The Question of “Home Wisdom”: A Contextual Study of Luke 15:11–32

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary:  the paper attempts to demonstrate the display of “home wisdom” (or common sense) in the parable of the prodigal son. 

 

Review:

The paper does a good job of describing the narrative of the parable.  All the relevant issues are attended, and there is an understanding of how the parable works in its first-century Palestinian setting.  There is also a good attempt to connect this parable to the relevant issues facing the author(s) in similar contexts, namely those in which children are wayward, and possibly in situations where wayward children return to bitter siblings.  The grace of the father is noted from the parable toward both, as both sons are deemed “lost and found.”

 

Suggestions I list below should be rather simple to solve, even if they require a little time. I offer them in an attempt to make the paper better, not to reject or criticize.

 

Needs Attention:

I find several things need attention in this paper before publication.

• One of the major issues is the description of the parables in Luke 15 as rejoicing over lost things being found rather than what the text actually claims: the joy of repentance.  Luke 15:7: “there is this joy in heaven over one sinner repenting than over 99 certain righteous ones having no need of repentance.”  There is no stated joy of lost things being found here.  The same conclusion is given in the parable of the lost coin:  “Joy happens before the Father over one sinner repenting” (Lk 15:10).  The celebration elements in the parable of the prodigal (butchering the fat calf, music, dancing, “it was necessary to joy and be joyed”) occur because the younger son “came to himself” (15:17) and returned.  A similar idea occurs in line 252 where the author(s) states that the celebration is over “human life.”  It’s not human life that is celebrated in the finding of a sheep or a coin.  It’s the joy of repentance that is specifically noted in both parables. It think it would help the author(s)’ presentation to focus on this “joy” element in the parables instead of the notion that something lost was found.  The lost/found motif is a prop within the parable to denote the exuberant (and out-of-place-normally) joy experienced by God when sinners repent.
• The exegesis seems heavily dependent upon Culpepper, Fitzmeyer, and Johnson. I might also recommend that the author consult the works of Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, and Amy-Jill Levine, Short Stories by Jesus.  Kenneth Bailey’s Jacob and the Prodigal might also be helpful here.
• Footnote 21: “ousia is used in the LXX.”  Why mention this?  Data like this must give some relevance to the use of the word, or explain its usage.  Just mentioning that something appears in another book doesn’t make an argument.  Why is it used in the LXX and what does that contribute to your argument?
• Line 232-233: There is no evidence within the narrative of the text that he “talked too much.” 
• Line 239: “the father never gave him a kid.”  Line 348: “yet went unrewarded.” Line 416. This is simply not true. Read the parable carefully:  “he divided his property between them” (15:12).
• As I read through this, I find that the definition of “child” is a bit fluid and needs clarification. At times (lines 262-279) the definition seems to be what would be known as a “minor.”  This is confirmed in lines 306-321 in which the definition is given as someone under the age of 18yo.  This provides an inconsistency within the paper, as the comparative text tells a story of someone who is old enough to leave home on his own and “squander his wealth with prostitutes.”  If the paper is an exploration of “child rights” (under 18), and the parable is about an adult “son” (he’s never called a brephos, a teknon or a paideion).  The only one called a teknon in this parable is the one who is older (15:31).  A definition of “child” is given in line 315.  It might be helpful to either move this line earlier in the paper or to simply state early in the paper what definition of “child” is being employed. 
• Lines 383-387: does the parable state that the younger son had “fair-weather friends?”  This seems an idea brought to the parable rather than derived from
• Lines 501-502: “the father requires no confession.”  Does not the younger son say, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you?”  The father makes no calls for celebration until after this confession.
• I think I’d also like to see some sociological-research data to demonstrate the waywardness of children in the author(s) context. Children leaving home and being rude to parents is assumed.  The seriousness of the problem should be demonstrated societally, in addition to the interviews mentioned.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Typographic Issues:

• Line 10: there is no consistency between single quotation marks and double quotation marks.  Sometimes both appear in the same sentence.  This is a problem that begins in the abstract and runs throughout the paper.  I will only mention this instance to draw attention to it.
• Lines 52-53: “running of at mouth” – is this an idiom?  Or is this incorrect?
• Line 157: “almost seventeen” – then 17 are listed.  Just say “seventeen.”  “Almost” implies 16 or less. 
• Lines 157-167: verb tenses change throughout the paragraph.  “he gathered… converted…left…and squandered, that is scatters.”  All previous verbs are past tense, then the last verb is present tense.  See also lines 178-179.  This pattern occurs throughout the paper.  I would like to see the author(s) do an edit of the entire paper to ensure that verb tenses are consistent internally in each paragraph.
• Line 177: “rabbinic” should be “rabbi.”
• Line 375: “it is good to watch the three colors: red, umber and green.”  I have no idea what this means.  If it’s a common idiom to the author(s), it should be explained for the wider audience that Religions

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

None

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Nothing to comment about

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I found this to be an engaging re-postulating of a well-known and heavily-trod text. The exegesis is rooted solidly in a more sociological paradigm of narrative criticism, which allows for the positioning of the "home wisdom" components of the parable. As a wisdom student myself, this was highly illuminating, as I had never thought of the parable as an equivalent to wisdom literature although I frame it as being about the father rather than the wayward son. The author's conclusion about "Familial rights" needing "to be defined by parents and government" is well-stated and well-supported with accompanying literature.

Author Response

Nothing to answer