The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (69 page)

⁴⁸
H. Koester (
Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development
[Harrisburg: Trinity, 1990], 243) attributed the mention of the provenance in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to a fourth-century emendation.

⁴⁹
Fitzmyer,
Luke
, 57.

⁵⁰
Though note the opposing view by Theophrastus (
Characters
5), who maintained that the address is “simple flattering speech” (cited and promptly discarded by Bock,
Luke
, 63; Bock also cited the dissenting opinion of F. Bovon,
Das Evangelium nach Lukas
, vol. 1:
Lk 1,1–9,50
, EKKNT 3/1 [Zürich: Benzinger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1989], 39, n. 34).

⁵¹
See the discussion and bibliographic references in Bock,
Luke
, 63.

⁵²
E.g., E. E. Ellis,
The Gospel of Luke
, 2d ed., New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 66.

⁵³
E.g., W. J. Larkin,
Acts
, IVPNTC (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 20; and J. Nolland,
Luke 1–9:20
, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989), xxxiii (on whose view see further under Purpose below).

⁵⁴
E.g., Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 210: “He was probably a recent convert to the faith.”

⁵⁵
That Theophilus was a Roman official overseeing Paul's trial was frequently discussed in the early part of the twentieth century. Bruce (
Acts
, 29) cited both J. I. Still (
St. Paul on Trial: A New Reading of the History in the Book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles
[London: Student Christian Movement, 1923], 84) and G. S. Duncan (
St. Paul's Ephesian Ministry: A Reconstruction with Special Reference to the Ephesian Origin of the Imprisonment Epistles
[London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1929], 97).

⁵⁶
See Plummer (
Luke
, 5), who first said that the epithet
kratistos
(“most excellent”) “is strongly in favour of the view that Theophilus was a real person” but went on to say that “it was a name likely to be used to represent any pious reader.”

⁵⁷
Bock,
Luke
, 63; Marshall,
Luke
, 43; and Fitzmyer,
Luke
, 299.

⁵⁸
See Josephus's reference in two subsequent books to a “most excellent”
(kratiste)
and “most esteemed”
(timiōtate)
Epaphroditus (
Against Apion 1.1; 2.1
).

⁵⁹
The Greek word for “instruct” is
katēcheō
, which can mean “to report, inform” (Acts 21:21, 24) or “to instruct” (Acts 18:25; Rom 2:18; 1 Cor 14:19; Gal 6:6). Hence Theophilus may have simply been informed about the story of Jesus or received formal instruction. Based on the meaning of
katēcheō
, some have argued that Theophilus was an interested non-Christian (Larkin,
Acts
, 20; if so, Luke's purpose may have been at least in part evangelistic), while others contend he was a believer (see Bock,
Luke
, 64).

⁶⁰
L. Alexander (“Ancient Book Production and the Gospels,” in
The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences
, ed. R. Bauckham [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 98–99) noted that the patron would house and feed the writer while the book was being written and thus give access to the book to be copied. This would not have been the sole source of publication but an important one. Patrons also had varying interests in the books themselves.

⁶¹
Plummer (
Luke
, xxiv) noted the following:
zelotes
(“zealot”) for
kananiaos; kranion
(“Skull”) for Aramaic
golgotha; nomikos
(“lawyer”) for
grammateus
(“scribe”); the terms “rabbi” or
rabbouni
do not occur in Luke, but they do appear in the Matthean and Markan parallels; Luke has only seven instances of
amen
compared with Matthew's 30 (Luke prefers forms of “truly”).

⁶²
Plummer,
Luke
, xxiv—xxv.

⁶³
Fitzmyer
(Luke
, 58) listed Luke 1:5; 4:44; 6:17; 7:17; 23:5; Acts 2:9; 10:37 as specific instances.

⁶⁴
J. Jervell,
Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979); R. L. Brawley,
Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).

⁶⁵
Blomberg,
Jesus and the Gospels
, 152.

⁶⁶
E.g., R. Maddox
(The Purpose of Luke-Acts
, Studies of the New Testament and Its World [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982], 19—23) listed the following views on Luke's purpose: evangelism; an apology for Paul's trial; defending Christians before the Roman government; a defense of the memory of Paul; an explanation of the delay of the Second Coming; a defense against Gnosticism; and the confirmation of the gospel. For other discussions of the purpose(s) of Luke-Acts see Bock
(Luke
, 14—15), who provided a list of 11 possible Lukan interpretations. See also Carson and Moo
(Introduction to the New Testament
, 301—6), who discussed conciliation; evangelism/apologetics; theological polemics; and edification.

⁶⁷
See note above.

⁶⁸
C. Spicq,
"ἀσφάλεια, ἀσφαλής, ἀσφαλίζομαι, ἀσφαλῶς,"
in
Theological Lexicon of the New Testament
, vol. 1:
ἀγα - ἐλπ
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 216.

⁶⁹
See especially R. Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), especially 58-60 and 129-32.

⁷⁰
Bock,
Luke
, 15.

⁷¹
Ibid. See Theological Themes below.

