¹ A draft of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of The Society of Biblical Literature, Pacific Coast Region, on March 31, 1995, at the University of Redlands, California.

For the history of interpretation and bibliography see Kissinger, Warren S., The Parables of Jesus: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, ATLA Bibliography Series 4 (Metuchen, NJ and London: The Scarecrow Press and The American Theological Library Association, 1979)Google Scholar. For more recent works see Nolland, John, Luke 9:21–18:34, Word Biblical Commentary 35B (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 777–779Google Scholar.

Among recent notable interpretations representing a diversity of methods special mention may be made of Derrett, J.D.M., ‘The Parable of the Prodigal Son’, NTS 14 (1967–1968): 56–74Google Scholar, reprinted in Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970), 100–125Google Scholar; Derrett, , ‘The Parable of the Prodigal Son: Patristic Allegories and Jewish Midrashim’, Studia Patristica, ed. Cross, F.L., (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1970), 10: 219–224Google Scholar; Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich, Die Re-Investitur des Verlorenen Sohnes in der Gleichniserzählung Jesu Luk. 15, 11–32, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen Geisteswissenschaften Heft 137 (Kōln and Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bailey, Kenneth Ewing, Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976), 158–206Google Scholar; Schneider, Franz, Die Verlorenen Söhne. Strukturanalytische und historisch-kritische Untersuchungen zu Lk 15, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 17 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977)Google Scholar; Pöhlmann, Wolfgang, Der Verlorene Sohn und das Haus. Studien zu Lukas 15, 11–32 im Horizont der antiken Lehre von Haus, Erziehung und Ackerbau, WUNT 2. Reihe 68 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993)Google Scholar. See also nn. 4–6.

To such classic general studies as Dodd, C.H., The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Nisbet, 1935)Google Scholar, and Jeremias, Joachim, The Parables of Jesus, Revised Edition, tr. Hooke, S.H. (London: S.C.M. Press, 1963)Google Scholar, we may add Linnemann, Eta, Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition, tr. Sturdy, John (London: S.P.C.K., 1966)Google Scholar; and Drury, John, The Parables in the Gospels (New York: Crossroad, 1989)Google Scholar.

² Jones, Geraint Vaughan, The Art and Truth of the Parables: A Study in their Literary Form and Modern Interpretation (London: S.P.C.K., 1964), 167–205Google Scholar; Via, Dan Otto Jr., The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

³ J. Daniel Patte, ‘Structural Analysis of the Parable of the Prodigal Son’, with responses by Culley, Robert C., Doty, William G. et al. , in Patte, Daniel, ed., Semiology and the Parables: Exploration of the Possibilites Offered by Structuralism for Exegesis, Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 9 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1976), 71–178Google Scholar; The Entrevernes Group, Signs and Parables: Semiotics and Gospel Texts, with a study by Geninasca, Jacques and postface by Greimas, A., Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 23 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978), 117–183Google Scholar; Crossan, John Dominic, ed., Semeia 9, Polyvalent Narration, Missoula, MT, Scholars Press, 1977Google Scholar, see in particular Scott, Bernard B., ‘The Prodigal Son: A Structuralist Interpretation’, 45–74Google Scholar; Heininger, Bernhard, Metaphorik, Erzählstruktur und szenischdramatische Gestaltung in den Sondergutgleichnissen bei Lukas, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen N.F. 24 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1991)Google Scholar. Other discussions of structure and polyvalence in parables are given by Crossan, , In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1973)Google Scholar; Crossan, , Raid on the Articulate: Comic Eschatology in jesus and Borges (New York: Harper & Row, 1976)Google Scholar; Cliffs of Fall: Paradox and Polyvalence in the Parables of Jesus (New York: Seabury Press, 1980)Google Scholar. More recently Wright, N.T. has seen the parable as a mirror of Israel with a summons to return from what is tantamount to a state of exile (Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996], 125–131)Google Scholar.

⁴ In the past allegorization has regularly been depicted as the product of die early church's fertile tendency to interpret parables in the light of its own concerns and situation (see the documentation set out by Derrett, in Studia Patristica 10: 219–224Google Scholar; and the discussion of allegory in Jūlicher, Adolf, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2 vols. [Freiburg i.B., Leipzig, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)], 2nd ed. 1899Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus, 66–89)Google Scholar. However, recent literary criticism has inaugurated a rehabilitation of allegory. John Drury sees allegory as a hallmark of the Lucan parables, though this does not mean that diese parables were composed by Jesus, (The Parables in the Gospels, 116–117, 146–47)Google Scholar. J. Dominic Crossan observes: ‘Allegorical plot, or polyvalent narration, reveals the play of plot across many levels of reality, personal and social, historical and ideological. And it also makes manifest how certain plots are powerful enough to create an isomorphism for every level of the reality they are introducing us to’ (Cliffs of Fall, 97).

