One of the reasons I was so interested in studying the rhetorical function of the questions of Jesus in Luke is because of Luke’s Hellenistic style—of all the Gospel writers (except, perhaps, John), Luke offers the most polished narrative and the most skillful use of Greek rhetoric. In “Luke and the Progymnasmata: A Preliminary Investigation Into the Preliminary Exercises,” the second chapter of Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Hendrickson, 2007), Mikeal Parsons sufficiently establishes a connection between the Gospel of Luke and the rhetorical methods espoused in the Progymnasmata of Aelius Theon of Alexandria, a probable contemporary of Luke’s. Parsons shows how even if Luke was not familiar with Theon’s own writings, he was at least familiar with the rhetorical conventions of first-century Hellenistic literature from which Theon drew his teaching methods.
I found this particular chapter of Parsons’ book fascinating in relation to my own work in the rhetorical use of questions in Luke, which is just getting started. If it can be reasonably established that the author of Luke was familiar with the rhetorical conventions mentioned in Theon’s Progymnasmata, then it may also follow that Luke would have been familiar with what Theon has to say about the use of questions in discourse (narrative or oratory).
According to Parsons, one of these Hellenistic rhetorical conventions is the varying of inflected cases to clearly and skillfully indicate the intended subject of a narrative or oratory argument: “Inflecting the main subject or topic (klisis) was one of the first exercises taught to beginning students of elementary rhetoric and provided a transition from the study of grammar to the study of rhetoric since the exercise focused on the rhetorical function of inflection.”[1] Theon himself argues that varied use of inflection is “very pleasing,” rhetorically speaking, and signifies the rhetor or storyteller’s skillful communication abilities.[2]
A good example of how Luke employs this rhetorical method might be found in the so-called “Parable of the Prodigal Son.” Parsons asks:
Does the grammar of inflection help us understand better how the authorial audience may have heard this parable? The term ‘son’ occurs eight times in Luke 15:11–32, once in the accusative case (and plural, v.11) and seven times in the nominative singular, in reference to the prodigal (15:13, 19, 21 twice, 24, 25, 30). We might reasonably expect that the subject of a parable or story would occur most frequently in the nominative case; however, if we take seriously the role of grammatical inflection in the educational system of late antiquity, then we might not be surprised to learn that not only does the word ‘father’ occur twelve times in the parable, it appears in all five cases at least once, and in four cases, including the vocative (a rarity in Luke) at least twice: nominative—vv.20, 22, 27, 28; genitive—v.18; dative—vv.12, 29; accusative—vv.18, 20; vocative—vv.12, 18, 21. The conclusion seems irresistible that an ancient audience hearing Luke 15, who were conditioned (even unconsciously) upon ‘hearing’ a word inflected to identify that term as the subject of the story at hand, would have naturally understood that the subject of the parable was the Father and his love (p.30).
According to Hellenistic rhetorical conventions, the multiple occurrences of the word patros in a variety of inflected forms would indicate that the most important thing to take away from the story is the character of the father. Perhaps, as Joachim Jeremias suggested, the title of the parable should actually be “The Parable of the Father’s Love.”[3]
This suggestion should not be taken as the sole interpretation or “point” of the parable, however. Interestingly enough, Parsons notes the similarities between the parables of Jesus and Theon’s writings about fables as rhetorical devices, which Theon defines as “fictitious stor[ies] which depict or image truth.”[4] More importantly, Theon suggests that a fable is capable of holding multiple meanings, and thereby receives its rhetorical and philosophical weight.[5] This is probably why so many scholars have likened the parables of Jesus to riddles—stories that are difficult to understand, with multiple possible interpretations and a propensity for causing confusion (see Mark 4:10-12).
Is the so-called “Parable of the Prodigal Son” a story about a “lost” son who finds his way back home?
Yes.
Is it about the harsh reaction of the older brother as much as the younger brother’s prodigality?
Yes.
But most of all, Luke’s highly refined rhetorical narrative skills would suggest that the parable is about the father who loves both sons—wayward and obedient—equally.
the archives near Emmaus 
Great post. I like how this sheds another angle (or focus) on the passage without giving it a singular intent of meaning, which unfortunately happens too often. Would you still see the parable primarily pointed at the Pharisees with the use of the reaction of the older brother but still including the overarching theme of the Father’s love?
That’s a good question, Brian. It may be that what you have described above is yet another layer of meaning that is embedded in the narrative itself, even if it wasn’t suggested or intended in the parable in its original form. So the simple answer would be, “Yes,” but with the caveat that what you have suggested is a meaning/interpretation that is given to the parable by its narrative context in Luke, not necessarily in the parable tradition itself. However, since the Prodigal Son is only found in Luke, I’d say that your assumption is probably correct.
Great. Keep up the posts on Luke!
Very insightful! I’ve long thought “the Prodigal Father” made more sense of the parable. It is the father who is truly “wasteful,” though ironically, his material waste cannot compare to the object of his wastefulness—his own son. This seems to serve as another example of how the Evangelists adopt and adapt the stories of Jesus to become their own stories, no? I presume Jesus himself would not have been familiar with the rhetoric taught by someone like Theon. Luke makes the story his own and I think this is one of the more exciting aspects of the Gospels: they invite the reader to hear and retell the story afresh for new audiences. Does that seem correct to you?
