Brian Schultz - Jesus as Archelaus in Parable of Pounds

Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27)Author(s): Brian SchultzReviewed work(s):Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 49, Fasc. 2 (2007), pp. 105-127Published by: BRILLStable 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25442543?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Novum Testamentum An International Quarterly for

Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 105-127 www.brill.nl/nt

Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable

of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27)

Brian Schultz

Jerusalem

Abstract

It is widely accepted that the parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27) is a rewriting of a tradi

tion also reflected in the parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30), albeit augmented with a

second motif based on the life of Herod Archelaus (4 BCE-6 CE). Yet why would a Chris

tian redactor choose the ruthless and murderous Judean Ethnarch as a type of the Messiah,

especially so many years after his demise? In this study, we will examine how the archaeo

logical data may well confirm the Lukan context for this parable, reflecting a very primitive

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

order of Mk. 10:13-11:10. In Luke, however, the Markan order of events

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 geographical grounds?Jesus is related as traveling through Jericho where the incident is said to have taken place, no such obvious reason is apparent

1} Most of the research for this article was done while on a doctoral research fellowship at

the University of Notre Dame during the 2005 spring semester. I wish to thank Prof. James VanderKam and the Univaersity of Notre Dame for having offered me that opportunity. An initial portion of my findings was first presented in November 2005 at the Annual

Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Philadelphia.

BRILL

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/156853607X185339



106 B. Schultz ?Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 105-127

for the Parable of the Pounds. Why then did Luke add this teaching at this

particular point in his narrative? The question is all the more pertinent since

Matthew has a similar parable, that of the Talents (25:14-30), but related to a later stage of Jesus' ministry: during his Eschatological Discourse in

Jerusalem. A comparison between these two parables, that of the Pounds in Luke and that of the Talents in Matthew, reveals that aside from their

differing contexts, the Lukan version contains another peculiarity: it has

added an extra element, that of a 'throne-claimant' (or pretender to the

throne'?Lk. 19:12,l4-15a,27). This added element raises its own unique

problem: the throne-claimant, believed to be a type of the Messiah, is

apparently based on the life of Herod Archelaus, a ruler remembered above

all else for his brutality. Obviously, he is hardly a model fitting for such a

typology. Why then did Luke preserve this rather embarrassing motif in

his parable, especially when it is absent in Matthew? In this re-examination

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 the Messiah based on the life of

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

2. The Relationship between the Parable of the Pounds and the Parable

of the Talents

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

properly understand the issues. At the beginning of the century, some

scholars, such as Alfred Plummer, suggested that it is more likely that they

2) For a survey of how this discipline has been used in biblical studies throughout history, even before having received this particular nomenclature, and its continued usefulness

today, see J. M. Monson, "The Role of Context and the Promise of Archaeology in Biblical

Interpretation from Early Judaism to Post-Modernity" (forthcoming). I wish to thank John Monson for making this article available to me prior to its publication. 3) For a thorough survey of the relationship between the Parable of the Pounds and the

Parable of the Talents, complete with bibliography, see A. Denaux, "The Parable of the

King-Judge (Lk 19,12-28) and Its Relation to the Entry Story (Lk 19,29-44)," ZNW 93

(2002) 35-57. Yet another similar parable is found in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, #18; see

New Testament Apocrypha 1 (ed. W. Schneemelcher; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,

1991) 161-2. Although it shares some common points with the Gospel parables, it has



B. Schultz I Novum Testarnentum 49 (2007) 105-127 107

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 story or joke on two or more occasions, each time adapting not

only the presentation but also the details of the story in order to better fit

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

either Matthew'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

rejected this possibility, replacing it with various other theories.6

Most scholars today suggest that the bulk of the similarities between

these two accounts is due to the fact that they both emanate from a single

teaching occasion of Jesus,7 and the double attestation of the parable in the

synoptic gospels raises the probability that it finds its source in the historical

Jesus.8 There are two main explanations given as to how the dissimilarities

crept into the two accounts. The first claims that the original parable was

extensive differences as well, and it is suggested that it relates more to Matthew than to

Luke (B. H. Young, The Parables?Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation [Peabody:

Hendrickson, 1998] 87-88). Since it offers nothing for the purposes of this study, it is not

considered here. 4) A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke

(ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922) 437. 5) N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 632-633. 6)

See, for example, the conclusion in Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 38. However, it is

obvious that a single parable, if given twice (or more often) by Jesus each time in a slightly modified form, would have evidence of structural and verbal agreements, even when

recorded independently by two witnesses. These agreements would not necessarily require "the existence of one single parable at the origin of both versions" as Denaux and others

before him have claimed. Positive proof cannot be found for the 'single parable' theory either, especially in light of the relatively few verbal agreements (see R. Morgenthaler's

study as quoted in Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 36-37, nn. 4-5). Thus, one must

continue to allow for the possibility that the two parables do in fact reflect two separate

teaching occasions of Jesus. 7) A. Denaux, "The Parable of the Talents/pounds (Q 19,12-27)?a Reconstruction of the

QText," The Sayings Source (?and the HistoricalJesus (ed. A. Lindemann; BETL 157; Leuven:

University Press, 2001) 430. 8) A. J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus?a Commentary (The Bible in Its World; Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 278-279.