⁵ The inauthenticity of the latter section dealing with the elder brother was argued by Wellhausen, and Loisy, (Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Lucae [Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904], 83Google Scholar, reprinted in Evangelienkommentare, Mit einer Einleitung von Martin Hengel [Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1987], 541; Loisy, Alfred, L'Evangile selon Luc [Paris, 1904], 402–403)Google Scholar. However, despite his mistrust of allegory, Adolf Jülicher defended the integrity of the parable on the grounds that both sections depict and defend God's love for the sinner. The majority of scholars have accepted this view. But Jack T. Sanders argues that vv. 25–32 are a Lucan addition, designed to fit Luke's sustained polemic against the Pharisees and scribes, whereas the preceding parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin together with the original form of the Prodigal Son simply explained why Jesus consorted with sinners (Jack T. Sanders, ‘Tradition and Redaction in Luke xv. 11–31’, NTS 15 [1968–69]: 433–38).

⁶ Robert W. Funk concludes his technical analysis of the parable's structure with the comment: ‘the Prodigal Son can be understood as a narrative in which the contrasting behavior of the two sons in relation to the father is at issue. Or, it can be understood as a narrative which contrasts the responses of the father and the older son to the behavior of the younger son. The former is the traditional way of reading the parable. However, the grouping based on the switch from recounting to enactment suggests the latter. In other words, the two ways of grouping the segments contribute to the structural ambiguity of the parable’ (The Poetics of Biblical Narrative [Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1982], 183Google Scholar; cf. Parables and Presence: Forms of the New Testament Tradition [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982], 55–65)Google Scholar. Funk detects four segments or scenes, the first of which involves recounting and the last three enactment: (1) The request of the young son for his share of the property and the father's response; (2) the son's journey and exploits in the far country and return; (3) his homecoming; (4) the interchange between the elder son and the father.

⁷ de Vries, E., ‘Heeft de Parabel van de verloren Zoon in Lucas 15, 11–32 een gnostieke Achtergrond? Een Aspect van de Christologie van Lucas’, in Baarlink, H., Baarda, T., den Heyer, C.J., eds., Christologische Perspectiven. Exegetische en hermeneutische Studies: Artiklen van en voor Prof. Dr. Heinrich Baarlink (Kampen: Kok, 1992), 280–328Google Scholar.

⁸ Hofius, Otfried, ‘Alttestamentliche Motive im Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn’, NTS 24 (1977–1978): 240–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, others who recognize OT themes see them adapted to the influx of Gentiles in the church and tensions within the church and with Judaism (cf. Drury, , The Parables in the Gospels, 144–146)Google Scholar. The inference from OT allusions to Jesus' authorship is criticized by Goulder, M.D., Luke: A New Paradigm, JSNT Supplements 20 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 2: 615Google Scholar. Goulder and others note parallels with the story of Joseph (the younger son, fraternal jealousy, famine [Gen. 43:1], the conduct of Pharaoh [41:41–4], the actions of the father who thought that his son was dead [45:26]) which are retold in Stephen's speech (Acts 7:9–15) and which could have been a Lucan creation. However, if the Joseph story served as a model for the parable, it has been drastically altered. For nowhere in Gen. is there any hint that Joseph is at any time less than pure and heroic.

⁹ Luise Schottroff rejects the suggestion that the parable was directed against the Pharisees, as suggested by the introduction in Luke 15:1–3, on the grounds that selfrighteousness of the elder brother does not fit the historical Pharisees (‘Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn’, ZTK 68 [1971]: 27–52). She finds the parable congruent with Luke's theology of salvation through repentance (Luke 15:7). The spiritual background is provided by Jesus' fellowship with tax collectors and sinners, on the one hand, and Pauline justification through repentance and forgiveness, on the other hand. Formally, she sees similarities with Hellenistic rhetoric. A shared polemic with Pseudo-Quintilianus against achievement suggests a situation other than Jewish Torah piety. She concludes that Luke was the author.

Heikki Räisänen thinks that Luke may have developed a simpler story of a father and two sons (cf. Matt. 21:28–31) into one composed to drive home the point that converted Gentiles are accepted by God and should be joyously accepted by the community, even by observant Jewish Christians (‘The Prodigal Gentile and his Jewish Christian Brother, Lk 15, 11–31’, in van Segbroeck, F., Tuckett, C.M., van Belle, G., Verheyden, J., eds., The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck [Leuven: University Press Uitgeveij Peeters, 1992], 2.5: 1617–1636)Google Scholar. Räisänen's, interpretation updates that of Tertullian who regarded the younger brother as a type of Gentile (De Pudicilia 8–9Google Scholar; cf. Räisänen, 1624).