That sounds like a perfectly feasible explanation to me, Brian. It’s also what makes Luke’s rhetorical style distinct from, say, Mark’s.
It’s unfortunate that the “Bible Wars” of American Christianity have made this troubling for so many. I heard Craig A. Evans give a talk once where he emphasizes how odd it would be if Jesus’ stories were parroted. Jesus made disciples, so it was the task of the disciple to spread the teacher’s teachings to other disciples, not report on them like a modern journalist. The Evangelists are acting as disciples when they contextualize Jesus’ stories for their own disciples, moving Jesus’ message along, giving it a new audience. The diversity of the Gospels is not embarrassing. It is enlivening and I think it invites readers through the years to both be faithful to the story told by “the Teacher” while telling it so that it makes disciples of all the nations.
I agree, Brian. I also think that one of the most fascinating things about this kind of rhetorical study is that Luke was more than likely unaware that he was adapting the parables of Jesus to fit his own education and experience. He simply heard/read the stories and retold them using his own rhetorical lens.
This parable seems to be a picture of one of the promises of the OT to the Jews, IMO. That “older brother/Israel” is jealous at the grace offered the “prodigal/the nations”.
I think among other things, it is a snap shot of the fulfillment of those promises that one day Yahweh would make the Jews jealous via the nations and that the nations would flock to Messiah along with many of these other applications discussed above.
@Patrick:
I think that is the interpretation N.T. Wright advocates as well…though, he does do it from the angle of the historian. One must consider that the message as intended for Jesus’ audience and interpreted by that audience is slightly morphed when it is intended for Luke’s audience and interpreted by that audience.
@Joshua:
You find that Luke’s “changes” are subconscious, not intentional?
Probably. Douglas Estes and I were actually just chatting about this yesterday. It seems unlikely that Luke would have had Theon’s Progymnasmata in front of him while writing his gospel. More than likely, the rhetorical conventions spelled out by Theon would have been ingrained into Luke’s thinking and writing style. Kind of the equivalence of how a lot of people still use grammatical suggestions/guidelines like “don’t begin sentences with ‘and,'” or “don’t end your sentences in a preposition”—they are conventions that have made their way into the subconscious of many writers and rhetors. However, it is equally plausible that Luke knew exactly what he was doing.
I am in agreement with you Joshua. I think there can be an overlap in language here. Even though they may be “subconscious” they can still be intentional. If Luke understood and wanted the Father’s love to be predominant he could then “subconsciously and intentionally” use those rhetorical functions. I am not sure there is a way that we can look back on history and from analysis say that an author either “subconsciously and intentionally” or “consciously and intentionally” did something or other. From our perspective we can just say this is how Luke seems to be functioning.
Hopefully that makes sense…
That makes good sense. I can see how the line between “conscious” and “subconscious” might be quite blurry.
The only “translating” in the ancient world with which I am familiar is the Septuagint, so I have nothing to offer in this regard, but I wonder if either of you (Joshua or Brian R.) have read anything on translators in the ancient world (Greek to Latin, Greek to Coptic, Hebrew/Greek to Syriac)? It would be interesting to know if people consciously renovated their received narratives when passing them along to a new audience in a difference language and if so, in what ways. Or maybe their goal was to be as faithful to the original as possible, like modern translators?
That would be interesting. I think we would need to make a distinction between translating a text, such as the Hebrew scriptures to the LXX where the author is not making a claim as the text as his own. With Luke, if he is using a received tradition either orally or written then I would think he would have more freedom of shaping the text/message to his own purposes since he is integrating it within his own narrative. While translation you are not necessarily shaping and forming the original text to the target language for your own purposes.
Very true, and the difference between Luke writing down an oral tradition he has received or copying a written document is an important distinction, esp. since if he received a written tradition it very likely was already translated into Greek. Maybe I can put this more clearly (rather than framing it in “translation” language): what examples do we have of the the same story being relayed in different languages, even if it is impossible to tell whether or not it was done orally or from a text?
Good question…hopefully someone has an answer 🙂
…also, even if he received it orally, it was likely in Greek by then, which is why framing it as “translation” may have been a misnomer on my part. For lack of a better word, I mean the relaying of a narrative across various languages. How much “poetic license” do we see?
All good questions. And, unfortunately, questions I am unqualified to answer. I believe we have very subtly shifted from the field of narrative/rhetorical criticism to the field of textual criticism.
True. Slipped into the redaction stage!
Joshua. I love it. I’d like your thoughts about that whole passage of Scripture from 15 through into 16. I think the passage about the rich man going to hell and Lazarus in heaven is a continuation of the one story which starts with the lost coin. Within that framework, I don’t believe Lukes teaching about divorce is about separation of a married couple- rather its linked to the teaching in Malchi where God says he hates it when his people divorce themselves from him…
@Joshua:
Did you see that David Black commented on this post on his blog? If not, see what he says under 8:14 AM, Sunday, August 11th: http://www.daveblackonline.com/blog.htm
Brian: Woah! Cool! Thanks for pointing that out to me. I appreciated Dave’s comment about renaming all of the stories found in the “lost such-and-such” tradition. I’ve had many conversations about how Gospel narratives tend to be mislabeled. For instance, why is the story of the “Bent Woman” not labeled instead the story of the “Straightened Woman,” etc.? The way we arrange, title, and group the narratives together reveals a lot about how we view the biblical text in general.
