F. The ascension (24:50–53)
F. The ascension (24:50–53)
The ascension is described more fully in Luke’s second volume (Acts 1:9–11). Here he is content to give the main fact and to leave us with a picture of the worshipping and rejoicing disciples. The account is quite short. Luke has already written more than most papyrus rolls contained and he is clearly hastening to the end of this volume. He does not explain in detail what he means by the ascension, but it is difficult to believe that he thought that Jesus went up vertically and stopped in a heaven a mile or two above the earth. But plainly he did think of the ascension as something that happened. As C. F. D. Moule maintains, we should be ready to accord to Luke’s ascension the same kind of historicity that we accord to the postresurrection appearances and the transfiguration.3 The ascension differs radically from Jesus’ vanishing from the sight of the disciples at Emmaus (31) and similar happenings. There is an air of finality about it. It is the decisive close of one chapter and the beginning of another. It is the consummation of Christ’s earthly work, the indication to his followers that his mission is accomplished, his work among them come to a decisive end. They can expect to see him in the old way no more.
Theologians also see in the ascension the taking into heaven of the humanity of Jesus. The incarnation is not something casual and fleeting but a divine action with permanent consequences. And Moule argues that if the ascension means the taking of Christ’s humanity into heaven, ‘it means that with it will be taken the humanity which He has redeemed – those who are Christ’s, at His coming. It is a powerful expression of the redemption of this world, in contrast to mere escape from it.’4
50–51. Jesus took the initiative and led the disciples as far as Bethany. There is no time note and some have thought that Luke is picturing the ascension as taking place on Easter Day. But, quite apart from the difficulty inherent in the idea that Jesus would have led his followers from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives late at night for this purpose, we should not see a contradiction of Luke’s own words in Acts 1:3. There we learn that forty days elapsed between the resurrection and the ascension. Bethany was on the slopes of the Mount of Olives and the ascension took place from somewhere on this hill. Luke describes the event very simply. He speaks only of Jesus as being parted from the disciples during the act of blessing them (Fitzmyer’s ‘happened to be parted from them’ is a very unfortunate translation). NEB and others omit the words ‘and was carried up into heaven’, the Western text being supported on this occasion by one other Greek MS. But the words should be read with the vast preponderance of authorities. They may readily have been omitted by a scribe anxious to avoid the impression that the ascension took place on Easter Day. But the omission would leave us with no ascension and thus no explanation of the disciples’ joy. The words would then seem to indicate a disappearance in the manner of that in verse 31.
52–53. Here once more we should accept the reading of all the Greek MSS except one (the Western text again!) and read ‘they worshipped him’ (mg..). Whatever their view of his person during his ministry, the passion and resurrection and now the ascension had convinced them that Jesus was divine. He was worthy to be worshipped and they gave him his due. Worship is their response to his ascension (it is the first time Luke speaks of anyone worshipping Jesus). It is interesting that their feeling at this final parting was not one of grief but of great joy (cf. John 14:28). They were understanding more than they had previously. Luke began his Gospel in the temple (1:5) and he brings it to an end in the same place, with the disciples continually in the temple blessing God. It is a fitting acknowledgment of the grace that God has shown so singularly in the events he has narrated.
A table of parallel passages
This table will enable the student to find passages in the other Synoptists which parallel those in Luke. I have included passages which deal with the same subject but which are not in the strict sense literary parallels (e.g. Matt. 1:18–25 and Luke 2:1–7). The table will also enable the student to see at a glance which passages are peculiar to Luke and it will help him see how the order of the narratives in this Gospel resembles and differs from that in each of the other Synoptists.
Matthew
Mark
Luke
Preface
1:1–4
The birth of John foretold
1:5–25
The birth of Jesus foretold
1:26–38
Mary’s visit to Elizabeth
1:39–45
The song of Mary
1:46–56
The birth and naming of John
1:57–66
The song of Zechariah
1:67–80
The birth of Jesus
1:18–25
2:1–7
2:8–20
The circumcision
2:21
The presentation in the temple
2:22–24
The song of Simeon
2:25–32
Simeon’s prophecy
2:33–35
Anna’s thanksgiving
2:36–38
The return to Nazareth
2:39–40
The boy Jesus in the temple
2:41–52
The ministry of John the Baptist
3:1–12
1:2–8
3:1–20
Jesus’ baptism
3:13–17
1:9–11
3:21–22
Jesus’ genealogy
1:1–17
3:23–38
Jesus’ temptations
4:1–11
1:12–13
4:1–13
Jesus in Galilee
4:12–17
1:14–15
4:14–15
Jesus at Nazareth
13:53–58
6:1–6
4:16–30
The man with an unclean spirit
1:21–28
4:31–37
Peter’s mother-in-law
8:14–15
1:29–31
4:38–39
Many healings
8:16–17
1:32–34
4:40–41
A preaching tour
4:23
1:35–39
4:42–44
A miraculous catch of fish
5:1–11
Healing a leper
8:1–4
1:40–45
5:12–16
Healing a paralytic
9:1–8
2:1–12
5:17–26
The calling of Levi
9:9–13
2:13–17
5:27–32
Fasting
9:14–17
2:18–22
5:33–39
Lord of the sabbath
12:1–8
2:23–28
6:1–5
Healing the withered hand
12:9–14
3:1–6
6:6–11
Choosing the Twelve
10:1–4
3:13–19
6:12–16
The sermon on the plain
The multitude
3:7–12
6:17–19
The beatitudes
5:3–12
6:20–23
The woes
6:24–26
Love
5:38–48
6:27–36
Judging other people
7:1–5
4:24
6:37–42
The tree and the fruit
7:16–20;
12:35
6:43–45
Foundations
7:21–27
6:46–49
