1 Several monographs are devoted solely to the parable: Hauge, M. R., The Biblical Tour of Hell (NTL 485; London/ New York: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2013)Google Scholar; Lehtipuu, O., The Afterlife Imagery in Luke's Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (NovTSup 123; Leiden: Brill, 2007)Google Scholar; Hintzen, J., Verkündigung und Wahrnehmung: Über das Verhältnis von Evangelium und Leser am Beispiel Lk 16, 19-31 im Rahmen des lukanischen Doppelwerkes i (Frankfurt: Hain, 1991)Google Scholar. Among the many broad questions meriting attention are: if it is a parable at all; if it is possible to attribute any or all of it to the historical Jesus; if it refers to the resurrection of Jesus; if the story, in whole or in part, has been borrowed from some other source; if this Lazarus is to be equated somehow with the Lazarus in Bethany; if the description of the afterlife is intended to be normative for Christians; how one is to imagine ‘Abraham's bosom’ and how it could be within earshot of Hades; what the reason is for Lazarus' reward and the rich man's punishment; how this pericope relates to its immediate narrative context and other L parables; and what the central teaching of the parable is. For discussion and more questions still, see Bovon, F., Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51–19:27 (ed. Koester, H.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013) 473 Google Scholar; and Snodgrass, K. R., Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 419–20Google Scholar.

2 E.g. Jeremias, J.: ‘Lazarus is a cripple (ἐβέβλητο = r^eme = “thrown down, lying”), suffering from a skin-disease’ (The Parables of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963 ²) 183)Google Scholar; and Wenham, D.: ‘The Greek word literally means someone “thrown” down on the ground, suggesting that he was a cripple of some sort … the revolting description of the dogs licking his sores suggests that he may have been severely disabled and so unable to protect himself’ (The Parables of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989) 142–3)Google Scholar. The connection between being thrown and being crippled is unwarranted. It is perfectly possible to throw down people who are not crippled. There are two antithetical possibilities for the pluperfect passive ἐβέβλητο, either that Lazarus ‘had been laid’ at the rich man's gate or that he ‘had been hurled’. While there are far earlier examples (e.g. Homer, Il. 5.574), in late Greek (i.e. New Testament period) the sense of βάλλω in the passive voice lost the sense of ‘thrown’ or ‘hurled’ and entered the lexical range of ‘set’, ‘place’ or ‘lay’ (cf. Matt 4.18). The debate of its sense at Luke 16.20 has extended at least as far back as Jülicher and Godet ( Jülicher, A., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (2 vols; Freiburg im Breisgau: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1899) ii.619Google Scholar; Godet, F. L., A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke (trans. Shalders, E. W. and Cusin, M. D. (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889) ii.177Google Scholar). Both interpretations have strong scholarly support; however, the contextual clues added by the present study lean in the direction of ‘had been laid’.

3 For example, Herzog, W. R. II: ‘Lazarus is perpetually hungry, and in light of his skin condition, he is probably shunned as unclean’ (Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994) 118)Google Scholar. Herzog commendably devotes much space to a discussion of Lazarus' situation.

4 The most thorough treatment of Lazarus' wounds in a medical context is undertaken by A. Weissenrieder, whose impressive study is limited by the assumption that these are the same ἕλκη as those in the LXX levitical code ( Images of Illness in the Gospel of Luke (WUNT ii/164; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003 Google Scholar), especially 139–67). ἕλκος in the LXX generally refers to sores, rendering the Hebrew שׁחין; see however Prov 25.20 where it renders נתר (the problematic Hebrew is translated by the NRSV as ‘wound’).

5 A.-J. Levine takes a step in the right direction in unhitching ἕλκος in this parable from the purity concerns in the levitical code by considering extra-biblical texts, albeit in a cognate form (ἕλκωσις) and still from a ‘Jewish’ author (Josephus, A.J. 17.169; Ag. Ap. 2.143) ( Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi (New York: HarperOne, 2014) 281 Google Scholar). On biblical ‘leprosy’, see Baden, J. S. and Moss, C. R., ‘The Origin and Interpretation of Ṣāraʻat in Leviticus 13–14’, JBL 130 (2011) 643–62Google Scholar.

