BiblicalRefigurations
TheProdigalSoninEnglish andAmericanLiterature
BIBLICALREFIGURATIONS
GeneralEditors:JamesCrossleyandFrancescaStavrakopoulou
Thisinnovativeseriesoffersnewperspectivesonthetextual,cultural,and interpretativecontextsofparticularbiblicalcharacters,invitingreaderstotake afreshlookatthemethodologiesofBiblicalStudies.Individualvolumes employdifferentcriticalmethodsincludingsocial-scientificcriticism,critical theory,historicalcriticism,receptionhistory,postcolonialism,andgender studies,whilesubjectsincludebothprominentandlesser-known figures fromtheHebrewBibleandtheNewTestament.
PublishedTitlesInclude:
JeremySchipper DisabilityandIsaiah’sSufferingServant
KeithBodner Jeroboam’sRoyalDrama
MarkLeuchter SamuelandtheShapingofTradition
LouiseJ.Lawrence SenseandStigmaintheGospels:Depictionsof Sensory-DisabledCharacters
WilliamJohnLyons JosephofArimathea:AStudyinReceptionHistory JamesCrossley JesusandtheChaosofHistory:RedirectingtheLife oftheHistoricalJesus
NyashaJunior ReimaginingHagar:BlacknessandBible
FiveHundredYears ofLiteraryHomecomings
ALISONM.JACK
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford, OXDP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©AlisonM.Jack
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin
Impression:
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY ,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:
ISBN ––––
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon, CRYY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Acknowledgements
Thisbookhashadalonggestation,andIhavebeenencouraged alongthewaybymanypeople.ColleaguesattheSchoolofDivinity, UniversityofEdinburgh,havebeensupportiveandinterested,fullof suggestionsandideas.Churchgroupswhohaveheardmetalkabout theparablesandtheProdigalSoninparticularhavebeenkeentoshare theirinsightswithme,andIhaveappreciatedthisverymuch.
Thebookwas finishedduringaperiodofresearchleave,andIam gratefultotheUniversityofEdinburghfortheopportunitytobefree ofotherresponsibilitiesandtofocusondrawingthematerialtogether. TwoshortperiodsofstudyatWestminsterCollege,Cambridge,helped toconsolidateideasand fillinresearchgaps,andwereofgreatbenefitin the finalyearofwriting.
TheeditorialteamatOxfordUniversityPresshasbeensupportive andunderstandingthroughouttheprocess,andIwouldliketothank themfortheguidancetheyhavegivenme.
Thetitleofthebookwasthesubjectofsomediscussion. ‘Literature inEnglish’ seemedtoraiseunmetexpectations,andso ‘Englishand AmericanLiterature’ wasagreed.Thisshouldnotbetakentodownplaythetextsfromthe fieldofScottishliteraturewhicharesoimportantthroughoutthebook,andIhopemyfriendsandcolleagues workinginthat fieldwillunderstandthebalancingactthathadtobe struckbetweenfulldescriptionandaworkabletitle.
Mychildren,IainandFiona,havebeenpatientanduncomplaining whenIhavefelttheneedtopointoutaProdigalSonreferenceinevery film,televisionprogramme,orbookwehaveexperiencedtogether.As always,Iowethemmythanksfortheirunfailingresilienceandsense offun.DrewBrownwasanencouragingandsupportivepresenceas thebookneareditscompletion.
Finally,IdedicatethisbooktoIanCampbell,EmeritusProfessorof ScottishandVictorianLiteratureattheUniversityofEdinburgh,who hasbeenateacher,mentor,andfriendforthirtyyearsnow,andwho continuestobeasupportiveadvocateofmywork.
Excerptsfrom ‘CrusoeinEngland’ , ‘Over , Illustrationsanda CompleteConcordance’ , ‘TheProdigal’,and ‘QuestionsofTravel’ from Poems byElizabethBishop.Copyright© byTheAlice H.MethfesselTrust.Publisher’sNoteandcompilationcopyright © byFarrar,StrausandGiroux.Reprintedbypermissionof Farrar,StrausandGiroux.Alsopublishedin TheCompletePoems – volume.IntheUK,thesepoemsarefoundin Poems by ElizabethBishoppublishedbyChattoandWindus.Reproducedby permissionoftheRandomHouseGroupLtd.© .
PermissiontoquotefromthepoetryofIainCrichtonSmithhas beengrantedbyCarcanetPress(<http://www.carcanet.co.uk>),andis acknowledgedwithgratitude.ThelinesquotedareallfromIain CrichtonSmith, NewCollectedPoems,editedandintroducedby MattMcGuire(Manchester:CarcanetPressLtd, ).
‘NeverGoBack’ byFelixDennis,takenfrom AGlassHalfFull (Hutchinson, ),©FelixDennis,isreproducedbykindpermissionoftheFelixDennisLiteraryEstate.
AshortsectionofChapter isadaptedfrommyarticle ‘Henry James’ s “TheJollyCorner”:RevisitingtheParableoftheProdigalSon (Luke .–)’ in JournaloftheBibleanditsReception,vol. . ():pp. –,andisusedwithpermission.
