Footnotes
Footnotes
1.He deemphasizes all topographical data except those relating to Jerusalem, and the
result is striking” (Robert/Feuillet, p. 230).
2.Both the Greek and the Latin forms of the prologue are printed in Kurt Aland,
Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: WQrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964), p. 533. R. G. Heard cites the Greek text and an English translation ("The Old Gospel Prologues,” JTS 6 [1955]: 7).
3.Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 2d ed. (New York:
Doubleday, 1983), pp. 35-36. Kirsopp Lake said, of the titles of all four Gospels, "Why should this testimony not be accepted? No reason has ever been shown, for the view that antiquity tended to anonymous books is contrary to evidence” (Lake, p. 4).
4.E. Earle Ellis calls the view that before the middle of the second century someone used "shrewd detective work” to discover a previously unknown author of this gospel "an exercise in improbabilities” (The Gospel of Luke [London: Nelson, 1966], p. 42).
5.M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM, 1956), p. 148. He also says forthrightly, "Both writings, Gospel and Acts, were offered to the literary reading public from the very beginning under the name of Luke as author” (p. 89).
6.F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Tyndale, 1951), p. 5.
7. This was argued by W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke (Dublin:
Hodges, Figgis, 1882), and less strongly by A. Harnack, Luke the Physician (New York: Putnam, 1907).
8.H. J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke, HTS 6 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919).
9.Alfred Wikenhauser agrees that the language does not prove a medical author, but then adds, "Nevertheless the tradition need not be abandoned, and it may still be sustained, for the author displays familiarity with medical terminology (cf. e.g. Luke 4:38; 5:12; 8:44; Acts 5:5, 10; 9:40), and he indisputably describes maladies and cures from the point of view of a medical man (e.g. Luke 4:35; 13:11; Acts 3:7; 9:18)” (New Testament Introduction [ET New York: Herder, 1963], p. 209); his conclusion is only slightly softened in the latest (German) edition (Wikenhauser, pp. 254-55).
10.Robert M. Grant points out that such a claim "neglects the extent to which it is possible to associate and work with others without necessarily sharing all their concerns; in other words, it fails to do justice either to the variety to be found within the unity of modern Christianity or to that within the early Church” (Grant, p. 135).
11.This is supported by the fact that D and a few other authorities make Acts 11:28, locating events at Antioch, a "we” passage.
12.On the significance of the Semitic flavor of the language in Luke 1-2, esp. in the so-called hymns, see Stephen Farris, The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning, and Significance, JSNTSupp 9 (Sheffield: JsOt, 1985).
13."He composed his narrative (diegesis) not merely as an ancient historian of the Hellenistic mode, nor merely as a theologian of the early church writing in a biblical mold, but also as a conscious litterateur of the Roman period” (Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 92). X. Leon-Dufour thinks that Luke "to a Greek ear was at once refined and often vulgar” (Robert/Feuillet, p. 223).
14.Cited from R. G. Heard, "Old Gospel Prologues,” p. 7.
15.Bo Reicke sees the view that this is a prophecy after the event as "an amazing example of uncritical dogmatism in New Testament studies” and points out that in none of the synoptists does the prophecy conform exactly to what we know about the destruction of Jerusalem("Synoptic Prophecies of the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune [Leiden:
Brill, 1972], p. 121).
16.Fitzmyer holds that such allusions "make it clear” that Luke is writing after the destruction of Jerusalem, and again he says, "It is beyond comprehension how one can say that there is no reference in the Lucan Gospel to the destruction of Jerusalem” Luke I-IX, pp. 54, 56). It is curious that such a scholar should be so dogmatic.
17.Eusebius, H.E. 3.5.3. This is supported by Epiphanius. William L. Lane notices S. G.
F. Brandon’s rejection of this testimony and S. Sowers’s refutation of Brandon’s position (The Gospel According to Mark [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], p. 468 and n. 79).
18.Hans Conzelmann argues that Luke belongs to "the third generation” of Christians, but he agrees that dependence on Josephus "cannot be shown” ("Luke’s Place in the Development of Early Christianity,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn [Nashville: Abingdon, 1966], pp. 299, 305).
