fides, 2001] It is also questioned 257-258). ("Parable of by Denaux King-Judge," 53-54).

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

110 Cass.

B. SchultzINovum Testamentum (2007) 105-127 49

55.27.6; Strabo, Geo. 16.2.46). Even from this short summary, it is obvious that the parallels are too specific to be ignored.16 As is immediately visible, this added not appear to con teaching does tribute anything to the main themes of trust, faithfulness, and reward, which are so central to the parable of themaster and his servants. In fact, the slaughtering of the citizens at the end of the Luke pericope (v. 27) seems to be totally unrelated to the actions of the servants.17 It is suggested, that theremust have been some ulterior motive behind its inser therefore, tion: the delay of theparousia.18 A less common view is that it was added in order to introduce Jesus' was about to be revealed upon kingship which his entrance in Jerusalem.19 Thus, itwould have been one of these con

cerns, or some other still, thatmotivated a pre-Lukan editor, or Luke him self, to rework his source. Two possibilities have been put forward as to to the how this took place. The first posits that the basics of a pretender throne' teaching emanated from a second parable of Jesus,which was sim ply fused into the parable of the Pounds/Talents.20 The second suggests that thismotif was an invention of a redactor himself.21 In summary, the prevailing view today is that Matthew preserves overall a more version of Jesus' parable, albeit itselfnot free from redac original tional work. Luke's account, on the other hand, is further removed from Jesus' teaching, if for no other reason than because in addition to some

treatment of the and Archelaus' parallels between Lk. 19:11-25 reign, thorough A. Evans, "Reconstructing Problems and Possibilities," Hillel and Jesus' Teaching: and L. L. Johns; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 416-417. Jesus (eds. J.H. Charlesworth see Q 18) For a summary of the scholarship on this issue, see Ignace de la Potterie, "La parabole sur les du pr?tendant ? la royaut? (Le 19,11-28)," ? cause de l'?vangile??tudes Synoptiques et les Actes offertesau P Jacques Dupont, O.S.B., ? l'occasion de son soixante-dizi?me anniversaire 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985) 617-618. (Lectio Divina 19)L. T. 139-159; (1982) Johnson, "The Lukan Kingship Parable (Lk. 19:11-27)," NovTIA there is some merit to this view, it de la Potterie, "Parabole du pr?tendant," 613-641. While inNolland, is not without problems Luke 18-24, 913; Denaux, "Parable (see the discussion of King-Judge," 42). 20) For seeWeinert's which examined this 505-514) study ("Throne Claimant," example, to the of the Pounds and suggested motif almost independently of its connection parable how it could have fit into Jesus' ministry (but see above, note 14). 21) As with Lane C. of Judaism: A and the Mission ("The Fear of Yahweh McGaughy in the Parable of the Talents," JBL 94 Postexilic Maxim and Its Early Christian Expansion [1975] Pounds, who tries to trace the "Christian expansion" of the Parable of theTalents/ 235-245) or as 51). ("Parable of King-Judge," by Denaux recently concluded

16) For a

17) Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53 (WBC 35c; Dallas:Word Books, 1993) 910. J.

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

B. Schultz

INovum

Testamentum

49

(2007)

105-127

111

initial redactional work, it also assimilates a second teaching, that of the pretender to the throne'.While scholarship is still divided as towho may this other teaching, Jesus himself or some later Christian stand behind redactor, all are unanimous the latter. that the fusion of the two stories is thework of

But this view introduces a problem leftunanswered by all commentators: why would a Christian redactor choose the ruthless and murderous Judean

Ethnarch as a type of the Messiah, especially somany years afterhis demise? If emphasizing 'delay'was the concern of the redactor,whoever he may be,

Jewish expectation of theKingdom of God with theChristian expectation of the parousia'.25 Similarly, if the concern was 'kingship', it could have been added just as easily without associating it toArchelaus, possibly the worst ruler the Jews had had in centuries. Francis Weinert has stated the problem most clearly:24

commonly held assumption that Lk. 19:11 even has any implied reference to the delay of the parousia.22 As Denaux has already pointed out: "The historical consciousness of the narrator forbids him simply to confuse the

therewas absolutely no need to bolster this aspect of the Pounds/Talents Parable by transforming themaster into some evil nobleman seeking king ship against the will of his citizens. Some statement as to the unusually master would have sufficed, as it is inMatthew long absence of the just more recent (25:19). Furthermore, scholarship has called into question the

Those who

consider the story an allegory do so because it seems to imitate an impor tant pattern of belief Christian understanding... But the reflecting post-Resurrection two of the that they see... most distinctive apparent correspondence ignores story's

of King-Judge," See also D. Flusser, 46-49. and the "Aesop's Miser Parables and Story inJudaism and and Christianity {e?s. C. Thoma M. New York: Paulist, 1989) 9-25. Darrell Bock points out that the word Wyschogrod; Luke uses to refer to the nobleman's return in v. 12 is never used "as a technical term for Denaux, Parable of the Talents," Jesus' return or in Luke's 24:53 1996] even exist in 2:9:51 eschatological discourses about the return" (Luke?Volume on the New Testament; Grand [Baker Exegetical Commentary Rapids: Baker Books, is that the idea of the 1532). A more extreme position delay of the parousia did not

22)

"Parable

"The Significance of the (see D. E. Aune, early Christianity Delay of the Par for Early Christianity and Patristic Interpretation," Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies inHonor C. Merrill of Tenney Presented byHis Former Stu dents [?d. G. F. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975] 87-109). 23) "Parable of King-Judge," 48. Denaux, 24) "Throne Claimant," 506-507. Weinert, ousia

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

112
features:

B. Schultz

INovum

Testarnentum 49

(2007) and

105-127

(a) the dispatching of a hostile embassy... and brutal character of the ruler's revenge... What possibly make enthronement? Jesus, how enemies with as an