6 τῆς συνεχείας ἡ λύσις ἕλκος μὲν ἐν σαρκώδει μορίῳ, κάταγμα δὲ ἐν ὀστῷ καλεῖται.

7 Galen's variable use of ἕλκος is observable at Method of Medicine 4.238k, where he moves on from discussing what we would call ‘wounds’ to ‘ulcers’ without notice. See the editors' comment there: ‘“Ulcer” is now used instead of “wound” for helkos as the discussion has moved on to obviously chronic lesions' ( Johnston, I. and Horsley, G. H. R., eds. and trans., Galen: Method of Medicine, vol. i: Books 1–4 (LCL 516; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011) 361 n. 6Google Scholar).

8 BDAG, 317–18. This comment is absent from the German edition on which BDAG is based.

9 Trans. White, R. J., The Interpretation of Dreams: Oneirocritica by Artemidorus (Torrance, CA: Original Books, 1990)Google Scholar.

10 E.g. Philo, Joseph 160 (§27): καθάπερ ἣν ἰατρῶν παῖδες ὀνομάζουσιν ἑρπῆνα· καὶ γὰρ αὕτη πᾶσι τοῖς μέρεσιν ἐπιφοιτῶσα τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν ἡλκωμένων σωμάτων ὅλην δι’ ὅλων στοιχηδὸν πυρὸς τρόπον ἐπινέμεται (‘this resembles what the physicians call “creeping”, for it also spreads successively like a fire on the framework, bit by bit, to all parts of the whole lesioned body’).

11 E.g. Aristotle, Hist. an. 612a33–5: ὅταν ἑλκωθῇ τι μαχομένοις (‘when wounded from fighting’).

12 E.g. Plutarch, Adul. am. 73b: τὸν δάκτυλον ἡλκωμένον (literally, ‘a sore finger’).

13 Barth, K., ‘Miserable Lazarus (Text: Luke 16:19–31)’, Union Theological Seminary Review 46 (1934–5) 259–68, at 268Google Scholar.

14 Heil, J. P., The Meal Scenes in Luke-Acts: An Audience-Oriented Approach (SBLMS 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999) 138 Google Scholar. Virtually every scholarly comment on this detail assumes a negative view of the dogs. Since the nineteenth century only a few scholars allow for other views of the dogs, namely: Klein, H., Das Lukasevangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006) 553 Google Scholar; Levine, Short Stories, 258–60; Nolland, J., Luke 9:21–18:34 (WBC 35B; Dallas: Word Books, 1993) 828–29Google Scholar; Pax, E., ‘Der Reiche und der arme Lazarus: Eine Milieustudie’, SBFLA 25 (1975) 254–68, at 261Google Scholar; Trench, R. C., Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (New York: Appleton & Company, 1869) 374 Google Scholar; and Zahn, T., Das Evangelium des Lukas (Leipzig: Deichert, 1920; repr., Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1988) 584–5Google Scholar. Ambivalent are Cadbury, H. J., ‘Animals and Symbolism in Luke (Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts, IX),’ in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, ed. Aune, D. E. (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 3–15 Google Scholar; and Derrett, J. D. M., ‘Fresh Light on St Luke xvi, II Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding Sayings,’ NTS 7 (1960–61): 364–80, at 372CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 E. Firmage, ‘Zoology’, ABD iv.1143. A supposed contrast with modern sensibilities is made frequently, e.g. Bovon, Luke, 480.

16 O. Michel, ‘κύων’, TDNT iii.1103. Lest one think this a purely Protestant affair, see also McKenzie, J. L., ‘Dog’, Dictionary of the Bible (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965) 202 Google Scholar.

17 Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 620: ‘In dem Belecken der Wunden durch die Hunde findet man jetzt gerne eine Aeusserung ihres Mitgefühls; das wirkt als ein dramatischer Höhepunkt, wenn selbst die vernunftlosen Tiere den Schmerz eines elenden Menschen zu lindern sich bemühen. Aber als Genossen und Freunde des Menschen gelten dem Hebräer die Hunde nicht, er rechnet sie neben Füchsen und Schweinen zu den wilden Tieren.’

