The dishonest manager

I would love to hear/read your comments on the story and the interpretation I propose here.

This parable is only found in Luke 16.1–9. See the literature cited in Green or Fitzmyer. The story assumes an audience familiar with property management and debt system of the time. A proper understanding of the parable, therefore, has to begin with solid knowledge of the economic and legal background. Some of the questions to be asked are: is the manager a slave? what is the source of his power to enact change in the contracts, granted the willingness of the farmers (tenants)? Second, how is one to explain the fifty percent rebate in the case of olive oil, and twenty percent in the case of grain? Higher class debt in one case, or better calculation? Or irony on the part of the story teller, regarding the real value of olive oil and its marketability? Further, is the absolute quantity about twenty years worth of the stuff? An insurance scheme of sorts then? What can one say about the level of literacy of the tenants? Finally, why does the landowner congratulate his manager for acting shrewdly, when it appears his own interests have been seriously hurt?

The system of debt which was in existence drew the maximum labor possible from tenants or rather sharecroppers and their families (meaning wives and children). Interest wouldn’t be mentioned, but can be assumed to be part of the lump sum that is owed to the master. The manager was authorized to make binding contracts for his master. He was given signs of authority for so doing. Contra certain authors (Fitzmyer more recently, for instance), the steward couldn’t have been pocketing the interest and then expect to see feelings of obligation on the part of the sharecroppers when he returned the unjustly acquired interest. His job is well described in the parable of the Talents: to make money for his master, regardless of the appropriateness of the means, and perhaps make some for himself in the process.

Note on the context: the preceding stories of God’s mercy for sinners imply that one is to share possessions with the needy.

Commentary

16.1 πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς (to the disciples): Why is Jesus represented as speaking to his disciples at this point? The answer depends on the interpretation given to the story. For the story of the prodigal son, just before, we only have an εἰπεν δέ (but he said)….

πλοὺσιος: the story is concerned with a rich man, i.e., someone controlling lands scattered through the area, or even beyond the seas, as is obvious from the papyrological and inscriptional record for the whole Hellenistic period, and already before. The third gospel presents rich people very negatively. Does that mean that this particular story cannot be allegorized as usual, that is, with the landowner as a figure of the divinity? “A certain man:” why not a king? Because this story is not concerned with inheritance, but with another aspect of the particular relationship between master, manager, and tenants. A rich man was not necessarily liked and belonged to another world, even though he shared in the culture and religion. The landowner’s far-flung properties would need a manager (οἰκονόμος, who was not necessarily a slave). Note that when landlords visited their holdings, which they did often enough, accounts would certainly be scrutinized at that point. Landlords would make regular visits to their holdings, and checked accounts as well as the health of their investments (ex. given in Josephus, in The Jewish War, of Greek landowners going from Tiberias to see their properties East of the Jordan river).

διεβλήθη αὐτῷ: It was rumored to him…. What means of pressure did the rich man have, in the listeners’ opinion? Could he give a participation in the benefits? If the manager was a slave, the owner could remove everything from him and punish him severely. Notice the role of rumor in controlling people’s affairs. Everything in this society could be assumed to be a public affair. Innuendos were sufficient, in the absence of a truly neutral law courts, as appearance of authority and trustworthiness is everything.

διασκορπίζων, that is to say, “dissipating, spreading (thin) ….” By doing what? What could the manager do that would threaten the master’s interests? He could misuse his borrowed authority in many ways. He could certainly add to rental contracts, or traffic in debt contracts. He could take advantage of measurements at harvest times to favor his master, but taking his own “cut” at the same time. He could use tools and animals to his own benefit, for instance by renting them out to others for money or advantages to himself. The position of power of the manager had as its main reason profit (no neutral position in the ancient world). The position was by nature an invitation to take advantage of the position, at all levels of the system of delegation of authority. For comparison, think of the client-kings and the equestrian or senatorial province governors, who needed to exploit their provinces systematically, the more so because the tenures were so short sometimes.

τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ = everything was owned by this master, presumably. What did the landowner own, exactly? in a traditional sharecropping system, not only the land, but also the main tools of agriculture and animals, as well as the seed stock. But here, we don’t have a customary contract (i.e. often unwritten, everything according to the customs of the region, as the Mishna and Talmud say). There are written documents involving large quantities of goods which the tenants—or their representatives, i.e. tenancy contractors—must sign themselves.

