The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (68 page)

Fitzmyer, J. A.
The Gospel According to Luke.
2 vols. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1981–85.

Green, J. B.
The Gospel of Luke.
New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Hill, C. E. “What Papias Said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment.”
JTS
49 (1998): 582–629.

Hobart, W. K.
The Medical Language of St. Luke.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954.

Jervell, J.
Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts.
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979.

Kealy, S. P.
The Interpretation of the Gospel of Luke
. Vol. I:
From Apostolic Times Through the Nineteenth Century.
Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 63. Lewiston: Mellen, 2005.

Keck, L. E., and J. L. Martyn, eds.
Studies in Luke-Acts
. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.

Kurz, W. S.
Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative
. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.

Liefeld, W. L., and D. W. Pao. “Luke.” In
The Expositor's Bible Commentary.
Rev. ed. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Maddox, R.
The Purpose of Luke-Acts
. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982.

Marshall, I. H.
Commentary on Luke.
New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

__________.
Luke: Historian and Theologian
. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

Morris, L.
The Gospel According to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary.
Tyndale New Testament Commentary. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Nolland, J.
Luke.
Word Biblical Commentary. 3 vols. Dallas: Word, 1990–93.

Sanders, J. T.
The Jews in Luke-Acts.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Strauss, M.
Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Thiselton, A. “The Hermeneutical Dynamics of ‘Reading Luke’ as Interpretation, Reflection and Formation.” In
Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation
. Edited by C. G. Bartholomew, J. B. Green, and A. Thiselton. Scripture and Hermeneutics 6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Townsend, J. T. “The Date of Luke-Acts.” In
Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature.
Edited by C. Talbert. New York: Crossroad, 1984.

Verheyden, J. “The Unity of Luke-Acts: What Are We Up To?” In
The Unity of Luke-Acts
. Edited by J. Verheyden. Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1999, 3–56.

Wenham D. “The Purpose of Luke-Acts.” In
Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation
. Edited by C. G. Bartholomew, J. B. Green, and A. C. Thiselton. Scripture and Hermeneutics 6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Wilson, S. G.
Luke and the Pastoral Epistles
. London: SPCK, 1979.

¹
If, as postulated by some, Luke was Paul's amanuensis for the Pastoral Epistles, it is even more remarkable how much Luke contributed to the content of the NT. See S. G. Wilson,
Luke and the Pastoral Epistles
(London: SPCK, 1979), 139–40.

²
A. Plummer (
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke
, 5th ed. [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922], xlix) noted that Luke was the most versatile of all the Gospel writers: “He can be as Hebraistic as the LXX, and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch. And, in the main, whether intentionally or not, he is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew society, and Greek in describing Greek society.”

³
E. Renan,
Les Évangiles et la seconde gé né ration chrétienne
(Paris: Calmann Lévy, 1877), 283: “C'est le plus beau livre qu'il y ait” (English translation
The Gospels
[London: Mathieson, n.d.]).

⁴
See Richard Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 114–24, 129–32.

⁵
On Quirinius, see the discussion in chap. 3 above.

⁶
S. E. Porter and L. M. MacDonald,
Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 291.

⁷
See H. Conzelmann,
The Theology of St. Luke
, trans. G. Buswell (London: Faber & Faber, 1960).

⁸
W. C. van Unnik, “Luke-Acts, a Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship,” in
Studies in Luke-Acts
, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 15–32.

⁹
A. Thiselton, “The Hermeneutical Dynamics of ‘Reading Luke’ as Interpretation, Reflection and Formation,” in
Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation
, ed. C. G. Bartholomew, J. B. Green, A. Thiselton, Scripture and Hermeneutics 6 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 3. For a literary approach, see, W. S. Kurz,
Reading Luke Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993).

¹⁰
See D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 205–6 (citing M. Dibelius,
Studies in the Acts of the Apostles
[London: SCM, 1956], 89 and 148), who noted “that it is unlikely that the books ever circulated without a name attached to them in some way.”

¹¹
See Luke 1:1–4. In 1882 W. K. Hobart wrote his famous book,
The Medical Language of St. Luke
(repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954), in which he argued that where Matthew and Mark used common expressions, Luke often employed medical terms to describe Jesus' healings. But this was challenged by H. J. Cadbury,
The Style and Literary Method of Luke
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1920), who pointed out that Luke's terminology was not necessarily specialized though it was the language used by educated people. The enduring result of this interchange is that the writer of Luke/Acts was assuredly an educated person.

¹²
The Greek participle
parēkolouthēkoti
(“having carefully investigated”) in 1:3 is masculine.

¹³
See the reference to “many” others in 1:1.

¹⁴
See the reference to “the original eyewitnesses” in 1:2.

¹⁵
But see the opinion of W. G. Kümmel,
Introduction to the New Testament
, rev. ed., trans. H. C. Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 149: “The only thing that can be said with certainty about the author, on the basis of Lk, is that he was a Gentile Christian.”

¹⁶
E.g., J. Verheyden, “The Unity of Luke-Acts: What Are We Up To?” in
The Unity of Luke-Acts
, ed. J. Verheyden (Leuven: Univ. Press, 1999), 3. One of the few voices against unified authorship is A. C. Clark,
The Acts of the Apostles
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1933).

¹⁷
L. Morris,
The Gospel According to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary
, TNTC 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 14.

¹⁸
E.g., Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 204; F. F. Bruce,
The Acts of the Apostles
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 2–3; and most conservative scholars; but see S. E. Porter, “The ‘We’ Passages,” in
The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting
, vol. 2:
The Book of Acts in Its Greco-Roman Setting
, ed. D. W. J. Gill and C. Gempf (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 545–74.

