The Prodigal Son's missing verse

[mordorbund]

Back when our family was studying the Psalms, we discussed poetic elements to look for. One such element was parallelism. For example:

Quote

Blessed is the man that
walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor standeth in the way of sinners,
nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

This particular parallelism is one of degrees. Each time it gets repeated it's moving in a particular direction. Because of the unidirectionality of the structure there is an implied "next step" that may be used to "take the limit" or at the very least illustrate where the slippery slope (or ascension) leads. This one implies something like "nor lieth in the bed of the treacherous".

The parables of the lost in Luke 15 have a parallelism to them:

One sheep is lost
99 are left behind while the shepherd searches
The sheep is found
Communal rejoicing
Moral

One coin is lost
9 are left behind while the woman looks
The coin is found
Communal rejoicing
Moral

One son is lost
1 son remains at the house while the father awaits
The son returns
Communal rejoicing

The Prodigal Son does not have a moral attached to the end.

Quote

Sheep:

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Coin:

Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

What should the missing verse say?

Why is the verse missing?

Who omitted the verse? Jesus or Luke, and why?

Do you structure these 3 parables differently so that there is no missing verse?

[Jamie123]

Unlike the other parables you mentioned, the Prodigal Son story ends on a cliffhanger. Does the older brother go into the house and rejoice with all the others, or does he keep up his mard*? What would we do in his place? Jesus doesn't finish the story - he leaves us to think about it.

We see exactly the same thing in the book Jonah: Jonah is angry with God for sparing Nineveh. (And then when worms eat the plant he was sheltering under it brings back all his anger again!) He's angry with God in exactly the same way the elder son is angry with the father. He wanted the Assyrians to suffer, just as the elder brother wanted the younger to suffer. Does he repent of his anger (like Job did)? Or does he stay mad at God? We don't know. It's left for the reader to meditate upon. 

*I was brought up in Leicester, where to "have a mard" means to throw a sulk. To call someone "mardy" (or "a mardy arse") is to say that they are sulky, miserable, or prone to taking unnecessary and unreasonable offence.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

7 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Communal rejoicing

The Prodigal Son does not have a moral attached to the end.

What should the missing verse say?

Why is the verse missing?

Who omitted the verse? Jesus or Luke, and why?

Do you structure these 3 parables differently so that there is no missing verse?

Very interesting observation.

Consider that in the parable of the prodigal son, we don't see the father "looking for" the prodigal son.  Instead, he stays with the "obedient" son.  Why?  When does the father go out searching?

Quote

His elder son... was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and entreated him.

Moral: There is no such thing as a sinless person.  There are those who repent and those who don't.

This really could be made into a hymn.  It leads us down a path to understanding with a certain pattern.  It is the pattern of how the heavens rejoice over a lost soul who has returned to the fold.  But then it gives a surprise ending... a big reveal.

It seems like it is talking about "big sinners".  This is to pull us in.  Get our attention.  Then the reveal is, "Hey, big or small, we're all sinners."

Edited May 5, 2023 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

Adrian Plass once observed that the way some Christians carry on, you'd think Jesus had never told the story of the Prodigal Son. This was his alternative take on it:

Quote

At last he cometh to his senses and saith, ‘All my father’s hired workers have more than they can eat, and here I am about to starve!  I will arise and go to my father and say, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee.  I am no longer worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants.”’ 

 So he arose and came to his father. 

 But when he was still a long way off his father seeth him and runneth to him and falleth on his neck and pulleth his hair and smacketh his backside and clumpeth him on the ear and saith, “Where the devil do you think you’ve been, Scumbag? 

 And the prodigal replieth, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee.  I am no longer worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thine hired servants.’ 

 The father saith, “Too right I’ll make thee as one of my hired servants, Master Dirty-stop-out-inheritance-spending-stinker-pinker-prodigal!  I suppose thou believest that thou canst waltz back in here without so much as an by thine leave, and conneth me with thine dramatic little speech?  Thinkest thou that this is “Little House on the Prairie”?  Or mayhap thou reckoneth that I was born yestere’en?  Oh, no.  Third assistant bog-cleaner, unpaid, for thee, mine odorous ex-relative.’ 