18 For the wake-up call on this issue in the Hebrew Bible, see Miller, G. D., ‘Attitudes toward Dogs in Ancient Israel: A Reassessment’, JSOT 32 (2008) 487–500 Google Scholar.

19 Occasionally a philological argument to support the negative view is advanced on the basis of the construction ἀλλὰ καί preceding οἱ κύνες (e.g. Hendrickx, H., The Parables of Jesus (London/San Francisco: G. Chapman/Harper & Row, 1986) 201 Google Scholar; and Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922 ⁵) 391 Google Scholar). On the contrary, as the discussion in BDF (§448) indicates, it must be context that decides whether ἀλλὰ καί is used progressively or contrastively. M. E. Thrall argues that it ‘must be regarded as progressive’; however, her argument is not philological, but based again on the presumption of the dogs as negative characters: ‘To regard καί as attached to οἱ κύνες with the meaning of “also” or “even” would make no sense, as no other agents of the poor man's misery have been specifically mentioned’ ( Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies (NTTS 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 14 Google Scholar). Following Thrall's logic, should the dogs be positive characters, giving them a special emphasis with these particles would make perfect sense. This construction is not discussed by Smyth ( Smyth, H. W., Greek Grammar (rev. Messing, G. M.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956)Google Scholar.

20 C. Franco's recent study offers a thorough and definitive treatment of the curious ways dogs seem to occupy antithetical positions in Ancient Greece – on the one hand used for insults, offensive epithets, euphemisms for sexual depravity and taboo eating habits, yet also admired, respected and praised (see the tribute from Columella below). Though Franco focuses on Greek sources, her reflections on method and her cross-cultural insights yield results equally relevant to Jews, especially during the Hellenistic and Roman periods ( Shameless: The Canine and the Feminine in Ancient Greece (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2014)Google Scholar).

21 This is not because the authors of the Pentateuch were unfamiliar with dogs. They appear twice in texts adjacent to or within legal material (Exod 11.7; 22.30).

22 In addition to Miller, ‘Attitudes toward Dogs’, see Brewer, D., Clark, T. and Phillips, A., Dogs in Antiquity: Anubis to Cerberus, the Origins of the Domestic Dog (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 2001)Google Scholar.

23 For plates, see Merlen, R. H. A., De Canibus: Dog and Hound in Antiquity (London: J. A. Allen, 1971)Google Scholar.

24 For dogs at Jericho, see Cansdale, G. S., Animals and Man (New York: Praeger, 1953) 121 Google Scholar. For the dogs at Ashkelon, which may number in the thousands, see Stager, L. E., ‘Why Were Hundreds of Dogs Buried at Ashkelon?’, BAR 17.3 (1991) 26–42 Google Scholar, especially 39–42, where the possibility that they are part of a healing cult is discussed.

25 Dogs appear in metaphors, similes and epithets, usually with negative connotations: Judg 7.5; 1 Sam 17.43; 24.15; 2 Sam 3.8; 9.8; 16.9; 2 Kings 8.13; Isa 66.3; Ps 59.7, 15; occasionally with specific reference to sexual taboo: Deut 23.19; possibly Phil 3.2 and Rev 22.15. They are frequently depicted interacting with dead bodies, especially eating them and drinking blood: 1 Kings 14.11; 16.4; 21.19, 23–4; 2 Kings 9.10, 36; 22.38; Jer 15.3; Ps 68.24; see also Ps 22.17, 21. Note in Ps 68.24 that the Israelites are owners of the dogs in some way. While it is clear that the dog is chosen to accentuate the extreme image of enemies being eaten by animals, this does not confer on dogs any particular connotation of ‘uncleanness’ different from a bear or lion doing the same action. Dogs are also frequently the subject of proverbs: Eccles 9.4; 2 Prov 26.11 // 2 Pet 2.22; Prov 26.17; Matt 7.6.

26 Dogs make cameos in various other late Second Temple works, e.g. 1 En. 89–90; 4QMMT B 8–9; 4Q306. MMT brings up dogs in the context of its austere regulations for Jerusalem. According to MMT, dogs should be forbidden from the city ‘since they may eat some of the bones from the Temple with flesh on them, for Jerusalem is the holy camp’. The logical connection between the clauses is not entirely clear, i.e. it is not obvious whether dogs are banned because they specifically are perceived as contaminants, or because the devoted foods are at general risk of violability with dogs having a particular reputation for stealing unguarded bones, or some combination thereof (cf. Exod 22.30, Jer 15.3 and Matt 7.6).