Räisänen's review of 11 alleged Semitisms which might suggest Jewish provenance of the parable concludes that it ‘leaves us with absolutely nothing that could remotely compare with the weighty grounds against authenticity’ (1633; cf. Carlston, Charles E., Reminiscence and Redaction in Luke 15:ll–32, JBL 94 [1975]: 368–390)Google Scholar. With regard to 7 instances of Greek expressions thought to be uncharacteristic of Luke, Räisänen thinks that only three could point to a tradition used by Luke. (1) Luke generally prefers πρς + Accusative to the Dative with verbs of speaking. In the parable the Dative is used in vv. 12, 18, 21, 27, 29, 31, and πρς + Accusative only in v. 22. (2) The asyndetic heaping up of imperatives (, v. 23) is avoided 8 times in Luke's use of Mark, though it may be noted that 4 such imperatives occur in the soliloquy in Luke 12:19. (3) The word order (v. 30) is uncharacteristic of Luke. In only 18 cases does μoυ/σoυ precede the main word in L material over against 135 cases in the Gospel. Räisänen holds that Luke would have had to have the story before him in written form, for such non-Lucan traits to be preserved. But such an assumption, as distinct from an oral story, ‘is too massive a hypothesis to be hung on such tiny nails’ (1635). The story matches Luke's redaction elsewhere in ch. 15 (the composition of the chapter, the Lucan introduction, the Lucan readaction of v. 7). ‘The story is less suited to Jesus’ situation and message. It bears no trace of eschatology, and it is difficult to make sense of the figure of the elder brother in a setting in the life of Jesus’ (1635).

¹⁰ On the rebellious son in Judaism see Cohn, H.H., ‘Rebellious Son’, Encyclopaedia Judaica 10: 1603–1605Google Scholar. Several exegetes of our parable note possible allusions to Deut. 21:18–21, but they are inclined to treat the passage as one among several instances of disobedience in sons without seeing it as the major motif of the parable (cf. Drury, , The Parables in the Gospels, 147)Google Scholar. Nolland notes the question of the double share for the elder brother (Deut. 21:17), but does not raise the question of the rebellious son (Luke 9:21–18:34, 782). Pöhlmann takes passing note of the passage and its connections with Proverbs, but does not trace the theme of the rebellious son in later Jewish literature or attach significance to it in his subsequent exposition of Jesus and the parable (Der Verlorene Sohn und das Haus, 68–69).

Notable exceptions are Aileen Guilding, J.D.M. Derrett, and C.F. Evans. Guilding links Luke 15 with the Jewish lectionary, and places Deut. 20:10–22:5 and its haphtarah, the supplementary reading from the prophets, 1 Sam. 17 in the third-year lections for Hannukah. ‘The parable of the lost son is based on Deuteronomy 20.10–22.5 (particularly 21.15–21) with 1 Samuel 17, and there are also allusions to the first-year sedarim—the Joseph stories’ (The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation of St. John's Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary-System [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960], 133). She notes similarities between the behavior of the younger son in wasting his substance in riotous living and the ‘glutton and drunkard’ in the seder, but her interests lie more with the rights of the firstborn and Luke's lectionary designs. ‘St. Luke has arranged for liturgical purposes a collection of our Lord's discourses and synagogue sermons’ (136).

Derrett, who gives guarded support to Guilding's point about the lectionary, notes that ‘The elder brother by alluding to imaginary dissipations on the younger brother's part actually suggests that the spirit of Dt xxi. 18–21 applies, and questions whether the younger is not really stubborn, etc., and fit to be executed! The author of Genesis seems to have been aware of these points. Jacob heard his father and mother (thus contrasting with Esau, who qualified in rabbinical thought for Dt xxi. 18–21): Philo, in the Loeb edn., Supplement I, 548–9, § 244, on Gn xxviii.7’ (Law in the New Testament, 100, n. 2).

C.F. Evans notes the links between the parable and Deut. 21:18–21, but the burden of his discussion is to see the central section of Luke as ‘a Christian Deuteronomy’ (‘The Central Section of St. Luke's Gospel’, in Nineham, D.E., ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot [Oxford: Blackwell, 1957], 37–53, especially 42 and 48)Google Scholar.

¹¹ It falls outside the scope of the present study to explore how my interpretation relates to the contemporary discussion. In due course I hope to expand my discussion to take this into account.

¹² I have given the RSV rendering in preference to the NRSV on account of its more literal rendering.

¹³ Leviticus 1–16, Bible, Anchor (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 736Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Freedman, David Noel, The Unity of the Hebrew Bible, Distinguished Senior Faculty Lecture Series, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, The University of Michigan (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1991), 24–25Google Scholar.