Healing the centurion’s slave
8:5–13
7:1–10
The widow of Nain’s son
7:11–17
11:2–19
7:18–35
The anointing of Jesus by a sinful woman
7:36–50
Women who helped Jesus
8:1–3
The parable of the sower
13:1–23
4:1–20
8:4–15
The lamp and the cover
5:15;
10:26
4:21–22
8:16–17
To him who has …
13:12;
25:29
4:25
8:18
Jesus’ mother and brothers
12:46–50
3:31–35
8:19–21
The stilling of the storm
8:23–27
4:35–41
8:22–25
The Gerasene demoniac
8:28–34
5:1–20
8:26–39
The daughter of Jairus
9:18–26
5:21–43
8:40–56
The mission of the Twelve
10:1–15
6:7–13
9:1–6
Herod the tetrarch
14:1–2
6:14–16
9:7–9
The feeding of the five thousand
14:13–21
6:30–44
9:10–17
Peter’s confession
16:13–19
8:27–29
9:18–20
A prophecy of the passion
16:20–23
8:30–33
9:21–22
Taking up the cross
16:24–28
8:34–9:1
9:23–27
The transfiguration
17:1–9
9:2–10
9:28–36
The demon-possessed boy
17:14–21
9:14–29
9:37–43a
Another prophecy of the passion
17:22–23
9:30–32
9:43b–45
The disciples’ pride
18:1–5
9:33–37
9:46–48
The strange exorcist
9:38–41
9:49–50
Rejection by the Samaritans
9:51–56
Whole-heartedness
8:18–22
9:57–62
The mission of the seventy
10:1–12
Doom of the Galilean cities
11:21–24
10:13–16
The return of the seventy
10:17–20
Jesus’ joy
11:25–27;
13 :16–17
10:21–24
The parable of the good Samaritan
10:25–37
Martha and Mary
10:38–42
The Lord’s prayer
6:9–13
11:1–4
The parable of the friend at midnight
11:5–8
Asking and giving
7:7–11
11:9–13
The Beelzebub controversy
12:22–30
3:22–27
11:14–23
The return of the evil spirit
12:43–45
11:24–26
True blessedness
11:27–28
12:38–42
8:11–12
11:29–32
The light that is in you
5:15;
6:22–23
4:21
11:33–36
True cleansing
11:37–41
Discourse on the Pharisees and the lawyers
Woe to the Pharisees
23:6–7,
23, 27
11:42–44
Woe to the lawyers
23:4, 13,
29–36
11:45–54
The leaven of the Pharisees
10:26–27;
16:5–6
8:14–15
12:1–3
Be ready for judgment
10:28–33,
19–20;
12:31–32
3:28–30
12:4–12
The parable of the rich fool
12:13–21
Seek the kingdom
6:25–33,
19–21
12:22–34
The coming of the Son of man
24:42–44
12:35–40
The responsibility of servants
24:45–51
12:41–48
Fire on the earth
10:34–36
12:49–53
The signs of the times
16:1–3;
5:25–26
12:54–59
Repentance
13:1–5
The barren fig tree
13:6–9
Healing a bent woman
13:10–17
The parable of the mustard seed
13:31–32
4:30–32
13:18–19
The parable of the leaven
13:33
13:20–21
Who are in the kingdom?
13:22–30
That fox Herod
13:31–33
Lament over Jerusalem
23:37–39
13:34–35
The man with dropsy
14:1–6
Invitation to a banquet
14:7–14
The parable of the excuses
22:1–14
14:15–24
The cost of discipleship
10:37–38
14:25–33
The parable of salt
5:13
9:49–50
14:34–35
The parable of the lost sheep
18:12–13
15:1–7
The parable of the lost coin
15:8–10
The parable of the prodigal son
15:11–32
The parable of the unjust steward
16:1–9
God and mammon
6:24
16:10–13
The covetous Pharisees
16:14–15
The law and the prophets
11:12–13;
5:18
16:16–17
Divorce
19:9
10:11–12
16:18
That parable of the rich man and Lazarus
16:19–31
Forgiving others
18:6–7,
15, 21f.
9:42
17:1–4
Faith
17:20
11:23
17:5–6
Unprofitable servants
17:7–10
The ten lepers
17:11–19
The coming of the kingdom
24:23–41
17:20–37
The parable of the unjust judge
18:1–8
The parable of the Pharisee and the publican
18:9–14
Jesus and the children
19:13–15
10:13–16
18:15–17
The rich young ruler
19:16–30
10:17–31
18:18–30
Another prediction of the passion
20:17–19
10:32–34
18:31–34
A blind man receives sight
20:29–34
10:46–52
18:35–43
Zacchaeus
19:1–10
The parable of the pounds
(25:14–30)
19:11–27
The triumphal entry
21:1–9
11:1–10
19:28–40
Lament over Jerusalem
19:41–44
The cleansing of the temple
21:12–17
11:15–17
19:45–46
Teaching in the temple
11:18–19
19:47–48
Jesus’ authority
21:23–27
11:27–33
20:1–8
The parable of the wicked husbandmen
21:33–44
12:1–12
20:9–18
Tribute to Caesar
22:15–22
12:13–17
20:19–26
The seven brothers
22:23–33
12:18–27
20:27–40
David’s Son
22:41–46
12:35–37
20:41–44
Warning against the scribes
23:1–7
12:38–40
20:45–47
The widow’s gift
12:41–44
21:1–4
The eschatological discourse
24:1–34
13:1–37
21:5–36
Teaching in the temple
21:37–38
26:1–5,
14–16
14:1–2, 10–11
22:1–6
Preparations for the Passover
26:17–19
14:12–16
22:7–13
The last supper
26:26–29
14:22–25
22:14–20
Prophecy of the betrayal
26:21–25
14:18–21
22:21–23
Dispute about status
20:24–28
10:41–45
22:24–27
Twelve thrones
19:28
22:28–30
Prophecy of Peter’s denials
26:31–35
14:27–31
22:31–34
Two swords
22:35–38
The agony
26:36–46
14:32–42
22:39–46
The arrest
26:47–57
14:43–53
22:47–54a
Peter’s denials
26:58,
69–75
14:54, 66–72
22:54b–62
The mockery
26:67–68
14:65
22:63–65
Jesus before the Sanhedrin
26:59–66
14:53–64
22:66–71
Jesus before Pilate
27:1–2,
11–14
15:1–5
23:1–5
Jesus before Herod
23:6–12
Jesus sentenced
27:15–26
15:6–15
23:13–25
Simon carries the cross
27:32
15:21
23:26
Daughters of Jerusalem
23:27–31
The crucifixion
27:33–37
15:22–26
23:32–38
The penitent thief
27:44
15:32b
23:39–43
The death of Jesus
27:45–56
15:33–41
23:44–49
The burial of Jesus
27:57–61
15:42–47
23:50–56
The women at the tomb
28:1–8
16:1–8
24:1–1
Peter at the tomb
24:12
The walk to Emmaus
24:13–35
The appearance to the disciples
24:36–43
The fulfilment of Scripture
24:44–49
The ascension
24:50–53
Notes
In the last three decades (especially in Germany) the importance of linking Luke with Acts has been increasingly emphasized. W. D. Davies points out that ‘The recognition that Luke and Acts belong together is the decisive factor in recent interpretation of Luke’ (Invitation to the New Testament, SPCK, 1967, p. 219). W. Ward Gasque sees it as ‘the primary gain’ of recent criticism of Luke-Acts that the two ‘must be considered together’ (A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, Grand Rapids, 1975, p. 309). This is part of a flurry of activity in recent Lucan studies which, however, has produced very little agreement, so that W. C. van Unnik could write an essay with the title, ‘Luke-Acts, a Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship’ (SLA, pp. 15ff.).