27 Bovon claims that even though Luke does not report the incident with the Syro-Phoenecian woman, he must have known it (Luke, 480). Derrett contends that first-century Palestinian palaces would have had guard dogs, though he cites no evidence (‘Fresh Light’, 372), and similarly Nolland claims without citation that ‘dogs were used as watch dogs and hunting dogs, and were even at times kept as domestic pets’ (Luke 9:21–18:34, 828–9).

28 כלב מין חיה׃ רבי מאייר אומר מין בהמה. Other possible mentions of domestic dogs include Ned. 4.3 and Ḥull. 4.2. The debate between Rabbi Jose and Rabbi Meir concerning the classification of the dog is further evidence for the liminal position of this animal discussed below.

29 As early as the Odyssey, the practice of bringing home a doggy bag for the pets is attested, ‘as when dogs fawn around their master as he comes from a feast, for he always brings them bits to delight their hearts’ (Homer, Od. 10.216–17 (trans. Murray, rev. Dimock, LCL)); the same tradition appears in some versions of the fable attested in Babrius, Fables 129 (LCL enumeration). Examples of dogs as house pets abound, see additionally Plato, Lysis 211e; Artemidorus, Onir. 2.11; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 13 (472D). For iconographic representations of pet dogs, see Hamilton, R., Choes and Anthesteria: Athenian Iconography and Ritual (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992) 84–111 Google Scholar; Busuttil, J., ‘The Maltese Dog’, GR 16 (1969) 205–8Google Scholar. For table dogs, see Xenophon, Mem. 2.7.13; Aesop, Fab. 283 (Hausrath's enumeration); Oppian, Cynegetica or The Chase 472–6. For iconographic evidence of dogs with their masters at table, see already the famous Eurytios Krater dating to about 600 bce, which depicts leashed dogs beneath the tables at a symposium.

30 For a similarly effusive contemporary of Luke, see Publius' praise of his lapdog, Issa, in Martial, Epigrams 1.109. Martial also describes Publius painting a picture of Issa.

31 Archbishop Trench observes that ‘medical virtue’ has been ascribed to dogs, though he cites only medieval evidence, the proverb Lingua canis dum lingit vulnas, curat, which first appears in the thirteenth-century Aberdeen Bestiary (folio 19v) (Trench, Notes on the Parables, 374). Similarly, K. E. Bailey notes that dogs are ascribed medical roles in the eleventh century by Ibn al-Tayyib, though Bailey continues to perpetuate the view that they are unclean ( Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008) 386 Google Scholar).

32 See also the famous example from Suetonius of Vespasian healing a blind man with his saliva (Vesp. 7.2–3).

33 Aune, D. E., ‘Magic in Early Christianity’, ANRW ii.23.2 (1980) 1507–57, at 1537–8Google Scholar.

34 ‘Lichens’ is apparently a superficial skin disease. See the note in Brock, A. J., ed. and trans., Galen: On the Natural Faculties (LCL 71; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916) 253 Google Scholar.

35 While knowledge of the medical application of saliva could be used to support the theory that the author of the Gospel of Luke was a physician, it is worth emphasising that this was not specialised knowledge. The belief in the healing properties of saliva was ubiquitous.

36 It may be significant that Aelian attaches a preposition to λείχω, possibly specifying that the dog licks around the edges of the wounds. See also the quotation from Philostratus below and the magical spell in which licking the edges of the wound is specified (PDM xiv.603–9). There are several variants of the lemma λείχω in the textual tradition of Luke 16.21 that similarly affix prepositions, perhaps implying the same procedure.

37 As Edelstein, E. J. and claim, L. Edelstein, ‘there is no evidence whatever that physicians participated in temple healings’ (Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, vol. ii (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 158)Google Scholar.

38 It has been suggested that the sacred dog in the Asclepian cult is a vestige of an older healing cult (Edelstein, Asclepius, ii.186–87).