108 B. Schultz I Novum Testarnentum 49 (2007) 105-127

preserved independently in the Matthean tradition (M) and in the Lukan tradition (L), and that it is these traditions which are responsible for the

discrepancies between the two accounts. The second is that the parable was

preserved in a source common to both evangelists, such as Q, and that the

evangelists themselves, or various editors before them, are responsible for the differences.9 Either of these two positions automatically raises another

question: which of the two gospels preserves the most original form of the

parable? Almost entirely alone, Marie-Joseph Lagrange has argued that it is

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

uphold that whatever the original' teaching looked like, it would have

been more similar to Matthew's version than to Luke's. One main argument

given in support of such a view is that no adequate explanation, even a

tentative one, has been offered to explain why Matthew or his source would

have removed certain elements from the parable which are preserved in

Luke, all the more so since these elements were particularly fitting for Mat

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 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 of which revolves around a master and his

9) For variants on this particular theory, see Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 39 and W. D.

Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

(Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1997) 3.376. 10)

M.-J. Lagrange, ?vangile selon Saint Luc (Paris: Gabalda, 1921) 490-492. 11) See J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXVI) (AB 28A; New York: Doubleday,

1985) 1230. One may want to suggest that it was Matthews source or a pre-Matthean editor

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

imply that the Matthean version is secondary. 12) For an examination of this teaching as an independent unit, see Max Zerwick's founda

tional study "Die Parabel vom Thronanw?rter," B?blica 40 (1959) 654-74, as well as the

more recent reexamination by Francis Weinert in "The Parable of the Throne Claimant

(Luke 19:12,12-15a,27) Reconsidered," CBQ 39 (1977) 505-514. 13) Note Denaux's suggested reconstruction as it is thought to have appeared in Q ("Par

able of the Talents/pounds," 429-60). For an alternate reconstruction, see J. M. Robinson,

P. Hoffmann and J. S. Kloppenborg (eds.), The Critical Edition ofQ (Hermeneia; Minne

apolis: Fortress, 2000) 524-557.




servants, as described in the following summary: on the eve of an imminent

trip, a master entrusts some of his slaves with his assets (Lk. 19:12a-13; Matt. 25:14-15); these either choose to invest it so as to make it multiply, or to simply safeguard it by hiding it (Lk. 19:16,18,20; Matt. 25:16-18); upon his return, the master calls his servants to account (Lk. 19:15; Matt. 25:19),

rewarding those who 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 the master 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 this motif is based

on the life of Herod Archelaus:15 in 4 BCE after the death of his father

Herod the Great, Archelaus set out for Rome to be crowned King, just as

his father had done. Unfortunately for him, a delegation of Jews followed

him and, accusing him of unusual brutality, petitioned Caesar not to

appoint him as their king. Nevertheless, Caesar made him ruler over Judea, but only as ethnarch rather than king (War 2:14-94; Ant. 17:219-339). But

Archelaus' ruthlessness, most typified by his ordering the slaughter of the

many Jews who were gathered in and around the temple during the Passover

celebration just after Herod the Great's death, for fear that they were intent on rebelling against him, eventually cost him his position: in 6 CE he was

removed from office and exiled to Gaul (War2:111; Ant. 17:339-344; Dio

14) The reconstructed teaching would have looked something like the following: "...A

nobleman went 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

us.' When he returned, having received the kingly power, he commanded... 'these enemies

of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before

me.'" (as suggested by Weinert, "Throne Claimant," 506). However, it is important to note

that this teaching addresses neither the issue of proximity to Jerusalem, nor the expectancy 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 the Parable:

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

King-Judge," 53-54).



110 B. Schultz I Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 105-127

Cass. 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 teaching does not appear to con

tribute anything to the main themes of trust, faithfulness, and reward, which are so central to the parable of the master 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, therefore, that there must have been some ulterior motive behind its inser tion: the delay of the parousia.18 A less common view is that it was added in order to introduce Jesus' kingship which was about to be revealed upon his entrance in Jerusalem.19 Thus, it would have been one of these con

cerns, or some other still, that motivated a pre-Lukan editor, or Luke him

self, to rework his source. Two possibilities have been put forward as to

how this took place. The first posits that the basics of a pretender to the

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 this motif was an invention of a redactor himself.21

In summary, the prevailing view today is that Matthew preserves overall a more original version of Jesus' parable, albeit itself not free from redac 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

16) For a thorough treatment of the parallels between Lk. 19:11-25 and Archelaus' reign, see Q A. Evans, "Reconstructing Jesus' Teaching: Problems and Possibilities," Hillel and

Jesus (eds. J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 416-417. 17) J. Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53 (WBC 35c; Dallas: Word Books, 1993) 910. 18) For a summary of the scholarship on this issue, see Ignace de la Potterie, "La parabole

du pr?tendant ? la royaut? (Le 19,11-28)," ? cause de l'?vangile??tudes sur les Synoptiques

et les Actes offertes au P Jacques Dupont, O.S.B., ? l'occasion de son soixante-dizi?me anniversaire

(Lectio Divina 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985) 617-618. 19) L. T. Johnson, "The Lukan Kingship Parable (Lk. 19:11-27)," NovTIA (1982) 139-159;

de la Potterie, "Parabole du pr?tendant," 613-641. While there is some merit to this view, it

is not without problems (see the discussion in Nolland, Luke 18-24, 913; Denaux, "Parable

of King-Judge," 42). 20) For example, see Weinert's study ("Throne Claimant," 505-514) which examined this

motif almost independently of its connection to the parable of the Pounds and suggested how it could have fit into Jesus' ministry (but see above, note 14). 21) As with Lane C. McGaughy ("The Fear of Yahweh and the Mission of Judaism: A

Postexilic Maxim and Its Early Christian Expansion in the Parable of the Talents," JBL 94

[1975] 235-245) who tries to trace the "Christian expansion" of the Parable of the Talents/

Pounds, or as recently concluded by Denaux ("Parable of King-Judge," 51).