⁷²
For a thorough comparison between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies, see D. S. Huffman, “Genealogy,” in
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
, 253–59.

⁷³
Matthew employed several chronological markers in his version of the temptation narrative: “then”
(tote)
in vv. 5,10 and “again”
(palin)
in v. 8.

⁷⁴
The temptations seem to parallel Gen 3:6: (1) stone to bread/“good for food”; (2) kingdoms of the world/“delightful to look at”; (3) pinnacle of the temple/“desirable for obtaining wisdom.” If so, Luke's presentation is similar to Paul's teaching on Jesus as the last Adam (see Rom 5:14–21; 1 Cor 15:22). So Godet,
Luke
, 207–8; Plummer,
Luke
, 109; Bock,
Luke
, 371; Hendriksen,
Luke
, 233–34; contra Fitzmyer,
Luke
, 512.

⁷⁵
So Bock,
Luke
, 629.

⁷⁶
See Green,
Luke
, 516.

⁷⁷
Bock,
Luke
, 1501.

⁷⁸
See Green,
Luke
, 683–89.

⁷⁹
Conzelmann,
Theology of St. Luke
, 16–17.

⁸⁰
See F. Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 111–16.

⁸¹
Ibid., 117. Thielman noted that a two-stage understanding is possible, but since the repetition of the ascension at Acts 1: 9–11 points to the period of Jesus as a separate period (see v. 22), it is safe to assume three stages.

⁸²
L. T. Johnson (
The Gospel of Luke
, SacPag 3 [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991], 16) described Luke's use of proof from prophecy as his “most important literary device.”

⁸³
Ibid.

⁸⁴
This is repeated nearly verbatim in 24:7: “The Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and rise on the third day.” See 13:33: He must die in Jerusalem; and 17:25: “But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.”

⁸⁵
E.g., J. T. Sanders (
The Jews in Luke-Acts
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 317) stated, “In Luke's opinion, the world will be much better off when ‘the Jews’ get what they deserve and the world is rid of them.”

⁸⁶
I. H. Marshall,
New Testament Theology
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 142.

⁸⁷
Wenham, “Purpose,” 88.

⁸⁸
See especially C. L. Blomberg,
Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Material Possessions
, NSBT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 111–46, 160–74.

⁸⁹
M. Strauss,
Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 339.

⁹⁰
See T. K. Seim,
The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke-Acts
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark/Nashville: Abingdon, 1994).

CHAPTER 7

CORE KNOWLEDGE

Basic Knowledge:
Students should know the key facts of John's Gospel. With regard to history, students should be able to identify the Gospel's author, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a basic outline of the book and identify core elements of the book's content found in the Unit-by-Unit discussion. With regard to theology, students should be able to identify John's major theological themes.

Intermediate Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above, students should be able to present the arguments for historical, literary, and theological conclusions. With regard to history, students should be able to discuss the evidence for Johannine authorship, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a detailed outline of the book. With regard to theology, students should be able to discuss John's major theological themes and the ways in which they uniquely contribute to the NT canon.

Advanced Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge and beyond the Intermediate Knowledge noted above, students should be able to survey the history of Johannine scholarship and to explain and critique the “Johannine community hypothesis.” They should be able to evaluate critically the internal and external evidence that John, the son of Zebedee, wrote John's Gospel, and they should be able to
interact critically with Richard Bauckham's work
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
in this regard. They should also be able to assess the authenticity of the pericope of the adulterous woman in John 7:53–8:11.

Map 7.1: Provenance and Destination of John

INTRODUCTION

John's Gospel and the book of Romans may well be considered the two highest peaks in the landscape of NT theology. John soars like an eagle over more pedestrian depictions of the life of Christ.
¹
It likely was written by John the apostle at the culmination of his
long life and ministry. John's Gospel penetrates more deeply into the mystery of God's revelation in his Son than the other canonical Gospels and perhaps more deeply than any other biblical book. From the majestic prologue to the probing epilogue, the evangelist's words are as carefully chosen as they must be thoughtfully pondered by every reader of his magnificent work.

Over the course of history, John's Gospel has exercised a remarkable influence commensurate with the profundity of its message. John's Christology, particularly affirmations of Jesus' deity and of his human and divine natures, has decisively shaped the formulations adopted by the early church councils and creeds.
²
Many of the great minds of the Christian church, from the early church fathers to modern times, have written commentaries or monographs on John's Gospel.
³
Despite the massive assault on John's trustworthiness in the wake of the Enlightenment, especially by liberal German scholars, John's Gospel stands today widely rehabilitated as a reliable witness to the life, words, and deeds of our Lord Jesus Christ.
⁴

Almost from its inception the interpretation of John's Gospel was hotly contested. In the days of the early church, the Gnostics laid claim to this Gospel, alleging that it supported their message of salvation through knowledge (revelation) apart from redemption and forgiveness of sins.
⁵
John's first epistle may be the first to bear witness to the way in which the Gospel was misunderstood if not intentionally misrepresented (see 1 John 1:1–3; 4:2–3).