the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

these texts are appropriately related to the parable, they do in some way give insight into the
reading of the parable. However, it is important to recognize that none of them show enough
similarity to view these texts as the source of the parable.
R. Aus, with respect to rabbinic influence, investigates the relationship between the
parable and the rabbinic parable of the rise to fame of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus. In
addition to common elements in the basic structure, 133 he observes that there are parallel
motifs and similar verbal associations. He concludes that Jesus made use of contemporary
popular material like rabbinic traditions that were also applied to Rabbi Eliezer, claiming the
fact that both depend on a common oral folk-tale of Semitic origin, in view of the fact that
neither one draw on the other. 134 K. Rengstorf suggests that the parable can be understood
against the background of the Jewish k e tsatsah, the legal act of separation or disowning a
person who was cut off from the community for breaking the rules of society. Although it is
accepted in part by Bailey, he presupposes too much that is not in the parable, 135 for example,
he views ‘this your brother was dead’ as ‘cut off’, and regards ‘the best robe’ as the younger
son’s former clothes which were taken off when the Jewish k e tsatsah was performed by the
community. 136 What is more, the parable does not reflect the fact that the younger son sold
real estate to a Gentile, or that he married an unclean Gentile woman as is the case in
Rabbinic literature concerning the ceremony of k e tsatsah. 137
Greco-Roman influences provide us with another point of dispute: Holgate contends that
the parable is similar to the Greco-Roman topos ‘On Covetousness’, but also the parable is
138
projected to provide moral instruction on covetousness, liberality and stinginess. For him
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 125-31, 242, 254-55.
133. Elements of their basic structure are as follows: “(1) The setting of both stories is a family farm, where
fieldwork/plowing is done by the brother(s). (2) A son voluntarily leaves his father and brother(s) for another
place. The relationship of these persons to one another is then disturbed. (3) The son experiences, in a different
location, abject poverty and hunger. (4) At the reunion scene of father and son there is public reconciliation
between the two. (5) This reconciliation causes the jealousy of the older brother/other brothers. (6) Both
narratives close with an open end.” R.D. Aus, “Luke 15:11-32 and R. Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus’s Rise to Fame,”
JBL 104 (1985), 460.
134. Aus, “Luke 15:11-32 and R. Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus’s Rise to Fame,” 443-69, here 469. He finds fourteen
motifs of the parable as parallels in Jewish Joseph traditions. Aus, Weihnachtsgeschichte, Barmherziger
Samariter, Verlorener Sohn. Studien zu ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund (Berlin: Institut Kirche und Judentum,
1988), 126-73.
135. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 121-122.
136. K.H. Rengstorf, Die Re-investitur des verlorenen Sohnes in der Gleichniserzählung Jesu Luk. 15:11-32
(AFLNW 137; Köln: Westdeutscher, 1967).
137. L. Rabinowitz, Midrash Rabbah, ed., H. Freedman and M. Simon (London: Soncino, 1938), 87. Cf. P. Kid,
1, 5; P. Ket, 26d; P. Kid, 60c; P. Ket, 11:10.
138. Holgate, Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, 132-251.
87