Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Luke : 2 Volumes (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)
    Luke : 2 Volumes (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)
    Luke : 2 Volumes (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)
    Ebook4,176 pages66 hours

    Luke : 2 Volumes (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)

    By Darrell L. Bock

    3/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    This informative, balanced commentary includes extensive introductory notes and a comprehensive discussion of the text. An outstanding addition to any academic, pastoral, or student library.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherBaker Publishing Group
    Release dateJul 1, 1996
    ISBN9781585583263
    Luke : 2 Volumes (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)
    Author

    Darrell L. Bock

    Darrell L. Bock es un erudito del Nuevo Testamento y profesor de investigaciones en el Seminario Teológico de Dallas. Además, tiene un doctorado de la Universidad de Aberdeen en Escocia. Él ha sido editor corresponsal para la revista Cristianismo hoy y ha publicado varios artículos en los periódicos Los Angeles Times y Dallas Morning News. Es autor y coautor de varios libros incluyendo, Tres puntos de vista sobre el milenio y el mas allá y El comentario de Lucas.

    Read more from Darrell L. Bock

    Related to Luke

    Related ebooks

    Christianity For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • UNLIMITED

      What The New Testament Doesn’t Say

      May 20, 2019

      When professing Christians deny Biblical creation, we often point them to the Words of Jesus and the New Testament authors, which clearly affirm their own belief in Biblical creation. Because Christians are, by definition, people who believe what Jes

      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      ‘A History Of The Bible’ Offers Scholarly Insights Into Its Construction

      Aug 27, 2019

      Theologian and Anglican priest John Barton takes a well-researched look into the context and composition of the Bible.

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Book Briefs

      Mar 8, 2022

      BUDDHADASA BHIKKHU (1906–1993), one of Thailand’s most revered monks of the twentieth century, wants us all to be problem solvers. In an edited series of his lectures recently published as Seeing with the Eye of Dhamma: The Comprehensive Teaching of

      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Readers Write: Church Engagement, Different Definitions, And Ancient Celebrations

      Mar 30, 2019

      Church engagement The March 11 cover story, “Pray & wash,” provides helpful insight into the development of nontraditional churches in the United States. The author addresses important topics concerning the role and purpose of Christian churches in

      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Why Study Church History?

      Jun 15, 2020

      Why Study Church History?
      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      How Do We Make Sense of Rebirth?

      Jun 28, 2022

      How Do We Make Sense of Rebirth?
      15 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      To Thine Eyes

      Feb 12, 2023

      To Thine Eyes
      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Book Briefs

      Mar 7, 2023

      BUDDHISM’S FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN is freeing beings from the delusions that are the causes of suffering. One method that is often used to do this is distinguishing two truths, or two realities: the relative truth of how things appear conventionally, and

      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Was There a Fifth Noble Truth?

      Jan 22, 2019

      MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS have passed since twenty-eight fragile birch bark scrolls, now known to be the oldest surviving Buddhist manuscripts in the world, came to light. Dating back to as early as the first century BCE, the scrolls—originating in the

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Remembering Luther & the Diet of Worms...

      Mar 10, 2023

      Is anyone keen on a special diet to keep fit? With many making plans that include some fitness goals, the answer may be an emphatic yes! How about a diet of worms? Mopane worms, to be specific. These may be a delicacy north of the Limpopo River, thou

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      This Essentially Meaningless Conflict

      Sep 22, 2017

      MARILYNNE ROBINSON’S accomplishments are impressive by any standard: she has won the National Book Critics Circle Award for Fiction, the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and the National Humanities Medal, among other honors. But perhaps a better measure o

      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Ask The Teachers

      Feb 11, 2020

      BHANTE SUJATO: In 2014 I coauthored, with Bhikkhu Brahmali, a book called The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts. The “early Buddhist texts” are essentially the main parts of the Pali suttas and vinaya, as well as the cognate texts in Chinese a

      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      THE WAR FOR OUR YOUTH Why creation still matters

      Dec 30, 2019

      We’re being told by public education systems, universities, media, some parents, and unfortunately many church leaders, that parts of the Bible are not relevant anymore and that we need to reinvent God’s word. So, with this situation, in order to und

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Holy Moly

      Nov 15, 2024

      Holy Moly
      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Book Briefs

      Nov 12, 2019

      Jamgon Kongtrul (1813–1899), often credited as the founder of Rimé, has made an immeasurable impact on modern Tibetan Buddhism, perhaps especially as it’s understood in the West. In The Life of Jamgom Kongtrul the Great: Tibet’s Great Treasure Holder

      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      How To Disagree Well

      Jan 27, 2022

      IT WAS ON CHRISTMAS EVE that I realised I’d been subjected to a social media drive-by shooting. That pinnacle of modern ecclesiastical power, the president of Humanists UK, Professor Alice Roberts had deduced from the headline of an interview I gave

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Kabbalah

      Feb 28, 2020

      Think of the mystical religion Kabbalah, and many will immediately picture the singer Madonna. As one of a number of celebrities to embrace its ancient wisdom in recent years, she has sought to study and understand Kabbalah’s deep teachings, often in

      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Paradigm Shift

      May 10, 2024

      Paradigm Shift
      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Rome Vs. Chicago

      Jan 31, 2019

      Rome Vs. Chicago
      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Woman letters

      Mar 21, 2024

      Woman letters
      6 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Luke

    3/5

    2 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Luke - Darrell L. Bock

      BAKER EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY

      ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

      ROBERT W. YARBROUGH

      and JOSHUA W. JIPP, EDITORS

      Volumes now available:

      Matthew   David L. Turner

      Mark   Robert H. Stein

      Luke   Darrell L. Bock

      Acts   Darrell L. Bock

      Romans, 2nd ed.   Thomas R. Schreiner

      1 Corinthians   David E. Garland

      2 Corinthians   George H. Guthrie

      Galatians   Douglas J. Moo

      Ephesians   Frank Thielman

      Philippians   Moisés Silva

      Colossians and Philemon   G. K. Beale

      1–2 Thessalonians   Jeffrey A. D. Weima

      James   Dan G. McCartney

      1 Peter   Karen H. Jobes

      1–3 John   Robert W. Yarbrough

      Jude and 2 Peter   Gene L. Green

      Revelation   Grant R. Osborne

      ©1994 by Darrell L. Bock

      Published by Baker Academic

      a division of Baker Publishing Group

      P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

      www.bakeracademic.com

      Ebook edition created 2016

      Ebook corrections 05.08.2018, 07.02.2020

      All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

      Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

      ISBN 978-1-5855-8326-3

      With Appreciation

      Dave Krentel

      William D. Taylor

      Harold Hoehner

      Don Glenn

      Elliott Johnson

      Eugene Merrill

      Ken Barker

      Ed Blum

      Stan Toussaint

      Howard Hendricks

      Don Campbell

      I. Howard Marshall

      M. Daniel Carroll R.

      Scott B. Rae

      Craig A. Blaising

      It has been a privilege to learn so much from you, and a joy to know the Lord’s fellowship and share in the Lord’s work with you.