Notice Luke’s frequent use of the word dei to convey the thought of a divine necessity in Jesus’ ministry (2:49; 4:43; 9:22; 13:16, 33; 17:25; 19:5; 22:37; 24:7, 26, 44). So also he uses boulē, ‘purpose’, twice in Luke and seven times in Acts, a total of nine out of the twelve occurrences of the term in the New Testament. S. Schulz has emphasized the importance of the plan of God in Luke’s theology (ZNW 54, 1963, pp. 104–116).
Cf. Nils A. Dahl, SLA, pp. 150ff.
A. H. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, rev. C. S. C. Williams (Calerendon Press, 21953), p. 14.
Many have paid their tribute to the attractiveness of the book. E. Renan spoke of it as ‘the most beautiful book there is’ (‘le plus beau livre qu’il y ait ’) (Les Évangiles, Paris 1877, p. 283), a verdict which caused C. K. Barrett to remark that Luke ‘was more concerned with truth than beauty’ (Luke the Historian in Recent Study, Epworth Press, 1961, p. 7). W. Manson pays this tribute: ‘Luke has cast his net wide, and produced a gospel the most voluminous and varied, the most vibrant and sympathetic, the most beautiful and sweetly reasonable of all that we possess’ (Manson, p. xxvii). F. C. Grant sees Luke as ‘the most valuable of our four’ and Luke-Acts as ‘the most valuable writing in the New Testament’ (The Gospels, Faber and Faber, 1957, p. 133).
H. Conzelmann and E. Haenchen take the view that the Preface to Luke is not meant to refer to Acts. But most scholars see the Preface as applying to both books. See, for example, the discussion by A. J. B. Higgins in Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Paternoster, 1970), pp. 78–91.
The text is given in Greek in Albert Huck, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, English edn. ed. F. L. Cross ( Tübingen, 1936), p. VIII, and in English in Ellis, p. 41. The Prologues are dated by Huck AD 160–180. Most recent scholars, however, regard them as much later and many see them as of little value. See, for example, the note in E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Basil Blackwell, 1971), pp. 10–12. Ellis is more respectful (Ellis, loc. cit.), as are R. G. Heard, who finds some early and valuable material here (JTS, n.s. 6, 1955, pp. 9–11) and Fitzmyer (pp. 38f.).
Adversus Haereses III.i.1.
Adversus Marcionem iv.2.
Stromateis i.21.
M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (SCM Press, 1956), p. 148.
H. J. Cadbury points out that when the title and author of the book were named on a separate tag (which he thinks was probably the case with Luke-Acts) neither appeared in the text of the roll (The Making of Luke-Acts, Macmillan, 1927, p. 195). Cadbury thinks the evidence that Luke was the author is not conclusive. But he does not explain how Luke could have displaced another name so completely.
For example, H. Windisch holds that the author of Acts was not Luke, ‘but he used as a source a diary of Luke’s’ (The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, vol. 2 (Macmillan, 1922, p. 342).
Ernst Haenchen, following Dibelius, takes this line. He suggests that the use of ‘we’ is a way of indicating that ‘for some of the trips he (i.e. the author of Acts) was able to depend upon reports from an eyewitness’ (SLA, p. 272).
Luke is mentioned in the New Testament only in Col. 4:14; Philm. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11. Some have identified him with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 13:1) or with the Lucius whom Paul calls his kinsman (Rom. 16:21), but the names are slightly different and there seems no reason for identifying either with Luke. Some of the early church Fathers thought Luke was ‘the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches’ (2 Cor. 8:18, AV; cf. the collect for St Luke’s day in the Book of Common Prayer), but this seems fanciful.
The case was strongly argued by W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St Luke (Longmans, Green and Co., 1882), and more cautiously by A. Harnack, Luke the Physician (Williams and Northgate, 1907).
H. J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke (Harvard University Press, 1920). A. Q. Morton, however, sees a weakness in Cadbury’s approach, when he compares Luke’s language to that in Josephus and the LXX: ‘There are 18,000 words in the Gospel of Luke and 1,500,000 in the works of Josephus and in the Septuagint.’ This could mean that the words in question are a hundred times more common in Luke than in Josephus (A. Q. Morton and G. H. C. Macgregor, The Structure of Luke and Acts, Hodder and Stoughton, 1964, p. 3; Morton is not arguing for Hobart’s hypothesis, which he castigates as ‘a lunatic assertion’, but indicating a weakness in Cadbury’s refutation).
SLA, p. 37. This is from a translation of his essay of 1950–51 which seems to have set the pattern for much subsequent German thinking. Vielhauer’s view has been further developed by Götz Harbsmeier, who holds that the church must always face the alternative between Paul and Luke (SLA, pp. 68f.).
SLA, p. 38.
SLA, p. 45.
J. Rohde reports U. Wilckens as making essentially this point (Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists, SCM Press, 1968, p. 207).
Ellis cites B. Gärtner and E. Norden as agreeing that this speech does not contradict Pauline teaching (Ellis, p. 46).
Cf. C. F. D. Moule, ‘it needs to be remembered that it is a priori likely that there should be differences between a speaker’s initial presentation of the gospel to a non-Christian audience, and the same speaker’s address to those who have already become Christians; and that, with rare exceptions, the Acts speeches belong to the former, while the Pauline epistles belong to the latter class’ (SLA, p. 173). In the rare exceptions Acts. 20:17ff. has Paul speaking to Christians and verse 28 has a very ‘Pauline’ reference to redemption. Passages in the Letters such as Rom. 1:3–4; 1 Cor. 15:1ff.; 1 Thess. 1:9f. recall evangelistic preaching and they approximate to the kerygma of Acts. G. Bornkamm finds some conflict between Acts and Paul, but he finds the incident of the vow (Acts 21:17ff.) authentic (SLA, pp. 204f.).
Ellis, p. 44. He cites Rom. 14:20f.; 1 Cor. 7:18ff.; 9:20 and draws attention to Kirsopp Lake’s view that ‘in this respect Acts gives a faithful representation of St. Paul’s own view’ (HDAC 1, p. 29).
SLA, pp. 159–185.
SLA, p. 77.
His good Greek is not evidence for this, as a cultured Jew might well have a good grasp of the language. The case rests on the reference to Luke in distinction from those ‘of the circumcision’ (Col. 4:11, 14). This probably does mean that Luke was a Gentile, though some argue that the expression means Jews who were ‘zealous for the law’ in distinction from those who were lax. But this seems far-fetched. Again, apart from amēn he avoids Semitic words. Further, he has little about the dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees over the law, a topic which would be interesting to a Jew, but less so to a Gentile. There is also the evidence of the anti-Marcionite Prologue noted above, which says that he was a native of Antioch. His interest in the Old Testament may be urged in support of the view that he was a Jew, as is the suggestion that he was a kinsman of Paul’s (Rom. 16:21; the name Lucius is, however, not the same as Luke) and an early tradition that he was one of the seventy-two. Reicke thinks that Luke was probably Jewish (The Gospel of Luke, SPCK, 1965, p. 22), as does Ellis (pp. 52f).