B. Schultz I Novum 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 to who may stand behind this other teaching, Jesus himself or some later Christian

redactor, all are unanimous that the fusion of the two stories is the work of

the latter.

But this view introduces a problem left unanswered by all commentators:

why would a Christian redactor choose the ruthless and murderous Judean Ethnarch as a type of the Messiah, especially so many years after his demise?

If emphasizing 'delay' was the concern of the redactor, whoever he may be, there was absolutely no need to bolster this aspect of the Pounds/Talents Parable by transforming the master into some evil nobleman seeking king ship against the will of his citizens. Some statement as to the unusually

long absence of the master would have sufficed, just as it is in Matthew

(25:19). Furthermore, more recent scholarship has called into question the

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

Jewish expectation of the Kingdom of God with the Christian expectation of the parousia'.25 Similarly, if the concern was 'kingship', it could have been added just as easily without associating it to Archelaus, possibly the worst ruler the Jews had had in centuries. Francis Weinert has stated the

problem most clearly:24

Those who consider the story an allegory do so because it seems to imitate an impor tant pattern of belief reflecting post-Resurrection Christian understanding... But the

apparent correspondence that they see... ignores two of the story's most distinctive

22) Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 46-49. See also D. Flusser, "Aesop's Miser and the

Parable of the Talents," Parables and Story in Judaism and Christianity {e?s. C. Thoma and M. Wyschogrod; New York: Paulist, 1989) 9-25. Darrell Bock points out that the word

Luke uses to refer to the nobleman's return in v. 12 is never used "as a technical term for

Jesus' return or in Luke's eschatological discourses about the return" (Luke?Volume 2:9:51

24:53 [Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Books,

1996] 1532). A more extreme position is that the idea of the delay of the parousia did not even exist in early Christianity (see D. E. Aune, "The Significance of the Delay of the Par

ousia for Early Christianity and Patristic Interpretation," Current Issues in Biblical and

Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His Former Stu

dents [?d. G. F. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975] 87-109). 23)

Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 48. 24) Weinert, "Throne Claimant," 506-507.




features: (a) the dispatching of a hostile embassy... and (b) the emphatically personal and brutal character of the ruler's revenge... What sense could a Christian audience

possibly make out of the image of a delegation sent after Jesus to prevent his earthly enthronement? And if the nobleman in this story is simply an allegorical substitute for

Jesus, how could a Christian audience reconcile the ruler s vengeful treatment of his

enemies with the teaching of Jesus on this matter? If early Christians created this story as an allegory, then they must also be responsible for introducing two important nar

rative features which are allegorically unintelligible from a Christian point of view.25

Few commentators tackle the problem, and the answers put forward by those who do fail to convince. One suggests it has the purpose of bringing verisimilitude to the story;26 another that it was simply for the sake of

irony;27 yet another downplays the slaughter of the citizens in the very pres ence of the ruler, a rather gratuitous albeit grim detail, as simply their being "cut-off".28 It is probably for this reason that one recent commentator

concluded that the "quite negative tone [of] the royal figure seem[s] more

likely to point to the boldness of Jesus than to Luke or the church tradition

before him".29 Yet, as Joachim Jeremias has pointed out, "it is hardly con

ceivable that Jesus would 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: or with a brutal oriental despot, gloating over the sight of his enemies

slaughtered before his eyes".30 Whichever way one chooses to look at the

problem, one cannot be rid of this embarrassing motif. That is why it has

been preferable de le passer 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 by Joel Green (The Gospel of Luke [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerd

mans, 1997] 674-5) who similarly rejects the allegorical interpretation of the parable, as

well as Jack Sanders' suggestion that it has an anti-Semitic tone ("The Parable of the Pounds

and Lucan Anti-Semitism," TS 42 [1981] 660-668). 26)

Fitzmyer, LukeX-XXVL 1234. 27)

Flusser, "Aesop's Miser," 23, n. 14. 28)

Johnson, "Kingship Parable," 158. 29)

Nolland, Luke 18-24, 911. 30)

J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (rev. edition; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963)

59-60.




motif was originally part of the parable, and why it may not have been as

embarrassing as it appears to us today. Most commentators agree that v. 11, the introduction leading into Jesus' parable, is a Lukan creation, implying that it does not necessarily reflect an original setting in which Jesus would

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, an examination of the historical and geographical context as presented by Luke reveals that the parable is most fitting precisely at that point in time,

suggesting that it is highly unlikely that the verse is a later insertion as is so

often assumed.

In Lk. 19:11,32 we read that the Parable of the Pounds was given imme

diately after the Zacchaeus incident. This has led some commentators to

suggest that Jesus is considered to be still in Jericho,33 possibly even in Zac

chaeus' home.34 Others have put more emphasis on the verse's clause ?iot to eyyoc eivoci 'IepouoccXrui orui?v ("because he was near Jerusalem"), claiming

only that the setting is said to be at some point before the arrival of the

traveling companions to Jerusalem.35 What is certain is that this is the last event in Luke's recounting of Jesus' pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Lk. 9:51-19:28). 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 of his journey.36 With Jerusalem being less than twenty kilometers from

Jericho, the traveling companions would arrive before nightfall. It is as

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 the Talents combined with a second element, commonly called the pretender to the

31) For example, see the discussion in Fitzmyer, LukeX-XXVI, 1231-3; Nolland, Luke 18-24,