.ReadingtheProdigalSon
.TheProdigalSoninElizabethanLiterature
.TheProdigalSonandShakespeare
.FemaleVictorianNovelistsandtheProdigalSon
.TheAmericanShortStoryandtheProdigalSon
.ProdigalMinistersinFiction
.TheProdigalSoninPoetry:ElizabethBishop andIainCrichtonSmith
.Conclusion
Bibliography
Index
ReadingtheProdigalSon
‘Prodigal’ isanadjectivewithachequeredpast.ItsLatinrootis prodigus, whichdenotesalavishnesswhichismorallyneutral.IngeneralEnglish usage,stronglynegativeconnotationsattenditssenseofwastefulsquandering.However,morerecently, ‘prodigal’ hascutloosefromsuch negativitytotakeonamuchmorepositiveunderstandingwhich includeswaywardness,perhaps,butmorestronglystill,awillingness toseekoutadventure,evenself-fulfilment,andacertaingenerosityof spirit.Today,thewordismostoftenusedinthecontextofJesus’ parable aboutafatherandtwosons(Luke :–),theyoungerofwhomis givenstarbillinginthetitle:itis ‘TheParableoftheProdigalSon’ in commonEnglishusage.1 Thissonisoftensimplyreferredtoas ‘the Prodigal’,andanegativejudgementiscertainlyimpliedbyJerome’ s referenceinthefourthcentury CE totheparableasastoryaboutthe contrastbetween ‘theprudentandprodigalsons’ . 2 WhenIhaveintroducedtheparabletostudentsinmyBibleandLiteratureclasses,
1 Themostsignificantearlyassociationof ‘prodigal’ withthischaracterinan EnglishtranslationoftheBibleistobefoundintheGenevaBible,whichwas first publishedwithboththeOldandNewTestamentsin .Heretheparableis introducedinthetextastheparable ‘oftheProdigalSonne’,andthepageheading repeatsthis,althoughthewordisnotfoundinthestoryitself.Thesamepage headingwasusedintheKingJamesVersionoftheBiblepublishedin ,sealing theongoingconnectionbetweentheparableandtheprodigalityoftheyounger son.Thehistoryoftheword’sassociationwiththeparableischartedindetailin EzraHorbury, ‘AristotelianEthicsandLuke :– inEarlyModernEngland’ , JournalofReligiousHistory (June ):pp. –
2 Jerome, LivesofIllustriousMen,ch. ,quotedinAmy-JillLevine, Short StoriesbyJesus:TheEnigmaticParablesofaControversialRabbi (NewYork: HarperCollins, ),p. .
however, ‘prodigal’ isoftenapuzzletothemandtheyaredrawntothe positiveratherthannegativeconnotationsoftheword.Latercommentatorshavesoughttoretitletheparabletorefocusattentionontheother charactersinthestory,3 buttheparableremainsassociatedwiththe youngersonandthisparticular, ‘prodigal’,aspectofhischaracter.
Thischaracter,theProdigalSon,andhisstory,havefascinated Christianpreachers,biblicalcommentatorsandtheologians,novelists, poetsandplaywrights,aswellasthoseinterestedinthehuman conditionfromatherapeuticperspective.TheOrcadianwriterGeorge MackayBrownspeaksformanyintheliterarycommunitywhenhe hasacharacterassert, ‘I’mtellingyouthisasawriterofstories:there’ s nostoryIknowofsoperfectlyshapedandphrasedasTheProdigal Son.’4 Oneofthelongestandmostnarrativelycomplexofallofthe parablesattributedtoJesusintheGospels,itdealswithuniversal themesoffamily,home,rebellion,andreturn.Thisstudywillexplore thesignificanceoftheinfluenceoftheparableonselectedtexts fromthe fieldsofEnglish,Scottish,andAmericanliterature.Meaning willbesoughtinthereciprocalrelationshipbetweenbiblicaland literarystudies,andinthecultureinwhichthereinterpretationsof theparabletakeplace.Wewillseethatdifferentaspectsoftheparable areemphasizedineachoftheperiodsandgenresdiscussed,andthat theProdigalSonandhisfamilyareendlesslyandcreativelyengaging characterswhocontinuetobeguile.Intheirappealtothisarchetypal storyofhomecoming,authorsseemto findmultiplewaystoconnect withtheirreadersatadeepandaffectivelevel.
Whatthisstudydoesnotofferisasurveyofeveryappearanceofthe ProdigalSoninEnglish,Scottish,orAmericanliterature.5 Instead,
3 TheWaitingFather isthetitleoftheEnglishtranslationofHelmutThielicke’ s workontheparables(trans.JohnW.Doberstein(NewYork:Harper&Row, )).KlyneSnodgrassprefers ‘TheCompassionateFatherandhisTwoLost Sons’,althoughheadmitsthatbrevityisnotonthesideofthissuggestion,andthe parableof ‘theProdigaloroftheTwoLostSons’ willprobablyholdsway.See Stories withIntent:AComprehensiveGuidetotheParablesofJesus, ndedn(GrandRapids, Mich.:Eerdmans, ),p.
4 GeorgeMackayBrown, ‘TheTarnandtheRosary’,in Hawkfall (London: TheHogarthPress, ;repr.Edinburgh:Polygon, ),pp. –,p.
5 ManfredSiebaldandLelandRykenattemptsuchasurveyin ‘ProdigalSon’ in ADictionaryofBiblicalTraditioninEnglishLiterature,ed.DavidL.Jeffrey(Grand Rapids,Mich.:Eerdmans, ),pp. –.Theentrywouldhavetobe
eachchapterisanin-depthexplorationofaparticularperiod, geographicalplace,and/orgenreinwhichtheparableoratleastthe characteroftheProdigalSonisparticularlysignificant,withafocuson thethemeofhomecoming.Someofthesearewidelyrecognizedin literarystudies,suchastheProdigalSon fictionofthesixteenthcentury, andtheworkofShakespearewhichfollowedandreworkedthat establishedintertextualrelationship.TheAmericanshortstorytraditioncoversawideperiod,butitsuseoftheProdigalSonparadigmis wellattested,andisdevelopedhere.ThenovelsoffemaleVictorian writerssuchasGeorgeEliot,MrsGaskell,andMargaretOliphant havenotbeenextensivelydiscussedintermsoftheirrelationshipwith theProdigalSon,butthisbookwillarguethatthereisacommonthread ofinterestinthesenovelsinthecompetingthemesofresponsibilityand innovationwhichtheparableexplores.Similarly, ‘ministersinliterature’ isnotawell-establishedliterarycategory,butthisbookwillsuggestthat theappearanceofclericalcharactersinnineteenth-totwenty-firstcentury fictionhighlightsthecontrastbetweenlostnessandfoundness whichiscentraltotheparable.Finally,thereisatraditioninpoetryof appealingdirectlytotheparable,andreworkingitfromavarietyof perspectives.Theworkoftwotwentieth-centurypoets,Elizabeth BishopandIainCrichtonSmith,isconsideredhere,includingboth theirpoemswhichexplicitlyrefertotheparable,andthosewhichappeal moreobliquelytoitsthemeofhomecoming.Ofcoursethereareother periodsandgenreswhichmighthavebeenincluded,6 butthosechosen
considerablyexpandedtocovertheliteratureofthepasttwenty-fiveyears.Mikeal C.Parsonsoffersanoverviewoftheappearancesoftheparable’solderbrotherin artandliterature,in ‘TheProdigal’sElderBrother:TheHistoryandEthicsof ReadingLuke :– ’ , PerspectivesinReligiousStudies ():pp. –. ManfredSiebald,in DerverloreneSohninderamerikanischenLiteratur (Heidelberg: UniversitätsverlagWinter, ),focusesontheinfluenceoftheparablein Americanliterature.
