Leolaia made a great post regarding the religious milieu of the day.
Well, I think it was Bultmann who
first denied the authenticity of the parable but prior to him, as Hock
points out, H. Gressmann argued that the parable originated as an
adaptation of an Egyptian folktale of the reversal of fortunes of rich
and poor after death. Hock pointed to parallels in Greco-Roman
literature, particularly similar stories by Lucian of Samosata
that reflect his Cynic philosophy about the pursuit of wealth. So the
poor man Micyllus goes hungry all day and is drawn to the banquets of
rich men like Megapenthes and Eucrates (but refused entry), who enjoy
luxuries like purple clothing and gold and silver vessels. Then
Megapenthes dies by drinking a poisoned beverage and Mincyllus dies
while hard at work and they end up in Charon's boat to be ferried down
to Hades. But Megapenthes tries to beg one of the Fates to allow him to
return to life so he can complete his unfinished endeavors (similar to
how the Rich Man begged Abraham to return to the world of the living),
but his request is denied. Micyllus is sent to his reward of the Isles
of the Blessed while Megapenthes has to experience his own desires being
denied, such as being refused of drinking the waters of Lethe.
Since Palestinian Judaism of the first century AD was influenced by Hellenism (cf. the older philosophy of Sirach) and since Lucian
probably adapted a more common folktale, I think it is probable that
there is a suitable Jewish context for the parable. But it is also worth
noting that Luke in particular has a distinct
emphasis on poverty/wealth polemics (as opposed to the other gospels,
specifically in unique Lukan material), so the question still stands of
whether this is early or represents a later Lukan development. The
evidence from Galatians, Acts, James,
and other sources however indicates that the earliest Jerusalem church
led by James the Just pursued a lifestyle of elective poverty (cf. the
later post-AD 70 appellation of this group as Ebionites, from Hebrew 'bywnym "the poor"), so it is possible that the parable derives from the teachings of the early Jerusalem church.
The
eschatology of the parable is also appropriate for first-century
Judaism. The polemic against the rich who care not about the afterlife
fits very well with Pharisee and Essene attitudes against the Sadducee
wealthy who did not believe in a future resurrection and judgment (cf. Ecclesiastes
for an early proto-Sadducee perspective). The Essenes, being the heirs
of Enochic Judaism, differed from the Pharisees by having a primitive
concept of the immortality of the soul (see Boccaccini's delineation of
Essenism and its polemic against Pharisaism and Sadduceeism) and so they
believed in an immediate post-mortem separation of the righteous and
wicked after death. The older view in the Book of Parables of 1 Enoch (third century BC) is that the "souls of all the sons of men" (npsht kl bny 'nsh', notice the use of nephesh for the soul of a dead person) were gathered together and separated within Sheol itself (22:3),
with the "spirits of the righteous" placed in a blessed chamber with a
bright fountain of water and the "spirits of the sinners" separated in
their own chamber "for this great torment, until the great day of
judgment, of scourges and tortures of the cursed forever" (v. 9-10). The
later Essene view was that the righteous were instead gathered in
heaven (sometimes into the paradise of Eden itself, or into the angelic
assembly) immediately after death whereas the wicked were consigned to
the Pit for torments. This is the view in the first-century BC Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH), the Community Rule (1QS), and the first-century AD Enochic Book of Parables (whereas the older scheme persisted in the late Essene book of 4 Ezra). This is pretty close to the Lukan view, which also has Jesus promise entry to Paradise immediately after death (Luke 23:43; cf. Paul's references to the faithful going to heaven immediately after death in 2 Corinthians 5, the description of the phukhais "souls" of the dead martyrs in heaven awaiting their resurrection in Revelation, and similar views in the second century). The even later post-Essene work of 2 Enoch placed both the abodes of the wicked and righteous (e.g. paradise and Gehenna) in heaven itself. The Testament of Abraham,
which is possibly a late first-century post-Essene work, specifically
has Abraham's soul placed in Paradise in heaven after death, where the
faithful would be gathered into "his bosom". The closest parallel is
found in 4 Maccabees, an early first-century
AD work that is non-Essene but showing more distinct influence from
Hellenism and Pharisaism. This work states that "our patriarchs Abraham
and Isaac and Jacob do not die to God but live to God" (7:19, 16:25, cf. Luke 20:37-38), and claims that "if we so die, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will welcome us" (13:17), whereas "the danger of eternal torment lies before those who transgress the commandment of God" (13:15). Josephus'
description of Pharisee eschatology is also strongly colored by
Hellenistic ideas about the soul and then there were strictly
Hellenistic Jewish works in the diaspora like Wisdom (first century BC) and the writings of Philo of Alexandria
(early first century AD) which only had a concept of the immortal souls
of the righteous going to heaven (i.e. lacking the ideas of
resurrection and final judgment found in both Pharisaism and Essenism).
