The Semantics of Accusation: An Exegetical Study of Luke 16:1
This exegetical study of Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent is based on a b-greek discussion from Wednesday, February 10, 1999. The initial query, specifically concerning Luke 16:1, questioned whether the verb διεβληθη (from διαβάλλω) inherently suggests false information or slander. The initial commentator proposed that if διεβληθη implies slander, then the rich man’s dismissal of his agent (v. 2) would be based on an unsubstantiated accusation, suggesting a lack of due process.
The main exegetical issue under consideration is the precise semantic range of the verb διαβάλλω in Luke 16:1. Specifically, the passive aorist form διεβληθη followed by the dative αυτω and the participial clause ως διασκορπιζων τα υπαρχοντα αυτου, creates ambiguity. Does it unequivocally signify a malicious, false accusation (slander), or can it denote a truthful report of wrongdoing (accusation or denouncement)? The interpretation of this term significantly impacts the ethical dimensions of the parable, shaping our understanding of the agent’s culpability and the master’s actions, as well as the parable’s broader theological implications regarding shrewdness and stewardship.
Greek Text (Nestle 1904)
Λουκᾶς 16:1-7
1 Εἶπεν δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς, Ἄνθρωπός τις ἦν πλούσιος, ὃς εἶχεν οἰκονόμον, καὶ οὗτος διεβλήθη αὐτῷ ὡς διασκορπίζων τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ.
2 καὶ φωνήσας αὐτὸν εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Τί τοῦτο ἀκούω περὶ σοῦ; ἀπόδος τὸν λόγον τῆς οἰκονομίας σου· οὐ γὰρ δύνῃ ἔτι οἰκονομεῖν.
3 εἶπεν δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ οἰκονόμος, Τί ποιήσω, ὅτι ὁ κύριός μου ἀφαιρεῖται τὴν οἰκονομίαν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ; σκάπτειν οὐκ ἰσχύω, ἐπαιτεῖν αἰσχύνομαι.
4 ἔγνων τί ποιήσω, ἵνα ὅταν μετασταθῶ τῆς οἰκονομίας, δέξωνταί με εἰς τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν.
5 καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος ἕνα ἕκαστον τῶν χρεωφειλετῶν τοῦ κυρίου ἑαυτοῦ, ἔλεγε τῷ πρώτῳ, Πόσον ὀφείλεις τῷ κυρίῳ μου;
6 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ἑκατὸν βάτους ἐλαίου. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Δέξαι σου τὸ γράμμα καὶ καθίσας ταχέως γράψον πεντήκοντα.
7 ἔπειτα ἑτέρῳ εἶπεν, Σὺ δὲ πόσον ὀφείλεις; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ἑκατὸν κόρους σίτου. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Δέξαι σου τὸ γράμμα καὶ γράψον ὀγδοήκοντα.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- Luke 16:6: The word τάχεως (Nestle 1904) is spelled ταχέως in SBLGNT (2010), representing a minor orthographic variation.
- No other substantive differences are found that impact the primary exegetical questions of this study for Luke 16:1-7.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The textual tradition for Luke 16:1 is remarkably stable. The NA28 critical apparatus shows no significant variants for the verb διεβληθη or the surrounding phrase αυτω ως διασκορπιζων τα υπαρχοντα αυτου. This stability indicates that the exegetical challenge lies not in establishing the original text, but in interpreting its semantic nuance.
Lexically, the verb διαβάλλω (from which διεβληθη is derived) holds a crucial semantic breadth. According to BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature), διαβάλλω means “to bring charges w. hostile intent.” Importantly, BDAG further specifies that these charges can be “either falsely and slanderously” (citing examples like P. Oxy. 900, 13; 4 Macc 4:1; Jos., Ant. 7, 267) or “justly” (citing Hdt. 8, 22, 3; Thuc. 3, 4, 4; Aristoph., Thesm. 1169; P. Tebt. 23, 4; Da 3:8; 2 Macc 3:11; Jos., Ant. 12, 176). The dative αυτω in Luke 16:1 signifies “against him” or “to him,” indicating the recipient of the accusation.
The inclusion of the phrase ως διασκορπιζων τα υπαρχοντα αυτου (as one who was squandering his possessions) further complicates the interpretation. The particle ως can introduce a participle that expresses either a subjective judgment (as if he were squandering) or an objective reality (as one who was indeed squandering). The parallel with Luke 15:13, where the prodigal son “διεσκορπισεν” (squandered) his inheritance, suggests that the agent’s actions were indeed characterized by mismanagement. This intertextual link supports the interpretation of διεβληθη as an accusation based on actual (though perhaps exaggerated or reported with hostile intent) behavior rather than outright falsehood. While KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) does not offer a detailed entry for the verb διαβάλλω itself, the broader theological concept of accusation (related to διάβολος, slanderer/devil) often implies hostile intent, which can be present even in a truthful report.
Translation Variants
The phrase οὗτος διεβλήθη αὐτῷ ὡς διασκορπίζων τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ (Luke 16:1b) presents significant translation challenges due to the nuanced meaning of διαβάλλω and the function of ὡς. Grammatically, διεβλήθη is an aorist passive indicative, indicating that the agent “was accused” or “was denounced.” The dative αὐτῷ specifies the person *to* whom or *against* whom the accusation was made (the rich man). The participial clause ὡς διασκορπίζων provides the content of the accusation, signifying *how* or *on what grounds* the agent was accused.
Rhetorically, the choice of translation profoundly impacts the parable’s opening tone. If translated as “slandered,” the implication is that the agent was a victim of false accusation, potentially portraying the rich man as unjust or credulous for dismissing him without investigation. Conversely, if translated as “accused” or “reported” without the connotation of falsehood, it suggests the agent was genuinely mismanaging the master’s assets. The presence of ὡς allows for both possibilities: it could be “as if he were squandering” (implying the accusation might be subjective or untrue) or “on the grounds that he was squandering” (implying factual basis). The broader context of the parable, which depicts the agent acting shrewdly to mitigate a dire situation that arose from his mismanagement, favors the latter interpretation where the accusation, at least in its core, reflects reality.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The exegetical analysis of Luke 16:1 suggests that while διαβάλλω can carry connotations of hostile intent, the context, particularly the linkage to Luke 15:13’s διεσκορπισεν, points towards an accusation that was substantially true regarding the agent’s mismanagement. The use of ὡς allows for the possibility of a report made with a hostile motive, but it does not necessarily negate the factual basis of the accusation. The rich man’s immediate demand for an account supports the idea that the report, while perhaps unwelcome, was taken seriously as a potentially factual claim of financial impropriety.
Therefore, translations should convey the sense of an accusation of actual wrongdoing, possibly made with negative intent, rather than solely focusing on false slander. Here are three suggested translations for Luke 16:1b, reflecting these nuances:
- “and this man was reported to him as squandering his possessions.”
This translation emphasizes the factual nature of the report, highlighting the agent’s actual mismanagement, without explicitly implying falsehood or malice from the accuser. - “and he was accused to him of squandering his possessions.”
This rendering retains the neutrality regarding the truthfulness of the accusation, focusing on the act of charging the agent, which is consistent with the subsequent demand for an account. - “and he was denounced to him for squandering his possessions.”
This option captures the likely hostile intent behind the report (denouncement) while still allowing for the truthfulness of the underlying claim of mismanagement, which is supported by the parable’s context.