¹⁹
C. J. Hemer,
The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 312–13.

²⁰
C. K. Barrett,
Luke the Historian in Recent Study
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 22; Porter, “‘We’ Passages,” 574.

²¹
Kümmel,
Introduction
, 184.

²²
So E. Haenchen,
The Acts of the Apostles
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 85–90; P. Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in
Studies in Luke-Acts
, 33–34; and F. Bovon,
Luke 1
, Hermeneia, trans. C. M. Thomas (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 8–9. Cf. V. K. Robbins (“The We-Passages in Acts and Ancient Sea-Voyages,”
BR
20 [1975]: 5–18), who understood the “we” references as characteristic of a genre recounting ancient sea voyages; but C. J. Hemer (“First Person Narrative in Acts 27–28,”
TynBul
36 [1985]: 79–109) refuted this view.

²³
Most of those proposing such an understanding do so not on the basis of the phenomenon itself but due to their prior belief that the writer of Luke-Acts was so distant from the historical Paul that he could not have been his traveling companion. See D. Wenham, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” in
Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation
, 81.

²⁴
B. D. Ehrman (
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
, 4th ed. [New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2008], 159) unduly reduced these multiple references to a single one (Phlm 24). Cf. the treatments of Paul's authorship of Colossians and of the Pastoral Epistles later on in this volume.

²⁵
See Col 4:10–14 (esp. vv. 10–11a) and the discussion in Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 206.

²⁶
The exact quote is: “For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by his apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that his sweat fell down like drops of blood while he was praying, and saying, ‘If it be possible, let this cup pass’” (
Dial.
103). While this falls short of a citation of Luke as the author, the reference comports with the early church's view of the authorship of the Gospels.

²⁷
J. T. Townsend, “The Date of Luke-Acts,” in
Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature
, ed. C. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 47.

²⁸
C. E. Hill, “What Papias Said About John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment,”
JTS
49 (1998): 588–89.

²⁹
F. Siegert, “Unbeachtete Papiaszitate bei Armenischen Schriftstellern,”
NTS
27 (1981): 606.

³⁰
Holmes,
Apostolic Fathers
, 755–57.

³¹
So F. Godet,
A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke
, trans. W. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1890), 1–3.

³²
Bovon (
Luke
, 10) wrote: “Why anyone would happen upon the name Luke remains a riddle. Perhaps a student of Paul was desired for this work. The names Titus and Timothy were already taken, if only as the addressees, and not the writers, of the Pastoral Epistles. Among the remaining frequently appearing names in the Pauline corpus, Luke all but jumped out.” Bovon's remarks well illustrate the difficulty: would the name “Luke” leap at us from the biblical pages independent of the church's tradition?

³³
H. J. Cadbury (
The Making of Luke-Acts
[London: SPCK, 1927, repr. 1958], 354–60) seemed to capture the spirit of critical opinion when he explained the early church's identification of the author as Luke as little more than guesswork based on the faulty understanding of the “we” passages and an equally faulty belief that Paul wrote all the letters that bear his name.

³⁴
These matters are taken up further in the chapter on Acts below.

³⁵
J. A. Fitzmyer,
The Gospel According to Luke I–IX
(Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), 53.

³⁶
E.g., R. E. Brown (
An Introduction to the New Testament
[New York: Doubleday, 1997], 273–74) dated Luke at around 85 because he assigned Mark an approximate date of 68–73.

³⁷
See Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 180.

³⁸
Kümmel (
Introduction
, 150) maintained that “by the year 60 ‘many’ gospel writings could not have been in existence, including Mk.” But this is unwarranted since there were three decades between Jesus' resurrection and the writing of Luke.

³⁹
Hemer,
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
, 365.

⁴⁰
Morris,
Gospel According to St. Luke
, 22.

⁴¹
Some have claimed that Acts does not mention the fate of its participants. But both Stephen and James the son of Zebedee meet their fate in Acts 7 and 12 (see Hemer,
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
, 378).

⁴²
E.g., Luke 7:20 see Isa 28:18; 35:5; 61:1; Luke 7:27 see Mal 3:1; Luke 24:6 see Luke 9:21–44; 18: 31–33; Acts 11:28; and Acts 21:10–14.

⁴³
Fitzmyer (
Luke
, 56) tried to explain the omission of the temple's destruction by proposing that the Christian church had long since been removed from its Palestinian origins and was simply more interested in the spread of Christianity into the Mediterranean world among European Gentiles.

⁴⁴
L. T. Johnson, “Book of Luke-Acts,”
ABD
4:404. For efforts to explain the lack of reference to Paul's letters in Acts on the assumption of a late date of Acts, see W. O. Walker, “Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered,”
JSNT
24 (1985): 3–23; id., “Acts and the Pauline Corpus Revisited: Peter's Speech at the Jerusalem Conference,” in
Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson
, ed. R. P. Thompson and T. E. Phillips (Macon: University Press, 1998), 77–86.

⁴⁵
The claim by deSilva (
Introduction
, 309) that after Paul reached Rome “any explicit mention of the events of the mid-to late-60s [is] out of place and superfluous” still does not answer the question of why the outcome of Paul's first Roman trial or subsequent events are not mentioned.

⁴⁶
Though it is true that some date the Pastorals very late as well.

⁴⁷
E.g., Bock,
Luke
, 16–18; Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 208; I. H. Marshall,
The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text
, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 33–35; and Morris,
Luke
, 22–26.