 Then the prodigal saith dismally unto him, ‘Oh, right, right - fair enough.  So, er, just to get it straight, there existeth no question of lots of nice presents and instant forgiveness and an large celebratory meal involving the fatted calf, or anything of that nature? 

 ‘In thy dreams, son!’ replieth the father.  “The only gift thou art likely to see is the personalized lavatory-brush with which thou shalt shortly be presented.’ 

 And the father taketh the prodigal by the ear which previously he clumpeth, and hauleth him back to the farm.  And lo, the fatted calf beholdeth them approach from an long way off, and, summing up the situation perfectly, throweth an big party.  And the fatted calf’s family and guests rejoiceth and doeth an bit of discow-dancing, and mooeth sarcastically over the fence at the prodigal as he passeth by in his tribulation. 

 And behold, as nightfall approacheth, the prodigal’s elder brother heareth distant sounds as of an bog-brush being applied, and strolleth out to the edge of the cess-pit after supper holding an large brandy, and he stretcheth luxuriously and picketh his teeth and lighteth an enormous cigar and looketh down and saith, ‘Evenin’, Rambo.  I see thou hast returned, then?  Likest thou thine rapid progress from affluent to effluent?’  

 And the prodigal looketh up and saith, ‘Verily, thou rebukest me justly with thine clever barb.  When I had great wealth I shared it not with thee, but now I freely offer thee an good share of  what is mine.’ 

 And he flicketh at the elder brother with his brush, so that an weighty portion of something exceeding unpleasant ploppeth into his brother’s brandy glass, and his brother retireth, threatening to tell on him. 

 And the prodigal findeth his father and saith unto him, ‘Behold, all these years during which I was in an far country, mine smug, pie-faced, hypocritical, dipstick of an brother must have caused thee to gnash thine teeth on an daily basis, so how come he getteth all the perks like brandy, cigars and suchlike, while I remaineth up to mine elbows in other people’s poo?’ 

 But his father replieth, ‘Thine brother is boring but biddable.  Get on with thine work, thou less than Baldrick, and think thyself lucky.’ 

 The father departeth and the prodigal saith to himself, ‘Blow this for an game of centurions.  I wisheth I hadn’t come home now.  Behold I am just as hungry, twice as guilty and four times as smelly.  Verily, if, by an miracle, any time off ever presenteth itself, there existeth in my mind no doubt about how I shall seek to occupieth it.  Definitely - it’s an day-trip to the pigs for me…’

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

25 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Adrian Plass once observed that the way some Christians carry on, you'd think Jesus had never told the story of the Prodigal Son. This was his alternative take on it:

 

I'm going to use this in my lesson this Sunday.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

Likest thou thine rapid progress from affluent to effluent?

I agree with the prodigal son. That's pretty clever.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Back when our family was studying the Psalms, we discussed poetic elements to look for. One such element was parallelism. For example:

This particular parallelism is one of degrees. Each time it gets repeated it's moving in a particular direction. Because of the unidirectionality of the structure there is an implied "next step" that may be used to "take the limit" or at the very least illustrate where the slippery slope (or ascension) leads. This one implies something like "nor lieth in the bed of the treacherous".

The parables of the lost in Luke 15 have a parallelism to them:

One sheep is lost
99 are left behind while the shepherd searches
The sheep is found
Communal rejoicing
Moral

One coin is lost
9 are left behind while the woman looks
The coin is found
Communal rejoicing
Moral

One son is lost
1 son remains at the house while the father awaits
The son returns
Communal rejoicing

The Prodigal Son does not have a moral attached to the end.

What should the missing verse say?

Why is the verse missing?

Who omitted the verse? Jesus or Luke, and why?

Do you structure these 3 parables differently so that there is no missing verse?

If the prodigal son parable came first, the other two would be used to highlight the joy in heaven when we repent. Otherwise, the concluding lesson for the prodigal son is explained in the father's words to the obedient son, an echos the repentant sinner theme: "for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found." Perhaps resurrection in itself is sufficient reason to greatly rejoice, even though there is greater rejoicing in exaltation. So perhaps we are to be grateful for blessings great and small (he who is faithful in few/small/earthly things can be entrusted with many/great/heavenly things).

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

12 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Likest thou thine rapid progress from affluent to effluent?

