Jump to content

Talk:Parable of the Prodigal Son

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I beleive, this is a story, Jesus told. It says in the holy book.

Citation for verse

[edit]
It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Can we get a proper citation for this verse, including verse number and Bible translation? I assume it's KJV, but one shouldn't have to assume. Canonblack 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a parenthetical citation. —Caesura(t) 01:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation from the KJV above—"It was meet"—is completely anachronistic. Nobody talks that way today. If it is necessary to quote the Bible in this article, PLEASE use a modern version!Wctrenchard (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

An anon. had added the following:

"This parable has suggested to some that it is not necessary to live virtuously in life, or do anything worthy of salvation. One may do as one pleases, providing one repents their sins in the moment before death.

I have removed it for the moment, on two grounds: (i) it should be incorporated into the discussion of repentance in the Interpretation section but in any case (ii) the vague "suggested to some" will not do. Before incorporating this, we should know where that line of criticism comes from - what author(s) or what body of opinion? seglea 17:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Warning: this is my first attempt at posting anything of relevance with Wikipedia, please bear with me - any suggestions are welcome] There may be some benefit to allowing this criticism to be answered publicly. How can we show this as an example? It is tough to digest the extreme grace displayed in the parable. [1] Part of a series of discussions of this parable. This part of the series contrasts the proverb with an ancient Asian legend. [2] is another example of this effective contrast. Essentially, the story is the same until the final part. In the Asian Parable, the offender pays for his crime with death, while in Jesus' parable, the Father takes the dishonor when he runs to meet his lost son. (citation needed to verify that in Jewish Culture it dishonored the Father to run, which also allowed the Father's village to accept the boy back as well, since dishonor had been atoned for by the Father). That citation might also confront the apparent absence of Jesus' role in this parable, and perhaps explain some of how He and the Father are one [3], and that might dispel some other criticisms of the incarnation of God in Christ, of which this link is an example: [4]. Philsawa (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://rbc.org/radio-tv/discover-the-word/2009/10/27/program.aspx
  2. ^ http://immanuelcov.org/sermons/040321.htm
  3. ^ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A30&version=NIV
  4. ^ http://www.answering-christianity.com/john10_30.htm

Interpretations

[edit]

I just read this article for the first time, and I must admit I'm more than a bit shocked at the interpretations expressed. In conversing with people from a wide variety of religious (Christian) traditions, all who are familiar with the parable have considered it to be about the eldest son. Reading the text of the parable, this is rather obvious. I have heard many sermons preached about this parable, but few of those have concentrated on the unfaithful son. Any reader who reads with comprehension will see that the parable is clearly about the faithful but bitter eldest son, who instead of rejoicing at the return of his "lost" sibling responds with jealousy at the seemingly "royal" treatment his prodigal brother receives. The father's first words in responding to his bitter eldest son -- "Thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine" -- form the crux of this parable. I am amazed that they were left out of the original summary, and have added them in, along with brief treatment of the underlying theme.

I haven't removed anything, but I think someone ought to rewrite this article to emphasize the nature of the parable as being directed toward the eldest son, not toward the so-called "prodigal". I would do it myself; but frankly, the intensity of my visceral response to this article suggests that I may not be the most unbiased person to do the deed. I will do it if no one else wants to, but I'd prefer if someone else did. Spoxjox 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you need is something a little better than "in conversing with people from a wide variety of religious (Christian) traditions, all who are familiar with the parable"... Like a source... If this interpretation or inference is a legitimate one, finding it in a published source shouldn't be too hard... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney. There is not one single citation in this article. It's all interpretation. Requiring that I cite my source is absurd, given that NO ONE has cited any sources. It's textual interpretation. Go and READ THE TEXT. It says exactly what I wrote. I'm not making anything up, CS. It's all right there. Spoxjox 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If as you say there are no citations in the article, the solution is not to add still more uncited speculations and inferences. Go ahead and read WP:CITE. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. To further your effort, I have added in more fact tags. Spoxjox 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any investigation of the metaphoric interpretations of this parable? E.g. God is the father and the sons represent the Jews and gentiles? Mimizhusband 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the emphasis is neither on the unfaithful nor the faithful son, besides, were they not both unfaithful and faithful? The emphasis is on true repentance and God's response to it. If a sinner should truly repent, then God's grace enters in. He started out in his father's presense, left, lived prodigally, and turned 180 degrees and returned to his father. The lesson here is don't leave in the first place, yet also if you don't and you see a sinner return home, don't be envious and judgemental. The Pharisees obviously did not understand this. (crucified2_20) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.6.248 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Interpretation section of this article is completely irrelevant to the meaning of this parable in its context. It is not an allegory, as implied. There is no internal indication that the man with two sons stands for God. This parable is simply the third of three reversely progressive stories all depicting scenes of loss, finding, and celebration. The first two are said to be like the celestial celebration at the repentance of one sinner. The last story stops but does not end, because it is not known if the older brother joins the party at his father's pleading. The purpose of the trilogy of stories, climaxing in the last one, is a progressive invitation to the Pharisees and religious leaders of v. 2 to join Jesus in welcoming and celebrating with the marginalized people in the contemporary Jewish society. Luke has Jesus address this set of stories to these leaders and awaits their response like that of the older brother. Accordingly, how the story ends is up to them, just as it is to its modern readers.Wctrenchard (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship

[edit]

Since this is only found in Luke, shouldn't this sentence: "In the story told by Jesus..." be rewritten as "In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells the story...".

The authorship of Luke is disputed enough, which compounded with the debate as to how accurately the gospels relate what Jesus actually said seems to demand this kind of treatment. In fact, there are no claims that Luke (whoever he was) actually met Jesus (if he did exist). This treatment as fact of Jesus relating this story seems POV. I have made the change. QEDQED 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, the author, claims in the first chapter that he is writing a letter to a possible friend named Theophilus. The fact he never claims to have met Jesus is obviously true, he admits his information came from all primary sources. Only first hand accounts, and eye witnesses. He claims to do this to find the "truth" in what all others were talking about, strangely enough, his account of the Gospel harmonizes with Matthew's and Mark's account. Matthew, a man who did experience it as it happened.

I agree that the article should have more about the likely inauthenticity of this parable, given that Luke's Gospel is the least trustworthy, and this story appears only in Luke. Jesus opposed animal sacrifice, and kosher killing is a type of ritual sacrifice. This idiom of "killing a fatted calf" may have come from the Greek language in which the Gospels were written, and was likely not an idiom in the Aramaic that Jesus spoke. There is nowhere else in the entire Bible, OT nor NT, where the "fatted calf" phrase is used, and so the article should not glibly assume that Jesus actually used the phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

explanation for my deletions

[edit]

I am removing from the main section a great deal of interpretation of the parable that, as Spoxjox has pointed out, is both unsourced and questionable. The fact tags have been there for months. I am also removing the last paragraph of the Publicans and Pharisees section; it too has had a fact tag for months, and also seems to be drifting off-topic. I'm leaving the two other (also unsourced) paragraphs in this section because I don't have an opinion on them and they haven't had fact tags. But I am putting a {sources} tag on that section, and I have no objection if anyone else wants to remove them. --Allen 05:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahikar

[edit]

Supposedly the sayings of Ahikar (or Ahiqar) contain a similar story of a Prodigal Son, perhaps influencing the New Testament parable. Might this be mentioned in the article, assuming the Ahikar version is older? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the bible and it's writings have been determined by many historian. Never have I heard of the age of Ahikar's sayings and that they are older than the Bible. Without the correct age of these "sayings" than we can't assume they came first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.136.24 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ReturnOfTheProdigalSon-IW.jpg may be deleted

[edit]

I have tagged File:ReturnOfTheProdigalSon-IW.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within one week the image will be deleted. --Chris 07:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King James Version?

[edit]

Why is the King James version used in this article and not any other versions of the Bible?

Jbird669 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)jbird669[reply]

That's a good question, Jbird. I wonder if there is a way for a reader to change to their preferred translation (or compare with their preferred translation) when the Bible is used text of Wikipedia? I'm new to this so perhaps changing to a more understandable translation is a better and more timely way to achieve understanding.