Morton S. Enslin, in his article ‘Luke the Literary Physician’ in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. A. Aune (E. J. Brill, 1972), pp. 135–143, contends that Luke did use these Letters. Many will find his arguments unconvincing, but even if they are accepted it remains that there is no obvious use of the Letters and this is significant. One would expect attention to be drawn to the use of the Letters as a means of accrediting the writing.
Ellis, p. 51.
For the date of Galatians see the discussions in R. A. Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, TNTC (Tyndale, 1965), pp. 20–23, and in George S. Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Hodder and Stoughton, 1934), pp. xxi–xxxii.
For example, J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Macmillan, 1902), p. 125; Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (London, 1954), pp. 78f.
A few scholars have thought Acts earlier than Luke, at least in its present form. Thus C. S. C. Williams argues that Proto-Luke appeared first, then Acts, then our present Luke (ET 64, 1952–53, pp. 283f.). Pierson Parker supports such a view (JBL 84, 1965, pp. 52–58).
W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (SCM Press, 1965), pp. 132f
A. F. J. Klijn, An Introduction to the New Testament (Leiden, 1967), p. 66.
E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles, TNTC (Tyndale 1959), p. 17.
F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (London, 1951), p. 14.
Art. cit., p. 55.
Aune, op. cit., p. 134.
W. G. Kümmel, op. cit., p. 105. By contrast, C. F. D. Moule is not impressed by the argument that Luke 21:20 was written after the event (The Birth of the New Testament, A. and C. Black, 1962, p. 122).
Bo Reicke is scathing about the view that this prophecy is ex eventu, calling it ‘an amazing example of uncritical dogmatism in New Testament studies’. He argues that in none of the Synoptists does the prophecy correspond to what is known about the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem (Aune, op. cit., p. 121).
F. Blass made this suggestion long ago. He regarded it as ‘self-evident’ that Jesus’ speech was longer than the report of it in any one Gospel. See Philology of the Gospels (Macmillan, 1898), p. 46.
Donald Guthrie reminds us that history knows of accurate predictions and he cites Savonarola’s prophecy that Rome would be captured (New Testament Introduction, Tyndale, 31970, p. 114). We should not minimize Jesus’ ability to predict.
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica III.v.3.
SLA, p. 287, n. 8. O’Neill has argued his case in ch. 1 of The Theology of Acts (SPCK, 21970).
W. Ramsay cites an inscription from Abilene referring to this Lysanias between AD 14 and 29. He sees ‘absolutely no justification for the unreasonable charge that this dating in Luke III.1 was wrong’ (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder and Stoughton, 1895, p. 298). See further the note on 3:1.
SLA, p. 299.
F. J. Foakes Jackson makes the point that there is little in Josephus that is relevant to Luke’s purpose. It is hard to see why he should spend time on a book which would give him so little information (The Acts of the Apostles, Hodder and Stoughton, 1937, pp. xivf.). There is no reason for thinking that Luke had ever read Josephus.
For the conventions adopted in writing prefaces see H. J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke, pp. 194ff. He points out that the preface shows that the work was meant for a public (ibid., p. 204). It stamps the work as literature, and shows that it was not originally intended, for example, for liturgical purposes.
The corresponding figures for Matthew and Mark are 116 and 79 respectively. See R. Morgenthaler, Statistik des Neutestamentlichen Wortschätzes (Frankfurt am Main, 1958), p. 170. Luke has another sixty words which are found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Acts, while Acts has 415 peculiar to itself. The figures differ only slightly from those given by Sir John Hawkins in Horae Synopticae (Oxford, 1909), pp. 198ff.
See the examination by H. F. D. Sparks, JTS 44 (1943), pp. 129ff.
Sometimes we can speak only of Semitisms where the two languages have similar constructions. But in some points they differ and Luke reflects both. See Creed, pp. lxxix–lxxxi.
X. Léon-Dufour stresses this variability. He thinks that Luke ‘to a Greek ear was at once refined and often vulgar’ (Introduction to the New Testament, ed. A. Robert and A. Feuillet, New York, 1965, p. 223). He notes that Luke sometimes corrects Mark’s vulgarisms, but now and then alters good Greek into what is worse. He wonders whether Luke is reproducing a source (ibid., p. 224).
So F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 18–21; M. Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, 1965), pp. 180–184.
Ellis, p. 3.
E. P. Sanders, in a careful examination of the evidence, shows that Semitisms can be late as well as early (The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge, 1969, pp. 190–255). He concludes that no argument as to date can safely be drawn from Semitisms. In the light of the evidence he adduces it is difficult to see how his conclusion is to be resisted. But he agrees that ‘it would be impossible completely to invalidate’ the position that in the New Testament Semitisms are more likely to be ‘remnants of the original language’ than features introduced into an original Greek relatively free from Semitisms (ibid., p. 199). It is not unlikely that Luke’s Semitisms point to an early source or sources.
Some hold that Jesus would have spoken Hebrew. See, for example, the discussion by James Barr, BJRL 53 (1970–71), pp. 9–29. It is not unlikely that Jesus knew Greek, and if so some of his sayings may be reported in the language in which they were originally spoken. But there is every reason for holding that in most cases the original was Aramaic or Hebrew.
James D. G. Dunn, for example, regards Luke as one of ‘the three major New Testament theologians’ (ET 84,1972–73, p. 7; Paul and John are the others).
F. C. Grant, in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, ed. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder (SCM Press, 1962), p. 83. More recently Terrance Callan has argued that the Preface seems to show that Luke intended to write history and moreover history of the type ‘written to provide a true account of something‘ (NTS 31, 1985, pp. 576–581; the quotation is from p. 580).
V. Taylor, The Gospels (London, 1930), p. 16.
For a discussion of this hypothesis see pp. 58ff.
They usually overlook the point made by W. Barclay, ‘their (i.e. the form critics’) one mistake is their failure to see that the gospel writers sought to awaken faith by showing Jesus as he was’ (The First Three Gospels, London, 1966, p. 115).
Joachim Rohde includes among ‘the most important insights and presuppositions of the form-critical method’ the following statement: ‘The Synoptic gospels are not biographies in the historical sense, but testimonies to the faith of primitive Christianity’, and further, ‘The Easter faith of the community did not remain without influence on the accounts of Jesus’ life’ (Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists, p. 5).
H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St Luke (Faber and Faber, 1960), p. 16.
Ibid., p. 20.
Ibid., p. 27.