911; Hultgren, Parables, 278-9; Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 46. 32) On the composition of this verse, see below. 33)

Plummer, Luke, 437; Fitzmyer, LukeX-XXVI, 1234. 34)

Lagrange, Luc, 492. 35) L. Sabourin, L'Evangile de Luc?introduction et commentaire (Rome: Editrice Pontificia

Universit? Gregoriana, 1985) 669. 36) The chronology of events of the Zacchaeus incident and following is not clear. Verses 5 to

7 suggest that Jesus entered Zacchaeus' home, but the events of w. 8-10 could be understood

as having taken place before he does so. But if such were the case, w. 11 and following

imply that Jesus then left Jericho without ever entering into Zacchaeus' home. Note v. 28

which implies that Jesus was already on his way when he spoke the Parable of the Pound

(see the discussion in Fitzmyer, LukeX-XXVI, \2\%-27, 1247).




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 after Archelaus 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

Beiyudat, some twelve kilometers north of Jericho.37 The archaeology of the site is consistent with the claims of Josephus.38 After Archelaus was

deposed, the city was passed on to Salome, sister of Herod the Great, then to Julia (the emperors wife) and finally to the Roman emperor himself.39

After it was burnt to the ground during the Great Revolt in 66 or 67 CE, and a Roman garrison established nearby, it was 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, the memory of this despotic ruler would have been recalled by travelers as they made their way down the Jordan Valley en route to Jericho. However, should Jesus and his disciples have arrived from Perea as intimated by Mk. 10:1, it seems unlikely that

they would have walked by this city before their entrance into Jericho.41 From the same passage in Josephus, we learn that Archelaus also rebuilt

Herod the Great's palace in Jericho.42 Situated at the southern extremity of

the city on the banks of the Wadi Qelt, this palace complex has long been identified as Tulul abu al-Alayiq. The more recent excavations by Ehud

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

37) For the history of research on the site, see H. Hizmi, "Archelais: The Village of Arche

laus," Judea and Samaria Research Studies 2 (eds. Z. H. Erlich and Y. Eshel; Kedumim?

Ariel: The Research Institute, 1993) 212-213 (Hebrew), XVI (English summary). 38) H. Hizmi, "New Discoveries at the Second Temple Period Site of Archelais," Qadmoniot

37/128 (2004) 95-101 (Hebrew). 39) H. Eshel, R. Peterson and Y Hamitovsky, "Josephus' Judea, Samaria, and Perea: An

Archaeological Perspective," Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (ed. S. Mason;

Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). 40) Y Tsafrir, L. di Segni and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani: Ludaea, Palaestina (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science, 1994) 67. 41) See the discussion in C. F. Evans, Saint Luke (TPI New Testament Commentaries; London:

SCM, 1990) 657. 42) For a survey of the occupation of Jericho during the second Temple Period, see Eshel,

Peterson and Hamitovsky, "Archaeological Perspective".




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

complex (Zone B). It continued to be used during the first half of the first

century CE, and was even expanded, until the buildings were destroyed by an

earthquake in 48 CE, more than twenty years before the fall of Jerusalem.44 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 its western

extremity.46

The ancient road from Jericho to Jerusalem passed just south of this enormous palace complex, and as it makes its way up into the hills of the

Judean Wilderness, it offers the travelers quite an impressive view of this

royal estate.47 Thus, as they exited the city on their way 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 exactly with where Luke has Jesus sharing the Parable of the Pounds. Could it be that this Herodian palace complex, last renovated and used by Arche

laus but still standing in Jesus' day, triggered the Archelaus motif we find in the Parable of the Pounds?48

Should such be the case, this would resolve the problems raised by this

'embarrassing motif of Jesus being compared to Archelaus. 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

thought if not in words, the history of the last local ruler who ruled in

Jerusalem before the Roman procurators took over. And in light of the events that had just transpired in Jericho, together with the anticipation of an imminent arrival in Jerusalem, believed as it was by the disciples and others that it would usher in the Kingdom of God, a new era of Jewish

43) E. Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho I: Stratigraphy and Architecture

(Final reports of the 1973-1987 excavations; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the

Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2001) 1-10. 44)

Netzer, Palaces at Jericho, 10, 354, n. 60. 45)

Netzer, Palaces at Jericho, 341. 46)

Netzer, Palaces at Jericho, 10, 281-285, 341. 47) For a study of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, see R. Beauvery, "La route romaine

de J?rusalem ? J?richo," RB64 (1957) 72-101. 48) To my knowledge, this possibility was first raised by David Gill when he visited the

Herodian palaces with Steven Notley, who in turn relayed the idea to me.




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 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 the Herodian dynasty, than for it

to be succeeded by the establishment of the long-awaited Messianic rule?