      Contents

      Cover

      Series Page

      Title Page

      Copyright Page

      Series Preface

      Author’s Preface

      Note to the Reader

      Abbreviations

      Transliteration

      Introduction to the Gospel of Luke

      I. Luke’s Preface and the Introduction of John and Jesus (1:1–2:52)

      A. Preface: Luke Carefully Builds on Precedent (1:1–4)

      B. Infancy Narrative: Forerunner and Fulfillment (1:5–2:40)

      C. Jesus’ Revelation of His Self-Understanding (2:41–52)

      II. Preparation for Ministry: Anointed by God (3:1–4:13)

      A. John the Baptist: One Who Goes Before (3:1–20)

      B. Jesus: One Who Comes After (3:21–4:13)

      III. Galilean Ministry: Revelation of Jesus (4:14–9:50)

      A. Overview of Jesus’ Ministry (4:14–44)

      B. Gathering of Disciples (5:1–6:16)

      C. Jesus’ Teaching (6:17–49)

      D. First Movements to Faith and Christological Questions (7:1–8:3)

      E. Call to Faith, Christological Revelation, and Questions (8:4–9:17)

      F. Christological Confession and Instruction About Discipleship (9:18–50)

      IV. Jerusalem Journey: Jewish Rejection and the New Way (9:51–19:44)

      A. Blessing of Decision: Privilege, Mission, and Commitment (9:51–10:24)

      B. Discipleship: Looking to One’s Neighbor, Jesus, and God (10:25–11:13)

      C. Controversies, Corrections, and Calls to Trust (11:14–54)

      D. Discipleship: Trusting God (12:1–48)

      E. Knowing the Nature of the Time: Israel Turns Away, but Blessing Still Comes (12:49–14:24)

      F. Discipleship in the Face of Rejection: Basic Elements (14:25–35)

      G. Pursuit of Sinners: Heaven’s Examples (15:1–32)

      H. Generosity: Handling Money and Possessions (16:1–31)

      I. False Teaching, Forgiveness, and Service (17:1–10)

      J. Faithfulness in Looking for the King, the Kingdom, and the Kingdom’s Consummation (17:11–18:8)

      K. Humbly Entrusting All to the Father (18:9–30)

      L. Turning to Jerusalem: Messianic Power, Personal Transformation, Warning of Responsibility, and Entry with Mourning (18:31–19:44)

      V. Jerusalem: The Innocent One Slain and Raised (19:45–24:53)

      A. Controversy in Jerusalem (19:45–21:4)

      B. Jerusalem’s Destruction and the End (21:5–38)

      C. Betrayal and Farewell (22:1–38)

      D. Trials and Death of Jesus (22:39–23:56)

      E. Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus (24:1–53)

      Excursuses

      1. John the Baptist and Elijah (1:17)

      2. The Census of Quirinius (2:1–2)

      3. Date of John the Baptist’s Ministry (3:1–2)

      4. Sources and Synoptic Relationships

      5. The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke (3:23–38)

      6. The Son of Man in Aramaic and in Luke (5:24)

      7. The Sermon on the Plain in Luke: Its Relationship to Matthew and Its Theological-Ethical Function (6:20–49)

      8. The Parables of Jesus

      9. Luke’s Great Omission (9:18) from Mark 6:45–8:26

      10. Authenticity of the Suffering-Son-of-Man Sayings and of the Passion Predictions (9:22)

      11. Last Supper: The Nature and Timing of the Meal (22:7–13)

      12. The Jesus Seminar and the Gospel of Luke

      Works Cited

      Index of Subjects

      Index of Authors

      Index of Greek Words

      Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

      Old Testament

      New Testament

      Old Testament Apocrypha

      Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

      New Testament Apocrypha

      Mishnah

      Tosepta

      Babylonian Talmud

      Jerusalem (Palestinian) Talmud

      Targumim

      Midrashim

      Other Rabbinic Writings

      Qumran / Dead Sea Scrolls

      Papyri

      Josephus

      Philo

      Classical Writers

      Church Fathers

      Miscellanea

      Notes

      About the Author

      Back Cover

      Series Preface

      The chief concern of the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (to be known as BECNT) is to provide, within the framework of informed evangelical thought, commentaries that blend scholarly depth with readability, exegetical detail with sensitivity to the whole, attention to critical problems with theological awareness. We hope thereby to attract the interest of a fairly wide audience, from the scholar who is looking for a thoughtful and independent examination of the text to the motivated lay Christian who craves solid but accessible exposition.

      Nevertheless, a major purpose is to address the needs of pastors and others who are involved in the preaching and exposition of the Scriptures as the uniquely inspired Word of God. This consideration affects directly the parameters of the series. For example, serious biblical expositors cannot afford to depend on a superficial treatment that avoids the difficult questions, but neither are they interested in encyclopedic commentaries that seek to cover every conceivable issue that may arise. Our aim, therefore, is to focus on those problems that have a direct bearing on the meaning of the text (although selected technical details are treated in the additional notes).

      Similarly, a special effort is made to avoid treating exegetical questions for their own sake, that is, in relative isolation from the thrust of the argument as a whole. This effort may involve (at the discretion of the individual contributors) abandoning the verse-by-verse approach in favor of an exposition that focuses on the paragraph as the main unit of thought. In all cases, however, the commentaries will stress the development of the argument and explicitly relate each passage to what precedes and follows it so as to identify its function in context as clearly as possible.

      We believe, moreover, that a responsible exegetical commentary must take fully into account the latest scholarly research, regardless of its source. The attempt to do this in the context of a conservative theological tradition presents certain challenges, and in the past the results have not always been commendable. In some cases, evangelicals appear to make use of critical scholarship not for the purpose of genuine interaction but only to dismiss it. In other cases, the interaction glides over into assimilation, theological distinctives are ignored or suppressed, and the end product cannot be differentiated from works that arise from a fundamentally different starting point.