R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Basil Blackwell, 1963), pp. 363f. (Bultmann’s emphasis). I. Howard Marshall examines and rejects Conzelmann’s conclusions on geography (Luke: Historian and Theologian, Paternoster, 1970, pp. 70f.).
See my Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Paternoster, 1969), pp. 110ff.
This is far from universal and many recent critics, particularly among the Germans, would demur.
R. Bultmann, op. cit., p. 366. He goes on to say, ‘that can hardly be called meritorious, for he has obviously not adopted a strongly marked position with specific tendencies.’ I do not agree with this, but the interesting thing is that, whether it be meritorious or not, Luke has not allowed his ‘dogmatic conceptions’ to dominate his work. He is too good a historian. Nils A. Dahl has this to say about Luke’s history and theology: ‘He keeps rather close to his sources and wants to respect what he assumes to have been the historical facts. Yet, by means of redaction, rearrangement, and some minor changes, he is able to write history in sucha way that he simultaneously sets forth his theology’ (SLA, p. 154). J. H. Ropes also insists that Luke does not ‘distort the history’ (The Synoptic Gospels, Oxford University Press, 1960, p. 84).
W. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, p. 80. He further says, ‘The present writer takes the view that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness’ (ibid., p. 81). We should not, of course, understand Ramsay to mean that if a writer can be shown to be accurate in some places he is to be trusted everywhere. Obviously even a careful writer can make a mistake. But his point is valid against those who see Luke as careless about accuracy. When at point after point a writer can be shown to be accurate, this must be taken to indicate his cast of mind.
C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study, p. 9. This does not prevent Barrett from thinking of Luke as in error on some points, for example in giving a picture of the early church which lacks controversy among its leaders (ibid., p. 74).
Thompson, p. 16.
C. K. Barrett, loc. cit.
It is difficult to find an adequate English equivalent. Barrett objects that ‘ “Redemptive history” suggests that history redeems, and “history of salvation” suggests that salvation is an institution’ (From First Adam to Last, A. and C. Black, 1962, p. 4, n.). As to what Luke was doing, H. Flender sees him as confronted with a threefold task: ‘First, he had to preserve the unique character of the Christ event in on-going history. Secondly, there was the problem of historical continuity between Israel and the Church. Thirdly, there was the problem of how to describe the presence of salvation in the Christian community as it passes through time’ (St Luke, Theologian of Redemptive History, SPCK, 1967, p. 91). Cf. also the discussion by J. Reumann (SE 4, pp. 86–115).
C. F. Evans sees Luke as bringing out the truth that Jesus was the prophet like Moses of Deut. 18:15 by modelling his great central section (9:51 – 18:14) on Deuteronomy (‘The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel’ in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham (Basil Blackwell, 1967), pp. 37–53.
I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, p. 92.
This is stressed in G. W. H. Lampe’s Ethel M. Wood Lecture, St Luke and the Church of Jerusalem (London, 1969). Cf. Donald Juel: Luke-Acts ‘seems to make most sense as a pastoral word addressed to Jewish Christians’ (Luke-Acts: The Promise of History, John Knox Press, 1983, p. 117). Richardson comments that Luke ‘deeply believed that the Christian faith could not disown or sit lightly to its past without becoming a quite different religion’ (Richardson, p. 16).
Willard M. Swartley sees these to include ‘well-being, health, salvation, trusting relationships, and, perhaps most significant, social justice’ (Richard J. Cassidy and Philip J. Scharper, eds., Political Issues in Luke-Acts, Orbis, 1983, p. 34).
Thus E. Käsemann says that, in Luke ‘Eschatology is replaced by a salvation history which is remarkably well organized and connected but which, in spite of the sheen imparted to it by miracles, remains confined within the limits of immanence’ (New Testament Questions of Today, SCM Press, 1969, p. 21).
E. Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (SCM Press, 1964), p. 28.
SLA, p. 28. Rohde cites Hans-Werner Bartsch for the view that Luke is concerned not to oppose the important expectation of the parousia, but the identification of the resurrection with the parousia (Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists, p. 187). While I would not wish to endorse Bartsch’s thesis, the fact that he can take up such a position shows that Luke’s abandonment of the imminent expectation of the parousia is not nearly as obvious as some critics suppose.
Cf. C. F. D. Moule, ‘It is not that Luke does not expect a Day of Judgment and a coming of the Lord: about these he is as explicit as anybody’ (The Birth of the New Testament, p. 170; he goes on to note that Luke is ‘primarily concerned with a positive estimate of the intervening period’).
Bo Reicke, The Gospel of Luke, pp. 77, 76. A J. Mattill Jr is another who stresses Luke’s eschatological interest. Indeed he argues that Luke saw himself as helping forward the Pauline mission and thus expediting an essential part of the eschatological plan (CBQ 34, 1972, pp. 276–293).
C. H. Talbert, Jesus and Man’s Hope (Pittsburgh, 1970), p. 191.
E. E. Ellis speaks of ‘an eschatology whose future consummation also occurs in two stages, individual in Jesus’ resurrection/exaltation and universal at his parousia’ (Eschatology in Luke, Fortress Press, 1972, p. 20). R. Maddox makes the point that ‘for Luke the time of the church is a period charged with eschatology: the powers of the new age are at work …’ (Maddox, p. 139).
For example, Nils A. Dahl, SLA, p. 154; cf. Henry J. Cadbury, ‘Luke evidently reproduced his sources faithfully, in general purport though not in wording’ (The Making of Luke-Acts, p. 365). The whole argument of Vincent Taylor’s The Passion Narrative of St Luke (Cambridge University Press, 1972) presupposes that Luke is faithful to his sources; otherwise they could not be disentangled. Cf. also Caird, ‘We thus arrive at the interesting and important conclusion that, where Luke’s modern detractors have thought him a careless historian, the sum of his fault has usually been that he was meticulously following his sources’ (p. 29).
C. H. Talbert, op. cit., pp. 206ff.
See above, pp. 17f.
Charles H. Talbert draws attention to the repeated references to women who came with Jesus from Galilee and comments, ‘It appears to be Luke’s intention to set the Twelve and the women alongside one another as guarantors of the facts of the Christ event’ (Talbert, p. 90).
See David P. Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts (Studien im Neuen Testament und seiner Honwelt, 1982); R. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Inter-Varsity Press, USA, 1977; Hodder and Stoughton, 1978); I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Paternoster, 1970), pp. 141–144, 206–209.
D. A. S. Ravens holds that Luke has a distinctive theology of the cross which ‘expresses his deep distrust of Judaistic religion as he understood it, and his view of God as the one, who alone does all that atonement requires’ (ET 97,1985–86, p. 291). I cannot accept all that he writes, but he does bring out the truth that Luke has his own way of looking at the cross and that he has a very meaningful theology of the cross.