19. "The formal dedication of this work to Theophilus, whose title (‘Your Excellency’) shows that he held high office in the Roman government, strongly suggests that it was intended for publication and was therefore directed primarily to the outside world”
G. B. Caird (The Gospel of St Luke [Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963], p. 14).
20.He does include a few Aramaic words in Greek transliteration, such as αμήν (amen, G297, Luke 4:24, etc.), Βεελζεβουλ (Beelzeboul, G1015, 11:15-19), γεεννα (geenna, G1147, 12:5), μαμωνάς (mamonas, G3445, 16:9-13), πασχα (pascha, G4247, 22:1, etc.), σαββατον (sabbaton, G4879, 4:16, etc.), Σατανας (Satanas, G4928, 10:18, etc.), and σίκερα (sikera, G4975, 1:15).
21.Kummel holds that Mark’s passion story is the basis of that in Luke (pp. 131ff.). But Caird points out that of 163 verses in Luke’s passion narrative, there are "only 20 in which there is the sort of verbal similarity which is normally regarded as evidence of dependence.” He adds, "When Luke is indisputably following Mark, he uses 53 per cent of Mark’s words, but here he uses only 27 per cent, and many of the words which he shares with Mark are words without which the Passion story could not have been told at all” (Gospel of St Luke, p. 25). It cannot be said that the case for dependence on Mark in the passion story has ever been convincingly made.
22.E.g. Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1966). B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1930). Neither, of course, originated the idea; Streeter notices something very like it in a work of E. R. Buckley in 1912 (p. ix n.1), and others have likewise advocated it. Pullan for example,
has something very like it (p. 26). But it is to Taylor and Streeter that it owes its later popularity.
23.Streeter estimates the non-Markan matter in Luke at about 806 verses (Mark itself contains about 660 verses). (Four Gospels, p. 209).
24.Reginald H. Fuller sees it as "most unlikely” that Luke "deliberately shifted the rejection at Nazareth to the beginning of the ministry for theological purposes.” He sees Luke as "opposed to rearrangements” and holds that he "follows Mk, Q and Special material in turn,” (p. 119 n. 1).
25.B. H. Streeter counted the non-Markan material in Luke 3:1-22:14 as 671 verses, with another 135 in the passion narrative—a total of 806 verses. From such facts as Luke’s use of only about 30 verses from Mark in his passion narrative compared to 135 from elsewhere, Streeter reasoned that he preferred his non-Markan to his Markan source (Four Gospels, p. 209).
26.See Fitzmyer, I-IX, pp. 90-91, for seven reasons for rejecting proto-Luke, and Caird, St Luke, pp. 23-27, for seven reasons for accepting it! J. M. Creed sees Mark as "a determining factor in the construction of the existing book from the outset” but does not see this as "necessarily inconsistent with the hypothesis that Q and some of Luke’s peculiar material may have been already combined, and may have lain before Luke as a single document.” (The Gospel According to St. Luke [London: Macmillan, 1950], p. lviii n. 1). Martin is respectful of the proto-Luke hypothesis (1:153-56).
27.There is a useful summary of the position in Metzger, pp. 191-93. See also Klyne Snodgrass, "Western Non-Interpolations,” JBL 91 (1972): 369-79. Snodgrass concludes that "it now appears doubtful that any of the readings supported only by D and its non-Greek allies are the genuine text” (p. 379).
28.So C. Maurer in Hennecke 1:180.
29.Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St Luke (London: Faber & Faber, 1960), p. 23.
30.Ibid., pp. 16-17.
31.Ibid., p. 20.
32.Ibid., p. 27.
33.For examples, see Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, 2d ed. (Leicester: IVP; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 34-35.
34.Ibid., pp. 231ff.
35.Marxsen has a similar view: "The eschatological element present in the proclamatory character of the pre-Lucan tradition is eliminated. Luke’s ‘historicizing’ is therefore at the same time a process of ‘de-eschatologizing’”; "the expectation of an imminent parousia is abandoned” (pp. 157-58). For a useful evaluation of this view, see Rowland, pp. 285-94.
36.E. Kasemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964), p. 28.
37.J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St Paul (London: Macmillan, 1904), p. 66.
38.Caird (St. Luke, p. 229) finds here Luke’s "own peculiar contribution to New Testament eschatology.” Kummel asserts, "The persecution of the disciples and the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:12ff., 20ff.) as inner-historical events are clearly distinguished...from the signs of the parousia and from the parousia itself (21:25ff. par. Mark 13:24ff.)” (p. 101).
39.Charles E. Talbert in Jesus and Man’s Hope, ed. Donald G. Miller (Pittsburgh: Perspective Books, 1970), p. 191.