      The contributors to this series attempt to avoid these two pitfalls. They do not consider traditional opinions to be sacrosanct, and they are certainly committed to do justice to the biblical text whether or not it supports such opinions. On the other hand, they will not quickly abandon a long-standing view, if there is persuasive evidence in its favor, for the sake of fashionable theories. What is more important, the contributors share a belief in the trustworthiness and essential unity of Scripture. They also consider that the historic formulations of Christian doctrine, such as the ecumenical creeds and many of the documents originating in the sixteenth-century Reformation, arose from a legitimate reading of Scripture, thus providing a proper framework for its further interpretation. No doubt, the use of such a starting point sometimes results in the imposition of a foreign construct on the text, but we deny that it must necessarily do so or that the writers who claim to approach the text without prejudices are invulnerable to the same danger.

      Accordingly, we do not consider theological assumptions—from which, in any case, no commentator is free—to be obstacles to biblical interpretation. On the contrary, an exegete who hopes to understand the apostle Paul in a theological vacuum might just as easily try to interpret Aristotle without regard for the philosophical framework of his whole work or without having recourse to those subsequent philosophical categories that make possible a meaningful contextualization of his thought. It must be emphasized, however, that the contributors to the present series come from a variety of theological traditions and that they do not all have identical views with regard to the proper implementation of these general principles. In the end, all that really matters is whether the series succeeds in representing the original text accurately, clearly, and meaningfully to the contemporary reader.

      The present commentary on Luke treats matters of detail to a greater extent than will other volumes in the series. Because this is the first commentary to appear on the Gospels, it seemed prudent to give the author some flexibility in discussing source-critical and historical questions (this matter is set in smaller type to distinguish it from the actual exposition of the text; see excursus 4 for additional rationale for assigning this role to the commentary on Luke). Accordingly, the authors of the volumes on the other Gospels will be able to deal with such questions more selectively and briefly. As an additional help, shading is used to assist the reader in locating salient sections of the treatment of each passage: the introductory comments and the discussion of structure.

      Textual variants in the Greek text are signaled in the author’s translation by means of half-brackets around the relevant word or phrase (e.g., ⌜Gerasenes⌝, thereby alerting the reader to turn to the additional notes at the end of each exegetical unit for a discussion of the textual problem.

      The documentation uses the author-date method, in which the basic reference consists of author’s surname + year + page number(s): Fitzmyer 1981: 297. The only exceptions to this system are well-known reference works (e.g., BAGD, LSJ, TDNT).

      Moisés Silva

      Author’s Preface

      Writing a commentary is a little like raising a family. Once assigned, it lives with you and is in your thoughts constantly. Since I was asked to do Luke, my three children—Elisa, Lara, and Stephen—have left diapers and have entered or are now approaching junior high. They do not know what life is without Daddy working on the book. They have given up much playtime and have kept the house quieter on many an occasion so Daddy could think. Sometimes this required parental negotiation or coercion or both, but they have been great about being sensitive to the project. They, along with my understanding partner and friend Sally, are to be thanked for allowing a fourth child to invade the house for a time. I love you all very much.

      But what is this child like? A commentary is different things to different people. I have kept one metaphor in mind as I worked—that of tour guide. When one scales great heights, sees a great city, or visits a beautiful church, a tour guide helps to orient the visitor to the sights by helping the tourist to appreciate the details of the locale’s history and what others have said or experienced at the site. This is what I have tried to do. My major goal is to discuss the text and compare it to what Mark and Matthew wrote. Beyond this, I have tried to reflect the table talk about Luke. I have had many able companions and have tried faithfully to note whenever I have peered over the shoulders of others. I have benefited greatly from the commentaries of Marshall, Fitzmyer, Schürmann, Bovon, Plummer, Luce, Ernst, Klostermann, Grundmann, Nolland, Danker, Tiede, and C. A. Evans. These works were my constant companions on the journey, though along the way several others joined the tour and helped to make it enjoyable. My appreciation to them and others cannot be sufficiently expressed, except to say that in a day when the sometimes lonely and tedious endeavor of scholarship and study is not always appreciated, their labors have been highly esteemed. Recent commentaries by L. Johnson (1991), Stein (1992), and Nolland (vols. 2–3: 1993a, 1993b) were released after this manuscript was substantially completed. They are worthy of inclusion in a list of good treatments of Luke, though I have not interacted with them as fully as they deserve.

      This work is longer than I originally anticipated. This is not only because Luke is the longest book in the NT, but also because studies of the Gospels are exceedingly complex, given the presence of parallel passages and the numerous discussions about the historicity of events. I have tried to highlight background and custom, so that anyone studying the Gospel of Luke can know what first-century customs and thinking were like, as well as which ancient texts describe such customs. Sometimes we cannot be sure of the exact nature of the ancient practice, but I have tried to be sensitive to our distance from the original setting and to give the reasons behind my description of the custom. The numerous references to ancient sources of all kinds should allow readers to follow the tour guide’s trail, if they so wish.

      I have tried to structure the treatment of each pericope consistently so that the reader may find information quickly. Each unit begins with a quick overview of how it fits in the movement of Luke. Then comes a discussion of sources and historicity, including summary observations about how Luke is like and unlike parallel passages. Questions of form briefly follow. Next a detailed outline traces the argument of the particular passage; these outlines substitute for detailed discussions of structure and develop the master outline. Then in one paragraph I summarize the unit’s themes. A translation follows this. All this initial material concentrates on synthesis, thus orienting the reader to the verses under discussion and setting the stage for the exegesis. The exegesis proceeds one verse at a time. I have tried to note a full range of tools, so that excellent discussions of an issue can be quickly located. More-detailed comparisons to parallel texts, where they occur, are also treated here. The last paragraph or two of this section answers one question: How did Luke want the reader to respond to this event or teaching? The additional notes cover mostly text-critical questions. For the most part, I have made little use of formal literary studies of Luke. This discipline is new and holds great promise, but much of the commentary was already written before its recent emergence. In the future, it is likely that much of value for understanding Luke will emerge from this field of study. Finally, I have been selective in my use of periodical material, choosing to concentrate on monographs. Excellent bibliographies of periodical material may be found in Bovon, Schürmann, Fitzmyer, and Nolland (who makes good use of such resources). So this commentary is historical, exegetical, and (in the summary remarks of each exegetical section) pastoral.

