An interlude before getting to the Greco-Roman contexts of parables.
While writing my current book project, What Do Parables Want?, I revisited an article by Callie Callon: Adulescentes and Meretrices: The Correlation between Squandered Patrimony and Prostitutes in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, CBQ 75 (2013) 259–78.
It is a delight to encounter articles that drastically alter or enhance one's understanding of a puzzling text, and Callon's article is an excellent example of scholarship that accomplishes that feat.
Skip down to the bold font below to get the main point.
In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the last section tells us that the older son had not yet been invited to the celebration of his brother's return, and, in fact, did not even know that his brother had returned: This “elder” (presbyteros) heard “music and dancing” and had to be informed what was happening by a slave boy (pais), who summarizes what had happened (cf. 15:23–24 and 15:27).
Surely this omission adds to readers’ sympathy for the older brother, since he, once again, seems to be slighted. The older son so far appears to be hardworking and loyal to his father (e.g., he was “in the field” working when his wayward brother returned), and now his share of the inheritance is a real concern: the return of the younger son and the celebration with a fatted calf surely meant that his own share of the inheritance was already being used to support the younger son.
[Deleted a bunch of other observations about the two sons and their father]
Once the older son appears on the stage, the parable begins to build a negative portrait of him. His refusal to enter the house and to engage in table fellowship insults his father, and the father has to come outside to plead with him—the Greek word plead can mean to invite, exhort, encourage, or comfort. Then the older son disrespectfully addresses his father without a title (even the younger son always uses the title, “father”; 15:12, 18, 21), states that he had “never disobeyed” his father’s commands (although, if true, he is rejecting his father’s entreaties now), and begins a litany of (exaggerated) complaints. He stresses his servitude to his father and complains about how his father had treated him (e.g., “me” in 15:29 is emphatic in Greek). He thus accuses his father of favoritism and attacks his younger brother by refusing any familial relationship with him—referring to him not as “my brother” but pejoratively as “this son of yours” (15:30)—and stressing and perhaps exaggerating the younger son’s failings. His claim that the younger son “devoured your living (bios) with prostitutes” (pornōn, which suggests a more negative translation than prostitute) might be questioned. How did the older son get that information, and is it accurate?
One option cogently argues by Callie Callon is that Luke uses a “stock trope” of squandered patrimony and prostitutes: Luke, in telling a story that featured prodigality, could also avail himself of one of the stereotypical features of prodigality common in Greco-Roman comedy: “expending one’s patrimony on love interests, particularly prostitutes.” This accusation’s purpose is to defame his brother in a way that might also seem humorous to the intended audience. Another common feature in such comedies is the restoration of the prodigal through his father’s forgiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment