Additions in Luke 7,36-50 531 succeeds admirably to express this contrast; without this parable (or its like), the contrast remains only implicit in the story. Should we assume that the earliest writer could not see this second truth, about Simon, in his story? Are we to assume that only a later theology, developed elsewhere, has been imposed on this story, a theology which the original writer did not know? If so, we must assume that the earlier writer did not deduce that one who loves much reveals that he has been forgiven much, that one who is little forgiven shows this by loving little. Unlikely. 3. The Lucan Sitz-im-Leben There are two considerations offered here. First, the ‘problem’ of the holder of the debts. Second, the woman’s understanding of Jesus. It is a discussion of these two points that will yield a further meaning to the earlier renditions of this event. 1. The parable does its work and accomplishes its goal, but its very formation suggests a further knowledge on the part of the earlier authors. If the two figures of the three-figure parable can be identified as the woman and Simon, what denies to the reader a claim to know who the third figure is? The parable itself could have been constructed solely as a two person parable (7). “As a great sinner reveals her forgiveness by effusive acts of love, so a lesser sinner reveals how little he has been forgiven by his lack of acts of love”. There is no need to add a third figure to express the truth taught by contrast. So is one not correct in looking closely at the formulation of the parable, to ask oneself why is a third person mentioned (and prominently), and in consequence, to whom might the third person refer, now that we know that two of the figures refer to real people (8)? 2. We have conjectured that the earliest rendition of the story began with a woman already forgiven: there is no attempt in this story to describe that moment of forgiveness. Presumably, the woman had thought that God had forgiven her, that Jesus, like John, was the instrument of God to bring her to God’s forgiveness (9). We pick up this attitude in the story itself, as the woman comes to Jesus out of gratitude for his preaching to her (10). What is missing is (7) Cf. H. MARSHALL, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC 3; Grand Rapids 1978) 311: “The parable passes over the unusual nature of this act [forgiveness of debt] on the part of the creditor, and concentrates instead on the response of the forgiven debtors”. Yet, in the ex- planation of the parable, the term aujtovn is placed in a position of emphasis; note the at- tempt by many manuscripts to place other words in this emphatic position. (8) The inclusion of a third person in the parable does not mean that the person read- ing the parable could not concentrate solely on the gratitude of the one forgiven, as shown in vv. 42-43, with no allegorization made at this stage about the third person. This redactor has no reason to allegorize at this stage the forgiver of the debts; but it cannot be said that he is not aware that the parable implicitly contains a reference to the forgiver of sins. However, the third person is present and thus capable of being explicitly identified at a later stage with the forgiver of sins. (9) Cf. FITZMYER, Luke, 692: “…have been forgiven. I.e. by God….. [Jesus is] God’s agent”. The woman thought of God and Jesus in these terms, and so needed correction. (10) It seems more reasonable to affirm that the woman knew Jesus as preacher of for- giveness than to affirm that she knew him as the one who forgave her. If she knew him as forgiver of sins, she is the only one who has such knowledge; to be unique in this way does not do justice to the realities presented to us, above all because Luke offers no clarity