      My gratitude extends to many who encouraged me in this work. Garry Knussman, Robert Ramey, Joe O’Day, Allan Fisher, Jim Weaver, Moisés Silva, and Ken Barker served faithfully in the editorial process, constantly exhorting me to say it more succinctly and helping me to avoid many pitfalls. Most faithful of all was David Aiken, my editor, whose keen eye, patience, and sense of style added immeasurably to this commentary. Special appreciation goes to Baker Book House for letting me lay out the commentary in the way I desired. Their total commitment to serious evangelical scholarship is much needed in this age. Herb Bateman read through a late draft with a careful eye and much encouragement. Max Turner and Howard Marshall saw brief portions and gave helpful critiques. Clay Porr, Jay Smith, and Tom Bailey helped me to convert my computer files into the proper format. Most appreciated was a sabbatical leave granted to me by Dallas Theological Seminary for the year 1989–90 so I could study at the University of Tübingen, during which time the most substantive work on the commentary was completed. This was also the year the Berlin Wall fell and to see that event firsthand with my family was special. My hosts in Germany—Martin Hengel, Otto Betz, and the colleagues at the Theologicum—made the stay very pleasant. Our friends in the villages of Neckartailfingen and Kirchentellinsfurt helped us to feel as much at home as possible. We cannot thank them enough. In sum, God was faithful to us in our journey.

      I dedicate this work with gratitude to a collection of people who have had a significant impact on my Christian life. They come from a wide variety of backgrounds and show the diversity that makes the body of Christ so fascinating. I thank them for their ministry in my life. My prayer is that they might accept this expression of gratitude, though it is but a drop compared to what their labor has given to me.

      One day all children leave the nest, and so it is with this commentary. I pray that its use will make the subject of Luke’s Gospel, Jesus Christ, more real.

      Darrell L. Bock

      Note to the Reader

      This commentary is historical, exegetical, and (in the remarks summarizing each exegetical section) pastoral. The treatment of each pericope is structured consistently to help the reader find information quickly. Each unit begins with a quick overview (in gray shading) of how it fits in the movement of Luke. Then comes a discussion of sources and historicity, including summary observations about how Luke is like and unlike parallel passages (these discussions are set in smaller type to distinguish them from the exposition). Four items follow: questions of form, a detailed outline tracing the argument of the particular passage, a paragraph summarizing the unit’s themes, and a translation of the unit. All this initial material concentrates on synthesis, thus orienting the reader to the verses under discussion and setting the stage for the exegesis. The exegesis proceeds one verse at a time and cites a full range of tools so that excellent discussions of an issue can be quickly located. More-detailed comparisons to parallel texts, where they occur, are also treated here. The last paragraph or two of this section (labeled Summary and shaded gray) seeks to answer one question: How did Luke want the reader to respond to this event or teaching? The additional notes cover mostly text-critical questions. In each exegetical unit, gray shading is used to assist the reader in locating salient sections of the treatment of each passage: the introductory comments, the discussion of structure, and the concluding summary.

      Textual variants in the Greek text are signaled in the author’s translation by means of half-brackets around the relevant English word or phrase (e.g., ⌜Gerasenes⌝), thereby alerting the reader to turn to the additional notes at the end of each exegetical unit for a discussion of the textual problem.

      The documentation uses the author-date method, in which the basic reference consists of author’s surname + year + page number(s): Fitzmyer 1981: 297. The only exceptions to this system are well-known reference works (e.g., BAGD, LSJ, TDNT). Full publication data are given in the bibliography at the end of volume two, as are the indexes for the entire commentary.

      Abbreviations

      Bibliographic and General

      Jewish and Christian Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

      Rabbinic Tractates

      The abbreviations below are used for the names of tractates in the Babylonian Talmud (indicated by a prefixed b.), Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud (y.), Mishnah (m.), and Tosepta (t.). The last column gives the numbers of the order and tractate in the Mishnah.

      Targumim

      Targumim on the Writings and Prophets are indicated by the abbreviation Tg. placed in front of the usual abbreviation for the biblical book. Targumim on the Pentateuch use one of the following abbreviations:

      Midrashim

      Midrashim on the biblical books are indicated by the abbreviation Midr. placed in front of the usual abbreviation for the biblical book. Where a more common name exists, the title is spelled out (e.g., Sipra, Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Pesikta Rabbati).

      Qumran / Dead Sea Scrolls

      Greek Manuscripts

      Sigla for Greek manuscripts basically follow that laid out in UBS⁴, pages 4*–52*. The original hand of a manuscript is indicated by an asterisk (א*), successive correctors by superscript numbers (אa¹, אa², etc.). Nonbiblical papyri are abbreviated according to the following list (see BAGD xxxi–xxxii for bibliographic information):

      Greek Transliteration

      Notes on the transliteration of Greek

      Accents, lenis (smooth breathing), and iota subscript are not shown in transliteration.

      The transliteration of asper (rough breathing) precedes a vowel or diphthong (e.g., ἁ = ha; αἱ = hai) and follows ρ (i.e., ῥ = rh).

      Gamma is transliterated n only when it precedes γ, κ, ξ, or χ.

      Upsilon is transliterated u only when it is part of a diphthong (i.e., αυ, ευ, ου, υι).

      Hebrew Transliteration

      Notes on the transliteration of Hebrew

      Accents are not shown in transliteration.

      Silent šĕwāʾ is not indicated in transliteration.

      The unaspirated forms of ת פ כ ד ג ב are not specially indicated in transliteration.

      Dāgeš forte is indicated by doubling the consonant. Dāgeš present for euphonious reasons is not indicated in transliteration.

      Maqqēp is represented by a hyphen.

      Introduction to the Gospel of Luke

      Overview

      The Gospel of Luke is unique in at least two ways. First, it is the longest Gospel. In NA, Matthew occupies 87 pages, Mark (through 16:8) 60 pages, and John 73 pages, while Luke takes up 96 pages. A comparison of verses reveals a similar count: Matthew has 1,071 verses, Mark has 678 verses, John has 869 verses, while Luke contains 1,151 verses.[1] Second, it is the only Gospel with a sequel. As such Luke not only introduces Jesus and his ministry, but also shows how that ministry relates to the early church era. This linkage enables Luke to discuss how God brought his salvation in Jesus, how the earliest church preached Jesus, and how they carried out their mission to both Jew and Gentile. The two volumes and their message are virtually inseparable, despite the canonical division. Luke’s Gospel often lays the foundation for many of the issues whose answers come in Acts.

      Luke–Acts highlights God’s plan. It explains how Jew and Gentile could end up as equals in a community planted by God, even though that community’s roots were originally grounded in a promise to Israel. Four issues were particularly problematic in the church of Luke’s time.

      First was the question of salvation. How could Gentiles be included as God’s people on an equal basis with Jews, extending even to matters like table fellowship and the exclusion of circumcision? How did the hope of God open up to include all races—to the exclusion of so much that was related to law and Jewish tradition? Luke answers these questions largely in Acts, as he explains how God directed this entire process.

      Second, the seeming paradox exists that while God’s plan was at work the most natural audience for the message, the Jewish nation, was responding largely negatively. Indeed Jews even persecuted Christians who preached God’s hope to them. Why was God’s plan meeting so much hostility? Was this new community cursed for being too generous with God’s promise or was it blessed? If blessed, where was evidence of such blessing? Had God ceased to reach out to Israel? Had the new community withdrawn itself from the old community of faith? The Lucan answer to this question is that the church did not separate itself from Israel; it continued to preach to the nation and did not withdraw. Rather, Israel turned the church out, forcing it to form a new community. Luke’s Gospel lays the groundwork for this reply in detailing how the nation and especially its leadership reacted to Jesus.

      The third issue was how the person and teaching of a crucified Jesus fit into God’s plan. How could Jesus, despite his physical absence, continue to exercise a presence and represent the hope of God? How could the church exalt such an absent figure and regard him as the center of God’s work? How could a slain figure bring the consummation of God’s promises? How would and could consummation come through him? Acts supplies the major answers to these questions by emphasizing the exaltation of Jesus, but the Gospel lays the groundwork by presenting the Christology that underlies the exaltation.

      Fourth, what does it mean to respond to Jesus? What is required, what can one expect in making such a commitment, and how should one live until the day Jesus returns and the hope is realized? In short, what are believers and the new community to be? This is a major burden of the Gospel of Luke: to define Jesus’ mission and that of the disciples who follow him. The bulk of Luke explains how Jesus prepared the disciples for his departure and prepared them to minister in his absence. This is where the crucial Lucan section of chapters 9–19, the Jerusalem journey, fits into the Gospel and controls its purpose. Accordingly, one should not separate the teaching of this Gospel too greatly from the period of the church. In Luke 24:44–49 (see also Luke 5:31–32) Jesus equates his mission with that of the church. The ethic of the Jerusalem journey section and of the Sermon on the Plain comes into view because of the realities of impending rejection. Luke records them for Theophilus so that he can be reassured about what God’s plan is, what a disciple is called to be, and how a disciple participates in the community’s task to identify and proclaim Jesus, not only through the message that the new community delivers about Jesus, but also by the way that disciples live in a world hostile to that declaration.

      Luke’s Gospel and his sequel cover these questions. So Luke’s task is to reassure Theophilus (Luke 1:4), especially concerning the disputed presence of Gentiles in a new community. Acts develops this question; the Gospel points out the hostility believers face, especially from Judaism. Jesus faced similar hostility, as did the faithful prophets of old. Most important to Luke’s Gospel is the role of Jesus in God’s plan and promise, while Acts describes the nature of the new community that emerged from his ministry. This new community has historical roots in Jewish promise but is under intense pressure from the ancient Jewish community. Additional pressure comes from Jewish Christians who want Gentiles to relate more favorably to some matters of the law. Much of Judaism rejected Christian claims of fulfillment in Jesus. Does a Gentile really belong in this new community? Can God really be behind a community that faces so much hostility and rejection? What was Jesus really about in his life and teaching? How do Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection really reflect divine events fulfilled among us (Luke 1:1)? These questions about God’s plan, his Chosen One, and the emerging new community are at the heart of Luke’s Gospel.

      So Luke’s Gospel highlights the activity of a mighty and faithful God through Jesus, the Promised One who shows the way. God reveals himself, his elect one, his promise, and his plan through the one who is now the risen Messiah and Lord (Acts 2:36; 10:36). Luke’s Gospel introduces the fulfillment figure and the note of hostility, while Acts chronicles the initial key chapter of the new community. Luke–Acts says Jesus is Lord of all, so salvation can go to all. Salvation comes on the terms the risen Lord sets. A new way, in contrast to official Judaism, had emerged. It was a way promised in the old sacred texts, though the promise’s form was not originally understood. Even Jesus’ disciples during his ministry had to learn how the plan worked (Luke 9:35, 44–45; 18:31–34; 24:44–47). The new community’s separation from Judaism was not the Christians’ fault. Jesus and the church always proclaimed the hope to the Jews. However, the offer met with intense opposition. Such hostility slew Jesus, and Christians can continue to expect such resistance until the end. The need is to be faithful. Nonetheless, God was and is behind this new movement. Jesus’ work, teaching, death, and resurrection show this truth (Luke), while the new era shows the Word’s expansion through the church from Peter in Jerusalem to Paul in Rome (Acts). Both Jew and Gentile are welcome in this new community. Indeed God has directed the entire affair, even down to how Jews and Gentiles should relate to one another in the new community (Acts 10–11, 15). Be assured: Jesus revealed God’s will, way, and blessing. Blessings are available to all who realize they are lost and so turn to God through Jesus (Luke 5:30–32; 19:10). God has kept and will keep his promises to those who turn to him, promises whose roots extend into the hope of the ancient Scriptures (Luke 1:14–17, 31–35, 57–79; 4:16–30; 24:44–47) and whose realization has come and will come in Jesus (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–26).

      The next section in this introduction treats issues that normally belong in technical NT introductions, while the remaining units introduce the message of Luke.[2]

      Origin and Purpose

      Authorship

      Neither the Gospel of Luke nor the Acts of the Apostles names its author. A combination of external and internal evidence suggests that Luke was the author of both works.

      Internal Evidence. The internal features concentrate on two points. First, the author is not an eyewitness to most of the events in his two volumes, especially those tied to the ministry of Jesus (Luke 1:1–2). Rather, he has relied on his study of traditions, which came from eyewitnesses and servants of the Word (Luke 1:2–4). Second, Luke presents himself as a companion of Paul in those parts of Acts known as the we sections (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). This feature, though debated with respect to its historical reliability, limits options about the author’s identity.

      A current debate surrounding the we sections is whether they reflect the testimony of an eyewitness (Ellis 1974: 43–44; Hemer 1989: 312–34) or are a literary device that gives the impression of the presence of an eyewitness (Haenchen 1971: 85–90; Vielhauer 1966: 33–34, 47–48). Wrapped up in this question also is the issue of how well the author of the Third Gospel knew Paul, since the we sections of Acts portray their author as a traveling companion of Paul. Those who reject such a connection attempt to compare Luke’s picture of Paul with the self-portrait of the Pauline Letters. They argue that the two pictures do not match in historical detail or in theological emphasis. In addition, Luke fails to use the Pauline Letters to describe Paul’s work and position. Vielhauer argues that the portraits are too far apart for the author of the Third Gospel to be a companion of Paul. But Fitzmyer (1989: 1–26) defends the connection, arguing that a creative literary device cannot explain how the we units appear and disappear in such an arbitrary manner. He also notes that several sailing references, which would be candidates for such literary insertions, lack them (Acts 13:4, 13; 14:26; 17:14; 18:18, 21; 20:1–2). He suggests that Luke may be only a junior companion, in contrast to Irenaeus’s famous claim that Luke was inseparable from Paul (Against Heresies 3.14.1). In addition, Goulder (1989: 129–46) suggests that Luke may have known and alluded to Paul’s First Letter to Corinth and, to a lesser extent, to his First Letter to Thessalonica. Others defend the compatibility of the two portraits of Paul (F. F. Bruce 1975–76). So internal evidence in Luke–Acts tells us that the writer knew Paul and was at least a second-generation Christian.