6 SuchasAmericandramafromthe stothe s,whichGeoffrey S.Proehlconsidersinilluminatingdepthinhis ComingHomeAgain:American FamilyDramaandtheFigureoftheProdigal (Cranbury,NJ:AssociatedUniversity Presses,Inc., ),andwhichLeahHadomiexploresin TheHomecomingTheme inModernDrama:TheReturnoftheProdigal (Lewiston:TheEdwardMellen Press, ).Whiletheplayswillnotbeconsideredindetailhere,theseliterary criticalapproacheswillbecontrastedwithmoretraditionalreceptionhistoryfrom withinthe fieldofbiblicalstudies. ReadingtheProdigalSon
herehighlightsomethingoftherangeofpossibilitiesopenedupby literaryengagementwiththeparable,particularlyaroundthegeneral themeofthepossibilityofreturntothepast.
Inthisintroductorychapter,someofthereadingsoftheparable fromtheperspectiveofbiblicalstudieswillbeexplored,takinginto accountthereconstructedhistoricalcontextoftheparableinthelife ofJesus,anditsliterarycontextwithintheGospelofLuke,aswell asreadingsfromareception-historypointofview.Littleorno backgroundinbiblicalstudieswillbepresumed.Readingsfromthe perspectiveofliterarystudieswillalsobeoffered,andthecontrast betweenthetwodiscussed.Theaimwillbetoassessthevaluetoboth fieldsofanengageddialoguebetweentheapproaches.Itisonthis foundationthatthesignificanceofspecificreconfigurationsofthe ProdigalSonandhisstoryinliteratureinEnglishmaybeassessed.
ForKlyneSnodgrass,whosemagisterialvolumeontheparablesof Jesusdealsinminutedetailwitheveryaspectofthesebiblicalstories, theparableoftheProdigalSonisa ‘two-stage,doubleindirectnarrativeparable’.Hegoesonthat ‘theparableitselfisrelativelystraightforward[althoughw]hatscholarsoftendototheparableisnot’ . 7 The storyisfoundonlyintheGospelofLuke,andisthethirdofthree parablesinthesamechapterconnectedbythethemeofthingsthatare lostandthenfound: firstthesheep(Luke :–);thenthecoin (:–);and finallytheson(:–).Intermsofthewider storyoftheGospel,allthreeareapparentlytoldbyJesusinresponse tothePhariseesandscribes,whoare ‘grumbling’ athisacceptanceof ‘sinners’ and ‘taxcollectors’ (:–).8
Theparableitselfinvolvesthreemain,butunnamed,characters. Afather’syoungersonasksforhisinheritance,sothefathersplitshis propertybetweenhistwosons.Theyoungersontakeshissharetoa farawayplace,wherehesquandersit.Whenfaminehitstheland,heis reducedtotakingajobfeedingalocalman’spigs,andtolongingfor
7 Snodgrass, StorieswithIntent,p. .
8 Unlessotherwisestated,inthischapterallbiblicalquotationsarefromthe NewRevisedStandardVersion.Inlaterchapters,itistheKingJamesVersionof theBiblewhichisquoted,unlessotherwisestated.ItistheKJVwhichhashadthe mostinfluenceontheliterarytextsunderdiscussion.
thefoodtheyaregiven.Indireneed,hehasachangeofheartand hatchesaplantoreturnhomeandasktobegivenapositionasa servantofhisfather.Hesetsofftocarryouthisplan,buthisfather runstogreethimbeforehecandeclarehisintentions.Hisfather embraceshimandcallsforarobe,sandals,andaringtobebrought, andafeasttobeprepared,tocelebratehisson’sreturn.
Theactionthenmovestoanearby field,wheretheoldersonhas beenworking.Hehearstheparty,andasksaservantwhatisthe occasionforthecelebration.Whenitisexplainedtohim,heisangry andrefusestojoinin.Hisfathercomesouttospeaktohim,andthey exchangeheatedwords.Theoldersonexpresseshisfrustrationand jealousyatthetreatmentgiventohisbrother,who,inhisview,does notdeservetoberewarded,whilehishardworkhasgoneunremarked. Thefatheroffershimreassuranceabouthisongoingstatus,butasserts thattherehadtobeaparty,becausehisbrother ‘wasdeadandhas cometolife;hewaslostandhasbeenfound’ (v. ).
Aswithmostparables,theactionandthecharacterizationis uncomplicated.Thescenesarefocusedondialoguesbetweentwoof themaincharacters:thereisnointeractionbetweenallthreeatanyone time.Thecharactersareidentifiedonlyintermsoftheirrelationships tooneanother,andtheyinhabitaresolutelymasculineworldinwhich mothersandsistersareeitherabsentorsilent.Theparableisunusual inthatitoffersanextendedperspectiveontheinnerlifeofoneofthe characters:inthiscase,oftheyoungerbrotherasheassesseshisdire situationandmentallypreparesawaytoreturnhome.9 The ‘ compassion’ ofthefatherandthe ‘ anger ’ oftheolderbrotherarealsomentionedalthoughnotelaborateduponintermsoftheirthoughts,only intermsoftheiractionsandwhattheysay.Theresponseofeitherson totheactionofthefatherisnotrevealedinthenarrative,andthis open-endednesshasperhapscontributedtotheparable’sattractionto exegetes,preachers,andartistsofallkinds.
9 Levine,in ShortStoriesbyJesus, p. ,notesthatthisinternaldebateisfound inthreeotherLukanparables(theRichFool(:);theDishonestManager (:)andtheUnjustJudge(:–)),andineachcase,theresultingactionis ‘morallyambiguous’.However,theparable’sinsistencethattheProdigalSon ‘ came tohimself ’ (v. )offersamorepositiveperspectiveonhisinternalstruggle.