¹⁵ 11Q Temple 64:2–6 / 11Q 19 64:2–6 (Vermes, Geza, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English [London: Penguin Books] 3rd ed. 1987, 156Google Scholar; Martínez, Florentino García, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, Translator Watson, Wilfred G.E. [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994], 177–178)Google Scholar. Johann Maier notes instead of , ‘and rebellious’ (The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary, JSOT Supplement Series 34, tr. White, Richard T. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 132Google Scholar. Maier, who dates the scroll 125–100 B.C.E (1–2), goes on to discuss whether the penalty for hanging on a tree (11Q Temple 64:6–9; cf. Deut.21:22; Gal. 3:13) envisages crucifixion as a form of execution. On this see also Betz, Otto, ‘Jesus and the Temple Scroll’, in Charlesworth, James H., ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 75–103Google Scholar. Betz does not, however, discuss the question of the rebellious son.

¹⁶ The Special Laws 2.232.

¹⁷ On the Change of Names 206. The same point is made in On Drunkenness 93–94. In this work he notes four classes of children (34): those who are obedient to both parents, those who are directly the opposite, those who obey the father but not the mother, and those who obey the mother but not the father.

¹⁸ On Drunkenness 15.

¹⁹ Cohn, H.H., Encyclopaedia Judaica 13: 1603, who cites Sanhedrin 71aGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Sifre to Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation by Neusner, Jacob (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 122Google Scholar.

¹² Cf. Neirynck, Frans, Q-Synopsis: The Double Tradition Passages in Greek, Revised Edition with Appendix (Leuven: University Press, Uitgeverij Peeters, 1995), 24–25Google Scholar. Curiously the Q scholars seem to have paid little attention to this phrase. Nor is there much of a parallel in any of the Cynic sayings compiled by Downing, Gerald F., Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition, JSOT Manuals 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 40 on Luke 7:33–34; cf. 182 on our parableGoogle Scholar.

²² Cf. Jacobson, Arland D., ‘Divided Families and Christian Origins’, in Piper, Ronald A., ed., The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), (361–380) 363Google Scholar. Jacobson sees links with Deut. 21:18–21, but thinks that the procedure was never carried out. He observes that Q 14:26 was not just radical; it would have been profoundly offensive.

²³ The Hebrew text of Deut. 21:17 specifies a two-thirds share. The firstborn was to receive this share, even if he were the son of a disliked wife and his half-brother the son of a wife who was liked. Derrett observes that no son of a Jewish household was entitled to a share, but suggests that the father might have anticipated his death by determining what would be his share in order to avoid disputes. The younger son may have received two-ninths of the estate, and the elder son a document promising the remainder after the father's death (Law in the New Testament, 104–9).

²⁴ Law in the New Testament, 111.

²⁵ The word order conforms to Luke's regular pattern. But since the wording appears to be the adaptation of a formula, it is indecisive in the debate over whether the parable contains pre-Lukan material (see above, n. 9).

²⁶ ‘In light of the rules pertaining to sacrifices a question arises regarding the killing of the fatted calf and the rejoicing in honor of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:23). Would a Jew privately kill a choice fading usually reserved for Temple sacrifice without offering what was due to God, the priest, and the Levite in the community?’ (Rousseau, John J. and Arav, Rami, Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995], 296)Google Scholar. Rousseau and Arav answer the question affirmatively in some cases, but Jews who might have done so would have brought the entire households to Jerusalem for a celebration ‘before God’. However, they think that, because the story dates to a generation or so after the destruction of the temple, when sacrifices could no longer be offered, the author may have retrojected into the time of Jesus the customs of his own time!

²⁷ I. Howard Marshall notes that the verb θω means ‘to lay’, i.e. ‘kill’ (15:23, 27, 30; Matt. 22:4; John 10:10; Acts 10:13; 11:7), but elsewhere it has the connotation of ‘to sacrifice’ (e.g., Luke 22:7; Acts 14:13; 15:18) (The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text [Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978], 611)Google Scholar. If so, there could be a double meaning here which would fit the view that Jesus' meals were intended to replace the sacrificial cult and that purity was effected by the common meal (cf. Chilton, Bruce, The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice [University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992], 133)Google Scholar.

²⁸ Cf. Luke 15:2. In this regard my interpretation matches the description of parables given by Joachim Jeremias: ‘All the Gospel parables are a defence of the Good News. The actual proclamation of the Good News to sinners took a different form: in the offer of forgiveness, in Jesus' invitation of the guilty to taste his hospitality, in his call to follow him. It was not to sinners that he addressed the Gospel parables, but to his critics: to those who rejected him because he gathered the despised around him’ (The Parables of Jesus, 145).