In this paper, a comparison is made between Jerome’s and Petrus Chrysologus’
interpretations of the parable of the prodigal son. In Letter 21, written
in 383/384, Jerome responds to a request by Pope Damasus to clarify specific
questions about this well-known parable. After an introduction in which
the specific questions are mentioned and briefly discussed, he continues with
a verse-by-verse commentary of the Lucan passage, followed by a short conclusion.
Petrus Chrysologus (c. 380–c. 450), bishop of Ravenna, delivered five
sermons on the parable of the prodigal son, of which the fifth sermon offers a
spiritual interpretation. A comparison between the two different approaches
to the parable highlights Jerome’s usual exegetical method. There is a sharper
focus on Jerome’s letter, and in comparison with Chrysologus’ work, the unique
character of Jerome’s approach is underlined. An essential aspect of Jerome’s
commentary is his identification with the contents of the parable and the fact
that he uses this work to promote himself as a biblical scholar and exegete.
Prispevek primerja dve razlagi prilike o izgubljenem sinu, Hieronimovo
razlago in razlago Petra Krizologa. V Pismu 21 iz leta 383/384 odgovarja Hieronim
na prošnjo papeža Damaza, da bi razjasnil nekatera vprašanja glede te slovite
evangeljske prilike. Najprej v uvodu omenja in analizira različna podrobna
vprašanja, nadaljuje z razlago vrstic odlomka Lukovega evangelija, na koncu
sledi kratek sklep. Peter Krizolog (ok. 380–ok. 450), škof v Raveni, je pripravil
pet govorov o isti priliki, med njimi peti ponuja duhovno razlago. Primerjava
med dvema različnima pristopoma do razlage prilike poudari Hieronimovo
značilno eksegetsko metodo, ki skozi primerjavo postane še bolj jasno razvidna kot izvirna. Pomemben vidik Hieronimove razlage nastopi, ko v vsebini prilike
označi samega sebe in ko to uporabi za identifikacijo sebe kot bibličnega strokovnjaka
in razlagalca.