(b) the emphatically sense could a Christian

personal audience

the teaching of Jesus on this matter? If early Christians created this story then they must also be responsible for introducing two important nar allegory, rative features which are from a Christian point of view.25 allegorically unintelligible

a out of the sent after Jesus to prevent his image of delegation earthly an in this story is And if the nobleman allegorical substitute for simply could a Christian reconcile the ruler s vengeful treatment of his audience

tackle the problem, and the answers put forward by those who do fail to convince. One suggests ithas the purpose of bringing verisimilitude to the story;26 another that itwas simply for the sake of pres irony;27yet another downplays the slaughter of the citizens in the very ence the ruler, a rather gratuitous albeit grim detail, as simply their being of "cut-off".28 It is probably for this reason that one recent commentator

Few commentators

concluded that the "quite negative tone [of] the royal figure seem[s] more to to Luke or the church tradition likely point to the boldness of Jesus than before him".29 Yet, as Joachim Jeremias has pointed out, "it is hardly con ceivable that Jesuswould have compared himself, either with a man 'who drew out where he had not paid in, and reaped where he had not sown' (Luke 19:21), that is, a rapacious man, heedlessly intent on his own profit: over the or with a brutal oriental despot, gloating sight of his enemies Whichever way one chooses to look at the before his eyes".30 slaughtered one cannot be rid of this why ithas problem, embarrassing motif. That is been preferable de lepasser sous silence or to gloss over it somehow.

3. A Re-examination

of the Lukan Context

of the Parable of the Pounds

However, I suggest that a re-examination of the Lukan context of the parable may offer us an important clue in understanding how this embarrassing
25) See also the discussion mans, well Grand Rapids: Eerd (The Gospel ofLuke [NICNT; as the allegorical interpretation of the parable, similarly rejects that ithas an anti-Semitic tone ("The Parable of the Pounds suggestion by Joel Green who

1997] 674-5) as Jack Sanders' TS 42 [1981] 660-668). and Lucan Anti-Semitism," 26) 1234. Fitzmyer, LukeX-XXVL 27) Flusser, "Aesop's Miser," 23, n. 14. 28) 158. Johnson, "Kingship Parable," 29) Luke 18-24, 911. Nolland, 30) J. Jeremias, The Parables ofJesus (rev. edition; New 59-60.

York: Charles

Scribner's

Sons,

1963)

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

B. Schultz

INovum

Testamentum

49

(2007)

105-127

113

that itdoes not necessarily reflect an original setting inwhich Jesuswould have uttered even an early form of the Parable of the Pounds.31 That the Matthean version is considered more original emphasizes this fact.However, context as presented by an examination of the historical and geographical at that point in time, most Luke reveals that the parable is fitting precisely is highly unlikely that the verse is a later insertion as is so suggesting that it
often assumed.

motif was originally part of the parable, and why it may not have been as as it appears to us today.Most commentators agree that v. 11, embarrassing the introduction leading into Jesus' parable, is a Lukan creation, implying

In Lk. 19:11,32 we read that the Parable of the Pounds was given imme incident. This has led some commentators to diately after the Zacchaeus

suggest that Jesus is considered to be still in Jericho,33possibly even inZac chaeus' home.34 Others have put more emphasis on the verse's clause ?iot to eyyoc eivoci 'IepouoccXruiorui?v ("because he was near Jerusalem"), claiming to be at some point before the arrival of the only that the setting is said

to Jerusalem.35 is certain is that this is the last What traveling companions to Jerusalem (Lk. 9:51-19:28). event inLuke's recounting of Jesus' pilgrimage It seems that the best way to understand the progression of events is that Jesus had finished his visit with Zacchaeus and had set out on the last leg With Jerusalem being less than twenty kilometers from of his journey.36 the traveling companions would arrive before nightfall. It is as Jericho, they set out that Luke has Jesus giving the Parable of the Pounds. We have seen how

it has been suggested that this parable should be understood as a reworking of an early version of the Parable of theTalents combined with a second element, commonly called the pretender to the

31) For see the discussion in Fitzmyer, LukeX-XXVI, Luke 18-24, 1231-3; Nolland, example, "Parable of King-Judge," 46. 911; Hultgren, Parables, 278-9; Denaux, 32)On the of this verse, see below. composition 33) 1234. Plummer, Luke, 437; Fitzmyer, LukeX-XXVI, 34) Lagrange, Luc, 492. 35) L. et commentaire (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Sabourin, L'Evangile de Luc?introduction Universit? Gregoriana, 1985) 669. 36) The of events of the Zacchaeus is not clear. Verses 5 to incident and chronology following 7 suggest that Jesus entered Zacchaeus' home, but the events ofw. 8-10 could be understood so. But if such were the case, w. 11 and having taken place before he does following ever that Jesus then left Jericho without home. Note v. 28 imply entering into Zacchaeus' was on his way when he which implies that Jesus already spoke the Parable of the Pound in Fitzmyer, LukeX-XXVI, (see the discussion \2\%-27, 1247). as

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

114 B. SchultzI Novum Testarnentum (2007) 105-127 49 throne', which includes a motif based on the life of Archelaus. It is pre cisely this added element which has a special historical connection to Jericho. We learn from Josephus that afterArchelaus was appointed ethnarch, he built for himself a city in the vicinity of Jericho, naming it after himself (Ant. 17:340). The city of Archelais has been identified with Khirbet el some twelve kilometers north of Jericho.37 The Beiyudat, archaeology of the site is consistent with the claims of Josephus.38 After Archelaus was deposed, the citywas passed on to Salome, sister ofHerod theGreat, then to Julia (the emperors wife) and to the Roman emperor himself.39 finally was burnt to the After it ground during theGreat Revolt in 66 or 67 CE, was and a Roman garrison established nearby, it gradually resettled until its destruction by an earthquake in 343 CE.40 It is not difficult to see how, during the first half of the first century CE, thememory of this despotic have been recalled by travelers as theymade theirway down the JordanValley en route to Jericho.However, should Jesus and his disciples have arrived from Perea as intimated byMk. 10:1, it seems unlikely that rulerwould theywould have walked by this city before their entrance into Jericho.41 From the same passage in Josephus, we learn thatArchelaus also rebuilt