      External Evidence. The Pauline letters name some of the potential candidates who traveled with Paul: Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (Philem. 24; Col. 4:14). To this list, one could add figures such as Timothy, Titus, Silas, Epaphras, and Barnabas. Yet despite the wide selection of potential candidates available as companions of Paul, the tradition of the church gives attention to only one name as the author of these volumes—Luke. This tradition was firmly fixed in the early church by A.D. 200 and remained so without any hint of contrary opinion. The absence of any dispute about this detail is a strong reason to take the tradition seriously. Allusions to the Gospel appear as early as 1 Clem. 13.2; 48.4 (ca. 95–96); 2 Clem. 13.4 (ca. 100). In addition, a use of Jesus’ teaching, as reflected in Luke 10:7, appears in 1 Tim. 5:18. Numerous texts comment on authorship. Justin Martyr (ca. 160) in Dialogue with Trypho 103.19 speaks of Luke writing a memoir of Jesus and notes that the author is a follower of Paul. The Muratorian Canon (ca. 170–180) attributes the Gospel to Luke, a doctor, who is Paul’s companion. Irenaeus (ca. 175–195) in Against Heresies 3.1.1 and 3.14.1 attributes the Gospel to Luke, follower of Paul, and notes how the we sections suggest the connection. The so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (ca. 175) describes Luke as a native of Antioch in Syria (Acts 11:19–30; 13:1–3; 15:30–35). It says he lived to be 84, was a doctor, was unmarried, wrote in Achaia, and died in Boeotia. Tertullian (early third century) in Against Marcion 4.2.2 and 4.5.3 calls the Gospel a digest of Paul’s gospel. The Monarchian Prologue (date disputed: either third or fourth century) gives Luke’s age at death as 74. Finally, Eusebius (early fourth century) in Ecclesiastical History 3.4.2 mentions Luke as a companion to Paul, native of Antioch, and author of these volumes.

      Fitzmyer (1981: 40) divides the external evidence handily into two categories: what can be deduced from the NT and what cannot be deduced from it. That Luke was a physician, was tied to Paul, was not an eyewitness, and wrote his Gospel with concern for Gentiles are facts the NT makes clear. That Luke was from Syria, proclaimed Paul’s gospel, was unmarried, was childless, and died at an old age are ideas that are not in the NT. Though the differences about Luke’s age at death tell us that not everything in these traditions is indisputably true, their unity about authorship makes almost certain the identification of Luke as the Gospel’s author. The tradition’s testimony also makes Luke’s connection to Paul very likely.

      Luke: A Gentile and a Doctor? Two other questions about Luke require discussion. Was he a Gentile? Was he a doctor? Most see Luke as a Gentile, though they debate whether he was a pure Gentile or a non-Jewish Semite. An exception is Ellis (1974: 52–53), who argues that Luke was a Hellenistic Jewish Christian because (1) Luke’s knowledge of the OT was great; (2) Col. 4:10–11, with its reference to those of the circumcision, does not suggest that Luke was not Jewish, but merely that he was a Hellenist; and (3) the use of Palestinian language shows Luke’s Jewish roots. But Ellis’s reading of Col. 4:10–11 is not a natural one, since all Jews received circumcision (McKnight 1991a: 78–82) and Luke (4:14) is not listed among the circumcised. More recently, Salmon (1988) defends this view, noting that the author (1) distinguishes Jewish groups, (2) discusses Torah observances in detail, (3) is interested in Gentile mission as a Jewish problem, and (4) calls Christianity a sect of Judaism. To this can be added the author’s thorough knowledge of the OT. One cannot rule out this ethnic possibility for Luke, but other factors, noted below, along with Col. 4:14, make it less likely.

      Fitzmyer (1981: 42–47) suggests that Luke is a non-Jewish Semite because of (1) the Col. 4:10–11, 14 text, (2) the shortened form of Luke’s name, a Greek form of a Latin name, and (3) the details of the church tradition, which place Luke in Antioch of Syria. This view is quite possible. In fact, when one puts Fitzmyer’s points together with Salmon’s, the possibility is that Luke was a former God-fearer or Jewish proselyte.[3]

      Most commentators identify Luke as a Gentile without any further detail. They (1) point to Col. 4:10–11, 14, (2) note Acts 1:19, which mentions a field with a Semitic name and then speaks of their language, and (3) point out the attention to Hellenistic locales and the concern for Gentiles. This last argument is not strong, since a Jew like Paul could fit into such geographical locales and concerns. In sum, it seems very likely that Luke was a Gentile, though it is unclear whether his cultural background was Semitic. In any case, he probably had religious contact with Judaism before coming to Christ.

      Colossians 4:14 refers to Luke as a doctor. In 1882, Hobart tried to bolster this connection by indicating all the technical verbal evidence for Luke’s vocation. Despite the wealth of references Hobart gathered, the case was rendered ambiguous by the work of Cadbury (1926), who showed that almost all of the alleged technical medical vocabulary appeared in everyday Greek documents such as the LXX, Josephus, Lucian, and Plutarch. This meant that the language could have come from a literate person within any vocation. Cadbury’s work does not, however, deny that Luke could have been a doctor, but only that the vocabulary of these books does not guarantee that he was one. Ultimately the issue concerns how one views Colossians and the tradition about Luke that grew up in the early church. Since such a detail was not necessary to note and served no apologetic concern, it can be seen to reflect reality.

      So Luke is Paul’s sometime companion. He is likely to be a medical doctor, possibly from Antioch of Syria, who is not Jewish, though whether he is Syrian or a Greco-Roman is not clear. The tradition also indicates that he lived a long life.

      Sources

      Sources of the Gospel. The sources of Luke’s work are a debated part of a complex area known as the Synoptic problem.[4] Numerous approaches to the issue have been suggested.

      Some argue for the independence of the Synoptic documents, though the amount of agreement in wording and order between these Gospels is against this approach. In addition, Luke’s mention of predecessors in his preface (Luke 1:1–4) suggests that this approach is too simple.

      An old solution, known as the Augustinian hypothesis, argues that the order is Matthew–Mark–Luke. The major problem with this hypothesis is that it cannot explain the contents of Mark, as a summarizing Gospel, without appealing to its use of Luke.