But Rudolf Otto holds that Luke retains the essence of this saying in his passion narrative: ‘the idea of a ransom for many was precisely the meaning of the distribution of the bread, and by the act of distributing the meaning had just been fixed’ (The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, London, 1943, p. 272).
This view is currently fashionable in some quarters but it is worth noticing that in earlier days the same evidence was viewed differently. Plummer reminds us that the four symbols, the Man, the Lion, the Ox and the Eagle, were assigned to the Gospels in a variety of ways, but always the Ox was the symbol of Luke. He cites Isaac Williams, ‘This sacerdotal animal implies Atonement and Propitiation; and this exactly corresponds with what is supposed to be the character of St. Luke’s Gospel’ (Plummer, p. xxii). We should also notice the point made by Marshall that in this respect Luke does not differ significantly from Matthew and Mark (Luke: Historian and Theologian, pp. 170f.).
Bo Reicke thinks that the passion story in Luke ‘is important and illuminating because together with the prelude it encompasses the whole drama and gives it a distinctive character, but especially because it represents the climax of the whole drama’ (The Gospel of Luke, p. 60). Cf. Bishop Cassian, ‘from the prophecy of Simeon in the temple (2, 25–35), there is a certain accent on the coming Passion’ (SE 1, p. 137; Cassian does not see this as what he calls ‘the building principle’ which is rather universalism). Cf. also Tinsley, p. 13.
See further my The Cross in the New Testament (Paternoster, 1965), chs. 2, 3. Michael Green draws attention to seven points which show Luke’s concern for the truth that Christ’s death has atoning significance (Evangelism in the Early Church, Hodder and Stoughton, 1970, pp. 73f.).
Flender, St Luke, Theologian of Redemptive History, p. 142.
Flender, loc. cit.
G. W. H. Lampe can say, ‘The connecting thread which runs through both parts of St. Luke’s work is the theme of the operation of the Spirit of God’ (Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham, p. 159). I cannot follow him, however, when he claims that in these two writings, ‘the Spirit is still, generally speaking, non-personal’ (ibid., p. 163).
H. Conzelmann finds joy ‘the dominant mood’ in the infancy stories and ‘this mood persists throughout the Gospel’ (TDNT 9, p. 367).
B. F. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (Macmillan, 1875), p. 188.
These men have emphasized the role of oral transmission among the rabbis and have suggested that the early Christians must be seen against this background. They think it likely that the first Christians would have used much the same methods as the rabbis for carrying on the tradition. See H. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition (Oxford, 1970); B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Uppsala, 1961); Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (Gleerup, 1964). It must be borne in mind that the Christians differed from the rabbis as well as resembled them, but this approach surely has value.
Q is the initial letter of the German word Quelle, ‘source’, and it is usually said confidently that this is the reason for the symbol. According to R. H. Lightfoot, however, Armitage Robinson, when lecturing in the 1890s, used to refer to Mark as P (Peter’s reminiscences) and the sayings document as Q. He thought someone carried the method to Germany where Q was related to Quelle. He had the idea that it was first used in Germany by Wellhausen in 1903 (History and Interpretation in the Gospels, Hodder and Stoughton, 1935), p. 27, n. 1). However, W. F. Howard pointed out that the symbol was used by J. Weiss in an essay published in 1891 and again in a book published in 1892 (ET 50, 1938–39, pp. 379f.). The question cannot be said to have been resolved.
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (Macmillan, 1930), pp. 159f. W. G. Kümmel says that Matthew and Luke between them have 8,189 out of Mark’s 10,650 words (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 45). Fitzmyer cites B. de Solages who says that Luke has 7,036 of Mark’s 8,485 words (p. 66).
F. B. Clogg, An Introduction to the New Testament, Hodder and Stoughton, 1940, p. 183.
E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 277. In a footnote he points out that the argument from order is true only for longer, complete units. In smaller units there are places where neither Matthew nor Luke follows Mark’s order and he cites Mark 9:50; Matt. 5:13; Luke 14:34.
See the list in F. Crawford Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission (T. and T. Clark, 1907), pp. 42ff.
The passages are listed in Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 144–149.
Creed finds a variety of explanations (p. xi). John Drury thinks that Luke deals with the Jews in his Gospel and the Gentiles in Acts, so that the references to the Gentiles are the decisive thing here: ‘the Gentiles are the church’s business’ (Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1976, p. 126).
David Wenham draws attention to a number of difficulties in his article ‘The Synoptic Problem Revisited’, Tyndale Bulletin 23,1972, pp. 3–38.
Cf. B. C. Butler, The Originality of Matthew (Cambridge University Press, 1951); M. L. Loane, A Brief Survey of the Synoptic Problem (Melbourne, n.d.); W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (Macmillan, New York, 1964).
E. P. Sanders cites W. Bussmann for the view that ‘a source document G (Geschichtsquelle) lay behind the synoptic triple tradition, but had been used by our evangelists in different recensions. Luke used the earlier form and Matthew the second, while Mark itself is actually the third recension of the source G’ (op. cit., p. 95).
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 183.
As an example of the difficulty we may take W. H. Blyth Martin’s contention that, in the Woes on the Scribes and Pharisees, if Luke used Matthew he omitted several verses and arranged the others in the order Matt. 23:25–26, 23, 6–7, 27, 4, 29–31, 34–36, 13 (Theology 59, May 1956, pp. 187f.). Harold A. Guy has also stressed the significance of Luke’s very different order (ET 83, 1971–72, pp. 245ff.). K. Peter G. Curtis has an argument from vocabulary in support of the Q hypothesis (ET 84, 1972–73, pp. 309f.).
J. Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (T. and T. Clark, 1927, pp. 197ff.).
B. H. Streeter, op. cit., p. 291.
Cited in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica III.39.16.
See for example the essay by A. M. Farrer, ‘On Dispensing with Q’ in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham, pp. 55–86. W. H. Blyth Martin replied with an article called ‘The Indispensability of Q’, op. cit., pp. 182–188. J. H. Ropes maintains that it has never been shown to be impossible that Luke used Matthew (The Synoptic Gospels, p. 93). N. Turner has argued that the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark seem best explained by Lucan dependence on Matthew (SE 1, pp. 223–234). But R. McL. Wilson urges some considerations which point the other way (SE 1, pp. 254–257). Drury argues that Luke used Matthew (Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel, ch. 6).