40.Childs thinks that "Luke has not de-eschatologized the promise, but reshaped it and made it conform more closely to the traditional Old Testament pattern”; not least among the factors that influenced Luke was "the sense of continuity between the old and the new Israel as the people of God among the nations” (p. 113).
41.Luke’s appeal to Scripture is particularly significant. He joins other New Testament writers in detecting in the Old Testament not only verbal predictions of Jesus the Messiah but patterns of saving events that predict the dawning of the age of salvation—as is suggested by the title by Darrell Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology, JSNTSupp 12 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987).
42.See further the essay by Leon Morris, "Luke and Early Catholicism,” in Studying the New Testament Today, I, ed. John H. Skilton (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), pp. 60-75 and the literature there cited.
43.Childs, p. 106. He further says, "Luke thus confirms the authoritative quality of the apostolic tradition which he attempts to render in its most accurate form for the sake of the church, and which he sharply sets apart from all later teachings” (ibid.).
44. According to Talbert: "It is clear that in the Lucan succession the elders are appointed in order to serve the tradition. The church and its ministry are brought under the judgment of the apostolic word. It is the Word which legitimizes the church and its ministry and not vice versa. It would appear, then, that for Luke the apostolic tradition was, by his act of writing, crystallized in Luke-Acts” (Jesus and Man’s Hope, p. 206). Conzelmann says that Luke "offers not a contribution to the tradition but the tradition” ("Luke’s Place,” p. 305).
45.C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London: Epworth, 1961), pp. 72, 74.
46.Talbert, Jesus and Man’s Hope, p. 220. He adds, “Sola Scriptura is a major plank in the Lucan theological platform.”
47.Ellis thinks Luke "is properly called a ‘theologian of redemptive history,’” which he explains in these terms: "That is, he regards history to be the realm of God’s redemptive activity and interprets the movement and goal of history by this fact”
(Luke, p. 15).
48."Luke grasps the meaning of Jesus and the church for the world in a single vision, and he tells that story so that what happens with Jesus foreshadows the church’s experience and what happens in the church finds meaning as the continuation of Jesus’ story” (Johnson, p. 199).
49.Small wonder that I. Howard Marshall says, "It is our thesis that the idea of salvation supplies the key to the theology of Luke” (Luke: Historian and Theologian [Exeter: Paternoster, 1970], p. 92).
50.Martin brings this out in this manner: "Luke’s intention may be stated in a sentence: to demonstrate the continuous line in salvation-history between the two covenants” (1:250). We should not forget that Luke tells of the conversion of large numbers of Jews (Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7; 9:42; 12:24; 13:43; 14:1; 17:10-12; 21:20); his deep interest in the Gentiles does not mean that he is unmindful of the place of the Jews in the plan of God.
51.J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973), p. 141.
52.M. M. B. Turner, "The Sabbath, Sunday, and the Law in Luke/Acts,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 120.
53.Marxsen points out that such a continuation as Acts would have been impossible for Matthew and Mark. "Of course Matthew (and—with certain reservations—Mark) could have written a Church history; however, this would not have been a continuation of their original works, but a history of the continuing influence of these works, which is something quite different” (p. 156). But Luke’s two volumes belong together.
54.The ten are Elizabeth, Anna, the widow of Sarepta, the widow of Nain, the crippled woman, the sinner who anointed Jesus’ feet, Joanna, Susanna, the woman who called from the crowd, and the daughters of Jerusalem.
55.Charles H. Talbert examines the question of whether "poor,” "hunger,” "weep,”
"rich,” "full,” and "laugh” are to be understood "sociologically or religiously.” He concludes, "It must be the latter because the gospel canonizes no sociological state” (Reading Luke [New York: Crossroad, 1984], p. 70).
56.Herdsmen are included in a list of people whose craft a man should not teach his son, "for their craft is the craft of robbers” (m. Qidd.4:14).
57.Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 25b.
58. The point is clearly made by Robert J. Karris (Luke: Artist and Theologian: Luke’s Passion Account as Literature [New York: Paulist, 1985]), even if one must demur at some of Karris’s findings as to how and why Luke emphasizes Jesus’ passion.
59.H. Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, p. 201.
60. Alfred Plummer draws attention to the fact that Luke was somewhat differently evaluated in earlier days. When symbols were allotted to the gospels, there were some differences, but Luke was always symbolized by the ox (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928], p. xxii). Quoting Isaac Williams, Plummer adds: "This sacerdotal animal implies Atonement and Propitiation; and this exactly corresponds with what is supposed to be the character of St. Luke’s Gospel.”