TheProdigalSoninbiblicalstudies
Turningnowtotheinterpretationoftheparableinthe fieldofbiblical studies,weshouldnotethatthefocusofmuchconcerninmodern biblicalstudiesanditsreadingoftheparablesistoestablishmeaning incontext.Thatcontextmaybethereconstructedhistoricalministry ofJesus,ortheparable’ssettingintheGospelnarrative(s)inwhichitis retold.Incontrast,inthepre-modernperiod,thesearchformeaning generallytooktheformofallegoricalreadingswhichassignedsignificancefortheChurchorforpersonalfaithtoeachelementofthestory. Thecontextoftheparablewasoflittleinterestinthisendeavour.The parableoftheProdigalSonissuchawell-knownstorythatitisoften usedasatestcaseinhistoriesofparableinterpretation,andIwilldraw onone,whichdealsexplicitlywithreceptionsoftheparables,to flesh outsomethingoftherangeofreadingsfromthisperspective:David Gowler’ s TheParablesofJesus. 10
AsGowlerandothershavenoted,inearlyChristianinterpretations oftheparableoftheProdigalSon,thefatherinthenarrativeis universallyidentifiedwithGod,andthedifferencesofinterpretation focusontheallegoricalsignificanceofthetwobrothers.Gowler, followingTissot,11 separatesthesedifferentinterpretationsintofour categories.Inethicalreadings,theolderbrotheractsasasymbolofthe righteous,andtheyoungerbrotherisasymbolofallsinners:Jerome andClementofAlexandriaofferreadingswhichfollowthispattern.In ethnicreadings,theolderbrotherisassociatedwithIsrael,andthe youngerwiththeGentiles,whomightalsobeconsideredethically sinnersbecausetheyworshipidols.TertullianandAugustineareassociatedwithsuchreadings.Inpenitentialreadings,theolderbrother
10 DavidB.Gowler, TheParablesofJesus:TheirImaginativeReceptionsacross TwoMillennia (GrandRapids,Mich.:BakerAcademicPress, ),pp. –. IhaveusedtheparableoftheProdigalSonasasimilartestcaseinmy ‘“Forthose outside,everythingcomesinparables”:RecentReadingsoftheParablesfromthe Inside’ , TheExpositoryTimes (October ):pp. –. 11 YvesTissot, ‘PatristicAllegoriesoftheLukanParableoftheTwoSons,Luke .– ’,in ExegeticalProblemsofMethodandExercisesinReading(Genesis and Luke ),ed.FrançoisBovonandGrégoireRouiller(Pittsburgh:Pickwick, ), pp. –.
representsunmercifulChristianswhocannotbereconciledwith baptizedbelieverswhothereaftersinandthenrepent.JohnChrysostom isonesuchreader.Finally,inaverydifferentandspecializedcategory, gnosticizingreadingstaketheolderbrotherasasymbolofangels,and theyoungerasasymbolofhumanity.Anexampleofsuchareadingis foundintheworkofPseudo-Jerome.
Ineachcase,thedominanthermeneuticalconcerniswithissues contemporarytotheinterpreter.Theparableisreadforitsmeaningin thesettingoftheChurchofthetime,strugglingtounderstandits relationshiptoJudaism,ortothoseoutsidetheChurchwhomight repent,ortothosewithintheChurchwhohavefallenawayandseek toreturn.Alternativelyitilluminatedacosmicworldviewwithina gnosticizingtradition.Suchallegoricalreadingshadbegunasearlyas thetimeoftheGospelwriters,whoofferedinterpretationsofsomeof theparablesonwhichthechurchFathers’ readingsbuilt(e.g.theparable oftheSowerinMark :– andparallels).Whilethesereadingscame tobedownplayedbylaterbiblicalscholars,evenridiculedfortheirlack ofhistoricalsophisticationorfortheirimaginativeexcess,theprocessof allegorizationisanunderstandableresponsetothesortofliteraturethe parablesare,andthe figurallanguagetheyemploy. Itmightbearguedthatasimilarallegorizingprocesscontinuesin muchmodernpreachingoftheparable.MarshaG.Wittenstudiedthe actualsermonsofforty-sevenministersinthePresbyterianChurchof theUSAandintheSouthernBaptistConvention,whotookthe parableoftheProdigalSonastheirkeytext.12 Asinthereadingsof theearlychurchFathersandbeyond,thefatherintheparableisalmost exclusivelyidentifiedwithGodinthesesermons,withthecharacteristics ofthisfather-Godasthefocalpointintwo-thirdsofthesermons. WittenassessesthattheGod-figurehereisveryfarfromtheReformed viewofthetranscendentGodwhichmighthavebeenexpectedfrom thesepulpits.Instead,fromwithinthenarrativeoftheparable,God hastheveryhumantraitsofthe ‘daddy’ whoofferstheindividualsafety andsecurityinhisarms,andcelebrateswithoutjudgement.Asone preacherputsit, ‘That’swhatGodissayingtoyou.It’snot “Gotoyour
12 MarshaG.Witten, AllisForgiven:TheSecularMessageinAmericanProtestantism (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, ).
room ”.It’ s “Cometotheparty.”’13 Godmaybepresentedassuffering thelossofthesonverydeeply,andlovingthesonbeyondhuman comprehension.Evenwhenheispresentedasthejudge,thepurpose ofthetropeistomotivateanindividual’sresponse,ratherthanto condemn.Godhereistheinstrumentofreliefforthebeliever,rather thanatranscendent figurefromwhomhumanityisseparatedbytheir ownsin.