W. L. Knox uses the suggestive expression, ‘Q tracts’ (The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels 2, Cambridge University Press, 1957, pp. 45ff.). He thinks that the short tracts were quite early. ‘Probably even in the late thirties, and certainly by the early fifties’ (ibid., p. 139). C. K. Barrett argues for a number of sources rather than a single Q document (ET, 54, 1942–43, pp. 320ff.). Olof Linton thinks that there was a Q document, but that Matthew and Luke also made use of material that had been passed on orally (‘The Q-Problem Reconsidered’ in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. A. Aune, pp. 43–59). E. P. Sanders has demonstrated again the complexity of the problem and has argued for multiple sources which sometimes overlap (‘The Overlaps of Mark and Q and the Synoptic Problem’, NTS 19, 1972–73, pp. 453–465).
Ropes sees the Q hypothesis as having been ‘modified, refined, and complicated to such a degree as, for that reason if for no other, to arouse doubts of its validity’ (loc. cit.). M. Dibelius thinks we are warranted in speaking ‘rather of a stratum than of a document’ (From Tradition to Gospel ), London, 1934, p. 235). R. H. Fuller also thinks of Q as ‘shorthand for a common layer of tradition, partly written and perhaps partly oral’ (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, Duckworth, 1966, p. 72). Of course, many find it a profitable working hypothesis.
Caird, p. 23.
Caird, pp. 24f.
Streeter, The Four Gospels, pp. 211f. He estimates the non-Marcan matter in Luke 3:1 – 22:14 at 671 verses and in the passion narrative at 135 verses, a total of 806 (ibid., p. 209); there are about 660 verses in Mark).
Ibid., pp. 213f.
Caird, p. 25.
Caird, loc. cit.
See further the detailed discussion in Vincent Taylor, The Passion Narrative of St Luke. Taylor makes it very difficult to hold that Mark was Luke’s basic source for the passion narrative, though he agrees that Luke has used Mark in some sections.
Creed, p. lviii, n. While objecting to the Proto-Luke hypothesis Creed is ready to allow the possibility that Q and some of Luke’s special material ‘may have been already combined, and may have lain before Luke as a single document’ (ibid.). A Wikenhauser is somewhat pessimistic: ‘up to the present no real solution has been found which explains the highly complex facts of the synoptic problem, nor is it likely that such a solution will be found’ (New Testament Introduction, Herder and Herder, 1958, pp. 231f.). D. G.
A. Calvert refers to ‘the growing feeling that the synoptic problem is still with us, and that the two-source theory is no longer adequate’ (NTS 18, 1971–72, p. 218). J. A. Fitzmyer holds that ‘the history of Synoptic research reveals that the problem is practically insoluble’( Jesus and Man’s Hope, Pittsburgh, 1970, p. 132). W. D. Davies thinks it unlikely that the four-document hypothesis will be completely discarded: ‘Nevertheless, in recent scholarship, the neat lines of Streeter’s source analysis are being rubbed faint, if not entirely rubbed out’ (Invitation to the New Testament, p. 96). In E. P. Sanders’ study, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, the complexity of the evidence is made clear, as also the fact that there is no real trend.
Cf. J. A. Bailey, The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John (E. J. Brill, 1963).
I have examined the relationship of John to the Synoptic Gospels generally in chapter 1 of Studies in the Fourth Gospel, and come to the conclusion that there is no convincing evidence for dependence.
Caird, p. 21. P. Parker also sees the answer in oral tradition (NTS 9, 1962–63, pp. 317–336). Maddox thinks these traditions originated in southern Palestine, whereas Matthew-Mark reflect Galilee (Maddox, pp. 174f.).
H. J. Cadbury thinks there is probably nothing more to it than a desire for a long and sonorous word (F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity 2, Macmillan, 1922, p. 496). But this is unlikely to be correct.
N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ (London, 1951), p. 44.
See Introduction, pp. 54ff.
For the naming of children among the Jews see H. Daniel-Rops, Daily Life in Palestine at the Time of Christ (Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1962), pp. 106–109.
Tacitus, Annals i.11; Suetonius, Octavian 101.
C. F. Evans, in an article, ‘Tertullian’s References to Sentius Saturninus and the Lukan Census’, argues that Tertullian’s statement does not refer to the census in Luke (JTS, n.s. 24, 1973, pp. 24–39).
Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (T. and T. Clark, 1965), p. 23. Fitzmyer rejects this view.
See A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Hodder and Stoughton, 1927), p. 271. Deissmann says that Luke uses official ‘departmental language’ in reporting the order (ibid., p. 270, n. 5).
See G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (T. and T. Clark, 1902), pp. 184–194. Of Jesus’ general use he says, ‘The usage of family life is transferred to God: it is the language of the child to its father’ (ibid., p. 192).
See G. Ogg in NBD, p. 201; J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton University Press, 1964), pp. 272f.
See my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Tyndale, 31965), chs. V, VI.
The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. K. Stendahl (London, 1958), p. 42.
For Luke’s interest in prayer, see Introduction, p. 56.
TNTC (1st edn, Tyndale, 1971), on Matt. 3:17.
ANF 6, p. 126.
J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (London, 1958), p. 204.
Joseph B. Tyson sees a pattern of initial acceptance followed by subsequent rejection. It appears in this programmatic section and is the attitude of the Jews as a whole as Luke sees them (NTS 30, 1984, pp. 574–583).
See further my The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (Tyndale, 1964), pp. 11ff.
For this concept see above, p. 43.
James (TNTC, 1st edn), p. 141.
J. A. Fitzmyer, NTS 20 (1973–74), p. 398.
NBD, art. ‘House’.
See further, Leon Morris, The Lord from Heaven (Inter-Varsity Press, 21974), ch. 2.
See SB 1, p. 354.
See SB 1, pp. 450ff.
See SB 1, pp. 446f.
See my commentary, The Gospel According to John, New London Commentary (Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1972), in loc.
LT 1, pp. 555, 557.
New Bible Dictionary (first edn., Tyndale, 1962), art. ‘Parable’.
See I. H. Marshall, Eschatology and the Parables (Tyndale, 1963), pp. 11, 30f.
See further, Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (New London Commentary), pp. 187f.
See the note in Leon Morris, Revelation, TNTC (Leicester, 21987).
LT 1, p. 643.
See SB 1, p. 571.
See Introduction, pp. 61ff.
H. Conzelmann comments, ‘The purpose behind the heavenly manifestation is the announcement of the Passion, and by this means the proof is given that the Passion is something decreed by God’ (The Theology of St Luke, p. 57).
So A. Oepke, TDNT 4, p. 908.
W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 99.
See SB 1, pp. 353ff.
Polybius, ii.15.6.
J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (SCM Press, 1969), p. 122.
TDNT 3, p. 410.
C. L. Mitton distinguishes leaven, ‘a piece of the previous week’s dough’, from yeast. Both made bread rise, but there was the danger of corruption and infection in leaven, so that the annual destruction of it all (Exod. 12:14f.) served a hygienic as well as a religious purpose (ET 84, 1972–73, pp. 339–343).
H. W. Beyer, TDNT 1, p. 624.
See further, Leon Morris, Spirit of the Living God (Tyndale, 1960), pp. 48ff.
W. E. Shewell-Cooper, Plants and Fruits of the Bible (Darton, Longman and Todd, 1962), p. 7.
See J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology (Nijmegen, 1962), ch. III.
A. Rendle Short, Modern Discovery and the Bible (IVF, 1947), p. 91.
SJ, p. 276.
In the Damascus (or Zadokite) Document. See T. H. Gaster, The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect (London, 1957), p. 87.
SB 4, p. 618.
A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (SCM Press, 1960), p. 65.
LT 2, p. 256.
SJ, p. 286.
BS, p. 230.
SJ, p. 292.
See further J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London, 1970), pp. 48–77.
J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (SCM Press, 1954), p. 127.
Ibid.
J. D. M. Derrett, op. cit., pp. 71f. He also points out that there are many parallels in Indian custom and he cites a rate of as much as 800% over six years and eight months for oil and wines, an annual rate of something over 100% (ibid., p. 71).
SJ, p. 293.
TDNT 4, pp. 388ff.
A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables, p. 84.
See Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (T. and T. Clark, 1965), pp. 51f.
SJ, p. 144.
SB 1, p. 1036.
Talmud, Berakhoth 28b (Soncino translation).
T. W. Manson, SJ, p. 312.
TDNT 1, p. 489.
W. E. Shewell-Cooper, Plants and Fruits of the Bible, p. 120.
SJ, p. 317.
SJ, p. 230.
See my commentary, The Gospel According to John, New London Commentary, pp. 188–191, and more fully in Explorations, Ridley College Papers: 1973 (Melbourne, 1971), pp. 22–28.
J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, pp. 296ff.
J. D. M. Derrett, op. cit., p. 307.
J. D. M. Derrett, op. cit., pp. 335f.
It seems that Jerusalem could not hold the numbers of which Josephus speaks. J. Jeremias works on the information that at Passover there were three groups of worshippers coming to sacrifice their animals, the first two crowding the court. Allowing two men (each with his animal) per square metre the court could take 6,400 when jammed full. Since the third group was not so large this would total about 18,000. With ten worshippers per sacrificial victim this yields a total of about 180,000 at Passover time ( Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, pp. 77ff.) Without the pilgrims he thinks the normal population was about 25–30,000.
R. T. France, Matthew, TNTC (Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), on Matt. 24:29–35. See further the discussion in R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London, 1971), pp. 227–239. He is primarily concerned there with Mark 13:24–27, but much of what he says is relevant to the Lucan equivalent.
F. F. Bruce argues that the meaning of the word ‘coming’ in the parallel Mark 13:26 is a coming to earth, not a going to heaven (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. E. F. Harrison, Baker Book House, 1960, p. 192).
Henry J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke, p. 54.
May I refer to my discussion of the point in The Gospel According to John, New London Commentary, pp. 774–786.
The textual points are summed up in The Greek New Testament, ed. R. V. G. Tasker (Oxford University Press 1964), pp. 422f.; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 173–177. See also the note in Ellis.
A. Edersheim, The Temple (Religious Tract Society, n.d.), p. 205.
Ibid., pp. 207f.
I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels 2 (New York, 1967), pp. 1ff.
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), p. 27. He makes the further comment, important for Luke’s narrative in general, ‘Luke is remarkable in that his additional materials – the full formulation of the charges before Pilate, the reference to Herod, and the proposed acquittal with admonition – are all technically correct’ (ibid., p. 32).
See the article, ‘Jesus and Jehohanan’ by J. H. Charlesworth, in ET 84, 1972–73, pp. 147–150.
JBL 105 (1986), p. 67. He further says that the way Jesus died shows that ‘Salvation is to be found not in fleeing death nor in using one’s power to escape from it, but in trusting that God is righteous and remains united with his rejected and battered creation even in its sorest hours. This is sola fide and sola gratia’ (ibid).
Arndt, pp. 485–487; John Wenham, Easter Enigma (Paternoster, 1984).
Ever since Westcott and Hort there has been a strong feeling that a number of passages towards the end of Luke (and some elsewhere) are spurious. Westcott and Hort called them ‘Western non-interpolations’, a curious name for interpolations into their beloved ‘neutral’ text. Scholars have been swayed by this weighty opinion, by the great antiquity of the Western text and by the difficulty of explaining why scribes should omit such striking passages. Recently, however, attention has been given to the newly discovered papyri, especially the great P75. It is now plain that these readings are as old as or more probably older than the Western text and the trend is towards accepting them. See, for example, the article by Klyne Snodgrass,‘ “Western NonInterpolations” ’, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 369–379. On the present verse Snodgrass says, ‘It is plain that this verse, one of the “most secure Western Non-Interpolations,” belongs to the original text of Luke’ (ibid., p. 373). Earlier J. Jeremias pointed to a great difficulty in the way of the common attitude to the Western non-interpolations: ‘The assumption that the archetype of the group D it vet-syr had suffered some loss is a comparatively easy one, whereas it is exceedingly difficult to visualize the historical evolution of a text where an interpolation could find its way into every Greek MS. with the exception of D only. The originality of the shorter text could be assumed, therefore, only for very cogent reasons’ (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, Oxford, 1955, pp. 91f.). K. Aland stresses the importance of P75 in his acceptance of a considerable group of passages (including the present one) rejected by the ‘Western non-interpolations’ theory (NTS 12,1965–66, pp. 193–210). J. M. Ross argues strongly for the genuineness of the words (ET 98, 1986–87, pp. 107–108).
ET 68 (1956–57), p. 208.
Ibid., p. 209 (Moule’s italics).
Praise for Tyndale Commentaries
“The evenness and quality of this series are remarkable.”
Christianity Today
“There simply is no series of medium-length commentaries that approaches the excellence of the Tyndale commentaries.”
Donald A. Hagner, Fuller Theological Seminary
“Within its constraints, this series includes some outstanding volumes.”
D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
“Tyndale commentaries are always useful, not least because they focus so clearly on the text of Scripture, and do not fall into the trap of paying too much attention to other commentaries and not enough to the scriptural text they are intended to expound and explain. So they retain their usefulness for preachers, Bible study leaders and for all readers of the Bible.”
Peter Adam, principal, Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia
“The Tyndale volumes have long been the premier shorter-length commentary series on both Testaments throughout the English-speaking world.”
Craig Blomberg, Denver Seminary
About the Author
Leon Morris (1914-2006), one of the leading evangelical New Testament scholars of the twentieth century, served as principal of Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. He was the author of more than forty works, including The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, The Atonement, and comprehensive scholarly studies on Matthew, Luke, John and Romans.
He was the general editor of the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries and wrote the volumes in that series on Luke, 1 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Revelation.