How could the sight of the Herodian palaces not evoke such thoughts? To correct these false expectations, Jesus launches into a parable, using as his

teaching tool his immediate surroundings, the 'stuff' of everyday life, as is

so customary in Jesus' teachings as in Jewish parables (CT^O). Should this

indeed be the actual setting for the giving of the parable, the brutality of

Archelaus would no longer be a part of some allegory on the character of

the Messiah, but merely part of the circumstantial setting which Jesus used in crafting his parable to more effectively communicate his message. This

would have been immediately obvious to his audience, even if Jesus used

Archelaus' cruelty very graphically to make a point about the Kingdom of

God.49 Should this be the background for the Archelaus 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

with Archelaus' reign fits only at this point in the history of the parable's 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

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

being committed to writing,50 and by then Archelaus is a full generation

49) Josephus suggests that Archelaus was first and foremost remembered for his "slaughter"

(aqxx?eiv?Ant. 17:239) of those he feared would oppose him, even when these were

worshiping at the Temple during Passover. Could it be that very same event which moti

vated the harsh parallel found in Lk. 19:27, that of the slaughter (Kaxaacpa?eiv) of the

nobleman's citizens? Should this be the case, the rebuke is even more potent: those who do

not accept the Messiah's Kingdom will suffer a similar fate, even if they too worship at the

Temple. 30) For a discussion on the composition date of the Gospel of Luke, see J. A. Fitzmyer, The

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




removed.51 Already when dealing with his contemporaries, it is difficult to

grasp what purpose a redactor might have found in alluding to him as a

type of the Messiah. How much more so to an audience who never knew

him! Even if he had in mind some kind of mnemonic device to trigger

bringing the defunct ruler to mind as the parable motif, the more time one

allows to elapse between Archelaus' demise and the composition of the

gospel, the fewer of these triggers remain. Even the Jericho palaces, which

fit the Lukan context so well and which were still standing in Jesus' day, are

by then already destroyed.52 They could hardly have served a redactor for

his audience which at best knew only of their ruins, if they were familiar

with the area at all.53 Thus, if we are to allow the Herodian Palaces to be

the motivation behind an Archelaus motif, a possibility which Lk. 19:11

allows us to entertain, it fits best, if not only, when it is attributed to Jesus,

precisely as he is leaving Jericho.

51) Lagrange, quoting Loisy, emphasized that '"Il est malais? de voir l'int?r?t que le r?dacteur

du troisi?me Evangile... pouvait trouver dans ces allusions ? un ?tat de choses enti?rement

disparu.' Il faudrait supposer qu'il les a emprunt?es ? un historien pour les pr?ter ? J?sus."

(Luc, 493). Note how obvious it was for Lagrange that no redactor would associate Arche

laus to Jesus, that he does not even feel the need to have to defend his position. In an effort

to disassociate the Archelaus motif from the 'pretender to the throne,' Denaux also pointed out the chronological gap between the composition of the Gospel and the Archelaus inci

dent ("Parable of King-Judge," 53-54). What he failed to realize is that while this gap pre cludes a late redaction of this theme into the passage, it is not evidence for the motif not

being original to the parable. 52) It is important to note that by the end of the first century CE, a Roman villa was built over the ruins at its western extremity. Unfortunately, the pottery from this villa has not yet been published (see E. Netzer and R. Bar-Nathan, "Stratigraphy and Chronology of the

Winter Palaces at Jericho," Hasmonean andHerodian Palaces at Jericho LIL: The Pottery [Final

reports of the 1973-1987 excavations; R. Bar-Nathan; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002] 18, n. 25), so that it is impossible to know whether or not it may have 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 palaces rather than build anew may be an indication of the extent of the

destruction and subsequent deterioration of the site as a result of the 48 CE earthquake. 53) Could it be that this is precisely why an explicit connection between the palaces and the

Archelaus motif is not preserved in Luke's gospel? The factors which were familiar and obvi

ous to Jesus' audience had disappeared both from the land and the memory of the gospel writers and audience. If these factors had at one point been reflected in Luke's source or in

the tradition upon which he relied, they were simply ignored, for their implications could no longer be understood. However, one can imagine why the broader sketches of Jesus'

trajectory were preserved: they still carried geographical realities to which the redactor and

his audience could relate.




Should this reconstruction of the events be accurate, we have no choice

but to reject the assumption that Lk. 19:11 is entirely a Lukan creation.54 This is not to deny that the verse betrays a Lukan hand,55 but to affirm that at a minimum some of its content was

integral to Luke's source.56 Simi

larly, the suggestion that Luke, or some pre-Lukan editor, redacted an early version of the Parable of the Pounds/Talents to then insert it into the account of Jesus' pilgrimage up to Jerusalem, is equally untenable. First of

all, it must be noted that if it indeed was an insertion, it apparently resulted in relocating the healing of the blind man: both Matthew (20:29-34) and

Mark (10:46-52) place that incident at the exit of Jericho, while in Luke it

is said to have happened upon entering Jericho (18:35-43).57 According to

the two-source theory (Mark and Q), this would imply that the insertion

54) As it is often affirmed by the commentators. See for example Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXVI,

1231 and Nolland, Luke 18-24, 912. 55)

J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem

(Rev. edition; Oxford: Clarendon, 1909) 15-25. See also Jeremias {Parables, 99, n. 40) who

points out eight characteristics of Lukan style in this verse. 56)

Vestiges of this source may possibly still be discernable in the phrase rcpoooei? e?rcev

Ttapcc?otaiv. This is a Hebraism (D. L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 [BECNT 3B; Grand Rap ids: Baker Books, 1996] 1531) often assumed to be a Setptuagintism (Fitzmyer, Luke X

XXIV, 1234). Yet in Luke, the Greek behind this Hebraic expression (Lk. 19:11; 20:11,12) does not follow customary Septuagint practice (see R. Buth and B. Kvasnica, "Temple Authorities and Tithe Evasion: The Linguistic Background and Impact of the Parable of The

Vineyard the Tenants and the Sons]" Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels? Volume One [eds. R. S. Notley, M. Turnage and B. Becker; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2006]

53-80, 259-317, esp. 285-286). 57) Commentators often assume that this relocating of the pericope in Luke is due to the

inclusion of the Zacchaeus pericope which takes place in Jericho (see C. A. Evans, Mark