16.2 φωνήσας: “having called him.” The landowner believes the accusation but doesn’t ask him to bring his ledger with him when he calls him. Why not? Is it because it would obviously alert the manager’s suspicion and lead to more problems, or is it because the landowner of our story is a little slow, compared to his smart representative? It takes time to do the calling and for the manager to respond to it. The rich man’s house is not in a village nearby, but in one of the Hellenistic cities of the area: Tiberias, Diocaesarea (Sepphoris), Hippos, Ptolemais, or even Caesarea). A summons from Tiberias, say, to a village in Galilee, would take a day, and the manager would need another day to respond to it: two days total. He knows the landowner is coming very soon now, because this is a precarious moment for the landowner also, who fears more losses or some further stealing may happen in these few hours between the manager’s return and his own arrival. The manager, if he is to change anything, has to act quickly, within a few hours, perhaps one or two days at most. And he has to act in such a way that he doesn’t raise anyone’s suspicion.

16.3 Suspicion aroused by rumor was enough for ancient landowners to act. Even appearance of malfeasance was sufficient ground for them to get rid of managers. If they didn’t, what were others, such as tenants, to think of them, and how were they to behave themselves, if given an opportunity to take advantage of their landowners? ἀπόδος τὸν λόγον (hand over the account): there was an exact account, a ledger, of all matters concerning the οἰκονομία, i.e. feeding, taking care of things (house slaves?), making sure tenants or sharecroppers were watched but also supplied with the necessary tools or animals if needed (פרנסוות). Cf. the Roman writers on ancient agriculture and management, especially Columella (quoted in my previous post).

τί ποιήσω = What am I to do? There is no discussion, no self-pity, but the moment of truth has arrived for the manager, who is caught between two groups of people who are equally unsympathetic to his position: the landowner and family, the sharecroppers and families, who must have felt his authority also at numerous times, and perhaps even his contempt and harshness or cruelty. After all, their level of debt (or the degree of profit extraction) was in great part dependent on his knowledge of local conditions and what he recommended be done by the master.

The audience may have taken some pleasure in a story making an all too well known and contemptible character squirm a bit. His removal from his managerial position means that it will be impossible for him to get another one, at least in the same area, and it also means a loss of status (note the expression κύριός μου, my master, which leads one to suspect he is a slave). His review of the tasks he doesn’t see himself apt to do may will have drawn some ironical comments on the part of hard-working peasants. Σκάπτειν: to dig, i.e. to hoe and dig deeply around trees when composting, or after plowing in the fall and spring seasons. Ἐπαιτεῖν: to beg, or go begging, which means primarily being confronted with people who will remind him of his previous status.

In the depth of his despair, an illumination, as in the story of the lost son in chapter 15. The ἔγνων τί ποιήσω sounds like an “aha” or a eureka (16.4): I know what I’ll do. He has come upon a scheme to force these peasants to accept him into their houses (note: the Greek word carries the tone of habitations, or tents of Jacob). How could he hope to do that? He knows how to play the culture of honor and shame he mentions, and which was enforced in a myriad of ways. Custom demanded that favors be reciprocated in the future, at different times, but according to quite a precise (though unspoken) schedule.

But he is not in a position to give them anything of his, and neither is he in a position to ask them to return favors he might claim he had done to or for them in the past. Most likely, if he has been a scoundrel regarding his master’s possessions, he has been an even bigger scoundrel when it came to the village farmers’ interests. Some commentators think he is planning to return what he has stolen in the first place, i.e. in less than honest dealings such as contracts of debts and tenancy he rigged to his own advantage in the past (Fitzmyer for instance, or Derrett, who suggest that he has been keeping interest on the debt—there was a prohibition of interest, circumventable in several ways). But this idea surely wouldn’t work, since the farmers wouldn’t have any reason to return a favor to a person who stole from them in the first place. It has got to be something else.

