This study explores the intertextual relationship between Plato’s Myth of Er and Luke’s Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. It examines how a reader familiar with Plato’s work as an ante-text interprets Luke’s parable. By identifying echoes of the Myth of Er within Luke’s narrative, the reader establishes Plato’s text as the geno-text and Luke’s parable as the pheno-text. Through comparative analysis, the reader discerns thematic and structural commonalities, thereby confirming intertextuality. Contrasting the two narratives further reveals differences, enabling the reader to construct meaning in the pheno-text through the framework of the geno-text. Ultimately, the reader interprets the pheno-text’s message while transcending the geno-text’s influence. This process demonstrates how intertextual reading can enrich biblical interpretation.
AbramsM. H.HarphamGeoffrey Galt. 2015. A Glossary of Literary Terms. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
2.
AnnasJulia. 1982. “Plato’s Myths of Judgement.” Phronesis27/2: 119–43.
3.
BakhtinMikhail. 1981. “From the Prehistory of Novelis-tic Discourse.” Pp. 41–83 in The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, edited by HolquistMichael, translated by EmersonCarylHolquistMichael. Austin: University of Texas Press.
4.
BarthesRoland. 1989. “The Death of the Author.” Pp. 49–55 in The Rustle of Language, translated by HowardRichard. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
5.
BauckhamRichard. 1998. “The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels.” Pp. 97–118 in The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill.
6.
BlombergCraig L.1990. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
BovonFrançois. 2013. Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51–19:27, translated by DeerDonald S.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
9.
BultmannRudolph. 1963. History of the Synoptic Tradition, translated by MarshJohn. New York: Harper & Row.
10.
DerrettJ.DuncanM.2005. Law in the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.
11.
DonahueJohn R.1988. The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative, and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
12.
DunkerleyR.1959. “Lazarus.” New Testament Studies5/4: 321–27.
13.
EdwardsJames R.2015. The Gospel according to Luke. PillNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
14.
FitzmyerJoseph A.1985. The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV). AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
15.
GenetteGérard. 1982. Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
16.
GenetteGérard. 1997. “Five Types of Transtextuality.” Pp. 1–7; “A Few Precautions.” Pp. 7–10; “Imitation as a Literary Figure.” Pp. 73–81 in Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree, translated by NewmanChannaDoubinskyClaude. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
17.
GilmourMichael J.1999. “Hints of Homer in Luke 16:19– 31?” Didaskalia10/2: 23–33.
18.
GowlerDavid B.2005. “‘At His Gate Lay a Poor Man’: A Dialogic Reading of Luke 16:19–31.” Perspectives in Religious Studies32/3: 249–65.
19.
GreenJoel B.1997. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
20.
GressmannHugo. 1918. Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus: Eine literargeschichtliche Studie. Berlin: Könliglische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
21.
HaysRichard. 1989. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press.
22.
HockRonald F.1987. “Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19–31.” Journal of Biblical Literature106/3: 447–63.
23.
HogeterpAlbert. 2013. “Immaterial Wealth in Luke between Wisomd and Apocalypticism: Luke’s Jesus Tradition in Light of 4Qinstruction.” Early Christianity4: 41–63.
24.
HultgrenArland J.2000. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
25.
JeffreyDavid L.2012. Luke. BTCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.
26.
JeremiasJoachim. 1972. The Parables of Jesus, translated by HookeS. H.New York: Scribners.
27.
JohnsonRonald R.1999. “Does Plato’s Myth of Er Contribute to the Argument of the Republic?” Philosophy & Rhetoric32/1: 1–13.
28.
KristevaJulia. 1980. “Word, Dialogue, and Novel.” Pp. 64–91 in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, edited by RoudiezLeon S., translated by GoraThomasJardinAliceRoudiezLeon S.New York: Columbia University Press.
29.
KristevaJulia. 1984. Revolution in Poetic Language, translated by WallerMargaret. New York: Columbia University Press.
30.
MacDonaldDennis R.1994. Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
MacDonaldDennis R.2014. “Excursus 4: Er’s Visit to the Netherworld.” Pp. 244–7 in The Gospels and Homer: Imitations of Greek Epic in Mark and Luke-Acts. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
32.
MacDonaldDennis R.2015. “Land of the Dead.” Pp. 55–7 in Mythologizing Jesus from Jewish Teacher to Epic Hero. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
33.
MarshallI. Howard. 1978. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
34.
MarshallI. Howard. 2009. “How did the early Christians know anything about future states?” Journal of European Baptist Studies9/3: 7–23.
35.
MattilAndrew Jacob. 1979. Luke and the Last Things: A Perspective for the Understanding of Lukan Thought. Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina Press.
36.
MoonWooil. 2012. “From Julia Kristeva’s Intertextuali-ty to Dennis MacDonald’s Mimesis Criticism.” Korean New Testament Studies19/1: 313–51.
Plato. 1935. The Republic, 2, bk. 6-10, translated by ShoreyPaul. The Loeb Classical Library 276. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
SternFrank. 2006. A Rabbi Looks at Jesus’ Parables. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
40.
SzkredkaSławomir. 2019. “Postmortem Punishment in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19– 31): Between Coherence and Indeterminacy of Luke’s Eschatology.” Verbum Vitae36: 109–32.
41.
WerenWim. 1993. “Het dodenrijk. Een vergelijking van Lucas’ verhaal over Lazarus en de rijke mer de mythe van Orpheus en Eurydice bij Vergilius en Ovidius.” Pp. 65–92 in Intertextualteit en Bijbel. Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok.
42.
YoonDavid I.2012. “The Ideological Inception of Inter-textuality and its Dissonance in Current Biblical Studies.” Currents in Biblical Research12/1: 58–76.