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

Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXVI, 1213). Inserting an event which is reported to have taken place in

Jericho does not necessitate the relocating of that which is reported to have taken place when exiting the city. In fact, the Zacchaeus event would even provide excellent back

ground as to why a crowd followed Jesus out of the city (Mar. 10:46; Matt. 20:29; see also

note 58). One must therefore allow for the possibility that it was the geography behind

Jesus' giving of the Parable of the Pounds that motivated Luke to relocate the healing of the

blind man. Interestingly, Luke's version of the account is thought to be much tighter than

Mark's (see Evans, Mark 8-16, 129; Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXVI, 1213). This is especially true

with Mark's awkward narrative in locating the event (D. A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28 [Word

Biblical Commentary 33B; Dallas: Word Books, 1995] 585). For a thorough discussion on

the geographical problems associated with the pericope on the healing of the blind man/

men in the synoptic gospels, see S. E. Porter, "Tn the Vicinity of Jericho': Luke 18:35 in

the Light of Its Synoptic Parallels," BBR2 (1992) 91-104.




of the Parable of the Pounds into the Lukan narrative precisely at Jesus' exit

from Jericho was 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

integral to the Parable of the Pounds, one discovers a very probable sce

nario for its pronouncement, one which is not only historically plausible, even likely, but which has the added advantage of offering a satisfactory

explanation for the Archelaus element it contains. It is only by associating the Archelaus motif of the Parable of the Pounds to the historical Jesus,

precisely in the context suggested by the Gospel of Luke, that we are able to read the parable without contradicting what we know of the historical

Jesus himself, or of the early church's conception of who he was.

4. The Parable of the Pounds as a Single Cohesive Unit

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

58) Note that the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27) could have fit just as well after the

blind man's healing (Lk. 18:35-43), itself coming after the Zacchaeus incident (Lk. 19:1-10; see also note 57). This would have left the chronology of events unchanged from what it

was in Luke's sources. It is true that this would have required Luke to split the two pericopae (Zacchaeus and the telling of the Parable of the Pounds) which come from his independent source (I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978] 692), but this is minor when compared to the alternative of having to contradict one of the

sources. Therefore, while the Lukan modified order is most certainly related to the inclusion

of the Parable of the Pounds, it is not required by it, and one must seek elsewhere to fully understand the motivations which stood behind such a move. While a literary development in Luke as suggested by Michael Goulder, "(1) the rich man who refused salvation, (2) the

poor blind who was served by faith, (3) the faithless rich man, faithful poor man, penitent rich man" (Luke: A New Paradigm IL [JSNTSup 20; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1989] 674) is certainly possible, it seems to me that it nevertheless fails to provide sufficient motivation

for contradicting one of the sources in a situation where it was apparently possible to be

faithful to all of them without compromising the goals of the narrative.




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

rative. Francis Weinert 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 have fit particularly well within Jesus' life and ministry, he entirely ignores its role within the Luke 19 context.60 He suggests that the story served as a

warning to Jesus' opponents who were still rejecting his impending kingship. But this is not the situation described in Lk. 19:11 where we are told that

Jesus' disciples are eagerly anticipating the imminent arrival of God's Kingdom. Therefore, in order to agree with Weinert s reading of this independent

teaching of Jesus, one would have to stipulate that either the Lukan redactor

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 it nor was particularly suited for it. Obviously, neither

of these seems likely. Yet while the teaching on 'the pretender to the throne'

is not suited for Luke's context, the Parable of the Talents, as it is preserved in Matthew, could fit the issues introduced by Lk. 19:11, although without

the Archelaus 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

explains the connection to Archelaus, it cannot do so apart from the Par

able of the Pounds/Talents. This suggests a most unique dynamic in which

the Lukan text would preserve the most original setting for the Parable of

the Pounds/Talents, while the parable itself would be the most redacted of

the two versions, at least if one is to follow the majority opinion of recent

scholarship on the matter. Similarly, it would imply that Matthew's gospel, while having removed the parable from its original context and placing it

in a secondary one, managed to preserve a reading more faithful to the

original. Needless to say, this too is hardly a tenable position. Could it be,

therefore, that Luke's account preserves the most original version of the

parable, and that Matthew's is secondary? If this can be demonstrated, it

would be additional evidence in favor of the historical accuracy of the

Lukan context for the parable.

59) See above, note 20. 60) Denaux suggested that it was added in at the same time as Lk. 19:11, but he was unable

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).



B. Schultz INovum Testamentum 49 (2007) 105-127 121

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 throne'. This is to be expected, since it is generally agreed that most often 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

is shorter and free from the motif of the claimant to the throne. Part of the rational is that it is harder to find a reason as to why a Matthean redactor

would have reduced the parable than as to why the Lukan redactor would have added the extra motif.62 It is also hard to understand the relationship between the two teachings, that of a nobleman seeking kingship and that of the master 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 the Archelaus motif is not required by the immediate

context, specifically Lk. 19:11, nor by the need to emphasize the delay of

theparousia or any other theme scholars have discerned to be in the text.64 In other words, while there have been no good reasons suggested as to why

Matthew would have reduced the Lukan version of the parable, the reasons

proposed so far as to why Luke expanded the Matthean version are not

adequate either.65 Furthermore, if the themes of the two teachings are really in conflict, to suggest that they were combined for the purpose of Luke's narrative only compounds the problem: we have already seen that the 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 agreed on this or that specific detail nevertheless all agree on the following,

61) As mentioned above, Marie-Joseph Lagrange is a lone voice suggesting that the Lukan account may well be the most original, although he never explains how {Luc, 494-495). 62)

Fitzmyer, LukeX-XXVI, 1230. 63)

Nolland, Luke 18-24, 910; Young, Parables, 87. 64) See above. 65) See above, note 51.




that both Matthew and Luke preserve some of the original elements of the

parable.66 This only highlights how tenuous it is to identify which of the two accounts is closest to the original, suggesting that the majority view is

based almost exclusively on an assumption about text length and an

assumed combination of themes.