Herod

Netzer have helped clarify the stratigraphy of the various palace complexes, both confirming and expanding what could be gathered from the historical

theGreat's palace in Jericho.42 Situated at the southern extremity of the city on the banks of theWadi Qelt, this palace complex has long been identified as Tulul abu al-Alayiq. The more recent excavations by Ehud

37) For the on the site, see H. Hizmi, "Archelais: The Village of Arche history of research laus," Judea and Samaria Research Studies 2 (eds. Z. H. Erlich and Y. Eshel; Kedumim? Ariel: The Research Institute, 1993) 212-213 (Hebrew), XVI 38)H. at the Second "New Discoveries Hizmi, Temple Period (English summary). Site of Archelais," Qadmoniot

37/128 (2004) 95-101 (Hebrew).

39)H.

Eshel, R. Peterson and Y Hamitovsky, "Josephus' Judea, Samaria, and Perea: An (ed. S. Mason; Perspective," Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary Archaeological Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). 40)Y Tsafrir, L. di Segni and J.Green, Tabula Imperii Romani: Ludaea, Palaestina (Jerusalem: of Science, Israel Academy 1994) 67. 41) See the discussion inC. F. London: Evans, Saint Luke (TPI New Testament Commentaries; 42) For a of Jericho during the second Temple survey of the occupation Peterson and Hamitovsky, Perspective". "Archaeological

SCM, 1990) 657.

Period,

see Eshel,

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

B. Schultz

INovum

Testamentum

49

(2007)

105-127

115

sources, mainly Josephus.43 Of particular interest for our purposes, there is direct evidence of the destruction of Herod's palaces right after his death (4 BCE), as well as of Archelaus' repairs and use of Herod's Third Palace

In the opinion of the excavator, the ruined palaces were abandoned, only be to very sparsely reused by local squatters.45 By the end of the first cen tury CE, a Roman villa was built over some of the ruins at itswestern
extremity.46

complex (Zone B). It continued to be used during the firsthalf of the first centuryCE, and was even expanded, until the buildings were destroyed by an more than twenty years before the fall of Jerusalem.44 earthquake in 48 CE,

The ancient road from Jericho to Jerusalem passed just south of this makes itsway up into the hills of the palace complex, and as it it offers the travelers quite an impressive view of this JudeanWilderness, enormous royal estate.47Thus, as they exited the city on theirway to Jerusalem, Jew ish pilgrims at the end of the Second Temple Period were reminded of their last non-Roman ruler over Judea. Most interesting is that this corresponds

exactlywith where Luke has Jesus sharing the Parable of the Pounds. Could itbe that thisHerodian palace complex, last renovated and used byArche laus but still standing in Jesus' day, triggered theArchelaus motif we find in the Parable of the Pounds?48 Should such be the case, thiswould 'embarrassing motif

resolve the problems raised by this of Jesus being compared toArchelaus. One can easily imagine Jesus and his disciples, still accompanied by the crowd escorting him out of the city, passing by these magnificent palaces and recalling, in not inwords, the thought if history of the last local ruler who ruled in before the Roman procurators took over. And in Jerusalem light of the events that had just in Jericho, togetherwith the anticipation of transpired an imminent arrival in Jerusalem, believed as itwas by the disciples and others that itwould usher in the Kingdom of God, a new era of Jewish
and Herodian Palaces at Jericho I: Stratigraphy and Architecture excavations; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration reports of the 1973-1987 Society and the Institute of of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2001) 1-10. Archaeology 44) Netzer, Palaces at Jericho, 10, 354, n. 60. 45) Netzer, Palaces at Jericho, 341. 46) 341. Netzer, Palaces at Jericho, 10, 281-285, 47) For a study of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, see R. Beauvery, "La route romaine Netzer, Hasmonean (Final 48) To this possibility was Steven Notley, who first raised by David Gill when in turn tome. relayed the idea he visited the 43) E.

de J?rusalem J?richo," ? RB64 (1957) 72-101.

my knowledge, Herodian palaces with

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Novum Testarnentum (2007) 105-127 116 B. SchultzI 49 rule, it is no surprise that there would have been much excitement and anticipation in the crowd. And this is exactly what is intimated in v. 11.

What

to be succeeded by the establishment of the rule? long-awaited Messianic not evoke such How could the sight of theHerodian palaces thoughts? To correct these false expectations, Jesus launches into a parable, using as his

else could be more fitting for the present hiatus in the Jewish political scene, itself coming after an unprecedented moral degradation of its lead ers, culminating with the brutal reign of theHerodian dynasty, than for it

Archelaus would

as is teaching tool his immediate surroundings, the 'stuff' of everyday life, so customary in Jesus' as in Jewish Should this parables (CT^O). teachings indeed be the actual setting for the giving of the parable, the brutality of a some on the character of no allegory longer be part of the but merely part of the circumstantial settingwhich Jesus used Messiah, in crafting his parable tomore effectively communicate his message. This

would

Archelaus'