      The Griesbach or two-Gospel hypothesis argues that the correct order is Matthew–Luke–Mark (Farmer 1964). The appeal of this view is the absence of hypothesized sources and its agreement with early church tradition, which suggests that Matthew’s Gospel was the earliest. Its major problems are demonstrating that Luke knew Matthew and explaining how Mark, as a summarizing Gospel, often has more vivid detail in pericopes that overlap with the other Gospels (C. F. Evans 1990: 17 n. w). Mark’s lack of an infancy narrative or extended teaching, like the Sermon on the Mount (or Plain), is also against Mark coming last, especially since Mark’s use of the eschatological parables or discourses shows that he can report Jesus’ discourses.

      Most scholars hold to some form of the four-source theory, a view first formalized by Streeter (1924) and defended today by Tuckett (1983) and Fitzmyer (1981: 63–106; Fitzmyer’s defense of this approach as it relates to Luke is the most detailed available). This view argues for the priority of Mark and the use of a sayings source known as Q. In addition, Matthew has special source material (M), while Luke has his special material (L). Thus the four sources are Mark, Q, L, and M, and Luke would have used Mark, Q, and L. It must be noted that the most challenged aspect of this approach is the nature and evidence for Q, a document containing only sayings, which has only the Gospel of Thomas as a possible ancient parallel in this genre.

      A recent variation of the two-Gospel hypothesis, which maintains Marcan priority, comes from Goulder (1989: 3–71), who argues for the order Mark–Matthew–Luke. He maintains Marcan priority, while dispensing with Q, the major hypothesized source. Thus, his view requires that Luke used Matthew. This connection between Matthew and Luke can be challenged, a challenge that also impacts Farmer’s approach. The argument that Luke used Matthew has several points against it. (1) It has trouble explaining the unique infancy material in Luke and the absence of any indication of knowledge about Matthew’s infancy material. (2) It has trouble explaining the reorganization of Matthean-like material in the central section of Luke (9:51–19:44) and Luke’s distinct use of the eschatological discourse and other Matthean discourses (Fitzmyer 1981: 75). (3) It also must posit significant recasting of several Matthean parables and sayings (pounds, lost sheep, great banquet, unfaithful steward, Beatitudes, Lord’s Prayer). (4) Luke never has the Matthean portions of triple tradition material (Fitzmyer 1981: 75). (5) With two exceptions (3:7–9, 17; 4:2b–13), Luke never has material from Matthew in the same Marcan context as does Matthew. (6) The view is a denial of Luke 1:1–4 with its appeal to many predecessors: both the two-Gospel view and that of Goulder have only two sources, which is not the many of Luke 1:1. Goulder notes this problem (1989: 27–37), but argues that the other predecessors were not authoritative documents which Luke accepted as equal to Matthew and Mark. But how can this be assured, when Luke ties them to authoritative tradition in the same breath (1:2)?

      So in all likelihood, Luke had access to Mark, special material (L), and traditions (which also are reflected in Matthew, though often with some, even significant, divergence). In fact, the Q material is so varied in character that some speak of two forms of Q: a Matthean version and a Lucan version (Marshall often makes this distinction in handling these texts in his 1978 commentary). This means that Q may not be a fixed, written tradition, but rather a pool of widely circulating traditions. Given the amount of teaching and parables that Matthew and Luke share, one cannot rule out that L and Q might have overlapped, with Matthew using Q and Luke using L. While noting that others speak of Q as a bona fide document or set of documents, I understand Q to be a fluid pool of traditions from which both Luke and Matthew drew.

      To show how the material breaks down by paragraph units, I provide the following lists of passages and sources, modified from C. F. Evans 1990: 17–18 and Fitzmyer 1981: 67.[5] Those who have another view of Synoptic relationships can still benefit from the listings. The lists follow Lucan order, so rearrangements are easily spotted.

      The first list shows Lucan parallels with Mark. Parentheses around a reference indicate that the dependence is subject to some doubt. This means that the Matthean version (and so Q) may have influenced certain texts, though the passion material (Luke 22–23) may reflect L.

      Mark thus relates to 406 verses of Luke, or about 35 percent of Luke’s whole. The most important observation is that the Marcan material tends to come in blocks, especially in the sections that describe Jesus’ ministry. (This is one of the reasons that Mark is seen as a fundamental source.) A few texts related to Mark also have material from Q or L: Luke 3:7–14, 23–38; 4:2b–13; 5:1–11; 19:1–27; 22:28–33, 35–38; 23:6–16, 27–31, 39b–43, 47b–49.

      The next list shows Luke’s parallels with Q/Matthew, where the picture is more complex. Problematic texts involve sayings or parables where factors raise uncertainties about a direct connection. Three types of situations raise uncertainty: (1) one Gospel writer may place in one location what the other Gospel writer has in a different place; (2) one writer may bring together material that another writer has in separate locations; and (3) the accounts may be rendered in significantly different terms. Parentheses in the following list indicate where C. F. Evans (1990: 21–22) expresses uncertainty; an asterisk (*) indicates my own uncertainty. Such texts, in my view, reflect either a variant Q or a potential overlap with L or both. Those who hold to Matthean priority will see Matthew as the point of connection, not Q.[6]

      This material represents 241 verses in Luke that are not found in Mark, or about 21 percent of Luke. The questionable Q texts also tend to cluster in the central section of Luke’s Gospel. This unit, Luke 9:51–19:44, is basically a combination of large amounts of L material with material that has seeming parallels with Matthew. Given the amount of unique L material and the thematic character of some parts of this section, it is hard to know if material is really from Q or from L. Goulder (1989: 73–128) suggests a large amount of Lucan rewriting of Matthean material, positing that little of L really comes from a source, but is actually reflective of Lucan emphases and elaboration. The problem with this approach is that it means that Luke handled Marcan material very differently from the way he handled Matthew (or Q), since Luke did little to change the substance of his Marcan material.

      C. F. Evans (1990: 26–27) lists forty-seven L texts (parentheses indicate questions about influence either from Q [or Matthew] or Mark):

      1:5–2:52

      3:10–14

      3:23–38

      (4:16–30)

      5:1–11

      (5:39)

      7:11–17

      (7:36–50)

      (8:1–3)

      9:51–55

      9:61–62

      10:1, 17–20

      (10:25–28)

      10:29–37

      10:38–42

      11:5–8

      11:27–28

      (12:1)

      12:13–21

      (12:35–38)

      12:47–48

      12:49–50

      12:54–56

      13:1–9

      13:10–17

      13:31–33

      14:1–6

      14:7–14

      14:28–35 (33?)