Theallegoricalreadingsofthesonsintheparableofferfurther insightintothewaycontemporaryconcernsinfluencethesepreacherly interpretations.WittenconcludesthatthepreachersfromtheSouthern Baptisttraditiontendedtofocusonthenegativeexampleoftheyounger son,andonthevisibleeffectofhistimeinthefarcountry,whichis identifiedasaplaceofseparationfromthepresenceofGod.The ProdigalSonasthe ‘LostChild’,whohasinnocentlywanderedoff thecorrectpath,isacommoncharacterization.Presbyterianpreachers, ontheotherhand,tendedtoemphasizethenegativeexampleofthe olderbrotherandtheinternal,psychologicaleffectofhisrefusaltojoin thecelebration.Theolderbrotherisoftenidentifiedashavingaclosed personality,andasbeinga figureforwhomempathyisdeserved.For both,Wittenargues,thereiswhatshecalls ‘therapeutictolerance’ inthe generalizedportrayalofsin:
Thisstanceattemptsbothtoaccountforthebrothers’ conductintermsthat arerelativelyvalue-free,andtounderstand,andempathisewith,thehurtsthe brothersaresaidtocausethemselvesthroughtheirmisguidedactions.In doingso,thesermonspositionthelisteners(whoareinvitedtoidentifywith thebrothers’ actions,especiallywiththoseoftheolderbrother)asvicarious clientsinamasssessionofRogeriantherapy,asthetalkdisplaysastyleof therapeuticwarmth,acceptance,andtolerance.14
ForWitten,thisrepresentsaturningawayfromtraditionalReformed theologicalassumptionsaboutthedepravityofhumannature,andisa signofculturalpluralism,acceptingratherthanjudgingthedifferences ofothers.Theemphasisisonhumanagencyreachingforself-realization ratherthanonthegraceofGodtobringabouttransformation. ‘Conversionisportrayedfarlessastheneedtograpplewithsin-nature thanasareorientationofone’spsychologytowardthecreationofaclose
interpersonalrelationshipwithGod,’ 15 usingthepsychological strengthswithwhicheachindividualisendowed.Inmanyofthe sermonssurveyedinthisstudy,atleast,themaincharactersinthe parableare fi rmlyallegorizedintermsofthecontrastingpsychological naturesofmodernhumanityandtheirspeci fi cneedforaverytherapeutic,understandingGod.
Witten’sworkisaproductofreflectiononpreachingintwochurch contextsinthelate s,andcurrentpreachingpracticesmightbe expectedtobedifferenttoday.Theallegorizationoftheparablein thesesermonsfocusesonthethreemaincharacters,anddoesnot extendtoincludeotherdetailsinthestorywhichtheinterpretation ofthechurchFatherstendedtowards.However,herconclusions highlighttheopennessoftheparabletoreconfigurationinways whichmightbeidentifiedasdefyingtheologicalandhistoricalexpectation,butwhichspeaktocurrentconcerns.
Aswehaveestablished,interpretationsfromthechurchFathers, andthosefromahomileticperspective,havetendedtowardsallegorization,whichattemptstodiscovertheuniversal,divinemeaningsofa parable,althoughrootedincontemporaryconcerns.However,more recent,scholarlyreadingsofparableshavefocusedontheirmeanings intheirhistoricalsettings,eitherinthereconstructedministryofJesus, orintheearlyChurchasrepresentedbytheGospels.Here,thework ofStephenI.Wrightoffersameasuredandconcisesummaryofsome ofthehistoricaloptions.16
ForWright,nineteenth-centuryinterpreterssuchasAdolfJülicher pursuedahistoricalquesttoreadtheparablesassimilesratherthan allegorieswhichexpressoneuniversalrealityabouttherelationship betweenGodandhumanity.17 Eachelementofthestorydidnotneed tobeexplainedtheologically.CommentatorssuchasJülicherassumed Jesuswasamanofparticularinsightabouteternalanddivinetruths, whicheventheGospelwritersdidnotunderstand.Intermsofthe
15 Witten, AllisForgiven,pp. –
16 StephenI.Wright, TheVoiceofJesus:StudiesintheInterpretationofSixGospel Parables (Eugene,Ore.:Wipf&Stock, ).
17 AdolfJülicher, DieGleichnisredenJesu, vols(Freiburgi.B.:J.C.Mohr, , );reprintinonevol.(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, ).
ProdigalSon,suchareadingdisregardsthepositioningoftheparable inLuke,andexplorestheparableasanarrativerenderingofthe readinessofamercifulGodtowelcomethesinnerwhoreturns,ina waywhichdoesnotneglectjustice.Itassumesthattheoldersonaccepts theargumentofthefather,thathehasnotbeentreatedunjustly,and thatGod’swillingnesstoforgiveextendstoallwhorepent.
Laterreadingsinthistraditionhavebeenmoreopentotheelasticity oftheparablesasmetaphorsratherthansimiles,buthavecontinuedto attempttoworkoutwhatJesusmeantwhenhetoldparablessuchas theparableoftheProdigalSon.WrightofferstheworkofBernard BrandonScottasonerepresentativeofsuchanattempt.18 Scott’ s interestisinthewayJesusmighthavebeenheardbyhis firstreaders, butofcoursethisinvolvesliftingtheparableoutofitscontextin Luke’sGospel,andintosomethingapproachingtheconsciousnessof Jesushimself.ForScott,theparableisametaphorofferingnewinsight intothekingdomofGod.Andwherethemetaphorengagesmost deeplyisinthefather’scomingouttomeetthetwosons.Scott assumesthatthereisanappealtothewidercontextoftheHebrew Biblehere,inwhichthereisatraditionofGodfavouringtheyounger son:ashedoeswithCainandAbel,IshmaelandIsaac,andEsauand Jacob.However,theunexpectedtwististhatthefatherintheparable alsoreachesouttotheolderbrother.Allaredrawnintothekingdom ofGodwhichJesusproclaims,althoughtheactionrequiredofeither son(andthereader)toreceivethisacceptanceisnotclearlyarticulated. Theparablereversesexpectationsandleavesitsoriginalreaderina stateofsurprise,opentonewpossibilitiesaboutwhatthekingdomof Godmightmeanforthem,andaboutthenatureofJesus’ ministry. Mostimportantly,suchareadingassumesthatthefatherispresented,andunderstood,asapositive figureinthenarrative.Incontrast,RichardL.Rohrbaughalsotakestheoriginalcontextofthe tellingoftheparableseriously,butsuggeststhereisanidentifiable critiqueofthefatherimplicitinthestory.19 Forhim,inthecontextof
18 See,forexample,BernardBrandonScott, ReimaginetheWorld:AnIntroductiontotheParablesofJesus (SantaRosa,Calif.:PolebridgePress, ).