For Luke's version to preserve the parable in its most 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

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 what one would expect to happen when the teaching is removed from its

original context and placed into a different one, just as it is in Matthew.

Without the geographical peg upon which to hang the Archelaus motif, it ceases to be a mere illustration drawn from a specific occasion and takes on

solely an allegorical character, thereby becoming 'an embarrassing motif on the person of Jesus. Herein is precisely the motivation for the removal

of the teaching on 'the pretender to the throne' in Matthew. This aspect of

the parable in Matthew's gospel could not be preserved without it being misunderstood and thereby doing harm to Jesus' reputation. Thus, if one

wishes to continue working off of the premise that both parables stem

from a single teaching occasion of Jesus, it seems to me 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

directly to the 'pr?tendant to the throne', the Lukan version of the parable is actually shorter and simpler than its Matthean counterpart,67 suggesting that it, and not the Matthean version, could be preserving the version clos

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 the master's money

66) It is not necessary here to review all the relevant studies, as the particulars do not affect

the main thrust of the argument. For a recent review of the evidence and a possible recon

struction of a Q text using elements from both Matthew and Luke, see Denaux, "Parable

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

Matt. 25:29.




(or not) only upon the nobleman's return, yet the story lacks nothing for the

audience to understand the development of the plot. In Matthew, w. 16-19

only introduce that which will be reiterated later, and are therefore not

essential for a proper understanding of the story. They could be removed

without doing any harm to the narrative. It has been suggested that it was

the Lukan redactor who removed these verses and replaced them with v. 14, the reference to the delegation sent after the nobleman to oppose him.

While this is possible, v. 14 may nevertheless be more central to the parable than the Matthew verses it supposedly replaces: with its reference to the

nobleman not being liked by his citizens, the actions of the third servant

become more understandable, and his claims more plausible.68 Without it, we are left wondering wherefrom the third slave got his ideas about his master. It may be therefore that v. 14 is not only connected to the theme

of the 'pretender to the throne', but integral to the master/slave aspect of the story as well. The second example is that of Matthew's rewards to the

faithful servants: ?iaeXQe ei? xr|v xapav xov KDpioi) god ("Enter into the

joy of your master"?Matt. 25:21,23). These statements clearly spiritualize the Lukan counterpart of receiving charge of cities,69 and are the only spir itualized elements of the original parable which otherwise reflects an

earthly setting.70 There is one other spiritualized element in Matthew's account (v. 30), although it is considered to be part of an appendix rather than integral to the parable itself.71 But this appendix is fortuitous in that it may be giving us a window into the modifications the parable apparently underwent as a result of the removal of the Archelaus motif. Could it be

that when the violent scene of Lk. 19:27 was removed, it was replaced with a

spiritualized counterpart uniquely Matthean (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; see also

13:42,50; 24:51)? But this would 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,

68) Note that the order in which the third slave presents his case is more realistic in Luke

than in Matthew (Nolland, Luke 18-24, 915). 69)

Jeremias, Parables, 60. 70)

Lagrange had correctly perceived that Matthew had spiritualized an otherwise non

spiritual story, and this was part of the evidence he used to conclude that Luke was more

original than Matthew {Luc, 490-7). This is much more reasonable than the backwards

suggestion that Luke has de-eschatologized the parable (Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 55). 71)

Huhgren, Parables, 277, n. 21.




he apparently transferred their punishment onto the third slave, thereby

rendering the second half of the logion (v. 29) superfluous: for the one

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 is weeping and gnashing of teeth"?Matt. 25:30).

When approaching the Parable of the Pounds/Talents from this direction, it becomes clear that Luke's version is more coherent than Matthew's, albeit

not entirely free from difficulties. Denaux has compiled a list of seven

problems scholars have suggested arose as a result of Luke introducing the

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

some cases the alleged problems specific to the Lukan account are just as

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,

having a group often slaves about to give account to the nobleman is con

sistent with the mention of bystanders in v. 24: there are at least another

seven slaves present. In Matthew, with only three slaves present, one wonders

to whom the master is giving his command in the third person plural (v. 28). Nor does the Lukan narrative lack anything by failing to give the responses of the last seven slaves: at best they would only be variants of the first three.

72) Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 51. They are "(i) It is improbable that a future king, who was to give the government of cities as a reward, would entrust the relatively small sum

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, one does not quite see the point of his giving the pounds to his servants and commanding them to trade with them, (iii) In Lk 19,14, the Tto??xai appear quite suddenly and unmo

tivated. (iv) In comparison with Mt 25,19, the wording of Lk 19,15 is more complicated. The return of the Lord and the reckoning with the servants stand at the center of the verse.

The fact that he was now awarded kingship is scarcely mentioned. All this shows that the

note about 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

cities and, hence, 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 it were, forgotten, and is perhaps not original. In any case, in

Matthew's version, we read T will set you over much', that is money (Mt 25,21.23)."




