Reception, Rediscovery, and Reimagination: Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis and Luke 16:19–31

Abstract The reception of Luke 16:19–31 is ancient and variegated. It is ancient in that commentary for this pericope appears as early as the patristic era – mostly in the form of homilies – and variegated in that its interpretation has been hotly debated throughout church history. One recurring point of departure is the question of genre. Currently, most scholars assume the label “parable” despite the complex debate surrounding this slippery term. However, the reception history reveals that – prior to the Protestant Reformation – most viewed Luke 16:19–31 as historic narrative and not as parabolic. Thus, the question arises: “What caused this radical interpretational shift?” While some held to the fictive view of Luke 16:19–31 prior to the modern period (so Cyril of Alexandria et al.), this was a minority position until the Reformation – during which there was a surge of discovery/rediscovery of biblical manuscripts and exposure to variant readings within the sundry Greek New Testaments being published. Consequently, a paradigmatic shift of interpretation appears to have gained momentum after the rediscovery of Codex Bezae in 1562 by Theodore Beza, which contained the variant reading in Luke 16:19a – ειπεν δε και ετεραν παραβολην. This paper advances the fields of reception history and biblical studies by challenging the long-standing assumptions within the commentary tradition and textual criticism that Beza “ignored” Codex Bezae’s variants in publishing his Greek New Testament editions – as argued by Kurt and Barbara Aland et al. – and that “parable” is the best descriptor for Luke 16:19–31.