19 RichardL.Rohrbaugh, ‘ADysfunctionalFamilyanditsNeighbours(Luke :b–)’,in JesusandhisParables,ed.V.GeorgeShillington(Edinburgh:T&T Clark, ),pp. –.
thetime,thefather’sagreeingtosplitupthefamily’slandrepresents grossweaknessandstupiditywhichwouldhaveprovokedtheoutrage ofthevillage:aswouldtheson’srequest.Thefatherisforcedpublicly toreceivetheProdigalhome,andtoofferafeasttothevillagers,to preventacommunityuprisingagainsthisson’sattempttoreturn.The fatherthenhastopleadwithhisoldersontojointheparty,andto demonstratereconciliation,asthevillagershavedonebytakingpart. Theparableportraysadysfunctionalfamilystrugglingwithissuesof proprietyandshame.ForRohrbaugh,theparablepromotesamessage ofreconciliation,perhapsoriginallydirectedtowardsJesus’ quarrelsomedisciples.Ifthereisareligiousmessage,itisthatthekingdom’ s prioritiesarenotprudenceandpropriety,butcommunity-building whichgoesbeyonddutyandexpectation.Asmanycriticsofthis sociologicalapproachhavecommented,however,theextentofthe roleofthevillagersinthisreadingisstrainedbeyondthenarrativeof theparable.Moreover,the ‘pay-off ’ intermsofthesignificanceofthe parableintheministryofJesusandbeyondissomewhatunderstated. Rohrbaughisnotaloneinquestioningtheactionsofthefatherand theeasyidentificationofhimwithGod.AsAmy-JillLevinecomments, ‘Theyoungerson’sactionsmayreflectnegativelyonhisfather; byfailingtodisciplinehissonandacquiescingtohisdishonourable request,thefathermaybeseenascomplicitinhisson’sdebauchery.’20 Shegoesontocomparetheexpectationsforthosewhoaretobe appointedeldersinTitus : withthecharacterrepresentedhere:the childrenofsucheldersshouldbe ‘believers,notaccusedofdebauchery, andnotrebellious’.ShepartscompanywithRohrbaugh,however,in hisdepictionofthefamily’sJewishneighbourswhocannotwaitto exactrevengeontheshame-bringingson,suggestingthisis ‘exegesis giv[ing]waytostereotypeatbest’ . 21 Shealsoemphasizestherangeof Jewishtextswhichsuggestthatthefather’sresponsetothereturnofhis sonisfarfromatypical,andquestionsareadingoftheparablewhich creditsthenarratorJesuswithpresentinganewreligion.Forher,the father’ s ‘fault’ isinlosingsightoftheblamelessbutalienatedolderson, whomhehastogoandsearchout,astheshepherdandthewomanhad intheparablesearlierinthechapter.Intheparable,thefatherseeksto
20
rectifythis,withnopromiseofresponse(fromeitherson,asaclose readingconfirms):andthestorysitscomfortablywithinaJewish rabbinictradition.Thismovementtowardsreconciliationisimplicitly condoned,butthereneedbenoeasyorrevelatoryidentificationofthe fatherwiththeGodofJesusandhis firsthearers,orofRohrbaugh’ s invisiblevillagerswiththeJewishagriculturalsocietyoftheday.
Wrightdiscussesseveralmorereadingsfromthecontextinwhich theparablewas firsttold,andSnodgrassisevenmorecomprehensive.22 Mostattempttoexplainthekeynarrativeinterestintheparable,which isinthecontradictionbetweenexpectationsofjusticeandtheforceof familytieswhich,formost,naturallytendtowardsreconciliation.For Wright,boththefatherandtheolderbrotherarepresentedashaving validpoints,oneoneachsideofthedebatebetweenjusticeandcompassion.However,bygivingthefatherthelastword,theparable indicatesthatthereadershouldbeaffirmediftheychoosetoapplaud hisactions.WrightarguesthattheparableembodiesGod’scompassion forhiswaywardchildren.AstheJesusSeminar,initsRedLetter EditionoftheparablesofJesus,hadnoted,theparabledemonstrates theexaggerationsandhyperbolewhicharearegularfeatureofJesus’ parables,andfewcommentatorssuggestthatthisparabledidnot originateinJesus’ ministry.23 Wright’sconclusionrepresentsacritical consensusabouttheoriginalmeaningoftheparable,buthealsowants toprotectthegenerativepoweroftheparabletomeanmorethanthisin differentcontexts.Thisprocessisunderpinnedbythehistoryofthe parable’sreception,whichexertsitsownhermeneuticalpullonlater readings.ThewriteroftheGospelofLukeisonesuchinfluential interpreteroftheparable,andWright’sreadingoftheroleoftheparable inthatwidersettingisinstructive.
WrightarguesthatLuke’slargerstoryaboutJesusshedslighton theshorterstorieshisJesusispresentedastelling,andviceversa: ‘thegospelstory causes theparables,whiletheparablesbringthegospel toexpression.’24 Thereisametonymicrelationshipbetweentheparable andtheGospel.Initswidestandmostgeneralsetting,theparableof
22 SeeSnodgrass, StorieswithIntent,pp.
23 RobertW.Funk,BernardBrandonScott,andJamesR.Butts, TheParablesof Jesus:RedLetterEdition (Sonoma,Calif.:PolebridgePress, ),p.
24 Wright, TheVoiceofJesus,p. .
ReadingtheProdigalSon
theProdigalSondramatizesthereversalsandthedemandforan obedientresponsewhichrunsthroughtheGospel,beginningwith Mary’ssonginLuke .Thehungryarefed,humilityisrewarded, andtherichareturnedawayempty:thereaderisinvitedintheGospel, asintheparable,toidentifywithoneofthesecategories.Withexegeticalcare,Wrightthenexplores fivethemeswhichinteractinboth theGospelandtheparable:wealthandpoverty;celebrationand friendship;compassionandmercy;humiliationandexaltation.Some ofthesethemesarepickedupbythereadingsoftheparablefroma literaryperspective,andwillbereturnedtothen.Two,wealthand poverty,andlifeanddeath,willbeconsideredhere.