Not so with the Matthean account: 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

such command 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 that when entrusted

with money, the surest way of safeguarding it is to bury it (M. B. Mes. 3:10), which is what the third slave in Matthew is said to have done, thereby guar

antying his innocence.74 In Luke however, the actions of the third slave are

truly self-incriminating, for they were contradictory to his alleged opinion of the nobleman. He is judged on that very basis, leaving open the possi

bility that the nobleman may really have been a fair and just master, as his

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 statement to his faithful servants: ?v ?X,a%?ax(p moxo? ?y?voi) ("You have

been faithful in a very little"?Lk. 19:17). In Matthew, the sums are incred

ibly large, amounting from fifteen to possibly as much as one hundred years of wages.76 This being the case, the master's statement ?tu ??iya r\q tuoto?

("You were faithful concerning little"?Matt. 25:21,23) seems out of place.77

73) This was taken to its extreme by Richard Rohrbaugh ("A Peasant Reading of the Parable

of the Talents/pounds: A Text of Terror?" BTB 23 [1993] 32-39; see also Evans, "Recon

structing," 421-425). Denaux' claim ("Parable of King-Judge," 51) that since the wording of Lk. 19:25 is more complicated than that of Matt. 25:19, it is evidence that the theme of

'the pretender to the throne' was added to the Lukan account is consequently invalidated.

Lk. 19:25 is integral for a proper progression of the narrative. Furthermore, the fact that the

nobleman did indeed receive his kingship is not secondary, but integral if he is going to

have the authority to give his slaves authority over cities. 74) Whether the Matthean redactor was aware of this fact is uncertain, since it would have

been impossible for the third slave to wrap 6,000 denarii in a piece of cloth. It may be that

he considered the burying of a large quantity of money as a dynamic equivalent to hiding a smaller amount in a piece of cloth. 75)

Nolhnd, Luke 18-24,916. 76)

Hultgren, Parables, 274-275. 77) It has been suggested that the amounts in Luke are too paltry to evoke any real situation

(Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 51). In my opinion, it only emphasizes the point of the

parable: faithfulness is required even in the smallest of responsibilities. But even if not, at

least the amounts in Luke are not contradictory to the rest of the parable as they appear to

be in Matthew.



126 B. Schultz I Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 105-127

One of the arguments in favor of an added 'pretender to the throne'

motif to the Lukan account is v. 24. It seems to ignore that the first servant

who has ten pounds has been rewarded with the rule over ten cities, so that

his being given another pound is actually meaningless in light of his new

situation.78 However, this misses the point of the parable as expressed in v. 26.

The first servant is not being given the extra pound because he needs it nor

because he has been put in charge often cities. What happens to the pound of the third servant is not directly related to the situation of the other ser

vants, but to their actions. It is given to the first servant because he was the

most faithful with the pound entrusted to him, which is why the statement

relates it back to his having the ten pounds, rather than to his rulership over ten cities. In fact, it could be argued that this redistribution is more

consistent in Luke than in Matthew. In Matthew, the first two servants

realized the same return on their investments (100%), so that there really 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

granted more to begin with. In Luke, however, the reward is truly com

mensurate with the servant's faithfulness and ability.79

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 adaptation

into a new narrative setting. Whatever relationship it

may have with the Parable of the Talents, it is not a reworking of it. This is

supported by the fact that it is the omission of the 'pretender to the throne'

motif in Matthew, not its addition in Luke, that causes the story to loose

some of its cohesiveness. Rather, the Parable of the Pounds is a single unit,80

integral to the historical context in which it is framed, a context which was

78) Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 51. 79) Lk. 19:25 is believed by many scholars to be a late editorial addition (Fitzmyer, Luke

X-XXVI, 1238), so that any argument from this verse (as in Denaux, "Parable of King

Judge," 51) for the originality of the Lukan account without the pretender to the throne'

element is not applicable. 80) For a list of those scholars who had already recognized that fact, see Denaux, "Parable

of King-Judge," 40, n. 20.




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 in seeing its historical specificity by their assumption that Luke

had inserted it into his narrative. For this reason, the many geographical clues inherent in Luke were understood as being secondary rather than

primary, literary rather than relating to the historical Jesus himself.82 Yet it

is precisely such a reading that provides the best explanation for the presence of the Archelaus motif.83

Lagrange's comments are now particularly fitting, and remind us that

the reading of the parable I am suggesting here is not new:84

Luc n'a certainement pas transform? arbitrairement une parabole pour expliquer ? ses

contemporains le retard de la parousie; ce n'est ni selon son programme ni selon sa

m?thode. Et supposer une source ant?rieure ce n'est pas expliquer comment on est

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.

By crafting the parable with an Archelaus motif, Jesus used a poignant reminder of the seriousness of one's position vis-?-vis the Kingdom of God, no matter when it would be made manifest: "Jesus, the king-judge, will

bring reward or punishment according to the attitude that one has taken

towards him. This goes for his disciples as well as his enemies".85

81) Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 45.

82) As by Roland Meynet (LEvangile selon saint Luc: analyse rh?torique [Paris: Cerf, 1988]

2.179) and Denaux ("Parable of King-Judge," 56). This is not to deny the possibility that

the Lukan redactor may have used the geographical realities to further construct his narrative. 83) The implications these conclusions have for our understanding of the Synoptic problem are beyond the scope of this present study, and will require a different treatise altogether. 84)

Lagrange, Luc, 491. 85)

Denaux, "Parable of King-Judge," 54.



Brian Schultz - Jesus as Archelaus in Parable of Pounds

Documents

Transcript of Brian Schultz - Jesus as Archelaus in Parable of Pounds