He calls in his master’s debtors. By definition, all tenants, or at least sharecroppers, were in debt: this is part of the land management structure of ancient times. Contracts were written on papyrus or on parchment, and were of the “double-document” kind. The sheet on which the contract was written was rolled, the end of it folded back unto itself, and the scroll tied and sealed. A copy of the most important part of the contract was made on the back for everyone to see, without having to break the seal. The manager, at least from the farmers’ point of view, is still a representative of the master’s authority. The farmers, it must be assumed, know that the manager went to see the landowner, but they don’t know why (I presume). When they are asked to sign a correction to their documents that is massively to their advantage, they are likely to think that the master is being generous (given their difficulties, which were a permanent feature of their situation). Surely they cannot think that the manager is conniving to force the master to make a good turn, since this is antithetical to what managers’ job was, and furthermore the master would likely turn against them (and perhaps change tenants)? But the manager has his idea: not only is he hoping to ride the sentiment of great relief and recognition the peasants are going to have for their landowner. He may also be trying to get even with his master and punishing him, while preparing his way out by canceling the usury practiced by his master. Or must one suppose that he is forcing both landowner and tenants to start afresh after a most significant act of debt forgiveness, and hoping to survive on the good will of everyone (especially that of the tenants, if he is indeed fired, as the landowner told him privately?).

The first debtor owes 100 baths of oil (ca. 450 gallons, or 1,800 liters), and his debt is halved to 50 baths. That’s a significant abatement. Note on yields, for comparison: the yield of modern olive trees is about 4 tons per acre or 9 metric tons per hectare for a consistent year-to-year yield. Oil yield: 45 gallons per ton. So, our text is talking about a remittance of the value of oil produced by 2 to 3 acres. Is there an extra wink to the audience who would have appreciated to hear that the manager is particularly keen on having the oil producers on his side, so he gets olive oil deals or gifts aplenty in the future? To evaluate what’s going on, one would have to ascertain the olive oil consumption of a family over a year. 100 kors of grain: a kor of grain is about a year’s supply for an adult in pre-modern times. So the 20 kors remitted by the manager are a very significant amount which he may hope to get some of in the future.

How did the debtors feel, how would they react, and what would they say to the rest of the village? One may suppose they knew nothing about the conversation that happened between the master and the manager. When called by the manager, they would simply think that the master had ordered him to change the contracts. Or perhaps they may be guessing what trick is going on but don’t let on?

ἐπῄνεσεν: The story is given in shorthand at this point, and it is difficult for us to understand why the manager is praised by his master. What’s missing is what would have been obvious to an ancient audience, namely that when word came that the landowner, surprise of surprise, actually showed up in the village the next day or so, joyful expressions of gratitude were given by the whole village. Everyone would drop everything and would rush to greet him, certainly before he had had a chance to see the accounts and the “improved” contracts. There would be kissing of hands, prostrations, rejoicing, probably a feast, and praise heaped on a divine-like master who took pity on his tenants and saved them.

What is a master to do when showered with this kind of recognition, respect, and love? Surely he can’t go back on “his” decisions and revisit the contracts once more! This would be declaring war to his workers. He chooses to go along and “praises the unjust manager,” that is to say: he accepts to remit debts (he doesn’t know yet to what extent, even: irony again for the audience). Will the “unjust manager” lose his job even? So, what is most probable (but not certain) is that he has acquired an important capital of sympathy for his master, but the latter has no reason to keep him. He has gotten devoted farmers, however, especially if he ends up being fired, and will have to hope that the same remission of debts is extended to him by his superiors.

At this point, after keeping it out of the interpretation and understanding the story as best as possible on its own, allegorization may be re-introduced as a privileged reading strategy (its goal, in fact, according to the author himself and the comments at the end of the story). If the master stands for the divinity, the manager for a servant of God—recognized in that society as priests, leaders, Pharisees—,and the farmers for the common people (the listeners in fact, who are as hidden in the interpretive act done on this parable as they are in the considerations and texts of this ancient society), then the consequences of such analogical reasoning are that after the swift action by the steward, it is not possible for the master (God) to even enter into a discussion on the books and attempt to reconcile the accounts, because the celebration that has been forced by the risk taken by the steward (who knows his society and his master) has engulfed everyone in an atmosphere of joy and plenitude that the master (God) is forced to accept. This doesn’t eliminate the ancient view of debt remission, namely that good will among “tenants” is worth its weight in gold, in the long run. Divine compassion is forced by the steward’s action, and the divinity accepts to go along with the bet made by the steward.

What is being praised by Jesus as being φρονίμως, i.e. skillful rather than wise (according to the evangelist)? The dishonest steward, or rather his practical resourcefulness? Is it a moral tale, an example story? But then, was Jesus teaching that his disciples should imitate the unjust actions of the steward? Or was he teaching the listeners to imitate the steward’s shrewdness and skill? Is it a genuine parable? It would be about the kingdom of God, and a need to be decisive, as in so many of these stories, and about a notion of the divinity accepting to be tricked into compassion for his people.