Wrightnotesthattheword ‘life’,repeatedinverses and ,hasan economicconnotation:itisthefather’ s ‘living’ whichhasbeendivided, anditistheProdigalSon’smeansoflifewhichhasbeeneatenupby harlots,accordingtohisolderbrother.TheProdigal’ssinmayberead ashisabuseofthefamily’spresumablyconsiderableassets.Heis motivatedtoreturnfromaplaceofeconomicdespairbytheknowledge thattheservantshavemorethanenoughtoeatathome.SuchabundanceisnotasininLuke’sGospel,buttoabusesuchresourcesmost certainlyis,assuggestedintheparableoftheRichFoolinLuke :– and,arguably,intheparableoftheUnjustStewardin Luke :–.WrightassociatestheProdigalSon’sabuseofhis resourceswiththegreedandoppressionofthePharisees,who,in :,aredescribedaslovingmoney.Usuallyitistheolderbrother inthisparablewhoisassociatedwiththePharisees,butWright suggeststhattheeconomicundercurrenthere,inthewidercontextof theGospel,mightindicatethatthefather’sresponsetotheProdigal Son’ sprofligacyrepresentsanappealtothegreedy.Suchanappeal includesofferingawaytoreturntoeconomicandtheologicalequilibriumwhichisbasedoncompassionandforgiveness.
Underthethemeoflifeanddeath,Wrightfocusesontherepetition ofthewordin : and :, torefertodeathas ‘perishing’:the ProdigalSonassertstohimselfthatheisstarvingtodeath(‘perishing’) inthefarcountry;andthefathertwicerejoicesthathissonwaslost (‘perished’)andisnowfound.Thesamewordisfoundintheparable ofthelostsheep,andtwiceinthepassageinLuke :–,inwhich theneedforimminentrepentanceisasserted,if ‘perishing’ istobe avoided.AttheendofthestoryaboutZacchaeus,Jesusmakesa
claimabouthisministry,whichisto ‘seekandtosavewhatislost (“perishing”)’ (Luke :).ThefatetowhichtheProdigalSonnearly succumbsisconnectedwiththewiderlackofpenitenceamongstJesus’ hearers.Thestakesarehighandconcerntheireternalfate.The urgencythisinjectsintotheparablereflectsthepreachingofJesus whichdemandsaresponsebothfromhisoriginalhearersandfrom laterreadersoftheGospel.Thereisaneschatologicaledgetothis readingoftheparablewithinitsGospelcontext.
NotallcommentatorswouldreadtheparableoftheProdigalSonas apresentationoftheGospelinminiature.25 However,Wrighthas arguedeffectivelythatthemesprominentwithinLuke’sGospel,such asreversaloffortunesinitiatedbyGod’sgrace,andtheinsistenceof Jesus’ calltorepentance,arereflectedintheparable.Andinthat reflection,thethemesaredevelopedintheexemplarybut fluidway thecharactersembodythewiderministryandteachingofLuke’sJesus. Suchareadinginvolvesconnotationandallusionratherthanallegory, andleavesopenthepossibilityofmultipleassociations.TheProdigal SonmaybeidentifiedmetonymicallywiththePhariseesintheir misuseofmoney,butalsowithJesus’ generalhearersintheGospel whorecognizetheirimminentneedtorepentorperish.Itisleftopen forlaterreadersto findmoreassociationswiththelargerGospelstory thanLukemayhaveintended,dependingonthewaytheyhavebeen influencedbythehistoryoftheparable’sreception,amongother factors.However,WrightbeginsfromthepremisethatLukeoffersa recon figurationoftheparablewithinhisnarrativewhichaddslayersof significancebeyondthatwhichisonthesurface.
A finalareaofinterestintheparablewithinbiblicalstudiesliesinits receptionhistory.DavidGowlerhaspublishedmostrecentlyonthis aspectofparableresearch,motivatedbythebeliefthat findinganalogiesbetweentextsleadstodeeperreflectionontheirhermeneutical possibilities,andareductioninthelimitingbiasesofindividual interpretations.He findsaquotationfromBakhtinausefulguide:
25 See,forexample,Snodgrass, StorieswithIntent,pp. –.GeraintVaughn Jones(TheArtandTruthoftheParables:AStudyintheirLiteraryFormandModern Interpretation (London:SPCK, ),p. )isequallyadamantthatthereisno needtointroducenotionsofvicariousatonementintotheparable.
Truthisnotbornnorisittobefoundinsidetheheadofanindividualperson, itisbornbetweenpeoplecollectivelysearchingfortruth,intheprocessoftheir dialogicinteraction.26
Suchaperspectivereadsparablesasriddleswithananswertobe discovered,andreadsworksofliteraturewhichalludetoparablesas rewardingthereaderwithnewinsightsintotheearliertext.For Gowler, ‘truth’ hasa fixedquality,anditisimportantforhimtoassert thatnoteveryinterpretationisofequalvalueorsignificance: ‘ even dialogicnarrativeslikeparablesprovidebuoysinthechannelofinterpretationthatencourageinterpreterstonavigatewithincertainboundariesofreadings.’27 Heaffirms,amongothers,Calvin’sconcernabout thedouble-edgednatureofparabolicdiscourse.ForCalvin,parables derivetheirrhetoricaleffectandpowerfromtheirindirection,particularlyfortheelect,buttheirobscuritymayalsoleadfallible,andreprobate, humanityintodarkandobscureplaces.28 Nevertheless,forGowler, engagingintheinterpretationofothers,invariousmedia,isaworthwhile exerciseasit ‘canmakeone’sowninterpretationsmorecogentandmore comprehensive’ . 29
Thereisafunctionalaspecttothisforayintothereceptionhistoryof theparableswhichapproachesboththeparablesandthelaterworksas meanstogettingclosertoanundefined ‘truth’.Thistruthishidden withinorbehindtheparable,andthelatertextoffersadditionalclues totheparableinterpreter-as-detective.Inpractice,thisinvolvessetting thelatertextinitsreligiousandculturalcontextandthenidentifying andbrieflyanalysingtheelementsoftheparablewhicharereflected there,lookingforwaysinwhichthelatertextaddstoanunderstandingoftheparable.Theselatertextswillhaveanexplicitconnection withtheparable,ratherthananimplicitone.GowlerusestheProdigal Sonasanexampleinhisintroductionandattemptstocategorizesome
26 MikhailBakhtin, TheProblemofDostoevsky’sPoetics,trans.CarylEmerson (Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress, ),p. ,quotedinGowler, TheParablesafterJesus,p. .