      15:1–10

      15:11–32

      16:1–15

      16:19–31

      17:7–10

      17:11–19

      17:20–21

      (17:28–32)

      18:1–8

      18:9–14

      19:1–10

      19:41–44

      21:34–36

      22:15–18, 27, (31–33), 35–38

      23:6–16

      23:27–31

      23:39–43

      24:13–53

      This unique material comprises 485 verses of Luke, or about 42 percent of Luke’s whole. Much in Luke is not found elsewhere. This material contains not only a unique portrait of Jesus’ infancy, but also many fresh sayings and parables of Jesus.

      Four miracles are unique (7:11–17; 13:10–17; 14:1–6; 17:11–19). Three deal either with a Sabbath controversy or with the response of a non-Jew to Jesus. Several parables are indisputably unique to Luke (10:29–37; 11:5–8; 12:13–21; 15:1–7, 8–10, 11–32; 16:1–8, 19–31; 18:1–8, 9–14). Their content has great variety, stressing service (Samaritan: 10:29–37), humility (Pharisee and publican: 18:9–14), diligence in prayer and in eschatological hope (nagging friend: 11:5–8; nagging widow: 18:1–8), the preciousness of the lost and the joy at their recovery (lost coin and lost son: 15:8–10, 11–32), and care in the use of resources and/or kindness to the poor (rich fool: 12:13–21; crafty steward: 16:1–8; rich man and Lazarus: 16:19–31). The ethical thrust of Luke’s Gospel emerges in this material. Four additional parables that emphasize God’s plan have potential overlap with Matthew and yet are cast in fresh light by Luke: one should be faithful until Jesus returns (cruel steward: 12:39–46), one should rejoice to sit at the table (great banquet: 14:15–24), one should rejoice at the coming of the lost (lost sheep: 15:1–7), and one should be faithful with what the master supplies, resting on his goodness (pounds: 19:11–27). The breadth of topics in the Gospel and Luke’s pastoral concern emerge in this unique or uniquely emphasized material.

      The Gospel’s Link with Acts. In thinking about the use of sources, one should also consider that Luke structured his Gospel to anticipate his sequel, Acts. This connection to Acts is seen in the repetition of the prologue (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1). In fact, the Acts prologue looks back to Luke’s Gospel in a style reminiscent of other ancient works (Josephus, Against Apion 1.1 §1). The connection is also noted in the parallel themes that dominate the two volumes (Maddox 1982: 9–12). Jesus heals and so do Peter and Paul. Jesus must travel to Jerusalem, while Paul must go to Rome. Jesus is slain by opposition and so is Stephen. The account of the ascension also links the two volumes tightly together (Luke 24:49–53; Acts 1:1–11). Efforts to note extensive parallels between Luke and Acts have often brought much discussion (Talbert 1974). Though each of these connections needs evaluation, there is no doubt that Luke intends to show parallels between the time of Jesus and the time of his followers. Both the story and the theology of the two volumes are linked together. To understand the emergence of the church, one must understand Jesus and the plan of God.

      Luke as Historian. One other point emerges from a look at Luke’s use of sources: he was careful with his material. Great debate rages about how good a historian Luke was. Many see him handling his materials with great freedom for theological (Goulder 1989; Haenchen 1971; Dibelius 1956) or sociological reasons (Esler 1987). Among the items under scrutiny are Luke’s association of Jesus’ birth with a census from Quirinius, his timing for the rebellion under Theudas, the authenticity of certain parables and sayings, the reality of the miracles, his portrait of the trials of Jesus, the details of his resurrection accounts, the faithful rendering of speeches, his portrayal of early church harmony, the uniqueness of the meeting with Cornelius, the reality of the Jerusalem council, and his portrait of Paul. The examination of such details must be done on a case-by-case basis. Differing judgments will be made in such matters, not just on the basis of the complexity of the evidence, which one must remember is not without its own historical gaps, but also because of philosophical worldview issues. Nonetheless an examination of Luke’s use of his sources shows his general trustworthiness (Marshall 1970: 21–76). Investigations into his descriptions of settings, customs, and locales reveal the same sensitivity (Hengel 1980: vii, 3–49; Hemer 1989). Luke is a first-class ancient historian, and most good ancient historians understood their task well (see Fornara 1983: 142–68, on Thucydides and Polybius). Efforts to argue that Luke is exclusively either a theologian or a historian, with many opting to give history a lesser place, underplay the evidence in sources that show that Luke is careful with his material. He is not careless, nor is he a fabricator of events.

      This point, however, does not mean that Luke cannot rearrange material for emphasis, summarize events in his own language, or bring out his own emphases as drawn from the tradition. A study of the above lists of Luke’s sources and their arrangement reveals these traits. The Lucan speeches summarize and proclaim, as well as report. Luke is a sensitive observer of the events he describes. He is interested in both history and theology. He writes not just about the time sequence of events and teaching, but about their topical and theological relationship as well. He writes as a theologian and pastor, but as one whose direction is marked out by the history that preceded him. To underemphasize any element in the Lucan effort, whether pastoral, theological, or historical, is to underestimate the depth of his account.

      Purpose, Readers, and Destination

      It is debated whether Theophilus is already a Christian or is thinking of becoming one. Numerous intents for the Gospel and its sequel have been suggested (see Maddox 1982: 20–22):

      an explanation of why Jesus has not returned (Conzelmann 1960: 95–234)

      a defense brief for Christianity (Haenchen 1971: 100–102)

      a defense of Paul before Rome (Mattill 1975)

      a defense of Paul before the community (Jervell 1972: 17)

      an anti-Gnostic concern (Talbert 1978: 13–15)

      evangelism (O’Neill 1970: 172–85)

      confirmation of the Word and the message of salvation (Van Unnik 1960; Marshall 1978: 35–36; O’Toole 1984: 17)

      a theodicy of God’s faithfulness to Israel (Tiede 1980: 27–28)

      a sociological legitimation of full fellowship for Gentiles and a defense of the new community as not unfaithful to Rome (Esler 1987: 210–19; Sterling 1992 is close to this with his apologetic historiography)

      an effort at conciliation with Judaism by showing that the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ is the natural extension of Judaism (Brawley 1987: 155–59)

      an anti-Semitic document and a total rejection of the Jews (J. T. Sanders 1987)

      This plethora of credible suggestions shows the complexity of the Lucan enterprise. Of all of these suggestions, those centering on God’s role in salvation and his new community are most likely to reflect the key aspects of Luke’s comprehensive agenda (views 7–10). The examination of the Gospel’s structure and theology will

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1