I agree with the prodigal son. That's pretty clever.

Although I must say that "thine rapid progress" is nonsense. Look, folks, it isn't hard. "Thy" is used before words beginning with consonants and "thine" before words beginning with vowels; thus "thy rapid progress" but "thine absurd statement".

[zil2]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Although I must say that "thine rapid progress" is nonsense. Look, folks, it isn't hard. "Thy" is used before words beginning with consonants and "thine" before words beginning with vowels; thus "thy rapid progress" but "thine absurd statement".

Also, think "my" and "mine":

This is my book.  These books are mine.  This is thy book.  These books are thine.

There were other absurdities in the text.

[Jamie123]

4 hours ago, zil2 said:

Also, think "my" and "mine":

This is my book.  These books are mine.  This is thy book.  These books are thine.

There were other absurdities in the text.

Thanks Vort and Zil, but I think Adrian Plass knew how it should have been written. The misapplied 16th century grammar is part of the humour. Its similar to humor based on "hypercorrected" speech. (One example would be Lady Penelope's driver Parker in "Thunderbirds" who attempts to hide his Cockney speech by inserting h's wherever they don't belong.) There are also the 20th Century cultural references like "Baldrick" and "Little House on the Prairie" which have no place here.

I believe this was the first time Plass used the expression "a day trip back to the pigs". I think this wonderfully sums up our tendency to get bored with holiness, and our temptation to give it up "just temporarily" with the full intention of repenting. I've been on many such "day trips" 😩

Edited May 6, 2023 by Jamie123

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Thanks Vort and Zil, but I think Adrian Plass knew how it should have been written. The misapplied 16th century grammar is part of the humour.

I understand that. But it looks to me like the humor derives from the misapplication of archaic speech patterns to modern speech, rather than from grammatically wrong application of archaic speech patterns.

Maybe you think that both are true, and that the humor is based at least partly on wrongly using such archaic patterns. Perhaps you're right. My guess is that, like most people who try to be funny using "thou" and its declinations, the author didn't really understand what he was writing, and instead was just trying to use "old-timey" speechification. I think what he wrote would have been just as funny, if not funnier, had he used correct grammar. I also freely acknowledge that my perspective doesn't define truth, and that when analyzing why other people do what they do, I often get it wrong.

[zil2]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

I think what he wrote would have been just as funny, if not funnier, had he used correct grammar.

That was my thinking.  The more obvious grammar errors were distracting to me, forcing me to stop and "say it right" in my head.  I suspect most people wouldn't recognize (most of?) the errors.  A tragedy, probably caused because people are no longer taught from the KJV.  (I was a tween and teen in low-density Zion, and when we got to Shakespeare in English class, all the other kids were struggling with the language.  Meanwhile, I was thinking, "What's the problem?" )

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

The more obvious grammar errors were distracting to me, forcing me to stop and "say it right" in my head. 

Sort of off topic.... This ^^ is how I read everything.  Every single word is distracting to me.  It is strange.  I obviously read a lot better than most. But I don't read nearly as fast as most.  I'm a very slow reader.  

I can scan/skim just as fast as anyone else.  But I don't comprehend nearly as much as another skimmer. 

Reading... Even if it is perfect grammar, there are a number of different emphases, phrasings, pauses, dynamics, and tempos that could be derived from the same written words.  How do you actually read anything in a fluid manner?  I really don't know how to do it.  I've been reading (more than most) for the past (many years) and my mind isn't able to master this thing called "reading."  I can only "skim" or "study."  The only time I can do something in between those two extremes is if it is something I'm somewhat familiar with already, and I just need a refresher.

I was made to read legal code because I mentally cannot read a sentence any longer than a short phrase without having to completely analyze some words/phrases in my head. 

How do you just plain read?

Edited May 6, 2023 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

That was my thinking.  The more obvious grammar errors were distracting to me, forcing me to stop and "say it right" in my head.  I suspect most people wouldn't recognize (most of?) the errors.  A tragedy, probably caused because people are no longer taught from the KJV.  (I was a tween and teen in low-density Zion, and when we got to Shakespeare in English class, all the other kids were struggling with the language.  Meanwhile, I was thinking, "What's the problem?" )

I think perhaps it's funnier to people (like me) who, as children, acquired a vague notion that saying a thing in "old fashioned speak" made it more holy, but as adults jettisoned that view. To someone for whom the King James Version does have genuine spiritual importance, I can understand it being less amusing.