God.49 Should

this be the background for theArchelaus motif, instead of being embarrassing, it is rather very poignant. In fact, not only does this create a very probable scenario for the pro nouncement of the Parable of the Pounds, this aspect of verisimilitude

have been immediately obvious to his audience, even ifJesus used a point about the cruelty very graphically tomake Kingdom of

with Archelaus'

upon with nostalgia: they were certainly not interested in keeping his memory alive as an example for their hopes of a future restored Jewish state. Add to that an additional twenty years, a rough estimation of the minimum time one can assume passed before the gospel traditions were to is a full generation writing,50 and by then Archelaus being committed

at this point in the history of the parable's reign fits only transmission. Already by Jesus' day, Archelaus had been irrelevant to the Judean political scene for some twenty years. Haifa generation had passed since his demise. Nor was his rule something that the Jews looked back

was first and foremost remembered for his "slaughter" Josephus suggests that Archelaus these were of those he feared would 17:239) oppose him, even when (aqxx?eiv?Ant. at the it be that very same event which moti Temple during Passover. Could worshiping of the vated the harsh parallel found in Lk. 19:27, that of the slaughter (Kaxaacpa?eiv) citizens? Should this be the case, the rebuke is even more potent: those who do nobleman's not accept theMessiah's Kingdom will suffer a similar fate, even date of the Gospel if they too worship at the

49)

Temple. 30) For a discussion

to According Luke (L-LX)(AB 28; New York:Doubleday, 1981) 53-57. Gospel

on the composition

of Luke,

see J.A. Fitzmyer, The

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

B. Schultz

INovum

Testarnentum 49

(2007)

105-127

117

him! Even

some kind of mnemonic device to trigger tomind as the parable motif, themore time one bringing the defunct ruler allows to elapse between Archelaus' demise and the composition of the if he had inmind gospel, the fewer of these triggers remain. Even the Jericho palaces, which fit the Lukan context sowell and which were still standing in Jesus' day, are a by then already destroyed.52 They could hardly have served redactor for his audience which at best knew only of their ruins, if theywere familiar we are to allow theHerodian if Palaces to be behind an Archelaus motif, a possibility which Lk. 19:11 allows us to entertain, itfits best, ifnot only,when it is attributed to Jesus, themotivation precisely as he is leaving Jericho.

removed.51Already when dealing with his contemporaries, it isdifficult to grasp what purpose a redactor might have found in alluding to him as a type of theMessiah. How much more so to an audience who never knew

with the area at all.53 Thus,

51) that '"Il estmalais? de voir l'int?r?t que le r?dacteur Lagrange, quoting Loisy, emphasized trouver dans ces allusions ? un ?tat de choses enti?rement du troisi?me Evangile... pouvait Il faudrait supposer qu'il les a emprunt?es ? un historien pour les pr?ter ? J?sus." disparu.'

that no redactor would associate Arche (Luc, 493). Note how obvious itwas for Lagrange laus to Jesus, that he does not even feel the need to have to defend his position. In an effort

to disassociate theArchelaus motif from the 'pretender to the throne,' Denaux also pointed out the inci between the composition of the Gospel and the Archelaus gap chronological dent ("Parable of King-Judge," he failed to realize is that while this gap pre 53-54). What of this theme into the passage, it is not evidence for the motif not to the being original parable. 52) It is to note that a Roman villa was built important by the end of the first century CE, over the ruins at itswestern the pottery from this villa has not yet extremity. Unfortunately, been published of the (see E. Netzer and R. Bar-Nathan, "Stratigraphy and Chronology Winter Palaces at Jericho," Hasmonean andHerodian Palaces at Jericho LIL: The Pottery [Final cludes excavations; R. Bar-Nathan; reports of the 1973-1987 Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002] 18, n. 25), a late redaction

so that it is to know whether or not itmay have impossible already been standing by the time of Luke's composition. However, that the owner of the villa did not attempt to reno vate the disaffected an indication of the extent of the palaces rather than build anew may be destruction and subsequent deterioration of the site as a result of the 48 CE earthquake. 53) an it be that this is Could precisely why explicit connection between the palaces and the were familiar and obvi Archelaus motif is not preserved in Luke's gospel? The factors which ous to Jesus' audience and audience. writers no had disappeared both from the land and the memory of the gospel If these factors had at one point been reflected in Luke's source or in he relied, they were one can However, simply ignored, for their implications could imagine why the broader sketches of Jesus' realities to which the redactor and they still carried geographical

were trajectory preserved: his audience could relate.

the tradition upon which longer be understood.

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

118 B. SchultzI Novum Testarnentum (2007) 105-127 49 this reconstruction of the events be accurate, we have no choice to reject the assumption that Lk. 19:11 is but entirely a Lukan creation.54 This is not to deny that the verse betrays a Lukan hand,55 but to affirm that Should
at a minimum some of its content was

larly, the suggestion that Luke, or some pre-Lukan editor, redacted an early to then insert it into the version of the Parable of the Pounds/Talents account of Jesus' to Jerusalem, is equally untenable. First of pilgrimage up must be noted that if it indeed was an insertion, it all, it apparently resulted in

integral

to Luke's

source.56

Simi

man: both Matthew (20:29-34) and relocating the healing of the blind at the exit of Jericho, while in Luke it Mark (10:46-52) place that incident is said to have happened upon entering Jericho (18:35-43).57 According to the two-source theory (Mark and Q), thiswould imply that the insertion

54)As

to the Horae Synopticae: Contributions Study of the Synoptic Problem (Rev. edition; Oxford: Clarendon, 1909) 15-25. See also Jeremias {Parables, 99, n. 40) who out in this verse. points eight characteristics of Lukan style 56) in the of this source may possibly still be discernable phrase rcpoooei? e?rcev Vestiges L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 This is a Hebraism 3B; Grand Rap (D. [BECNT Ttapcc?otaiv. ids: Baker Books, does not follow

1231 and Nolland, 55) J. C. Hawkins,

it is often affirmed by the commentators. Luke 18-24, 912.