39 Trans. Edelstein, Asclepius, i.233–34. In another source we learn of a sacred snake curing a man by licking around his eyes (Aristophanes, Wealth 727–41).

40 For the sake of completeness, we may note that two spells from the Demotic papyri, dating to the third century ce or slightly later, ascribe a numinous healing power to dog saliva and a dog's lick (PDM xiv.554–62, 603–9). As in the story of Apollonius, in the first spell a wounding or venomous power is attributed to dog saliva, which can, in turn, be cured by dog saliva. We are not far off in the colloquialism, ‘hair of the dog that bit you’.

41 Jerome, Homilies 86 (‘On Saint Luke on Lazarus and Dives 16.19–31’); trans. Ewald, M. L., The Homilies of Saint Jerome, vol. ii : Homilies 60–96 (FC 57; Baltimore: Catholic University of America Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

42 John Chyrsostom is the earliest attestation of the negative evaluation of the dogs: καὶ τοῦτο αὐτὸ πάλιν ἐδήλωσεν, εἰπὼν ὅτι οἱ κύνες ἀπέλειχον τὰ ἕλκη αὐτοῦ. οὕτως ἦν ἐξησθενηκώς, ὡς μηδὲ τοὺς κύνας ἀποσοβῆσαι δύνασθαι, ἀλλὰ νεκρὸς ἔμψυχος ἔκειτο, ἐπιόντας μὲν αὑτοὺς θεωρῶν, ἀμύνασθαι δὲ οὐκ ἰσχύων (‘And this is shown again since it says that the dogs were licking from his wounds. For he had become so weak that he was unable to scare away the dogs, but was lying there alive as though dead, seeing them coming, but without the strength to fend them off’, John Chrysostom, Laz. 1 (PG 48.975–6)). This would seem decisive evidence for his interpretation; however, in another homily on this parable we find: τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ κύνες φιλανθρωπότεροι ἔλειχον αὐτοῦ τὰ τραύματα καὶ τὴν σηπεδόνα περιῄρουν καὶ ἐξεκάθαιρον (‘The dogs were more humane than the human since they were licking his wounds and clearing away the surrounding putrefaction and cleaning them out’ (John Chrysostom, Laz. 6.5 (PG 48.1034)). This interpretation not only evaluates the dogs as sympathetic, but shares Cyril's knowledge of their ability to cleanse wounds. These two mutually exclusive interpretations are difficult to explain. It is possible that Chrysostom contradicts himself to make different points, which would not be out of character for him. On the other hand, distinct words are used for both ‘lick’, ἀπέλειχον and ἔλειχον (see also the textual variants in Luke 16.21), and ‘wound’, ἕλκη and τραύματα. These discrepancies and the antithetical interpretation might suggest that one or the other homily is spurious.

43 At some point before the eleventh century, Lazarus' sores were equated with leprosy, and he was canonised as the patron saint of lepers. See Wailes, S. L., Medieval Allegories of Jesus' Parables (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987) 255 Google Scholar. It seems that the tradition of leprosy did not completely overtake the view that Lazarus' wounds were the result of abuse. In Leandro Bazzano's 1595 painting Dives and Lazarus a figure in dark clothing, either in the employ of the rich man or representing an anonymous assailant, is depicted giving Lazarus lashes.

44 See n. 29 above. According to C. Mainoldi, the dog is a specific marker of the aristocratic feast ( L'image du loup et du chien dans la Grèce ancienne d'Homère à Platon (Paris: Ophrys, 1984) 113 Google Scholar).

45 Franco, Shameless, 24.

46 One is reminded of a similar longing in another special L example story, the Prodigal Son (Luke 15.16–17).

47 Franco, Shameless, 24.

48 For examples, see the Friend at Midnight (Luke 11.5–8), the Prodigal Son (Luke 15.11–32), the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16.1–13), the Good Samaritan (Luke 16.29–37), the Judge and the Widow (Luke 18.1–8) and the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18.9–14). For detailed discussion of these features in the L parables and example stories, see Heininger, B., Metaphorik, Erzählstruktur und szenisch-dramatische Gestaltung in den Sondergutgleichnissen bei Lukas (NTAbh 24; Münster: Aschendorff, 1991)Google Scholar.