Adrian Plass is not a sophisticated humorist. That's why I love him so much. That and the fact that he can make me laugh AND cry. This is one of my favourite poems of his:

 

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I obviously read a lot better than most. But I don't read nearly as fast as most.  I'm a very slow reader.  

FWIW, I'm a fairly slow reader.  When I read stories (or anything descriptive of people, places, things, events), I see pictures in my head.  In school, I didn't "study" - I learned it the first time through and maybe refreshed my memory of hard-to-recall facts, but not of principles or ideas.  I'm assuming you're the same way.  IMO, this is a good thing.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

How do you actually read anything in a fluid manner?

I read in my head the same way I would read aloud to an audience with all the feeling, intonation, emphasis, etc.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

my mind isn't able to master this thing called "reading."

Or perhaps it's other people who aren't really reading?

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

How do you just plain read?

I get in a comfy spot, open the book, and forget that the rest of the universe exists - in fact, I move into the story, as if I were living it, not reading it.  (Of course, I'm fictionally dysfunctional: I resent anything that pulls me away from reading.)

Meanwhile, I have a friend who sees no pictures - not when reading, not even of her own memories (which seem to be fewer due to the lack of pictures).  She can recall facts, but no images.  When she reads, it's just words and their meaning.  Sounds like a perfect nightmare to me...

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

I read in my head the same way I would read aloud to an audience with all the feeling, intonation, emphasis, etc.

This ^ ^ is the problem. 

When my wife reads a sentence she has never seen before, she automatically has the right feeling, intonation, etc.  No matter how complex, she just reads it out loud correctly the first time through.

I have to read it a few times through before I figure out the intent of the sentence.  Once I figure it out I can then place the right emphasis on the right words and place the right pauses, etc.  Without that, the sentence doesn't mean anything to me.  So, if I guess the wrong intonations, I am left wondering what on earth is this saying?

In this way, you could say that I have about a 5th grade reading level.  If a book is written for about a 5th grade level (or what used to be a 5th grade level) I'm usually good with it.  But despite the voluminous reading I tend to do, I haven't gotten any further than that.

This is actually very good for codes and scriptures, or anything which really calls for intense study.  I just can't read a fluff book without studying it.  All I can do is skim.

Audio books are great.  They really help me.  But if they skip a word, or sometimes they do an abridged version, then I have a short circuit.

[zil2]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I have to read it a few times through before I figure out the intent of the sentence. 

Ah, interesting.

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Audio books are great.  They really help me.

Perhaps you're more of an auditory learner.  Not me, I have to read to learn - what I hear tends to go in one ear and out the other (oddly, I did well in school - guess it was all the note-taking; but these days, I have to read).

Edited May 6, 2023 by zil2

[Traveler]

This thread is rather interesting but not in so much in a good way.  The word or term "prodigal" appears to me to be misunderstood - not just by most Christians in general but many of this forum.  Prodigal does not mean wicked or hateful.  It is a reference to wealth – the reasons for seeking wealth and how wealth is used.  In the light of the many parables of Jesus concerning wealth – this is yet another about how money comes to rule individuals rather than using our “blessing” particularly blessings of wealth with wisdom void of selfishness.   Both sons were prodigal sons and I think this is a point missed by many – in part to justify their particular lust for wealth – even concerning their lusts for the blessings in eternity of forgiveness and salvation as gifts from G-d.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

41 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Prodigal does not mean wicked or hateful.  It is a reference to wealth – the reasons for seeking wealth and how wealth is used.  In the light of the many parables of Jesus concerning wealth

Interestingly, there is only one person in the story of the prodigal son who is wealthy.   

It’s the father.  And, I’m pretty sure we all know who the father represents.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

This thread is rather interesting but not in so much in a good way.  The word or term "prodigal" appears to me to be misunderstood - not just by most Christians in general but many of this forum.  Prodigal does not mean wicked or hateful.  It is a reference to wealth – the reasons for seeking wealth and how wealth is used.  In the light of the many parables of Jesus concerning wealth – this is yet another about how money comes to rule individuals rather than using our “blessing” particularly blessings of wealth with wisdom void of selfishness.   Both sons were prodigal sons and I think this is a point missed by many – in part to justify their particular lust for wealth – even concerning their lusts for the blessings in eternity of forgiveness and salvation as gifts from G-d.