See for example

Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXVI,

Greek behind this Hebraic expression(Lk. 19:11; 20:11,12) XXIV, 1234).Yet inLuke, the
Authorities and B. Kvasnica, "Temple and Impact of the Parable of The in the Synoptic Gospels? Vineyard the Tenants and the Sons]" Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies and B. Becker; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2006] Volume One [eds. R. S. Notley, M. Turnage 53-80, 259-317, 57)Commentators inclusion esp. 285-286). often assume (see R. customary Septuagint practice and Tithe Evasion: The Linguistic Background Buth

1996]

1531)

often assumed

to be a Setptuagintism

(Fitzmyer, Luke X

of the Zacchaeus

8:27-16:20 [WBC 34B; Dallas: Word Books, 2001] 131; Nolland, Luke 18-24, 899;

pericope

in Luke is due to the that this relocating of the pericope which takes place in Jericho (see C. A. Evans, Mark

is reported to have taken place in 1213). Inserting an event which Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXVI, is reported to have taken place the relocating of that which Jericho does not necessitate even event would when exiting the city. In fact, the Zacchaeus provide excellent back see also as to a crowd followed Jesus out of the city (Mar. 10:46; Matt. 20:29; why ground note 58). One must therefore allow for the that itwas the geography behind possibility Luke to relocate the healing of the Jesus' giving of the Parable of the Pounds that motivated blind man.

Mark's

account is thought to be much tighter than Interestingly, Luke's version of the This is especially true Luke X-XXVI, Mark 8-16, 129; Fitzmyer, 1213). (see Evans, 14-28 [Word with Mark's awkward narrative in locating the event (D. A. Hagner, Matthew Biblical Commentary 33B; Dallas: Word Books, 1995] 585). For a thorough discussion on the pericope on the healing of the blind man/ the geographical problems associated with see S. E. Porter, "Tn the Vicinity of Jericho': Luke 18:35 in men in the synoptic gospels, the Light of Its Synoptic Parallels," BBR2 (1992) 91-104.

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

B. SchultzI Novum Testamentum (2007) 105-127 49 of the Parable of the Pounds

119

into the Lukan narrative precisely at Jesus' exit from Jerichowas not arbitrary, but purposeful, even important enough for the Lukan editor to contradict his source(s) about the context of the blind man's healing.58 It is even more improbable that the Parable of the Pounds is an insertion when one considers that those elements which make the Parable of the Pounds fitting to Jesus' lifetime are no longer in existence by the time of the text's composition. Finally, no satisfactory explanation has yet to be offered as to why a Christian editor would have preserved the Archelaus motif, let alone insert it into a redacted version of the Parable of the Pounds/Talents, especially in light of all the chronological and theo logical problems it engenders. Rather, by considering the Lukan context as to the Parable of the Pounds, one discovers a very probable sce integral one which is not nario for its pronouncement, only historically plausible,

to the historical Jesus, precisely in the context suggested by the Gospel of Luke, thatwe are able to read the we know of the historical parable without contradicting what himself, or of the early church's conception ofwho he was. Jesus theArchelaus motif of the Parable of the Pounds

even likely, but which has the added a advantage of offering satisfactory for theArchelaus element it contains. It is only by associating explanation

4. The Parable While

of the Pounds

as a

Single Cohesive

Unit

this reading may offer the best way to understand the inclusion of theArchelaus motif into the Parable of the Pounds/Talents, it raises another

of the Pounds could have fit just as well after the (Lk. 19:11-27) itself coming after the Zacchaeus incident (Lk. 19:1-10; healing (Lk. 18:35-43), see also note 57). This would have left the of events from what it chronology unchanged was in Luke's sources. It is true that thiswould have to two required Luke split the pericopae that the Parable blind man's and the telling of the Parable of the Pounds) which come from his (Zacchaeus independent source (I. H. Marshall, The Gospel ofLuke [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978] 692), to the alternative of but this is minor when to contradict one of the compared having sources. Therefore, while the Lukan modified order ismost certainly related to the inclusion of the Parable of the Pounds, it is not required by it, and one must seek elsewhere to fully a themotivations which stood behind such a move. While literary development Goulder, "(1) the rich man who refused salvation, (2) the suggested byMichael poor blind who was served by faith, (3) the faithless rich man, faithful poor man, penitent understand in Luke as is certainly possible, it seems tome that it nevertheless fails to provide sufficient motivation one of the sources in a situation where for contradicting itwas to be apparently possible faithful to all of them without compromising the goals of the narrative.

58) Note

rich man" (Luke: New ParadigmIL [JSNTSup20; Sheffield: A Academic Press, 1989] 674)

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

120

B. SchultzI Novum Testarnentum (2007) 105-127 49

issue. The Lukan context is only appropriate for the Parable of the Pounds, and not for the isolated teaching concerning 'the pretender to the throne'. Alone, this teaching does not seem to have any purpose in the Lukan nar

have fit particularly well within Jesus' life and ministry, he entirely ignores its rolewithin the Luke 19 context.60He suggests that the story served as a to Jesus' opponents who were still rejecting his impending kingship. warning But this is not the situation described are

rative. FrancisWeinert has probably done the best job at explaining how the story about the 'pretender to the throne' may have functioned as an independent teaching.59 But while he tries to show how this teaching may

in Lk. 19:11 where we are told that

Jesus'disciples eagerly anticipating the imminent arrivalofGod's Kingdom. in order to agree with Weinert s reading of this independent Therefore, one would have to stipulate that either the Lukan redactor teaching of Jesus, made up an introduction for the teaching although in the end it failed to be relevant to the teaching, or that he inserted the teaching into a situation that did not call for itnor was particularly suited for it.Obviously, neither Yet while the teaching on 'thepretender to the throne' of these seems likely. is not suited for Luke's context, the Parable of theTalents, as it is preserved in Matthew, could fit the issues introduced by Lk. 19:11, although without theArchelaus motif there is no reason to suppose such to be the case. But this serves to illustrate the point that although the Lukan context best

on thematter. Similarly, it Matthew's gospel, would imply that scholarship while having removed the parable from its original context and placing it to preserve a reading more faithful to the in a secondary one, managed Needless to say, this too is hardly a tenable position. Could itbe, original. therefore, that Luke's account preserves the most original version of the

cannot do so apart from the Par explains the connection toArchelaus, it able of the Pounds/Talents. This suggests a most unique dynamic inwhich the Lukan textwould preserve themost original setting for the Parable of would be themost redacted of the Pounds/Talents, while the parable itself two versions, at least ifone is to follow themajority opinion of recent the

is secondary? If this can be demonstrated, it parable, and thatMatthew's would be additional evidence in favor of the historical accuracy of the Lukan context for the parable.
59) See above, note 20. 60) Denaux itwas added in at the same time as Lk. 19:11, but he was unable suggested that to offer any rational to support this claim except for the fact that it too preserved elements which he claimed were compatible with Lukan style ("Parable of King-Judge," 51-52).

