 |
| Out celebrating my 200th "A Chorus of Voices" blog post |
This post
is my 200th post for this blog (I began the blog on December 9, 2013). The blog occupies a very small niche (reception history of the parables)
within a small niche (reception history of the Bible) in scholarship, but it
has proved to be very helpful to a number of people, including me. Writing the
blog has helped me refine what I write and how I write in the book. Blogspot
tells me that this blog has been accessed in at least 110 countries, which I
find both surprising and gratifying. I hope the blog continues to be helpful as
I come to the “home stretch” of writing the book. I will post more details
about my progress on the book later this week
This post,
however, focuses on a chapter I am writing for a forthcoming book on
characterization in Luke, which is a return of sorts for me, since my first
published articles and book concerned characterization in Luke (I started
working on that topic in 1987 or so). Since I focus on how characterization in the Prodigal Son parable has been received in various ways over the centuries, the chapter is an appropriate topic to mention here:
“The
Characterization of the Two Brothers in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke
15:11-32): Their Function and Afterlives,” in Characters and Characterization in Luke-Acts. Edited by Frank
Dicken and Julia Snyder. London: Bloomsbury, forthcoming, 2016.
The chapter
is supposed to be 6000 words and, as always, I am way over the word count in
the first and second drafts. Only 2000 more words to cut, and I am done (It was
originally over 10,000 words)!
Here is an
outline of the chapter so far:
I. Introduction
The parable of the Prodigal Son has fascinated
interpreters over the centuries more than any other parable of Jesus. The
characterizations of the father and his two sons are subtly fascinating; they
invite investigation and leave readers mulling over the possibilities inherent
in their portrayals.
People tend to identify with—or
be identified by others—as one of the two sons in parable, with almost all
interpreters assuming that the father in the parable symbolizes the loving and
forgiving God of the Christian Gospel, since in the Lukan narrative, the
father’s words and actions mirror God’s words and actions.
Responses to the parable,
however, are generated primarily by the compelling and almost universal themes
the parable evokes, such as conflicts between older and younger generations,
including thankless or rebellious children; rivalries between siblings; the
relationship between justice, love, and mercy; and the loss and restoration of
community or family.
In addition, the parable is
famously open-ended: Readers/hearers do not know whether the elder son relents
and joins the celebration. What some interpreters fail to realize, however, is
that the characterization of the younger son is also ambiguous: Readers/hearers
are not told for certain whether the younger son actually repents or whether,
similar to when he initially asked for his inheritance, he plays his father for
a fool. The contexts—both biblical and Lukan—raise significant questions about
his motives and sincerity.
II. The Function of
the Two Brothers in the Gospel of Luke
Over twenty-five years ago, I developed a model for
analyzing the process of characterization. I developed this model from literary
theorists, applied it first to examples in modern literature, and then modified
it for biblical studies by adapting the model to ancient literature. Finally, I
used this model for character analysis on a test case: the portrayal of the
Pharisees in Luke-Acts. The development and application of this model can be
found in the 1991 book, Host, Guest,
Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts.
I subsequently refined this model and have great
appreciation for recent advances in the study of characterization in Luke-Acts
(e.g., by Cornelius Bennema). My own conclusions about the characterization of
the Pharisees in Luke-Acts, I believe, have proved to be correct, including the
analysis of the Prodigal Son parable.
Therefore, this essay does reprise those arguments. Instead,
it explains briefly the function of the two brothers in the narrative of
Luke-Acts and then focuses on selected examples of the afterlives of the
brothers over the succeeding centuries in art, drama, and music to demonstrate
the power of Luke’s characterization of the two brothers.
The Gospel of Luke provides us with the first “reception” of
the parable. All three “Lost” parables—the Lost Coin, Sheep, and Son—virtually
become mise en abymes in which the
Lukan Jesus welcomes tax collectors and sinners and also entreats the Pharisees
and scribes to rejoice over the restoration of sinners. In brief, these three
parables perform two functions within Luke: the defense of Jesus’s ministry to
tax collectors and sinners and also a continuing call for the Pharisees and
scribes to join the communal celebration over the lost being found. Since Jesus
addresses these parables, the narrator informs us, to them, all three parables provide a powerful indirect presentation
of the Pharisees and scribes, as well as the tax collectors and sinners.
III. The Afterlives of
the Two Sons
The earliest interpretations of the parable fall into four
main categories: Gnosticizing, Ethical,
Ethnic, and Penitential interpretations (see Tissot 363-66). Such allegorical
interpretations extend into the Middle Ages. The ethnic interpretation
dominates medieval understandings of the parable, but the penitential readings
are prominent as well (e.g., Bonaventure).
Since the receptions of the Prodigal Son parable are so
extensive, I focus on a few examples drawn from art, drama, and music of two
impulses within the history of interpretation that stem directly from the
characterizations of the two sons: (a) self-identification with the younger son
and (b) assumed reconciliation between the two brothers. Although the parable
itself is unclear about whether the prodigal truly repents, Luke interprets it
as such, and this focus on penitence seems to be the foundation on which these
two responses build: a self-identification with the prodigal both before and
after repentance and—amidst an overwhelming neglect of the older brother—a
desire to see the two brothers and father reconcile. Both impulses primarily
stem from the penitential and ethical interpretations above, that of the
younger son symbolizing sinful Christians who fall away from their faith and
the need for other Christians to welcome them back.
John Chrysostom provides an early example of both these
tendencies in a letter written to his friend, Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Chrysostom believes that the prodigal son denotes Christians who have fallen
away from their faith and uses the return of the prodigal son as an example of
what Christians who have “fallen away after having believed” should do when
they also sin against God. Chrysostom thus effectively integrates the ethical
and penitential interpretations of the parable.
A. Self-identification with the Prodigal Son in Art
Albrecht Dürer
Rembrandt
Thomas Hart Benton
B. Reconciliation of the Two Brothers in Drama
Antonia Pulci
Godspell
C. Self-identification and Reconciliation of the Two
Brothers in Music
Romanos the Melodist
Blues music and “The Prodigal Son
pattern” (e.g., Robert Wilkins)
IV. Conclusion
No comments:
Post a Comment