This post has generated a lot more discussion than what I anticipated, and I couldn’t be more pleased. Also, I would highly recommend Parsons’ book, which relates some of these ideas much more clearly than I have done above.
Craig: Those are interesting thoughts! As for connecting “Lazarus and the Rich Man” to the “Lost Coin, et al.,” I would recommend taking a look at David Black’s post (mentioned by Brian in the above comment). I’m not as familiar with the divorce connection, but it seems like a theological/ethical connection that deserves further exploration.
@Joshua:
That would be an interesting study in-and-of itself. Our popular ideas regarding stories shape those stories, and many readers of the Bible are likely predisposed to understand a story based on modern titles in their translations. I liked what David Black had to say. Added some insight to the broader context.
Your post grabbed RHE’s attention as well: http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/sunday-superlatives-81113
The link attributes it to me, but I commented making sure they know I didn’t write it.
A very interesting post on Luke 15. Similarly, I think it would be important that John 3 (Nicodemus and salvation) and John 4 (the Samaritan woman and salvation) should be preached together because the two chapters basically represent the same story being told twice – so the two chapters actually hang together as a unit.
It’s not unreasonable Luke was likely classically trained in Greek rhetoric. Citing a connection between the Gospel of Luke and the rhetorical methods espoused in the Progymnasmata of Aelius Theon of Alexandria would be reasonable evidence for this ..
In addition to his rhetoric styel, Luke is an interesting character for other reasons. For an ancient historian, he seemed to possess reasonably good historical method to document the events that he did. Apart from the controversy of Christianity itself, Luke provides an exceptional historical record more comprehensive than most of his contemporaries and would have otherwise enjoyed an excellent reputation as such had it not been for his focus on Christ.
Very interesting, Andrew. Could you offer an example of how Luke provides a more comprehensive historical record than his contemporaries”? Or maybe clarify your comment on Luke enjoying an excellent reputation if not for his focus on Christ?
Sure, I can provide a few (treating the Gospel of Luke and Acts as a body of the same work):
HISTORICAL value Luke
Lukes attests (in [Acts 5:34]) historically to the existence of the 1st century Pharisee Gamaliel. This is a non-Jewish independent attestation to a historical figure lending weight to the historicity of this figure.
Luke specifically names Caiaphas as the high-priest of the conspiracy to crucify Jesus ([Luke 3:2][Acts 4:6]). Though Josephus also attested to the Caiaphas family (in Antiquities 18: 2, 2; 4, 3) being the high-priestly family, sceptical biblical scholars argued against the existence of such a family until the Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Within the tomb were ossuaries, one of which was inscribe with “Yoseph ben Caiaphas” proving that the name was not only in use at the time, but was prominent.
Luke is also a major source of information about events within the Roman empire including decrees by Czar August, Tiberius, Claudius and Nero as well other sub-prelates such as Herod Agrippa I. He also provides additional details about references known to Jospehus. For example Jospehus talks about Jewish nationalist rebels called sicarii which Luke mentions (as assassins or dagger-men) engaged in a revolt [Acts 21:38].
Of course by mentioning tidbits such as the Roman Centurion named Cornelius (belonging to the “Italian regiment”) stationed in Caesarea we gain small insights about the Roman occupation of Judah such as the disposition of forces along the coast ..etc.
GEOGRAPHICAL value of Luke
Luke also provides a nice reference for ancient geography because he frequently names regions and places in the ancient word, (such as the “province of Cilicia” [Acts 6:9], often relative to one another.
Cultural value of Luke
In [Acts 17:6] Luke uses the expression ‘polyarchs’ (πολιτάρχης G4173) to denote the ‘rulers of the city of Thessalonica’. Similarly he uses ‘grammateus’ (γραμματεύς G1122) as the correct title for the chief magistrate in Ephesus. Separate inscriptions have verified that Thessalonican rulers were called ‘polyarchs’, and that the Chief Magistrate in Ephesus was called ‘grammateus’ showing that Luke understood the cultural context he was documenting.
(He also noted that Felix and Festus were ‘procurators’ of Judea – they both were; and he calls Cornelius a centurion [Acts 21:31] and Claudius Lysias a tribune [Acts 21:36], both authentic and appropriate Roman ranks. And though English translators massacre the Greek anthypathos (ἀνθύπατος G446) Luke’s use of ‘proconsul‘ to denote governors of senatorial provinces is historical and correct ([Acts 13:7-8] and [Acts 18:12]).
Though Luke sets out to document the events surround the the person of Christ, he records not just history, but the details of history. Typical scholarly scepticism has tended to reject Luke’s value as a historian, however few scholars of the period actually ignore him. Luke’s history has proven its worth frequently regardless of whether once accepts Christ, or not.