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

B. SchultzINovumTestamentum (2007) 105-127 49

121

In other words, while there have been no reasons as to good why suggested Matthew would have reduced the Lukan version of the parable, the reasons so far as to why Luke expanded theMatthean version are not proposed either.65Furthermore, if the themes of the two teachings are really adequate in conflict, to suggest that theywere combined for the purpose of Luke's narrative only compounds the problem: we have seen that the already adding of the second teaching did not contribute to the goals of the narrative; this would now mean that it created an additional thematic conflict as well. Finally, when attempting to reconstruct what the original Parable of the Pounds/Talents might have looked like, scholars who are not necessarily on this or that agreed specific detail nevertheless all agree on the following,
61)As

is shorter and free from themotif of the claimant to the throne. Part of the rational is that it is harder to find a reason as towhy aMatthean redactor have reduced the parable than as towhy the Lukan redactor would would have added the extramotif.62 It is also hard to understand the relationship between the two teachings, that of a nobleman seeking kingship and that of themaster entrusting his assets to his servants/slaves. Rather than being complimentary, they appear to be in conflict with each other. And since both can seemingly stand on their own, it suggests that the two have been artificially combined in Luke.63 But these reasons fail on all accounts. We have already seen that theArchelaus motif is not required by the immediate context, specifically Lk. 19:11, nor by the need to emphasize the delay of or any other theme scholars have discerned to be in the text.64 theparousia

Current analysis of the two versions of the parable suggests that the Lukan account has been expanded by the teaching of'the pretender to the most often throne'. This is to be expected, since it is generally agreed that a longer reading reflects additional redactional work. However, should the Lukan context be original to the parable, the opposite would be true. Unfortunately, few scholars have seriously entertained this as a viable alter native.61 The possibility that Luke could be more original is often raised, but it is too hastily rejected without ever being thoroughly investigated. The current view is based primarily on the fact that the Matthean account

mentioned is a lone voice above, Marie-Joseph Lagrange suggesting that the Lukan account may well be the most he never explains how {Luc, 494-495). original, although 62) 1230. Fitzmyer, LukeX-XXVI, 63) Luke 18-24, 910; Nolland, Young, Parables, 87. 64) See above. 65) See above, note 51.

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

122

B. Schultz

INovum

Testarnentum 49

(2007)

105-127

and Luke preserve some of the original elements of the This only highlights how tenuous it is to identifywhich of the parable.66 two accounts is closest to the original, suggesting that themajority view is based almost exclusively on an assumption about text length and an assumed combination of themes. that both Matthew most For Luke's version to preserve the parable in its original form, this would imply that Matthew's version cut out significant portions of the par able, principally those pertaining to the theme of the 'pr?tendant to the

expect to happen when the teaching is removed from its context and placed into a different one, just as it is inMatthew. original the geographical peg upon which to hang theArchelaus motif, it Without ceases to be amere illustration drawn from a on specific occasion and takes solely an allegorical character, thereby becoming 'an embarrassing motif on the person of Jesus. Herein is precisely themotivation for the removal Matthew. This aspect of of the teaching on 'the pretender to the throne' in

what one would

throne'. In fact, if the Archelaus theme in the Parable of the Pounds is intimately connected with the location where Jesus told it, this is exactly

the parable inMatthew's gospel could not be preserved without it being misunderstood and thereby doing harm to Jesus' reputation. Thus, ifone wishes to continue working off of the premise that both parables stem

Matthean version, could be preserving the version clos that it, and not the est to the original. Two examples of how this is born out will suffice. In the Lukan version, we learn of the slaves' efforts to invest themaster's money

directly to the 'pr?tendant to the throne', the Lukan version of the parable Matthean counterpart,67 suggesting is actually shorter and simpler than its

from a single teaching occasion of Jesus, it seems tome that this rational for its removal in Matthew makes more sense than the reasons given for its addition in Luke. Should this be the case, the comparison between the two parables reveals another interesting detail: having removed those elements which relate

66) It is not necessary the main

here to review all the relevant studies, as the particulars do not affect thrust of the argument. For a recent review of the evidence and a possible recon "Parable text and Luke, see Denaux, struction of a Q using elements from both Matthew

of the Talents/pounds," 429-460. 67) This is his parable as a result of adding why it is suggested that Luke has abbreviated Christian Expansion," the second teaching (McGaughy, 238). As an initial example "Early of how Luke is shorter than Matthew, 25:20, or Lk. 19:26 to compare Lk. 19:16 toMatt. Matt. 25:29.