I'd be happy to replace the verses with another version if you agree.Philsawa (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Maybe we can link to various versions? I changed it from KJV to NIV Jbird669 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Charlotte - The River

[edit]

in the "popular music" section there should be a mention of "The River" by Good Charlotte, in which there is a line "like the prodigal son I was out on my own. now I'm trying to find my way back home..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.105.166 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

Refs seems to be a luxury here, unless some are added, deletions are in order. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem appears to be mainly with music and literature. I would suggest that anything with "prodigal son" in the title has an obvious connection, but everything else needs a ref or it should go. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And specific claims need a ref, of course. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I think the unsourced literature and music items add nothing to the article. If you don't object, I will remove them, else please just do. There is only that much unsourced that can be tolerated. It needs to be cleaned up. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need cleanup, but give me some time to chase up refs. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some refs, deleted some unsourced material, and tagged a statement in the music section that needs support if it is to stay. Others are supported by linked Wikipedia articles. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looked hard for a source on that last, found none, deleted the sentence. I think the section is OK now. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Prodigal Son Has Returned"

[edit]

I've heard that phrase used in popular culture, and it obviously refers to the parable. However, the article does not mention it. What does it mean, and shouldn't its definition be added to the article? 75.157.120.15 (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good thing to do, if we can find a reliable source. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have witnessed this phrase on television and in newspapers, and 'prodigal' is an insult when misapplied. It is the incorrect assignment of the word with 'returning' rather than with 'profligate' or 'wasteful'. I think it's intended to affect a biblical knowledge by those who have had a childhood introduction to the story, and not verified its definition before using it publicly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.92.224 (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template content second opinion

[edit]

I have been working on {{The Prodigal Son}} based on content on WP. In many cases it is very difficult to determine if a page should be in the template based solely on the content in the WP article. The following are articles that have titles that suggest that they may be thematically related to the parable, but the content of the article does not confirm this:

  1. Prodigal Son (Electronic song)
  2. The Prodigal Son (Nektar album)
  3. Prodigal Son (The Saints album)
  4. Prodigal Son (Sevendust song)
  5. Prodigal Son (Martin Simpson album)
  6. The Prodigal Son (1923 film)
  7. Wolverine: Prodigal Son
  8. The Return of the Prodigal Son (album)

The following are articles with titles and content suggesting a thematic relation, but not clear enough linkage for me to include them on the template:

  1. The Prodigal Son (1934 film)
  2. The Prodigal Son (play)

The following are articles with content suggesting the possibility of a thematic relation to the parable. Most of them mention the term "prodigal son" but do not really clarify a relation to the parable. Others reference the parable as a somewhat minor element of the article. In all likelihood, I would not argue with a second opinion that any of them should be included in the template:

  1. Cap Tourmente (film)
  2. The Illusion (play)
  3. Absalom and Achitophel
  4. The Miser and his Gold
  5. What Is Man? (essay)
  6. A New Trick to Cheat the Devil
  7. Swan Sequence

Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell because this is a phrase that has entered into common parlance and stories of adult children returning to the family home are everywhere. While I wish I could just say "let's put in things that secondary sources talk about," realistically I know we'd miss out on stuff that belongs in the template because R.S.S. just don't talk about it much period. I would say that the journey and/or welcome return of the prodigal child must be the main subject of a story for that story to belong on the template - so eg. no Cap Tourmente, where it seems the son shows up and everything goes to hell. A New Trick to Cheat the Devil cites an article which talks about the play as part of a tradition of prodigal son plays, so there's a source, but on the other hand, there's no home or father that he returns to. Difficult! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the parable

[edit]

Should there not be a section on the meaning of the parable?Vorbee (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Bible

[edit]

This article is of interest to Wikipedia: WikiProject Visual arts. Surely there should be a note saying it is of interest to Wikipedia: WikiProject Bible?Vorbee (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do we need to include the second son?

[edit]

I have one article (I happened to visit a library which had an actual copy) but it may not be enough. I happened to look to see what was said about the second son being jealous, and telling his father he had been faithful so why was the sinful son being honored?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Arends, "Party Favors: The Prodigal's coming home gala was for both sons," Christianity Today, February 2012, p. 44. As long as I have it, here are some proposed additions, unless these are already there. Theologian Kenneth Bailey said those who actually heard the story from Jesus believed the younger son's action was "unthinkable", the ultimate disrespect. The older son's reaction was no better, as he was expected to co-host an event attended by the entire community. Like his brother, the older son is disrespecting his father. The father may be honoring the older son by having him serve, not throwing him his own party. The ending of the story is left for the listener or reader. Jesus told this story to the Pharisees who were like the older brother in that they criticized his association with those they called sinners.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squander

[edit]

It is rather interesting that the text did not identify the younger son by name or a age. Is this suggesting the text is not limited to age catigary or time. 2600:100C:B012:A3D7:B8C7:183C:3CB4:F462 (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son&oldid=1226331806"