 

The Traveler

Traveler,

If you're going to make an argument about semantics, please look up the definitions first.

The most common definition I've heard from a variety of sources (Christian or otherwise) is simply "wasteful."  But here are some definitions from three different dictionaries.

Quote

prodigal (prŏd′ĭ-gəl)

Rashly or wastefully extravagant.
Giving or given in abundance; lavish or profuse: synonym: profuse.
Recklessly spendthrift
Wasteful
Spending or using large amounts of money, time, energy, etc., especially in a way that is not very wise:

Where is "wealth" in those defintions?

I can tell you of many people who are barely above the poverty level, but they spend like they live in Beverly Hills.  This may make some of them generous beyond their means.  But that is part of why they are poor.  They believe they own everything rather than a steward over that which is the Lord's.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

55 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Traveler,

If you're going to make an argument about semantics, please look up the definitions first.

The most common definition I've heard from a variety of sources (Christian or otherwise) is simply "wasteful."  But here are some definitions from three different dictionaries.

Where is "wealth" in those defintions?

I can tell you of many people who are barely above the poverty level, but they spend like they live in Beverly Hills.  This may make some of them generous beyond their means.  But that is part of why they are poor.  They believe they own everything rather than a steward over that which is the Lord's.

Perhaps I see things in this world different than you.  The truly poor I have encountered could not possibly be wasteful and survive.  To the truly poor drinkable water is more precious and sought after than gold.   If someone is capable of being wasteful or extravert, they are not poor.  I have a problem with someone that thinks they are poor – but that are overweight.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps I see things in this world different than you. 

Apparently so.  Our ward covers a couple of high-end subdivisions.  It also covers several trailer parks and similar areas. 

One family in particular lives in a subdivision that only has word down shacks that should be condemned, or they live in trailers.  The have worn down cars that burn more oil than gasoline.  Yet the mom pends $100s per month on cosmetology.  The dad (non-member) drinks a six pack of beer each day.  But I doubt even you would walk into their house and think they are wealthy.  Then there are all the trinkets and jewelry they somehow buy.  (Basically costume jewelry).  

Again, it is all relative.  The "extremely poor" in the US are wealthier than the people in third world countries that are working hard to make ends meet. 

You may think that this poor family is actually rich.  They are not.  I've seen their finances because I was trying to help them.  They simply live way beyond their means.  

My family is by any objective measure, much more wealthy than they are.  But I would never dare live as extravagantly as they do.  I have wealth.  But I spend it on education for my children.  I pay for maintaining the house I live in.  I pay for transportation to and from work, school, etc.  I give to charity.  I help people in dire straights. 

I certainly spend a lot of money each month.  But if you actually looked at my bills each month, you'd have a hard time determining where I could cut my expenses.

If you honestly believe that this parable in any way says that wealth alone is a negative trait, then why does this very same parable make the father (who was wealthier than either son) to be a good man?

Edited May 8, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

If you honestly believe that this parable in any way says that wealth alone is a negative trait, then why does this very same parable make the father (who was wealthier than either son) to be a good man?

Because he did not look down on those of lesser means than himself nor did he attempt to controll others through his wealth.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

Because he did not look down on those of lesser means than himself nor did he attempt to controll others through his wealth.

 

The Traveler

Exactly.  It is not about having "wealth".  That alone is never the sin.

But you said that the "sin" was "wealth", not "waste".  And if your focus is on "wealth = sin" then you missed the entire point of the parable.

[laronius]

22 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is a reference to wealth – the reasons for seeking wealth and how wealth is used...  Both sons were prodigal sons and I think this is a point missed by many – in part to justify their particular lust for wealth – even concerning their lusts for the blessings in eternity of forgiveness and salvation as gifts from G-d.

 

The Traveler

I think this is a great point. Clearly the younger son improperly used the wealth he received. But one feasible reason for the response of the older brother is a belief that responsible use of wealth dictated the value of one's soul. This too is an improper application of wealth.