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Novum Testamentum (2007) 105-127 B. SchultzI 49

123

While

(or not) only upon the nobleman's return,yet the story lacks nothing for the audience to understand the development of the plot. InMatthew, w. 16-19 are therefore not only introduce that which will be reiterated later, and essential for a proper understanding of the story.They could be removed was without doing any harm to the narrative. It has been suggested that it the Lukan redactorwho removed these verses and replaced themwith v. 14, the reference to the delegation sent after the nobleman to oppose him. this ispossible, v. 14may nevertheless be more central to the parable than theMatthew verses it supposedly replaces: with its reference to the not

servant being liked by his citizens, the actions of the third become more understandable, and his claims more plausible.68Without it, we are left wherefrom the third slave got his ideas about his wondering master. Itmay be therefore that v. 14 is not only connected to the theme nobleman of the 'pretender to the throne', but integral to themaster/slave aspect of the story as well. The second example is that ofMatthew's rewards to the faithful servants: ?iaeXQe ei? xr|v xapav xov KDpioi) god ("Enter into the

25:21,23). These statements clearly spiritualize joy of your master"?Matt. the Lukan counterpart of receiving charge of cities,69 and are the only spir itualized elements of the original parable which otherwise reflects an one other earthly setting.70 There is spiritualized element inMatthew's account (v. 30), it is considered to be part of an appendix rather although than integral to the parable itself.71 But this appendix is fortuitous in that it be giving us a window into themodifications the parable may apparently underwent as a result of the removal of theArchelaus motif. Could it be thatwhen
a spiritualized

was the violent scene of Lk. 19:27 was removed, it replaced with
counterpart uniquely Matthean (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; see also

13:42,50; 24:51)? But thiswould have then added a spiritual dimension to the punishment, one not paralleled in the rewards of the faithful servants, so that for the sake of balance it was subsequently added in for the first two servants. In addition, if it was him who removed the citizens from the parable,

that the order in which the third slave presents his case ismore realistic in Luke than inMatthew (Nolland, Luke 18-24, 915). 69) Jeremias, Parables, 60. 70) an otherwise non had correctly perceived that Matthew had spiritualized Lagrange and this was part of the evidence he used to conclude that Luke was more spiritual story, This ismuch more reasonable than the backwards {Luc, 490-7). original than Matthew suggestion that Luke has de-eschatologized 71) Parables, 277, n. 21. Huhgren, the parable (Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 55).

68)Note

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Novum Testarnentum (2007) 105-127 124 B. SchultzI 49 he apparently transferred their punishment onto the third slave, thereby one rendering the second half of the logion (v. 29) superfluous: for the who has nothing, it is not that Kai o ?^ei ?p0f|aexai an auxo? ("Even that which he has will be taken from him"?Matt. 25:29), but that he himself will be cast out ei? x? cjkoxo? x? ?c/oxepov ?ice? ?oxai ? K?,au0uo? Kai ? ?puyu?c xcov 08?VXC0V("into the darkness outside, where there isweeping and gnashing of teeth"?Matt. 25:30). When approaching the Parable of the Pounds/Talents from this direction,

more coherent thanMatthew's, albeit itbecomes clear that Luke's version is not entirely free from difficulties. Denaux has compiled a list of seven arose as a result of Luke introducing the problems scholars have suggested added theme of the 'pretender to the throne'.72 Yet while these are real issues, none of them affect the internal coherence of the parable. In fact, in to the Lukan account are just as some cases the alleged problems specific valid for the Matthean account. For example, it is claimed that the presence of ten servants at the beginning of the Lukan parable is odd in light of the fact that only three end up giving an account to the nobleman. However, a group often slaves about to give account to the nobleman is con having sistentwith themention of bystanders in v. 24: there are at least another

seven slaves present. InMatthew, with only three slaves present, one wonders towhom themaster is giving his command in the thirdperson plural (v. 28). Nor does the Lukan narrative lack anything by failing to give the responses would only be variants of the first three. of the last seven slaves: at best they

who was

them, (iii) In Lk 19,14, the Tto??xai appear quite suddenly and unmo In comparison with Mt 25,19, the wording of Lk 19,15 ismore complicated. tivated. (iv) The return of the Lord and the reckoning with the servants stand at the center of the verse. All this shows that the is scarcely mentioned. The fact that he was now awarded kingship them to trade with the purpose of the journey is a secondary insertion, (v) It is strange that only three of the ten servants give, in fact, an account of their actions, (vi) The characterisation of the first servant in Lk 19,24 still points to a stage of tradition where the bestowal often note about cities and, hence,

that a future king, "Parable of King-Judge," 51. They are "(i) It is improbable cities as a reward, would entrust the relatively small sum give the government of of ten pounds to his servants, (ii) From the narrative point of view, certain tensions exists between verses 12 and 13. That is, after hearing about a man who aspires to become a king, to his servants and commanding see the one does not point of his giving the pounds quite Denaux, to

72)

the motif of the throne claimant, was not yet inserted, (vii) In Lk 19,25, the bystanders remark that the first already 'has ten pounds'. This remark suggests that the reward of the cities is, as itwere, forgotten, and is perhaps not original. In any case, in that ismoney Matthew's (Mt 25,21.23)." version, we read T will set you over much',

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Novum Testamentum (2007) 105-127 B. SchultzI 49 Not so with theMatthean account:

125

is given to the slaves in Matthew, with the result that the third slave should have been considered faithful, and not guilty!73 Further more in Luke, even without the injunction to do business, the third slave would have been found guilty. Rabbinical law teaches thatwhen entrusted with money, the surestway of safeguarding it is to bury it (M. B.Mes. 3:10), Matthew is said to have done, thereby guar which is what the third slave in his innocence.74 In Luke however, the actions of the third slave are antying were contradictory to his truly self-incriminating, for they alleged opinion such command is judged on that very basis, leaving open the possi that the nobleman may really have been a fair and justmaster, as his bility actions toward the other two slaves suggest.75 Lastly, in Luke the amounts entrusted to the slaves are small and appropriately reflect the nobleman's of the nobleman. He

in some instances, where it is at odds with Luke, the differences do result in harming the internal cohesive ness of the story. For example, in Lk. 19:13, the slaves are instructed to "do business/trade" (7tpay|Liate{)aaa0?) with what has been entrusted to them.No

statement to his faithful servants: ?v ?X,a%?ax(p moxo? ?y?voi) ("You have In been faithful in a very little"?Lk. Matthew, the sums are incred 19:17). asmuch as one hundred years to ibly large, amounting from fifteen possibly of wages.76 This being the case, themaster's statement ?tu ??iya r\qtuoto? ("You were faithfulconcerning little"?Matt. 25:21,23) seems out of place.77