27 Gowler, TheParablesafterJesus,p.
28 Gowler, TheParablesafterJesus,pp. , ,quotingJohnCalvin, AHarmony oftheGospelsMatthew,MarkandLuke,trans.A.W.Morrisonand T.H.L.Parker,vol. : Calvin’sNewTestamentCommentaries:ANewTranslation (GrandRapids,Mich.:Eerdmans, ),pp. ,
29 Gowler, TheParablesafterJesus,p. .
oftheresponseshediscussesintextssuchasthemusical Godspell and JamesWeldonJohnson’ spoem ‘TheProdigalSon’:itisnoted,for example,thattheolderbrothertendstobeeitherignored,oridentified withtheJews,orwithself-righteousChristiansincontrasttothe repentantsinnerswhoreturn.Afurthercategorizationismadewithin thethirdstrand,notingtherearesometextswhichofferareconciliationscenebetweenthebrothers,goingbeyondtheconfinesofthe parable;30 andthereareothersinwhichthewriter/artistself-identifies withtheyoungerson.31 Generally,suchdrawingtogetherorsurveying oftrendsintheinterpretationofother,individualparablesisnot possiblegiventhediachronicratherthanthematicarrangementof Gowler’sbook.However,inhisconclusion,Gowleremphasizesfurtherhismotivationforexploringthereceptionoftheparables:itisto increaseunderstandingthatleadstoactiononthepartofthereader. Gowler’sapproachtothereceptionhistoryofparableshighlights somethingdistinctiveandrelativelycommonaboutthestatusofthe parablesinthe fieldofbiblicalstudies,andperhapsabouttheProdigal Soninparticular.32 Theyarereadforwhattheycanrevealabouttruths beyondthemselves.Thatmightbeabouttheministryofthehistorical Jesus;orthetheologyoftheGospelwriters;orabouttheongoingforce ofscriptureasrevelation.TheProdigalSonhaslittlepurposebeyond servingthenarrowworldofbiblicalhistoryandtheology.Hisexistence intheworldofliterarystudies,however,ismuchlessconstrainedthanit isinbiblicalstudies.Twomonographswerewritteninthe swhich extensivelyexploretherelationshipbetweentheparableandtwentiethcenturyAmericandrama:LeahHadomi’ s TheHomecomingThemein ModernDrama andGeoffreyS.Proehl’ s ComingHomeAgain.Neither ismentionedinSnodgrass’scomprehensivestudyoftheparable,orin
30 Theexampleoftheplay/film Godspell isofferedasportrayingtheolder brotherjoiningtheparty,inresponsetothefather’spleas(Gowler, TheParables afterJesus,p. ).
31 Rembrandt’smultiplepaintingsoftheparable,itissuggested,represent hisidentificationwiththeProdigalSonatvariouspointsinhislife(Gowler, TheParablesafterJesus,p. ).
32 ThatGowler’sapproachsits firmlywithinthewider fieldofbiblicalstudiesis suggestedbythewaySnodgrasspraisesGowler’sbookforencouragingreadersto ‘wrestlewithhermeneuticalissuesrelativetotheparables’ andforemphasizingthat ‘parablesdemandthathearersrespond’ (StorieswithIntent,p. ).
Gowler’sworkonitsreceptionhistory.Themonographsthemselves referonlytoanarrowrangeofinterpretationsinbiblicalstudies,suchas J.D.CrossaninHadomi’sbook,33 andJ.DuncanM.Derrett’sarticle onLawintheparableinProehl’ s. 34 HadomiandProehl’sinsightsinto thereconfigurationoftheProdigalSon,however,offeranilluminating contrastwiththepreoccupationsofbiblicalstudies.
TheProdigalSoninliterarystudies
BothHadomiandProehllifttheparableoutoftheworldofitsoriginal settingandfocusonitsarchetypal,analogicalpower.Ratherthan pointingtothebenevolenceofGod,forHadomi,theparablemaybe readas ‘ananalogyforman’seternalstrife,his fightagainstsinandhis attempttoreturntoinnocence’ . 35 ForProehl,theparableisan ‘instance ofanarrativestructurethatpredatesitsappearanceinthebiblicaltext,a structure[Abrams]describesas “oneofthemostpersistentofthe orderingdesignsbywhichmenhavetriedtocometotermswiththeir natureanddestiny”’ . 36 Emphasizingtheopennessofthestructureofthe parableoftheProdigalSontosubstitutions,anditscircularjourney fromunity,separation,andbacktounity,Abramsreadsitas: thattypeofthejourneyofallmankindoutofandbacktowarditsoriginal home;...frequentlyconflatedwiththeapocalypticmarriagethatsignalizedthe restorationofEdenintheBookofRevelation.Accordingly,theyearningfor fulfilmentissometimesexpressedas Heimweh,thehomesicknessforthefather ormotherandforthelostshelteredplace;orelseasthedesireforafemale figure whoturnsouttobethebelovedwehaveleftbehind;orsometimes,disconcertingly,thedesireforfather,mother,home,andbrideallinone.37
33 HadomirefersbrieflytoCrossan’sexplorationofthepolyvalentparadoxof thewelcomegiventotheProdigalandthelackofconcernaboutthedutifulsonin ‘AMetamodelforPolyvalentNarration’ , Semeia ():pp. –.
34 J.DuncanM.Derrett, ‘LawintheNewTestament:TheParableofthe ProdigalSon’ , NewTestamentStudies ():pp. –.
35 Hadomi, TheHomecomingThemeinModernDrama,p.
36 Proehl, ComingHomeAgain,p. ,quotingM.H.Abrams, NaturalSupernaturalism:TraditionandRevolutioninRomanticLiterature (NewYork:Norton, ),p. .
37 Abrams, NaturalSupernaturalism,p. ,quotedinProehl, ComingHome Again,p. .