73) This was

of the Talents/pounds: structing," 421-425). of Lk. 19:25 ismore 'the pretender 19:25 is Lk.

of the Parable taken to its extreme by Richard Rohrbaugh ("A Peasant Reading see also Evans, "Recon A Text of Terror?" BTB 23 [1993] 32-39; Denaux' claim 51) that since the wording ("Parable of King-Judge," it is evidence that the theme of than that ofMatt. 25:19,

is consequently added to the Lukan account invalidated. a narrative. Furthermore, the fact that the integral for proper progression of the is not secondary, but integral if he is going to nobleman did indeed receive his kingship have the authority to give his slaves authority over cities. 74) theMatthean Whether redactor was aware of this fact is uncertain, since it would have been impossible for the third slave towrap 6,000 denarii in a piece of cloth. Itmay be that to he considered the burying of a large quantity of money as a dynamic equivalent hiding a smaller amount in a piece of cloth. 75) Luke 18-24,916. Nolhnd, 76) Hultgren, Parables, 274-275. 77) It has been that the amounts in Luke are too paltry to evoke any real situation suggested "Parable of King-Judge," it only emphasizes the point of the (Denaux, 51). In my opinion,

complicated to the throne' was

even in the smallest of even if not, at parable: faithfulness is required responsibilities. But to the rest of the as least the amounts in Luke are not contradictory they appear to parable be inMatthew.

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

126 B. SchultzINovum Testamentum (2007) 105-127 49 One of the arguments in favor of an added 'pretender to the throne' motif to the Lukan account isv. 24. It seems to ignore that the first servant who has ten pounds has been rewarded with the rule over ten cities, so that new in his being given another pound is actually meaningless light of his misses the point of the parable as expressed inv. 26. situation.78 However, this The first servant is not being given the extra pound because he needs itnor What happens to the pound because he has been put in charge often cities. servant is not directly related to the situation of the other ser of the third

vants, but to their actions. It is given to the first servant because he was the most faithfulwith the pound entrusted to him, which is why the statement relates it back to his having the ten pounds, rather than to his rulership

was not any difference in their ability as suggested in v. 15. Consequently, the first servant is not being rewarded for his greater ability or faithfulness with respect to the sum entrusted to him, but simply because he was more to is truly com begin with. In Luke, however, the reward granted mensurate with the servant's faithfulness and ability.79

ismore over ten cities. In fact, it could be argued that this redistribution In Matthew, the first two servants consistent in Luke than inMatthew. realized the same return on their investments (100%), so that there really

5. Conclusion This re-examination of the Parable of the Pounds leads us to the following conclusions. The parable is not a fusion of two independent teachings, nor
even an

a is may have with the Parable of theTalents, it is not reworking of it.This the fact that it is the omission of the 'pretender to the throne' supported by motif in Matthew, not its addition in Luke, that causes the story to loose some of itscohesiveness. Rather, the Parable of the Pounds is a single unit,80 to the historical context inwhich it is framed, a context which was integral

adaptation

into

a new

narrative

setting.

Whatever

relationship

it

78)

X-XXVI,

to be a late editorial addition (Fitzmyer, Luke "Parable of King so that any argument from this verse (as in Denaux, 1238), the pretender to the throne' the originality of the Lukan account without Judge," 51) for element is not applicable. 80) For a list of those scholars who had see Denaux, "Parable already recognized that fact, of King-Judge," 40, n. 20.

51. "Parable of King-Judge," Denaux, 79) Lk. 19:25 is believed by many scholars

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

B. SchultzI Novum Testarnentum (2007) 105-127 49

127

en vigeur only during the ministry of Jesus and accurately preserved in Luke's gospel. While "[a] predominant interest in reconstructing the origi nal parable(s) has prevented most scholars from construing the Lukan par able as a consistent textual unit,"81 those who did so were nevertheless hindered had in seeing its historical specificity by their assumption that Luke inserted it into his narrative. For this reason, themany geographical

as being secondary rather than to the historical Jesus himself.82 Yet it primary, literary rather than relating isprecisely such a reading that provides the best explanation for the presence of theArchelaus motif.83 comments are now particularly us that fitting, and remind Lagrange's the reading of the parable I am suggesting here is not new:84
pas transform? arbitrairement une parabole pour expliquer ? ses ce n'est ni selon son programme ni selon sa le retard de la parousie; contemporains Et supposer une source ant?rieure ce n'est pas expliquer comment on est m?thode. Luc n'a certainement venu ? ce bel ensemble... Le th?me n'est d'ailleurs le retard de la parousie... Le but est de dissiper des illusions sur le caract?re du r?gne de Dieu.

clues inherent in Luke were understood

By crafting the parable with an Archelaus motif, Jesus used a poignant reminder of the seriousness of one's position vis-?-vis the Kingdom ofGod, no matter when itwould be made manifest: "Jesus, the king-judge, will reward or punishment according to the attitude that one has taken bring towards him. This goes for his disciples as well as his enemies".85

"Parable of King-Judge," 45. Denaux, 82)As saint Luc: by Roland Meynet (LEvangile selon analyse rh?torique and Denaux 2.179) ("Parable of King-Judge," 56). This is not to deny

81)

[Paris: Cerf,

1988]

the Lukan redactor may have used the geographical 83)The of the Synoptic problem implications these conclusions have for our understanding are beyond the scope of this present study, and will require a different treatise altogether. 84) Lagrange, Luc, 491. 85) "Parable of King-Judge," 54. Denaux,

the possibility that realities to further construct his narrative.

This content downloaded on Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions