Das Lukasevangelium (Handbuch Zum Neuen Testament) (German Edition) 9783161495250, 9783161549328, 9783161556005, 9781481306690, 9781481306737, 316149525X

Citation preview

continued from front flap

The Gospel According to Luke V o l u m e II ( L u k e 9 : 5 1 – 2 4 )

“The original German version of Michael Wolter’s magisterial commentary on Luke is already, rightly, a standard work on that Gospel. Wolter is a master of his craft: the commentary is not afraid to strike out in new directions at times, but the interpretation is always meticulously argued and with a wealth of knowledge and expertise behind it. This translation represents a real boon to scholarship as Wolter’s work will remain an outstanding resource and reference work in all study of Luke’s Gospel for many years to come.” — C h r i s t o p h e r T u c k e tt ,

Emeritus Professor of New Testament Studies, University of Oxford

“It is wonderful to have Michael Wolter’s Handbuch commentary on Luke now available in English from Baylor University Press. The two volumes provide a trove of information on text-critical, grammatical, lexical, literary, historical, and theological issues in the text of Luke’s Gospel, and are a model of patient exegesis, insightful historical contextualization, and judicious interaction with other scholars.” — Ma r ga r e t M . M i t c h e l l ,

Mohr Siebeck (Tübingen, Germany) and Baylor University Press (Waco, Texas, USA) proudly continue a landmark, international collaboration in Christian scholarship—the Baylor–Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity series. In this series, editors Wayne Coppins (University of Georgia, USA) and Simon Gathercole (Cambridge, UK) select, translate, and edit major works from senior German scholars on early Christianity’s relationships to Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic religious movements from the first years of the Common Era. Titles in Baylor–Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity will appear for the first time in English and make accessible the highest level of German scholarship.

Shailer Mathews Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature, The University of Chicago

“Michael Wolter, a leading New Testament scholar in Germany, offers a fresh and careful reading of the Greek text of Luke in this commentary. He blends painstaking attention to detail with a superb eye for the structural patterns within the Third Gospel. His judicious selections of parallels from the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds enable readers to situate the text in its original cultural milieu. This English translation makes an exceptional work of scholarship widely available to English speakers.” G r e g o r y E . St e r l i n g ,

Reverend Henry L. Slack Dean and Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament, Yale Divinity School

Biblical Studies/New Testament

V o l u m e II ( Luke 9 : 51–24 )

M i c h a e l Wo lt e r is Professor of New Testament at the Faculty of Protestant Theology at the University of Bonn in Germany and Honorary Professor at the Theological Faculty at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. His books Paul: An Outline of His Theology and The Gospel According to Luke: Volume I (Luke 1–9:50) are also available from Baylor University Press.

Wolter

th e G ospel Acco rding to Luke

thorough, careful reading follows Luke as the Evangelist seeks to explain how the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises of God for Israel results in a parting of the ways between the Christian church on the one side and Judaism on the other. Scholars and students alike will benefit from access to new German scholarship now available to English-language audiences.

Michael Wolter t r ans lat e d b y W a y n e C o p p i n s

Christoph Heilig

th e G ospel Acco rding to Luke Volu m e II ( Luke 9 : 51–24)

I n t h i s f I FTH v o l u m e of the Baylor–Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity series, Michael Wolter provides a detailed, verse-by-verse interpretation of the Third Evangelist’s Gospel (Luke 9:51–24). Wolter’s commentary fully complements the great tradition of “Handbooks of the New Testament” published by Mohr Siebeck. Replacing the third edition of Erich Klostermann’s commentary on Luke, Wolter’s volume rightly joins those by Conzelmann (Acts), Käsemann (Romans), and Lietzmann (1 Corinthians) in this venerable series. Wolter’s approach to a sustained reading of Luke’s Gospel is comprehensive. He carefully places Luke’s narrative of Jesus in its cultural context, paying close attention to the relationship of the Gospel with its Jewish and Greco-Roman environment. Wolter performs form-critical and narrative analysis of the specific stories; however, Wolter also emphasizes Luke as a theologian and his Gospel as a work of theology. Centrally, Wolter recognizes how Luke’s narrative of Jesus forms the first part of a unified work—the Acts of the Apostles being the second—that represents a new moment in Israel’s history. But in surprising new ways, Wolter makes clear that it is God alone who works in and through the words and deeds of Jesus to bring salvation to Israel. His commentary shows that Luke succeeds in preserving the history of Jesus and its theological impact and that this history stands on equal footing with the history of early Christianity. Wolter’s continued on back flap

The Gospel According to Luke

Wayne Coppins and Simon Gathercole Series Editors

ALSO AVAILABLE From Jesus to the New Testament Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the New Testament Canon

Jens Schröter (2013) Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew Matthias Konradt (2014) Christian Theology and Its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology

Christoph Markschies (2015) The Gospel According to Luke Volume 1: Luke 1–9:50

Michael Wolter (2016)

The Gospel According to Luke Volume II (Luke 9:51–­24)

Michael Wolter

Translated by Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PRESS

Mohr Siebeck

© 2017 by Baylor University Press All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Baylor University Press. Cover Design by Natalya Balnova Originally published in German as Das Lukasevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) with the ISBN 978-3-16-149525-0. The English edition is distributed in Germany by Mohr Siebeck with the ISBN 978-3-16-154932-8 (vol. 1) and 978-3-16-155600-5 (vol. 2). Distributors For all other countries Baylor University Press One Bear Place #97363 Waco, Texas 76798 USA

For Europe and the UK Mohr Siebeck Wilhelmstr. 18, Postfach 20 40 D-­­72010 Tübingen Germany

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data Names: Wolter, Michael, author. Title: The Gospel according to Luke / Michael Wolter ; trans. Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig. Other titles: Lukasevangelium. English Description: Waco, Texas : Baylor University Press, 2016–­| Series: Baylor-­Mohr Siebeck studies in early christianity | “Originally published in German as Das Lukasevangelium (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), with the ISBN 978-­3161495250.” | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2016006228 (print) | LCCN 2016016167 (ebook) | ISBN 9781481306690 (hardback: v. 2) | ISBN 9781481306737 (web pdf) | Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Luke—Commentaries. Classification: LCC BS2595.53 W6413 2016 (print) | LCC BS2595.53 (ebook) | DDC 226.4/077—­dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016006228

Printed in the United States of America on acid-­free paper with a minimum of 30 percent postconsumer waste recycled content.

To the memory of Abraham J. Malherbe (1930–­2012)

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Introduction 1 1. Textual Tradition and Early Reception 1 2. Author, Date, and Provenance 4 2.1 Author 4 2.2 Date 11 2.3 Provenance 12 3. Sources 12 4. The Lukan Story of Jesus as an Episodic Narrative

18

5. Intended Readers

26

6. The Theological Place of the Story of Jesus in Luke–­Acts

30

9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 9.51-­56: An Inhospitable Samaritan Village

40 45

9.57-­62: Consequences of Discipleship

48

10.1-­16: The Commission of the Seventy-­Two

52

10.17-­24: The Return of the Seventy-­Two

64

10.25-­37: The Scribe and the Merciful Samaritan

71

10.38-­42: Martha and Mary

82

11.1-­13: On Prayer 86 11.1-­4: The Prayer of the Disciples 87 11.5-­13: Jesus’s Speech on Prayer 95 11.14-­28: Jesus and the Evil Spirits 101

vii

viii

Contents

11.29-­32: “This generation is an evil generation”

111

11.33-­36: The Eye as Lamp of the Body

115

11.37-­54: The Woes against the Pharisees and Scribes

118

12.1–­13.9: Jesus and the Disciples in the Midst of a Huge Crowd 129 12.1-­12: The Encouragement of the Disciples to Public Confession 130 12.13-­21: On the Worthlessness of Earthly Riches 140 12.22-­34: Do not Be Anxious but Seek the Kingdom of God 147 12.35-48: On the Watchfulness and Reliability of Service Personnel 156 12.49-­53: Fire That Destroys Families 166 12.54-­59: This Kairos as the Time of Decision 171 13.1-­9: Last Call to Repentance 174 13.10-­21: On the Sabbath in a Synagogue 182 13.10-­17: Sabbath III 182 13.18-­21: Two Parables on the Kingdom of God 189 13.22-­35: Travelling to Jerusalem 192 13.22-­30: Outside before the Narrow Door 193 13.31-­35: Herod and Jerusalem 200 207 14.1-­24: As a Guest at the House of a Leading Pharisee 14.1-­6: Sabbath IV 207 14.7-­11: “Whoever exalts himself will be lowered” and Vice Versa 211 14.12-­14: The Nullification of the Principle 214 of Symposial Reciprocity 14.15-­24: The Parable of the Rejected Invitation 217 14.25–­18.34: Somewhere on the Way 224 14.25-­35: Conditions for Discipleship 225 15.1-­32: The Controversy Dialogue over the Repentance 233 of Tax Collectors and Sinners 15.1-­3: Exposition 235 15.4-­10: The Double Parable of the Lost Sheep and 236 the Lost Drachma 15.11-­32: The Parable of the Prodigal Son 241 16.1-­31: On Rightly Dealing with Money and Possessions 259 16.1-­13: The Speech to the Disciples 260 16.14-­31: The Speech to the Pharisees 271 17.1-­10: Another Speech to the Disciples 286 17.11-­21: The Thankful Samaritan and the Question 294 of the Pharisees 17.11-­19: The Thankful Samaritan 294 17.20-­21: The Question of the Pharisees 300 17.22–­18.8: When the Son of Man Comes 304 17.22-­37: The Day of the Son of Man 304



Contents ix

18.1-­8: The Parable of the Judge and the Widow 314 18.9-­14: The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector 320 18.15-­17: The Children and the Kingdom of God 325 18.18-­30: Riches and Discipleship 327 18.31-­34: Jesus’s Second Announcement of the Passion and the Resurrection 335

18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination

338 18.35–­19.28: Jericho 339 18.35-­43: The Healing of a Blind Man before Jericho 339 19.1-­10: Zacchaeus 344 19.11-­28: The Parable of the Throne Claimant 350 19.29-­46: The Entrance into Jerusalem 362

19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple”

376 19.47-­48: Initial Frame 376 20.1-­26: Jesus as Teacher of the Jewish People and His Opponents 378 20.1-­8: The Questioning of Jesus’s Authority 378 20.9-­19: The Parable of the Tenants of the Vineyard 382 20.20-­26: The Question about the Tax for Caesar 392 20.27-­40: The Question about the Resurrection of the Dead 397 20.41-­44: Is the Messiah David’s Son? 405 20.45-­47: Warning against the Scribes 408 21.1-­4: The Gift of the Widow 410 21.5-­36: Jesus’s Last Public Speech 413 21.37-­38: Concluding Frame 436

22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 437 22.1-­6: The Prelude: The Agreement between Judas and Jesus’s Opponents

444

22.7-­65: On the Day of Unleavened Bread 448 22.7-­13: The Preparation for Passover 448 22.14-­38: The Last Supper 451 22.14-­20: Passover Meal, Breaking of Bread, and the New Covenant 452 22.21-­23: The One Who Hands Over 465 22.24-­30: On Serving and Ruling 467 22.31-­34: The Announcement of the Denial 473 22.35-­38: Coats to Swords! 476 22.39-­53: On the Mount of Olives 479 22.39-­46: Jesus Prays and the Disciples Sleep 479 22.47-­53: The Handing Over 486

x

Contents

22.54-­65: In the House of the High Priest 490 22.54-­62: The Denial 491 22.63-­65: Mocking 495 22.66–­23.56: On the Next Day 496 22.66-­71: Jesus before the Sanhedrin 497 23.1-­25: Jesus before Pilate 501 23.1-­5: Accusation and Trial 501 23.6-­12: The Transfer to Herod Antipas 505 23.13-­25: The Dispute over the Verdict 509 23.26-­49: Crucifixion and Death 515 23.50-­56: Burial and Preparation for the Anointing of the Dead 534 24.1-­52(53): On the First Day of the New Week 538 24.1-­12: The Empty Tomb 539 24.13-­35: The Emmaus Disciples Encounter the Risen One 546 24.36-­52(53): Jesus Appears to All the Disciples in Jerusalem 562

Bibliography 577

Introduction

1. Textual Tradition and Early Reception 1.1 At present 𝔓4 (with Luke 1.58-­59; 1.62–­2.1, 6-­7; 3.8–­4.2, 29-­32, 34-­35; 5.3-­8; 5.30–­6.16), which probably was copied around 200 CE, is regarded as the oldest preserved textual witness to the Gospel of Luke. 𝔓75, the Bodmer Papyrus published by Martin/Kasser 1961, is likewise dated to the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. The following texts are preserved from it: Luke 3.18-­22; 3.33–­4.2; 4.34–­ 5.10; 5.37–­6.4; 6.10–­7.32, 35-­39, 41-­43; 7.46–­9.2; 9.4–­17.15; 17.19–­ 18.18; 22.4–­24.53. In the third century, the following additional copies were made: 𝔓45 (with Luke 6.31-­41; 6.45–­7.7; 9.26-­41; 9.45–­10.1, 6-­22; 10.26–­11.1, 6-­25, 28-­46; 11.50–­12.12, 18-­37; 12.42–­13.1, 6-­24; 13.29–­14.10, 17-­33), 𝔓69 (with Luke 22.41, 45-­48, 58-­61), and 𝔓111 (with Luke 17.11-­13, 22-­23). The oldest known parchment manuscript with a text of the Gospel of Luke is currently 0171 (Nestle/Aland27, 699: “ca. 300”) with the text of Luke 22.44-­56, 61-­64. The Gospel of Luke is completely preserved for the first time in the great parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth century: 01 ‫( א‬Codex Sinaiticus), A 02 (Codex Alexandrinus), B 03 (Codex Vaticanus), and—­ though with extensive gaps—­in the palimpsest manuscript C 04 (Codex Ephraemi rescriptus). In the sequence of the New Testament writings, Luke always stands here in the third position after the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark, and it also occupies this position in almost all of the canon lists. The only known exceptions are the canon list of Codex Claromontanus D 06 and the so-­called Cheltenham canon, which both probably come from the fourth century (cf. Zahn 1904, 81–­84). In 1

2

The Gospel According to Luke

both of these lists the Gospel of Luke stands after the other three Gospels (Codex Claromontanus: Matthew, John, Mark, Luke; Cheltenham Canon: Matthew, Mark, John, Luke) in the fourth position, followed by the Corpus Paulinum. There is not a single manuscript and no canon list in which the Gospel of Luke is directly followed by Acts. From this one can infer that from the beginning Luke–­Acts existed in two physically independent units that were also published separately from each other and then fell into two different collections in the course of the New Testament canonization process; see also Schröter 2007, 314–­15; 2013, 289–­90; Sterling 1992, 338–­39 with reference to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 7.70.2, whence it becomes clear that Dionysus published the first book of his Roman history separately (ἡ πρώτη γραφή, ἣν περὶ τοῦ γένους αὐτῶν συνταξάμενος ἐξέδωκα [“the first book that I wrote and published about their origin”]). 1.2 The oldest witness for the existence of the Gospel of Luke is Marcion, who in the middle of the second century published an anonymous “gospel” that was, on the one hand, very similar to the canonical Gospel of Luke—­it evidently contained no pericopes that were not also in the Gospel of Luke—­but was, on the other hand, much shorter. With the help of patristic quotations it can be reconstructed in fragmentary form (cf. Harnack 1996, 183ff, whose work admittedly requires revision; see Williams 1989, and now Roth 2015). At the time of the ancient church it was assumed that Marcion had obtained his “gospel” via a shortening of the existing Gospel of Luke, and this assessment is also widely held today (cf. recently U. Schmid 2002, 68–­69 and the literature mentioned there; Vinzent 2002). For a number of years, however, questions have been raised in relation to this consensus, which have been formulated most carefully by Gregory 2003, 173ff (see also Tyson 2006; Klinghardt 2006). In this framework, scholars have revived the old thesis that the “gospel” of Marcion did not arise as a shortening from the Gospel of Luke; rather, both writings were based on an older gospel, which was expanded, on the one hand, to the canonical Gospel of Luke and which Marcion, on the other hand, made into the basis of his own edition (cf. previously in the nineteenth century above all, Ritschl 1846, and in the twentieth century, Knox 1942, 77–­113, 114–­39). Gregory 2003; 2005a assumes that it was a kind of ‘Primitive Luke,’ i.e., a first edition of the Gospel of Luke without Luke 1–­2 and without Acts. This thesis has its weak point, of course, in the fact that it is based on an auxiliary hypothesis. Not only are there no indications for this hypothesis in the Gospel itself, but it is also unlikely on account of the overall plan of the Gospel of Luke (see section 6



Introduction 3

below). In addition, it must, of course, presuppose not only that Luke 3–­24 was written and published beforehand (on such a practice, cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 7.70.2 [see above]), but also that Luke subsequently supplemented and republished this version. And finally it can be added to this that with the omission of τῶν ἀγγέλων (cf. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.28.11 and Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6 [GCS Epiphanius II: 111.11–­12]), the Marcion text in Luke 12.8, which has also left traces in Codex Sinaiticus (‫)א‬, presupposes a reading that can probably be attributed to a harmonizing assimilation to Matthew 10.32. On the other hand, Klinghardt’s assumption that the Gospel of Luke is an expanded “redaction of the Marcionite gospel” (Klinghardt 2006, 499) founders above all on the fact that it ignores the textual evidence and does not take into account the fact that in many passages Marcion’s gospel contains phrasings that must clearly be assigned to Lukan redaction. An especially conspicuous example of this is the typical Lukan syntagm βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ κηρύσσειν/εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (Luke 4.43; 8.1; 9.2, 60; 16.16; Acts 20.25; 28.23, 31; attested nowhere else in the New Testament), which also stood, according to Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.8.9; 33.7, in Luke 4.43; 16.16, in the “gospel” of Marcion. The same also applies to Luke 22.15 (ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπιθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ’ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν; in Marcion’s “gospel” according to Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.40.1 and Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17 [GCS Epiphanius II: 149.17–­18]) and to Luke 24.25 (Marcionic according to Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.43.4 and Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17 [GCS Epiphanius II: 154.10–­11]). Also with regard to the bread petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11.3), concerning which it says οἱ ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος ἔχουσι τὴν λέξιν οὕτως· τὸν ἄρτον σου τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ’ ἡμέραν in Origen, Fragment on the Gospel of Luke 1801–­1802 (GCS IL, Origenes Werke IX, 302), one would first have to explain how the Lukan phrasings δίδου and τὸ καθ’ ἡμέραν should have found their way into a pre-­Lukan work. And even if one relies only on the critically secured minimal stock of the gospel of Marcion, as reconstructed by Williams 1989, 483ff, according to the principle of the double attestation in Tertullian and Epiphanius, it becomes clear that it contains not only Lukan special material and Q-material but also Markan material. Thus it also presupposes the fitting together of the Gospel of Mark, Q, and Lukan special material into a gospel writing. But in Klinghardt’s hypothesis, how this gospel writing should be situated in the history of the synoptic tradition if it does not come from Luke remains completely unexplained.

1.3 Quotations from the Gospel of Luke that attest knowledge of it in other authors are not found until the writings of Justin Martyr shortly after the middle of the second century CE (cf. above all BibPat 319–­78; Bellinzoni 1998; 2005; Gregory 2003, 211ff): Apologia i 15.8, 9 attests knowledge of Luke 5.32 and Luke 6.27-­28; Apologia i 33.4–­5 is based on the reading of

4

The Gospel According to Luke

Luke 1.26-­35; Luke 20.35-­36 is reworked in Dialogus cum Tryphone 81.4 and Luke 23.46 is taken up in Dialogus cum Tryphone 105.5. The series of examples could be extended further (cf. Gregory 2003, 225ff). A little later Justin’s student Tatian incorporated the Gospel of Luke into a harmony of the four subsequently canonized gospels, namely in his Diatessaron (cf. Gregory 2003, 107ff), which was probably a revision of a gospel harmony by Justin based only on the three synoptic gospels. The only Greek fragment of the Diatessaron that we have thus far—­which was discovered in 1933 and is named the Dura Europos Fragment after the place of its discovery—­attests knowledge of Luke 23.49-­51 (cf. Kraeling 1935).

2. Author, Date, and Provenance 2.1 Author 2.1.1 While the author of the “report of the events, which have been completed in our time” (Luke 1.1) speaks of himself (1.3), he does not mention his name. He has thus published his work anonymously (cf. Wolter 1988a, 13–­14). The name Luke is found for the first time in 𝔓75 (see section 1 above), namely in the phrasing εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν, which is placed as a subscriptio beneath the Gospel of Luke. In the great Bible manuscripts (see section 1 above) the name is then mentioned from the fourth century onward either as an inscriptio above or as a subscriptio beneath the text of the Gospel of Luke. Alongside the long form εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν (𝔓75 A D L W Θ Ξ Ψ 33 𝔐 lat samss bopt) there is also the short form κατὰ Λουκᾶν (‫ א‬B pc vgst boms), but that is very likely later in terms of textual history (cf. Hengel 1984, 10ff; Petersen 2006, 254). Other variants can be ignored. The phrasings εὐαγγέλιον κατά + name or κατά + name are the same in all the gospels. It can be inferred from this that they arose and were attached to the respective works at the earliest (not “at the latest” as Hengel 1984, 47 argues) at the point in time when at least two different gospels existed alongside one another. The superscripts had the task of distinguishing the gospels from one another and avoiding the confusion of one for the other. This procedure probably did not take place before the first half of the second century (see also Petersen 2006, 273), for in the superscripts the word εὐαγγέλιον is used as a designation for a literary work, and elsewhere this meaning is relatively certain only in the middle of the second century in Justin (Apologia i 66.3) and at best perhaps already attested in the 120s in the Didache (cf. Kelhoffer 2004; see also section 6.1 below).



Introduction 5

Λουκᾶς is the short name for Λουκανός or Λουκάνιος (e.g., Plutarch, Moralia 675d, e; 676e) or Λούκιος, the Graecising of Latin Lucanus, Lucanius, and Lucius (cf. BDR §1256). Deissmann 1923 has drawn attention to two dedication inscriptions from Pisidian Antioch, where one and the same person calls himself once Λουκᾶς and once Λούκιος. Among Jews the name was evidently not very common. Apart from Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 13.1), who is perhaps identical with the Jewish Christian Lucius mentioned in Romans 16.21, Ilan 2002, 334 lists only a single Jewish man with this name.

The earliest clear attestation for the ascription of the Gospel of Luke to a certain Luke is found ca. 180 CE in Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.1.1: Et Lucas autem sectator Pauli quod ab illo praedicabatur euangelium, in libro condidit (“And Luke, however, the companion of Paul, has compiled the gospel preached by that one in a book”; see also Adversus haereses 3.10.1; 11.8; 14.1–­3). A bit later the so-­called Muratorian Canon (which should perhaps also not be dated until the fourth century; cf. Hahneman 1992; for criticism of this assumption, see Verheyden 2003; cf. also Markschies 2015, 203–­8) writes, “The third book of the gospel is that of Luke. This Luke, a physician, whom Paul took to himself after the ascension of Christ as it were as somebody trained in the law (quasi ut iuris studiosum), wrote it up in his name on the basis of tradition [?] (numeni suo ex opinione concriset). However, he had not seen the Lord in the flesh and therefore begins to narrate, as he could ‘follow,’ from the birth of John onward” (lines 2–­8); other texts from ancient church tradition can be found in Cadbury, BoC II: 210ff. Along with the two texts cited, the whole church tradition assumes that the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were composed by the companion of Paul named Luke, who is mentioned in Colossians 4.14 (Λουκᾶς ὁ ἰατρὸς ἀγαπητός), 2 Timothy 4.11 (Λουκᾶς ἐστιν μόνος μετ’ ἐμοῦ), and Philemon 24 (Luke stands at the end of a list of “coworkers” of Paul who send greetings) and that his voice can be heard also in the so-­called “we” passages of Acts (Acts 16.10-­17; 20.5-­8, 13-­15; 21.1-­18; 27.1-­8; 28.11-­16). Sometimes Lucius of Cyrene, one of the Antiochene prophets and teachers (Acts 13.1), and the Lucius who extends greetings in Romans 16.21 have been and still are identified with Luke (Origen, Commentarii in Romanos 10.39 [PG 14.1288C]; Ephrem the Syrian, Commentarii in Acta Apostolorum on Acts 12.25–­13.3 in Conybeare, BoC III: 416; Ford 1920–1921, 219–­20; Deissmann 1923, 374ff; Cadbury, BoC V: 489–­95; Dunn 1988, 909; see also Stuhlmacher 1992/1999, I: 227–­28). In both cases, however, the doubts are great and numerous. Beyond this, from the time of the ancient church, the anonymous “brother” whom Paul sends to

6

The Gospel According to Luke

Corinth with Titus and recommends to the community there with warm words has also been identified time and again with Luke (Jerome, De viris illustribus 7; see also those mentioned in Thrall 2004, 561–­62). Additional biographical specifications are found in the so-­called Anti-­Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke, which probably did not originate until the fourth century (cf. Regul 1969, 45): Lucas Syrus natione Antiochensis, arte medicus, discipulus apostolorum, postea Paulum secutus usque ad confessionem eius, serviens Deo sine crimine. Nam neque uxorem umquam habens neque filios, LXXIIII annorum obiit in Bithynia, plenus spiritu sancto (“The Syrian Luke, an Antiochene by birth, a physician by occupation, a student of the apostle, followed Paul later up to his martyrdom, serving God without reproach. He had neither wife nor children and died at the age of 74 in Bithynia, full of the Holy Spirit”; other versions have Luke die at the age of 84 in Boeotia). Eusebius of Caesarea (Historia ecclesiastica 3.4.6) and Jerome (De viris illustribus 7; Commentariorum in Matthaeum, praefatio 35 [CChr.SL 77.2]: Lucas medicus natione Syrus Antiochensis) know of an Antiochene origin of Luke also in the fourth century, and this tradition probably arose at that time (see also Regul 1969, 200f). On the basis of Acts 13.1, Stuhlmacher 1992/1999, I: 228 also regards an Antiochene origin of Luke/Lucius as possible. Whether the “we” in Acts 11.28D presupposes this tradition (Kümmel 1973, 116) or whether the tradition was “spun out” of it (E. Plümacher, TRE 3: 520.53; see also already Lipsius 1884, 355) cannot be decided. Among more recent commentators of the Gospel of Luke, Fitzmyer I: 44ff still advocates Luke’s origin from Syrian Antioch (see also Strobel 1958). Because Acts reveals detailed knowledge of the local conditions in Philippi and because the transition of the Pauline mission to Macedonia in Acts 16.6-­10 is so extravagantly staged, Pilhofer 1995, 157–­58 regards it as probable that Luke came from Philippi. According to Pilhofer, he “belonged there, however, not to the Latin speaking segment of the population (and was certainly not a civis Romanus), but to the group of the Greek speaking Macedonian inhabitants who had been at home in Philippi for centuries” (see also Pilhofer 1995, 248ff; for criticism of this thesis, cf. Broer 1998/2001, I: 134f). Lipsius 1884 compiles additional traditions about Luke (cf. also the overview in Kelly 1974).

2.1.2 Justified doubts are no longer possible concerning the traditional assumption that the Gospel of Luke and Acts come from the same author (cf. Parsons/Pervo 1993, 116; Verheyden 1999, 6 n. 13). What is controversial is the question of whether the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts is identical with the companion of Paul named Luke who is mentioned in Colossians 4.14; Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4.11. The decisive question in this regard is how in the second century one came to the view that he was the anonymous author of Luke–­Acts.



Introduction 7

In the twentieth century, the equation of Paul’s companion Luke with the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts was called into doubt especially with the argument that Acts “is completely alien to Pauline theology” (Kümmel 1973, 118) and with the argument that for the following reasons alone he could not have been a companion of Paul, namely because he confuses the Pauline chronology, because he has resolutions composed at the apostolic council that contradict the Pauline account of it (cf. Acts 15.20-­21, 28-­29, on the one hand, and Galatians 2.6-­10, on the other hand), and because he thinks Paul would circumcise Timothy (Acts 16.3) (E. Plümacher, TRE 3: 521.1ff). In the meantime, however, a change both in the interpretation of Paul and in the interpretation of Luke has led to the insight that the two authors are not as far from each other theologically as has long been assumed (cf. e.g., Porter 1999 and, more recently, the essays in Marguerat 2009). In this respect, it has become more difficult to contest the composition of Luke–­Acts by the Luke mentioned in Colossians 4.14; Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4.11 by appealing to the theological distance between Luke–­Acts and Pauline theology. The doubts about this identification are far from removed thereby, however. Two of these texts (Colossians 4.14; 2 Timothy 4.11) do not come from Paul himself but only arose after the death of the Apostle and were spun out of the greeting list in Philemon 24, which contains the only authentic mention of a Luke by Paul, in order to make the respective authorial fictions believable (cf. Brox 1969). Above all 2 Timothy 4.11 could have played an important role in this connection. When it states there that “only Luke is with me” and this letter also acts as if it were written by Paul when he was imprisoned in Rome with death before his eyes (1.17; 4.16ff), then it could only—­so the conclusion had to run when 2 Timothy was still regarded as authentic—­have been this Luke from whom the report of the Pauline imprisonment in Rome comes, which one can read in Acts 27.17-­31. Correspondingly, Irenaeus writes also with reference to 2 Timothy 4.10-­11: Unde ostendit quod semper iunctus ei et inseparabilis fuerit ab eo (“Through this he [sc. Paul] reveals that he [sc. Luke] was always connected with him and was inseparable from him”; Adversus haereses 3.14.1). And because one had recognized already in the second century that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author, it is not to be ruled out that the name Luke was first inferred for the author of Acts from 2 Timothy 4.11 and then transferred to the Gospel. The sequence of the notes in Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.14.1 could perhaps be invoked in support of this order: “Luke, who always preached with Paul . . . et creditus est referre nobis evangelium (and who is regarded as having handed down to us the Gospel).” Thus, it would have

8

The Gospel According to Luke

been only the above-­cited information from 2 Timothy 4.11 with whose help one was able to give a name to the anonymous author of Luke–­Acts. It is, however, also conceivable that the name Luke adhered to the Gospel already independently of Acts (in this vein, cf. now especially again Thornton 1991, 78; Jervell 1998, 80f; Schröter 2007, 312–­13; 2013, 287–­88). The consequences would be very far-­reaching in this case, for this connection between the name Luke and the Gospel could only be traced back to historical recollection. How could one otherwise and without the detour via Acts explain that the composition of the Gospel of Luke was ascribed to Paul’s companion Luke, of all people? Taking all things into consideration, however, we cannot get around the diagnosis that, with respect to the person of the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts, there are more questions than answers and earlier certainties have gone lost in the meantime, namely on both sides of the argument. In this context, no role can be played by the thesis defended by Hobart 2004, according to which the intensive use of medical technical terms in the Gospel of Luke and Acts allows one to infer that the author was, in fact, the physician mentioned in Colossians 4.14. Most of the terms invoked by Hobart do not belong to specific medical technical terminology (cf. Cadbury 1926; 1933); moreover, the Lukan style displays “no more medical language and interest than the style of contemporary authors who were not physicians” (Kümmel 1973, 117). This has not been altered by the investigation of Weissenrieder 2003, who wants to ascribe more than average medical professional knowledge to Luke and in doing so does not pay attention to the fact that Luke also endeavors to use a correct professional terminological idiom in other spheres (cf. e.g., for the legal system Bormann 2001). Moreover, it is doubtful anyway whether the Lukan texts can really bear everything that Weissenrieder loads onto them.

2.1.3 What significance the so-­called “we” passages in Acts 16.10-­17; 20.5-­15; 21.1-­18; and 27.1–­28.16 have in this context is yet another question. In any case, they do not allow inferences about the name and identity of the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts. All attempts to reconstruct from them a source reworked by the author of Acts run aground on the fact that the linguistic character of the “we” passages is identical to that of the surrounding texts of Acts. Therefore, what Harnack 1906, 56 writes is really “incontrovertible—­the ‘we’ passages and Acts have one and the same author” (see also E. Plümacher, TRE 3: 494.38ff), and this assessment also includes, of course, the author of the Gospel of Luke. Therefore, the greatest probability remains with the explanation that is most suggested in any case when the author of a historical account writes in the first person on the authorial level of presentation, namely the



Introduction 9

explanation that he “himself participated in the events portrayed in the we-­ style” (E. Plümacher, TRE 3: 514.22f). This is not, of course, to say that “we” always means only “Paul and I.” It refers instead always to the group formed by the author, Paul, and other companions. Above all there is discussion over whether the auctor ad Theophilum really participated in the events narrated in the “we” style or whether he only acts as if he were present. To be sure, Plümacher’s own explanation, namely that with the “we” Luke wanted to demonstrate something like experience at sea (E. Plümacher, TRE 3: 514.27ff; 1977), falls apart on the fact that the “we” style does not “[appear] solely in the portrayal of sea journeys” (TRE 3: 514.28–29; cf. against this Acts 16.12b-­17; 20.7-­8; 21.8-­18; 28.14-­16) and on the fact that not all the sea journeys are narrated in the “we” style. This fact contradicts all the more the thesis of Robbins 1978, who regards the “we” narrative as a stylistic device of ancient sea voyages. Wedderburn 2002, 94ff (the “we” refers to an unknown companion of Paul whose student the author of Acts understands himself to be and in whose name he writes) wants to explain an obscurum by an obscurius and has therefore scarcely struck upon the correct interpretation. For criticism of other attempts at interpretation, cf. Wehnert 1989; Thornton 1991, 107ff.

Here, too, the most likely explanation is therefore the best one. The “we” comes from the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts, who presents himself to the readers with his own “I” in Luke 1.3 and Acts 1.1 and has marked “his own share in the journeys of Paul” with the help of the “we” passages (Dibelius 1968, 93; then also Thornton 1991, passim). This means that the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts did not always accompany Paul but was only present where he narrates in the first person plural. With this qualification one of the most serious objections against the identification of the “we” with the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts then also loses its weight, namely that Acts evidently knows nothing of the Pauline letter writing and contains so little of the theological language of the Pauline letters. This matter finds a plausible explanation in the fact that all the letters of Paul were written between Acts 16.17 and 20.5, i.e., precisely in the time when the narrator responsible for the “we” was not with Paul—­ from 1 Thessalonians, which emerged during Paul’s stay in Corinth (Acts 18.1-­17), up to Romans, which was written at the time of Acts 20.3, i.e., immediately before the author of the “we” met up again with Paul. This explanation would also remain correct in the unlikely case that Philippians (or even Philemon) should have been written in Rome, for this could have happened in any case only after the situation narrated in Acts 28.16, where the “we” occurs for the last time. Plus, this identification is immune to the

10

The Gospel According to Luke

accusations that the author of Acts confuses the Pauline chronology, that he has Paul travel too often to Jerusalem, or that he evidently provides an inaccurate report concerning the apostolic council in Acts 15. For all these differences relate to periods of time in which the author of the “we” was not with Paul. Accordingly, the author of the Gospel of Luke met Paul in Troas (Acts 16.10) and traveled with him to Philippi (16.11). There he was separated from Paul when Paul was put in prison with Silas (16.22). He then loses sight of Paul for a few years and meets him again in Philippi (20.5-­6). From there he then accompanies Paul, via Troas (20.6-­12), Miletus (20.15-­ 38), Tyre (21.3-­6), Caesarea (21.8-­14), and other places, to Jerusalem. There, together with Paul, he visits James, the brother of the Lord (21.8). Due to the arrest of Paul in the temple (21.33), he is then separated from him again. He only meets him again in Caesarea Maritima (27.1), and he then accompanies him on the journey to Rome (27.1–­28.14). After arriving there, he separates from Paul again only a short time later, namely after Paul has obtained his own dwelling in which he is watched by a soldier (28.16). This much, then, we know about the author of the Gospel of Luke. It must remain open whether he was identical with the “coworker” mentioned in Philemon 24 and whether he was named “Luke.” Nevertheless, we will continue to call him Luke. 2.1.4 As a final point, we must also ask about the religious biography of Luke. Did he grow up in a Jewish or non-­Jewish family? Was he a proselyte who grew up in a non-­Jewish environment but then became a Jew and finally turned toward Christianity? Or did he belong prior to his turn to the Christian confession to the circle of the so-­called God-­fearers, who felt themselves drawn to Judaism as non-­Jews, without becoming Jews themselves (see at Luke 7.5)? About thirty years ago Kümmel 1973, 118 could still write, “The only thing that can be said with certainty on the basis of the Gospel of Luke about its author is the fact that he was a Gentile Christian.” As evidence Kümmel referred to the fact that Luke “has no knowledge of the geography of Palestine and avoids Semitic terms apart from ἀμήν” (118). Scholars have also appealed to the disinterest in cultic questions (with reference to the excision of Mark 7.1-­23) and the receding of the “typical Jewish conception of atonement” (Broer 1998/2001, I: 131). However, even if they are taken together, these elements cannot justify what they are intended to establish. Knowledge of the geography of Palestine is just as little an indicator of Jewish or non-­Jewish identity or origin as the avoidance or use of Semitic words. The reasons for the absence of Mark 7.1-­23 are completely different from a supposed disinterest in questions of purity (see at section 6.2 below). Luke did not borrow from Mark 7.24–­8.26 either, and



Introduction 11

the fact that he is certainly interested in questions of purity can be seen in Acts 10.10-­16; 11.1-­10. Finally, the so-­called conception of atonement is neither “typically Jewish” (cf. only Versnel 2005) nor alien to Luke, as Luke 22.19, 20; Acts 20.28 show. Moreover, its absence in the mission speeches of Acts finds its explanation in the fact that the interpretation of the death of Jesus as a salvific death was an element of early Christian internal language that would have been completely out of place in the mission discourses of Acts (see further at 22.19). Beyond this, for a number of years scholars have rightly pointed to aspects that show that Luke was equipped with a cultural basic knowledge that was profiled in an unmistakably Jewish manner. His excellent knowledge of the Septuagint, which even extended so far that he could imitate Septuagintal style (see section 4.4.6 below; see further Plümacher, TRE 3: 506ff; Fitzmyer I: 114ff) and which placed him in position to narrate his story of Jesus as a continuation of the history of Israel (see at 1.5), his knowledge of the doctrinal differences between Pharisees and Sadducees (Acts 23.6-­8), his precise portrayal of Jewish milieus in Luke 1–­2 (Radl 1988a, 23), and above all the prominent interest in the Israel question, which probably first prompted Luke to write the history of the separation of Christianity and Judaism as a component part of the history of Israel (cf. Wolter 2004b, 262–63), support the view that the author of the Gospel of Luke grew up in a Jewish family and, like Paul, experienced not only his primary but also his secondary socialization in a Jewish milieu (for the distinction between these two forms of socialization, cf. Berger/Luckmann 1966, 129ff). 2.2 Date Terminus post quem is the composition of the Gospel of Mark in the years 69/70 CE, which Luke knew with great certainty (see section 3 below). If one wants to assume that he had it in a revised version, then one can, or rather needs to, add a few more years. Mittelstaedt 2006 has recently shown again that the announcements of the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 19.43-­44; 21.20-­24 cannot function as dating criteria. However, his assumption that Paul was still alive when Luke ended Acts is based on a failure to recognize the genre of Luke–­Acts. Luke is not writing a biography of Paul, and he can therefore end his work without reporting the death of Paul. A clear terminus ante quem is only given by the quotations from the Gospel of Luke in Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century (see section 1 above). Every more precise temporal placement is dependent on hypothetical auxiliary assumptions. If, for example, one ascribes the “we” passages to Luke (see section 2.1.3 above) and has him first meet

12

The Gospel According to Luke

with Paul already at the beginning of the 50s (the events narrated in Acts 16.10-­17 are probably to be dated to this time), then it is advisable to estimate the completion of Luke–­Acts at a good distance from the end of the first century. For this reason, nothing speaks against placing Luke’s πρῶτος λόγος “concerning everything that Jesus did and taught” (Acts 1.1), which was finished first, at the beginning of the 80s of the first century. 2.3 Provenance There was already uncertainty concerning the place of composition of the Gospel of Luke at the time of the ancient church. While Jerome had still spoken in De viris illustribus 7 of a composition of Luke–­Acts in Rome, in his Commentariorum in Matthaeum, Praefatio 36f (CChr.SL 77.2) he has it originate in Achaiae Boeotiaeque partibus. More recently, consideration has been given to Antioch, Caesarea Maritima, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome, among others (see Plümacher 1984, 169), without one of these locations being able to establish itself against the others. The author of the “we” passages comes with Paul to Rome, which could argue for a Roman origin, and the shepherd scene in Luke 2.8-­14 could perhaps provide another indication (cf. ad loc. and Wolter 2000b), for with the announcement of the birth to the shepherds Luke takes up a politicized bucolic that is otherwise attested exclusively within Roman bucolic (see at Luke 2.8).

3. Sources 3.1 For the interpretation of the Gospel of Luke, the question of the sources and Vorlagen has lost much of its earlier significance in recent years. This is due above all to the insight into the methodological primacy of synchrony over diachrony in the interpretation of the gospels. Every evangelist has created his story of Jesus as a literary unity that is both structured and coherent, and he can therefore justifiably demand—­even if his representation is based on Vorlagen that have also entered into it with their wording—­that the present text be read as his text, i.e., as a linguistic expression furnished with meaning by him. Despite this fact, it is, of course, not meaningless to inquire about the sources and Vorlagen of the Gospels, especially since Luke himself explicitly mentions that he composed his narrative on the basis of older presentations (Luke 1.1-­2). For if we know these Vorlagen and know with which changes (supplements, deletions, rephrasings, rearrangements) the author has adopted them into his work, we obtain information that allows us to better understand the author, his mode of operation, and his intentions than if we interpreted his work solely on the basis of the existing final



Introduction 13

text. This insight, however, helps us only theoretically, for in practice the trust of earlier decades in our abilities to reconstruct Vorlagen via source criticism has rightly given way to a much more skeptical evaluation of the possibilities regarding this procedure. If older Vorlagen are not preserved, then there is scarcely a chance of reconstructing their form and wording from the presentations based on them. These two caveats must be constantly kept in view in the quest for the sources and Vorlagen that underlie the Lukan story of Jesus. 3.2 The most plausible option is still to answer the question of the sources and Vorlagen of the Gospel of Luke within the framework of the two source hypothesis (on the proto-­Luke hypothesis [cf. above all Streeter 1924, 199–­222; Boismard 1997] and for other hypotheses, cf. Fitzmyer I: 73ff, 87ff, 89ff; Radl 1988a, 34–­35; Schnelle 2007, 215ff; Tyson 1978). It reckons that two written sources are reworked in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew, namely the Gospel of Mark and the so-­called Sayings Gospel Q, which is not handed down in any manuscript. This framework, however, encompasses much more complex transmission circumstances than the two-source theory “in its ideal form” assumes (C. Heil 2001, 134; cf. the diagram, e.g., in Schmithals 1985, 182). Above all we cannot say that we know better than only rather approximately the text of the two copies of the Gospel of Mark and Q that were available to Luke in the composition of his story of Jesus. 3.2.1 In relative terms, the Gospel of Mark is best known to us. Here, however, the number and especially the quality of the so-­called minor agreements (the clearest examples are listed at each respective passage; cf. further Ennulat 1994, 1–­34, 417–­30; Friedrichsen 1989; Kiilunen 2002; G. Strecker 1993; Neirynck 1974b, 11–­49; 1982/1991/2001, II: 3–­42) make it fairly likely that Luke and Matthew used this writing as a Vorlage not in the version known to us but in a ‘deutero-­Markan’ version, which can perhaps even be designated as a “recension” (so already Sanday 1911, 21: “. . . by far the greater number of the coincidences of Mt Lk against Mk are due to the use by Mt Lk . . . of a recension of the text of Mk different from that from which all the extant MSS. of the Gospel are descended” [emphasis in original]). This does not mean, of course, that it was “an overall revision . . . , which revised the whole Gospel of Mark in terms of language and content” (A. Fuchs 2006, 210; on this cf. section 3.2.3). Moreover, we are far from being able to reconstruct this version even only approximately, for we cannot assume that all the minor agreements go back to this pre-­Lukan–­Matthean form of the Gospel of Mark. Some of them are probably due to a coincidentally identical redactional change of the Markan text by Luke and Matthew, others to the influence

14

The Gospel According to Luke

of oral tradition, and others are to be explained with reference to textual history. Conversely, one must, of course, assume that text elements of deutero-­Markan provenance are present not only where there are discernable minor agreements. When the deutero-­Markan text was redactionally changed by Luke or Matthew, then, though it remains preserved in the other one, it can no longer be recognized as deutero-­Markan, because a Luke–­Matthew agreement is no longer present. And if both have changed the deutero-­Markan text, then nothing at all remains left over from it. 3.2.2 An adoption of text from the “Sayings Gospel” Q, which on account of its embedding of the Jesus tradition in narrative connections has been rightly referred to in this way for some time (cf. Hoffmann 2001, 288; S. Hultgren 2002), is especially probable where Luke and Matthew reproduce a common tradition that is not also preserved in Mark. Beyond this, of course, one must reckon with overlaps of Mark and Q, but the identification of these overlaps is difficult and controversial (on these cf. above all Fleddermann 1995; Laufen 1980; Schröter 1997a, 144ff). But only the minimal content of Q is thereby grasped, for it is highly likely that this writing had a very different form than the recent reconstruction attempts in CEQ and by Fleddermann 2005a suggest. This applies, first, with reference to the extent. If Luke and Matthew used Q in the way in which they used the Gospel of Mark, from which less than 50 percent is preserved in both of the large Gospels, then it must be assumed that a considerable portion of the Sayings Gospel is contained in the Lukan or Matthean “Special Material” (see section 3.3 below) and thus is no longer identifiable as Q-tradition. And just as 5 percent of the Gospel of Mark is preserved neither in Luke nor in Matthew, the same could, of course, apply also for Q-material. In addition, the proposed reconstruction of the wording is also doubtful, particularly in places in which different phrasings are encountered in the Luke–­Matthew double tradition. The existing reconstructions consistently presuppose that the Q-wording is preserved in one of the two phrasings. But this is a completely ungrounded petitio principii, which produces very misleading results, as a comparison with the Luke–­ Matthew reception of the wording of the Gospel of Mark could immediately show. In almost half the cases the Markan phrasing is preserved neither by Matthew nor by Luke. Moreover, one must, of course, assume that as in the Mark material there are also Luke–­Matthew agreements in the Q-material that were not due to the Vorlage, so that even when we find Luke–­Matthew double tradition with identical wording, there is always a remaining uncertainty about whether we are really dealing with a Q-phrasing. For this reason the reconstruction of this Vorlage is burdened with great uncertainties and can be done only approximately.



Introduction 15

3.2.3 The picture of the synoptic transmission history determined by the two source hypothesis has been critically accompanied for many years by Albert Fuchs and his students (see A. Fuchs 2004–­2007). They start from the minor agreements and assume that the Gospel of Mark was initially revised into a “deutero-­Mark” and that it was only available as such to Luke and Matthew as a source. The deutero-­ Markan redaction is said to be graspable above all in the minor agreements, but also to have encompassed material that is ascribed to the Sayings Source by the two-source theory. For easily understandable reasons, this thesis has not been able to establish itself. Although Fuchs worked for more than thirty years on his model, he was never in a position to identify the additional material from the Luke–­Matthew double tradition with which the original Gospel of Mark is to have been expanded to “deutero-­Mark.” As soon as this topic comes up he escapes into nebulous circumlocutions such as “it is only natural that on this occasion one inserted new materials into the Gospel of Mark as well (logia agreements)” (A. Fuchs 2006, 210) or these “logia” were inserted from “Q or other sources” “at all the places in the Gospel of Mark that appeared favorable to the reviser” (A. Fuchs 2004–­2007, I: 1). Fuchs obviously does not know which texts should have been in view here. But so long as he cannot say which “new material, above all logia” it should be that “were inserted into the Gospel of Mark” in the deutero-­Markan revision (A. Fuchs 2006, 240) and so long as he can provide no plausible picture of the literary form of the whole, his hypothesis cannot be regarded as a serious contribution to the solution of the Synoptic Problem. With regard to the Sayings Source itself Fuchs assumes that “at least a portion of Q . . . was already available to deutero-­Mark and (was) used by him, so that for Matthew and Luke only the rest of this source remained left over” (A. Fuchs 2004–­2007, IV: 10; emphasis in original). But it could also be the case “that the logia inserted by deutero-­Mark” do not come from Q, “so that under this presupposition the result would be not only . . . a division of Q, but a shrinking to the remainder left over” (IV: 10; emphasis in original). Apparently, Fuchs imagines the matter in such a way that there was only a single manuscript of Q and that “deutero-­Mark” excised from it the logia that he wanted for his revision of the Gospel of Mark, so that only such a mutilated copy or a manuscript that depended on it remained left for Luke and Matthew, or that Q could only have contained such logia that deutero-­Mark did not know from elsewhere. Who is supposed to believe this? And when Fuchs then claims on top of this “that all agreements without exception owe their origin to such a single process of revision” (A. Fuchs 2006, 240; emphasis in original), then this is just as misguided as the following statement of Cameron 1996, 352, which is formulated with regard to CEQ: “We do have a text of Q; what we do not have is a manuscript.”

16

The Gospel According to Luke

3.2.4 It is highly likely that Luke knew the Q and Mark material preserved in his presentation not only from the two sources available to him in written form. One could reckon with an access to the Jesus tradition mediated in such an exclusively literary manner only if one wanted to assume that the oral tradition that found entrance into Mark and Q died out once it was fixed in written form in these two writings. Although no one, of course, claims this, many works on the history of the synoptic tradition implicitly presuppose this assumption. By contrast, one must start from the assumption that over a long period, alongside and independently of Mark and Q, there existed an oral tradition of the Jesus material that also reached Luke and found entrance into his presentation of the story of Jesus (on this topic, cf. now above all Dunn 2003). Plus, Mark and Q were certainly not known in every Christian community. It need not be stated separately that in light of these considerations the circumstances of synoptic tradition become even more diffuse, so that it becomes even more difficult and in most cases completely impossible to separate pre-­Lukan ‘tradition’ from Lukan ‘redaction’ and to reconstruct the stock of the pre-­ Lukan tradition according to its extent and wording. 3.3 The latter applies especially to the portions of the Gospel of Luke that have parallels neither in the Gospel of Mark nor in the Gospel of Matthew, i.e., for ca. 550 of the 1,149 verses, thus for almost half of the Gospel of Luke. Today these texts are summarized under the umbrella term “Lukan Sondergut” (SLk) or “Lukan Special Material” (Special L), and there is analogously a “Matthean Sondergut” (SMt) or “Matthean Special Material” (Special M). Both of these designations are so-­called remainder categories. This term is used to designate categories under which phenomena are subsumed that are associated with one another merely by a negative characteristic, because within an existing categorical system they cannot be assigned to the respective main categories and remain left over in the truest sense of the word. In this sense the texts that are subsumed under the heading “Lukan Sondergut” have as their only common feature the characteristic that they have a parallel neither in the Gospel of Mark nor in the Gospel of Luke. But in a miraculous way the material designated with this umbrella term was transformed quite quickly into an independent entity and in parallel the term Sondergut mutated from a remainder category into a main category. As such the Lukan Sondergut then made a rapid career. It became a collection that was ascribed not only coherence in theme and content but also a distinct theological profile (cf. the surveys of the history of research in Schmithals 1985, 329ff; Rese 1985, 2275ff, 2284ff; Paffenroth 1997, 11ff). It was awarded the literary status of a written source (as



Introduction 17

an independent source alongside Q and the Gospel of Mark for the first time, to my knowledge, in B. Weiss7, 253), which then naturally needed also a name (“L”; for the first time in J. Weiss, 280). In this way it was awarded an individuality, the linguistic and theological distinctiveness of which could become the topic of investigations (Rehkopf 1959; Pittner 1991). According to H. Klein 1987 it even has a “message.” “Bearers” and a “community” of the Sondergut arise (Schnelle 2007, 197). Riesner locates it in “conservative Jewish Christian circles . . . who gathered in Jerusalem and Judea around James, the brother of the Lord, and his successors” (Riesner 1999, 51; Manns 1996 is similar), while Habbe 1996, 116 attributes to it a female author in the form “of a well-­off proselyte in a large city of Italy.” It becomes the object of an academic commentary (Petzke), and finally a written source with regard to extent and wording is reconstructed from it (Paffenroth 1997). All attempts to ascribe to the Lukan Sondergut the character of a source that has an independent literary or theological profile commit a grave error, however. They do not take account of the fact that the only feature that all the texts of the Sondergut have in common is merely a negative characteristic, namely their absence from the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew, and they turn the remainder character of the Sondergut into a primary, positive characteristic that supposedly adheres to the texts as such and can be found in them. Against such a manner of proceeding one must raise not only positional and methodological objections but also scientific objections. Paffenroth 1997, 65 represents an almost ideal-­typical example of how this procedure of the transformation of a negative feature into a positive one functions and how this scientifically problematic construct is then used for further internal differentiation within the Lukan Sondergut: “. . . only 197 (sc. verses) have been judged as possibly from a pre-­Lukan source other than Mark or Q.” In his discussion of the origin of the material that comes into consideration (27ff) he repeatedly uses the argument “because not from Q, therefore not from another source.” This is, however, a petitio principii that is grounded by nothing. The most likely possibility that there could be not only Mark–­Q overlaps but also Mark–­“L” and Q–­“L” overlaps is not brought into consideration even once by him and the other authors who regard the Lukan Sondergut as a written source or as a coherent tradition.

This then results in a self-­enclosed collection or even a written source whose borders are clearly defined by the extent of Mark and Q or, in other words, whose textual stock is established by the characteristic “not Mark and not Q.” But this is a completely implausible construct. Actually, the

18

The Gospel According to Luke

exact opposite is probably the case, for it can scarcely be assumed that there were written sources or collections of Jesus tradition in the second half of the first century that displayed no overlaps. Thus, if the Lukan Sondergut should have been part of a written source, then it is more likely that this would have had the form of a gospel writing, which incidentally was already assumed by B. Weiss, for whom it was “highly probable” that the material of the Lukan Sondergut “belonged for the most part to a source that encompassed the whole life of Jesus” and is said to have included not only the passion story but also the Emmaus narrative (B. Weiss 1889, 543; emphasis in original). But such a claim would first need to be verified. And even if this were to succeed, one would still be far from being able to ascribe a certain theological profile to this text. This would be approximately like wanting to specify the theological peculiarity of the Gospel of Mark solely on the basis of the Markan material contained in Luke. The term Sondergut should therefore remain what it is, a remainder category. It may by no means be made into a source designation by a sleight of hand, but rather needs to be used as an umbrella term for all the material that has a parallel neither in the Gospel of Mark nor in the Gospel of Matthew. Concerning the provenance of this material one can only say with some certainty that one “(may) not assume . . . a unified origin” (Schmithals 1985, 366): some of it is Q-material that was omitted by Matthew; some of it is scattered oral tradition brought together by Luke; and some of it goes back to Luke himself.

4. The Lukan Story of Jesus as an Episodic Narrative 4.1 Luke has narrated his story of Jesus as a sequence of individual stories (on the form of the episodic narrative, see also Breytenbach 1985). Although the sequence of the overall presentation seems arbitrary and interchangeable at many points, Luke has given it a well-­ordered form. The sequence of events violates the narrative verisimile (τὸ εἰκός) neither in details nor as a whole. All the events that are constitutive for the plot of the macronarrative stand in the required position—­the birth at the beginning and the suffering, death, and resurrection at the end (see also the introductory comments on 22.1–­24.52[53]). The anointing with the Spirit and the proclamation as Son of God (3.21-­22) stands at the right place as does the journey to Jerusalem. And the sequence of the episodes in 18.35–­19.46 is unchangeable due to their topographical placement. In the sense of Aristotle, Poetica 10 (1452a14ff) Luke narrates a “simple action” (ἁπλῆ πρᾶξις), which “hangs together and forms a unity.” He combines individual episodes into certain “narrative phases” or narrative “collecting basins” (terms from Lämmert 1975, 73), and he makes them recognizable



Introduction 19

as such by demarcating them from their respective literary contexts with the help of structuring markers. For this structuring, however, Luke uses neither subheadings nor optical signals such as lacunae, paragraphs, or new page beginnings; rather, he narrates the structuring markers of his story. This fact, however, is also the reason why no two commentaries have the same outline for the Gospel of Luke. Every outline is brought to the Lukan story of Jesus from outside and is therefore already part of its interpretation. Accordingly, an outline is a text that the commentator writes. Therefore, it seems prudent that this commentary also give an account of the criteria that were used for the structuring of Luke’s story of Jesus. 4.2 Narrated structuring signals are signals that make episodes into episodes, being characterized by a specific constellation of parameters involving time, space, and people that changes from episode to episode. Accordingly, one can recognize the end of the one and the beginning of a new episode by the fact that the narrator makes a change to these parameters and in this way establishes a new constellation. It is obvious that when all three parameters are changed (as, e.g., in 2.1-­3; 3.1-­2; 22.1-­6), the structuring divisions are deeper than when only one changes (as, e.g., in 8.19). Moreover, the quality of a structuring division also depends, of course, on the quantity of the respective parameters. How large is the temporal or spatial distance? How many characters are exchanged? 4.3 This results in the following proposal for the outline of the Lukan story of Jesus according to its main parts (for further details and justification, cf. the discussions at the beginning of the respective sections). For reasons of space only the topmost structuring level will be described (for the subordinate structuring levels, cf. ad loc.). 1.1-­4: The proem is a metanarrative text in which Luke provides the reader with information about the emergence, character, and intention of his narrative. It thus stands outside of the actual narrative. 1.5-­79(80): Luke dates the events narrated in this section in the reign of Herod the Great (v. 5). The rhythm of the sequence of episodes is given by the chronology of Elisabeth’s pregnancy (cf. vv. 24, 26, 56, 57). With the summary in v. 80, Luke goes beyond the temporal frame marked out in v. 5. Here he takes into view a time period of many years. 2.1-­39(40-­52): The narrative makes a temporal jump of unknown duration into the time of the census under the governorship of Quirinius. Luke dates the episodes narrated in vv. 1-­39 in the time—­which is taken into view in 1.80—­of John the Baptist’s growing up, for he refers to this period in 2.1 with “in these days.” Moreover, the characters of the

20

The Gospel According to Luke

narrative are changed out. Verse 4 and v. 39 form a clearly recognizable inclusio. With a summary (vv. 40, 52), which Luke illustrates—­as in Acts 4.32–­5.16—­with the help of an embedded episode (vv. 41-­51), the narrative is again led beyond the period of time mentioned at the beginning. 3.1-­20: John the Baptist is the main narrative character in this section. Luke provides here a self-­enclosed overview of the entire activity of the Baptist from his call (v. 2) to his placement in prison (v. 20). The synchronism in vv. 1-­2 marks a deep caesura, with the introductory specification of time expressing that at least fifteen years have passed since the events narrated in 2.1-­39. 3.21–­4.13: Luke brings Jesus into the story and introduces him as a narrative figure. His narrated partners are only God (3.22) and the devil (4.1-­13). 4.14-­44: The narrative makes a temporal leap of unspecified duration and changes the location to Galilee (v. 14), namely to Nazareth (vv. 16-­30) and Capernaum (vv. 31-­42). In addition, the adult Jesus is now led among humans for the first time. Verses 42-­44 mark not only the end of the stay in Capernaum but of the entire narrative collecting basin. Jesus’s activity is expanded from Galilee to the entire Jewish land (v. 44). 5.1–­6.49: In this section Luke narrates individual scenes that are exemplary for Jesus’s proclamation of the reign of God “in the Jewish land” (4.44). Accordingly, not a single episode takes place in a specific place (in 5.17 Luke has even deleted Capernaum from Mark 2.1). A place name is not mentioned again until 7.1. It corresponds to this perspective that the section ends with Jesus’s speech to “a great crowd of his disciples and a great crowd of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem and from all the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon” (6.17). 7.1-­50: The narrative first returns to Capernaum and then changes to Nain, i.e., to two specific cities that are identified by name. Luke forms again a narrative collecting basin, which is comprised of events that are located in two places. The episodes in the two places are also joined together by the fact that Luke narratively parallels the Gentile Centurion (vv. 1-­10) and the widow with the dead son (vv. 11-­17) and places them in the light of 4.25-­27. 8.1–­9.50: With the summary of 8.1-­3, not only the persons in the narrated environment of Jesus are switched but the angle of the narrative perspective abruptly widens from a small-­scale localization in the house of a Pharisee into an extraordinary spatial breadth. The unspecified character of this spatial breadth (διώδευεν κατὰ πόλιν καὶ κώμην; 8.1) finds its counterpart in the fact that the individual episodes are connected with one another either only very loosely or not at all.



Introduction 21

9.51–­18.34: The fact that with 9.51 Luke narrates a structuring division that gives his story of Jesus a new orientation can be recognized above all in the fact that the perspective changes. While he had still directed the view of the readers into the spatial breadth with 8.1-­3, he now directs it into the future. The reader receives the information that from now on the Lukan story of Jesus approaches its end. Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem actually reaches its goal only in 19.45-­46 and therefore one could also let this main section extend to this point. I prefer, however, to end it already in 18.34, for the character of the narrative fundamentally changes with the arrival in Jericho. While not a single place is identified by name between 9.51 and 18.34, with Jericho in 18.35 Luke not only mentions a place name again for the first time, one whose proximity to Jerusalem is known already from 10.30, but he also narrates the part of the journey of Jesus beginning in 18.35 very differently from the previous peregrination. 18.35–­19.46: This section has its own character vis-­à-­vis 9.51–­18.34, which is clearly recognizable and makes it into its own narrative phase. This is ensured not only by the frequent repetition of ἐγγύς and cognates (18.35; 19.11, 29, 37, 41) but above all by the non-­interchangeable topographic succession of the individual scenes—­from “near to Jericho” (18.5) via “Jericho” (19.1), “near to Jerusalem” (19.11), “near to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives” (19.29), and “near to the descent of the Mount of Olives” (19.37), until the city finally comes into view (19.41) and Jesus enters into the temple (19.45). 19.47–­21.38 can be recognized on the basis of the correspondence of beginning frame (19.47-­48) and concluding frame (21.37-­38) as a narrative unity that is clearly demarcated to the front and to the back. But the internal coherence is very strong as well, for scenically and thematically the same thing holds true for all the episodes of this narrative collecting basin. Luke narrates how Jesus teaches for many days in the Jerusalem temple before the Jewish people. 22.1–­24.52(53): Luke narrates the story of the fulfillment of the two announcements of Jesus’s passion and resurrection (9.22; 18.32-­33). Luke has constructed the story of the “handing over” and death of Jesus as well as the narratives of the discovery of the empty tomb and the appearances on Sunday morning as two parts of a single fulfillment story. In v. 53 the Lukan story of Jesus ends with a summarizing prospectus, with which—­as in 1.80; 2.40, 52—­the temporal frame marked out at the beginning (24.1: “on the first day of the week”) is transcended, and the narrative is opened up to a sequel. At the same time, Luke introduces the new main figures of his narrative here. The end of the story of Jesus has become the beginning of the story of the disciples.

22

The Gospel According to Luke

4.4 The Lukan style of narration is additionally characterized in matters large and small by a whole series of characteristic features. 4.4.1 Luke often uses (a) “certain anticipations” (Lämmert 1975, 143) in order to announce what is coming, and (b) “inserted retrospections” (Lämmert 1975, 112), in order to take up again what lies behind. With the help of such arcs, which begin and end within the Lukan story of Jesus, its coherence is stabilized. Additionally there are also (c) retrospections into the time before the beginning of the narrative. They have the function of anchoring the Lukan story of Jesus in the history of Israel: (a) Announcements that are realized within the narrative: 1.13, 15-­17: the birth, naming, and prophetic activity of John the Baptist (1.57-­ 63; 3.1-­20) 1.20: Zechariah remains mute until the birth and naming of his son (1.64) 1.31-­33: the birth, naming, and installation of Jesus as messianic king, whose rule over Israel will have no end (2.7, 21; resurrection) 1.76-­78a: the prophetic activity of John the Baptist (3.1-­20) 1.78b-­79: the visitation of Israel through a (sun)rise (sc. Jesus) 2.34: the divided reaction of Israel to Jesus (this announcement is not realized until the second volume of Luke–­Acts) 3.16-­17: the coming of the “Stronger One” (sc. Jesus) 6.16: the handing over by Judas (22.47-­48) 9.22: the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Son of Man 9.27: the “seeing” of the kingdom of God by the disciples (this announcement is not realized until the second volume of Luke–­Acts; see at Luke 9.27) 9.31: the “departure” of Jesus 9.44: the handing over of the Son of Man 18.32-­33: the handing over, suffering, death, and resurrection of the Son of Man 22.4-­6: the handing over of Jesus by Judas (22.47-­48) 24.47-­48: the proclamation of “repentance for the forgiveness of sins among all nations” by the apostles (this announcement is not realized until the second volume of Luke–­Acts) 24.49: the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles (this announcement is also not realized until the second volume of Luke–­Acts) (b) Reminders of previously narrated material: 2.21: of the mentioning of Jesus’s name by Gabriel (1.31) 22.35: of the equipment rule from 10.4 23.8: of the fact that Herod Antipas had heard of Jesus and had wanted to see him (9.7-­9) 23.49: of the women who followed Jesus from Galilee (8.2-­3)



Introduction 23

24.6b-­8: of the announcements of Jesus’s handing over, death, and resurrection (9.22, 44) 24.22-­24: of the discovery of the empty tomb (24.1-­12) 24.44-­46: of the announcements of Jesus’s passion and resurrection (9.22, 44; 18.32-­33) (c) References to the past before the beginning of the narrative: 1.55: to the promises given to the patriarchs 1.70-­71: to the prophets’ promises of salvation 1.73: to the Abrahamic covenant 2.26: to the oracle given to Simeon 3.4-­6: to the promises of Isaiah 4.18-­19: to the promises of Isaiah 4.25-­27: to Elijah and Elisha 6.3: to David’s food theft according to 1 Samuel 21.2-­7 6.23: to the persecution of the prophets by the fathers 6.26: to the approval of the false prophets by the fathers 7.27: to the witness of the Scripture about John 11.47-­51: to the murder of the prophets by the fathers of the scribes 18.31: to the announcement of the fate of the Son of Man by the prophets 22.37: to the announcement of Jesus’s fate by Isaiah 24.27: to the witness of Scripture about the Messiah 24.44: to the witness of Scripture about Jesus

4.4.2 Luke places similar material, themes, and narratives together, especially in the so-­called travel narrative of 9.51–­18.34. To the extent to which material from the Luke–­Matthew double tradition is affected, this obvious clustering by Luke causes reconstructions of the structure of Q, as these have been presented by IQP with the CEQ and Fleddermann 2005a, which are based largely on the sequence of the Q-texts in the Gospel of Luke, to become doubtful. In detail the following thematic connections can be identified: • • •

•

The cycle of controversy dialogues in 5.12–­6.11 is taken over from Mark 2.1–­3.6, the cycle of miracle stories in 8.22-­56 from Mark 4.35–­5.43. In 11.1-­13 Luke has placed together three tradition units on the topic of prayer. In 12.13-­34 the concern is with dealing rightly with wealth and possessions, and in 12.13-­21, 35-­46, 54-­59; 13.6-­9 with the right evaluation of time. Both topics overlap in 12.13-­21. In 14.1-­ 24 all pericopes somehow have to do with celebratory meals and banquets.

24

• •

The Gospel According to Luke

15.1-­32 deal with what is lost (sheep, drachma, son). In 16.1-­31 the concern is once again with money and possessions.

4.4.3 Luke likes to form pairs, often with a male and a female component: (a) Events that take place at two places form a narrative collecting basin: 2.4-­21/22-­39: Bethlehem and Jerusalem 4.14-­30/31-­43: Nazareth and Capernaum 7.1-­10/11-­50: Capernaum and Nain (b) Narrative figures appear in pairs: 2.25-­35/36-­38: Simeon and Hanna 3.12-­13/14: tax collectors and soldiers 7.1-­10/11-­16: the centurion and the widow 7.11-­16/8.40-­42, 49-­56: the only son of a mother and the only daughter of a father are raised from the dead. (c) Two examples illustrate one and the same idea: 4.25-­27: the Syrian captain and the widow from Zarephath 6.44: figs from thorns and grapes from a bramble bush (par. Matthew 7.16) 11.31-­32: the queen of the south and the Ninevites (par. Matthew 12.41-­42 in reversed sequence) 12.24, 27: ravens and lilies (par. Matthew 6.26, 28b-­29) 12.54-­55: cloud and south wind 13.1-­5: the Galileans killed by Pilate and the eighteen dead at the collapse of the tower of Siloam 13.18-­21: mustard seed and leaven (par. Matthew 13.31-­33) 14.28-­32: tower building and going to war 15.4-­10: lost sheep (man) and lost drachma (woman) 17.26-­29: in the days of Noah and in the days of Lot 17.34-­35: two men lie on one bed, two women grind together (see also Matthew 24.40-­41)

4.4.4 Luke structures larger units by having two audiences alternate with each other; see the introductory comments to 9.51–­18.34 and 14.25–­18.34. 4.4.5 Luke is the only evangelist who introduces individual episodes with the phrasing ἐν μιᾷ τῶν πόλεων (5.12), ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν (5.17; 8.22; 20.1), or ἐν μιᾷ τῶν συναγωγῶν (13.10). “This kind of compression, which must be called eclectic, narrates according to the principle ‘pars pro toto’ ” (Lämmert 1975, 84).



Introduction 25

4.4.6 The most conspicuous features of the Lukan style of narration include—­even more than in Acts—­the imitation of the language of the Old Testament, namely in its Greek translation, the Septuagint. Luke even configures the first sentence of the narrative in close dependence on the episodic style of narration of the Septuagint (documentation in 1.5). Also, much of the whole section of Luke 1.5-­79 calls to mind people and events of the Old Testament (for individual documentation, see the introductory comments on 1.57-­79[80]). Thus, Luke obviously also makes an effort to narrate in the style of the Septuagint in the subsequent course of the narrative. What follows is a small selection of examples (individual documentation at the passages mentioned; cf. further especially Fitzmyer I: 114–­25). The beginning of episodes with ἐγένετο δέ + infinitive or + verbum finitum or with καὶ ἐγένετο + verbum finitum (1.8-­9; 2.1, 6; 3.21; 5.12, 17; 6.1, 6, 12; and elsewhere). καὶ ἰδού + verbum finitum (1.20, 31, 36; 5.12, 18; 7.12; and elsewhere). Inchoative ἀναστάς + verbum finitum (1.39; 4.29; 5.28; 6.8; 15.18, 20; and elsewhere). ποιεῖν ἔλεος (1.72; 10.37). πίπτειν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον (5.12; 17.16). εἰς μαρτύριον (5.14; 9.5; 21.13). δοχὴν ποιεῖν (τινι) (5.29; 14.13). ἐπαίρειν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς (6.20; 16.23; 18.13). The introduction of episodic sequences through “so-­and-­so” παρεγένετο/ παρεγένοντο πρός τινα (8.19). τὸ πρόσωπον στηρίζειν (9.51). ἐκζητεῖν τὸ αἷμα (11.50). ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (17.35). ὀρθρίζειν πρός (21.38). ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν / ἡ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν (17.24). ἔρχονται ἡμέραι (23.29). οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι with a cataphoric orientation of the demonstrative pronoun (24.44).

This effort to adapt his story of Jesus stylistically to the narrative style of the Holy Scripture of Israel is guided by an interest in signaling to the reader that the narrated events are nothing other than a continuation of the history of Israel (see also section 6.1 below and the introductory comments on 1.5-­79[80]). 4.4.7 A noteworthy characteristic of Lukan narration consists in the fact that in the narration of individual episodes he repeatedly combines genres of text sections with one another. Luke can narrate healings as chreiae (5.17-­26; 6.6-­11; 7.1-­10; 14.1-­6), simply add chreia-­like elements (9.37-­ 45; 13.10-­17), or use an exorcism to set a chreia in motion (11.14-­26). In 19.1-­10 a conversion narrative is combined with a controversy dialogue. 4.4.8 Luke sometimes uses concentric ring compositions following the pattern a / b / . . . / n / . . . b / a. The following texts are most clearly configured according to this model. The episodes of the first narrative collecting basin in 1.8-­79 (see the introductory comments on 1.5-­79[80]). The reading scene in 4.16d-­20 (see ad loc.). In

26

The Gospel According to Luke

10.25-­37b (“The Scribe and the Merciful Samaritan”) multiple ring compositions are even interwoven into one another (see the introductory comments on 10.25-­37). 11.8 (see ad loc.). The scene with the hearing of Jesus before Pilate in 23.1-­5 (see the introductory comments on 23.1-­5). For the postulate of a chiastic or concentric structure of the travel narrative, see the introductory comments on 9.51–­18.34.

5. Intended Readers “Intended Readers” are the readers whom the author imagines as readers of his text or, rather, with whom he reckons as readers, and for whom he writes his text. They exist in the consciousness of the author and are constantly present there during the writing of his text. They must be distinguished from the so-­called real readers (or empirical readers) who actually read a text—­from its first readers (in the case of the Gospel of Luke perhaps Theophilus) down to its present-­day readers and interpreters. The extent to which the Theophilus mentioned in Luke 1.3-­4 as a fictive reader also functions as a representative of the intended readers must remain open (see the introductory comments to 1.1-­4 and at 1.3). That this relation could be configured very flexibly is shown by Lucian’s tractate Quomodo historia conscribenda sit, which is addressed, on the one hand, to a friend (φιλότης [3] as metonymic abstractum pro concreto) by the name of Φίλων (1, 22, 24, 29), but, on the other hand, wants—­as “guidance . . . for authors” (παραίνεσις . . . τοῖς συγγράφουσιν; 4), i.e., for “future history writers”—­not only to be read but also to be followed. It is largely uncontroversial today that Luke writes for Christian readers. Thus, he does not intend, as was long assumed (cf. those listed in Plümacher 1983, 53), to practice political apologetics and “cleanse” Christianity “from the suspicion of being subversive and seditious in disposition” (Plümacher 1983, 53). The thesis that Bauckham 1998 put forward for discussion, according to which the Gospels were written not for specific communities but for all Christians (e.g., p. 46: “The Gospels have a historical context, but that context is not the evangelist’s community. It is the early Christian movement in the late first century”), is not really new with respect to Luke–­ Acts. It was already emphasized time and again earlier that it “was not directed to a specific community,” but aimed at a “developing church with its various branches scattered throughout the whole empire” (Riches 1987, 178; cf. already Plummer xxxiv: “for the instruction and encouragement of all Gentile converts” and then also Maddox 1982, 15; O’Toole 1983, 2; Allison 1988; R. E. Brown 1997, 271; and others).



Introduction 27

Although Bauckham 1998 deserves credit for reinitiating an urgently needed discussion, and although he rightly criticizes (see below) the methodological deficiencies (of the inferences) of numerous redaction-­critical and social-­historical investigations, he has overdrawn his thesis to the extent that he constructs an antithetical dualism, whose poles could perhaps function as ideal-typical models but are much too undifferentiated for the description of historical processes (in this respect the questions put to Bauckham’s thesis in the otherwise affirming article of Plessis 2000 and the sharp criticism of M. Mitchell 2005, 44 are on target; for a summary of the debate, cf. Klink 2004). The greatest weakness of Bauckham’s thesis consists in the fact that he throws out the baby with the bathwater and constructs an overly sharp alternative between the local community and all Christians in the imperium Romanum. For even if Luke should have written his story of Jesus “for any and every church to which their Gospels might circulate” (Bauckham 1998, 46), it cannot be effectively denied that he belonged to a certain Christian community, which was significant both for the experience and presentation of his Christian identity in particular and for his picture of Christianity in general. Beyond this it is problematic that Bauckham 1998 designates the intended readership of the Gospel of Luke as “not specific but indefinite” (1) or as an “open category of readers/hearers in any late first-­century Christian church” (47), because in this way he levels out the distinction between intended and real readers: an intended readership is never “not specific, but indefinite.” Rather, it can always be only a specific entity because it is a construction of the author. Even if—­in this Bauckham is probably correct—­one must reckon as the intended readership of the Gospel of Luke “any church . . . to which his work might find its way” (11), this readership can, for this reason, always be only the very specific image that Luke has of it. However, Bauckham 1998, 26–­27 is right to draw attention to the fact that due to their genre gospels do not have “addressees” or “recipients” and that it would therefore be a mistake to transfer the communication model of the Pauline letters to the gospels. Bauckham is also justified in his criticism of an uncontrolled “mirror reading,” which uses the narrative as a mirror in order to reconstruct with its help specific conditions in the community of the author. A small selection of examples may illustrate the legitimacy of this criticism. From Luke 12.13-­15; 16.14-­15 and other texts Schnelle 2007, 289 draws the following conclusion: “The rich in the community were self-­righteous and greedy . . . they despised the poor (cf. Luke 18.9) and stood in danger of falling away from the faith through their striving for wealth (cf. Luke 8.14; 9.25).” Furthermore, it is time and again the Pharisees who are interpreted as an allegorical symbol for

28

The Gospel According to Luke

the rich of the Lukan community (cf. e.g., Petracca 2003, 198). From the brief narrative about Mary and Martha (10.38-­42) it is inferred that in the Lukan community there were women “who literally worked hard for the community like Martha” and therefore “revolted against other women who were not so engaged” (Melzer-­Keller 1997, 239), whereas others assume the story shows that in the Lukan community woman office holders were placed under pressure to relinquish their tasks to the men (Reid 1996, 157). On the basis of the parable trilogy on the theme of “the lost” in Luke 15, some conclude that in the Lukan community the relations between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians were strained (e.g., Heininger 1991, 166; Pokorný 1998, 172ff), while others want to infer from the text that there were controversies over whether apostates could be received back again into the community (e.g., Bonnard 1980). Others think they can infer from the Lukan statements on the Torah that Jewish Christian community members were being accused of betraying the Jewish identity by other Jewish Christians or non-­Christian Jews (cf. e.g., Esler 1987, 129).

None of this can be found in the texts. With the same method one could conclude from 1 Timothy 3.3 (whoever wants to become bishop may not be a drunkard) that there were alcoholic bishops in the community for which this instruction is specified. Plus, reconstructions of community circumstances such as those named above would, of course, have to be added up if they desired to be taken seriously. But this consequence is not taken into consideration in the reconstructions for obvious reasons. After all, it would immediately reduce this method ad absurdum, for this consequence allows to emerge such a complex web of problems and overlapping conflicts that could not even be assumed for Christian communities of the late twentieth and early twenty-­first centuries. The picture of the Christian community that emerges on the basis of such reconstructions is downright monstrous and probably has nothing to do with reality. Furthermore, such “mirror reading” always leads to aporia. How should Luke 6.22 (“Blessed are you when people hate you . . . because of the Son of Man”) and 6.26 (“Woe to you rich, for you have [already] received your consolation”) be meant for the same group within the Lukan community, namely for Christians (v. 22) who are rich (v. 26)? The preceding argument does not, of course, intend to deny that there are also texts in the Gospel of Luke that the community, to which Luke belonged, as a fellowship of real readers, could apply to their individual historical situation. But this applies equally to the real readers in every other Christian community. What must be decisively contested is the view that it is possible to infer from the text a specific individual situation of a specific individual community and that the identity of the intended readers is constituted by their membership in this community. Plus, it is



Introduction 29

time and again precisely the descriptions of typical situations, concerning which one can most likely say that Luke presents them to his readers for an actualizing reading. In this sense it is valid, for example, for every Christian community that there are Christians in it who “are increasingly choked by worries, riches, and the pleasures of life” (8.14) or “who are convinced concerning themselves that they are righteous and despise the rest” (18.19). This fits always and everywhere. But we need not restrict ourselves to this negative result, for the intended reader of the Gospel of Luke can indeed be furnished with astonishingly precise contours. For this we simply need to orient ourselves to typical features, and this means to the image of Christianity that is recognizable in Luke–­Acts itself. In this way the relative validity of Bauckham’s thesis is then also recognizable. Luke writes his work with the knowledge that Christianity had been a supralocal entity spread throughout the entire Roman Empire for many decades already. According to the witness of Acts, there are Christian communities not only in the eastern provinces of the imperium Romanum—­i.e., not only in Syria and in Cilicia, in Galatia and in Asia, in Macedonia and in Achaia—­but also in Italy and in Rome itself. It would certainly be completely inappropriate if one wanted to keep this knowledge away from the Lukan story of Jesus and restrict the horizon of its author to the boundaries of a single Christian local community. Beyond this, however, this circumstance makes it also very probable that the Gospel of Luke was written not only in the knowledge that there were Christian communities everywhere in the Roman provinces, but also that in the view of its author its content was also relevant to every single (Bauckham 1998, 1: “any and every”) one of these communities. With this, however, an aspect has come into view that makes it possible to specify the Lukan picture of the readers of his story of Jesus with greater precision. The aspect of the diversity of early Christianity invoked against Bauckham by his critics (cf. Sim 2001, 9–­10; M. Mitchell 2005, 39–­40), which cannot, of course, be doubted, becomes meaningless if we view the communities not with the eye of a modern historian but instead ask about how they are perceived by a contemporary author such as Luke and about the picture that he has of Christianity. Then it is not difficult to give substance to this postulate of a unified identity—­which is taken for granted by Luke—­of all Christian communities in the Roman Empire, without having to revert to minimal contents such as the confession to Jesus Christ as Son of God and Messiah. For what, according to the Lukan conviction, all Christian communities, wherever they may be in the last quarter of the first century in the Roman Empire, have in common with one another amidst all diversity and what keeps them together is precisely

30

The Gospel According to Luke

that which Luke has written down in his “report” (Luke 1.1)—­namely, a very specific foundation story: the story of the πεπληροφορημένα ἐν ἡμῖν πράγματα reaching from Luke 1.5 to Acts 26.29 (Luke 1.1; on this demarcation, see section 6 below). Thus, Luke intends as readers all those Christians and Christian communities who make up the “whole flock” (Acts 20.28) of Christianity, which owes its historical form to the events that he narrates in Luke–­Acts. Besides this, however, the manifold anchoring of the story narrated by Luke in the history of Israel (see section 4.4.1[c] above) shows that he reckons with readers who are well acquainted with the history of Israel and its Holy Scriptures. Finally, one can possibly even reckon with the fact that Luke imagined this readership not only as a synchronic entity but also as a diachronic entity. His narrative would then be intended not only for the Christians of his own time but also for Christians of future generations. That history writing could be guided by such a perspective is already recognizable in Thucydides, who composed his history of the Peloponnesian War “more as an enduring possession than as a masterpiece for current hearers” (κτῆμά τε ἐς ἀεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀγώνισμα ἐς τό παραχρῆμα ἀκούειν; 1.22.4). Lucian of Samosata also uses this phrasing (Quomodo historia conscribenda sit 5; 42), and in the summarizing advice at the end of his essay he gives the following instruction to future writers of history: “Write not only with a view to the present (καὶ μὴ πρὸς τὸ παρὸν μόνον ὁρῶν γράφε) in order that contemporaries praise and honor you; write instead in thoughts of permanence for the descendants (ἀλλὰ τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος ἐστοχασμένος πρὸς τοὺς ἔπειτα μᾶλλον σύγγραφε)” (61). This does not mean, however, that with this expansion the picture of the intended readers becomes more diffuse, for with the Christian community of the Lukan present, Christian posterity enduringly shares the same characteristic feature that constitutes the identity of all intended readers, namely the foundation story of Christianity that Luke narrates in his “report.” For this story is also their story. Unlike in the other three canonical Gospels, however, this foundation story in Luke now encompasses not only the story of Jesus but also the time of the proclamation of the “witnesses” (see at 24.48). With this we stand before the question of the function of the story of Jesus within this foundation story of Christianity that Luke narrates in Luke–­Acts.

6. The Theological Place of the Story of Jesus in Luke–­Acts 6.1 The Gospel of Luke is the first part of a two-­part historical work that narrates an epoch of the history of Israel and thus belongs to the



Introduction 31

historiographical genre of “epoch histories” (this view is grounded in detail in Wolter 2004b, 256ff; cf. also the diagram on p. 33). It would therefore not be appropriate to the subject matter if one attempted with the help of the genre question to detach the Lukan story of Jesus from the literary and theological context of the Lukan work as a whole, as happens with many interpreters, who form-­critically separate it from Acts on the basis of its similarity to the other three canonical Jesus stories and furnish it with the label “gospel” (cf. in this sense recently Shauf 2005, 62; Schröter 2013, 208–­13; see also the overview in Verheyden 1999, 45ff). Against such attempts one must insist that Luke—­like Mark, Matthew, and John—­did not write his story of Jesus in the consciousness that he was writing a “gospel.” It already speaks against such an assumption that this term was used as as a literary category only from the second century onward and that it could therefore only be ascribed retrospectively to the canonical gospels as a genre designation (see section 2.1.1 above; cf. also Koester 1989; Dormeyer 1989; Kelhoffer 2004). Even in the superscription of the Gospel of Mark ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ . . . (Mark 1.1) the term εὐαγγέλιον is not used as a literary category, for the other uses of this term in the Gospel of Mark (cf. 1.14, 15; 8.35; 10.29; 13.10; 14.9) show clearly that by εὐαγγέλιον its author quite decisively understood an oral entity. Before Easter it is the εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ proclaimed by Jesus (1.14, 15), and after Easter it is the εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, i.e., the salvific message of Jesus Christ, which is proclaimed in the whole world. Luke’s usage corresponds to this. In his story of Jesus Luke does not carry over a single one of the seven Markan uses of εὐαγγέλιον. In Acts 15.7 and 20.24, however, he places the term in the mouths of Peter and Paul as a summary designation of their respective proclamations of Christ.

The fact that already in his story of Jesus Luke also wants to narrate nothing other than a further part of the story of Israel can be recognized above all in three features: • Luke narrates this story in a manner that recalls the Septuagint’s narrative style in many respects (see section 4.4.6 above). • Time and again he interprets events as fulfillments of the Holy Scriptures and Israel’s hopes for salvation (e.g., Luke 1.55, 70-­71, 73; 3.4-­6; 4.18-­19; 7.27; 18.31; 22.37; 24.26-­27, 44-­48; see then also Acts 2.16-­21, 25-­28; 15.15-­17; 26.6-­8; 28.26-­27). • He presents Jesus as the awaited “Savior” and messianic king of Israel and anchors him in the history of Israel (Luke 1.32-­33; 2.11, 30; 3.6;

32

The Gospel According to Luke

see then also Acts 13.17-­ 23 with the series “our fathers,” “Saul,” “David,” “Jesus”). One can, however, refer to Luke–­Acts as a “sacred narrative” (Sterling 1992, 363) only insofar as solely the narrated events and not the narration of them is “holy,” for Luke certainly did not intend to rank his work among the “Scriptures” in the sense of Luke 24.27, 32, 45; Acts 17.2, 11; 18.24, 32. Similarly, the classification of Luke’s presentation as a “continuation of the Septuagint” (Sterling 1992, 363) can be maintained only with the qualification that this refers to the connection between promise and fulfillment and not to a specific literary claim. Luke already announces in 1.1, when he speaks of “events that were completed in our time” (πεπληροφορημένα ἐν ἡμῖν), that he wants to write the story of an epoch in the strict sense of the word, i.e., as a presentation of a self-­enclosed period of time with a distinct beginning and an end that is no less clearly defined. Accordingly, he begins with a portrayal of the salvation initiative that God takes up for the eschatic fulfillment of the prophetic promises and Israel’s hopes for salvation by twice sending the angel Gabriel—­first to an old priest in Jerusalem (1.5-­20) and then to a Galilean virgin who is engaged to a descendant of David (1.26-­38). Luke marks the end of this epoch with the imprisoned Paul’s encounter with Agrippa II (Acts 26.1-­29). He narrates this encounter as the crowning conclusion of the Pauline mission to the Jews and has it climax in v. 28 by having Agrippa so famously and mysteriously say: ἐν ὀλίγῳ με πείθεις Χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι (perhaps: “you almost convince me to make myself a Christian”; cf. Barrett 1994/1998, II: 1170–­71). But it remains at this “almost,” and after the scene with Agrippa II there then follows only—­separated by the distance-­creating narrative of the adventurous sea journey to Italy—­the narrative of the encounter with the Roman Jews (28.17-­31). Luke has configured this scene as an epilogue, which explains with the help of Isaiah 6.9-­10 why the overwhelming majority of Judaism has rejected the proclamation of Christ. In schematic simplification the embedding of the Lukan narrative in the (hi)story of Israel can therefore be presented with the help of the overview on the following page. Luke sees the special profile of this epoch, which makes the narrated time period into an epoch in the first place, as consisting in the fact that the sending of God’s eschatic salvation (σωτήριον; Luke 2.30; 3.6; Acts 28.28)—­a sending that first took place through Jesus himself and then through his witnesses—­was rejected by most of the Jews. Because, in contrast to this, the salvation of God was received by far more non-­Jews, Luke can have Paul say with his last words in Acts 28.28: “And they will listen!” (αὐτοὶ καὶ ἀκούσονται; cf. also Plümacher 2004, 144).



Introduction 33

The (Hi)story of Israel According To Luke

↓

Saul (Acts 13.21)

↓

David (Acts 13.22)

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Second Book Jesus is the one proclaimed Jesus in in heaven “among all the nations” (Luke 24.47) The apostles are “servants of the word” and “witnesses” of the resurrection (Luke 1.2; 24.48; Acts 1.8; 13.31 and elsewhere) The witnesses as well have the Spirit

Proclamation of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ

The “events that have been completed in our time” (Luke 1.1) First Book ↓ John the Baptist Jesus (Acts 13.23) Jesus is the proclaimer Jesus is on the earth “in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem” (Acts 10.39) ↓ The apostles are “eyewitnesses” of the activity of Jesus (Luke 1.2; Acts 1.21) ↓ Only Jesus has the Spirit

↓

“Law and Prophets

↓

Judges (Acts 13.20)

until John” (Luke 16.16)

Fathers (Acts 13.17)

Parousia (Acts 1.11): “Reestablishment of all that God has spoken through the mouths of his holy prophets from the beginning on” (Acts 3.21); liberation of Jerusalem (Luke 2.38); reestablishment of the βασιλεία for Israel (Acts 1.8); “resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous” (Acts 24.15); judgment (Acts 17.31)

Thus, Paul formulates here “a contrast that can scarcely be surpassed in sharpness” (Plümacher 2004, 145). The fulfillment of the promises for Israel therefore led to a separation process, which had as a consequence the fact that “Israel” received a quite peculiar form in the Lukan time. On the one hand, Luke views the Christian church as standing in the unbroken continuity of the history of the people of God Israel, for it now includes also the Jewish and non-­Jewish Χριστιανοί, who were called this for the first time in Antioch according to Acts 11.26. The Χριστιανοί are all those

34

The Gospel According to Luke

who believe that the promises of salvation given to the people of God are fulfilled in the sending and in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (e.g., Acts 13.32-­39; 23.6; 26.6-­8). According to the Lukan understanding, the history of Israel finds its continuation in the history of the church. On the other hand, those Jews who deny the Christ proclamation also continue, of course, to belong to Israel, although they are—­this may not be swept under the rug—­threatened with eschatic exclusion from the people of God by Peter in Acts 3.23 with the words of Deuteronomy 18.19 and Leviticus 32.29. From the perspective of the intended readers of Luke–­Acts one can therefore say that Luke wants to write a prehistory of his present that seeks to explain the coming into being of a situation that exists in his time. According to his own self-­understanding, Luke–­Acts would then be something like a “foundation story” or “origin story” that intends to explain the origin and beginning of the current status quo and the historical development up until it was reached (cf. also Backhaus 2007, 31–­32). Such a work of history can accordingly stop with the event with which this condition is reached—­irrespective of how far back it lies. Correspondingly, many nineteenth-­and twentieth-­century Protestant portrayals of the history of the Reformation end with the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which the confessional geography of Germany, whose consequences reach into the present, was established. This would mean that Luke narrated the history of this epoch as going forth from the history of Israel in order to explain to his readers how it came to be that Christians and Jews became separated from each other in his present, although there is so much that binds them with each other. On this basis, perspectives on Luke–­Acts that want to see it merely as the story of Christianity’s emergence (among others, Marguerat 1999, 63; Cancik 1997) are shown to be too narrow. These interpretations overlook the fact that Luke always narrates the history of the expansion of the witness of Christ also as a history of its rejection, which repeatedly leads to separations. Both movements—­the movement of expansion and the movement of separation—­are interdependent (details in Wolter 2004b, 263–­64). The proclamation of Christ regularly causes separation, and the separation just as regularly enables the commencement of new proclamation. But above all it emerges from the concluding scene of Luke–­Acts in Acts 28.23-­28 that his perspective reaches beyond the Christian part of Israel, and at this prominent position of his presentation Luke directs the attention of the readers to the part of Israel that has not become Christian. With the help of Isaiah 6.9-­10 he explains why the majority of the Jews have rejected the message of Christ. But precisely in this way, i.e., with recourse to the model of hardening formulated by the prophet Isaiah, the



Introduction 35

rejection is brought into the history of Israel. According to the Lukan view, the Jewish rejection of the Christ message can only be understood at all as part of the history of Israel. 6.2 Even though Luke has not taken over Mark 1.1 (the heading of the Gospel of Mark), the story of Jesus also functions in Luke as the prehistory of the post-­Easter proclamation of Christ, so that the heading ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ could also stand over his story of Jesus. The difference consists solely in the fact that in Mark the story of the proclamation of the gospel, unlike in Luke, remained unnarrated. The same point applies to the story of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. With the mission command in Matthew 28.18-­20 it is opened (like the Lukan story of Jesus in Luke 24.46-­49) to the post-­Easter proclamation, but (unlike Luke) Matthew has refrained from narrating the story of this proclamation. This difference makes clear again and finds its explanation in the fact that the narrative aim sketched above, which caused Luke to expand his story of Jesus to Acts, differs characteristically from the intentions that guided Mark and Matthew. That Luke did not come upon the idea of expanding his story of Jesus to a presentation of the history of the expansion of the Christian message of salvation and its rejection by most Jews only after completing the Gospel of Luke is shown above all by the configuration of the end of the “first book” in Luke 24.52-­53, which introduces the disciples as the new protagonists of the narrative (see further there) and thus prepares for the sequel. Moreover, a whole series of indications make it probable that Luke had already planned such a continuation at the beginning of his story of Jesus. Of these, the proem of Luke 1.1-­4 must be mentioned in the first place (see the introductory comments on 1.1-­4). Beyond this, the omission of the controversy dialogue on “clean” and “unclean” from Mark 7.1-­23 was probably caused by the fact that Luke wanted to save this topic for Acts 10.1–­11.18, namely because he viewed it—­historically no doubt correctly—­as a circle of problems that did not become virulent until after Easter. The same applies analogously for the way in which Luke deals with Isaiah 6.9-­10. In Luke 8.10, he has shortened the quotation of this text, in its adoption from Mark 4.12, to the point that it is almost unrecognizable because he wanted to utilize it only at the end of his overall presentation in order to be able to conclusively justify the rejection of the post-­Easter proclamation by most Jews with its help (see also Barrett 1992, 1453ff; Marshall 1993, 174–­75; Marguerat 1999, 73ff). Finally, Luke probably left out the false witnesses and the temple saying (Mark 14.58) in his version of the hearing before the Sanhedrin because he wanted to bring them into Acts 6.14 (cf. also Acts 13.45; 28.19, 22 with Luke 2.34 [see ad loc.]).

36

The Gospel According to Luke

If one wants to bring this result into dialogue with the manuscript evidence discussed above (see section 1 of the introduction), one can say, on the one hand, that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written and published successively from a publication-­technical perspective, but that they are connected, on the other hand, by a unified theological and literary concept. The Gospel of Luke was written before but not independently of Acts. 6.3 Nevertheless, the story narrated in the Gospel of Luke of the divine sending of salvation to Israel does not become through Acts “something lying altogether in the past, real history [Historie]” (Käsemann 1970, I: 199). This judgment is contradicted already by the manner in which the story of Jesus appears in Acts: (a) The summary references to the entirety of the story of Jesus can be identified as a first type of reference to the Gospel of Luke in Acts (Acts 2.22; 3.26; 10.36-­ 38; 13.23). Common to them all is a profiled interpretation of the story of Jesus, which is clearly recognizable. They present God as the acting subject and portray Jesus as the instrument of the divine action of salvation toward Israel: 2.22 (Peter’s Pentecost sermon): “Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was legitimated by God in relation to you through deeds of power, miracles, and signs, which God did through him in your midst (ἀνὴρ ἀποδεδειγμένος ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς δυνάμεσι καὶ τέρασι καὶ σημείοις οἷς ἐποίησεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ θεός), as you yourselves know.” 3.26 (Peter in Solomon’s portico to the Jerusalem λαός): “For you first (ὑμῖν πρῶτον) God has raised up his servant Jesus Christ, and he has sent him as one who blesses you by turning every one of you from your wickedness (ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εὐλογοῦντα ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἀποστρέφειν ἕκαστον ἀπὸ τῶν πονηριῶν ὑμῶν).” 10.36-­38 (Peter in the house of Cornelius): “He (sc. God) sent the word to the children of Israel by gospeling peace through Jesus Christ (τὸν λόγον ἀπέστειλεν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ εὐαγγελιζόμενος εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) . . . what happened in all Judea, starting from Galilee after the baptism that John offered: Jesus of Nazareth—­how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power; he went around and did good and made well all who were oppressed by the devil (ὡς ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ δυνάμει, ὃ διῆλθεν εὐεργετῶν καὶ ἰώμενος πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου), for God was with him.” 13.23 (Paul in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch): “From his (sc. David’s) offspring God has brought Jesus as Savior for Israel according to the promise (ἤγαγεν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ σωτῆρα Ἰησοῦν).” Verse 26 takes this up with “the word of this salvation was sent to us (ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης ἐξαπεστάλη [passivum divinum]).”



Introduction 37

(b) These actualizations of the story of Jesus are continued in 2.23-­24; 10.39-­40; and 13.27-­31 through recollections of Jesus’s fate of suffering and resurrection, which Luke configures with the help of the so-­called contrast schema (see also 3.13-­15; 4.10; 5.30, where this schema stands alone; in 3.17b-­18 it is related exclusively to the suffering of Jesus). Here, too, Jesus’s fate of resurrection is constantly expressed as an action of God on him. (c) By contrast, in Acts there are only very few references back to details of the story of Jesus: This applies primarily to the sayings tradition. While in Acts 13.25; 19.4 the saying of John the Baptist from Luke 3.16 is quoted or, rather, referenced, there is not a single saying of Jesus from the Gospel of Luke that is recalled in Acts (the saying of Jesus quoted in Acts 11.6 is from Acts 1.5). The saying of the Lord that the Lukan Paul invokes in his farewell speech to the Ephesian presbyters in Miletus (20.35: “it is more blessed to give than to receive”) stands neither in the Gospel of Luke nor does it come at all from Jesus, but is a proverb from Greco-­ Roman tradition (cf. Barrett 1994/1998, II: 983–­84). From the narrative tradition there are references—­apart from the vague reference to Luke 3.22 in Acts 4.27 (“your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed”)—­ only to events of the Lukan passion and Easter narrative. In Acts 1.16 (“. . . Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus”) there is a reference to Luke 22.47, in Acts 3.14 to Luke 23.13-­25, and in Acts 4.27-­28 (see at 22.66–­23.56) in the very general sense to the events on the day of Jesus’s death narrated in Luke 22.66–­23.49, though an intentional reference back to 23.34 can perhaps be recognized in 3.17b (κατὰ ἄγνοιαν ἐπράξατε) and 13.27 (τοῦτον ἀγνοήσαντες). In 5.32; 10.41-­42; 13.31 the readers can perceive a reference to the appearance reported in Luke 24.36-­49, which made the disciples witnesses of the resurrection. The back references to this scene have the function of lending credibility to the resurrection witness of the missionaries in the narrated rhetorical situations.

It is obvious that these findings disprove the judgment of Käsemann quoted above. The concern is not with untheological “history” (Historie) in the sense of Käsemann, as is already shown by the fact that in the summary references to the entirety of the story of Jesus Luke consistently furnishes the activity of Jesus (section [a]) with a profiled theological interpretation, namely that God himself is the one who in the activity of Jesus acted toward Israel for salvation and that God is represented in an authentic way by Jesus. This interpretation is also attested in the Gospel of Luke at many points (e.g., Luke 1.17, 76; 5.17-­26; 7.16; 8.39; 9.43a; 18.43; see further Squires 1993, 90ff), and, correspondingly, it establishes a fundamental theological continuity between the two books of Luke–­Acts that encompasses the historical successiveness of the events narrated in them.

38

The Gospel According to Luke

Moreover, this interpretation obtains its individual profile through the fact that Luke integrates Jesus’s suffering and resurrection into it and presents them as part of God’s salvific action toward Israel with which the promises of Scripture are fulfilled (cf. also Acts 17.2-­3 and 26.22-­23). The reason that Luke places the resurrection of Jesus preeminently at the center (cf. Acts 1.22; 4.2, 33; 10.40-­41; 17.18, 31; 24.21) in the witnesses’ proclamation of Christ probably resides in the fact that it is above all the resurrection that establishes the special character of the messianic reign of Jesus, namely that Jesus sits “on the throne of his father David” and “will rule over the house of Jacob into eternity and that his reign will have no end” (Luke 1.32-­33). Without the resurrection the story of Jesus’s activity and fate in Israel would remain threatened by the misunderstanding of the Emmaus disciples—­namely, that Jesus was no more than a prophet who was “powerful in deed and word before God and the whole people” (Luke 24.19), but had otherwise suffered the same fate as many prophets already had before him, who were likewise put to death by the wielders of power in Israel (v. 20). This meaning that Luke assigns to the story of Jesus is present wherever he characterizes the proclamation of Christ as proclamation of the kingdom of God (Acts 8.12; 19.8/10; 20.21/25; 28.23, 31), for he had already previously presented the proclamation of Jesus as such in the Gospel (Luke 4.43; 8.1; 9.11; 16.16; see also 9.2, 60). Beyond this, the same holds true for the texts in which Luke, in further theological compression, narrates only that “the Messiah Jesus” (5.42), “the Lord Jesus” (11.20), “the word of the Lord” (15.35), or even only “Jesus” (8.35) is proclaimed (see also Delling 1972/1973, 386). From this it also follows that this interpretation is to be supplied whenever Luke says that on the basis of this proclamation people believe “in Jesus,” “in his name,” “in the Lord,” or simply “believe” (e.g., 3.16; 4.4; 5.14; 8.12; 10.43; 11.17; 13.12; 14.23; 16.15, 31; 18.8; 20.21; 24.24; 26.18). Luke indicates to the readers what is meant by this in the summary references to the entirety of the story of Jesus quoted above. Moreover, this interpretation also extends beyond the narrated world into the presents of all readers of Luke–­Acts, since for Luke they too, of course, believe nothing other than what was proclaimed by the witnesses of Jesus. There should be no need to emphasize that this matter is of fundamental hermeneutical significance precisely because it places the story of Jesus narrated in the Gospel of Luke in the light of the faith of all readers of Luke–­Acts. Thus, the story of Jesus of the Gospel of Luke and its reception in Acts mutually interpret one another. First, the aforementioned texts of Acts function as exemplary theological interpretations of the story of Jesus. Their hermeneutical significance consists in the fact that they enduringly



Introduction 39

preserve the story of Jesus from sinking into mere history. The theological meaning that Luke attaches to the references to the story of Jesus in the mission speeches also demonstrates that he wants his narrative of Jesus to be understood not merely “as the historical basis, which comes to the kerygma as a second thing” (so Conzelmann 1977, 3). Rather, for Luke the narrative of Jesus is an integral component of the kerygma itself. Second, the Lukan story of Jesus unpacks for the believing readers of Luke–­Acts what sort of words and deeds it was in which the sending of God’s message of peace for Israel (10.36) and his salvific action toward Israel (13.23, 26) took form. Luke can restrict himself in Acts to reproducing only “the outline of the Jesus event” (Delling 1972/1973, 389) solely because he can presuppose that his readers known his πρῶτος λόγος (Acts 1.1) and therefore know what is meant in each case. Therefore, for Luke, without knowledge of the story of Jesus not only would Acts be incomprehensible at decisive points, but also the Christian faith would not know what it is directed toward. Here, the historical successiveness of the story of Jesus and the story of the proclamation of Christ, which is reproduced by the literary successiveness of the two books of Luke–­Acts, is bridged kerygmatically: The story of Jesus is reactualized not only in the proclamation of its witnesses, whose story Luke narrates in the second book, but it “overtakes” in a way the time of the witnesses and is present in its Lukan interpretation wherever Jesus Christ is proclaimed and believed.

40

The Gospel According to Luke

9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem Most other commentaries and most of the remaining Luke literature assume that a new main section begins with 9.51. To support this view, they appeal to the division that Luke signals with this verse. He is said now to take the end of the story of Jesus in Jerusalem into consideration and to give Jesus’s peregrination, which up to now was rather directionless, a specific direction. Against this assumption, it has been objected (cf. e.g., Zahn 396; von Bendemann 2001, 132ff) that the episode that follows in 9.51-­56 is closely connected thematically with what is narrated in 9.37-­50 (both here and there Jesus corrects misunderstandings of the disciples) and that Luke required Jesus’s directedness to Jerusalem simply for short-­ term narrative reasons (so that there would be reason for the rejection in Samaria narrated in v. 53). Accordingly, the counter-­thesis states that with 9.51 Luke merely demarcates two episodes within a larger narrative collecting basin (cf. also Klostermann 95). Against the aforementioned objections, however, one must assert in support of the majority position that with the phrasing ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήμψεως αὐτοῦ in 9.51a, Luke signals a deep structuring division, because he thereby directs the view of the readers in a new, previously unknown direction: from the spatial breadth into which 8.1-­3 had led them to the future (see further at 9.51). In comparison with 9.31, where there was likewise talk of Jesus’s ‘departure,’ the narrative advancement consists in the fact that in 9.51a Luke no longer speaks of Jesus’s future fate only on the level of reported speech but also on the level of the narrated action. That the statement of 9.51 functions also as the introduction for the following episode does not have to contradict this. In any case, it is also a piece of information that the narrator gives to the readers and that remains withheld from the disciples. One can infer from the absence of any further explanation that Luke assumes readers who know what is meant by the ἀνάλημψις of Jesus (see below at 9.51). The disciples, by contrast, do not learn where the journey leads until 18.31-­33, although they fail to understand anything of this. In any case, with 9.51 we come to one of the greatest riddles of Luke–­ Acts, the so-­called “travel narrative” of the Gospel of Luke. This designation occurs for the first time in Schleiermacher 2001 [1817], 102 (for a detailed overview of scholarship, cf. above all von Bendemann 2001, 6–­44; F. Noël 2004, 15–­139). While Schleiermacher and many others after him regarded the “travel narrative” as coming from a pre-­Lukan source, the majority of scholars assume today that we are dealing with a portion of Luke’s story of Jesus that has been created by Luke himself.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 41

If one wants to anchor it in the outline of Mark, then we find the following. Luke has the “travel narrative” begin after Mark 9.40 (“whoever is not against us is for us”; cf. Luke 9.50), and in Luke 18.15 he takes up again the thread of Mark with Mark 10.13 (the section Luke 9.51–­18.14 found in between is considered the so-­ called ‘great insertion’). The portion of Mark that lies between the departure from the Markan Vorlage and its taking up again, namely Mark 9.41–­10.12, is lacking in Luke (the so-­called ‘small omission’). There are correspondences only to Mark 9.42, 49–­50, namely in 17.1–­2; 14.34; 16.18, but these are all based on Q.

When one views the travel narrative as a portion of Luke’s story of Jesus that he has created, the question of its literary and theological position arises, of course, immediately. Three connections of problems are especially the object of discussions that are extremely aporetic in part: (a) the end of the travel narrative, (b) its literary composition, and (c) its theological profile. (a) With reference to the question of the end of the travel narrative, the spectrum of proposals (see also the survey in von Bendemann 2001, 65ff) reaches from 18.30 (e.g., Zahn) via 18.35 (e.g., Nolland), 19.10 (e.g., Marshall; Mayer 1996), 19.27/28 (e.g., Bovon; Fitzmyer; C. F. Evans; Johnson; Wiefel; Kremer; Sellin 1978; Baum 1993; F. Noël 2004) and 19.44 (e.g., Bock II: 957ff; v. d. Osten-­Sacken 1973, 476–­96; Moessner 1989; Denaux 1993; Korn 1993, 87–­88) to 19.46 (e.g., Kariamadam 1987; Matera 1993), 19.48 (e.g., Schleiermacher 2001, 101; Creed; Green; Egelkraut 1976) or even 21.38 (e.g., Meynet). This variety is based on the fact that there is no note of arrival that corresponds to the note of departure in 9.51. After Luke has spoken again of Jesus drawing near to the city in 19.41 (καὶ ὡς ἤγγισεν ἰδὼν τὴν πόλιν), he takes up the narrative thread again in 19.45 and tells the reader that Jesus enters the temple. Thus, he presupposes here that by now Jesus has arrived in Jerusalem. However, from the motif parallels to the narrative of Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem (19.26-­46), we can see that the fixed repertoire of the entrance of rulers into a city included the fact that this entrance ended in the temple of the respective city (attestations at 19.45-­46). This circumstance would indeed permit the peregrination to Jerusalem begun in 9.51 to end only in 19.45-­46. Nevertheless, more speaks for the view that Luke already ends the travel narrative with 18.34. In favor of this assumption, one can invoke the fact that the section that begins with Jesus’s arrival in Jericho differs from 9.51–­18.34 in an important respect. This is the first time a place name is mentioned again (Jericho), and Jesus’s subsequent approach to Jerusalem is carefully staged topographically: from “near to Jericho” (18.35) via “Jericho” (19.1), “near to Jerusalem” (19.11), “near to Bethphage and Bethany on the Mount of Olives” (19.29), and “near to the descent from

42

The Gospel According to Luke

the Mount of Olives” (19.37), until the city finally comes into view (19.41) and Jesus goes into the temple (19.45); cf. also the multiple repetitions of ἐγγύς and cognates (18.35; 19.11, 29, 37, 41). In contrast, between 9.51 and 18.34 Luke had not assigned a single episode to a specific place that he had identified by name. If specifications about places occur at all, they remain undetermined: ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (9.57); in a village (κώμη τις) (10.38); ἐν τόπῳ τινί (11.1); “at the table of” (παρά) a Pharisee (11.37; see also v. 53); ἐν μιᾷ τῶν συναγωγῶν (13.10); in the οἶκος of a leading Pharisee (14.1); “in a village” (εἴς τινα κώμην) on the way through (διὰ μέσον) Samaria and Galilee (17.11-­12). This topographic unspecificity of Luke’s Jesus narrative changes with 18.35 in a sudden and lasting way; therefore, there is a great deal of support for placing a structuring division before this verse, even though Jesus has not yet come to Jerusalem by then. Plus, with the sayings on discipleship in 9.57-­62 and 18.28-­30 and with 9.51 (πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ) and 18.31 (ἀναβαίνομεν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ), Luke has placed a nice frame around it. (b) A composition that would give the entirety of the travel narrative a recognizable structure is not discernable (cf. von Bendemann 2001, 74ff). The two travel summaries in 13.22 and 17.11 also do not have the function of structuring the travel narrative into three main parts, for in each case they specify only the scenic background for the immediately following episodes (see ad loc. respectively). The insignificance of these notes (with the exception, of course, of 9.51) for a structuring of the travel narrative can also be recognized in the fact that the phases of narration formed through them remain interchangeable with one another. It would have been possible for Luke to have recounted what Jesus says and does in 13.21–­17.10 before 13.22 or after 17.11 without there being much of a change to the character of the whole. The ‘small’ travel notes in 10.38 (ἐν δὲ τῷ πορεύεσθαι αὐτούς) and 14.25 (συνεπορεύοντο δὲ αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί) also merely have the function of providing an occasion for the episode that follows in each case, namely the entrance into Martha’s house and the speech about the conditions of discipleship. Beyond this, of course, these travel notes have the function of keeping the frame situation of the journey to Jerusalem (see also 13.33), which was mentioned for the first time in 9.51, present in the readers’ consciousness. A great number of interpreters (cf. the overview in F. Noël 2004, 46ff) assume that Luke has composed the travel narrative chiastically (thus according to the schema a/b/ . . . /n/n/ . . . b/a) or concentrically (thus according to the schema (a/b/ . . . /n/ . . . /b/a). The proposals regarding this approach, however, have in common the fact that there are no linguistic (or emic) signals in the text itself that suggest such a compositional principle. Rather, all the criteria are always obtained on the level



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 43

of meta-­linguistic (or etic) constructions, which sometimes move very far from the surface of the texts. Plus, an ancient author with the aids available to him was probably scarcely in a position to give such an extensive amount of text a chiastic or concentric structure. Apart from the double frame that Luke placed around the whole with 9.51 // 18.31 and 9.57-­62 // 18.28-­30 (see section [a] above), there are no signals to be found for a structuring of the “travel narrative” in its entirety. The compositional hand of the narrator is only recognizable where thematically related traditions are placed together. The topic of prayer stands at the center in 11.1-­13, while 12.13-­34 and 16.1-­31 are concerned with the proper handling of riches and possessions and 12.13-­21, 35-­46, 54-­59 with the proper evaluation of the time. Both topics overlap in 12.13-­21. In 14.1-­24 all the texts circle around the topic of banquets and dinners, while Luke joins three parables on the topic losing and finding again into a speech in 15.1-­32. Another structuring principle resides in the fact that Luke lets the addressees of Jesus’s speeches alternate. In 12.1–­13.9 he constructs a scene in which Jesus is surrounded by his disciples and a massive crowd. Here Jesus delivers longer and shorter speeches that are alternately addressed to the disciples and the crowd: 1c-­12: disciples / 13-­21: crowd / 22-­53: disciples / 54–­13.9: crowd. The speeches are held together by two topics—­ money and possessions (12.13-­34) and judging the time (12.35-­46, with reference to the disciples, as the time of readiness for the return of the Lord; 12.54–­13.9, with reference to the crowd, as the time that still remains for repentance). This rhythm is configured even more clearly in 14.25–­18.30. Luke initially has Jesus give a speech about the conditions of discipleship, which is directed to the public (ὄχλοι πολλοί; v. 25). Afterwards, the addressees who fulfill these conditions always alternate with ones who do not fulfill them (cf. the overview in the introduction to 14.25–­18.34). (c) If the previous discussion of the theological profile of the travel narrative had a benefit, it consists in the knowledge that it is not possible to assign a distinct theological intention to this part of the Lukan Jesus narrative. Therefore, one can say neither that through the travel narrative “Jesus’s consciousness of suffering . . . is expressed as a journey” (Conzelmann 1977, 57) nor that “the Jesus who is going there (gives) his disciples a testament for the time of the church” and “presents the journey of Jesus proleptically as a type of the future missionary existence of the church (Acta)” (Sellin 1978, 134–­35). The synopsis produced by C. F. Evans 1955, 42ff does not allow the conclusion that the Lukan travel narrative intends to be something like a Christian Deuteronomy with Jesus being presented here as a new Moses, nor does Luke narrate Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem as “the New Exodus from the glory of the mountain of

44

The Gospel According to Luke

revelation to his exaltation in the glory of God in the Kingdom of God” (Moessner 1989, 284)—­to give only a small selection of the profiled answers to the question of the theological intention of the travel narrative (for the last two interpretations cf. the critical discussion in Denaux 1997). It corresponds to this that, while Jesus’s peregrination from 9.51 has a goal, and Luke even repeats twice that Jesus is on the way to Jerusalem (13.22; 17.11), this fact does not actually have any consequences, for Luke lets Jesus do exactly what has characterized his activity since 8.1—­namely, traveling around proclaiming. Neither the fact that Jesus is traveling nor the fact that he is journeying to Jerusalem has a significance—­with very few exceptions—­for the understanding of his words and actions. This is why the question does, in fact, arise of whether it would not be better to abandon the designation “Reisebericht” (travel narrative). K. L. Schmidt 1964, 269 had already drawn attention to the fact that Jesus and his disciples on their “travels” to Jerusalem do not make headway and that the episodes compiled here “are not only placeless but also timeless” (270). On the other hand, the readers know since 9.51 that Jesus is on the way to Jerusalem with his disciples. They are explicitly reminded of this fact two more times in 13.22 and 17.11. To this extent, the fact of their being-­on-­the-­way-­to-­Jerusalem does form the constantly present background of this part of the Lukan story of Jesus, though without Luke conveying to the readers the specific places at which the individual episodes are to be located. It is therefore advisable to specify the intention of the travel narrative in a purely narrative-­pragmatic manner and to make the characteristic that is common to all the episodes of the travel narrative between 9.51 and 18.34 into the dominant feature, namely the placelessness (cf. already K. L. Schmidt 1964, 270; Klostermann, 110). On the basis of this characteristic, Luke can use these episodes to fill the fictional temporal and topographical space in the readers’ imagination that he needs to bring Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem. The abundance of the material suggests the required duration of the journey, and the local unspecificity of the individual traditions makes them into literary travel-­events that correspond to the presupposed number of the frequently changing journey stations and settings. Moreover, in this way Luke finds a plausible narrative location for the abundance of Jesus traditions not bound to a place that were available to him alongside the Gospel of Mark. This result is not too far from what Blinzler 1953, 41 wrote more than sixty years ago: His (sc. Luke’s) whole travel narrative . . . consists, in reality, of verses 9.51-­56; 13.22; and 17.11 with the following pericope. The author Luke would undoubtedly



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 45

have preferred to provide a coherent, running report. But in view of his sources he was not in a position to do so. It could not remain hidden from him that the material of his sources represented individual pieces from different historical contexts. For this reason he guards himself against specific topographical assignments and chronological brackets and remains content with the aforementioned pair of redactional notices.

9.51-­56: An Inhospitable Samaritan Village 51

But it happened when the days of his being taken up were being completed, he decided to go to Jerusalem. 52And he sent messengers before his face. And they set out and came into a village of the Samaritans in order to make preparations for him. 53And they did not receive him because he was on the way to Jerusalem. 54But when the disciples James and John found out, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55But he turned around and rebuked them. 56And they went into another village. This episode is also a discipleship story. Its theme is the dissonance between Jesus and the two Zebedees. Thus, the series of stories that illustrate the disciples’ lack of understanding is continued. This orientation of the small narrative is recognizable in the fact that it makes do without a saying of Jesus and merely reports that Jesus rejects the suggestion of the two disciples. In the manuscript tradition the narrative was made into a pronouncement story secondarily through the insertion of a saying of Jesus between v. 55 and v. 56. 51 Temporal specifications with ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ + infinitive occur in the New Testament only in Luke (see at 1.8-9). The continuation through καὶ αὐτός + aorist is also found in 8.22; 24.15 (after καὶ ἐγένετο). It is decisive that συμπληροῦσθαι is present here, for duration and simultaneity are brought to expression in this way (cf. Luke 1.8; 2.6; 5.1; 11.27; 18.35; Acts 19.1; see also Mark 4.4; BDR §404.1). Luke thus takes a linear event into view that provides the temporal and situational framework for the punctiliar episode. The expression συμπληροῦσθαι + “days” (or “years”) is a metaphorical breviloquence. The notion of the completion of a certain number of days or years (cf. just the usage in the Septuagint: 2 Chronicles 36.21; 1/3 Ezra 1.55; Jeremiah 25.12A; DanielTheodotion 9.2) stands in the background. Luke thus wishes to say that the event narrated in 51b took place when ‘the number of the days of his being taken up were being completed.’ The conclusion of this event is still outstanding (contra von Bendemann 2001, 135–­36, who has Jesus look back here to the transfiguration, but without giving sufficient attention to the significance

46

The Gospel According to Luke

of the tense); for demarcation cf. the aorist phrasings in Luke 1.23, 57; 2.6, 21, 22 (with συμπληροῦσθαι: Jeremiah 25.12A), which all mark the already completed conclusion of a period of time. In this sense the parallel in Acts 2.1 (καὶ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς πεντηκοστῆς) also designates the arrival of the day of Pentecost and not its completion (in 2.15 Peter notes only the third hour). Luke uses this term to summarize the whole time until Jesus’s ascension (for the understanding of ἀνάλημψις in this sense cf. Acts 1.2, 11, 22; 1 Timothy 3.16; Mark 16.19; see also Zwiep 1997, 80ff; F. Noël 2004, 221ff). With this connection Luke opens up to the readers a perspective that not only extends beyond the arrival at Jerusalem but also beyond the passion story and precisely in this way lets Jesus’s suffering and death step into the light of his installation into his heavenly exalted position. Accordingly, the disciples’ lack of understanding is not removed until Jesus’s ascension (see at 24.52). In the background stands the notion of the measure of time determined by God’s previous plan. Every event takes place only at the point in time that God has previously assigned to it (cf. Stuhlmann 1983, 19ff). Accordingly, by the plural “the days (of his being taken up)” Luke means the number of days that God has fixed until the ascension of Jesus (see also Baum 1993). Imitation of Septuagintal style is not only καὶ αὐτός (e.g., Genesis 45.26; 49.10, 13, 20), but also τὸ πρόσωπον στηρίζειν, which is frequently part of threat sayings and judgment sayings (Jeremiah 21.10; Ezekiel 6.2; 13.17; 21.2, 7; 25.2; 28.21; 29.2; 38.2; see also with another reference Isaiah 50.7). Against the assumption that in this way Luke wanted to indirectly announce the judgment over Jerusalem (e.g., C. A. Evans 1993a with reference to Ezekiel 21.7) stands the fact that this phrasing is always constructed with ἐπί in the Septuagint (for this reason W. Bauer 1988, 1533; G. Harder, ThWNT 7:654 are also misleading), whereas in Luke a telic infinitive follows, for which there are no parallels in the Septuagint. In contrast, it is more likely that one should reckon with a Hebraism here, ֶ ‫ׂשּום‬/‫)ׂשים‬ ִ is often for the Hebrew equivalent of this expression (‫ת־]ּפנִ ים‬ ָ ‫[א‬ used in a completely analogous way (i.e., with the final infinitive of a verb of going + specification of place): 2 Kings 12.18 (‫ ַל ֲעלֹות‬to Jerusalem); Jeremiah 42.15, 17; 44.12 (‫ ָלבֹא‬to Egypt); see also Daniel 11.17, 18 and G. Lohfink 1971, 216; F. Noël 2004, 229ff. 52 That Luke envisaged Samaria as a territory that one had to pass through if one wanted to go from Galilee to Jerusalem (see also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 20.118) does not emerge from the text (cf. Conzelmann 1977, 58; the listings in 17.22; Acts 9.31 also cast doubt on this), but probably does emerge from Acts 1.8; 8.5, 9 (but Luke certainly did not know as much as Böhm 1999, 216ff). However, with the phrasing κώμης



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 47

Σαμαριτῶν (under the influence of Matthew 10.5, ‫ *א‬Γ Ψ f 13 and others speak of a πόλις) Luke says more than that the village was merely located in Samaria. He wants to express that it is not characterized by its location but by the identity of its inhabitants (cf., on the other side, Acts 8.5). It is doubtful whether Luke merely meant “find lodging” with the telic (cf. BDR §3691; 3922; see also Acts 20.24) ὡς ἑτοιμάσαι αὐτῷ in 52b (thus W. Bauer 1988, 640; see also Marshall 406: “in view of the large entourage with Jesus” this would have been advisable at any rate). The phrasing “messengers before his face” and the use of ἑτοιμάζειν with a dativus commodi that refers to Jesus is so strikingly reminiscent of what Luke wrote about John the Baptist in 1.17 and 7.27 (quotation of Exodus 23.20; for the phrasing [ἀποστέλλειν] πρὸ προσώπου τινός see also Exodus 33.2; Leviticus 18.24; Micah 6.4; BDR §217.1) and in 1.76 and 3.4 that this association is at least present as an undertone. In this way Luke has the disciples enter into the forerunner role of the Baptist. This assumption is also supported by the fact that in 24.47 the disciples receive the commission to do exactly what the Baptist had done—­namely, to proclaim repentance for the forgiveness of sins; and there were even baptisms later (see also Acts 2.38). 53 δέχεσθαι (“receive”) has the same meaning here as in 9.5 (see further there), and Luke narrates the refusal of hospitality in the form of a resultative jumping compression (cf. Lämmert 1975, 83). He omits everything that has to do with the ἑτοιμάσαι αὐτῷ (v. 52) of the messengers and communicates only the result of their efforts and the explanation. The reference to the Samaritan resentment directed against Jerusalem does not show only that Luke was informed about the contemporary-­historical background. Rather, he also wants to express that Jesus was not rejected because of his message but because the Samaritans viewed him first and foremost as a pilgrim going to Jerusalem, which for them, of course, makes him someone who is on the way to the wrong place to worship God (see also John 4.20; Memar Marqah 2.10; for the historical background, cf. Dexinger 1992; F. Dexinger, TRE 29: 750–­56. The linguistic agreement of τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἦν πορευόμενον εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ with 2 Samuel 17.11 (‫;פנֶ יָך ה ְֹל ִצים ַּב ְק ָרב‬ ָ LXX: τὸ πρόσωπόν σου πορευόμενον ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν) and Exodus 33.14 (‫;ּפנַ י יֵ ֵלכּו‬ ָ LXX: αὐτὸς προπορεύσομαί σου) shows that Luke wanted to place a Hebraism here. In Greek the phrasing sounds just as strange as in English. 54 James and John’s suggestion of punishing the Samaritan village for its rejection of Jesus calls to mind 2 Kings 1.10, 12 where Elijah destroys two groups of fifty in this manner (in parts of the textual tradition this reference is then also explicitly established). But Luke probably does not make direct recourse to the text of the Septuagint, for the Septuagint speaks

48

The Gospel According to Luke

of the κατεσθίειν of the fire whereas the Lukan ἀναλίσκειν corresponds to the version handed down in Lives of the Prophets 21.10: πῦρ ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ κατέβη, κἀκείνους ἀνήλωσε τὸ πῦρ ἐκ προστάγματος κυρίου (“Fire fell from heaven, and the fire destroyed those at the command of the Lord”); see also 2 Maccabees 2.10 (καταβὰν τὸ πῦρ ἀνήλωσεν τὰ ὁλοκαυτώματα [“the fire that descended destroyed the burnt offering”]); Ezekiel 15.4-­6; 19.12; Joel 1.19; 2.3; Testament of Abraham A 10.11 and elsewhere. In other texts there is also talk of the fire descending from heaven to earth with which God punishes the sinner (Genesis 19.24; Psalm 140.11; Lamentations 1.13; 2 Baruch 4.10; see also Job 1.16). 55 Jesus’s reaction is by no means anticlimactic (contra Nolland), for with it Luke reaches his narrative goal—­to show that the disciples are still very far from understanding the peculiar character of Jesus’s mission. In the process of manuscript transmission the text was supplemented so that the episode ended with a saying of Jesus: “And he said, ‘You do not know of which spirit you are. (Or, ‘Do you not know . . . ?’) The Son of Man has not come to destroy people’s lives but to save them’” (D Epiph [both only the first sentence] Κ Γ Θ f 1,13 [579], 700, 2542 Marcion and others [in part with slight differences]). Along with the fact that the second sentence can be easily identified as an import from 19.10, these additions are too poorly attested to be regarded as original.

56 The question—discussed in older works—of whether Jesus now moved on to a non-­Samaritan village (e.g., Zahn) or to a “hospitable Samaritan village” (Klostermann 112; see also Conzelmann 1977, 57) misses the intention of the episode, for its topic is not the relation of Jesus to the Samaritans but the disciples’ lack of understanding. Thus, this verse is nothing more than a note that concludes the episode. 9.57-­62: Consequences of Discipleship 57

And as they were going along the way someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” 58And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” 59 And he said to another, “Follow me!” But he said, “Permit me to go first to bury my father.” 60But he said to him, “Let the dead bury their dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” 61 But another also said, “I will follow you, Lord. But let me first say farewell to those in my house.” 62But Jesus said to him, “No one who has placed his hand on the plow and looks backward is suitable for the kingdom of God.”



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 49

Luke compiles three apophthegmatic dialogue scenes that all deal with the topic of discipleship (cf. the recurrence of ἀκολουθήσω σοι or ἀκολούθει μοι at the beginning of every dialogue in vv. 57b, 59a, 61a). The situation of all three dialogues is “on the way” (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ; v. 57)—­namely “to Jerusalem,” as the readers could supply from v. 51. There are parallels in Matthew 8.19b-­22 to the first two scenes (more precisely to vv. 57b-­60a), though with different dialogue partners (with a scribe and with a disciple) and in a different situation (before the story of the stilling of the storm, which Luke narrates in 8.22-­25). Thus, one must assume a transmission through Q, with it being disputed whether Luke 9.61-­62 was also in Q and was omitted by Matthew (e.g., Hengel 1968b, 4; Schürmann II/1: 46), whether this scene was only in the Lukan copy of Q (e.g., F. Hahn 1964, 83), whether Luke knew it independently of Q (e.g., Petzke 104ff), or whether it was created by Luke himself (e.g., Glombitza 1971; Miyoshi 1974, 41ff; Bovon). There is also a parallel in Gospel of Thomas 86 to v. 58par. Matthew 8.20. It is, of course, not by chance that Luke has configured these three dialogues in such a similarly formed way (he proceeded in a similar manner with the Standespredigt of the Baptist in 3.10-­14) and that he places them as a paratactic series at the beginning of Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem. The existential consequences that go hand in hand with the decision to enter into the discipleship of Jesus are made clear to all three dialogue partners. The three sayings of Jesus in vv. 58, 60, 62 come alongside the discipleship scenes in 5.10-­11, 27-­28 to the extent that here examples are used to concretize what it means “to leave everything” to follow Jesus. 57 The readiness, declared by the first conversation partner, to go everywhere with Jesus, i.e., to want to remain with him always, is based on an understanding of discipleship as following after someone in the actual sense (see also 9.23 and Lucian of Samosata, De morte Peregrini 24: ἕπεσθαι τῷ διδασκάλῳ καὶ συνοδεύειν [“to follow the teacher and go along (with him)”]; for analogies in Apollonius of Tyana see Hengel 1968b, 29–­30). This also includes the student leading the same way of life as his teacher (cf. also at 22.33). 58 There is a nice parallel to the answer of Jesus in Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus 9.5: “The wild animals that live in Italy have a hole (φώλεον ἔχει); each one of them has a place where it can lie down, where it can hole up, but those who fight and die for Italy have nothing except air and light. Homeless and hounded they wander with wife and child through the land. . . . Lords of the earth they are called and have not a clod of land of their own.” Common to both pairs is the inversion of status and fate. People who stand out from the average (“who fight and die for Italy” / “the Son of Man”) fare worse than the animals, although on account of their

50

The Gospel According to Luke

status they should actually fare better than other people. The background of this statement is the social uprooting that characterized the itinerant-­ charismatic manner of existence of the Jesus movement. The one who has “left everything” (Mark 10.28parr.; Luke 5.11, 28; cf. Theissen 1979, 106ff) does not even know where his bed is located; τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνειν is what one does when one wants to sleep (cf. 4 Baruch 5.2, 26; Plutarch, Moralia 760a). Thus, in the time of Jesus, discipleship also included not knowing where one would spend the next night. 59-­62 The two other dialogues are more closely connected with each other in many respects than with the first one: (a) Both dialogue partners ask Jesus for permission (ἐπίτρεψόν μοι) to be allowed to do something else “first” (πρῶτον) before they enter into discipleship—­bury the father or say farewell. (b) In both cases Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God. (c) In the last dialogue (v. 62) Jesus formulates a general principle that transcends the concrete case and is also applicable to the theme of the second dialogue (v. 59b). Whoever still wants to first bury his father before entering into discipleship is like one who guides the plow and looks backward while doing so. Both answers, which very likely go back to the historical Jesus, want to make clear that the existential orientation toward the kingdom of God authentically represented by Jesus requires radical separation from all other bonds. This radicality comes to expression above all in the hyperbolism of the two scenes insofar as a material quality is ascribed to the πρῶτον in both cases. The kingdom of God does not bind itself to an existing social structure but overrides even the most elementary social bonds. On the level of the historical Jesus this demand finds its counterpart in the pragmatic of the parables of the treasure in the field and the pearl of great price (Matthew 13.44, 45-­56) and the clever manager (see at 16.1-­7 below). 59 For Jesus’s call to discipleship see at 5.27. In Judaism the “permission” for which the one called to discipleship asks is an obligation commanded by the Torah, which belonged to the halakhot required by the fourth commandment (cf. Bill. I: 487ff; Hengel 1968b, 9ff with reference to m. Berakhot 3.1, according to which the obligation to bury one’s family members surpassed all other Torah commandments; but cf. now the criticism of this claim in Bockmuehl 1998; 2003 and Fletcher-­Louis 2003). Thus, the dialogue constructs an ideal-­typical model case. How does Jesus’s call to discipleship relate to one of the most important social obligations? 60 The interpretation of the first part of Jesus’s answer has been the object of intensive discussion (cf. the presentation of the history of interpretation in Klemm 1969/1970). Today it is usually assumed that the first νεκροί speaks metaphorically of those people who have closed their minds



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 51

to the message of Jesus (e.g., Hengel 1968b, 8–­9; Marshall; Fitzmyer; for a corresponding linguistic use, cf. 1 Timothy 5.6). However, such an explanation rather weakens the point of the dictum, for “dead” means “dead,” and Jesus says nothing other than, ‘Let the dead bury themselves!’ (see also Luz 1985–­2002, II: 25). It is therefore decisive that Luke refers the second, protreptic exhortation (it is lacking in Matthew 8.22) to the proclamation of the kingdom of God, for its coming creates a dualistically structured reality. Because there is life only in the kingdom of God, everything else bears the signature of death, and then it makes no difference whether a person is the one burying or the one who is to be buried. The point therefore consists in the fact that in light of the kingdom of God, the difference between physical life and physical death is nullified. This statement is thus based on the same understanding of reality as what is said in 9.24. 61 The construction of the third case calls to mind 1 Kings 19.20 where Elisha, who is called to be a prophet by Elijah (see at 5.27), wishes to say farewell to his parents first before he goes with Elijah (LXX: καταφιλήσω τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ ἀκολουθήσω ὀπίσω σου [“I will kiss my father and (then) I will follow after you”]); for the Lukan ἀποτάσσεσθαι in this sense cf. Mark 6.46; Acts 18.18, 21; 2 Corinthians 2.13. While Elijah allows his student and follower this request, Jesus reacts in an entirely different manner. 62 His answer comprises a peculiar mixture of figurative and literal speech. Jesus argues here with a sapiential parabolic saying. Its argumentative logic functions just like the other parabolic sayings that begin with οὐδείς and portray a behavior that no one would practice because it is absurd (cf. Mark 2.21, 22parr.; Luke 5.39 [see further there]; 8.16; 11.33; 16.13par.). To look backward while plowing is just as foolish as, e.g., filling new wine in old skins (Mark 2.22parr.) or lighting a lamp and then not putting it on a lampstand but placing it under a vessel or in a hiding place (Luke 8.16; 11.33). Thus, the parabolic saying serves here the metaphorical predication of the one who still wants to say farewell to his family members (or bury his father) before he follows Jesus. It is noteworthy that Luke makes the kingdom of God into an interpretive tool for following Jesus here, as already in v. 60. When εὔθετος + attribute is used outside the New Testament as a characteristic of humans, the concern is always with their suitability for a certain activity (e.g., Letter of Aristeas 122: πρὸς τὰς πρεσβείας [“for embassies”]; Nicolaus Comicus, Fragment 1.40 [Kock 1880–­1888]: τῷ πράγματι [“for the task”]; Diodorus Siculus 3.49.5: for running and throwing stones; 13.97.1: εἰς τὴν στρατίαν [“for the military expedition”]). In this sense the adjective here could designate both the suitability for the proclamation of the kingdom of God as part of

52

The Gospel According to Luke

following Jesus (cf. vv. 59-­60) and (more generally) a behavior that corresponds to the kingdom of God as present in Jesus. Insofar as the social function of the institution of saying farewell consists in the fact that the ones departing and the ones remaining behind affirm to each other the continuation of their fellowship also beyond the spatial distance, it is precisely the prohibition of saying farewell that makes clear the claim of exclusivity of Jesus’s understanding of discipleship. The bond to Jesus does not integrate into existing social structures but destroys them and creates new bonds (see also at 8.21 and 14.26). 10.1-­16: The Commission of the Seventy-­Two 1

But thereafter the Lord appointed seventy-­two and sent them in pairs before him into every town and place where he himself wanted to go. 2 And he said to them, “The harvest is great, but the workers are few. Ask therefore the Lord of the harvest to send workers into his harvest. 3 Go! Behold, I send you as lambs among wolves. 4Take along no money bag, no provision sack, no shoes, and greet no one on the street. 5But when you come into a house say first, ‘Peace upon this house!’ 6And if there is a son of peace there, your peace will rest on him. But if not, it will come back upon you. 7But remain in the same house, eat and drink what they give (you), for the worker is worthy of his wage. Do not go from house to house. 8And when you come into a house and they receive you, eat what is set before you, 9and heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10But if you come into a town and they do not receive you, then go out on their streets and say, 11‘Even the dust that hangs on our feet from your town we wipe off against you. But know this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12I say to you: It will have been more bearable for Sodom on that day than for this town. 13 “Woe to you, Chorazin; woe to you, Bethsaida. For if the deeds of power that have taken place among you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they would have long since repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you. 15And you, Capernaum, will you be raised up to heaven? To the underworld you will descend! 16 “Whoever hears you hears me, and whoever rejects you rejects me. But whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” The episode begins with a short introduction in which Luke reports that Jesus sends seventy-­two “others” in pairs into the places that are located on his way to Jerusalem (v. 1). He does not, however, actually send them



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 53

before him, for it emerges from v. 17 that he did not follow them but awaited their return to the place and spot. On the occasion of this commissioning Luke has him give a longer speech, which is composed of two parts. In vv. 2b-­12 Jesus gives the ones who are commissioned instructions for the way that call to mind the instructions that he had given the twelve in 9.3-­5. They refer to their equipment and to their behavior on the way (v. 4) and in the houses and cities into which they will come (vv. 5-­11). The instructions in v. 4b and v(v). 5(-­7) are related to one another antithetically. The messengers should not be active on the street but rather in the houses. Verses 8-­9 and vv. 10-­11(12) are also designed as oppositions. This part of the speech has close connections to Matthew 9.37–­10.15 and with relatively great unanimity it is assumed that here Luke mainly reproduces the Q version of the mission discourse, while he has primarily oriented himself toward Mark 6.7-­13 in 9.1-­6 (cf. Hoffmann 1972, 235–­334 and the introductory comments on 9.1-­6). Luke could have taken over the division of those sent out into groups of two (v. 1) from Mark 6.7 or from Q. It is very likely that all the texts report the same event, so that the narrative of a second commission must be regarded as a Lukan construct. The speech concludes with an authorization formula (v. 16) that Luke likewise derived from Q, but revised considerably (cf. Matthew 10.40; but see also Luke 9.48apar. Mark 9.37). Inserted into the speech are two woes against Chorazin and Bethsaida and a threat against Capernaum (vv. 13-­15) that in terms of their theme—­ they provide a retrospective on Jesus’s activity in three Galilean cities—­do not actually fit with the sending out of the messengers. The parallel in Matthew 11.21-­23b shows that these verses also come from Q. They are connected via the comparative ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται . . . ἤ (v. 14par. Matthew 11.22) with the judgment saying against “that town” from the mission discourse, and this probably caused Luke to place them at this point. The reconstruction of the Q text has been discussed for a long time; a consensus is not in sight. There are parallels to v. 2 in Gospel of Thomas 73 (“The harvest is great, but there are few workers there. But ask the Lord to send out workers to the harvest”) and to vv. 8-­9a in Gospel of Thomas 14.4 (“And when you go into some land and wander from place to place [and] when they receive you, eat what they will set before you. Heal the sick among them!”); dependence on Lukan redaction is likely in the last saying mentioned.

1 ἀναδείκνυμι is a terminus technicus for the assignment of a certain task (see at 1.80). The designation of the ones sent out as “others” refers to 9.1-­2 and demarcates the seventy-­two from the twelve sent out there.

54

The Gospel According to Luke

Unlike the twelve, the seventy-­two are sent into certain places. The principle that determines the selection of these places is clearly recognizable. ἀπέστειλεν . . . πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ (see at 9.52b) and the specification of the places through οὗ ἤμελλεν αὐτὸς ἔρχεσθαι refer back to 9.51-­52a and thereby make them into places that are located on the way of Jesus to Jerusalem. Thus, here, too, the goal of the journey mentioned in 9.1 is present beneath the surface. The phrasing with μέλλειν both here and in 7.2; 9.31; 19.4; John 4.47; 12.33; 18.32; Acts 12.6; 16.27; 27.33; Hebrews 11.8 considers the future from the perspective of the past (cf. BDR §356). The manuscript tradition is divided with regard to the number of those sent out, namely between ἑβδομήκοντα δύο (𝔓75 B D 0181 and others) and ἑβδομήκοντα (‫ א‬A C D L W f 1,13 Θ Ξ Ψ 33 𝔐 and others). The external evidence is roughly even (for a more extensive overview cf. Verheyden 2005, 197ff), so that internal criteria must determine the issue. They make it likely that the number seventy-­two was original, for a change to seventy is easier to explain than the reverse. This applies both to the emergence of the variant due to an oversight (the unintentional omission of δύο is easier to imagine than a secondary addition; cf. also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 12.57 after Antiquitates judaicae 12.49, 56) and in the case of a conscious correction, in which the symbolism of both numbers obtains significance (cf. Prieur 1996, 212ff). An example of this is the notion that there were seventy nations (Hebrew Testament of Naphtali 8.3ff). Correspondingly, in 1 Enoch 89.59; 90.22, 25 there is talk of seventy “shepherds” (= rulers of the people) and it says in b. Shabbat 88b that “every word that came forth from the mouth of the Holy One” was “divided into (i.e., heard in) seventy languages.” But the Hebrew text in Genesis 10 mentions not seventy and the Septuagint not seventy-­ two nations (as often claimed), but rather seventy-­one and seventy-­three (see also Krauss 1899; 1900). According to Genesis 46. 27; Exodus 1.5, the house of Jacob comprised “seventy souls” (seventy-­five according to the LXX and Acts 7.14; cf. also Jubilees 44.33: seventy children and grandchildren as well as “five who died in Egypt”; Deuteronomy 10.22). In Exodus 24.1, 9; Numbers 11.16-­17, 24 there is talk of seventy elders in Israel (cf. also Ezekiel 8.11) and it is probably for this reason that the Sanhedrin had seventy members in addition to the high priest (m. Sanhedrin 1.6). Letter of Aristeas 47–­50 mentions the seventy-­two learned Jews who translate the Torah into Greek (see also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 12.49, 57). In light of these considerations most commentators infer, probably with justification, that if one assumes an intentional correction, it is much more likely that seventy-­two was corrected to seventy than vice versa (a different position is taken by K. H. Rengstorf, ThWNT 2: 630–­31; Schneider; Schürmann); cf. also Metzger 1958/1959; Jellicoe 1959/1960. Beyond this, Verheyden 2005 draws attention to the investigation of Dreizehnter 1978, 93, according to which “in Greco-­Roman historiography . . . the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 55

head count of a self-­enclosed group (is) often specified as seventy” and “the specification that a group has seventy members indicates that this group is complete and the constitution of it concluded so that it can transition to action. Its maximal size is reached with seventy.” As examples for this use of the number seventy, Dreizehnter 1978, 93–­94, 97 mentions Xenophon, Anabasis 4.7.8; Hellenica 2.4.2 and Livy 23.17.2; 25.6.13; 26.12.19; 16.6; 30.3; the attestations could certainly be multiplied further. But whether this usage is suitable for determining the text-­critical problem and tilts the scales in favor of the originality of the number seventy (thus Verheyden 2005, 234ff) is anything but certain, for with its help one could also explain why seventy-­two was changed to seventy.

Another question is whether Luke himself wanted to ascribe a symbolic meaning to the number seventy-­two. Genesis 10LXX drops out for the reasons mentioned above, and the notion that there were seventy-­two nations on earth is not attested until after the New Testament period (for the first time in Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.22.3). The assumption that Luke wanted to anticipate here the universal mission to the Gentiles (e.g., Green; Marshall; Nolland; Bovon; von Bendemann 2001, 140) is therefore untenable (the division of the seventy-­two into thirty-­six pairs also speaks against it; see also Verheyden 2005, 220–­21). Plus, there is not the slightest doubt that the sending of the seventy-­two remains restricted to Israel, and the sending into “every town” just as little symbolizes universality (contra Hoffmann 1972, 278ff), for πᾶς is further characterized by the specifying οὗ ἤμελλεν αὐτὸς ἔρχεσθαι (see also Egelkraut 1976, 144ff). The phrase πόλις καὶ τόπος is a stereotypical combination that is attested in numerous Greek texts; cf. e.g., Demosthenes, Orationes 2.2; De corona 299; Diodorus Siculus 19.53.1; Polybius 5.34.7; 18.7.1. Therefore, one will not succeed in ascribing a symbolic meaning to the number seventy-­ two—­apart from the fact, of course, that it is a multiple of twelve, so that Luke also refers back in this way to the circle of the twelve and its sending out in 9.1-­6. Luke also distinguishes the seventy-­two from the twelve by the fact that unlike the twelve he does not give the group a designation of its own (cf., by contrast, 6.13c; Luke also never calls them “disciples”). The seventy-­two “others” are sent out in thirty-­six groups of two, which evidently projects back into the time of Jesus the early Christian practice of sending out in pairs (cf. also Acts 3.1; 8.14: Peter and John; 9.38: two men; 13.2-­3: Paul and Barnabas; 15.22: Judas and Silas; 15.40: Paul and Silas; 19.22: Timothy and Erastus; on this see Jeremias 1966, 132–­39; Ollrog 1979, 153). The Old Testament law for witnesses probably stands in the background of this practice (cf. Numbers 35.30; Deuteronomy 17.6; 19.5), according to which a matter has to be confirmed by at least two witnesses in order to be regarded as true.

56

The Gospel According to Luke

Here, too, there is a text-­critical problem. The distributive sense of a numerical adverb is either expressed (as in Mark 6.7, see also Genesis 6.19, 20; 7.3, 9; Sirach 33.15) by its doubling (cf. BDR §248.1; but see also W. Bauer 1988, 420–­21) or by ἀνὰ δύο or the like, as, e.g., in Luke 9.3, 14. Thus, the reading ἀνὰ δύο δύο found in ‫ א‬A C D L W Ξ Ψ 0181 f 1 33 𝔐 combines these two characteristics in a redundant manner; it is slightly better attested than the grammatically correct ἀνὰ δύο (𝔓75vid B K Θ f 13 565 and others). Criteria for internal textual criticism neutralize one another: ἀνὰ δύο δύο is, to be sure, lectio difficilior, but one can also explain the expansion of ἀνὰ δύο through another δύο as a secondary adjustment to Mark 6.7.

2 The speech is opened with a parabolic saying in which the harvest is used as a metaphor for a task for whose completion only a small window of time is available (2b-­c). The opposition of πολύς and ὀλίγοι accentuates the imbalance between the scope of the work that has to be done and the number of the available workers. The description of the situation presupposes that the harvest time has already begun (see also John 4.35), and the concern that the work will not be completed on time also finds expression in it. Furthermore, the specification of θερισμός by πολύς makes clear that there is not talk of the greatness of the mission field here but of the greatness of the expected yield. In the context of the proclamation of Jesus (and Q), the saying undoubtedly stood within the horizon of the near expectation. It describes Jesus’s activity in Israel, which is also described elsewhere with recourse to a harvest metaphor (cf. Luke 13.34; 11.23par. Matthew 12.30; 23.37: in each case [ἐπι]συνάγειν; see also Uro 1987, 200ff). In the Lukan context this perspective corresponds with the instruction to announce the imminent coming of the kingdom of God (vv. 9, 11). To be sure, the exhortation to petition God as the “Lord of the harvest” to send out harvest workers (2d-­e) does not fit the narrated situation or, more specifically, the addressees who were just sent into the harvest (see also at v. 7c below). Therefore, it may come from another tradition context (see also at v. 7c). 3 With the help of a hyperbolic comparison (par. Matthew 10.16a) Jesus announces to the seventy-­ two what awaits them. According to 1 Enoch 89.13-­27 the Israelites lived in Egypt as sheep among wolves, but this reference plays just as little of a role here as does Psalms of Solomon 8.23 (the pious of God as innocent lambs ἐν μέσῳ of the nations of the earth). The same picture is already found in Herodotus 4.149: ἔφη αὐτὸν καταλείψειν ὄϊν ἐν λύκοισι (“He said that he was leaving him as a sheep among wolves”). The parabolic saying is thus fed from cultural everyday knowledge, for everyone can imagine how lambs fare who stumble into a



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 57

pack of wolves. The saying originally reflected the experience of rejection of the itinerant-­charismatic messengers of Jesus (see also at 6.22). 4 The instruction on travel equipment in 4a overlaps with the corresponding instruction that Jesus gave to the twelve apostles according to 9.3—namely, in the prohibition against taking a “provision sack” (πήρα; see at 9.3). Furthermore, the instruction to not take any “money” (ἀργύριον) expressed there corresponds to the prohibition against having a βαλλάντιον here, for this is a small leather or linen bag in which a person brought his money with him (cf. K. H. Rengstorf, ThWNT 1: 523–­24; see also Luke 12.33). But the prohibition against “wearing” or “carrying” (βαστάζειν; see also Matthew 10.10) shoes (ὑποδήματα), which is explicitly allowed according to Mark 6.9, clearly goes beyond 9.3. In the literature there is no agreement about whether Jesus thereby exhorts the messengers to go barefoot (thus, e.g., Klostermann; Hoffmann 1972, 313ff; Schürmann; the opposite instruction in Mark 6.9 also lies on this level) or whether merely the bringing along of replacement shoes is forbidden (thus, e.g., Plummer; Lagrange; Nolland; Bock). Since βαστάζειν never designates the wearing of clothing on the body elsewhere, more speaks for the view that Luke at least had the latter in mind (see also the parallel in Matthew 3.11). In 22.35 the Lukan Jesus reminds the twelve (sic!) of this instruction; whoever has a money bag and a provision sack is to exchange both for a sword (22.36). The prohibition against greeting in 4b recalls 2 Kings 4.29 and could be meant as an indirect exhortation to hurry (cf. at v. 2; the explanations of Bosold 1978 and Lang 1982 lead too far away from the text). However, we are dealing in the first place with a mission-­practical instruction, for the (apotreptic) prohibition against greeting “on the way” (κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν; only in Luke in the New Testament: Acts 8.36; 25.3; 26.13) corresponds with the (protreptic) instruction on greeting that follows in v. 5 (cf. the adversative δέ; cf. Schlatter 276; Klostermann; Marshall). The messengers should make contact with people not “on the way,” i.e., on the street, but rather in the houses. The saying of peace is already attested in the Old Testament as a greeting (cf. e.g., Judges 6.23; 19.20; 2 Samuel 18.28; 2 Kings 5.22; Tobit 12.17; DanielTheodotion 10.19; in the New Testament: Luke 24.36; John 20.19, 21, 26). Here, however, it functions not merely as a wish or offer of peace (thus Bock) but rather designates the salvation of God in the sense of the Hebrew ‫( ָׁשלֹום‬see also 1.79; 2.14). Thus, the messengers are meant to proclaim nothing less than God’s salvation over the house (see also in Isaiah 52.7; Nahum 2.1; Zechariah 9.10; Acts 10.36). Luke certainly did not understand the sending of the seventy-­two into houses as a proleptic prefiguration of the conversions of houses, as narrated by him in Acts

58

The Gospel According to Luke

(contra D. L. Matson 1996, 31ff, 40ff). Unlike with the seventy-­two here, the missionaries there never go into unknown houses but always only into houses of specific people who are usually even mentioned by name (cf. Acts 10.22; 16.15, 34; 18.7). When the missionaries enter into a house in Acts, the decision about the reception of the proclamation has always already been made, and, correspondingly, they are never rejected in a house. This is entirely different with the seventy-­two, as can be seen without difficulty from the continuation.

6 is formulated against the background of the concrete experience that not every person regards the messengers as bringers of God’s salvation and receives them into their house. Only the one who does this demonstrates that he is a “son of peace” (υἱὸς εἰρήνης; BDR §162: “genitive of origin and belonging”). This designation is a Hebraizing formation by analogy—­ created with a view to the greeting of peace in v. 5—­to phrasings such as ‫“( בני רצונו‬sons of his pleasure”; 1QH IV, 32–­33); τῆς βασιλείας (Matthew 8.12; 13.38); τῆς ἀδικίας (2 Samuel 3.34; 7.10; see also PsalmLXX 88.23; Ephesians 2.2; 5.6; Colossians 3.6); ‫“( בריתו‬of his covenant” / τῆς διαθήκης: 1QM XVII, 8; Ezekiel 30.5; Psalms of Solomon 17.15); ‫אמתו‬ (“of his truth”; 1QM XVII, 8); φωτός (1 Thessalonians 5.5); τῆς ἀπωλείας (John 17.12; 2 Thessalonians 2.3); see also PsalmLXX 40.10: ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς εἰρήνης μου (parallels in the pagan Greek literature in Danker 1960/1961, 94). The different consequences also correspond to this. Luke describes the effect of the greeting of peace upon the “son of peace” with a phrasing (ἐπαναπαύεσθαι ἐπί) with which the presence of the Spirit is spoken of elsewhere (Numbers 11.25, 26; 2 Kings 2.15; 1 Peter 4.14). In the opposite case (see also 5.36)—­i.e., when it turns out that there is no “son of peace” in a house, because the messengers are not accepted as bearers of God’s salvation—­their word of salvation remains without effect. 7 The three instructions in this verse concern the behavior of the messengers after their reception into a house. The first and third (7a, d) are already known from 9.4b (see there). The second instruction in 7b (for τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν cf. Philippians 4.18; W. Bauer 1988, s.v. παρά I.4. b.α) can, if taken by itself, be understood as an exhortation to adjust to the circumstances of the respective houses (in the sense of ‘make no claims but be satisfied with what one gives you’). But the justification in 7c stands in tension with this understanding, for it legitimates, in precisely the opposite way, the entitlement to support. For this reason it does not fit very well with the narrated addressees, for its pragmatic applies not to the recipients of support but to those who should provide it (for the subject matter cf. Jeremiah 22.13; see also Harvey 1982, 220 with reference to James 5.4 and a thesis on the historical origin of the saying, which is not convincing because it cannot explain its transition into the mission discourse). With



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 59

precisely this orientation, the Lukan version of the saying is quoted as γραφή in 1 Timothy 5.18 in order to justify the view that certain elders should receive “double payment,” while Didache 13.1–­2 alludes to Matthew 10.10b in order to obligate the community to provide support for the prophets. On the other hand, in 1 Corinthians 9.14 (“so also the Lord commanded the proclaimers of the gospel to live from the gospel”) Paul appeals to this saying as an instruction directed to the recipients of support; cf. also the additional points of contact with the Lukan version of the instruction in 9.4 (“the right to eat and drink”) and 9.17-18 (μισθός). Still, the tension between the content of the explanation and its addressees cannot be interpreted away. In addition, it is noteworthy that the same tension could already be observed in the exhortation to pray for the sending of workers into the harvest (vv. 2d-­3), with which 7c is also connected through the imagery. A separate tradition-­historical connection may be recognizable here, which of course eludes every further possibility of reconstruction. In 8-­11 Luke lifts the opposition of reception and rejection of messengers from the level of the house (v. 6a/6b) to the level of the town (vv. 8-­9/ vv. 10-­11) and has Jesus instruct the messengers on what they should do in the one case and in the other. 8 The use of δέχεσθαι in 8a stands again within the scope of ancient hospitality ethics (see at 9.5). The instruction in 8b repeats what is said in v. 7b (on παρατίθημι for the serving of food see also Genesis 18.8; Proverbs 23.1; Mark 6.41; 8.6, 7; Luke 9.16; 1 Corinthians 10.27 and elsewhere). It has sometimes been interpreted as a nullification of the Jewish food halakah in the sense of Mark 7.15, 18-­19 (e.g., Zahn; Schlatter; Schürmann). This could, however, only be maintained if the sending of the messengers went beyond Israel and the entrance into non-­Jewish houses were in view here; but there is not even a hint of this (see at v. 1). Nolland rightly points to the absence of πάντα vis-­à-­vis 1 Corinthians 10.27 (see also Mark 7.21). 9 Healing of the sick and proclamation of the kingdom of God were also already connected with each other in the sending out of the twelve (see at 9.2). Unlike the twelve, for the seventy-­two the wording of their proclamation is prescribed. From v. 1 the readers have reason to expect that they will proclaim the coming of Jesus (in the words of 9:52: ὡς ἑτοιμάσαι αὐτῷ). Instead, they receive the commission to make known that the coming of the kingdom of God is near at hand (ἤγγικεν). Thus, the coming of Jesus is to be announced as the coming of God’s kingdom (see also Wolter 1995a).

60

The Gospel According to Luke

The perfect ἤγγικεν expresses that the dawning of the kingdom of God is inevitable and that it is imminent; on this cf. the New Testament parallels in Mark 14.42par. Matthew 26.45; Luke 21.20 (the encirclement of Jerusalem is the sign that its desolation “is inevitable” [ἤγγικεν]; James 5.8; 1 Peter 3.7. For the announcement of Mark 1.15 (“The kingdom of God has come near”; μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ) deleted by Luke see especially Deuteronomy 31.14 where imperatives likewise follow a perfect form of ἐγγίζειν (“ἠγγίκασιν the days of your death; call Joshua and place yourselves at the door . . .”).

Thus, the kingdom of God has come near but not yet arrived. However, as messengers sent out by Jesus, the seventy-­two become representatives of its nearness, and in their activity the nearness obtains a concrete presence. Accordingly, they can interpret their healing of the sick (they are the ones who are meant by αὐτοῖς and ὑμᾶς) as manifestations of the presence of the kingdom of God; for the use of ἐγγίζειν ἐπί that stands here for the normal dativus sociativus, see BDR §1932; Polybius 9.6.2; Hero of Alexandria, De automatis 26.4; 1 Maccabees 5.40, 42. In 10-­11 the messengers receive instructions for the opposite case—­ namely, that there is not a single “son of peace” in a town (see v. 6) and they therefore find no house into which they are received. They are to react to such rejection with a public symbolic action. ἐξέρχεσθαι εἰς τὰς πλατείας αὐτῆς is formulated from the perspective of the house; cf. the parallels in Luke 14.21; Acts 5.15; Proverbs 7.6LXX (the meaning is therefore not ‘outside the town’). For the meaning of the action of shaking the dust from one’s feet, see at 9.5. To the εἰς μαρτύριον ἐπ’ αὐτούς there corresponds here the dativus incommodi ὑμῖν (cf. BDR §188.1; W. Bauer 1988, 194 interprets: “. . . and leave it with you”). For this town the announcement that the kingdom of God has come near becomes a prophetic threat. The universal establishment of God’s kingly reign traditionally brings unsalvation to his enemies, and his enemies are now those who close their minds to the proclamation of Jesus and his messengers. 12 The parallel in Matthew 10.15 demonstrates that the preceding instruction was already supplemented in Q with a judgment saying directed to the messengers against the rejecting towns. There is also a parallel in Matthew 11.24 with which the Lukan version—­over against Matthew 10.15—­has in common the ὅτι recitativum and the absence of Gomorrah. An allusion to the destruction of Sodom is also suggested at this point because the violation of the law of hospitality belonged to the proverbial sins of Sodom (Genesis 19.4-­11); cf. e.g., Testament of Asher 7.1: “. . . Sodom, which did not recognize the messengers of the Lord and went to ruin forever” (see also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 1.11; Wisdom of Solomon 19.3-­15). Beyond this, reference is also often made to



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 61

the destruction of Sodom in announcements of judgment. In these cases a judgment of destruction “like” the destruction of Sodom is usually announced (cf. Isaiah 1.7; 3.9; 13.19; Jeremiah 23.14; 49.18; 50.40; Amos 4.11; Zephaniah 2.9; see also 2 Maccabees 2.5; Jubilees 16.6, 9; 36.10; Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 7.12). In comparison, Jesus threatens the town that rejects his messengers with something worse. He announces, however, not another destruction of Sodom but that its destruction narrated in Genesis 19.24-­25 will prove to be “more bearable” (ἀνεκτότερον; see also v. 14; Matthew 10.15; 11.22, 24) in comparison with the future fate of unsalvation of that town. “That day” (ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη; see also 2 Thessalonians 1.10) is the day of God’s eschatic action of destruction on which he eliminates and destroys everything that resists him (cf. Brandenburger 1991, 27). Phrasings such as “day of the Lord” (e.g., Isaiah 2.12; Joel 1.15; Amos 5.18; Malachi 3.23; 1 Thessalonians 5.2; 2 Thessalonians 2.2); “. . . of wrath” (Zephaniah 1.15, 18; Ezekiel 22.24; Romans 2.5; Revelation 6.17); “. . . of judgment” (Matthew 10.15; 11.22, 24; 12.36; 2 Peter 2.9; 3.7); and “the great day” (Jude 6; Revelation 6.17; 16.14) are semantically isotopic. The propositional content of this announcement is that the rejection of the messengers of Jesus is worse than the sin of Sodom (cf. also Lamentations 4.6; Ezekiel 16.48-­49). The reason is added in v. 16—­because in rejecting the messengers of Jesus the inhabitants of that town have ultimately rejected God. Thus, the reference to Sodom has the function of rhetorically intensifying the interpretation of the rejection of the messengers as an offense against God. But insofar as it is a saying that is said to the messengers, its pragmatic intention is directed at assuring them of their authorization by God and at strengthening their sense of mission (on this cf. Wolter 2002a, 370ff). It is therefore also very well suited to compensate for experiences of rejection. 13-­14 The same holds true for the woes against Chorazin and Bethsaida, which take up the phrasings ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται . . . ἤ (14) from the judgment saying against “that town” (cf. Wolter 2002a, 379–­80), for as elements of the mission discourse they have two addressees—­the inhabitants of the two towns and the seventy-­two messengers before whose ears they are spoken (for the genre of the woes see at 6.24-­26). While Bethsaida (see at 9.10), or at least its surroundings, appear as a location of miracle traditions in the Gospels (cf. Mark 8.22), no Jesus tradition is connected with Chorazin. This place is also not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament or in Early Jewish literature. Eusebius of Caesarea locates it in a distance of “two mile stones” (i.e., just over three kilometers) from Capernaum (Onomasticon, GCS XI/1, Eusebius Werke III/1: 174.23–­25). Jerome writes that Chorazin, Capernaum, Tiberias, and

62

The Gospel According to Luke

Bethsaida were located in . . . littore “on the . . . shore” of the Lake of Gennesaret (Commentarius in Isaiam III on Isaiah 9.1 [PL 24.124D]). Today Chorazin is identified with chirbet kerāze, which is only three kilometers from Capernaum, but is located many hundred meters higher (see also Tsafrir 1994, 103; Z. Yevin, NEAEHL 1: 301–­4).

The reproach in 13b functions as a demonstration of guilt (there is also a grounding ὅτι after a woe in 6.24-­25; additional examples in Davies/Allison 2001–­2004, 267). The accusation resides in the fact that the inhabitants of the cities have not let themselves be brought to “repentance” through Jesus’s “deeds of power” (δυνάμεις; the Synoptics use this umbrella term for Jesus’s healings and exorcisms, i.e., for what we call “miracles”: Mark 6.2, 5par. Matthew 13.54, 58; Mark 9.39; Matthew 7.22; 11.20, 23; 14.2; Luke 19.37; Acts 2.22; 8.13; 19.11; for the meaning of this designation with regard to content see at 5.17 and 6.19)—­and this means to the recognition of Jesus’s claim to authentically represent God’s eschatic salvation for Israel. Here the reference to Tyre and Sidon has the same rhetorical function as the comparison with Sodom in v. 12. It is meant to increase the gravity of the guilt. They are two old Phoenician cities that were already mentioned as a pair in the Old Testament and stand there in a metonymic way for the Phoenicians as a whole (cf. 1 Chronicles 22.4; Ezra 3.7; Jeremiah 25.22; 27.3; 47.4; Ezekiel 26–­28; Joel 4.4; Zechariah 9.2; see then also Eupolemos 9.33.1; Mark 3.8; 7.31; Luke 6.17; Matthew 15.21; Acts 12.20; cf. R. Liwak, TRE 26: 581–­86). Here they are offered as non-­Jewish cities in order to lend an additional sharpness to the accusation against Chorazin and Bethsaida. “To sit in sackcloth and ashes” is a gesture of self-­stigmatization that gives visibility to mourning, grief, and repentance. A sack (σάκκος; Heb.: ‫)ׂשק‬ ֵ is a rough dark material woven from animal hair. One could either wear it as a garment or put it around one’s hips as a kind of apron, but also lie on it, pray on it, or use it for similar things; cf. Genesis 37.34; 2 Samuel 3.31; 1 Kings 21.27; 2 Kings 19.1; Psalm 69.12; Isaiah 20.2; Jonah 3.5, 6, 8; Judith 4.10, 12; 8.5; Psalms of Solomon 2.20; Testament of Joseph 15.2; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 5.37; 7.40, 154, 327; 10.11; 11.256; 19.349; Revelation 11.3; see also Herodotus 9.80; Aristophanes, Acharnenses 745; Plutarch, Moralia 168d; Revelation 6.12. Ashes (σποδός) are usually strewn on the head (e.g., 2 Samuel 13.19; 1 Maccabees 3.47; 4.39; Judith 4.11; Jeremiah 6.26LXX; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 7.171, 204; 11.221; 20.89 123; Joseph and Aseneth 10.14; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 46.4; 54.4; Euripides, Supplices 827); but there are also attestations for people sitting in them or the like (Job 2.8; Ezekiel 27.30: σποδὸν ὑποστρώσονται [“they will strew ashes among you”]; Jonah 3.6LXX). For the joining of sackcloth and ashes cf. Esther 4.1-­3; Isaiah 58.5



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 63

(σάκκον καὶ σποδὸν ὑποστρώσῃ [“to spread sackcloth and ashes under him”]); Jeremiah 6.26 (περίζωσαι σάκκον, κατάπασαι ἐν σποδῷ [“gird yourself with sackcloth, sprinkle yourself with ashes”]); Daniel 9.3; Jonah 3.6LXX (περιεβάλετο σάκκον καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ σποδοῦ [“he put on sackcloth and sat in ashes”]); 1 Maccabees 3.47; Judith 4.14-­15; 9.1; Joseph and Aseneth 10.14; 13.2, 4–­5; 14.12, 14–­15; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 11.221; 20.123; Bellum judaicum 2.237; Ps.-­Philo, De Iona 37 (142); Barnabas 7.5. Cf. with additional attestations G. Stählin, ThWNT 7: 56–­64.

The purpose of a repentance ritual in which one “sits in sackcloth and ashes” lies in the fact that the voluntary renunciation of comfortable clothing and cleanliness or sightliness was regarded as a self-­punishment, which was associated with the hope that God would be moved by this to refrain from a further (and then, of course, much worse) punishment. For the rhetorical intention of a threat saying (14) see at v. 12. 15 The saying against Capernaum calls to mind Isaiah 14.13-­15 where the following is said to the king of Babylon, “You say in your hearts, ‘To heaven I will ascend (LXX: εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβήσομαι) . . .’—­but into the underworld you will be cast down (LXX: εἰς ᾅδου καταβήσῃ), into the depths of the earth.” What is said about the Antichrist in Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 4.32 is also comparable: ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὑψώθη, ἕως τοῦ ᾅδου καταβήσει (“To heaven he was exalted, to the underworld he will descend”). Heaven as the sphere of God and the underworld as the sphere of the dead or the place of the greatest possible distance from God are set over against each other (for the opposition of heaven and Hades, see also Amos 9.2; Psalm 139.8; see further at 16.23). In this verse there are two text-­critical problems. In 15a the rhetorical question μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; occurs in only part of the textual tradition (𝔓45,75 ‫ א‬B* D and others), while ἡ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθεῖσα/ὑψωθήσῃ is found in A B2 (C) W Θ Ψ 0115 f 1,13 33 𝔐 and others. The external evidence clearly speaks in favor of the translated reading, but this could also be due to a harmonization to Matthew 11.23. On the other hand, a haplography with ΚΑΦΑΡΝΑΥΜΜΗ is more likely than a dittography with ΚΑΦΑΡΝΑΥΜΗ. Instead of καταβήσῃ (𝔓75 B D [579] and others), 𝔓45 ‫ א‬A C L W Θ Ξ Ψ 0115 1,13 f  𝔐 and others read καταβιβασθήσῃ in 15b (“you will be cast/pushed down”); the tradition is also divided in Matthew 11.23. Against the originality of καταβήσῃ stands the greater dissemination of this verb (including the agreement with Isaiah 14.15). In its favor stands the agreement with Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 4.32 and the fact that καταβιβασθήσῃ exactly corresponds to ὑψωθήσῃ grammatically and semantically and therefore could be a secondary harmonization.

64

The Gospel According to Luke

With 16 Luke makes a connection back—­skipping over vv. 13-­15—­to the commissioning theme and has Jesus formulate a concluding remark. A frame is placed around the entire speech through the taking up of ἀποστέλλειν from v. 3. 16a and 16b do not, of course, form an antithetical parallelismus (contra BDR §4925 and many others), for ἀθετεῖν is not juxtaposed with ἀκούειν but subordinated to it. Here the talk is of people who react to the hearing not with δέχεσθαι (see also 8.13) but with ἀθετεῖν (cf. also John 12.48: ἀθετῶν ἐμέ and μὴ λαμβάνων τὰ ῥήματά μου are the same). 16b-­c is the negative counterpart to Matthew 10.40 (see also Mark 9.37; John 13.20); both here and there we are dealing with the rhetorical figure of the gradatio (or κλῖμαξ; cf. Lausberg 1973, §623 with many examples; see also Romans 5.3-­4). In its Lukan version it is related to the rejection of the messengers thematized in vv. 10-­12. It grounds the announcement of judgment pronounced in v. 12 and correspondingly receives a share in its compensatory function. What is decisive is that the messengers are connected with God via Jesus (see also John 20.21) and appear as God’s representatives; 1 Thessalonians 4.8 is similar—­albeit with a different rhetorical orientation. Whoever rejects the messengers becomes guilty in relation to God in the same way as Israel according to Isaiah 1.2 (“Sons I have begotten and raised, but they have rejected me [αὐτοὶ δέ με ἠθέτησαν]”). In the background of these statements stands an understanding of sending that is found—­apart from the Johannine texts (cf. further John 5.23; 12.44-­45)—­primarily in rabbinic literature (cf. m. Berakhot 5.5: “A person’s messenger is regarded as he himself”; on this cf. Bühner 1977, 209ff). 10.17-­24: The Return of the Seventy-­Two The episode is composed of three scenes, which Luke has clearly demarcated from one another. In vv. 17-­20 Jesus comments on the rule of the seventy-­two over the demons. In vv. 21-­22 a praise of God is combined with a saying about the relationship of Father (God) and Son (Jesus). And at the end there is a beatitude of the disciples (vv. 23-­24). The interpretation, however, will demonstrate its inner coherence in subject matter. 17

And the seventy-­two returned full of joy and said, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” 18But he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19Behold, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy—­and nothing can harm you. 20But do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice because your names are written in heaven.”



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 65 21

In the same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said: “I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to the simple—yes, Father, for such was your good pleasure. 22All things were handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and (no one knows) who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal it.” 23 And having turned to the disciples privately he said, “Blessed (are) the eyes that see what you see, 24for I say to you: Many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see and did not see it, and (wanted) to hear what you hear and did not hear it.” 17-­20 Form-­critically we are dealing with a chreia (pronouncement story). From a narrative exposition (v. 17) grows a commenting dictum of Jesus (vv. 18-­20). The topic of the commentary is the joy of the seventy-­two that the demons are subject to them ‘in the name of Jesus’ (v. 17b). In vv. 18-­19 this experience is explained from the side of the demons and in v. 20 from the side of the messengers. The coherence of the text, to which there are no parallels in the other Gospels, is very pronounced—­first through the fact that in v. 20 multiple terms are taken up again from v. 17 (ὑποτάσσεσθαι; χαρά/χαίρειν; δαιμόνια/πνεύματα; ὄνομά σου/ὀνόματα ὑμῶν), and second through the semantic isotopy of the terms “demons” (v. 17) and “Satan” (v. 18), or “the enemy” (v. 19) and “spirits” (v. 20), which—­read referentially—­reveal a chiastic structure. Furthermore, ἐξουσία (v. 19) belongs to the semantic field of ὑποτάσσεσθαι (v. 17/v. 20), and ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (concerning Satan; v. 18) and ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (concerning the seventy-­two; v. 20) stand over against each other antithetically. 17 Luke constructs a fictive scene. After the seventy-­two (the text-­ critical tradition is also divided here; see at v. 1) were sent out in groups of two and into different places, he has them return to Jesus (on ὑποστρέφειν as a typically Lukan word see at 1.56). The situation calls to mind 9.10, for the seventy-­two also “tell” about their mission, but they place in the foreground what had still been denied the “disciples” according to 9.40—­ that the demons subject themselves to them ‘in the name of Jesus’ (for the ὑποστρέφειν of demons cf. PGM IV: 3080; for ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου see at 9.48, 49). This is especially interesting because the demons have subjected themselves only to Jesus up to now—­and always with the calling out of his name (4.34, 41; 8.28). 18 The beginning of Jesus’s commentary has the form of a vision report (cf. the analogous use of ἐθεώρουν in Daniel 4.10Theodotion, 13; 7.2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11,13, 21Theodotion). In the literature the fall of Satan is uniformly interpreted as part of an eschatic disempowering of the devil (with reference

66

The Gospel According to Luke

to Revelation 12.7-­10; Assumption of Moses 10.1; see also John 12.31). A tradition-­historical counterpart occurs in Testament of Solomon 20.17 (demons “fall like lightning upon the earth, ignite cities, and set lands into flames”; on this see Vollenweider 1988, 192ff and 194 for the wider context). On the other hand, the assumption that Luke’s phrasing here stands in direct dependence on Isaiah 14.12 is rather unlikely, even if v. 15 refers to Isaiah 14.13-­15. Thus, Jesus here not only interprets the report of the seventy-­two about the subjection of the demons (thus, e.g., Marshall; Fitzmyer; Green; Bock), but he also refers to an independent visionary experience in order to explain to the seventy-­two why the demons have subjected themselves to them (thus Schürmann; Wiefel; Crump 1992b, 57; Rusam 2004, 102); likewise Testament of Levi 18.12 (see at v. 19). From this it follows that Jesus, according to the Lukan understanding, has not merely seen the fall of Satan proleptically (thus Nützel 1980, 145ff; Garrett 1989, 46ff; Gathercole 2003a, 158ff). That Luke has taken up a tradition here that goes back to an authentic saying of Jesus (and possibly has its historical point of adherence in the event narrated in 4.1-­11parr.; for a different view see Marcus 1995) is likely in light of the contact with John 12.31 and Mark 3.23-­27parr.; Luke 11.17-­20par. Matthew 12.25-­28 (for further details on the interpretation of this passage cf. U. B. Müller 1974; see also Theobald 2005). 19 In 19a Luke closes the gap between v. 18 and v. 17b, for now the connection between the fall of Satan (v. 18) and the subjection of the demons (v. 17b) is explained. The seventy-­two could rule over the demons because Jesus had equipped the disciples with ἐξουσία after the disempowering of Satan (for the phrasing ἐξουσίαν διδόναι see at 4.6 and 9.1). The introduction with ἰδού is not an indicator of an original independence of the verse (contra Fitzmyer), for Luke often uses it in order to introduce explanations or consequences within a speech (cf. 1.44, 48; 2.10, 48; 6.23; 7.25; 13.35; Acts 5.9; 13.46). The closest parallel to the telic infinitive (cf. BDR §390.1,b) is Testament of Levi 18.12: “And Beliar will be bound by him (sc. by the priestly Messiah) καὶ δώσει ἐξουσίαν τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτοῦ πατεῖν ἐπὶ τὰ πονηρὰ πνεύματα (and he will give his children power to tread on the evil spirits)” (for the use of πατεῖν in this sense of violent trampling see also Testament of Zebulun 9.8; Luke 21.24; Revelation 11.2). The lexical pair “snakes and scorpions” (ὄφεις καὶ σκορπίοι) comes from the Hellenistic environment of early Christianity (cf. Theophrastus, De pietate, Fragment 12.68; Plutarch, Moralia 87a; Antoninus Liberalis 41.4; Aelian, De natura animalium 10.14, 29; Herodianus Grammaticus, De prosidea catholica, ed. Lentz/Ludwich 1965, III/1, 28.15–­16; Orphica, ed. Halleux/Schamp 1985, 16.1; Ps.-­Hippocrates, Ἑρμηνεία περὶ ἐνεργῶν λίθων 38 [Ruelle 1898, 189.20]; see also the reception of Deuteronomy 8.15 in Philo, De vita Mosis 1.192 and Luke 11.11-­12; rabbinic parallels



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 67

in Miyoshi 1974, 103ff). The prepositional phrase ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμιν κτλ. is also dependent on ἐξουσία (cf. Tobit 1.21‫ ;א‬Sirach 33.20; Testament of Reuben 5.1; Luke 9.1; Revelation 6.8; 13.7; 16.9). As a metonymic designation for the devil, “the enemy” is common also elsewhere (cf. Testament of Dan 6.2–­4; Apocalypse of Moses 2.4; 7.2; 15.1; 25.4; 28.4; 29.13; Life of Adam and Eve 17.1; Testament of Job 47.10; Joseph and Aseneth 12.8; 3 Baruch 13.2). In this respect, the phrasing δύναμις τοῦ ἐχθροῦ corresponds to Testament of Job 3.3 (an “idol image” as δύναμις τοῦ διαβόλου; see also—­with reversed orientation—­Acts 8.10; 1 Corinthians 15.6). What is meant is that the ἐξουσία bestowed by Jesus is superior to everything through which the devil exercises his power. The assurance in 19b corresponds to this meaning (the double negation serves the confirmation, and οὐδέν could be either subject or accusative of respect [in the latter case ἐχθρός would be the subject]; cf. W. Bauer 1988, 1198): whοever controls the devil’s power to bring unsalvation has, of course, nothing to fear from it. But perhaps the assurance also reflects the notion that the fall of Satan from heaven brings unsalvation upon the earth (cf. Revelation 12.9-­12; Testament of Job 16.3; Testament of Solomon 20.17; P. Busch 1996, 135). 20 This verse picks up v. 17 in the form of an outperforming correctio (Lausberg 1973, §784.1; with the repetition of the previously negated imperative also in Luke 12.29-­31 [μὴ ζητεῖτε τί φάγητε . . . πλὴν ζητεῖτε τὴν βασιλείαν . . .]; 23.28 [μὴ κλαίετε ἐπ’ ἐμέ· πλὴν ἐφ’ ἑαυτὰς κλαίετε]). The Lukan Jesus takes up the old motif of the heavenly books (or of the “book of life”) in which the names of the elect are fixed as in the register of the citizens of a town; cf. Exodus 32.32-­33; Psalm 69.29; Isaiah 4.3; Daniel 12.1; Malachi 3.16; Jubilees 30.19–­23; 1 Enoch 47.3; 1 Enoch 47.3; 104.1; 108.3; 1QM XXII, 1–­2; CD XX, 19–­20; in the New Testament: Philippians 4.3; Hebrews 12.23; Revelation 3.5; 13.8; 17.8; 20.12, 15; 21.27 (not to be confused with the heavenly bookkeeping about the works of humans; cf. the distinction in Revelation 20.12-­15; see also Bill. II: 169ff; Bietenhard 1951, 231ff; Koep 1952). Because of its imagery the justification for the exhortation resembles Philippians 3.20 (“our πολίτευμα is ἐν οὐρανοῖς”). The function of the exhortation must also be specified along this line (a salvific communication is also introduced with χαίρετε in Joel 2.23; Isaiah 66.10ff; 4 Baruch 6.17; Matthew 5.12; Luke 6.23). After vv. 18-­19, Jesus gives here another explanation for the subjection of the demons. It has to be explained not only from their side (as took place in vv. 18-­19) but also from the side of the messengers. For only as representatives of the heavenly world were they able to subject the demons, and accordingly, they can recognize precisely in this that they belong to God. ἐγγέγραπται is passivum divinum and perfect. Thus, the

68

The Gospel According to Luke

verb refers to a condition brought about by God that was already in effect at the subjection of the demons. Thus, the two are related to each other as epistemic basis (the subjection of the demons is the epistemic cause for the fact of being registered in heaven) and objective cause (the fact of being registered in heaven is the objective basis for the subjection of the demons). 21-­22 These two verses come from Q. In the parallel Matthew 11.25-­27 they directly follow the sayings against Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (Luke 10.13-­15). Whether they followed Luke 10.16 in Q is uncertain. Form-­critically v. 21 is a prayer of thanksgiving, while there is talk about God in v. 22. The two verses are connected with each other through the key words πατήρ (v. 21b, d/v. 22a, c) and ἀποκαλύπτειν (v. 21c/v. 22d) and through the correspondence of ἀποκρύπτειν (v. 21b) and οὐδεὶς γινώσκει (v. 22d). There is a distant parallel to v. 22a in Gospel of Thomas 61.3. 21 The temporal specification ἐν αὐτῇ ὥρᾳ, which occurs only in Luke in the New Testament, does not mark a division but rather establishes a connection with the preceding (see further at 2.38). The continuation of the introduction also calls to mind Luke 1–­2 at many points (for ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι as a term for the praise of God and eschatic jubilation see at 1.14, 44, 47) and the fact that Jesus does this “in the Holy Spirit” finds its counterpart in 1.41-­42, 67ff. Of course, unlike Elisabeth and Zechariah, Jesus does not need to be filled with the Holy Spirit first before he can rejoice, for he already always carries the Spirit with him (see at 1.35; 3.22). The reading ἐν τῷ πνεύματι (τῷ ἁγίῳ) is somewhat more weakly attested (𝔓45vid ‫ א‬D L LL 0115 33 and others) than the reading without ἐν (𝔓75 A B C K W Θ Ψ f 1,13 579 𝔐 and others). But the preposition was presumably deleted later in order to exclude the Holy Spirit as the object of the jubilation, for ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι ἐν is usually used in this sense in the Septuagint (e.g., PsalmLXX 9.3; 19.6; 32.1; 88.13, 17; Habakkuk 3.18; see also 1 Peter 1.6). The simple dative could then have been understood, as in 1 Peter 1.8, as specifying the basis or the mode; but the same is expressed with ἐν in PsalmLXX 2.11; Isaiah 65.14; 3 Maccabees 2.17; John 5.35.

The introduction in 21b (for the textual tradition, cf. Klijn 1981) corresponds to the form of the prayer of thanksgiving (‫)ּתֹודה‬ ָ as this is often attested in the Psalter and in the songs of praise from Qumran (Heb.: ‫ּכי‬ . . . ‫ָך‬ ִ ‫אֹוד‬/‫ה‬ ְ ‫;אֹוד ָכ‬ ְ cf. PsalmLXX 51.11; 53.8; 117.21, 28; 137.1; 138.14; 1QH II, 20, 31; III, 19, 37; VI, 5; V, 5, 20; VII, 6, 26; XI, 3; see also Job 40.14; Sirach 51.1; Psalms of Solomon 16.5; Daniel 2.23; J. M. Robinson 1964); for the address of God as “Father” see at 11.2c. “Lord of heaven and earth” is also attested as a predication of God in Tobit 7.17AB;



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 69

10.14‫א‬‎; 1QapGen XXII, 16, 21 (see further Ezra 5.11; 4 Baruch 5.32; Judith 9.12: in each case “God of heaven and earth”; Aelius Aristides, Ad Iovem 8: Zeus as πάντων πατὴρ καὶ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς [“father of all—­both of heaven and of earth”]). It expresses the universal dimension of the rule of God (cf. M. Wolter, ThBNT 2: 1888, 1890). 21c specifies the usual justification. Prayers that thank God for received instruction and revelation (cf. especially Daniel 2.23; 1QH XV, 26–­27; Deutsch 1987, 55–­56, 64, 74–­75, 81–­82) stand only in a very distant tradition-­historical connection, for what Jesus gives thanks for here is not a revelation given to himself. An “objection against the revelation system of Daniel” (Grimm 1984; see also Grimm 1973; Frankemölle 1983, 91ff) is not even hinted at. “Hiding” and “revealing” do not describe two different actions of God but two aspects of a single action. One could also say: “. . . because you have revealed this not to the wise and intelligent but to the simple.” Asking about the extensions of these terms misses the intention of this statement, for the concern is not with the identification of specific groups but with the opposition of conceptions of reality. The σοφοὶ καὶ συνετοί (the same lexical pair also occurs in Proverbs 16.21; Ecclesiastes 9.11; Sirach 9.14-­15; Isaiah 29.14; Hosea 14.10; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 11.58; 1 Corinthians 1.19) represent the human understanding of reality, which is not shared by the νήπιοι (this is a self-­stigmatizing self-­description in analogy to Psalm 8.3; 116 [114LXX].6; 1QpHab XII, 4; Matthew 21.16; cf. Dupont 1985, III: 583–­91). In contrast to that, they postulate that their interpretation of the world and of history has been mediated to them through God’s revelation. In the terminology of the sociology of knowledge, we are dealing with cognitive outsiders who thus legitimate their existential assurance, which deviates from the majority society’s understanding of reality (on this cf. P. L. Berger 1991, 25ff). Repeated reference is rightly made to 1 Corinthians 1.18-­25 as an analogy (but see also Galatians 1.11-­12 and Frankemölle 1983, 86–­87). In the Lukan context, the νήπιοι are the seventy-­two, and the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun ταῦτα correspondingly refers to the knowledge that Satan has been disempowered (no one, of course, can say what it originally referred to). With its justification (ὅτι), the reinforcement in 21d is syntactically connected to ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι. Like ἐνώπιον and ἐναντίον, the improper preposition ἔμπροσθεν designates the judgment of God (cf. W. Bauer 1988, 519; see also at 1.6). It is a Hebraizing phrasing (cf. the reference to the prayer formula ‫“[ יְ ִהי ָרצֹון ִמ ְל ָפנֶ יָך‬may it be well pleasing before your face”], which is attested many times in rabbinic texts, in Bill. I: 607; G. Schrenk, ThWNT 2: 743.2ff). The following texts are also comparable: Psalms of Solomon 3.4: the “good pleasure” (εὐδοκία) in the righteous “is always before the Lord (ἔναντι κυρίου)”; Matthew 18.14: “οὕτως οὐκ

70

The Gospel According to Luke

ἔστιν θέλημα ἔμπροσθεν your Father in heaven.” In terms of subject matter, the action of God described in 21c is traced back with legitimizing intention to his sovereign decision (in the sense of ‘so it has pleased you’); cf. in a similar context 1 Corinthians 1.21. 22 A survey of the interpretations of the different aspects of this saying is provided by Luz 1985–­2002, II: 208ff. As an explanation of v. 21 one can understand the saying in such a way that the opposition of οὐδεὶς γινώσκει (22b) and ἀποκαλύψαι (22d) takes up again the antithesis of ἀπέκρυψας and ἀπεκάλυψας (v. 21c). ᾧ ἐὰν βούληται (22d) refers back to the νήπιοι (v. 21c). The connection is established through the statement of authority (22a) with which Jesus legitimates himself as mediator of revelation. Thus, the statement tips over in this way into the christological, for it identifies Jesus via his relation to God. But with this it goes far beyond the horizon identified in v. 21c with ταῦτα. πάντα has no specific reference but is meant comprehensively. It really means “everything” and takes up the complementary dualism of “heaven and earth” from v. 21b. Thus, God has made Jesus into the sharer of his universal rule and into his representative. The concern is therefore with who Jesus is (the distant parallel Gospel of Thomas 61.3 also formulates a statement about the character of Jesus here). To this corresponds the accentuation that Luke gives his description of the relation between Father and Son. Unlike Matthew 11.27 (only the Father “recognizes” [ἐπιγινώσκει] the Son and vice versa), Luke speaks merely of a cognitive reciprocity (only the Father “knows who the Son is” [γινώσκει τίς ἐστιν ὁ υἱός] and vice versa; 22b-­c). It is significant that the relation between Jesus and God is specified only with the help of the absolute and definite familial designation ὁ υἱός and ὁ πατήρ (in the New Testament also in Mark 13.32par. Matthew 24.36; John 3.17, 35-­36; 5.19-­23, 26; 6.40; 8.35-­36; 14.13; 1 Corinthians 15.28). Both terms designate a status that is fixed semantically through the relation to the respective other; their meanings therefore mutually constitute each other. And insofar as the concern here is exclusively with the relation between God and Jesus, God is “the Father” and Jesus “the Son” in this relation. The reciprocal knowledge statements in 22b-­c ensure the exclusivity of this relationship, but in this it is decisive that an opening up takes place at the end (22d). When Jesus reveals that God is “the Father” in relation to him, he thereby also reveals his own status within this relationship as “the Son.” 23-­24 The macarism over the disciples has a parallel in Matthew 13.16-­17; Luke therefore probably also took it from Q. The synchronic division of hiddenness in relation to the “wise and intelligent” and revelation to the “simple” (v. 21c) is now transformed into the diachronic opposition of “many prophets and kings” and “you” (i.e., the disciples) (v. 24).



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 71

23 κατ’ ἰδίαν in the introduction is probably meant to separate the disciples from the seventy-­two (cf. the analogous use in Matthew 20.17; Mark 4.34; 6.31-­32; 9.28par.; Luke 9.10; Galatians 2.2). The topic of the macarism is their eyewitness character—­not, of course, in the sense that a special action or quality of the disciples would be described in this way. They, or rather their eyes, are distinguished only by what they see (Luke 11.27 is similar). Thus, the concern is with a specific characterization of the present as—­this is made clear by the justification in 24—­the eschatic time of salvation (cf. especially Psalms of Solomon 17.44: “Blessed are those who live in those days to see the salvation [τὰ ἀγαθά] of Israel . . .”; see also 17.50; 18.6-­7). At the same time, the disciples move into the position of those to whom the Son, according to v. 22d, will reveal who the Father is. As the νήπιοι are related to the σοφοὶ καὶ συνετοί, so the disciples are related to the “kings and prophets”; the same lexical pair is also found in Apocalypse of Abraham 25.5 (“In the temple every prayer of the man should find a place, and kings and prophets should go up there”); Philo, De ebrietate 143 (Samuel as “the greatest among the kings and prophets”); 2 Maccabees 2.13 (Nehemiah gathered “the books about the kings and prophets”). It was not the great ones of the honorable past of Israel—­who are immensely superior to the disciples in status and prestige—­who were allowed to experience God’s realization of the salvific promises for his people, but only the circle of Jesus’s disciples. Alongside the aspect of the legitimation of a deviant understanding of reality (see at v. 21) comes the postulate of a salvation-­historical continuity. The salvation of which the disciples become ear-­ and eyewitnesses is nothing other than the fulfillment of the hope of Israel’s kings and prophets. 10.25-­37: The Scribe and the Merciful Samaritan 25

And behold, a scribe stood up; he tested him and said, “Rabbi, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26But he said to him, “In the law—­ what is written there, what do you read?” 27But he answered and said, “You should love the Lord your God from your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole power and with your whole understanding, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28But he said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this, and you will live!” 29 But he wanted to present himself as righteous and said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30Jesus took the floor and said, “A person went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers. And after they had plundered him and beat him up, they went away and left him behind half dead. 31But a priest came down that way by

72

The Gospel According to Luke

chance, and he saw him and went by on the other side. 32Likewise there also came a Levite to the place, and he saw (him) and went by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan who was going that way came upon him and he saw (him) and he was seized with compassion. 34And he approached, bound his wounds and poured oil and wine over them. He put him on his own riding animal, took him to an inn and cared for him. 35And on the next day he produced two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Care for him, and whatever you might spend beyond this I will reimburse you on my return journey.’ 36Who of these three became, in your opinion, the neighbor of the one who fell among the robbers?” 37But he said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Thereupon Jesus said to him, “You, too, go and act in the same way. Form-­critically this is a chreia, but it is designed less as a controversy dialogue and more as a teaching dialogue (see at v. 25). The coherence and structure of the text are established through framing inclusions. To the opening question of the scribe, τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; (v. 25) corresponds, first, the exhortation τοῦτο ποίει καὶ ζήσῃ (v. 28), with the double command of love embedded in vv. 26-­27 (a combination of Deuteronomy 6.5 and Leviticus 19.18c) functioning as the actual answer. From the quotation of Leviticus 19.18c the νομικός takes up the term πλησίον σου and via the question “And who is my πλησίον?” (v. 29) starts a new course of conversation, at the end of which he then reaches the answer by himself (vv. 36-­37). The narrative of the merciful Samaritan (vv. 30-­35) is embedded between question and answer. At the very end (v. 37b) the opening question is taken up again with a further exhortation of Jesus (πορεύου καὶ σὺ ποίει ὁμοίως). Luke has thus interlaced multiple ring compositions in one another: v. 25: τί ποιήσας + “eternal life” vv. 26-­27: Deut 6.5 (love God) and Lev 19.18 (love τὸν πλησίον σου) v. 28: τοῦτο ποίει + “life” v. 29: “Who is μου πλησίον?” vv. 30-­35: The narrative of the merciful Samaritan vv. 36-­37a: “The πλησίον of the one who has fallen among the robbers is ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔλεος μετ’ αὐτοῦ” v. 37b: καὶ σὺ ποίει ὁμοίως

The fact that the questioner is first assigned the role of the victim via the presence of a parallel to the genitive attribute to πλησίον in v. 29 and in



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 73

v. 36, while the exhortation in v. 37b reverses the assignment of the roles, is not as grave as this is often presented to be (e.g., Sellin 1975, 23ff), for reciprocity belongs to the semantic of the term πλησίον: when one is a πλησίον to the other, the reverse is also always the case (see also Young 1983). 25-­28 The first round of discussion is not far away from Mark 12.28-­31 (par. Matthew 22.34-­40). There “one of the scribes” asks which commandment is “the first of all” (πρώτη πάντων). Jesus then specifies Deuteronomy 6.4b-­5 as the “first” and Leviticus 19.18c as the “second” and concludes with the summary “there is no commandment greater than these” (μείζων τούτων ἄλλη ἐντολὴ οὐκ ἔστιν). Then—­just as here in v. 29—­the questioner also takes the floor once more in Mark though in a different way. The following minor agreements should be registered: νομικός (v. 25apar. Matthew 22.35) instead of εἷς τῶν γραμματέων (Mark 12.28); (ἐκ)πειράζων (v. 25apar. Matthew 22.35) instead of ἐπηρώτησεν (Mark 12.28); the address διδάσκαλε (v. 25bpar. Matthew 22.36) is without a Markan equivalent; the absence of Deuteronomy 6.4b; in the quotation of Deuteronomy 6.5 ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ and ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ (v. 27par. Matthew 22.37) instead of ἐξ + genitive in each case as in Mark 12.30 and LXX; Mark 12.32-­34 is lacking in Luke/Matthew; see further Gundry 1995; 1999; Neirynck 1982/1991/2001, III: 267–­82, 283–­94, 295–­306; 1974b, 157–­58; 1991, 70–­71; Ennulat 1994, 278ff. In Mark and Matthew this conversation does not take place until Jesus is in Jerusalem (in Mark 12.28-­34par. Matthew 22.34-­40), namely between the conversation with the Sadducees about the resurrection (Mark 12.18-­27par. Luke 22.27-­40) and Jesus’s saying about the Davidic sonship of the Messiah (Mark 12.35-­37par. Luke 20.41-­44). Luke has omitted it at the corresponding place of his narrative (it would have had to stand between 20.40 and 20.41). Moreover, the νομικός poses a completely different question in Luke; it is the same question that the rich man or ἄρχων formulated according to Mark 10.17par. Luke 18.18. And finally, the scripture quotations are presented in a completely different rhetorical embedding than in Mark and Matthew. As explanations for this evidence there are the usual proposals: origin from Q (among others Sellin 1978, 20–­21; Fuller 1975; Lambrecht 1981, 57–­84) or from a separate tradition that Matthew may also have known (among others Schweizer; Fitzmyer); in both cases Luke would have omitted Mark 12.28-­34 as a doublet. It is less likely that Luke merely moved Mark 12.28-­34 to this position (among others Kiilunen 1989; Eberson 1993, 211–­ 12; F. Noël 1997). The same also applies to the assumption that Luke and Matthew used a deutero-­Markan text recension (among others Ennulat 1994, 287).

25 When Luke opens a new sentence with καὶ ἰδού, he never thereby marks a change of place. Rather, with this phrasing he always introduces

74

The Gospel According to Luke

only the entrance of new people upon a narrative scene that has already been reached previously (cf. 2.25; 5.12, 18; 7.12, 37; 8.41; 9.30, 38; 13.11; 14.2; 19.2; 23.50; 24.13; Acts 8.27; 12.7; 16.1). Thus, Luke signals to the readers that the following episode wants to be read as a continuation of the preceding. The introduction of a scribe (νομικός; for this designation see at 7.30) calls to mind Jesus’s critical saying against this group (see at 7.30) and thus sets up the questioner as a counterpicture to the disciples who are declared blessed in vv. 23-­24. Luke obviously imagines the νομικός as present for what was narrated in vv. 17-­24 and has him now ask a followup question. Luke uses ἐκπειράζων αὐτόν to characterize the intention behind the question, but without ascribing to the questioner a hostile stance toward Jesus (contra Fitzmyer; Johnson and others; for the address of Jesus as διδάσκαλος see at 7.40), for this element is not contained in the semantics of the verb (see at the introductory comments to 4.1-­13 and at 4.12). He merely wants to show that the questioner is not concerned with having his question answered but only wants to determine whether Jesus knows the right answer. The phrasing comes from Mark 10.17 (par. Luke 18.18, though also there with the replacement of τί ποιήσω ἵνα through τί ποιήσας), although Luke himself loves such ‘what should I do?’ questions (cf. also 3.10, 12, 14; 12.17; 16.3; Acts 2.37; 16.30: τί με δεῖ ποιεῖν ἵνα σωθῶ; and 22.10). “To inherit eternal life” (for the phrasing and metaphor see also Sibylline Oracles 3.47; Psalms of Solomon 14.10; Matthew 19.29) means nothing other than ‘to obtain eternal salvation.’ 26 The Lukan Jesus knows, of course, that the answer to the question is to be found only in the Torah and in order to make this unmistakably clear Luke places at the front the prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, making use of the rhetorical figure of anastrophe (cf. Lausberg 1973, §462.3a; 713–­15). With this, however, the question is also already answered, and with τί γέγραπται; πῶς ἀναγινώσκεις; (πῶς corresponds to τί insofar as the concern is not with the manner but with the what of the reading [cf. BDR §436.3]) Jesus, for his part, now asks the scribe for a summarizing account of what stands in the law (see also Sellin 1974/1975, 22). 27 From the two commandments in Mark 12.30-­31 (see also Matthew 22.37-­39) Luke makes a single commandment by deleting ἀγαπήσεις from Leviticus 19.18c (or Mark 12.31) and inserting a coordinating καί that makes κύριον τὸν θεόν σου (Deuteronomy 6.5 or Mark 12.30) and τὸν πλησίον σου parallel with each other. The Lukan distinctiveness is also clear with respect to the sequence of prepositional phrases. With ἐξ . . . καρδίας, ἐν . . . ψυχῇ/ἰσχύϊ/διανοίᾳ it is composed of the same four members as Mark 12.30 (ἰσχύς is lacking in Matthew 22.37), but with the switching of the last two. In the prepositions Luke has the sequence ἐξ/



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 75

ἐν/ἐν/ἐν (Mark 12.30: ἐξ/ἐξ/ἐξ/ἐξ; Matthew 2.37: ἐν/ἐν/ἐν). Deuteronomy 6.5 has ‫ ְב‬three times, namely with ‫ נֶ ֶפׁש‬,‫לב‬,ֵ and ‫ ְמאֹד‬or (in the LXX) three times ἐξ with διάνοια (with Bcorr Mmg 963 and others instead of καρδία rell.; see also Kenyon 1935, ad loc.), ψυχή and δύναμις. In 2 Kings 23.25 (= 2 Chronicles 35.19b) the turning of King Josiah to the God of Israel is characterized with the help of the series ἐν ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ, ἐν ὅλῃ ψυχῇ, ἐν ὅλῃ ἰσχύϊ (“with whole heart, with whole soul, with whole power”) (see also Jubilees 1.15: “And afterward they will turn to me from among the nations with all their heart and with all their soul and with all their might”; [trans. O. S. Wintermute, OTP 2: 53]). Elsewhere only the pair καρδία and ψυχή is attested in early Jewish and early Christian texts without another term—­except for Isaiah 44.19 (καρδία, ψυχή, φρόνησις)—­joining them (e.g., Deuteronomy 4.29; 6.6LXX; 10.12; 11.13, 18; 13.4; 26.16; 30.2, 6 [with “love the Lord your God” and “live”], 10; Joshua 23.14; 1 Samuel 2.35; 1 Kings 2.4; 8.48; 2 Kings 23.3; Tobit 13.6; 2 Maccabees 1.3; Jeremiah 39.41; Jubilees 16.25; 19.31; and 36.24 [with “love”]; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 40.1; 2 Baruch 66.1; Acts 4.32). In part Luke probably redactionally brought about the deviations from Mark 12.30, but in part he probably found them in a tradition alongside Mark (perhaps Q). One cannot say anything more precise (cf. otherwise Rusam 2003, 108ff).

A combination of these two Old Testament commands is not found elsewhere in the New Testament (1 John 4.21 is also no exception to this). In early Judaism there are resonances only in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: Testament of Issachar 5.2 (ἀγαπήσατε τὸν κύριον καὶ τὸν πλησίον [“Love the Lord and the neighbor”]); 7.6 (τὸν κύριον ἠγάπησα ἐν πάσῃ ἰσχύϊ μου· ὁμοίως καὶ πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἠγάπησα ὡς τέκνα μου [“I have loved the Lord with my whole power; likewise I have also loved every human being like my children”]); Testament of Dan 5.3 (“Love the Lord with your whole life and one another with a true heart”). More broadly attested, however, is the endeavor to summarize the whole Torah into “two main points” (δύο τὰ ἀνωτάτω κεφάλαια; Philo, De specialibus legibus 2.63; see also 1.54, 175), which affect the relation to God and the relation to other people (the Hellenistic “canon of the two virtues” stands in the background; cf. at 1.75 for literature and attestations). To be sure, the two Old Testament love commands play no role in this context; rather, the keywords are εὐσέβεια and ὁσιότης for the relation to God and φιλανθρωπία and δικαιοσύνη for the relation to fellow humans. On the other side, in Romans 13.8-­10; Galatians 5.14 Paul sees the whole Torah summarized in the commandment to love the neighbor quoted from Leviticus 19.18. 28 Jesus’s answer is reminiscent of 7.43 (the phrasing ὀρθῶς ἀπεκρίθης is idiomatically correct Greek; cf. Plato, Sophista 252e; Euthydemus 277b;

76

The Gospel According to Luke

Respublica 547a; Leges 817a; Plutarch, Alexander 64.1; Diogenes Laertius 3.73; Philo, Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat 27). The exhortation may refer back not only to the opening question in v. 25 but also contain an allusion to Leviticus 18.5: The one who does (ποιήσας) all the regulations of the Torah will live by them (ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς). With regard to its origin, one can say that the combination of the two love commands arose in the context of the Christian-­Jewish separation process. Although the Christian community from a certain point in time no longer lived more Iudaico, by anchoring the ethical norm of love that was central for them in the Torah they could claim that they fulfilled the Torah and in this way also participated in its promise of life. The fact that Luke uses a scribe of all people to identify the double commandment of love as a summary of the Torah lets his need for legitimation emerge clearly at this point. In this way his Christian readers have their continuity with the Torah confirmed from the Jewish side. In this regard, the scene in Luke is precisely not “put completely in the service of paraenesis” (Bornkamm 1968, 45) but rather of apologetics. 29 The question of the νομικός that follows is meant to create room for the attachment of the narrative of the merciful Samaritan. As in v. 25, Luke also ascribes an unspoken intention to him here (δικαιοῦν ἑαυτόν in the sense of “present himself as righteous” also in 16.15; the only parallel outside the New Testament is 2 Enoch 102.10: “Behold now οἱ δικαιοῦντες [ἑαυτ]ούς [those who pronounce (them)selves righteous]: how great their fall has become, for no righteousness was found in them up to their death.” It is doubtful, however, whether the pronoun is really reflexive; with Jeremias 1939, 117–­18; against Aalen 1966/1967, 1ff). But the following texts at least come close to what is meant here: Proverbs 30.12 (“An evil generation regards itself as righteous [δίκαιον ἑαυτὸν κρίνει]”); Job 32.2 (Elihu was angry, because Job presented himself before the Lord as righteous [ἀπέφηνεν ἑαυτὸν δίκαιον ἐναντίον κυρίου]). At any rate, the intention of the νομικός is connected with the first question, for it had emerged from vv. 26-­28 that he had only posed a pseudo-­question at the beginning. And thus he now adds another question: Who is ‘my neighbor,’ of which Leviticus 19.18 speaks? The Hebrew text has ‫ר ַע‬.ֵ The spectrum of the meaning of this term reaches from “friend” (e.g., Exodus 32.27; 33.11 [‫ ֵ;ר ַע‬φίλος]; Psalm 38/37.12; 122/121.8; Jeremiah 23.35) to “fellow human being.” But it can also simply mean “the other” or even “the neighbor”: e.g., Genesis 11.3; Exodus 2.13; 20.16, 17; 22.6-­10; Leviticus 19.11; 25.14; the same is then also true for πλησίον: e.g., Sirach 29.14, 20; Testament of Zebulun 5.1, 3; Testament of Benjamin 3.3–­5; Joseph and Aseneth 28.14; Philo, De virtutibus 116; De praemiis et poenis 100; Quod omnis probus



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 77

liber sit 122; De vita contemplativa 43; Josephus, Bellum judaicum 7.260 (see also K. Berger 1972, 81ff, 100ff; Kühlewein 1976). It is important as well that also in Jewish texts neither of the two terms is defined ethnically (for instance in the sense of “compatriot” or the like). To this extent there could never be a question of who the πλησίον of a person is; it is every person one deals with or gets involved with (see also K. Haacker, EWNT 3: 267).

Against this background, the question that Luke places in the scribe’s mouth presupposes a shift in meaning that furnishes the substantivized use of πλησίον with the semantic characteristic of the prepositional use of this term. Here πλησίον + genitive designates the spatial proximity in opposition to remoteness and distance (e.g., Philo, De posteritate Caini 20.38 [τὸ πλησίον πρὸ τοῦ μακράν (“the near before the far”)]; 20.84 [specification of πλησίον by ἐγγύς]; De ebrietate 100; Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 2.64; Testament of Job 51.3; John 4.5; further in W. Bauer 1988, 1352). As a social category πλησίον thus moves into semantic proximity to φίλος (“friend”); cf. in this sense PsalmLXX 37.12; 87.19; Sirach 6.17; 19.13–­15; 25.1; 27.18; Aesop, Fabulae, ed. Hausrath/Hunger 1970, 1.1.1ff (“Eagles and foxes had made a friendship with one another [φιλίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σπεισάμενος], and they agreed to live near one another [πλησίον ἑαυτῶν] in order to demonstrate the solidity of their friendship”); Matthew 5.43 (opposite: ἐχθρός). Thus, the νομικός asks not about the “scope” (Sellin 1974/1975, 46) of the command to love one’s neighbor. Rather, it is presupposed that the questioner maintains relations to people in different social worlds of meaning and that he wants to know in which symbolic universe the closer relations exist. Such questions arise in those cases in which different social loyalties compete with one another. Quite a bit speaks for the view that Luke has the νομικός ask a typically Jewish-­ Christian question (see also Horn 1986, 111). 30-­35 Luke 7.41-­43 and Matthew 21.28-­31, this parable belongs to the so-­called ‘paradigmatic decisions,’ which end in a question addressed to the hearers and are not comprehensible without their literary context (see further at 7.41-­43). Moreover, this narrative, too, is an ideal-­typical construction. The constellation of narrative figures is oriented toward the model of the dramatic triangle (cf. Sellin 1974/1975, 180; further examples at 7.41-­42a). The central character is the victim; only he is directly or indirectly (the latter in v. 35) present in every scene. The story is told from his perspective, and the narrated hearer is meant to identify with him (see also Funk 1974). To him a pair of formally identical narrative figures (“twins”) is coordinated—­priest and Levite, on the one side, and the Samaritan on the other side (the robbers and innkeeper are merely extras). The two narrative twin roles are occupied by three people in order to

78

The Gospel According to Luke

satisfy the narrative law of three (cf. Olrik 1982, 60–­61; Bultmann 1995, 207, 342–­43 with additional examples; G. Delling, ThWNT 8: 223–­24). The formal equivalence of the two twins is established by having them come to the same place, where the victim lies, and see him (in each case καὶ ἰδών; vv. 31b, 32, 33). However, they then differ in their actions—­the priest and Levite pass by (ἀντιπαρῆλθεν; vv. 31b, 32), while the Samaritan approaches (προσελθών; v. 34a). The narrative has nothing to do with 2 Chronicles 28.8-­15 (contra Spencer 1984; C. A. Evans 1997). 30 The participle ὑπολαβών . . . εἶπεν (30a) marks the change of speaker (see also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 2.84; 6.146; Job 2.4; 32.6; 40.1 and elsewhere; Daniel 3.95; in abundance in pagan Greek authors: cf. just Plutarch, Moralia 157c; 158–­159; 396b; 397d; 403a; 411c; 422e; 431b; 548b; 580b; 646b; 671c; 718c; 724d; 726c; 740a; 745c; 763a; 929e; 940–­941; 1100e). After this, the exposition of the narrative is set forth. Luke introduces the dramatic central character as ἄνθρωπός τις (likewise in 12.16; 14.16; 15.11; 16.1, 19; 19.12; contrast 14.2; 20.9 is disputed text-­critically). This phrasing is typically Lukan in the New Testament, but many of Aesop’s fables also begin with it (cf. Hausrath/Hunger 1970, 32.2; 33.2; 34.2; 35.2, 3; 283; 284; 286); see also Job 1.1; Bel and the Dragon 2LXX. Only such predicates that result from the particular situation are mentioned as characteristics that make up the narrative identity of the central character. Everything else (such as occupation, social status, piety) plays no role at all. Although the narrative could, of course, take place anywhere, it is staged, not without reason, on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho. This topographical placement prepares for the appearance of the priest and Levite, for both carry out their activity in Jerusalem. 31-­32 It is of decisive importance for the point of the narrative that it is a priest and a Levite (and not e.g., a ‘Pharisee and a scribe’) who are joined here to a single narrative figure. It is conspicuous that the combination “priest and Levite” occurs in the New Testament only additionally in John 1.19 and also only selectively in Jewish texts. In the Old Testament it appears with very few exceptions only in the Chronistic literature (i.e., 1/2 Chronicles; Ezra; Nehemiah; 3 Ezra). In Hellenistic Jewish literature it is found only in Josephus’s Antiquitates judaicae and above all in book 11 where the post-­Exilic restitution of the temple cult is narrated. In Qumran it occurs in 1QS XVIII, 18–­19, 21–­22; 2.11; CD III, 21; 1QM VII, 15; XIII, 1; XV, 4; XVIII, 5; 11Q19 LXI, 8. The combination “priests and Levites” is combined time and again with “all Israel” or the like (e.g., 2 Chronicles 34.30: “the priests and Levites καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαός”; 1/3 Ezra 9.37: “the priests and Levites καὶ οἱ ἐκ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ lived in Jerusalem and on the land”; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 11.107: “the priests and Levites καὶ τὸ ἄλλο τῶν Ἰσραηλιτῶν πλῆθος [and



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 79

the remaining multitude of the Israelites]”; for additional attestations see Gewalt 1978, 415–­16; Gourgues 1998, 710–­11).

The victim himself can be identified without difficulty as a representative of this third entity—­the Israelites (the expectation—­formulated by Gourgues 1998, 713 and others—­that “a lay Israelite” would have to appear in the narrative after priest and Levite has thus long been realized). Thus, priest and Levite personify Israel’s distinct relationship to God, which was made visible in the Jerusalem temple cult (see also m. Sotah 7.5 on Joshua 8.33: “The priests surrounded the ark and the Levites, the priests, and all Israel stood on both sides”). The narrative is not interested in why priest and Levite pass by the wounded man, and this should also be respected. Rather, they function only as a foil for the Samaritan, for only from the perspective of v. 33 does light fall on the substructure of their behavior. The ἀντιπαρέρχεσθαι of the priest and the Levite is indirectly explained by the fact that they were not “seized with compassion” (σπλαγχνίζεσθαι) like the Samaritan whose “approach” (προσέρχεσθαι) was prompted precisely by this. The bi-­compositum ἀντιπαρέρχεσθαι conveys not merely that priests and Levite ‘pass by’ inobservantly, but that they consciously steer clear of the victim (see also Burchard 1998, 336ff). Text-­critically it is very likely that the variant Λευίτης γενόμενος κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐλθών (A C W Θ Ψ f 13 𝔐 q syp,h) preferred by Nestle/Aland27 is not the oldest but rather the most recent variant, for it can be identified without difficulty as a combination from Λευίτης γενόμενος κατὰ τὸν τόπον (𝔓45 D l 2211 pc) and Λευίτης κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐλθών (𝔓75 ‫א‬‎2 B L Ξ 070 f 1 33, 700, 892, 1241 pc). On account of its better attestation, the preference should be given to the last variant mentioned.

33 When the narrative now has a Samaritan turn up as a counterfigure to a priest and a Levite, it becomes completely clear that the question of the proper worship of God comes into view. The actual point of difference between Jews and Samaritans lies in this, i.e., the question of whether God is worshipped in a manner appropriate to him only in Jerusalem or only on Mount Gerizim. Thus, the same constellation is in view as in 9.53 (see further there). Thus, Luke identifies the Σαμαρίτης clearly as ‘Samaritan,’ i.e., as a member of the Yahweh-­loyal Samaritan religion. Thus, priests and Levite, on the one hand, and Samaritan, on the other hand, by no means represent “quasi nations” (thus Sellin 1974/1975, 41) but rather different ways of the cultic worship of the God of Israel. Luke initially has the Samaritan turn up in the same way as the priest and the Levite (for ἔρχεσθαι κατά cf. Acts 16.7); only the last word guides the narrative in a

80

The Gospel According to Luke

different direction. The Samaritan does not pass by when he sees the victim but he reacts with “compassion.” The sequence ἰδών . . . ἐσπλαγχνίσθη is also used by Luke in 7.13 (see further there). 34-­35 serve to characterize the Samaritan. The orientation of the narrative to the actions of the Samaritan stands so much in the foreground that it remains completely open whether his efforts were ultimately successful and whether the victim survived. From his first aid efforts the use of oil to treat wounds is known from Isaiah 1.6 (see also Jeremiah 51.8: “balm for his wounds”) and “to pour wine and oil on (the wounds)” probably means a mix of the two, which also occurs elsewhere as a salve; cf. Theophrastus, De causis plantarum 9.11.1 (for snakebites); Hippocrates, De natura muliebri 81; De morbis mulierum 145; Cassius Dio 53.29.5 (healing through ἔλαιον οἴνῳ μεμιγμένον [“oil mixed with wine”]); Greek has the term οἰνέλαιον (“wine-­oil”) for this notion (cf. Cyranides, ed. Kaimakis 1976, 2.33.28; 5.6; Dioscurides Pedanius, De materia medica 4.150.7; Galen, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, ed. Kühn 1964, XII: 492; XIII: 404, 733 and LSJ s.v.; rabbinic material can be found in Bill. I: 428–­ 29). ἐπιβιβάζειν is attested only in Luke in the New Testament: cf. also 19.35 (the disciples put Jesus on the foal) and Acts 23.24 (the imprisoned Paul is likewise placed on a κτῆνος in order to be transferred to Caesarea; see also 1 Kings 1.33: Solomon is placed on the “half-­donkey,” i.e., on the mule, of David; 2 Kings 9.28 and 23.30: in each case regarding the transport of a corpse on a wagon). πανδοχεῖον (34b) is, like πανδοχεύς (35a), an expression that appears outside the New Testament—­with the exception of Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 4.33 (on this see Royse 1981, 193–­94)—­only in non-­Jewish Greek texts. ἐπιμελεῖν etc. (34c, 35b) is also used to designate the care of sick or wounded people in, e.g., Plutarch, Theseus 27.6; Philo, De specialibus legibus 3.106; Galen, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, ed. Kühn 1964, XII: 577; cf. further Spicq 1994, II: 47–­48 with n. 5). The regulation of the financial side in 35 also has no other function than to demonstrate the extraordinary effort of the Samaritan for the victim who was robbed of his money. Therefore, speculations about the question of for how many days the two denarii would be sufficient (cf. e.g., Jeremias 1977, 203; Oakman 1987; Bock) miss the intention of the narrative. 36-­37a Jesus’s question in 36 is “formed syntactically according to v. 29” (Sellin 1974/1975, 48). Both here and there πλησίον is predicate nominative and to the attributive pronoun μου (v. 29b) there corresponds here the attributive participial construction τοῦ ἐμπεσόντος εἰς τοὺς λῃστάς. Thus, the questioner is assigned here the role of the victim (see also Funk 1974). Interrogative questions with δοκεῖ σοι (see also Matthew 17.25; 22.17) belong to the most common stylistic devices of dialogical



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 81

argumentation (e.g., as here, with τίς: Plato, Charmides 164a; 167d, e; Meno 77c; Respublica 349e; 381c). The use of the perfect γεγονέναι as resultative Aktionsart is significant (cf. BDR §318.4; 340–­42), for it implies that the thesis that the relation of being a πλησίον is not pre-­defined but is established through particular decisions and actions of humans and then also has lasting existence. And again Jesus makes the scribe answer his own question (37a). ποιεῖν ἔλεος is a Septuagintism (translation of ‫ ;עׂשה ֶח ֶסד‬in pagan texts it is always masculine: τὸν ἔλεον ποιεῖν; cf., e.g., Aristotle, Rhetorica 1386b6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Lysia 14; but see also Josephus, Bellum judaicum 3.133). It describes both a behavior of God vis-­à-­vis humans (e.g., Genesis 24.12, 14, 44; Exodus 20.6; 34.7; Deuteronomy 5.10; Psalm 18.51; 109.21) and between human beings. In this case it designates very generally a helping and supporting behavior in relation to weaker people or those needing help; cf. e.g., Genesis 40.14; 2 Samuel 3.8; 9.1, 3, 7; PsalmLXX 108.16 (the godless “did not think τοῦ ποιῆσαι ἔλεος, but persecuted the wretched and poor persons”); Zechariah 7.9 as a natural social virtue (“Judge rightly and do mercy and compassion [καὶ ἔλεος καὶ οἰκτιρμὸν ποιεῖτε], everyone in relation to his brother”); Sirach 29.1 (ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεος δανιεῖ τῷ πλησίον [“Whoever does mercy lends to the neighbor”]); Testament of Zebulun 5.1 (“I exhort you to do mercy in relation to the neighbor [ποιεῖν ἔλεος ἐπὶ τὸ πλησίον] and have compassion [εὐσπλαγχνία] not only in relation to humans but also in relation to the irrational [i.e., the animals]”); Testament of Job 11.3 (Job is asked: “Practice mercy toward us [ποίησον σὺ μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἔλεος] and lend us money so that we can go into the city and trade and render a service to the wretched [ποιήσασθαι διακονίαν]”). In Joseph and Aseneth 23.3 the Son of Pharaoh wants to persuade Simeon and Levi to participate in the murder of Joseph and argues as follows: “Practice mercy toward me [ποιήσατε μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔλεος], for violence was . . . done to me by your brother Joseph.”

That the scribe does not say “the Samaritan,” but defines him via his actions marks the point of the narrative. Here the text is opened up toward the context. Luke’s concern here is not to have the scribe avoid pronouncing this designation. Rather, he wants to express that the identity obtained by the action for the benefit of the one in need supersedes the assigned identity. Insofar as “priest” and “Levite,” on the one hand, and “Samaritan,” on the other hand, represent different ways of cultic practice, this punchline places the present narrative in precisely that tradition that is also connected with Leviticus 19.18 in Mark 12.33—­namely, the emphasis on the priority of the ethical paradigm over the cultic (see also Hosea 6.6; Micah 6.6-­8; Proverbs 16.7LXX; 21.3; Sirach 35.1-­4; Letter of Aristeas 234; 1QS IX, 4–­5; Matthew 9.13; Romans 12.1-­2).

82

The Gospel According to Luke

37b formulates the pragmatic consequence and to this end takes up the opening question of the νομικός (v. 25) (the imperative πορεύου is typically Lukan; twelve of sixteen New Testament attestations). The exhortation does not merely want to convey the insight that one should help someone who falls into distress, for this is a given anyway. Rather, its meaning, and with this also the change of the perspective of the hearer from the victim to the helper, can be understood on the basis of the perspective of the Lukan version of the Golden Rule (6.31): with ποιεῖτε . . . ὁμοίως it ends in a very similar manner (see also 3.11), and the same change of roles from ethical object to ethical subject is made in it. 10.38-­42: Martha and Mary 38

But when they were underway he came into a village, and a woman named Martha hospitably received him. 39She had a sister named Mary. She sat at the feet of Jesus and listened to his word, 40while Martha was occupied by much work. But she approached and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister leaves me alone to work? Tell her to help me.” 41But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things. 42(Only) one thing, however, is necessary. For Mary has decided for the good portion. This will not be taken away from her.” The episode is temporally and spatially distanced from the situation presupposed in 10.1-­37. For the first time since 9.57 Jesus and his disciples are travelling again, namely—­as the readers still know, of course, on the basis of 9.51—­to Jerusalem. Luke states that Jesus is received into a house, and in this way he relates the episode to a theme to which Jesus had devoted great attention in his speech at the sending out of the seventy-­two (cf. 10.5-­8). Thus, he depicts here what happens in the reception of Jesus into a house. For this reason this story not only has paradigmatic significance but it also stands at precisely the right place. This ‘reception narrative’ is identifiable form-­critically as a chreia with the following parts: introduction (vv.  38-­39), exposition (vv.  39b-­40), and dictum (vv. 41-­42). The fact that the narrative ends with a saying of Jesus and no longer communicates how Martha reacts to Jesus’s dictum corresponds to this genre (on this see also at 15.31-­32). The small narrative displays the structure of a dramatic triangle. The master of action is juxtaposed with a pair of formally identical narrative “twins” who differ from each other in the way in which they react to the encounter with Jesus. One “twin” gets it right; the other gets it wrong (see also 7.36-­50; 23.39-­43 as well as Löning 1997/2006, II: 51).



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 83

While the episode is exclusively handed down in Luke, the connections with John 11.1, 19-­20, 28; 12.2-­3 are unmistakable, for here, too, the sisters Mary and Martha are mentioned. Furthermore, there are also numerous correspondences in details. The most conspicuous is certainly that the two women act in opposite ways both here and there; cf. Luke 10.39b-­40 (Martha’s διακονία—­Mary “sits” at Jesus’s feet and listens to his word) with John 11.20 (Martha goes to meet Jesus—­ Mary remains “sitting” at home); 12.2-­3 (Martha διηκόνει—­Mary anoints Jesus’s feet; see further in Brutscheck 1986, 148–­49). The same Martha–­Mary tradition probably stands behind these points of contact.

38-­39a The introduction is pervaded by Lukan linguistic peculiarities (cf. the documentation in Brutscheck 1986, 66ff). It is certainly no accident that it is a woman who receives Jesus for the first time (38c); the same is then later the case for Paul as well (cf. Acts 16.14-­15). The introduction of Martha corresponds to the style of episodic narration in Hellenistic history writing (see further at 1.5). While Martha is presented by Luke as a dramatic central character, he introduces Mary in 39a merely as part of a statement about Martha (see also 8.42; linguistically it is a Septuagintism: cf. Genesis 25.24; 38.27 and elsewhere; BDR §289.2). Thus, she is assigned only the role of a dramatic secondary character. 39b-­40a In chiastic reversal of the sequence, Luke tells what both women do after Jesus has entered the house in the form of a syncrisis. The linear imperfect ἤκουεν (39b) and περιεσπᾶτο (40a) make clear that the narrative is still in its construction phase. Mary receives the role of the eager-­to-­learn student (39b) who sits at Jesus’s feet and listens to him (cf. Acts 22.3; see also Luke 8.35; Plato, Protagoras 310c; 2 Kings 4.38; 6.1; m. Avot 1.4). Instead of πρὸς τοὺς πόδας (τοῦ) Ἰησοῦ (𝔓45[,75] A B* C2 W Θ Ψ f 1,13 33 𝔐 and others) 𝔓3 ‫ א‬B2 D L Ξ 579, 892 and others read πρὸς τοὺς πόδας τοῦ κυρίου. The editors of Nestle/Aland27 also decide for the latter variant, although the first variant is certainly better attested. Furthermore, the replacement of (τοῦ) Ἰησοῦ with κυρίου can also be easily explained as an adjustment to the better attested κύριος in v. 41, while a switch in the opposite direction is scarcely conceivable.

Here the singular “his word” (λόγος αὐτοῦ; see also 4.32; Acts 2.41) is nothing more than a comprehensive paraphrase for the fact that Jesus speaks (see also Acts 15.32; 20.2, 7). What he says does not interest the narrator and should therefore not be made into an object of speculation. Martha’s behavior is described in demarcation from this scene (40a), for Luke does not present her πολλὴ διακονία neutrally. Rather, the phrasing περιεσπᾶτο περί evaluates it as a distraction from what Mary does

84

The Gospel According to Luke

(see also Székely 1995, 167: Luke does not oppose “hearing and serving” but “hearing and ‘worrying’”); Diodorus Siculus 1.74.7 speaks in this sense of craftsmen (τεχνίται) who περὶ πολλὰ . . . περισπώμενοι (“are distracted . . . in relation to many things”) and out of greed do not remain with their actual activity (ἐπὶ τῆς ἰδίας ἐργασίας); see also 2.29.5 (to turn from philosophy περισπασθεὶς ὑπὸ βιωτικῆς χρείας [“distracted by daily necessities”]) and the ἀπερίσπαστος βίος (“undistracted life”) as an ideal in Plutarch, Moralia 96b; 521d; 603e; Epictetus, Dissertationes 3.22.69. Here διακονία (and διακονεῖν in 40c) has a broader meaning compared to the occurrence in 4.39, for it lacks the dative object. Luke sketches a picture of a woman who intensively turns to her household work, while her sister listens to Jesus. For this reason, the fact that Martha is presented as Jesus’s host in v. 38 should not mislead one into reducing the meaning of διακονία to ‘hosting’ or ‘waiting on.’ Moreover, the adjective πολλή, which qualifies διακονία and which is taken up again in v. 41b through πολλά, makes clear that the narrative is interested not in the quality but in the quantity of Martha’s διακονεῖν. In this regard, the question—­discussed in Hentschel 2007, 246ff—­of “what is designated by διακονία at this point” (246) goes beyond the intention of the small narrative. 40b-­d Accordingly, Martha’s rhetorical, implicitly accusatory question in v. 40 (for the phrasing οὐ μέλει σοι cf. Mark 4.38) and the exhortation in 40d do not refer to the two activities of listening (to Jesus’s words) and διακονία (applicable to him); rather, Martha is concerned with herself (no less than three times with the corresponding personal pronoun). This orientation is also recognizable in the fact that Martha re-­codes the behavior of Mary vis-­à-­vis v. 39b. Unlike the narrator, she calls it not “listening” but “leaving me alone” (κατέλιπεν διακονεῖν is an infinitive of purpose; cf. BDR §392.7). Thus, she relates Mary’s behavior not to Jesus but to herself. Correspondingly, she demands that Mary help her, Martha, with the housework (cf. the opposition of συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι and μόνην; likewise in Numbers 11.17; see also Exodus 18.22; Letter of Aristeas 123). Put the other way around, Martha has nothing against Mary’s hearing as such; rather, she does not like it that Mary sits with Jesus while she works. For this reason, one cannot generalize the characterization of Martha so easily and see in it a “manner of life” or a “type of person” that “loses itself to the world and its rules in constant anxiety over everyday things” (Busse 2003, 148 for many others). Rather, the presence of Jesus in the narrated situation is the decisive presupposition for the understanding of the different behaviors of the two sisters. Mary takes notice of it and interrupts everyday life, while Martha continues with her daily tasks in the same way as before the coming of Jesus.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 85

41-­42 Unlike what Martha demands, Jesus speaks not to Mary but to Martha herself and in doing so makes a syncritic interpretation of the actions of the two women described in vv. 39b-­40a. The textual tradition poses great problems especially at the beginning of 42. The reading (a) ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία (𝔓45 𝔓75 A C* W Θ Ξ Ψ pc f 13 𝔐 lat sy[c]p,h sa boms) is very likely original, for the equally well-attested variant (b) ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία ἢ ἑνός (𝔓3 ‫ א‬B C2 L 070vid f 1 33, [579] pc syhmg bo, Bas) can be explained as a fusion of the first variant mentioned with (c) ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία (38 [syrpal] bomss, arm, geo). To be sure, it must be conceded to Fee 1981, 62, 65 that reading (c) is actually too poorly attested to be older than reading (b), but this reading is so unsuccessful linguistically that it can scarcely be regarded as original.

In Jesus’s answer Martha’s μεριμνᾶν and θορυβάζειν (see also Appian, Bella civilia 3.5.34; for the understanding of μεριμνᾶν, see at 12.2) is not criticized as such but only insofar as it is related to πολλά (taking up πολλὴ διακονία from v. 40a) and in this way loses sight of the fact that only one thing is important. Luke has Jesus make recourse to the widespread argument of the higher value of quality over quantity; cf. Epictetus, Dissertationes 1.1.14: “Although it stands in our power to concern ourselves with one thing . . . and devote ourselves to only one thing (ἑνὸς . . . ἐπιμελεῖσθαι) we instead want to concern ourselves with many things and be closely bound to many things (πολλῶν ἐπιμελεῖσθαι καὶ πολλοῖς προσδεδέσθαι)”; see also Philo, De mutatione nominum 145–­146 (further texts can be found in Busse 2003, 149). How the reference to Mary’s behavior in 42b is meant to explain Jesus’s note that Martha is superfluously anxious for much because only one thing is needed is not entirely clear. For this reason, many manuscripts have replaced the explicative γάρ (𝔓3 𝔓75 ‫ א‬B and others) with an adversative δέ (A C W Θ 𝔐) in order to mark the contrast between the two sisters. The behavior of Mary portrayed in v. 39b now receives an additional interpretation, which is opposed to the description formulated by Martha in v. 40c. In Mary’s behavior Martha should recognize in any case that only one thing is required, when this one thing is listening to Jesus’s word. In 42c Mary’s behavior is characterized with the help of the pronoun ἥτις (cf. W. Bauer 1988, 1188: “in order to emphasize a characteristic feature through which a preceding statement is intended to be grounded”). What Mary has sought out for herself (namely, listening) is the good portion (for ἀγαθὴ μερίς, cf. Sirach 26.3: γυνὴ ἀγαθὴ μερὶς ἀγαθή [“A good wife is a good portion”]; the parallels in Plutarch, Moralia 370c; 2 Kings 3.19, 25 are not relevant) because it is the word of Jesus, which will not be taken from her.

86

The Gospel According to Luke

The episode narrates a story about two conceivable reactions to the encounter with Jesus. Does one continue as before or does one interrupt everyday life? Thus, the fact that it is a story about Jesus’s encounter with two women is not decisive for the attainment of the narrative goal. The narrative has in this regard a very profiled place within the Lukan Jesus story, and it is very doubtful whether Luke also intended a reading that points beyond the narrated world and that wants to read the issue treated in the text into a concrete situation that was current in his present. This question must be posed above all because lines of questioning upon which such interpretations of the text in the literature are based are nothing more than anachronistic transferences of situations and interests from the historical situation of the interpreters themselves (cf. the survey of more recent discussion in Koperski 1999). Is Luke for the equality of women (e.g., Petzge 113–­14) or does he, exactly the other way around, want to assign women the role of passive listeners (e.g., Schlüssler Fiorenza 1986, 28ff; see also Hentschel 2007, 247ff)? Does Martha stand for Christian woman officials who are being pressured to surrender their “numerous ministerial works” to the men (Reid 1996, 157)? Or does Luke warn women who “were so wrapped up in their tasks as ‘patrons’ of the Christian community of faith that they felt overburdened and therefore protested against other women who were less engaged” against “a one-­sided overemphasis on service, which was important and necessary in itself, and against an excessive anxiety over the affairs of the community, because in this way they could lose sight of what was actually important” (Melzer-­Keller 1997, 239)? Nothing of all this can be derived from the text (see also the criticism in Collins 1998). Against such allegorizing interpretations, one must insist that this episode is not a story about women but a story about Jesus, which would also make sense with two men. Its theme is not the role of women in the Christian community but Jesus and the right reaction to the encounter with him—­whether one interrupts everyday life for his sake, as Mary does, or whether one continues as before, as Martha does. Without the reference to the presence of Jesus the narrative could not function. 11.1-­13: On Prayer Luke changes with the narrative to another location that is unspecified and sketches a scene in which Jesus gives an instruction on prayer to the disciples. First, he communicates to them, at their wish, the wording of a specific prayer (vv. 1-­4), and, then, he delivers a speech about the certainty of petitionary prayer being heard (vv. 5-­13). The coherence between the two parts is established above all through the designation of God as “Father”



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 87

at the beginning and end (v. 2c/v. 13). In tradition-­historical perspective, an origin from Q for the prayer of the disciples in vv. 2c-­4 (par. Matthew 6.9-­13) is just as likely as for the sayings about the certainty of the fulfillment of petitionary prayer in vv. 9-­13 (par. Matthew 7.7-­11). The parable of the asking friend (vv. 5-­8), which stands between these two texts, is found only here; it may also come from Q (see below). For v. 9b there is a parallel in Gospel of Thomas 92.1 and 94. 11.1-­4: The Prayer of the Disciples

And it happened as he was praying in a place and was finished that one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.” 2And he said to him, “Whenever you pray, say, ‘Father! Sanctified be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Our daily bread give us each day. 4 And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.’”

1

As in Matthew 6.7-­9a, in Luke too the wording of the Lord’s Prayer is communicated in the form of an instruction on proper prayer. While Matthew has placed this instruction in the Sermon on the Mount, it is furnished with a narrative setting of its own in Luke (vv. 1-­2b), which gives it an apophthegmatic structure. That the original historical situation is preserved here (thus, among others, Marshall; Bock; Backhaus 1991, 179) can at most be asserted. The description of the situation could also be a Lukan construct, for 5.33 (diff. 2.18) has already shown that Luke in particular has a special interest in the prayer practice of the disciples of John in relation to the disciples of Jesus. 1-­2b For the construction of the scene Luke combines in 1a two Septuagintisms that he often uses individually elsewhere. Both the substantivized infinitive with a subject ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτόν . . . προσευχόμενον (for analogous phrasings, see at 5.12; cf. above all the close correspondences with 9.18) and ὡς ἐπαύσατο are dependent on καὶ ἐγένετο (for the Lukan καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς phrasings see at 1.23; cf. also 5.4). Accepting the syntactic disfigurement of the sentence, Luke probably added the latter in order to avoid the impression that Jesus’s disciples disturb Jesus in prayer. ἐν τόπῳ τινί (1b) refers to 10.1 and thereby actualizes the overarching literary context of Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem. The request to be taught to pray is a singular event (1c; PsalmLXX 142.10 is comparable linguistically:

88

The Gospel According to Luke

δίδαξόν με τοῦ ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημά σου [“Teach me to do your will”]; see also Aristophanes, Ranae 107: δειπνεῖν με δίδασκε [“Teach me to eat”]; Matthew 28.20; 2 Enoch 8.1; Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit 144); its motivation is then explained in 1d. The justification invoked here (καθώς in an analogous function, e.g., also in John 13.34; Romans 15.7; Ephesians 5.2, 25) does not make the Lord’s Prayer into the prayer of the disciples of John (contra J. K. Elliott 1973; K. Müller 2003, 182–­83). It refers merely to the fact that the circle of the adherents of the Baptist possessed a group-­specific prayer (even though nothing is known of this historically) and asks for a prayer with an analogous function for the disciples of Jesus. In this way the Lord’s Prayer is indirectly made, in demarcation from the circle of the Baptist, into a prayer that belongs in an exclusive way to the adherents of Jesus. Put the other way around, if we start from the assumption that this prayer belonged to the established elements of the Christian worship service at the time of Luke, the scenic embedding constructed by Luke functions as an aetiology that is intended to explain its origin. Vis-­à-­vis the indicative προσεύχεσθε (𝔓75 A C P W Γ Δ Θ f 1,13 33, 1241 al), which probably reflects the influence of Matthew 6.9a, the subjunctive προσεύχησθε (‫ א‬B D L Ξ Ψ 𝔐) should be regarded as original (for ὅταν with the subjunctive cf. BDR §382.3: “When an action lies in the future [eventualis] or when an action often recurs [iterativus]”). 2c-­4 The prayer that Jesus teaches the disciples is a petitionary prayer, for it consists in its Lukan version of the address and five petitions. The first two, the so-­called ‘You petitions’ (2d-­e), are largely configured in parallel. They begin in each case with an aorist imperative in the third person and end with the same word, i.e., with σου. Plus, they display an identical sequence of sentence members. The coherence of the other three petitions, namely the so-­called ‘we petitions’ (3-­4c), is not as pronounced. It is marked above all by the six occurrences of the personal pronoun of the first person plural. The prayer has a parallel in Matthew 6.9b-­13, which makes it likely that Luke found it in Q (Didache 8.2–­3 has very close points of contact with the Matthean version). Beyond the usual methodological problems, a reconstruction of the Vorlage and the identification of Lukan redaction is made additionally difficult in the present case by the fact that the two evangelists probably did not know of the prayer through Q only. It must be assumed that they were familiar with it through its use in the liturgy of the worship service. Still, the long-­standing discussion has led to something of a consensus (on this cf. Carruth/Garsky 1996; Neirynck 1982/1991/2000, III: 432–­39): It is said that Luke preserved the Q version with regard to the scope of the text (the following, it is said, are to be regarded as



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 89

Matthean additions: the expansion of the address, the third you-­petition, and the expansion of the third we-­petition). On the other hand, when there are deviations in wording, it is said that the Q version is to be found in Matthew: • • •

in the first we-­petition (v. 4), the present δίδου (instead of the aorist δός) and τὸ καθ’ ἡμέραν (instead of σήμερον), in the second we-­petition (v.  4a), τὰς ἁμαρτίας (instead of τὰ ὀφειλήματα), and the entire expansion of the second we-­petition (v. 4b), i.e., καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν (instead of ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν).

However, that the tradition-­historical situation may be much more complex than this simple solution appears to suggest is recognizable in the fact that the third we-­petition in the Matthean version (γενηθήτω τό θέλημά σου; Matthew 6.10b) also occurs additionally in the mouth of Jesus in the Gethsemane scene, namely not only in Matthew (γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου; Matthew 26.42c), but also in Luke (πλὴν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γινέσθω; Luke 22.42c) and in the fact that Luke also has the phrasing τοῦ κυρίου τὸ θέλημα γινέσθω yet another time in Acts 21.14. This finding is interesting because the joining of θέλημα with the imperative of the third person of γίνομαι (thus γινέσθω, γενηθήτω, or γενέσθω) is not attested in the whole of extra-­Christian Greek written material. Put the other way around, only authors whom we know to be familiar with the Lord’s Prayer use this phrasing. This fact makes it not impossible that Luke also knew the third you-­petition of the Matthean version of the Lord’s Prayer. Besides this, it is certain that both versions are based on the same Greek text. The adjective ἐπιούσιος in the bread petition (v. 3par. Matthew 6.11) provides the proof. It is unknown in the whole of ancient Greek written material and occurs only at this point (see further at v. 3). But this also rules out the possibility that the differences between the two versions go back to the fact that Jesus taught his disciples the prayer multiple times with different wording. That the Lord’s Prayer was originally handed down in Aramaic is still recognizable in the lexical Aramaism ὀφειλήματα (Matthew 6.12). In Greek the word actually means “debt of money” (Luke has therefore changed it to ἁμαρτίας), while only the Hebrew/ Aramaic equivalent ‫חֹוב‬/‫חֹובא‬ ָ has the double meaning “debt of money” and “sin” (this same semantic fusion is found in 2 Enoch 6.3: ὀφειλέτης ἁμαρτίας μεγάλης [“debtor of a great sin”]; cf. further Dalman 1930, 335ff; M. Wolter, EWNT 2: 1345, 1348 with additional literature; see also at 7.41-­42a). There has not been a lack of attempts to translate the prayer back into Aramaic (cf. e.g., Jeremias 1966, 160; Grelot 1984). It is probable that the prayer, at least in the scope handed down in Luke, goes back to Jesus; for the overlaps with late ancient Jewish prayers cf. ad loc. respectively and C. Leonhard, TRE 34: 512–­15.

90

The Gospel According to Luke

2c The address of God simply as “Father,” i.e., without possessive pronouns or suffix (πάτερ; Aramaic ‫;א ָּבא‬ ַ see Schelbert 1981; 1993; C. Zimmermann 2007, 41ff), is relatively rare in literary reproductions of Jewish prayers (3 Maccabees 6.3, 8; Sirach 23.1, 4; Apocryphon of Ezekiel Fragment 3; Testament of Isaac 10.8; see also Wisdom of Solomon 14.3); it is found in no contemporary Hebrew or Aramaic text (Targum Psalms 89.27 belongs in a later time). However, this evidence should not be overinterpreted, for it does not allow a conclusion regarding the use or non-­use of this address in the daily prayer practice. This address involves a transfer of an interpersonal address form to the relationship to God. Not only physical fathers could be addressed in this way, but, e.g., also prophets (2 Kings 2.12; 6.21; 13.14 [Heb.: ‫ ָא ִבי‬in each case]; 4 Baruch 2.4; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 53.3; see also 4 Maccabees 7.9). The claim that the Aramaic ‫ ַא ָּבא‬is the language of small children (“daddy” or the like) is incorrect (cf. Barr 1988); it is more likely an expression of respect. In the Jesus tradition this form of address to God is very densely attested (cf. Mark 14.36; Luke 10.21par. Matthew 11.25; 23.34, 46; John 11.41; 12.27-­ 28; 17.1 and elsewhere), and the afterlife of the Aramaic address of God ‫ ַא ָּבא‬in the worship services of Greek speaking communities (cf. αββα ὁ πατήρ in Romans 8.15 and Galatians 4.6) is probably an indication that we are permitted, after all, to regard it as a special characteristic of Jesus that was then taken up by his disciples. For the sake of completeness it should be noted that πάτερ was in general use as an address to God in pagan Greek hymns and prayers; cf., e.g., (for Zeus) Homeric Hymns 4.368; Pindar, Olympionikai 7.87; Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 35 (SVF I: 122.30); see G. Schenk, ThWNT 5: 952 with n. 31; C. Zimmermann 2007, 64ff). 2d-­e The two God-­directed petitions that begin the prayer correspond to the beginning of the Aramaic Kaddish, with which originally the worship service community answered the sermon: “May his great name be made great and sanctified in the world that he created according to his will, and may he bring to rule his kingdom in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of the whole house of Israel quickly and in the near future.” Since the Kaddish only emerged in late antiquity (cf. Lehnardt 2002, 297ff; C. Leonhard, TRE 34: 513), the Lord’s Prayer cannot be dependent upon it. Therefore, one can probably only assume that both prayers have the same roots in the Jewish prayer language of the first century (the ‘al ha-­kol to which reference is repeatedly made in this context is even later than the Kaddish; cf. Lehnardt 2002, 65–­67).

The sanctification of God’s name, which is in view in the first petition (2d), can take place both through humans (Isaiah 29.23; Psalm 99.3) and



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 91

through God himself (Ezekiel 36.22-­23). In both cases it is based on an action of God that is interpreted as a demonstration of the God-­ness of God. The much-­discussed question of whether God himself or whether humans are envisaged as subjects of the sanctification of the name constructs a false dichotomy, for the petition is not a hidden paraenesis or self-­obligation but is oriented in any case toward an action of God. God is petitioned to demonstrate his God-­ness among humans, i.e., to take care that humans confess him as God, and this means ‘sanctify his name.’ On account of its content, one cannot understand this petition in any other way than as eschatological, for it is directed to the universal establishment of God’s reign, which is then the object of the second petition (2e). That the exercise of God’s universal kingly reign is characterized by the sanctification of his name already stands in Psalm 99.1-­3 (98.1-­3LXX): YHWH is/has become king (LXX: ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν)—­the nations tremble. He is enthroned on cherubim—­the earth shakes. YHWH is great in Zion, and exalted over all the nations. Let them / they will praise your name (LXX: ἐξομολογησάσθωσαν τῷ ὀνοματί σοῦ), the great and fearful. Holy is he! (trans. E. Zenger in Hossfeld/Zenger 2005, 482)

Only the synoptic Jesus speaks of the “coming” (ἔρχεσθαι) of the kingdom of God (cf. also Mark 9.1; Luke 17.20; 22.18). Insofar as, according to Jewish expectation, the eschatic establishment of the reign of God over the world involves a theophany, nothing other than the hope for the coming of God himself is taken up in this phrasing; in addition to Isaiah 35.4; 40.10; 66.15; Zechariah 14.5ff; Psalm 50.3; 96.10-­13; 98; Testament of Levi 5.2 cf. especially Assumption of Moses 10.1–­10 (“Et tunc parebit regnum illius [sc. dei] in omni creatura illius [And then his (sc. God’s) reign will appear over his whole creation] [1] . . . , for the highest God . . . will arise, et palam veniet [and he will come openly]” [7]); Jubilees 1.28 (“And the LORD will appear in the sight of all. And everyone will know that I am the God of Israel and the father of all the children of Jacob and king upon Mount Zion” [trans. O. S. Wintermute, OTP 2: 54]); 1 Enoch 25.3 (the “throne on which the Holy and Great One, the Lord of glory, the King of the world will sit when he comes down”); Sibylline Oracles 3.47–­50 (“. . . then the βασιλεία μεγίστη of the immortal king will appear among humans. There will come the holy ruler who will possess the scepter over the whole earth forever”). Thus, the petition aims at God universally establishing his rule, which is already present in heaven now, on earth as well (see also at 11.20 and Koenen 1995; Schlosser 1980, I: 261ff, esp. 269ff).

92

The Gospel According to Luke

In a part of the textual tradition the petition reads: ἐλθέτω τὸ πνεῦμά σου τὸ ἅγιον ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς ([162], 700; Gregory of Nyssa; Maximus Conf.). According to Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.26, the petition for the Spirit apparently replaced the first petition in Marcion. This variant was often regarded as Lukan in the twentieth century (among others Harnack 1904, 195ff; Grässer 1977, 109ff; Leaney 1956; Freudenberger 1968/1969; cf. the survey in Schneider 1986). All the considerations that have been produced in favor of the originality of this reading (cf. the compilation in Marshall 458) cannot, even if taken together, outweigh the weakness of the external attestation. Therefore, it is very likely that the petition for the coming of the kingdom of God is original (see also Metzger 1971, 154ff).

3 The special accent with which Luke has furnished the bread petition is found in the substantivized adverb τὸ καθ’ ἡμέραν (see also Luke 19.47; Exodus 16.5; Leviticus 23.37; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 19.70; Testament of Job 14.2; Aristophanes, Equites 1126; Plato, Respublica 561c; Timaeus 83e; Polybius 4.18.2; Strabo, Geographica 7.2.1 and elsewhere) and the iterative imperative present δίδου that fits with it (instead of σήμερον and aorist δός in Matthew 6.11; see also BDR §336.1). In this way Luke places it into everyday human life and its needs (cf. Plutarch, Artaxerxes 4.1: λαμβάνειν εἰς τὸ καθ’ ἡμέραν δεῖπνον [“to receive for the daily meal”]; Strabo, Geographica 15.3.18: ἡ . . . καθ’ ἡμέραν δίαιτα [“the . . . daily food”]; Epictetus, Dissertationes 2.20.32: [ἄνθρωποι] καθ’ ἡμέραν ἄρτους ἐσθίοντες “[(people) who eat daily bread”]; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.26 [525b]: τὸ καθ’ ἡμέραν . . . πίνειν κἀσθίειν [“daily drink and eat”]). The most difficult problem resides, of course, in the adjective ἐπιούσιος, which is also in the Matthean version of the bread petition (Matthew 6.11). Origen already wrote the following concerning it: “This expression (λέξις) appears in none of the Greeks and the wise (ὠνόμασται), and it is also not used in general usage (οὔτε ἐν τῇ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν συνηθείᾳ τέτριπται); it appears instead that it was formed by the evangelists” (De oratione 27.7 [GCS, Origenes Werke II: 366–­67]). Since it cannot be assumed that Luke and Matthew coined the word ἐπιούσιος independently of one another or that it arose in two separate paths of tradition and entered the two textual versions, this finding requires that there was originally only a single Greek translation of the Lord’s Prayer in which this expression was coined and that found entrance into the two synoptic versions. The long-­held assumption that ἐπιούσιος is also preserved in an Egyptian household account book (SGUÄ 5224.20) has now been shown to be false; cf. Nijman/



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 93

Worp 1999 and column II, 90 in the new edition of the fragmentary papyrus by Bagnall/Worp 2001. From the time of the ancient church on, attempts have been made to specify the meaning of this word by derivation. In the main, the following explanations compete with one another (cf. the unsurpassably comprehensive survey of scholarship by Korting 2004, 1–­199): (1) The basis is the noun οὐσία. If one (a) translates it with “substance,” the combination with ἐπί, among other things, can express that the concern is with non-­material (sc. heavenly) bread (in this sense the Vulgate speaks in Matthew 6.11 of panis . . . supersubstantialis, which does not hinder it from translating the same word in Luke 11.3 with cotidianus). If, however, one understands the noun (b) non-­theologically in the sense of “being, existence,” ἐπιούσιος can mean something like “necessary for life.” (2) The basis is the feminine singular participle of εἶναι, i.e., οὖσα, and ἐπιούσιος is to be understood as an adjectivization of ἐπὶ τὴν οὖσαν (sc. ἡμέραν). It would then have to be translated with “for the current day.” This interpretation is often connected with the assumption of a manna-­typological allusion to Exodus 16.4, according to which Israel was not allowed to gather more manna than the need for the day. The problem is just that in the Septuagint, τὸ τῆς ἡμέρας εἰς ἡμέραν occurs in this place. Thus, this would imply that already the Greek translator of the prayer and the evangelists did not understand the allusion. (3) The basis is the verb ἐπιέναι (“come near, be imminent, follow”), more specifically the substantivized feminine singular participle ἡ ἐπιοῦσα (sc. ἡμέρα), which is a common expression for the next day within and outside the New Testament (e.g., Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 12.215; in the New Testament: Acts 7.26; 16.11; 20.15; 21.18; 23.11: τῇ ἐπιούσῃ νυκτί). Since there is no adjective for this temporal specification in Greek, ἐπιούσιος could be understood as a grammatical transposition into this word class.

The last interpretation mentioned is favored by the majority of interpreters today. It is also supported by the fact that Jerome refers to the corresponding passage in the so-­called ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ where he says he found the phrasing “maar . . . quod dicitur crastinum (maar, which means ‘tomorrow’), so that the sense would be: panem nostrum crastinum, id est futurum (our bread for the morrow, that is the future)” (Commentariorum in Matthaeum I: 9 on Matthew 6.11 [CChr.SL 77: 37.780–­781]; for the meaning of Hebrew ‫מ ָחר‬, ָ cf. among others Exodus 8.25; 2 Chronicles 20.17; Isaiah 22.13 (the LXX has the adverb αὔριον in each case); cf. also the variants to ἐπιούσιος in Matthew 6.11: venientem (sa) and crastinum (mae bo). One way or the other, with the exception of solution 1.a, the content of the Lukan bread petition is clear—­to have enough to eat every day, and “enough” means that one need not go hungry. “Bread” stands metonymically (as pars pro toto) for ‘food’ as such, and the orientation toward

94

The Gospel According to Luke

this human basic need is reflected in the possessive pronoun ἡμῶν (see also Leviticus 26.5; Isaiah 4.1; Lamentations 5.9; Psalm 145.15; 149.9). In the background stands the certainty—­expressed many times especially in the Psalms—­that God is the one who sustains his creatures and to whom they owe their survival (cf. Psalm 104.14-­15; 136.25; 145.15; 147.9; Psalms of Solomon 5.9–­11). The anchoring in this tradition shows that the bread petition by no means necessarily belongs “in a situation of social hardship” (thus Luz 1985–­2002, I: 451). Rather, with this petition, the one praying confesses his enduring existential dependence upon God’s gracious care. 4a-­b The second we-­ petition (4a; for the Lukan replacement of ὀφειλήματα with ἁμαρτίας see at vv. 2c-­4) stands again entirely within the Jewish prayer tradition. It has its closest correspondence in the sixth benediction of the Shemoneh Esreh: “Forgive us (‫)ס ַלח ָלנּו‬, ְ our Father, for we have sinned (against you)” (see also Dalman 1930, I: 337; Kellermann 2007, 97ff). Individual petitions for forgiveness are already found in Exodus 34.9; Psalm 25(24).11, 18 (LXX: καὶ ἄφες πάσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας μου); 51.3-­4; 79.9; Hosea 14.3; the Jewish prayer P. Egerton 5 B 14–­15 also stands in this same tradition (van der Horst 1998, 296: “This we ask fro[m you], Lord, παρὲς ὅσα ἡμάρτομεν [forgive what we have sinned]”). A statement interrupts the series of petitions. The addition is based on a simple idea: the one whom God forgives his or her own sins or who asks God to forgive his or her own sins cannot refuse forgiveness to his or her fellow humans. The experience of forgiveness by God is inseparably bound up with the granting of forgiveness in relation to other human beings. This connection is already formulated in Sirach 28.2: “Forgive the wrong to your neighbor (ἄφες ἀδίκημα τῷ πλησίον σου), then your sins will be remitted you when you pray for this (αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου λυθήσονται)”; cf. also vv. 3-­5; Testament of Zebulun 5.3; 8.1-­3; m. Yoma 8.9; see further at Bill. I: 425–­26. In the New Testament this connection is thematized above all in Matthew 18.23-­35; however, see also Mark 11.25; Matthew 6.14-­15; Colossians 3.13 and the talio formulated in Luke 6.37par; for ἄφες with the meaning “forgive!” see also Exodus 32.32; Numbers 14.19; Testament of Gad 6.3, 7; Luke 17.3; 23.34 (with regard to Nolland II: 617). While the aorist occurs in Matthew 6.12b, which registers the already realized acts of forgiveness, Luke has the present (thus also Didache 8.2 [ἀφίεμεν]; for the Lukan ἀφίομεν see also Acts 11.9; BDR §94.3). This gives the latter part of the sentence performative character. With every pronouncement of the sentence the one praying forgives all who have trespassed against him (for the double meaning of ὀφείλω, see at vv. 2c-­4). This is, by the way, the only element of the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer that has established itself in modern language prayer phrasings against the corresponding Matthean phrasing. The terminological differentiation between



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 95

“sins” (ἁμαρτίαι; 4a) and “to be guilty/indebted” (ὀφείλειν; 4b) may be intended to distinguish offences that concern the relation to God from interpersonal offenses. 4c In the last petition πειρασμός stands as a metonymic paraphrase for crisis experiences into which God sometimes leads his chosen and pious ones in order to put them to the test (this is actually called πειράζειν). The concern is not with their “temptation to evil” (Jenni 1992, 82) but with the fact that God wants to test whether they will hold fast to their faithfulness and their obedience or, in other words, whether they are “worthy” of him (Wisdom of Solomon 3.5; see further the introductory comments on 4.1-­ 13 and at 8.13; cf. also Acts 20.19; James 1.2, 12-­13; 2 Peter 2.9). The content of this petition corresponds to what Jesus exhorted the disciples to pray for at the last gathering on the Mount of Olives: προσεύχεσθε μὴ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς πειρασμόν (22.40; see also v. 46par. Mark 14.38/Matthew 26.41). A Jewish counterpart is found in 11Q5 XXIV, 10 (Psalm 155[Syriac Psalms III].11): “Remember me and do not forget me and let me not come into situations that are too difficult for me.” In 8.13 Luke has already said where “temptation” can lead—­to apostasy from the faith. The background of the petition is an understanding of reality that interprets the existential crises of believers as an opportunity arranged for them by God that produces proof of the load-­bearing capacity of their faith (cf. M. Wolter, TRE 20 [1990]: 679). It is important in this context that only believers are able to identify this situation as “testing” (cf. in this sense Sirach 2.1: “My child when you undertake to serve the Lord ἑτοίμασον τὴν ψυχήν σου εἰς πειρασμόν [prepare your soul for testing]”; and the comments on 4.13). The much-­discussed question of whether God effects the temptation himself or merely confronts the believer with it (e.g., Gielen 1998; Fitzmyer 2003) therefore misses the intention of the petition and its theological presuppositions. 11.5-­13: Jesus’s Speech on Prayer 5

And he said to them, “Is there anybody among you who had a friend and went at midnight to him saying, ‘Friend, lend to me three loaves of bread, 6for a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing which I could place before him,’ 7and that one answered from within and said, ‘Do not bother me, the door is already closed, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up in order to give something to you’? 8I say to you: if he does not get up anyway and will give to him because he is his friend, he will get up on account of his shamelessness and give to him what he needs.

96

The Gospel According to Luke 9

“And I say to you: ask and it will be given to you. Seek, and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks, receives; and whoever seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 11 “And which father among you, whom the son asks for a fish, would give to him a snake instead of a fish? 12Or (whom the son) asks for an egg—­would give to him a scorpion? 13If then you, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?” The speech of Jesus is comprised of two parts (vv. 5-­10 and vv. 11-­13) that are each introduced by the rhetorical question τίς (or τίνα δὲ) ἐξ ὑμῶν;. In both parts Jesus first narrates a parable from daily life (vv. 5-­8 and vv. 11-­ 12) and then transfers it to the disciples’ relation to God. Verses 5-­10 are concerned with the that of petitionary prayer and vv. 11-­13 with the what. The two parts are held together by the lexical pair “ask” (vv. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) and “give” (vv. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13) and “receive” (v. 10a). In 5-­8 Jesus narrates a hypothetical story with two imaginable, yet very different, outcomes (see also 17.7-­10). The rhetorical question in v. 5, however, already anticipates the result: none of the hearers has a friend who in a situation such as the one constructed in vv. 5b-­6 would react with the words of v. 7, and not in the way in which Jesus describes it in v. 8. 5 The question ends at the end of v. 7. In the Gospel of Luke, parable openings with τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν . . . ; or the like also occur in 11.1 (par. Matthew 7.9); 14.5 (par. Matthew 12.11); 14.28, 31; 15.4 (somewhat differently Matthew 18.12); 15.8; 17.7. They are thus lacking in the Gospel of Mark, and Matthew has them only where there is a Lukan parallel. The parallelism with the logion Luke 12.25 (par. Matthew 6.7) demonstrates the sapiential provenance of these beginnings. They argue by appealing to daily experience as evidence (cf. Matthew 12.11). The following parallels outside the New Testament point in the same direction: Sirach 10.28-­29 (“My child, in modesty honor your soul and give it the respect that is due to it. The one who sins against his soul—­who will justify [τίς δικαιώσει] [him]? And who will praise [τίς δοξάσει] the one who despises his life?”); 12.1-­13 (“Never trust your enemy . . . You should not let him stand near you lest he push you to the side and sit in your place. . . . Who has pity [τίς ἐλεήσει] on a snake conjurer who was bitten and with someone who feeds wild animals?”); Apocalypse of Elijah 1.23 (“Who among you, if he is honored in his craft, will go forth to the field without a tool in his hand? Or who will go forth to the battle to fight without a breastplate on?” [trans. O. Wintermute, OTP 1: 739]); Epictetus,



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 97

Dissertationes 1.27.19 (“Who among you [τίς ὑμῶν] who wants to go into a bath goes into a mill?”); see also Greeven 1982; K. Berger 1973b, 31–­33.

The grammatical subject of the three verbs is τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν. There is no change of subject, for this is ruled out by the coordination of καὶ πορεύσεται and καὶ εἴπῃ with ἕξει (thus, πρὸς αὐτόν and αὐτῷ in 5c, d each refer to the φίλος of 5b). The fictional subject is the hearers. They should imagine (this is why Luke uses the future and the subjunctive; cf. BDR §3666) that they go to a friend at midnight and ask him for three loaves of bread. μεσονυκτίου (genitive of time; cf. BDR §186.3) is meant to dramatically intensify the situation, for “midnight” is the moment that is farthest away from day; in this respect the depictions in Menander, Dyskolos 427ff; Theophrastus, Characteres 9.2.7; 10.13; 18.7; 30.20 remain behind the situation described here. In 6 the petition is grounded by having the narrator construct a situation of need that provides an acceptable reason for knocking on the door of a friend with the petition narrated in v. 5e. παρεγένετο ἐξ ὁδοῦ πρός με (for παρεγένετο πρός see at 8.19; for ἐξ ὁδοῦ, see 2 Samuel 11.10) describes the unpredictability of the situation and explains why the protagonist cannot fulfill his obligations as a host in relation to the friend (6b; on παρατίθημι for the serving of food see at 10.8). Thus, the protagonist of the narrative stands in a double relation of friendship and the fact that he disturbs the one friend at the midnight hour for the sake of the other friend makes his manner of action acceptable for everyone. What is related in 7-­8 is not the sequence of two actions but rather two possible mutually exclusive reactions of the friend who is disturbed in his sleep. Verse 7 describes the reaction of the petitioned friend that is to be ruled out, and v. 8 describes the likely reaction. Thus, in the progression of the narrative, v. 8 stands not behind but alongside v. 7. The addition of et si ille perseveraverit pulsans (“and if he persistently knocks”) between the two verses in a part of the Latin textual tradition has lastingly mislead interpreters. κἀκεῖνος at the beginning of 7 marks the change of subject and refers to the person who was designated by φίλος, πρὸς αὐτόν, and αὐτῷ in v. 5b-­d. Thus, the entire verse still belongs to the rhetorical question formulated in v. 5b, which leads the hearers to the only possible answer. No one has a friend who would react in the situation constructed in vv. 5c-­6 in the way that is hypothetically narrated in 7 (for κόπους παρέχειν see also 18.5; Mark 14.6par. Matthew 26.10; Galatians 6.17; Aristotle, Problemata 855a31, 37; Gnomologium Vaticanum 355; Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 3.3.2 [here in connection with ἀναιδής; see v. 8]).

98

The Gospel According to Luke

In 8, by contrast, the outcome is related that can be expected according to all experience. The speech introduction λέγω ὑμῖν corresponds with the use of the future verb form δώσει and signals the overlap of narrative situation and narrated situation (see also 12.37d, 44 and 14.24; 19.26; 20.15b). In the course of the narrated events, the narrator places his hearers at exactly this point in the narrative. Thus, he does not look back at the outcome of the story but rather directs the eye of the hearers into the future. The verse is chiastically structured. The first two members and the last two members each describe the same action (“getting up” and “giving to him”), which are thus narrated twice. On the other hand, in εἰ καὶ οὐ δώσει αὐτῷ the middle two different justifications ἀναστὰς are mentioned, which nevertheless do διὰ τὸ εἶναι φίλον αὐτοῦ διά γε τὴν ἀναίδειαν αὐτοῦ not compete with each other. Rather, ἐγερθεὶς they are intended to doubly guaranδώσει αὐτῷ ὅσων χρῄζει. tee the certainty that the friend who is disturbed in his sleep will fulfill the request in any case. Even if the unlikely case should occur that he does not answer the petition for the sake of friendship, the ἀναίδεια of his friend will certainly move him to give bread to him. Elsewhere the New Testament hapax legomenon ἀναίδεια (cognates are also lacking) describes a behavior of people who ruthlessly seek to establish their interests and in doing so accept a violation against societal conventions (cf. Cairns 1993, 151–­52, 159–­60; Snodgrass 1997, 506ff; Waetjens 2001, 713ff). It has nothing to do with ‘perseverance’ or ‘tenacity.’ The alternatives “positive” or “negative” too often stand at the center in the intensively discussed question about the meaning of ἀναίδεια in this text (cf. e.g., A. F. Johnson 1979, 128; Heininger 1991, 106–­7; Snodgrass 1997, 505). Here, however, the concern is not with the moral evaluation of his action but with its chances of success. In this respect, the polarity of διὰ τὸ εἶναι φίλον αὐτοῦ and διά γε τὴν ἀναίδειαν αὐτοῦ has no other intent than to convey the certainty that the request will succeed in any event.

For the pragmatic of the parable, this characterization contributes the indirect exhortation that one can turn to God without having to show consideration for the conventions that are in force among humans. 9-­10 function as the application. The disciples fare with God just like the petitioner in vv. 5-­8 fares with his friend, for “God is as approachable as a friend whom one may disturb in an embarrassing situation even at night in his sleep” (Haacker 1986, 6). They are promised that they will never unsuccessfully turn to God.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 99

In 9 the exhortation to actually turn to God in this confidence is formulated with the help of three synthetic parallelisms. The present tense in the imperative has iterative meaning (‘time and again’; cf. BDR §336.1), and the passive verb form of the first and third line “discretely indicates the action of God” (Zeller 1977b, 127). The three lexical pairs describe successful nexuses of conduct and consequences. They are semantically isotopic and are variations on the same theme—­the certainty that God will hear the one praying when this one petitions him. The first lexical pair is guiding in this regard, for it is taken up again in vv. 11-­13. The connection of the first two pairs finds its closest parallel in Jeremiah 36.12-­13LXX: “Pray to me, and I will hear you, and seek me, and you will find me” (but see also Isaiah 56.6: “seeking” God and “calling upon” [ἐπικαλεῖσθαι] him stand in parallel). Comparable promises are found for “ask”–­“give”: 2 Chronicles 1.7; 1/3 Ezra 4.42; Psalm 2.8; 36.4; Testament of Abraham A 8.7 (“I will give to you everything which you will ask from me, for I am the Lord your God”); Apocalypse of Elijah 41.17–­42.2; John 11.22; 15.16; 16.23-­24; James 1.5; cf. also the exhortation in the Instruction of Amenemope: “Pray to the sun . . . and say: ‘Give to me salvation and health!’; then he (sc. Aton) gives to you your life necessities, and you remain safe from terrors” (186–­189 = 10.12–­15; English translation of the German translation of Brunner 1988, 243). The same is true for “seek”–­“find”: God: Deuteronomy 4.29; 1 Chronicles 28.9; 2 Chronicles 15.2; Isaiah 65.1—­Wisdom: Proverbs 8.17; Wisdom of Solomon 6.12; Sirach 6.28—­philosophical knowledge: Epictetus, Dissertationes 4.1.51. The pair “knock”–­“open” (see also Song of Songs 5.2; Luke 13.36; 13.25; Acts 12.13-­14, 16; Revelation 3.20) is never applied to the relation to God elsewhere (a late rabbinic exception is b. Megillah 12b: “. . . a son who has knocked on the gates of mercy and they were opened to him”; see also Bill. I: 458). One must therefore assume that in 9 the story narrated in vv. 5-­8 has become the source domain for the image.

In 10 the three exhortations are transformed into statements; for the form (πᾶς ὁ + present participle + verbum finitum in the indicative) cf., in the Old Testament, Exodus 29.37; 30.14, 29; Leviticus 6.20; 7.25, and, in the New Testament, Matthew 5.22; Luke 18.14; 20.18; John 4.13; Romans 10.11 and elsewhere (this form is not specifically sapiential). What is formulated in v. 9 as a promise is now expressed as existing reality in order to confirm the promise rhetorically (cf. Psalms of Solomon 6.1–­6). It is difficult to decide whether ἀνοιγήσεται (𝔓45 ‫ א‬C L Θ Ψ and others; see also A K W Γ Δ and others) or ἀνοίγεται (𝔓75 B D) is original. On the one hand, the future could be a secondary adjustment to ἀνοιγήσεται in v. 9. On the other hand, the present could be an adjustment to the present verb forms in

100

The Gospel According to Luke

10a, b. The latter (and thus the originality of the future) is somewhat more likely, for with λαμβάνει and εὑρίσκει no adjustment to the future verb forms in v 9b, c were made. 11-­13 The two parabolic sayings (vv. 11, 12) and their application (v. 13) address two questions that the preceding material had left open: ‘Does God really fulfill every request?’ and ‘For what should one ask God?’ The fact that these two questions are connected with each other is shown by texts such as 1 Kings 3.5-­12par. 2 Chronicles 1.7-­12 (because Solomon asked God not for “long life, riches, or the death of his enemies,” and also not for “riches, goods, and honor,” but for “an obedient heart” or for “wisdom and insight,” his petition is fulfilled); Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.3.2 (Socrates has always asked the gods only “to give good things” [τἀγαθὰ διδόναι], for “whoever asks for gold or silver or rule, he asks . . . for nothing other than if he would pray when throwing the die . . . whose outcome is very evidently uncertain”); Maximus of Tyre, Philosophoumena 5.7.i.1 (ὁ θεὸς λέγει· ἐπὶ ἀγαθῷ αἰτεῖς; λάμβανε [“God says, You ask for the good? Receive (it)!”]); James 4.3 (“You ask and do not receive, because you ask badly [κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε] so that you can use it for your pleasures”); see also Sirach 7.4 (μὴ ζήτει παρὰ κυρίου ἡγεμονίαν [“Do not seek from the Lord rulership”]) and the material compiled by Gigon 1953, 96–­98.

The answer to the two questions emerges from v. 13. It is the Holy Spirit for which the disciples should ask God, for the fulfillment of this petition is certain. 11-­12 The two parabolic sayings are introduced with the same rhetorical question of sapiential provenance as vv. 5-­7 (see further at v. 5). Here, too, the answer is clear. No one would give his son a snake instead of the requested fish or a scorpion instead of an egg; the insertion of part of Matthew 7.9 in a not unimportant segment of the textual tradition is very likely secondary. Vis-­à-­vis vv. 5-­8 the position of the hearers changes within the narrated figure constellation. Their perspective is no longer the perspective of the one asking but rather the narrative figure who is being asked. Unlike in the parallel in Matthew 7.9-­10, the oppositional pair “fish/snake” stands at the beginning (11) and the other pair is not “bread/stone” (Matthew 7.9) but rather “egg/scorpion” (12). The fact that of all things Luke speaks of a snake and a scorpion, which often form a pair in Hellenistic literature, calls to mind, of course, 10.19 (see there for attestations). The Lukan version evidently wants to speak very consciously of entities that harm the child in order to increase rhetorically the persuasiveness of the example with the help of the absurdity of the rejected action (other proposed explanations can be found in Marshall).



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 101

13 The application is formulated with the help of an argumentum a comparatione (πόσῳ μᾶλλον; cf. M. Wolter, EWNT 2: 940–­41; Lausberg 1973, §395–­97), i.e., with the help of an a fortiori conclusion from the more difficult case to the easier case. If even evil people know to give their children good gifts, the heavenly Father will, of course, do so all the more with his children. The father role, which still belonged to the addressees in the two parabolic sayings, now moves over to God. In contrast, with the help of a concessive participium coniunctum (ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες; on this see BDR §418.3), the hearers are characterized by the feature that categorically distinguishes them as humans from God (see also Matthew 12.34; Mark 10.18par. Luke 18.19: “No one is good except one: God”). This is not a “pessimistic diagnosis” (contra Bovon II: 155), and the disciples are also not morally disqualified. The phrasing δόματα ἀγαθά (see also Sirach 18.17: the word is more than a δόμα ἀγαθόν; Vettius Valens, ed. Kroll 1973, 249.4: the planet Jupiter as “foundation of life and of ἀγαθὰ δόματα”) summarizes the life-­ supporting gifts “fish” and “egg” from v. 11 and v. 12. On the side of God, it is the Holy Spirit that corresponds to them (instead of this Matthew 7.11 has ἀγαθά again). Thus, the special accent that Luke attaches to Jesus’s instruction on prayer becomes apparent here. The petition with which the disciples can come before God at every time and with absolute assurance of fulfillment is the petition for the Holy Spirit. In this way, however, the instruction already reaches far beyond the time of Jesus into the future, for the disciples will not receive the Spirit until after Jesus’s exaltation. Thus, Luke has Jesus already give the disciples instructions for the time of his absence here, and it is certainly no accident that he comes to speak again of the Spirit in the next instruction of the disciples (cf. 12.10, 11-­12). The variant πνεῦμα ἀγαθόν (𝔓45 L pc aur vg syhmg) for πνεῦμα ἅγιον (𝔓75 ‫ א‬A C) is not completely uninteresting; on this cf. North 2005, who advocates the originality of this reading with reference to 2 Esdras 19(= Nehemiah 9).20 (τὸ πνεῦμά σου τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἔδωκας συνετίσαι αὐτούς [“You have given your good Spirit in order to instruct them (the wilderness generation)”]) and PsalmLXX 142.10 (“Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. May your good Spirit lead me on a level path [τὸ πνεῦμα σου τὸ ἀγαθὸν ὁδηγήσει με ἐν γῇ εὐθείᾳ]”). Against this speaks, of course, the much better external evidence for πνεῦμα ἅγιον and the likelihood that it represents a fusion with the Matthean parallel, which speaks of ἀγαθά (Matthew 7.11) instead of πνεῦμα ἅγιον.

11.14-­28: Jesus and the Evil Spirits 14

And he drove out a mute demon. And it happened when the demon had come out, the mute man began to speak, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, “By Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, he drives out the demons.” 16But others wanted to put him to the test and demanded a sign from heaven from him. 17But he knew their

102

The Gospel According to Luke

thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom that is divided against itself is destroyed, and a house against a house falls down. 18But if Satan is also divided against himself, how can his rule remain standing? . . . because you say that I drive out demons with Beelzebul. 19But if I drive out demons with Beelzebul, your sons—­with whom do they drive them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 20But if I drive out the demons with the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has arrived among you. 21As long as the armed strong man guards his palace, his possessions are in safety. 22But as soon as one who is stronger than he attacks and overcomes him, he takes away his whole armor, upon which he had relied, and distributes his booty. 23Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 24 “When an unclean spirit comes out of a person, it passes through waterless places in search for a resting place, without finding (it). Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I moved out.’ 25And he comes and finds it swept and adorned. 26Thereupon he goes and fetches seven other spirits that are even worse than himself. And they go in and take up residence there. And at the end it is worse for that person than at the beginning.” 27 But it happened as he said this that out of the crowd a woman raised the voice and said to him, “Blessed (is) the womb that bore you and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28But he said, “Blessed rather (are) those who hear and keep the word of God!” The narrative continues with a longer speech of Jesus, at the front of which a concise scenic introduction is placed (vv. 14-­17a). The narrator does not speak again until v. 27. Form-­critically it is a chreia, and the present example of the genre displays a clear affinity to controversy dialogues. The speech can be structured roughly into three parts. Verses 17b-­20 are concerned with the question of “by what” Jesus drives out the demons (cf. the threefold repetition of the instrumental dative ἐν from the accusation of v. 15b in vv. 18c, 19a, 20a—­not “by Beelzebul” but “by the finger of God”; see also BDR §219.1). The two other parts are each opened with ὅταν (vv. 21, 24). The parabolic saying of the strong one and a call for decision only come in vv. 21-­23, and the peculiar story of an exorcised demon (vv. 24-­26) follows at the end. The thematic coherence of the three parts is established by the fact that they are all concerned with the driving out of demons (cf. the inclusio through ἐξέρχεσθαι in vv. 14b, 24a, c). Verses 14-­23, in which Jesus defends himself against the accusation that he drives out demons with the help of Beelzebul, has a parallel in Mark 3.22-­27, but that passage has left scarcely any traces in the Lukan text. Since there are



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 103

extensive agreements with the Matthean version of this episode (Matthew 12.22-­ 30), however, one must assume that Luke follows a parallel tradition in Q here (cf. Fleddermann 1995, 41ff; Laufen 1980, 126ff). This probably applies also to the parabolic saying of the overcoming and plundering of the “strong one” in vv. 21-­22, for the Lukan version differs clearly from the Markan–­Matthean parallels, which largely agree with each other (the version of Gospel of Thomas 35 corresponds to them and especially Mark 3.27). The demand for a sign in v. 16 has quite extensive agreements with Mark 8.11 (πειράζοντες; ἐξ/ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; ἐζήτουν/ζητοῦντες; παρ’ αὐτοῦ). The story told in vv. 24-­26 is also found almost word for word in Matthew 12.43-­45, so that an origin from Q is probable.

The scene in vv. 27-­28 is concluded with an acclamation that probably comes from Luke himself. He has Jesus react to it with a correctio. It also subsequently found entrance into Gospel of Thomas 79.1–­2. 14 It emerges from the scenic introduction that Jesus is now no longer alone with the disciples but located in the midst of a crowd of people. Luke narrates a compressed exorcism story that consists, to be sure, only of the center with exorcistic action as well as the demonstration of its success (14a-­b) and the finale (motif of wonder; 14c [see at 1.63]). Thus, it lacks introduction and exposition (they are added by D and others in dependence on Matthew 12.22); presumably the use of the coniugatio periphrastica ἦν ἐκβάλλων (cf. BDR §353; for its use in the Gospel of Luke, see Verboomen 1992) is intended to balance out this lack. The succinctness of the presentation is due to the fact that the narrated events function merely as the starting situation for a chreia. Some manuscripts supplement the adjective κωφόν (thus 𝔓45,75 ‫ א‬A* B L f 1 33 and others) with the phrasing καὶ αὐτὸ ἦν (Ac C W Θ Ψ f 13 𝔐 and others), but that is much too poorly attested to be original. The agreements with Matthew 12.22-­23 (κωφός, λαλεῖν, οἱ ὄχλοι) make it likely that the starting situation was already narrated in a similar manner in Q. In 15 Luke has antagonists appear who are recognizable as such for the readers in the fact that they express the opinion that Jesus drives out the demons with the help of Beelzebul. Thus, the accusation goes beyond the concrete situation and refers to the whole of Jesus’s exorcistic activity. While the antagonists are identified as scribes from Jerusalem in Mark 3.22 and as Pharisees in Matthew 12.24, Luke identifies them as some (τινές) members of the crowd. In Luke, therefore, the Beelzebul controversy is not yet part of the controversy with the Pharisees, which only begins in v. 37. The name Βεελζεβούλ occurs in 2 Kings 1.2Symmachus as a name of the god of Ekron, from whom king Ahazia wants to have an oracle brought. At this point (see also

104

The Gospel According to Luke

vv. 3, 6, 16) the Hebrew text has ‫( ַּב ַעל זְ בּוב‬Baʿal-­Zebub, “lord of the flies”; accordingly, the Vulgate always has Beelzebub). This, however, is a verbal mocking, for in Ugaritic texts zbl is attested as predication of the god Baʿal with the meaning “prince” or “ruler” (KTU 1: 5 VI.10 [p. 23]). In Matthew 10.25 this is the name of the master of the house (οἰκοδεσπότης). This designation takes up Hebrew ‫זבּול‬, which means as much as “house, dwelling place” (e.g., 1 Kings 8.13; 2 Chronicles 6.2; Psalm 49.15; Isaiah 63.15; Habakkuk 3.11); “Baʿal -­Zebul” would then mean “lord of the house/dwelling place” (see further in MacLaurin 1978; Herrmann 1999). Beelzebul’s mention in the New Testament and Testament of Solomon (3.2ff; 16.9–­10, 12; 17.1, 9; 108.1, 7, 9, 11,13, 30 and elsewhere) shows that he was disempowered to a demon like the other pagan gods; see at PsalmLXX 95.5: “For all the gods of the nations are δαιμόνια (Heb.: ‫)א ִלילים‬.” ֱ

The apposition ὁ ἄρχων τῶν δαιμονίων signals that Beelzebul is ascribed the highest position in the hierarchy of the demons (cf. also Testament of Solomon 3.6: ἐγώ εἰμι βεελζεβοὺλ τῶν δαιμονίων ὁ ἔξαρχος [“I am Beelzebul, the leader of the demons”]; 6.1–­2). In Greek Jubilees 17.16, he is called Mastipham ὁ ἄρχων (see also Jubilees 10.8: Mastema as “chief of the spirits”). Every exorcist who succeeded in using the power of the ἄρχων could employ it to drive out less powerful underdemons. 16 Luke has probably taken the demand for a sign from Mark 8.11; the linguistic overlaps (see above) make this more than likely. But it may also have been handed down in Q. Luke does not bring in Jesus’s answer—­ which directly follows in Mark in 8.12—­until 11.29-­30. He has relocated the demand for a “sign from heaven” to this place in order to create a complementary counterpart to v. 15. The demand alleges that Jesus stands not on the side of the devil but on the side of God, and it calls on him to demonstrate this through a sign (for this understanding of πειράζειν see the introductory comments on 4.1-­13 and at 4.13). 2 Kings 20.8-­11 (see also Isaiah 38.7-­8) illustrates what such a sign could look like. The prophet announces as a σημεῖον παρὰ κυρίου (“sign from the Lord”) (v. 7) that God make the shadow of the sun recede ten steps, which then promptly happens; cf. also Isaiah 7.11-­12: “to put to the test” (πειράζειν) in that a σημεῖον παρὰ κυρίου (“sign from the Lord”) is requested. This exhortation implies that the exorcisms of Jesus were not recognized as such signs. 17 Luke has configured the introduction to Jesus’s answer (17a) in the same manner as in 5.22 (see further there) and 6.8. These are also controversy dialogues and διανοήματα here means the same thing as διαλογισμοί there. In his answer Jesus reacts at first only to the accusation made in v. 15 (the demand for a sign is not commented on until v. 29). He uses a parabolic saying that argues with widespread cultural knowledge. Every civil war leads to the destruction of the polis or kingdom in which it takes



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 105

place (17c). The meaning of this description is clear, for the consequences of the civil war are described and not its character (the falling of the houses concretizes not ἐφ’ ἑαυτὴν διαμερισθεῖσα but ἐρημοῦται). In 18-­20 Luke strings together three conditional sentences. They are each introduced with εἰ δέ and are combined with one another in different ways. Verse 18 and v. 19 refer in a chiastic manner to the accusation (v. 15b; taken up in v. 19) and Jesus’s immediate answer (v. 17b; taken up in v. 18) and argue in each case with a rhetorical question. Verse 20a is related antithetically to v. 19a, and as the decisive difference between the opinion of the τινές from among the people and reality it is emphasized that Jesus drives out the demons not “by Beelzebul” but “by the finger of God.” 18 functions as the “application” of the parabolic saying from v. 17. In 18a the phrasing of v. 17b is first taken up again, with only the general πᾶσα βασιλεία being replaced by ὁ σατανᾶς. That Luke thereby equated Satan and Beelzebul (Fitzmyer; Marshall) does not follow from the text. Rather, “Satan” stands here in a metonymic manner for all those through whom he exercises his rule. In the present case these are the demons and Beelzebul. The recourse to the rhetorical trope of metonymy has the function of making visible the absurdity of the interpretation of Jesus’s exorcisms formulated in v. 15, for it implies that the devil would proceed against himself. This is an absurd opinion, however, for the rhetorical question in 18b makes unmistakably clear that what is said about πᾶσα βασιλεία in v. 17b also applies, of course, to the βασιλεία of Satan. It cannot remain standing (σταθήσεται) but will be destroyed (ἐρημοῦται). The conclusion remains unspoken (and the justification enthymematic; cf. Aristotle, Rhetorica 1.2.13; Lausberg 1973, §371): ‘This is why Satan could never allow demons to be driven out with the help of Beelzebul, and therefore this interpretation of my exorcisms is mistaken.’ The grounding clause in 18c establishes this connection to the accusation made in v. 15. In the sense of BDR §479.1 one would have to supply as the main clause ‘This I say’ or the like (but see also BDR §456.25); parallels for such a usage are found in Revelation 3.17; Aristophanes, Vespae 342; Numbers 11.12 (in each case with ὅτι λέγεις). 19 The second argument is not actually a refutation of the accusation but rather an unmasking of the hostile partiality of Jesus’s critics. Here, too, much remains unstated. In particular, it remains open how Jesus himself interprets the activity of the Jewish exorcists. On the basis of what precedes, one can merely say that he does not think that they drive out the demons by Beelzebul. υἱοὶ ὑμῶν characterizes their belonging to the circle of the questioner; one can safely rule out that the disciples are intended by this (thus now again Shirock 1992; Bock), especially since this assumption

106

The Gospel According to Luke

is based on an incorrect interpretation of 19c. Exorcisms are attested in Judaism only very rarely up to the New Testament period (1QapGen XX, 28–­29; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.46–­48; see also K. Thraede, RAC 7: 56–­58; Böcher 1970, 170–­71; Kollmann 1996, 131ff, 137ff). Rather, the question has a rhetorical function. Its addressees are meant to obtain awareness about themselves and not about the exorcisms of their “sons.” Above all, it does not want to suggest that the exorcisms “of your sons” also realize the kingdom of God, for this remains reserved only for the exorcisms of Jesus alone (v. 20; with Davies/Allison 2001–­2004, II: 339). It is very doubtful whether the saying about the judging function of the Jewish exorcists in 19 aims at the last judgment analogously to 11.31-­32. ὑμῶν κριταὶ ἔσονται probably means nothing more than that “they will set you in the wrong” (see also Wisdom of Solomon 4.16: “The righteous one, who has fallen asleep, will condemn [κατακρίνειν] the wicked who are still living”; Hebrews 11.7; F. Büchsel, ThWNT 3: 944 with n. 4); see further at 11.31-­32. 20 First, Jesus says with what he actually drives out the demons—­“with the finger of God” (20a) or “with the Spirit of God” (Matthew 12.28). This is also what distinguishes his exorcisms from those of other exorcists—­ namely, that he, Jesus, is the one who drives out the demons. It is debated which of these phrasings stood in Q (in favor of ‘finger’ Marshall; Laufen 1980, 131; Fitzmyer; Bovon; Bock; CEQ and others; in favor of ‘Spirit’ Nolland; Fleddermann 2005a, 479ff); the arguments that are presented on each side are most clearly set out in Davies/Allison 2001–­2004, II: 340. One cannot know which hypothesis is true. What is clear, however, is that an allusion to Exodus 8.15 is intended with the “finger of God” (cf. further Exodus 31.18; Deuteronomy 9.10; Psalm 8.4). The assumption that Luke also thought of Deuteronomy 9.10 (recently Wall 1987; Woods 2001) is based on the inaccurate presupposition that the so-­called ‘travel narrative’ wanted to be something like a “Christian Deuteronomy” (on this, see the introductory comments on 9.51–­18.34). However, there need not be an echo of a christological Moses typology (Emmrich 2000); the exodus and Sinai typology that Woods 2001 wants to discover here (e.g., 140–­41, 214) also overload this allusion. In Exodus 8.15 the third plague (gnats) is interpreted by the Egyptian magicians with the words δάκτυλος θεοῦ ἐστιν τοῦτο (“This is the finger of God!”). The demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο refers to Aaron’s staff with which the plague was initiated (vv. 12-­13); thus, this staff is what is regarded here as the “finger of God” (cf. already Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.2.8; see also Woods 2001, 74ff; contrast Klingbeil 2000, 415). With this statement the Egyptian magicians explain why they themselves are not able, with the help of their own staffs, to likewise



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 107

change dust into gnats. In De migratione Abrahami 85 and De vita Mosis 1.112, Philo of Alexandria refers to Exodus 8.15 (on this cf. van der Horst 1997, 93ff). On an ostracon from the late imperial period there is, to be sure, an incantation of Kronos κατὰ τοῦ δακτύλου τοῦ θεοῦ (“by the finger of God”) (Deissmann 1923, 260), but it is based on an entirely different idea than the driving out of demons “by the finger of God.”

20b features the theological central point. Jesus interprets his exorcisms as the experienceable reality of the salvation of the kingdom of God (for the sequence εἰ . . . ἄρα see also Galatians 2.21; 3.29; Hebrews 12.8 with BDR §4518; on this cf. Welker/Wolter 1999, esp. 107). ἔφθασεν ἐπί is not temporally connoted (with the meaning ‘what has previously been expected from the future has now become present’). Rather, what is expressed is a spatial movement. The reality of salvation of the kingly reign of God that already exists in heaven can now also be experienced on earth and among people in the exorcisms of Jesus. Thus, it comes, so to speak, from heaven to earth. φθάνειν ἐπί describes this movement from above to below or from God to humans also in 1 Thessalonians 2.16 and Testament of Levi 6.11 (of the wrath of God); Daniel 4.24Theodotion (of the judgment of God; see also v. 28); Testament of Abraham A 1.3 (of death); generally with reference to reaching a place, e.g., Judges 20.34, 42; Testament of Naphtali 6.9; Philo, De opificio mundi 5.8; De specialibus legibus 4.175; Diodorus Siculus 4.73.5; Plutarch, Caesar 18.2; Moralia 988c. All the texts make clear that the concern is always with the reaching of a place, not merely with drawing near to it. For this reason one should not speak of the presence of the kingdom of God in the activity of Jesus in a temporal sense but in a spatial or personal sense. Accordingly, Jesus’s exorcisms are not only “signs of the presence of his kingdom” (Bovon II: 175), but of its concretely experienceable reality. With this saying Jesus postulates the concrete experienceability of the salvation of the kingdom of God in his activity (see also 17.21); its universal establishment remains reserved for the coming of God that still lies in the future. 21-­22 With the parabolic saying, Luke has Jesus once more explain how his exorcisms are to be interpreted. A heavily armed ruler can be overthrown, on the one hand, only when, but on the other hand, at any time when an even more heavily armed ruler attacks him. Unlike Mark 3.27par. Matthew 12.29, the Lukan version of the parabolic saying describes not the situation of a house but of a heavily guarded palace. There are indirect cross-­connections to Isaiah 49.24 (“Can one take booty [LXX: σκῦλα] from a strong one [‫;מּגִ ּבֹור‬ ִ LXX: παρὰ γίγαντος]?”) and Psalms of Solomon 5.3 (“No one takes booty from a powerful man [σκῦλα παρὰ ἀνδρὸς δυνατοῦ]”). In 21 the source domain is, to be sure, not described in an

108

The Gospel According to Luke

entirely consistent manner, for someone who has a palace (αὐλή) does not guard it himself but has people to do it for him (cf. e.g., Esther 1.1m = Additions to Esther A 12; Herodianus Historicus 2.1.1). Thus, it could be the case that the controversy on the level of the target domain carried out in vv. 15-­20 has already influenced the source domain here. In any case, the metaphorical transparence of ἰσχυρὸς καθωπλισμένος (21a) for Satan is easy to recognize. But who then is the “stronger one” (22a)? He is usually identified with Jesus, and reference is sometimes made in a methodologically problematic way to 3.16 (thus, e.g., Fitzmyer II: 919; Eckey). On the other hand, one can say only of God that he is superior to Satan. For the Lukan Christology, however, the two belong indissolubly together, for Jesus acts as the earthly representative of God. With a view to the accusation made in v. 15, the picture thus wants to express that the exorcisms of Jesus cannot be a ‘palace revolution,’ for Satan could put down such a revolution on account of his power. Rather, they can only be understood rightly as a successful raid by an even stronger person who attacks the rule of Satan from outside. This person has to be the representative of God, because only God can break the power of Satan. The consequences of the overcoming of the “strong one” described in 22b-­c should not be allegorically pressed (as, e.g., in Bovon; Bock; Eckey), for the notion that a person (takes off and) takes away the armor of a conquered enemy is just as much a common component of the picture field as the notion that the conquerors distribute the plundered goods. The semantic contribution of these two elements consists in furnishing the defeat of the strong one with the characteristic of finality. He has not lost merely a battle but the war. Theologically this characteristic converges with Jesus’s interpretation of his exorcisms in v. 20. They are an integral part of the eschatic self-­establishment of God’s kingly reign. 23 The call to decision (par. Matthew 12.30) calls to mind Luke 7.23 on account of its position and its connection to the claim of Jesus. However, it now makes a clear intensification. A neutral indifference vis-­à-­ vis his self-­interpretation is not possible; rather, there is only a for or an against. The addressee is not—­as it is in 9.50 (see further there)—­the circle of disciples, but the public. Formally it is a synonymous parallelismus membrorum (BDR §492.13). Because the two parts describe ways of behaving that stand antithetically over against each other, the imagery that is evoked in 23b with συνάγειν/σκορπίζειν cannot be the sequence of sowing and harvesting as in Matthew 25.24, 26 (thus, e.g., O. Michel, ThWNT 7: 421–­22; Bock), but only the opposition of gathering and scattering, e.g., of a flock of sheep (cf. e.g., Deuteronomy 30.3; Tobit 13.5; Isaiah 13.14; Jeremiah 23.2; Ezekiel 28.25; 29.13; 34.13; Zechariah 13.7; John 10.12). In some of these texts the imagery is applied to the scattering of Israel and



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 109

its eschatic gathering, and Jesus’s call to decision places his own activity within this horizon. An important element of the self-­interpretation of (both the historical and the Lukan) Jesus can be grasped also in this saying (for Q, cf. Schlosser 1998). It is said to the historical and the narrated addressees of this call that their decision for or against Jesus is a decision for or against the salvation of Israel. 24-­26 There has been much puzzling (for a survey of the proposed interpretations see Davies/Allison 2001–­2004, II: 359–­60; Bock II: 1091–­ 92) over the meaning of the story of the unclean spirit (24a; on this see at 4.33, 36; 6.18; 8.29; 9.42) who, in the search for a resting place, first passes through waterless regions and then, bringing along with him seven more spirits who are even worse, takes up residence again in the person (for the conception of the “indwelling” of demons in people cf. Testament of Naphtali 8.6; of the “Holy Spirit”: Philo, De specialibus legibus 4.49; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 28.6; Romans 8.9, 11; 1 Corinthians 3.16; 2 Timothy 1.14) from whom he had originally been driven out. Onuki 2000 thinks that the description of the unclean spirit in 24 is oriented to the picture of roaming dogs that are infected with rabies (Greek at least ὑδροφοβία [“fear of water”]). The narration undoubtedly takes its decisive turn in 25. When the restless spirit returns to his “house,” i.e., into the person from which he had gone out, and finds it in a “swept and adorned” state, he goes out again and brings seven spirits that are even worse (v. 26a; for the number seven for demons see at 8.2) in order to move in with them into this person (v. 26b). The notion that demons sometimes return into people from whom they were driven out is also found in Mark 9.25; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.47; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 4.20.2; Acts of Thomas 46; for the notion of the human body as a “house” cf. 2 Corinthians 5.1-­2; Philo, De somniis 1.122; De praemiis et poenis 120; 1QH XV, 7, 12; 4 Baruch 6.3, and for the lexical pair σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον cf. Plutarch, Moralia 362c: Sarapis is the name of “the one who holds the all in order (τοῦ τὸ πᾶν κοσμοῦντος),” and this name is said to be derived “from σαίρειν, which some translate with ‘beautifying’ and ‘adorning’ (καλλύνειν . . . καὶ κοσμεῖν).”

26 Thus, if at its first return the unclean spirit had not found his “house” σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον, the outcome of the story described in 26c (at the end everything is worse than before; for this topos cf. 2 Peter 2.20) could have been avoided. Thus, the pragmatic of this narrative is oriented to the point that one should not leave the “house” of a demon that has been driven out in a “swept and adorned” condition. But what does this mean anthropologically? And who is the intended hearer? Is it the person

110

The Gospel According to Luke

from whom the unclean spirit has gone out (e.g., Fitzmyer; Bovon; Bock) or the exorcist who drove it out (e.g., Marshall)? In this case, the interpretation is usually oriented to seeing the condition of indifference toward Jesus criticized in v. 23 described by “swept and adorned.” Over against this condition it is demanded that one may not be satisfied with the departure of the demon but must let ‘Jesus’ (or faith in him) move into one’s heart (cf. as an example Bovon II: 180). This interpretation, however, certainly does not grasp the meaning of σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον (cf. also the justified criticism of the common interpretations in Nolland and Kilgallen 1993). The reaction of the demon described in 26a points in any case to the fact that he interprets this condition virtually as an invitation to move into this person with a whole pack of his kind. If one does not wish to completely forgo an interpretation, Nolland’s proposal is still the most plausible. The small story is intended primarily to be a warning against too much carelessness, because the demonic danger is still present. Over against v. 20 it would express something like an eschatological ‘Not yet!’ With 27 the narrative is still located in the same situation as in v. 14 (for the style of the joining together, cf. Matthew 12.46; Mark 5.35parr.; 14.43parr.; Luke 9.34par. Matthew 17.5; Luke 13.17; Acts 10.44; the linguistic configuration with ἐγένετο δέ + temporal specification with ἐν τῷ etc. is Lukan and corresponds to 1.8 [see further there]). “To raise the voice” ([ἐπ]αἰρειν) in the sense of “speak loudly” occurs only in Luke in the New Testament (see also 17.13; Acts 2.14; 14.11; 22.22). The macarism with which a woman from the crowd reacts to Jesus applies to the mother of Jesus only on the surface of the text. It is actually Jesus to whom the praise refers, however, for he is the light into which his mother is placed here. It is an indirect acclamation (see also Acts 12.22) and it states that every woman wishes for herself such a son. The macarism of the mother is a widespread topos in all antiquity. Unmistakable is especially the closeness to Genesis Rabbah 98.20, where Genesis 49.25 (LXX: . . . ἕνεκεν εὐλογίας μαστῶν καὶ μήτρας [“. . . because of the blessing of the breasts and the womb”]) is reshaped into a praise of Rachel: “Blessed are the breasts that nursed such a (sc. child), and the body from whom such a one has come!”; the remaining targumim on Genesis 49.25 are also similar; see also m. Avot 2.8 on R. Joshua: “Blessed is the one who bore him”; Pesiqta Rabbati 149a in Bill. I: 161 on the Messiah; on this, cf. McNamara 1966, 131ff. For the pagan environment of the New Testament cf. above all the macarism of the mother of Cleopatra as thanksgiving for the revelation in the Egyptian alchemist Comarius (first/second century CE): “You have enchanted us, O Cleopatra, with what you have said to us, for blessed is the womb that carried you” (μακαρία γὰρ ὑπάρχει ἥ σε βαστάσασα κοιλία; 17 [Berthelot/Ruelle 1887–­1888, 298.12]).



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 111

If this praise had actually become a “well-­known saying” already in New Testament times (Bovon II: 187), then this was obviously the case not only in the Aramaic speaking Jewish world of Palestine but also elsewhere. 28 points in the same direction. Luke has Jesus react to the macarism of the woman with his own macarism, which is not only characterized by the same correcting ring as 8.21 (see further there; for the corrective meaning of μενοῦν cf. Thrall 1962, 34–­35), but which also places the doing of the word of God in the foreground at the expense of the familial bond. While in 8.21 there was talk of “hearing and doing” (ἀκούειν καὶ ποιεῖν), here Luke brings in the lexical pair “hearing and keeping” (ἀκούειν καὶ φυλάσσειν), which is attested no less abundantly in the Septuagint (e.g., Exodus 15.26; 19.5; Deuteronomy 5.1; 6.3; 7.12; 13.19). The sentence structure is also identical. The front-­placed μακάριοι is the topic and “those who hear and keep the word of God” is the comment. 11.29-­32: “This generation is an evil generation” 29

But when more and more people came together he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It demands a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. 30For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be for this generation. 31 “The queen of the south will stand up in the judgment with the people of this generation, and she will condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And behold, here is more than Solomon. 32The people of Nineveh will stand up in the judgment with this generation, and they will condemn it, for they repented at the announcement of Jonah. And behold. Here is more than Jonah.” The coherence of this sequence of sayings is established by the juxtaposition of Jesus’s identity and the failure of “this generation” to recognize it (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη; on this, cf. at 7.31 and 9.14). He himself, the Son of Man, is the sign that they seek (vv. 29-­30). His wisdom is not valued by this generation, although it surpasses the wisdom of Solomon (v. 31). This generation has not repented at his “kerygma,” although it surpasses Jonah’s kerygma (v. 32). This saying reflects the experience of rejection that Jesus received from the side of almost all his contemporaries. The concern, however, is not with a saying directed to “this generation” but with a saying about it. Its addressees were probably originally the disciples. Who else could have handed it down? For them it is a word of comfort because it confirms their decision for Jesus by announcing eschatic unsalvation to those who have not opened themselves to the message of Jesus (cf. Wolter 2002a, 37ff).

112

The Gospel According to Luke

First, Jesus comments on the demand for a sign from v. 16 (vv. 29-­ 30), and then he confronts “this generation” with the queen of Sheba and the Ninevites as positive counterexamples (vv. 31-­32). They function as a bright foil against which the stance of Jesus’s contemporaries is set off all the more darkly. The contrast is further intensified by the fact that both the queen of Sheba and the Ninevites are Gentiles and the fact that Jesus is vastly superior to both Solomon and Jonah. Both elements are intended to make the failure of “this generation” even worse. All three sayings also stand together in Matthew 12.38-­42. Matthew has merely attached the example of the Ninevites directly to the saying about the sign of Jonah; presumably he viewed the two as belonging together. Luke thus follows Q here.

29 Luke lets the crowd in 29 grow in relation to v. 14 in order to create a scenic abutment for Jesus’s sweeping verdict on the entirety of his contemporaries (29b; on ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη and its characterization as “evil,” see at 7.31 and 9.41). Jesus now comes to speak of the demand for a sign in v. 16 (29c). What is expected is a sign from God, and accordingly, with δοθήσεται (29d) a passivum divinum is used (that it is God who “gives” signs is also the case in Genesis 9.12LXX; Deuteronomy 6.22; 2 Chronicles 32.24; 2 Esdras 19[= Nehemiah 9].10; Isaiah 7.14; Acts 2.19; 14.3). However, because the generation that is alive at present is “evil,” it receives not the sign demanded by it, but only the “sign of Jonah” (σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ). Jonah ben Amittai is meant, whose story is told in the book of Jonah. It is debated how the genitive is to be understood and what is meant by the “sign of Jonah.” Is Jonah himself the sign that was given by God (genitivus appositivus/epexegeticus; see also at 2.34), or does it mean the sign that Jonah himself gave (genitivus subjectivus)? Is reference made to the saving of Jonah from the belly of the fish narrated in Jonah 2 (e.g., Matthew 12.40; Vögtle 1983; Marshall; Mora 1983, 40–­ 41; Schürmann), or is the proclamation of Jonah meant (e.g., Fitzmyer; Nolland; Huber 1998, 86)? Schmitt 1978 has brought Lives of the Prophets 10.8 into play: “And he (sc. Jonah) gave a sign (ἔδωκε τέρας) over Jerusalem and the whole earth: When they see a stone that calls out mournfully, the end draws near. . . .” In his opinion this saying arose in the Jewish war of 66–­70 and was then attached to the original saying of Jesus that is preserved in Mark 8.11-­12. For Luke, however, this interpretation of the sign of Jonah certainly does not come into consideration, for he speaks in v. 30 of the sign of Jonah “for the Ninevites.” Moreover, in Luke Jonah is not the giver of the sign but God. The interpretations in relation to John the Baptist (recently Plisch 2002; Theissen 2003) are dependent on too many speculative auxiliary hypotheses to be plausible; for Luke—­and already for Q—­they do not come into consideration anyway.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 113

The interpretation of δοθήσεται as passivum divinum makes it necessary to understand “sign of Jonah” as a genitivus appositivus/epexegeticus. Thus, the prophet himself is the sign (see then also v. 30a). That God can “give” (διδόναι) prophets and other witnesses as “signs” (σημεῖον or τέρας) is already found in Isaiah 8.18 (“in the house of Israel”); Ezekiel 12.6 (“for Israel”); 24.24 (“for you”); Jubilees 4.24 (Enoch in Edom, “so that he might bear witness against all the children of men so that he might relate all the deeds of the generations until the day of judgment” [trans. O. S. Wintermute, OTP 2: 63]). By contrast, the statement in each of the three biblical texts refers to prophetic symbolic actions with which the prophets announce to Israel its fate of unsalvation. In 30 Luke explains the meaning of the announcement of v. 29d. The structure of the bipartite sentence with καθώς . . . ἐγένετο –­ οὕτως ἔσται not only has an exact parallel in Luke 17.26 but also more or less close correspondences terminologically (but always: “as” + aorist or imperfect . . . , “so” + future) in 17.28-­30; Matthew 24.37, 38-­39 (in each case with “Son of Man” in a future trailing clause); Romans 5.19; Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes 9.18.3 (ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ πύργος ἐγένετο . . . οὕτως ἔσται καὶ ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ [“As also the tower arose . . . , so will also the church of God be”]). D. Schmidt 1977 mentions many examples from the LXX. All the texts describe an analogic relation between a known event of the past and an event that is still in the future. Thus, this manner of speech is concerned with explaining the unknown by means of the known. This is not a distinct genre (contra R. A. Edwards 1971, 47–­58; 1969). It is clear from this that the Lukan Jesus speaks here of an event that still lies in the future, at least from his temporal standpoint. But what is meant by the “sign of Jonah”? The mention of the Ninevites as recipients of the sign speaks against the assumption that Luke wanted to allude, first, to the salvation of Jonah from the belly of the giant sea creature (and then in the trailing clause to the resurrection of Jesus), for they did not learn anything about the events narrated in Jonah 1–­2. The most likely possibility (!) is therefore that Luke alludes to Jonah as the deliverer of a prophetic message in Nineveh. It was, to be sure, not a sermon that calls for repentance (thus Schürmann II: 273 for many others) but a pure announcement of unsalvation. According to Jonah 3.4, it consisted of only a single sentence: “Yet forty days (LXX: “yet three days”) and Nineveh is destroyed.” The question is only in what way Jonah becomes through this a model for the Son of Man. The overlap with Luke 17.26, 28-­30 makes it likely that here too Luke thinks of the Son of Man who is coming for judgment and who becomes a sign of unsalvation for “this generation.” This analogy between him and Jonah is not nullified by the fact that the Ninevites escaped the announced downfall, while “this generation”

114

The Gospel According to Luke

irretrievably falls into unsalvation. The explanation for this difference is provided by v. 32. 31-­32 The two verses are constructed in a parallel manner. Luke has Jesus again relate a “double example” (Morgenthaler 1948, I: 60; see also Luke 4.25-­27; 12.24, 27; 12.54-­55; 13.18-­21; 14.28-­32; 15.4-­10; 17.26-­ 29, 34-­35 as well as 3.12-­14; 13.1-­5; see also 4.4.3 in the introduction to this commentary). In 31a-­b, 32a-­b two scenes in the last judgment are described, which is staged as a so-­called evaluation judgment before the throne of the judge (cf. Konradt 2003, 16; see also Reiser 1990, 196ff). When it says that the queen of the south and the Ninevites “will condemn (κατακρίνειν) this generation,” this does not yet ascribe to them the role of the judge. It speaks against this that both stand, for the judge alone is permitted to sit (e.g., Daniel 7.9-­10; 1 Enoch 62.2, 3, 5; Revelation 20.4); all others have to stand (see also Zechariah 3.1; Mark 14.57). The adverbial ἐν τῇ κρίσει ensures that the resurrection from the dead is not intended with ἐγερθήσεται or ἀναστήσονται (the phrasing οὐκ ἀναστήσονται ἀσεβεῖς ἐν κρίσει [“the godless will not stand in judgment”] in PsalmLXX 1.5 means something entirely different). Rather, a kind of witness function is ascribed to the queen of the south and the Ninevites. On the basis of their exemplary behavior they make the misconduct of the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus identifiable as such and bring about through this their condemnation (cf. also 11.19; Wisdom of Solomon 4.16; John 12.48; Hebrews 11.7 on Noah: through faith κατέκρινεν τὸν κόσμον; good phrasing in Davies/Allison 2001–­2004, 358: “They will be the standard by which this generation will be condemned by God”). In Romans 2.27 Paul ascribes this same role to the Gentiles who keep the Torah and thereby set the law-­breaking Jews in the wrong in the final judgment and bring about their condemnation. The justification follows in each case. With the “queen of the south” (31c) the queen of Sheba is meant, whose visit at the place of Solomon is described in 1 Kings 10.1-­29; 2 Chronicles 9.1-­12 (see also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.165–­ 173). In Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.165 she rules over Egypt and Ethiopia (see also 2.249; Isaiah 43.3), while Testament of Solomon 19.3; 21.1 speaks of a “queen of the south” named Sheba. 32c alludes to Jonah 3.1-­9, where it is stated that the Ninevites repent on the basis of Jonah’s announcement of unsalvation. “κήρυγμα of Jonah” takes up Jonah 3.2LXX, where Jonah is exhorted: “κήρυξον in it (sc. the city of Nineveh) κατὰ τὸ κήρυγμα . . . that I have said to you.” Jonah is, by the way, the only prophet whose message is designated as κήρυγμα in the Septuagint (see also Jonah 1.2; 3.4, 5; 1 Clement 7.7). The real provocation lies in the fact that the queen of Sheba and the Ninevites were Gentiles. For the readers of the Gospel of Luke, this fact picks up a line that was already also identifiable in 4.25-­27 (see also 7.9b). Both here and



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 115

there, examples from the history of Israel are mentioned in order thereby to make clear the reversibility in principle of the relation of closeness to God and distance from God between Israel and the nations. In 4.25-­27 this reversal is attached to an action of God; here it is traced back to the action of humans. The concluding remarks in 31d and 32d have a rhetorical function and are intended to further intensify the failure “of this generation” in the sense of an argumentum a comparatione (cf. Lausberg 1973, §395–­97). They rejected Jesus, although he is superior to Solomon and Jonah. No one who has read the Lukan story of Jesus to this point needs to ask what the “more” (πλεῖον) of Jesus vis-­à-­vis these two consists in. 11.33-­36: The Eye as Lamp of the Body 33

“No one who has lit a lamp puts it in a hiding place, but on the lampstand so that the ones entering see the light. 34The lamp of the body is your eye. If your eye is honest, then also your whole body is full of light. But if it is evil, then also your body is in darkness. 35Take care, then, that the light in you is not darkness. 36If then your whole body is full of light and has no single dark part, it will be completely full of light, as when the lamp illuminates you with the ray of its light.” Without an intervening remark of the narrator, Jesus continues his speech with a composition of metaphorical logia. It shows no connection to what precedes. The narrative is still located in the situation of vv. 14-­16 and v. 29. Thus, the crowd continues to be addressed. The coherence of the composition is established through the semantic field “lamp, light, illuminate”: λύχνος/λυχνίαν (vv. 33a, b, 34a, 36c); φῶς (vv. 33c, 35); φωτεινός (vv. 34c, 36a, c); φωτίζειν (v. 36c) with the antonyms σκοτεινός and σκότος (vv. 34e, 35, 36b). It is, to be sure, developed with reference to different source domains. Verse 33 relates the imagery to the situation in a house (“lamp, lampstands, hiding place, enter”), while vv.  34-­35 are anthropologically oriented (“eye, body”); v. 36 links together the two source domains (“body” and “lamp”). The parabolic saying of the lamp (v. 33) has a parallel in 8.16 (par. Matthew 5.15). Within the saying about the eye as the lamp of the body (vv. 34-­36) there is a parallel to vv. 34-­35 in Matthew 6.22-­23. This all makes an adoption from Q likely. A controversial question is whether v. 36 was also in Q (thus, e.g., F. Hahn 1973; Schröter 1997a, 340–­47) or whether it comes from Luke (thus, e.g., CEQ; Fleddermann 2005a, 520–­21). There is a parallel to v. 33 in Gospel of Thomas 33.2–­3, which, for the reasons mentioned ad loc., presupposes Lukan redaction.

116

The Gospel According to Luke

Gospel of Thomas 24.3 should not be adduced as a parallel to vv. 34-­35, for the commonalities apply only to individual words and not to the text semantic of the verses, which would be needed to justify a tradition-­historical relationship.

33 Unlike in 8.16, here the parabolic saying does not yet refer to the target domain. Attempts to identify the place designated with κρύπτη using architectural categories (on this, cf. Spicq 1994, II: 336–­37; Alliata 1984) cannot succeed, for we are dealing with a functional designation for a place that no one sees because it is not publicly accessible or because no one sojourns there. The reading οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον, which is by no means poorly attested in the manuscripts (‫ א‬A B C D W Θ Ψ f 13 𝔐 latt sy[c,p],h; [Cl]; it is lacking in 𝔓45,75 L Γ Ξ 070 f 1 700*, 1241, 2542 pc sys sa), has presumably wandered in from Matthew 5.15. Furthermore, it also cannot be ruled out that φέγγος (𝔓45 A K L W Γ Δ Ψ 565, 700 pm) is original rather than the better attested φῶς (𝔓75 ‫ א‬B C D Θ 070 f 1,13 and others), for the latter could have been taken over from 8.16.

34 In 34a the imagery changes. The lamp metaphor is transferred from the house to the σῶμα. This change is certainly made easier by the fact that the human body could be designated metaphorically as “house” or the like (cf. at 11.24). Syntactically “the lamp of the body” is subject and “your eye” is predicate noun. 34b-­e is an antithetical parallelismus membrorum. It maintains that the condition of the eye is the epistemic basis for the condition of the body that belongs to it. As the lamp illuminates the house so that those entering can find their way around in it, so also the eye illuminates the “body” and makes its condition visible for other people. The genitive in ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματος should thus be interpreted as a genitivus objectivus, and σῶμα stands pars pro toto for the whole person. Thus, every person is either φωτεινός or σκοτεινός. These two adjectives pick up the traditional light–­ darkness metaphor, which is used to characterize salvation and unsalvation (cf. O. Böcher, TRE 21:90ff). Entirely in the style of conventional paraenesis, an ideal-­typical argument is produced—­there is only black and white; shades of gray are not envisaged. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 11.145 ascribes a comparable significance to the eye: Neque ulla ex parte maiora animi indicia cunctis animalibus, sed homini maxime, id est moderationis, clementiae, misericordiae, odii, amoris, tristitiae, laertitiae. . . . profecto in oculis animus habitat (“No other part of the body supplies greater indications of the mind—­that is so with all animals alike, but specially



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 117

with man—­that is, indications of self-­restraint, mercy, pity, hatred, love, sorrow, joy. . . . in fact the eyes are the abode of the mind” [trans. Rackham 2006, 523]).

With the opposition of ἁπλοῦς (34a) and πονηρός (34c) the source domain has, of course, already been left, and the target domain comes into play, in which the concern is with the concrete behavior of the addressed. What is expressed is nothing other than that an “honest” eye shows that the σῶμα belonging to it is “illuminated” and the person in question finds him-­ or herself in the condition of salvation, while from an “evil” eye one can infer a “darkened” σῶμα, that is, a person who finds him-­or herself in the condition of unsalvation. The decisive questions for the interpretation of the whole text are therefore: What is an ὀφθαλμὸς ἁπλοῦς and what is an ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός? The vice catalogue of Mark 7.22 knows of an ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός (see also Sirach 31.13 Hebrew: An evil eye is bad; God hates the evil of an eye). According to Matthew 20.15, the worker who has worked for eleven hours has an “evil eye” because he complains that he receives the same wage as the workers who worked for one hour. Deuteronomy 15.9 says concerning the one who will not give anything to the poor in the jubilee year: “Your eye will be evil (πονηρεύσεται ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου) in relation to your needy brother.” Sirach 14.10 fits with both: “An evil eye is envious of bread (φθονερὸς ἐπ’ ἄρτῳ).” Testament of Issachar 3.2–­4 shows that the concern is, in fact, with envy and jealousy. As conduct, ἐν ἁπλότητι is regarded, among other things, as not being φθονερὸς καὶ βάσκανος (“envious and jealous”) in relation to the neighbor, not slandering (καταλαλεῖν) and not disparaging (ψέγειν) the life conduct of the neighbor. Some manuscripts add πορευόμενος ἐν ἁπλότητι ὀφθαλμῶν (“walking in the honesty of the eye”). In 4.1-­6 the “honest one” (ὁ ἀπλοῦς) is described, to whose characteristics belong, among others, the following: “He views everything ἐν ἁπλότητι (in honesty), and from the seductions by the world he does not take on evil eyes (ὀφθαλμοὺς πονηρούς; other manuscripts read ὀφθαλμοῖς πονηρίας [through the eyes of evilness]) so that he does not see the commandments of the Lord twisted (διεστραμμένας)”; cf. also Garrett 1991, 96ff; J. H. Elliott 1994, 68ff. On the one hand, 35 exhorts to a sort of self-­reflection (σκόπει μή + indicative with parallels, e.g., in Plutarch, Moralia 266c; 1029d; for the translation cf. BDR §370.35), but on the other hand, this saying also has a pragmatic dimension. It warns against the loss of the inner light, i.e., the enduring share in the salvation of God (on this, cf. Proverbs 20.27: φῶς κυρίου πνοὴ ἀνθρώπων [“The light of the Lord is the breath of humans”]). Semantically isotopic would be exhortations to take care that one’s eye is not “evil” or that it is always “honest.” By contrast, the fact that the text

118

The Gospel According to Luke

speaks of the inner character of the person has its reason in the fact that it is the objective basis for the nature of the eye (see above; see also Allison 1987, 75). 36 The seemingly tautologically formulated conclusion describes the salvific consequences of keeping the previously expressed instruction. After v. 35 had warned against the impending loss of salvation, 36 thematizes the alternative. Moreover, the metaphor of the lamp is used differently than before, for the concern is now with the fact that the body shines. For this reason, one need not understand ἔσται as a gnomic future but can read it as a true future. The assumption of a “voluntative-­imperatival” meaning (Nebe 1992, 110) is also unnecessary. Rather, we are dealing with a (perhaps even eschatological) promise of salvation; cf. F. Hahn 1973, 131; Garrett 1991, 103. Another reason for not regarding the statement as tautological is the fact that 36a refers to the ὀφθαλμὸς ἁπλοῦς described in v. 34b-­c (cf. the taking up again of τὸ σῶμά σου, ὅλον and φωτεινόν) and makes it into a presupposition for the salvific consequence that 36c describes in the form of a talio. 36b is a rhetorical intensification of ὅλον that aims to impress upon the reader that it really means “completely” and therefore must be taken seriously. In Luke the saying about the eye as the lamp of the body ends the second speech of Jesus to the crowd, in which the concern was with the demand for a sign and the failure of “this generation” (vv. 29-­32). One can scarcely put forth more than speculations about a homology of the two parts of the speech (for the meaning of 11.14-­36 in Q, cf. Schröter 1997a, 340–­47). Wisdom of Solomon 1.1b-­2 provides the only cross-­ connection between the demand for a sign (v. 16) and the saying about the “honest eye” (v. 34): “Contemplate the Lord in goodness (ἐν ἀγαθότητι), and in the honesty of the heart (ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας) seek him. For he lets himself be found by those who do not put him to the test (τοῖς μὴ πειράζουσιν αὐτόν); he reveals himself to those who do not mistrust him (τοῖς μὴ ἀπιστοῦσιν αὐτῷ).” If one also incorporates the semantic profile of ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός presented above (see at v. 34), it is possible that in this generation’s demand for a sign Luke discerned an “evil eye,” which for its part had made visible the darkness of the distance from God in it (see also Garrett 1991, 101–­2). 11.37-­54: The Woes against the Pharisees and Scribes When he had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him. He entered and reclined at table. 38And the Pharisee saw it and marveled that he had not washed before eating. 39But the Lord said to him, “Well then, you the Pharisees, you wash the outside of the cup 37



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 119

and bowl, but your inside is full of greed and wickedness. 40You fools! Has not the one who made the outside also made the inside? 41Rather, give what is at your disposal as a donation, and then all things are clean to you! 42 “But woe to you, the Pharisees: You tithe mint and rue and every herb and neglect the justice and love of God. These things would need to be done, without neglecting those things. 43Woe to you, the Pharisees, for you love the place of honor in the synagogues and greetings in public. 44Woe to you, for you are like unrecognizable graves, and the people who walk over them, do not notice.” 45 But one of the scribes answered him, “Rabbi, when you say that, you insult us too.” 46But he said, “Woe also to you, the scribes! For you put scarcely bearable burdens on people and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. 47Woe to you, for you build tombs for the prophets, while your fathers killed them. 48Therefore you are witnesses and confirm the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, while you build. 49 “Therefore the wisdom of God has said, ‘I will send prophets and apostles to them, and (some) of them they will kill and persecute, 50so that the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the foundation of the world will be required of this generation—­51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who died between the altar and the house (of God).’ Yes, I say to you, it will be required of this generation. 52 “Woe to you, the scribes, for you have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and the ones who wanted to enter you have hindered.” 53 And after he had gone away from there, the scribes and Pharisees began to press (him) fiercely and to prompt him to other utterances, 54laying in wait for him in order to catch him in an utterance. Luke places the following episode in the house of a Pharisee. He constructs a small scene with the character of a controversy dialogue and then has it transition into a longer speech of Jesus. In the extended sense it is a chreia (cf. the demonstration in Gowler 1993, 217–­18). The absence of the decisive form-­specific elements speaks against it belonging to the literary genre of the symposium postulated by Steele 1984 (on this see the introductory comments on 14.1-­24). The structure is clear. At the beginning there is a controversy dialogue on the theme of inner and outer purity (vv. 37-­41). Jesus’s answer transitions into a two-­part speech, which is composed of two series comprised of three woes each—­against the Pharisees (vv. 42, 43, 44) and against the scribes (νομικοί; vv. 46, 47-­48, 52). Verse 45 stages the change of addressee. For the origin of the woes in

120

The Gospel According to Luke

Old Testament prophecy and their form-­criticism and tradition-­history see at 6.24-­26. For the speech of Jesus, there are extensive parallels in Matthew 23.13-­33, but the differences between the two texts are also clear. Unlike Luke, Matthew 23.13-­33 has seven woes, and these are not distributed between Pharisees and scribes but are directed against the “scribes and Pharisees.” If we orient ourselves toward the thematic correspondences between the individual parts of the speech of Jesus in Luke 11.39-­52 and Matthew 23.1-­36, the findings appear as follows: LUKE 11 39-­41 (no woe) 42 (1st woe) (2nd woe) 43 (3rd woe) 44 46 (4th woe) 47-­48 (5th woe) 49-­51 (no woe) (6th woe) 52

MATTHEW 23 25-­26 (5th woe) 23 (4th woe) 6-­7 (no woe) 27-­28 (6th woe) 4 (no woe) 29-­32 (7th woe) 34-­33 (no woe) 13 (1st woe)

In Matthew the second woe (Matthew 23.15) and the third woe (Matthew 23.16-­ 22) are without parallel in Luke. To the Lukan woes #2 and #4 there is in Matthew 23.6-­7, 4 only a thematic but not a formal parallel, and the reverse applies to the fifth Matthean woe in relation to Luke 13.39-­41. Thus, there is an intersection of four woes—­Luke #1 and Matthew #4; Luke #3 and Matthew #6 (here, to be sure, only the theme is identical and not the statement of the matter); Luke #5 and Matthew #7; Luke #6 and Matthew #1, while the total comes to nine woes. A certain agreement in the sequence of individual text parts can be observed only with regard to Luke 11.44, 47, 48, 49-­51par. Matthew 23.27-­28, 29-­32, 34-­36. That the two texts are related to each other tradition-­historically in the sense that they have common ancestors in the tribe of Q cannot be denied (cf. especially Kosch 1989, 61ff). Moreover, the fruitlessness of the previous tradition-­and redaction-­historical discussion has demonstrated that making more far-­reaching statements about the preliminary stage(s) of the two existing texts that are more than divisive speculations is impossible. There is a doublet to v. 43 (second woe) in 20.46 (not configured as a woe), which is based on Mark 12.38-­39. Verses 39-­40 have a parallel in Gospel of Thomas 89, and v. 52 (sixth woe) corresponds to Gospel of Thomas 39.1–­2 (= P. Oxy. IV 655.2.14–­19; with the phrasing “key of knowledge” this logion presupposes Lukan redaction). For additional parallels in ancient church literature cf. A. J. Hultgren 1991, 172ff.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 121

37-­41 As with other controversy dialogues (for the form, cf. Wolter 2002b, 25ff), the narrator begins with an exposition (vv. 37-­38). It is comprised of an introduction (v. 37a), description of the starting situation (v. 37b), and appearance of an antagonist, of whom it is said that he “marvels” (v. 38) at Jesus’s behavior. There then follows a position statement of Jesus (v. 39-­ 41). The theme is distantly reminiscent of Mark 7.2-­5; there, however, the Pharisees had criticized the disciples on the basis of their eating with unwashed hands. 37 The introduction in 37a is aligned with 7.36. In the New Testament the substantivized aorist infinitive with ἐν τῷ occurs only in Luke (Luke 2.27; 3.21; 9.34, 36; 14.1; 19.15; 24.30; Acts 11.15; cf. BDR §404.13,4). Luke has Jesus still remain where he has been in v. 14 and v. 29. The episode is the second of three meal scenes in which Jesus is invited into houses of Pharisees (see also 7.36-­50; 14.1-­24). The ἄριστον is the meal in the late morning or at midday (cf. Joseph and Aseneth 3.2; John 21.12, 15) as distinct from the δεῖπνον, which is the main meal in the late afternoon or in the evening (cf. Luke 14.12). 38 Luke presents the intervention of the Pharisee as being very reserved. Jesus is not reprimanded because of a violation of the halakhic norms; the Pharisee merely indicates that Jesus’s behavior surprises him (the phrasing πρῶτον . . . πρὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου is pleonastic; cf. W. Bauer 1988, 1453). In the New Testament there are parallels to the expression ἰδὼν ἐθαύμασεν only in Acts 7.31 and Revelation 17.6; however, it is found frequently in non-­ Jewish literature (e.g., Xenophon, Cyropaedia 6.4.3; Thucydides 3.113.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 9.10.6; Appian, Bella civilia 4.13.104; Chariton of Aphrodisias 1.3.3; Vita Aesopi 18). It is not clear from this text whether Luke has only handwashing in mind as in Mark 7.2-­3. A corresponding demand is lacking in the written Torah. How widespread this practice was beyond Pharisaic circles in the first century is controversial (very cautious: Booth 1986, 155ff; 189ff; somewhat more confident, though on a very small textual basis, e.g., Deines 1993, I: 695ff; for the practice in rabbinic times, cf. the Mishnah tractate Yadayim and Bill. I: 695ff). Josephus, Bellum judaicum 2.219 reports that the Essenes cleansed the whole body in a mikveh before the meal. 39 Jesus does not answer the marveling of the Pharisee, but rather answers on a fundamental level. It is marked by the semantic isotopy of βαπτίζειν (“wash”) (v. 38b) and καθαρίζειν (“cleanse”). Here Jesus does not ground or defend his own behavior, but rather he attacks the presuppositions on which the intervention of the Pharisee is based. The center of his attack is a double antithesis—­first, the antithesis of “outside” and “inside,” and second, the antithesis of “cup and bowl” and “you.” In the world of values that Jesus, the Pharisees, and Luke share, these antitheses do not

122

The Gospel According to Luke

stand equally alongside one another, but rather form a clear hierarchy. The “inside” is regarded more highly than “the outside,” and “people” (“you”) are considered more valuable than “cup and bowl.” Ps.-­Phocylides 228 goes very clearly in this same direction: “Sanctifications of the soul, not of the body, are the (true) cleansings.” Thus, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of setting their own priorities exactly the wrong way around. For them “outside” and dishes (ποτήριον and πίναξ also occur as a pair in Epistle of Diogenes 13; Artemidorus, Onirocriticon 1.74 [Pack 1963, 80.10–­ 11]) are said to be more important than their “inside” (τὸ . . . ἔσωθεν). This accusation is then further intensified by the fact that precisely their “inside” has much more need of a cleansing than “the outside of the cup and the bowl”—­namely, because it is said to be “full of greed and wickedness” (for an analogous use of γέμειν + vice cf. Quod Deus immutabilis sit 112; De migratione Abrahami 136; Isocrates, Areopagiticus 43; Panathenaicus 29). For the sake of the rhetorical effect, the halakhic practice of the purifying of vessels is grossly misrepresented. It takes place, of course, always by the washing or immersion of the whole vessel (cf. Leviticus 6.21; 15.12; see also m. Kelim 25.3; m. Mikwa’ot 5.6; 6.2 and elsewhere). That only—­as alleged here—­the outside was cleansed did not occur, for a distinction was never made between the outside and inside of vessels with regard to the cleansing, but (if at all) only with regard to uncleanness (cf. m. Kelim 25.3–­5; Macoby 1982). The accusation is based on the widespread notion that what matters is not the outside of a person (and certainly not the outside of cups and bowls), but his or her inner condition, for this is what determines his or her character (accordingly, the “inner person” is regarded as the “true person”; on this, cf. C. Markschies, RAC 18: 266ff). Mark 7.15, 18-­23 also makes use of this topos with the same terminological antithesis (the opposition of ἔξωθεν and ἔσωθεν) and likewise with reference to questions of cleanness. Beyond this, however, the accusation here also varies the sapiential criticism of a neglect of ethics vis-­à-­vis the sacrificial cult; cf. Proverbs 21.3 (“To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to YHWH than sacrifice”); see also 16.7LXX; Isaiah 1.14-­17; Hosea 6.6; Micah 6.6-­8; Amos 5.21-­24; and Letter of Aristeas 234: “God is not honored through gifts and sacrifice but through the cleanness of the soul. . . .”

40 must be read as a rhetorical question. In a linguistically analogous way it says in the Hebrew version of Job 31.15: “Did not the one who made me in the womb (also) make him (‫א־ב ֶּב ֶטן ע ֵֹׂשנִ י ָע ָׂשהּו‬ ַ ֹ ‫”?)הל‬ ֲ The subject of ὁ ποιήσας is God and not the human producer. The question wants to correct the overestimation of the “outer” vis-­à-­vis the “inner” attributed to the Pharisees and make the two entities equal to each other. In this way, of



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 123

course, the text remains behind the superordination of the “inner” over the “outer” that is implicitly presupposed in v. 39. 41 The adversative conjunction πλήν (cf. BDR §447.2b; 449.1) and the taking up again of the topic of cleanness from v. 39a disclose the overall meaning. If the Pharisees want cleanness, they should give “alms” (for the phrasing ἐλεημοσύνην διδόναι, see also 12.33 and Diogenes Laertius 5.17). “τὸ ἔξωθεν of the cup and the bowl” (v. 39a) and πάντα (41b) also stand over against each other antithetically. Cleanness through “alms” surpasses cleanness through water, because it really makes “all things” (πάντα) clean (ὑμῖν is probably a dative of judgment [cf. Kühner/Gerth 1890–­1898, II/1: 421–­22; see also Titus 1.15]). The far-­reaching significance that is ascribed to ἐλεημοσύνη here corresponds to Tobit 12.9 (ἐ. saves from death and cleanses [ἀποκαθαριεῖ] every sin) and Sirach 30.30 (ἐ. atones for sins); see also Tobit 4.10AB; 14.10; Sirach 17.29; 29.12; 40.24. “Charity” is actually an inaccurate translation of ἐλεημοσύνη (Heb.: usually ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬or ‫)ח ֶסד‬, ֶ for it is much more than a ‘kind gift’ (see also Heiligenthal 1983b; K. Berger, 1977, 183ff). Syntactically ἐλεημοσύνην is a predicate specification of τὰ ἐνόντα, which refers not to ἔσωθεν but designates in a comprehensive way that which stands at the Pharisees’s disposal (cf. LSJ s.v. ἔνειμι II.4: “all things possible” with reference to Isocrates, Philippus 5.110; Busiris 44; Plato, Phaedrus 235b and others; see also Josephus, Bellum judaicum 6.183); cf. also Zahn 480: “what is available” in the sense of ‘what is here on the table.’ 42 The first woe not only displays the same bipartite structure as v. 39b-­c, but it also argues analogously. Verse 39c (“your inside is full of greed and wickedness”) and 42c (“you neglect the justice and love of God”) mutually interpret each other. Parallel to v. 39b, a handling of the tithing torah that is regarded as typically Pharisaic is zeroed in on. This torah demands the tithing of the fruits of the fields and trees for the support of the Levites and priests (Leviticus 27.30; Numbers 18.21-­24), the tithing of wheat, juice, and oil (Deuteronomy 14.22-­23), and the tithe for the poor that must be brought out every third year from the produce of a year (Deuteronomy 14.28-­29). m. Ma’aserot 1.1 (“Everything that serves for nourishment, that is stored, and that grows from the earth is obligated to the tithe”) attests a clear expansion of the tithe obligation vis-­à-­vis the biblical regulations. In the description of the specifically Pharisaic handling of the tithe command, it is clear that the Pharisees took the obligation to tithe seriously and that they practiced an expansion of the biblical instructions. According to Strabo, Geographica 8.3.14, τὸ ἡδύοσμον (lit. “the sweet smelling”) is a designation for “the garden mint” (ἡ κηπαία μίνθη. . . , ἥν τινες ἡδύοσμον καλοῦσι [“the garden mint . . . , which some call ‘sweet smelling’”]). With regard to the “rue” (πήγανον) it is noteworthy for our

124

The Gospel According to Luke

passage that it is exempted from the tithe according to m. Shevi’it 9.1 (cf., however, Correns 1963, who says this applies only to the wild-­growing rue). λάχανον is the superordinated umbrella term; cf. Galen, Glossarium, ed. Kühn 1964, XIX: 153: “The herbs (τὰ λάχανα) . . . , such as (οἷον) coriander, garden mint (ἡδύοσμον), rue (πήγανον), celery.” It is not this handling of the obligation to tithe, however, which is held against the Pharisees, but the fact that in their occupation with this they “miss” more important things (on παρέρχεσθαι in this sense, cf. Deuteronomy 17.2 and Jeremiah 41[34].18: in each case “the covenant” of God; see also Luke 15.29: ἐντολήν σου), namely the “justice” and “love” of God. Both terms refer to the configuration of one’s relations to other people, but the rhetorical thrust does not lie here but in the genitive θεοῦ. The Pharisees are accused of regarding “mint, rue, and herbs” as more important than “God.” The trailing clause of 42c, which is lacking in Marcion and in D, wants to ensure that the tithing of herbs and the doing of justice and the love of God are not played off against one another, i.e., to make clear that the criticism of the Pharisees is not a criticism of the tithe. The imperfect ἔδει expresses here “that something that was left undone actually had to happen” (W. Bauer 1988, 344; see also BDR §3582 and Matthew 18.23; 23.23par.; 25.27; Acts 24.19; 27.21; 2 Corinthians 2.3; Hebrews 9.26). 43 The second woe thematizes nothing specifically Pharisaic but imputes human weaknesses to the Pharisees—­ the striving after and pleasure in demonstrations of societal recognition. Such accusations are usually directed against groups on whom this recognition is also and they are not entirely plucked out of the air. actually bestowed—­ According to Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 3.9.7, there are also holders of “places of honor” in the Christian worship services (they are called there πρωτοκαθεδρίται), and according to Shepherd of Hermas, Mandates 11.12, one of the characteristics of a pseudo-­prophet is that he wants to have a πρωτοκαθεδρία. CIJ II: 738.9 speaks of a προεδρία that a Jewish community had established for a female sponsor. 44 The last woe compares the Pharisees with graves that are not recognizable as such (because they were not, e.g., marked with white color; cf. Matthew 23.27) so that one unknowingly walks over them and defiles oneself in this way (cf. Numbers 19.16: “Everyone who in an open field . . . touches a grave is unclean for seven days”). The tertium comparationis is the fact that unknown dangers are concealed beneath a surface that appears harmless. And within the target domain this means that in contradiction to the appearance that the Pharisees evoke outwardly, they mediate not cleanness but uncleanness. Moreover, this woe can be read as a summary of the accusations made in vv. 39, 42. The cleansing even of the outside of the dishes and the tithing even of garden herbs deceive



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 125

many people about the true nature of the Pharisees and conceal the fact that behind this façade is hidden “greed and wickedness” as well as their neglect of “the justice and love of God.” 45 That a representative of the “scribes” shows solidarity with the Pharisees points back to 7.30 where Jesus had accused these two groups of rejecting the will of God. Here and at other points Luke uses the term νομικοί as a professional-­language equivalent to γραμματεῖς (“scribes”; on this see at 7.30), who are always linked with the Pharisees in the Matthean woes (as in Luke then in v. 53). From the intervention of the representative of the scribes it emerges with sufficient clarity that Luke wants the “scribes” to be understood precisely not as part of the Pharisees but as an independent group (see also 5.30 diff. Mark 2.16). For the address of Jesus as διδάσκαλος see at 7.40. 46 The justification for the first woe against the scribes refers first to the actualization of the written Torah in the halakah with the purpose of adjusting the Torah to the constantly changing cultural contexts, an updating process that was especially carried out by the Pharisees. Jesus speaks of it, e.g., in Mark 7.1-­13 as “tradition of the elders” (παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων; vv. 3, 5), “tradition of humans” (v. 8), or “your tradition” (vv. 9, 13). Acts 15.10 also describes the keeping of the Torah as a “burden” that must be “borne” (cf. also Matthew 11.30; 1 John 5.3: “his commands are not heavy [βαρεῖαι]”; Sibylline Oracles 8.324–­328 belongs to the reception history of this text; by contrast, this description is never found in Jewish texts that precede the later rabbinic talk of “yoke of the commandments” [on this, cf. Bill. I: 608–­9]). To be sure, however, this does not yet imply a typically (Gentile-­)Christian outsider perspective, for the Pharisaic endeavor for a constant updating of the Torah was also controversial within Judaism. The second part of the justification either accuses the scribes of not making it easier for average Jews to fulfill the Torah (thus, among others, Fitzmyer II: 946; see also Nolland; Eckey), or it charges them with not practicing what they demand from others (thus, among others, Marshall with reference to Bill. I: 913–­14; see also Bovon; Schürmann). The metaphorical hyperbolism and the repetition of τὰ φορτία as the object of προσψαύετε speaks for the latter view. With the accusation that the scribes themselves do not make the slightest effort to fulfill their demands, a topos of the philosophical and political invective is taken up—­namely, the contradiction between words and deeds (see also Galatians 6.13a; Epictetus, Dissertationes 3.24.110: οὐ λόγῳ, ἀλλ’ ἔργῳ τὰ τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἐκτειλεῖς [“Perform the beautiful and good not with word but with deed”]; Diogenes Laertius 6.28: τοὺς ῥήτορας λέγειν μὲν ἐσπουδακέναι τὰ δίκαια,

126

The Gospel According to Luke

πράττειν δὲ μηδαμῶς [“that the orators intensively occupied themselves with speaking about what was right but never with doing it”]). 47-­48 This woe confronts the Deuteronomistic tradition of the murder of the prophets (on this see at 6.23 and Acts 7.52) with the erection of tombs for the remembrance of the prophets. A survey is provided by Jeremias 1958 (see also Jeremias 1961), who has the building of monuments over the graves of biblical figures begin with Herod the Great (121–­22). Jesus evaluates the erection of monuments for the murdered prophets not to the advantage of the builder (this would correspond more to the modern understanding of memorials in which the memorial demonstrates solidarity with the one murdered and distance from the murderers). Rather, he interprets it as showing solidarity with the perpetrator (συνευδοκεῖν [48b]; in this sense also in Acts 8.1; 22.20 in relation to Paul with reference to the murder of Stephen; see also Romans 1.32). μάρτυρές ἐστε (48a, with ‫ א‬B L and others; to be sure, the variant μαρτυρεῖτε is as at least equally well attested by 𝔓75 A C D W Θ Ψ 𝔐 and others, but it is probably the result of an adjustment to συνευδοκεῖτε) probably likewise refers to τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν (see also Philo, Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat 52; John 5.33; 18.37: μαρτυρεῖν with dative of thing; see also at 4.22: μαρτυρεῖν with dative of person). By building the monuments, they actualize and confirm the deeds of their fathers in the present. Unlike in Matthew 23.31-­32, the murder of prophets in the present is not considered in Luke. 49-­51 The parallel in Matthew 23.34-­36 shows that an announcement of unsalvation already followed in Q, which was attached to v. 47 via the theme of the killing of the prophets. It is composed of a quotation of a saying of the preexistent Wisdom (vv. 49-­51a) and a confirming commentary of Jesus (v. 51b). In a universalizing expansion, the entire world history is presented as a history of violence against the messengers of God, for which the generation that is now living will be held accountable. 49 The preexistent Wisdom is actually not known as one who sends out messengers but as the mediator of creation (e.g., Proverbs 3.9; 8.22-­ 31; Wisdom of Solomon 7.21; 9.1; Sirach 1.4; 24.9; Philo, De fuga et inventione 109; De virtutibus 62; Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 199; De ebrietate 30–­31; Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 4.97). Here, her “I” stands in the place of God’s “I,” for elsewhere it is always only God who says of himself that he sends messengers to Israel (2 Kings 17.13; Jeremiah 7.25; 23.38; 26.5; Malachi 3.23 and elsewhere). The pair προφῆται καὶ ἀπόστολοι is only attested in Christan texts (Ephesians 2.20; 2 Peter 3.2; see also Revelation 18.20; Ignatius of Antioch, To the Philadelphians 9.1), so that ἀπόστολοι apparently means Christian apostles (cf. G. Klein 1972), whom Luke places in prophetic continuity. The use of the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 127

partitive ἐξ αὐτῶν as an object (see also 21.16) may be a Septuagintism (cf. BDR §164.2). 50 ἵνα is used consecutively and describes the consequence of the action (cf. W. Bauer 1988, 766–­67). The point of the statement is that the generation that is alive at present will be held accountable for the misdeeds of all earlier generations toward the messengers of Wisdom—­namely, ever since the creation (ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου in this sense also in Matthew 25.34; Hebrews 4.3; 9.26; Revelation 13.8; 17.8 as well as Chrysippus, SVF II: 989 [p. 289.29–­30]: ἀπὸ κτίσεως καὶ καταβολῆς κόσμου [“from the creation and foundation of the world”]). As in Genesis 9.6, Numbers 35.33, Acts 22.20, and elsewhere, here “shedding blood” is a metonym for violent death (see at 22.20b). The perfect ἐκκεχυμένον seeks to express that these murders have still remained unavenged (cf. the analogous use in PsalmLXX 78.10: “The avenging of the shed blood [τοῦ αἵματος . . . τοῦ ἐκκεχυμένου] of your servants . . . will become manifest”). The expression ἐκζητεῖν comes from the Septuagint (Genesis 9.5; 42.22; 2 Samuel 4.11; Ezekiel 3.18, 20; 33.6, 8; Psalm 9.13; see also 1 Enoch 47.4; Jubilees 6.7; 5 Ezra 1.32; 6 Ezra 15.9). Originally, it designated the notion that the blood (= the life; cf. Genesis 9.4, 5; Leviticus 17.11, 14; Deuteronomy 12.23) of a murdered person is demanded from his or her murderer and that the latter must be liable for it with his or her own life. 51 In the sense of a chronological polarity, the reference to Zechariah concretizes the comprehensive πάντων τῶν προφητῶν. Abel was, to be sure, no prophet, but he was the first person in world history who violently lost his life (Genesis 4.8-­10). At the other end stands Zechariah, of whom it is said that he was killed between the altar of burnt offering and the hekal. The person who is meant is probably Zechariah ben Johoiada, who according to 2 Chronicles 24.20-­22 was stoned “in the court of the house of YHWH” in the time of king Joash (840–­801 BCE). According to Lives of the Prophets 23.1, he died near the altar (ἐχόμενα τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου), more specifically “in the middle before the Ailam (ἀνὰ μέσον ἐπὶ τοῦ Αἰλάμ),” i.e., before the porch of the temple of that time (cf. 1 Kings 6.3; for the formation of the legend, cf. Schwemer 1996, II: 283ff. This identification is supported especially by the concordant localization. It is not contradicted by the fact that this murder was already more than eight hundred years in the past or by the fact that Zechariah ben Johoiada was, of course, not the last prophet who was killed, for it also concludes the series of the prophets in the Vitae Prophetarum. This positioning presupposes that the Old Testament canon was already concluded by 1–­2 Chronicles at that time; in that case “from Abel . . . to Zechariah” would be meant not historically but literarily (see also Peels 2001).

128

The Gospel According to Luke

The identifications with Zechariah ben Berechiah (Zechariah 1.1) and the Zechariah ben Jeberechiah mentioned in Isaiah 8.2 are contradicted by the fact that the former died in peace and at a great age (cf. Lives of the Prophets 15.6) and that nothing more is known about the latter. An identification with Zechariah ben Bareis (or Baruch), who was killed by the Zealots during the Jewish war ἐν μέσῳ τῷ ἱερῷ (“in the middle in the sanctuary”) (Josephus, Bellum judaicum 4.334–­ 344; quotation 343) is made unlikely by the year of death, for the Sayings Gospel Q, which certainly emerged before it, already knew of the death of Zechariah between the altar and the temple building. Matthew 23.35 may allude to his death, but this is controversial (cf. Steck 1967, 33–­40; Garland 1979, 182–­83).

51b has Jesus make a corroborating statement that takes up v. 50 (ἐκζητεῖν; ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης) and gives the nexus of conduct and consequences described there the form of an announcement of unsalvation. What is said about “this generation” in vv. 50-­51 corresponds to Revelation 18.24 where it says about Babylon-­Rome: “In her was found the blood of the prophets and the holy ones and all those slaughtered on the earth.” 52 In the last woe the metaphors “key” and “enter” refer to the same idea. “Knowledge” (γνῶσις) is envisaged as a building (cf. also Corpus hermeticum 7.2: “To lead on the way to the door of knowledge [τῆς γνώσεως]”), and accordingly “enter” (εἰσέρχεσθαι) means ‘to come to knowledge.’ The genitive τῆς γνώσεως is a genitivus obiectivus in the sense of ‘the key that one needs in order to attain to knowledge’ (see also Matthew 16.19; Revelation 1.18; 9.1; 20.1; Isaiah 22.22; Bel and the Dragon 12; as well as the corresponding non-­metaphorical use in Plutarch, Agis et Cleomenes 47.3; Artemidorus, Onirocriticon 5.17 [Pack 1963, 305.22–­23]: κλεὶς τοῦ οἰκήματος [“housekey”]). What Luke means here by “knowledge” (γνῶσις) has already been said in 1.77—­the γνῶσις σωτηρίας, i.e., the key that opens the door to salvation. The scribes are accused of not doing justice to the task given to them—­to enable people to access the knowledge of salvation—­because they teach the wrong thing (cf. also 1QH XII, 10–­12: “lying interpreters and deceitful seers . . . they withhold the drink of knowledge from the thirsty”). In 2 Baruch 10.18 the key-­metaphor is used in an entirely analogous way: “You priests take the key of the sanctuary and throw it into the heights of heaven; give it back to the Lord and say: ‘You yourself watch your house, for behold, we have been found to be unreliable stewards.’” In 53 Luke concludes the scene. ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ refers to εἰσελθών in v. 37b (κἀκείθεν is typically Lukan: nine of the eleven New Testament attestations occur in Luke–­Acts). After 5.21, 30; 6.7, he now again has scribes and Pharisees appear together as antagonists of Jesus. The intransitive ἐνέχειν in this text (for the general usage, cf. Spicq 1994, II: 3–­5)



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 129

has a certain parallel in Ezekiel 14.7: ἐγὼ κύριος ἀποκριθήσομαι αὐτῷ ἐν ᾧ ἐνέχεται ἐν αὐτῷ (“I, the Lord, will answer him in what he urges me through him [the prophet]”) (see also v. 4), for both here and there it describes the demand for an answer. A virtual addition of χόλον (cf. ἐνέχειν τινί) is therefore not only unnecessary but would even be false, because there is no dative here (contra Creed; Marshall; Bovon). Luke produces the impression that scribes and Pharisees want to entangle Jesus in debates in order to prompt him to further (incautious) statements (5.21; 7.49 speak against the interpretation of ἤρξαντο by Green). Here ἀποστοματίζειν designates simply what comes out of the mouth; see also Plutarch, Theseus 24.6; Pollux 1.102: “interrogate.” 54 In this way they want to obtain a reason for proceeding against him (see also already 6.7 and then 14.1; 19.47-­48; 20.20, 26). ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ is the Hebraizing paraphrase of a simple preposition (cf. BDR §217.3b; see further at 4.22). That Luke actually imputes this intention to the scribes and Pharisees is evident from the use of the metaphor in the Septuagint: Sirach 27.10 (λέων θήραν ἐνεδρεύει [“a lion lies in wait for prey”]); Job 38.39-­40 (θηρεύσεις δὲ λέουσιν βοράν. . . , ἐν ὕλαις ἐνεδρεύοντες. . . ; [“Will you hunt prey for the lions . . . who lie in wait in the bushes?”]); Psalm 10.9; and above all Wisdom of Solomon 2.12, for what is placed in the mouth of the “godless” there could also fit at this point of the Lukan Jesus presentation: “ἐνεδρεύσωμεν τὸν δίκαιον [we want to lie in wait for the righteous], for he is harmful for us and opposes our deeds and reproaches us on the basis of our violations against the law and claims that we violate our παιδεία.” 12.1–­13.9: Jesus and the Disciples in the Midst of a Huge Crowd The narrative is situated again on the same scene as in 11.14-­36. Jesus had left it in 11.37 in order to eat in the house of a Pharisee, and he now returns to it. The scenic continuum is the crowd that Luke had let constantly grow since 11.14 via 11.29 and to which he now gives the hyperbolic scope of “ten thousand” in a powerful crescendo. Jesus is located with his disciples in their midst, and this constellation remains preserved through 13.9. Jesus delivers longer and shorter speeches (on their rhetorical coherence, cf. Wuellner 1991), with addressees initially alternating between the disciples and the crowd in chapter 12 (1c-­12: disciples / 13-­21: crowd / 22-­53: disciples / 54-­59: crowd), until the whole scene ends with a call for repentance addressed to the crowd, which is fortified with massive threats of unsalvation (13.1-­9). But the two series do not stand unconnected alongside each other, for they are repeatedly related to each other

130

The Gospel According to Luke

thematically (cf. also K.-­J. Kim 1998, 136–­37). The coherence is established through the following two themes. The question of the proper way to handle riches and possessions joins vv. 13-­21 with vv. 22-­34. Here the ideal of “being rich toward God” (v. 21) is taken up in the instruction to obtain for oneself a “treasure in heaven” by selling one’s possessions and giving alms (vv. 33-­34). Furthermore, the problem of judging the time can also be identified as a theme that establishes coherence. It is expressed in a differentiated manner with regard to the two different groups of hearers. On the one hand, in 12.35-­46 the exhortation to be ready at all times for the return of the Lord is directed to the disciples. On the other hand, with regard to the crowd, 12.54–­13.9 deal with the limited time that still remains for repentance. But the topic of time is also already present in 12.13-­21. Here, the false estimation of the situation by the foolish rich man who plans for “many years” (v. 19) corresponds to the error of the faithless slave who assumes that his lord will not come for a long time (v. 45). Both plans are thwarted, for the foolish rich man dies “in this night” (v. 20) and the lord of the slave comes unexpectedly (v. 46). To their situation corresponds the position of the debtor who is “on the way” (v. 58) that leads him directly into prison. It is common to all that they do not recognize the particular character of their respective situations or—­formulated in terms of the target domain—­of “this kairos” (v. 56). The scenic placement of the disciples in the surrounding crowd makes especially 12.1c-­12 and 12.49-­53 transparent for the readers and their own situation within the non-­Christian majority society. Moreover, their situation is also especially taken into view in 12.33-­34, 35-­48. 12.1-­12: The Encouragement of the Disciples to Public Confession 1

After a crowd that numbered tens of thousands had gathered in the meantime, so that they trampled on one another, he began to say to his disciples, “Guard yourselves especially against the leaven—­that is the dissembling—­of the Pharisees! 2There is nothing veiled that will not be unveiled, and (nothing) hidden that will not become known. 3Therefore everything that you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the ear in inner rooms will be declared on the rooftops. 4 “But I say to you my friends: Do not fear the ones who kill the body and after this can do nothing further. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear the one who, after killing, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I say to you: Fear this one!



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 131

“Are not five sparrows sold for two assaria? And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7By contrast, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not—­you are worth more than many sparrows. 8 “But I say to you: everyone who confesses me before humans—­ the Son of Man will also confess him before the angels of God. 9But the one who denies me before humans will also be denied before the angels of God. 10And everyone who says a word against the Son of Man—­it will be forgiven him. But it will not be forgiven the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit. 11 “But if they lead you before the assemblies and before the rulers and authorities, do not worry how or what you should say in your defense. 12For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you need to say.” 6

Jesus’s speech to the disciples is composed of two parts. (a) It begins with a warning against “dissembling,” which is presented as a typical Pharisaic characteristic, and with the explanation that belongs to it (vv. 1d-­3). The other two parts are each provided with an explicit speech introduction (λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν): (b) in vv. 4-­7 the exhortation not to fear humans but only God and (c) in vv. 8-­12 a two-­part exhortation to public confession of the Son of Man (introduction in each case by πᾶς ὅς; vv. 8b, 10a), which is first formulated generally (vv. 8-­9) and then with reference to forensic situations (vv. 11-­12). The pragmatics of the speech are easy to recognize: the disciples should fear no person (vv. 4-­7) and therefore confess their faith not merely secretly but publicly (vv. 8-­12). Luke has composed this speech from building blocks of very different origins: (a) The exhortation in v. 1d overlaps with Mark 8.15b (imperative 2nd person plural + ἀπὸ τῆς ζύμης . . . τῶν φαρισαίων). But there is also a minor agreement with the parallel in Matthew 16.6 (προσέχετε instead of βλέπετε [Mark 8.15b]). (b) Verses 2-­9 correspond to Matthew 10.26-­33 with unmistakable correspondences in wording. Thus, these verses are probably based on Q; v. 2 has in addition a counterpart in Luke 8.17par. Mark 4.22 and v. 9 in Luke 9.26par. Mark 8.38. (c) The saying on the unforgiveability of the blasphemy of the Spirit in v. 10 corresponds partly to Matthew 10.32 (λόγον; υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ; οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται), and yet partly to Mark 3.29 (βλασφημεῖν and εἰς τὸ [ἅγιον] πνεῦμα); we are thus dealing with a Mark–­Q overlap (cf. Fleddermann 1995, 66ff). There is also a parallel in Gospel of Thomas 44, which unmistakably represents a later Trinitarian reworking of the synoptic versions: “Whoever blasphemes the Father—­it will be forgiven him. And whoever blasphemes the Son—­it

132

The Gospel According to Luke

will be forgiven him. But whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit—­it will not be forgiven him, neither on earth nor in heaven.” (d) The saying about the succor of the Holy Spirit in vv. 11-­12 displays some overlaps with Mark 13.11, but it is mainly shaped by Q at this point (unlike Luke 21.14-­15 and Matthew 24.19). This is supported by the agreement with Matthew 10.19 (ὅταν δέ; μὴ μεριμνήσητε πῶς ἢ τι; γάρ instead of καὶ ὅταν . . . μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε τί . . . ἀλλ’ in Mark 13.11b) and by the respective position outside of the eschatological discourse (cf. C. Heil 1997, 597ff). (e) The setting (v. 1a-­c) and the two addresses in vv. 4a, 8a are without parallel.

In 1a-­c Luke constructs the scene. The readers are to think that Jesus, when he returns again to the scene left in v. 37, finds a crowd that has grown immeasurably in the meantime (1a). ἐν οἷς refers not merely to the situation described in 11.53-­54 but to the entire time that Jesus has spent in the house of the Pharisee from v. 37 on (the phrasing is elliptical; one must supply χρόνοις; cf. Plutarch, Pelopidas 31.6; Vettius Valens, ed. Kroll 1973, 171.8; see also Acts 26.12). The numerical specification (μυριάδες is also found in Acts 21.20) is, of course, just as exaggerated as the information that the people are trampling on one another (1b). With “stepping on one another’s toes in the jostling” (Stegemann 1991b, 46) the scene is described more realistically, but this also destroys the Lukan hyperbolism. Plus, the expression καταπάτεσθαι ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων is attested in the sense of “be trampled by one another” (Herodotus 7.223; Xenophon, Hellenica 4.4.11; Josephus, Bellum judaicum 6.57; Polyaenus Historicus, Strategemata 4.3.21; see also Arrian, Anabasis 2.11.3). In 1c the adverb πρῶτον should probably be connected with the imperative προσέχετε due to the word placement (see also Klostermann; Johnson; Bovon and others). 1d-­3 warn against attempting to hide one’s own confession of Jesus Christ from the public. The introduction προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἀπό (1d) has a direct parallel in Testament of Dan 6.1 (προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ καὶ τῶν πνευμάτων αὐτοῦ [“Guard yourself against Satan and his spirits”]; see also Exodus 19.12); for more distant parallels, cf. Sirach 17.14; Matthew 7.15; 10.17; 16.6, 11-­12; Luke 20.46 (in each case without ἑαυτοῖς); and Luke 17.3; 21.34; Acts 5.35; 20.28 (in each case without ἀπό). The content of the admonition is that they should not practice ὑπόκρισις (on this, see especially Spicq 1994, III: 406–­13). Although Luke has parenthetically inserted the term merely as a comment on ζύμη (see further at 2.11), it functions here as a paraenetic keyword. ὑπόκρισις is usually translated with “hypocrisy,” but this is misleading. The term comes from the language of the theatre and designates what the actors do. They



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 133

pretend to be a different person and hide their true selves behind a mask or costume (e.g., Aristotle, Ethica nicomachea 1118a8; Plutarch, Solon 29.6). Correspondingly, the ὑποκριτής is the actor who acts as if he were a different person (cf. Aristotle, Ethica nicomachea 11148b8; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 7.119; Plutarch, Moralia 545; Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit 141; Letter of Aristeas 219). In a figurative meaning, the terminology designates a behavior with which one deceives other people (cf. Aristotle, Ethica eudemia 1243b8; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 15.204; Epictetus, Dissertationes 2.9.19) by “disguising” oneself and hiding one’s intentions, feelings, or nature from them; cf. e.g., Psalms of Solomon 4.6: “May God drive away the ones who live ἐν ὑποκρίσει with the pious” (i.e., who act as if they were pious); Quod Deus immutabilis sit 103; Fuga 34 (with the difference between “inside” and “outside” as in Matthew 23.28); Legatio ad Gaium 22, 162; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 1.162, 207 with reference to Genesis 20.2; 2.160; 7.165; Epictetus, Dissertationes 2.9.19: “Why do you pretend to be a Jew (τί ὑποκρίνῃ Ἰουδαῖον), although you are a Greek?” With regard to the Lukan context one should also note that as in vv. 2-3 ὑπόκρισις etc. is also often connected with cognates of κρύπτειν and καλύπτειν elsewhere; cf. Philo, De Iosepho 67–­ 68 (ἄνευ . . . ὑποκρίσεως . . . μηδὲ συγκρύπτων [“without . . . dissemblance . . . and hiding nothing”]); see also De specialibus legibus 4.183 (“to darken the deed ὑποκρίσει”); Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon 6.16.4 (ἀποκαλύψασα τοῦ δράματος τὴν ὑπόκρισιν διηγήσομαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν; [“Should I lift off the mask of the play-­acting and tell the truth?”]); Appian, Syriaca 19; Bella civilia 3.7.48. In the opposition to truth it appears in Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 13.220 on Tryphon (“When he had become king he set aside the ὑπόκρισις and was ὁ ἀληθὴς τρύφων”). Furthermore, a connection to v. 4 can also be made, for it is precisely fear of death that causes people to reach for ὑπόκρισις; cf. Philo, De Iosepho 68 (“I will have no fear of anything with which humans threaten me, not even death, for ὑπόκρισις is worse than death for me”); Plutarch, Moralia 1102b; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 1.207. Thus, it is by no means “far from clear” (thus McKnight 1999, 370) what connects vv. 2-­3 and vv. 4-­5.

The warning against ὑπόκρισις is rhetorically intensified by personalizing it as a warning against the “leaven of the Pharisees.” Accusing the Pharisees of ὑπόκρισις (see also Matthew 23.13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29) lies on the same line as the accusation of the difference between inside and outside (cf. 11.39 with Philo, De fuga et inventione 34). What the metaphor of the leaven aims at is not entirely clear. Negoiţä/Daniel 1967 think that Jesus said Aramaic ‫“ = ֲא ִמ ָירה‬sayings, teaching,” whereas the disciples understood ‫“ = ֲח ִמ ָירא‬leaven.” The metaphor’s explanation as ὑπόκρισις only identifies, of course, the referent (see also Matthew 16.12: the “teaching” [διδαχή] of the Pharisees and Sadducees) and does not yet explain the

134

The Gospel According to Luke

metaphorical meaning, i.e., which characteristic of leaven is alluded to. The process that provides the imagery is usually regarded as fermentation as this is described in the parable of the leaven (Luke 13.21par. Matthew 13.33) (cf. Mitton 1972/1973)—­that leaven transforms flour into bread dough. A role may also be played by the negative evaluation of leaven, as this is found in Plutarch, Moralia 289–­90 (“Leaven is itself a product of corruption and corrupts the dough into which it is mixed, for it becomes slack and flabby”). There is no indication of an undertone of the element ‘small cause–great effect’ as in 1 Corinthians 5.6; Galatians 6.9. Thus, the disciples are warned against a ‘Pharisaizing’ of their existence, and this danger is in play when they hide their confession from the public. 2-­3 vary a single thought: there is nothing hidden that does not somehow come to light. Both verses are related to the warning against ὑπόκρισις expressed in v. 1d. This warning is now rhetorically intensified by specifying the uselessness of every dissimulation and secrecy (on the word-­field connections of the terminology of these verses with ὑπόκρισις see at v. 1d above). The synonymous parallelismus membrorum in 2, which has also found entrance—­with a completely different thematic orientation, of course—­in 8.17par. Mark 4.22 is applied to the situation of the disciples in 3 (cf. BDR §208.12,3; for the phrasing ἀνθ’ ὧν, see at 1.20), with the concern being especially with what the disciples say in seclusion. “Darkness” and “light” are metaphors for hiddenness and publicness, and the picture of ‘saying in the darkness’ implies that what is said is heard but the speaker remains unrecognized. The assumption that with this disclosure the last judgment is in view (e.g., Marshall; Nolland; Bock) therefore misses the intention of this verse. The concern is precisely not with “whatever is kept secret by men” (Marshall 512; emphasis added) but with the confession of Christ (v. 8). There is no way that it can remain hidden from the public and therefore all efforts to keep it secret are declared to be ineffective (see also Stegemann 1991b, 53–­54). “To speak in the darkness” and “to whisper in the ear in the inner rooms” (for the latter cf., in addition to 2 Kings 6.12, especially Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 6.165: Samuel anoints David καὶ πρὸς τὸ οὖς ἠρέμα λαλεῖ . . . [“and says quietly into the ear . . .”]; Plutarch, Demetrius 14.3; Moralia 184b and elsewhere) is thus the metaphorical antithesis of “confessing before humans” (v. 8b). In 4-­5 there follows another admonition that simultaneously functions as a grounding for the superordinated warning against dissembling (v. 1d). Both instructions are connected insofar as it is always fear—­and especially, of course, fear of death—­that prompts ὑπόκρισις (cf. the attestations mentioned in v. 1d, especially Philo, De Iosepho 68). The admonition is composed of two antithetical parts. In an apotreptic part (4b-­c), it is first



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 135

said whom one should not fear (humans) and why this is so (because their power reaches only to the death of the body). On the other side, the protreptic part of the admonition instructs the disciples in the fear of God as the only legitimate fear, because God alone has power that reaches beyond death. He can cast into hell; humans cannot. This antithesis also appears on the surface of the text: HUMANS

GOD

μετὰ ταῦτα (i.e., after the killing of the body) they have nothing (μὴ ἔχοντα) more that they can do (περισσότερόν τι ποιῆσαι)

after the killing (μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι) he has authority (ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν) to cast into hell (ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν γέενναν)

This opposition and its literary preparation have a direct parallel in 2 Maccabees 6.18-­26. Both texts ground the rejection of “dissembling” by the fact that it only helps in relation to humans but remains ineffective before God. Well-­meaning friends suggest to the pious Jew Eleazer, whom Antiochus IV presented with the choice of eating pork or dying (vv. 18-­19), that he should only pretend to eat (ὑποκριθῆναι . . . ὡς ἐσθίοντα; vv. 21-­22) in order to escape death. As an answer he says, “It is not worthy of my age to dissemble (ὑποκριθῆναι; v. 24) lest many of the young . . . go astray through my guilt because of my dissembling (ὑπόκρισις; v. 25). . . . For even if I make an exception for the present case, I would escape the punishment assigned by humans but I would not escape the hands of the almighty ruler, neither in life nor in death (v. 26).” The self-­assurances of persecuted prophets also belong in this context. Their fearlessness is grounded in the certainty that their opponents threaten only the body but not their soul or their self (Matthew 10.28 stands in this tradition). The most famous is the aphorism based on Plato, Apologia 30c–­d: “Anytus and Meletus can kill me, but they cannot harm me” (Plutarch, Moralia 475e; Epictetus, Dissertationes 1.29, 18; 2.2, 15 and elsewhere); cf. also Epictetus, Dissertationes 3.13.17; Diogenes Laertius 9.28; Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit 109; 4 Maccabees 9.7 (to kill “our life” without harming “us”).

Here as elsewhere, γέεννα is the eschatic place of punishment for sinners (see also Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1.9; Sibylline Oracles 4.186; 4 Ezra 7.36; 2 Baruch 59.10; 5 Ezra 2.29; in the New Testament: Matthew 5.22, 29-­30; 23.15, 33; Mark 9.43, 45, 47par.). It is a Graecised form of Hebrew ‫יא־הּנֹם‬ ִ ֵ‫ּג‬, which was originally the name of the Valley of Hinnom that was located south of Jerusalem (cf. Joshua 15.18; 18.16; Nehemiah 11.30; O. Böcher, EWNT 1: 574–­76). Thus, the warning against dissembling and

136

The Gospel According to Luke

the corresponding admonition to public confession even in life-­threatening danger is reinforced with a paraenesis of judgment. ὑπόκρισις is threatened with eschatic unsalvation, while public confession of Jesus can at the worst bring physical death with it. With this, of course, it is not yet said by a long shot that Luke presupposes a situation of persecution and acute life-­threatening danger on the side of his readers (thus Sweetland 1984); this assumption would be an inadmissible reductionistic inference. After 5 has brought into view the transport to the eschatic place of punishment as a possible consequence of refusing public confession and mobilized in this way the rhetorical main emotion of fear (metus), the complementary emotion of hope is now called up in vv. 6–­7 (spes; Lausberg 1973, §229, 437). By means of an argumentum a comparatione (cf. Lausberg 1973, §395–­97) the disciples are assured of the enduring care of God. It is only this certainty that makes it possible at all to have no fear “of those who kill the body” (v. 4b). Here too the tradition-­historical background is the martyr paraenesis (cf. 2 Maccabees 7.9, 28-­29; see also Zeller 1977b, 96ff). 6 In the form of a negated rhetorical question (6a) basic cultural knowledge is invoked. Sparrows were sold at the market mainly as food (cf. Ebner 1998, 291–­92). The reference to their low price is meant to attest their small value. ἀσσάριον is the Greek designation for the Roman as. This was a copper coin with the value of 1/16 of a denarius (cf. Göbl 1978, I: 78). Against this valuation of the sparrows by humans is set their valuation by God in 6b. The difference is quantified with the help of different numerical specifications. For humans sparrows are not important until there are five of them; for God a single one is already important. “Not to forget” (οὐκ ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι) is a theologically qualified phrase that designates God’s salvific care for Israel and the pious in the Old Testament; cf. 1 Samuel 1.11; Psalm 9.13, 19; 13.2; 42.10; 112.6; Isaiah 42.21 (“I have prepared you so that you are my servant, Israel; I do not forget you”); 49.14, 15; Lamentations 5.20; Hosea 4.6. 7 makes the transfer to the target domain. Luke has Jesus argue with recourse to an argumentum a comparatione (cf. Lausberg 1973, §395–­97) in order to illustrate God’s even greater involvement for the sake of the disciples. Jesus also specifies where the increase lies compared to God’s involvement for the sparrows in a quantifying manner. Unlike with the sparrows, God’s attention in relation to the disciples is oriented not only to every individual but to every single hair of every one of them. This is what constitutes the greater value of the disciple with God vis-­à-­vis the sparrow: God regards the disciple to be more valuable than a sparrow by a factor that corresponds to the number of hairs on one’s head. However, the assurance formulated here has nothing to do with 1 Samuel 14.45; 2 Samuel



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 137

14.11; 1 Kings 1.52—­which are often referred to in this context—­for these texts speak of something completely different; see also Allison 1989/1990, 334 (granted, his own interpretation, which starts from Job 38.37a; Sirach 1.2 and other texts, is also not convincing, for the theodicy question does not play a role here). The expression πολλῶν . . . διαφέρειν is a common Greek idiom for a demarcating statement of superiority; cf. Plato, Apologia 29b (διαφέρω τῶν πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων [“I differ from the many people”]); 34e; Plutarch, Marcius Coriolanus 1.2; Moralia 333b (the philosophers τῶν πολλῶν διαφέρουσι [“differ from the many”]); Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 3.212; 19.335; Vita 427 (Josephus marries a woman “who differs in character from many women [ἤθει πολλῶν γυναικῶν διαφέρουσαν]”). The categorical difference between humans and sparrows suggests that πολλῶν should be understood inclusively here, like the Hebrew ‫ַר ִּבים‬ (cf. J. Jeremias, ThWNT 6: 536ff).

8-­9 The whole speech of Jesus up to now has led to the double logion emphasized through λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, which formulates an eschatological talio. Its meaning is also recognizable in the plerophoric phrasing that lends special urgency to what is said here. The meaning is obvious. The allocation of eschatic salvation and unsalvation in the last judgment is oriented solely to whether or not one has publicly (ἔμπροσθεν/ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων is also found in this sense in Xenophon, Memorabilia 4.8.2; Oenomaus of Gadara, ed. Mullach 1860–­1881, II: 375a21–­22; Testament of Simeon 5.2; Testament of Levi 17.8; Matthew 5.16; 6.1; Luke 16.15; Revelation 13.13) confessed one’s Christian identity (see also at 9.26). The talk of a forensic situation surfaces only in v. 11 and is not yet found here (see also Stegemann 1991b, 62–­63). “Before the angels of God” (8c, 9b) stands for the heavenly publicness and corresponds to “before humans” (8b, 9a) as earthly publicness. The opposition of ὁμολογεῖν and ἀρνεῖσθαι is also common elsewhere; cf. Plutarch, Antonius 31.3; Diogenes Laertius 6.40; Philo, De ebrietate 189; De somniis 2.202; Legatio ad Gaium 247; Testament of Gad 6.3–­4; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 6.151; Titus 1.16; 1 John 2.23 (see also O. Hofius, EWNT 2: 1257). The phrasing ὁμολογεῖν ἐν + dative of person is not attested in Greek literature. It is an Aramaism formed on the basis of ‫( חודה בי‬cf. BDR §220.3; e.g., Genesis Rabbah 53.16 in Bill. I: 585; see also O. Hofius, EWNT, 2: 1257–­ 58). This supports the view that the logion is very old. For the understanding of ἀρνεῖσθαι see also at 9.23. For many decades the main topic of discussion concerning the understanding of the two verses has been the question of the form of the Vorlage (for presentations of

138

The Gospel According to Luke

the history of the discussion, see especially Vögtle 1994; Hoffmann 1998b, 359ff; C. Heil 1997, 40ff, 380ff; see also de Jonge 1997 and more recently Tuckett 2000). Was there already talk of the appearance of the Son of Man in Q 12.8 or was it only introduced by Luke—­specifically under the influence of Mark 8.38—­so that one must assume the first person singular of Matthew 10.32 for the Q Vorlage? For 9b the question arises of whether the Lukan third person singular passive or the Matthean first person singular active stood in Q. The significance of this discussion has been seen especially in the fact that—­if Luke 12.8* and Mark 8.38* can be shown to be from Jesus—­Jesus would have expected the Son of Man as an eschatic functionary who was not identical with him. A consensus is not in sight.

For Luke it is clear that the Son of Man is identical with Jesus. A tradition-­ historical counterpart to 8c is also found in Revelation 3.5 (“ὁμολογήσω τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ before my father and before his angels”). How he envisaged the eschatic “denial” of the deniers by the Son of Man before the angels of God (and indirectly also his “confession” to the confessors) emerges from 13.27, for the οὐκ οἶδα (ὑμᾶς) pronounced there corresponds to the οὐκ οἶδα (αὐτόν) of the denial of Peter in 22.57. 10 For the understanding of the saying about the unforgiveable character of the blasphemy against the Spirit that immediately follows, it is decisive that a distinction is made between Jesus’s addressees (the disciples) and the ones whose behavior is spoken of here. The latter are the ones called “humans” in vv. 8a, 9a, before whom the disciples are to make their public confession (see also Klostermann; Stegemann 1991b, 65ff). The focus here is their behavior and more specifically the reaction of ‘the people’ to the disciples’ confession of Christ. If this reaction consists in blaspheming the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven by God. Read in the context of the entire speech of Jesus to the disciples, this assurance undoubtedly has a stabilizing function. The fact that the public reacted to the Christians’ confession of Christ with rejection and stigmatization was an ever present experience, and this saying assures the disciples that God will strictly punish such reactions. That “opposition from the Jewish side” (Stegemann 1991b, 69) stands specifically in the background not only does not emerge from the text, but is even refuted by the description in v. 11, which is emphatically oriented in an inclusive manner. This, of course, is only the start of the actual problems of this verse. What does Luke mean by “blaspheming against the Holy Spirit”? And what did he have in mind with the distinction between the unforgivable nature of this offense and the forgivable nature of speech against the Son of Man?



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 139

None of the previous proposals (overviews in Fitzmyer; Bock) has been able to provide a plausible explanation. The complete absence of a temporal structure, and the fact that for Luke the earthly Jesus also bore the Spirit, of course, speak against the assumption that Luke wanted to distinguish between the rejection of the earthly Jesus and the rejection of the witnesses’ Spirit-­led preaching of Christ after Easter (e.g., Schneider; Ernst; Wiefel; see also Mainville 1999). In Luke 22.65; 23.39 the βλασφημεῖν is directed against Jesus himself. While it has no grammatical object in Acts 13.45, Luke uses this term to illustrate the rejection of the Pauline proclamation of Christ by the Jews in Psidian Antioch and in Corinth. With respect to the antithesis, the saying is reminiscent of the distinction between unintentional sins for which there is forgiveness and sins “with a high hand,” i.e., intentional sins for which forgiveness is excluded (cf. Numbers 15.22-­31; see also at 23.34).

Due to the position of the saying at this point in the speech and its evident function of assurance, quite a bit speaks for the view that here the Lukan Jesus wants to say something like the following to the disciples: ‘If one of the people before whom you confess me says something against me, this is not so bad; but if he reviles you, it will have a bad outcome for him.’ The problem is, of course, that there is a great distance between this interpretation and the wording of the verse. But this is no better in the other interpretations. In 11-­12 a forensic confrontation is taken into view. It is described as a narrowing of the situation “before humans” (ἔμπροσθεν/ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων) that was generally described in vv. 8-­9, and a widespread primitive Christian experience is probably reflected in it. The listing of the instances before which the disciples have to answer for their belief (11a) wants to trace back the persecution to both Jewish and pagan institutions (cf. also 21.12). The distinction of Stegemann 1991b, 82—­in 21.12 Luke is said to speak of “past” experiences of the Jerusalem Jewish Christians, whereas in 11a he is said to speak of “present experiences of the author and his readers” with “diaspora synagogues”—­reads a differentiation into the texts that is foreign to them. Rather, what Luke has in mind here are situations as they are frequently described in Acts (cf. 4.5-­7; 5.27-­ 28; 6.9, 12-­15; 17.6-­8; 18.12-­13; 22.30; 24.1-­9; 25.6-­8, 23-­27) where the key word ἀπολογεῖσθαι (11b) surfaces again (24.10; 25.8; 26.1, 2, 24; see also 22.1; 25.16). The lexical pair ἀρχαὶ καὶ ἐξουσίαι often appears in the deutero-­Pauline letters, but there it always designates angels or other heavenly powers (Ephesians 1.21; 3.10; 6.12; Colossians 1.16; 2.10, 15; see also Titus 3.1). Luke, however, is thinking of earthly rulers here (see also 21.12c).

140

The Gospel According to Luke

Cf. in this sense also Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 71; Oenomaus of Gadara, ed. Mullach 1860–­1888, II: 382b15–­16 (πολλαὶ ἀρχαὶ καὶ ἐξουσίαι); Ps.-­Plato, Alcibiades I 135a (ἐν πόλει τε καὶ πάσαις ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις [“in a city and with all rulers and authorities”]). For the expression πῶς ἢ τί, which is also attested in Matthew 10.19 and is appealed to for the tracing back of the Lukan–­Matthean agreements to Q (see C. Heil 1997, 598), cf. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 9.73 (407e) = Timocles Comicus 7.3 (πῶς ἢ τί πράττων); Aristotle, Parva Naturalia 471b23 (πῶς ἢ τίνι ἐνδέχεται ἀναπνεῖν; [“How and with what can one breathe?”]); Mesomedes, Fragment 6 (πῶς ἢ τίς ἔτικτε σε. . . ; [“How or who has created you . . . ?”]); Heliodorus, Aethiopica 2.24.2 (πῶς ἢ τίνι χειρί. . . ; [“How or with which hand . . . ?”]).

How Luke imagined a Spirit-­inspired defense emerges from Acts 4.8 where Peter πλησθεὶς πνεύματος ἁγίου delivers such a speech (vv. 8-­12). For the temporal specification αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ, which occurs only in Luke in the New Testament, see at 2.38. Not unlike in the first parts of his speech, here too Jesus gives the disciples instructions about the time of his absence. With this reference to the Spirit, the assurance also points back to the prayer paraenesis in 11.9-­13 where Jesus had promised the disciples the absolute certainty of fulfillment of their prayer. The two texts want to be read together. 12.13-­21: On the Worthlessness of Earthly Riches 13

But one from the crowd said to him, “Rabbi, say to my brother that he should divide the inheritance with me.” 14But he said to him, “Man, who established me as judge or divider over you?” 15And he said to him, “Watch out and guard yourself against every form of greed, since for a (person) his life is not based on the fact that he draws excess from his possessions.” 16 Thereupon he told to them a parable: “The land of a rich person had produced well. 17And he considered and said to himself, ‘What should I do? I have nothing where I can store my harvests.’ 18And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and I will store all grain and my goods there. 19And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods stored up for many years. Relax, eat, drink, and be merry!”’ 20But God said to him, ‘You fool, this very night your soul will be demanded back from you. What you have prepared—­to whom will it belong?’ 21So (it happens to one) who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich with God.”



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 141

A shout from the crowd leads to an abrupt change of topic. First, an apophthegmatic scene (vv. 13-­14) arises, which is supplemented with a paraenetic saying that transcends the situation (v. 15). This saying is then illustrated by means of a παραβολή (vv. 16-­20), which is in turn related to the relation to God (v. 21) with the help of an analogical transference (οὕτως). The coherence of the parts of this text is established through the semantic isotopy of the respective keywords, for they all refer to the possession of material goods (κληρονομία, πλεονεξία, ὑπάρχοντα, πλούσιος, ἀγαθά, θησαυρίζειν, πλουτεῖν). Form-­critically it is a chreia. The opening scene (v. 13) provides an occasion for an extensive speech of Jesus that the narrator has divided into three parts through a triple εἶπεν δέ (vv. 14, 15, 16). The text is handed down only in Luke in the New Testament. Thus, we do not know the Vorlage. Occasional attributions to Q (e.g., Schürmann 1968, 119–­20; Marshall) have not been able to establish themselves, but they have not been finished off either. Gospel of Thomas 72 is a parallel to vv. 13-­14. In Gospel of Thomas 63.1–­3 there is a counterpart to vv. 16-­20.

13 Luke introduces the interjector (εἶπεν δέ τις ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου αὐτῷ) in exactly the same way as the woman in 11.27 (τις . . . γυνὴ ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου εἶπεν αὐτῷ); for the address of Jesus as διδάσκαλος see at 7.40. The concern is evidently with an inheritance dispute. The details, however, remain untold, and the dispute plays a role for the continuation of the narrative only insofar as it deals with financial interests. Luke needs this occasion for Jesus’s warning against “greed” (πλεονεξία) in v. 15. The phrasing μεμίζεσθαι μετά τινος is a Greek idiom (cf. Demosthenes, Orationes 34.18; Appian, Bella civilia 3.9.65; for the subject matter, cf. also Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 7.1.43, 45 [see at v. 15 below]). 14 The rhetorical question with which Jesus grounds his refusal to intervene in the dispute is reminiscent of Exodus 2.14 where Moses, when he wants to settle a fight, is confronted by one of the participants with the question: τίς σε κατέστησεν ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστὴν ἐφ’ ἡμῶν; (“Who appointed you as overseer and judge over us?”) (see also Acts 7.27, 35). Although the term μεριστής is rarely attested, it was not unknown in Luke’s time. It was evidently the designation for a sort of extrajudicial arbitrator (cf. Spicq 1994, II: 463–­64 and Harpocration Grammaticus, Lexicon in decem oratores Atticos 84.7: δατεῖσθαι· τὸ μερίζεσθαι, οἱ δὲ δατηταὶ οἱονεὶ μερισταί [“to divide into portions: the dividing: the dividers (are) often μερισταί”]).

142

The Gospel According to Luke

The nearness to Exodus 2.14 has led to multiple textual variants. Instead of κριτὴν ἢ μεριστήν (𝔓75 ‫ א‬B L 070 f 1,13 33, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 2542 pc samss) there is δικαστὴν ἢ μεριστήν (A Q W Θ Ψ 𝔐); κριτήν (D Marcion [?]); δικαστήν (28 pc Marcion [?]) (a more complete presentation of the findings can be fond in Baarda 1975, 108ff). Gospel of Thomas 72.2 has only μεριστήν (ⲣⲉϥⲡⲱϣⲉ), but that is not sufficient for identifying this variant as a pre-­Lukan tradition that Luke combined with κριτήν to form a lexical pair (thus Riley 1995, 230ff). The overwhelming manuscript evidence already speaks for the view that a lexical pair stood at the beginning of the textual development (cf. also Baarda 1975, 119ff, 121ff).

15 That the warning against πλεονεξία in 15b is connected in subject matter with the setting narrated in v. 13 is shown by Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 7.1.45, where the one who is not willing to divide the inheritance with the brother is designated as avarus, impius, ingratus (“greedy, godless, unthankful”). Beyond this, however, the Lukan Jesus takes up here a paraenetic topos that was common in all of antiquity (cf. especially G. Delling, ThWNT 6: 266ff; Spicq 1994, III: 117ff; Konradt 2006, 119–­20; see also at 16.14). Greed was regarded as threatening especially because it endangered social harmony: “All know that it is neither beneficial nor good but the cause of the greatest evils (οὔτε συμφέρον οὔτε καλόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ τῶν μεγίστων κακῶν αἴτιον); nevertheless, no person wants to keep away from it (ἀπέχεσθαι) and be content to have the same (ἴσον ἔχειν) as his neighbor” (Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 17.6). From it, the μέγιστον ἀνθρώποις κακόν (“greatest evil for people”) (Menander, Fragment 557 [Kock 1880–­1888]) and the “source of madness” (Philo, De vita Mosis 2.186), “sprout robbery, thievery, patricide, temple robbery, poisoning, and related things” (Epistulae Pythagoreae, ed. Städele 1980, 2.5; see also Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 17.10: “Enmities and inner conflicts and outer wars have no other cause than the desire for more [τοῦ πλείονος ἐπιθυμία]”). Correspondingly, the warning against it is a consistent element in early Christian paraenesis and in the vice lists (cf. Mark 7.22; Romans 1.29; 1 Corinthians 5.10, 11; 6.10; Ephesians 4.19; 5.3, 5; Colossians 3.5). To be sure, the justification (15c) then shows that Luke is not concerned with the social destructivity of πλεονεξία but with its consequences for the individual (cf. also Malherbe 1996, 126ff). The structure of the sentence is syntactically derailed (for the discussion of the reasons cf. Forbes 2000, 83). My translation is based on three decisions: (a) I have related τινί to ἐστίν (in the sense of BDR §190). (b) I have coordinated the prepositional phrase ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ as an attribute to the substantivized infinitive ἐν τῷ περισσεύειν (for περισσεύειν ἐκ, cf. Josephus, Vita 333: τὰ δ’ ἐκ τῆς διαπραγῆς περισσεύσαντα [“the things left from the plundering”]). (c) I have



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 143

understood the resulting clause ἐν τῷ περισσεύειν . . . ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ as a prepositional object of οὐκ . . . τινὶ ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.

Luke thus interprets the warning against πλεονεξία as a warning against the striving for “more” (τὸ περισσεύειν); the same nexus is also found in Aesop, Fabulae, ed. Hausrath/Hunger 1970, 58 (1).5–­6: “Many people διὰ πλεονεξίαν περιττοτέρων ἐπιθυμοῦντες (strive for still more out of greed).” In 16 the opening situation is narrated without the cultural encyclopedia of the hearer being particularly taxed, for such harvests occur frequently. Philo of Alexandria narrates, e.g., that “the land of the Sodomites produced every year a good yield . . . of fruits” (ἡ χώρα . . . εὐφορίᾳ καρπῶν ἐχρῆτο; De Abrahamo 134; see also Diogenianus of Heraclea, Mantissa Proverbiorum, Leutsch/Schneidewin 1958, II: 60.3: between Corinth and Sicyon there are εὐφορώταται χῶραι [“very fruitful stretches of land”]). The ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος is not portrayed as a farmer who works his fields, vineyards, or fruit gardens with his own hands, but as an estate owner or large land owner (such as, e.g., Job according to Testament of Job 15.7). Furthermore, he has not become rich in the first place through this harvest but rather was already rich before. His image in the Jewish wisdom literature is not particularly good; cf. Proverbs 18.11 (he imagines that his possession is a fortified city and like a high wall); 28.11 (he regards himself as intelligent but every wise poor person sees through him); Sirach 8.2 (one should not start a fight with him because one easily draws the short straw, for money has ruined many). Thus, as a whole nothing extraordinary takes place. A rich man looks forward to a good harvest that will make him even richer. This narrative figure certainly does not trigger spontaneous reflexes of solidarity; the opposite is more likely the case. On the other hand, there is also no indication at all that his riches were obtained illegally. This fundamentally distinguishes this case from 1 Enoch 97.8–­10. 17 The question τί ποιήσω (cf. Sellew 1992, especially 244–­45) marks a narrative junction that decides the continuation of the narrative. From a virtual inventory of many possible continuations the narrator chooses a specific one with which he then constructs the plot. The same question is formulated by the clever manager (16.3; for additional correspondences between these two narratives see at v. 20) and by the owner of the vineyard in 20.13. In the present case the description of the situation into which the rich man sees himself placed on account of the good harvest is already revealing. First, his reference to the lacking storage room (for ἔχω + indirect interrogative question cf. BDR §368.45) illustrates once more the extraordinary extent of the harvest that is to be expected. In addition, however, the fictive self-­dialogue is also intended to characterize the

144

The Gospel According to Luke

narrative figure (sermocinatio or ethopoeia; cf. Lausberg 1973, §820–­25; Heininger 1991, 78ff; Hock 2003, 186ff), and in this respect the rich man is portrayed as someone who does nothing other than what is natural. He wants to make provision for the storage of his harvest. In such a situation every other person would do the same (for συνάγειν τοὺς καρπούς or the like in this sense see Leviticus 25.3; Joseph and Aseneth 1.2; Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 1.225; Luke 3.17par.; Matthew 13.30). 18-­19 The interior monologue is continued by having the rich man answer his own question (τοῦτο ποιήσω; see also 16.4). He plans a series of four sequential actions. The first three, which are described in 18, appear to lead exactly to the solution of the problem—­described in v. 17—­with which the harvest had confronted the rich man (cf. the taking up again of ποῦ συνάξω; [v. 17b] through συνάξω ἐκεῖ [18e]). If one looks more closely, however, it becomes clear that the third action already goes beyond the solution of the starting problem. He wants to bring not only the expected harvest (πάντα τὸν σῖτον) into the newly built barns but also his other possessions (τὰ ἀγαθά μου). Only under this presupposition can he say of them in v. 19 that they are sufficient “for many years.” This tension between the description of the problem and the planned solution is presumably meant to be removed through the variant reading πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου (‫ *א‬D it [sys,c]). The reading πάντα τὸν σῖτον καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου (𝔓75[*] [‫א‬‎2] B L 070 f 1,[13] 579, 892, 1241 pc co) can therefore make a claim to being original, being the lectio difficilior; πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου (A Q W Θ Ψ 33vid 𝔐 aur f vg sy[p,]h) is a combination of the two.

19 The fourth action now makes completely clear how far the planning of the rich man reaches beyond the solution of the problem described in v. 17. He considers a period of time that encompasses “many years” and reaches not only to the storage of the approaching harvest. The fact that he speaks with his ψυχή has nothing to do with him wanting to make the so-­called “exterior goods” (τὰ ἔκτος ἀγαθά; cf. e.g., Philo, Quod deterius potiori insidιari soleat 7; Diogenes Laertius 3.81), which include wealth, into “goods of the soul” (τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀγαθά; according to Diogenes Laertius 3.80, these include righteousness, reason, courage, prudence, and the like; against Hock 2003, 192). Rather, here the “soul” synecdochally represents his own self. It becomes the conversation partner of the rich man (see also Psalm 41.6, 12; 42.5; Psalms of Solomon 3.1) because he has already been conducting a self-­dialogue since v. 17 and Luke thus has to change the fictive conversation partner for the self-­dialogue within the self-­dialogue. There are many parallels in Jewish wisdom literature for what the rich man plans for the future.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 145

The three verbs ἐσθίειν, πίνειν, and εὐφραίνεσθαι also stand alongside one another elsewhere; cf. Ecclesiastes 8.15 (“Therefore I praised the joy, that the human being has nothing better under the sun except eating and drinking and being happy” [εἰ μὴ τοῦ φαγεῖν καὶ τοῦ πιεῖν καὶ τοῦ εὐφρανθῆναι]); Joseph and Aseneth 20.8 (καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἔφαγον καὶ ἔπιον καὶ εὐφράνθησαν [“And thereafter they ate and drank and were happy”]); see also Ecclesiastes 5.18 (“Also every person to whom God has given wealth and goods and whom he has enabled to eat from it [τοῦ φαγεῖν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ] and to take his portion and to be happy [καὶ τοῦ εὐφρανθῆναι] in his toil—­this is a gift of God”); 2.24; 3.12-­13. With “relaxing”: Sirach 31.3 (“The rich man toils with the gathering of possessions [ἐν συναγωγῇ χρημάτων], and in relaxation [ἐν τῇ ἀναπαύσει] he is filled with his pleasures”); 11.18-­19 (“There is one who becomes rich through strivings and toil, and this is his fate. When he says, ‘I have found rest, and now I consume my goods [εὗρον ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ νῦν φάγομαι ἐκ τῶν ἀγαθῶν μου].’ And he does not know how time flies, and he will leave them [sc. τὰ ἀγαθά] behind to others and die”); see also the parallels in Bultmann 1995, 221. One can add Anthologia Graeca 11.56: “Drink and delight thyself, for the morrow or the future no man knows. Do not hurry nor weary thyself. Be generous and give according to thy means. Eat thy meat and think the thoughts of a mortal. There is no absolute difference between living and not living. All life is like that, a turn of the scale. If thou helpest thyself in time, everything is thine. But if thou diest, everything goes to another and thou hast nothing” (trans. Leslie 1929, 198 [56]).

Against the background of the last texts mentioned, 20 immediately makes clear what it is that makes the rich man into an ἄφρων (cf., by contrast, in 16.8a the exact opposite in relation to the behavior of the manager who is credited with having acted φρονίμως)—­the fact that he assumes he will have many more years. In the Jewish wisdom literature a person is regarded as a fool who does not act according to the order of the world (cf. e.g., Proverbs 12.1, 16; 14.16, 29; Sirach 20.7). Here, the time determined by God (ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί) is sharply set over against the period of time that the rich man assumes he will have (ἔτη πολλά). The rich man will not even be able to begin with the actions that he planned in vv. 18-­19. In the speech of God two motifs are processed—­the motif of the unexpected suddenness of death and the motif of the laughing heirs (on this, cf. Seng 1978, 143–­ 44; Heininger 1991, 115–­16). The paraphrase of death with τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπαιτεῖν is based on the notion that life was given to a person as a loan that must someday be given back; see also Wisdom of Solomon 15.8. The assumption that God punishes the rich man with death for his foolishness (thus Seng 1978, 140) is entirely contrary to the text. If one reads the narrative of the foolish rich man in vv. 15-­20 on its own, the question arises of whether its concern is really with a warning

146

The Gospel According to Luke

against “greed” (πλεονεξία) or whether the concern is not much more with the warning against a false estimation of the situation. After all, Luke presents the rich man not as ‘greedy’ but as a hedonist (see also Malherbe 1996, 133), for he does not always want to have more but to enjoy his possessions. The familiar image of the rich man who sees many pleasant years before him and suppresses the possibility of sudden death (see also Psalm 49.12; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 16.8: “But consider, you empty head [μάταιε], . . . whence do you have the assurance that you are going to experience the next day and will not suddenly be taken away in the midst from πάντων . . . τῶν δοκούντων ἀγαθῶν [all your apparent goods]?”) is used as a deterring example in order to warn against false security. Luke will take up this aspect of the narrative in v. 45. 21 The application gives the narrative another direction once again, for it recalls the motif of true and false riches and in this way constructs an opposition that had not yet played a role in vv. 16-­20. It is characteristic of this motif that it devalues ‘material’ riches in favor of ‘immaterial’ riches by theologizing or ethicizing the term πλοῦτος and cognates; cf. e.g., 4 Ezra 6.5 (“gather treasures of faithfulness”); in the New Testament: 1 Timothy 6.18 (πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς); Hebrews 11.26 (to regard the shame of Christ as greater riches than the treasures of Egypt); James 2.5 (πλούσιοι ἐν πίστει); see also Revelation 2.8-­9; 3.15-­18; and the talk of ἀληθινὸς πλοῦτος in Philo, De fuga et inventione 17; De specialibus legibus 4.75 (“spiritual riches that alone are, in truth, riches”); De praemiis et poenis 104. The form that this motif is given here is the opposition of (θησαυρίζειν) ἑαυτῷ and εἰς θεὸν (πλουτεῖν). The former refers back to the self-­dialogue of the rich man and characterizes his plans. Aesop narrates exactly the same thing about the ant: ἀποθησαυριζόμενος ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν εἰς τὸν χειμῶνα (“It gathers for itself food for the winter”) (Fabulae, ed. Hausrath/Hunger 1970, 114 [1]; according to Fabulae 175 [1] ἑαυτῷ ἀποθησαυρίζειν is an expression of πλεονεξία; cf. also Plato, Phaedrus 276d in a figurative sense: “to gather for oneself a treasure of memories [ἑαυτῷ . . . ὑπομνήματα θήσαυριζόμενος] for the forgetful age”). In so doing what the rich has failed to do is εἰς θεὸν πλουτεῖν. The preposition εἰς designates here the relation (cf. W. Bauer 1988, s.v. εἰς 5). There are verbal parallels in Romans 10.12 (“The same Lord of all πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας who call upon him”); Lucian of Samosata, Saturnalia 24; and Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 4.8.3 (in each case ἐς τὸ κοινὸν πλουτεῖν [“to be rich for the common good”]), but in these cases εἰς stands for the dativus commodi in the sense of ‘for the benefit of’ (cf. Plato, Menexenus 246e: ἄλλῳ πλουτεῖν, οὐχ ἑαυτῷ [“to be rich for another, not for oneself”]; Cicero, De officiis 3.15.63: Necque enim solum divites esse volumus, sed liberis, propinquis, amicis maximeque rei publicae [“For we do not want



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 147

to be rich alone, but for the children, the neighbor, the friends, and especially for the common good”]), and this is certainly not the case in Luke. The readers do not learn what actions are meant until vv. 33-­34—­to sell one’s possessions and give alms. 12.22-­34: Do not Be Anxious but Seek the Kingdom of God 22

But he said to his disciples, “Therefore I say to you: Do not be anxious about life (by asking) what you should eat, and also not about the body (by asking) what you should put on. 23For life is more than food and the body more than clothing. 24Look at the ravens: they do not sow and do not reap; they have neither storeroom nor barn, and God feeds them. How much more valuable you are than birds! 25Who of you, who is anxious, can add a cubit to his age of life? 26When you cannot even do a small thing, why are you anxious about the rest? 27Look at the lilies, how they grow: they do not toil, and they do not spin. But I say to you: not even Solomon with all his splendor was clothed like one of them. 28But if God so clothes the grass that stands today in the field and tomorrow is thrown in the oven, how much more you, people of little faith! 29 “And you, do not strive after what you are to eat and what you are to drink and do not be worried, 30for all the nations of the world strive after these things. But your Father knows that you need them. 31 Rather, strive after his kingdom, for these things will be added to you. 32Fear not, little flock, for it has pleased your Father to give you the kingdom. 33 “Sell your possessions and give alms. Make for yourselves money bags that do not grow old, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven where no thief draws near and no moth destroys (it). 34For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Jesus turns now again to the disciples and explains to them what the warnings pronounced in v. 15 and v. 21 mean for their life. The connection is established above all by the anaphoric introduction διὰ τοῦτο (v. 22) and by the taking up again of the terms ὑπάρχοντα and θησαυρίζειν from v. 15 and v. 21 (vv. 33-­34); cf. also the return of the “barns” (ἀποθήκαι) from v. 18 in v. 24. The speech is comprised of three parts. The first part (vv.  22b-­28) is characterized by the exhortation “do not be anxious” (μὴ μεριμνᾶτε) (v. 22c; see also vv. 25-­26). It is supported with two examples from nature (v. 24 and vv. 27-­28). This is one of the numerous “double examples” (Morgenthaler 1948, I: 60; see also 4.25-­27; 11.31-­32; 12.54-­55; 13.18-­21;

148

The Gospel According to Luke

14.28-­32; 15.4-­10; 17.26-­29, 34-­35 as well as 3.12-­14; 13.1-­5; see also section 4.4.3 in the commentary introduction). The second part (vv. 29-­ 32) is introduced by the exhortation “do not strive after” (μὴ ζητεῖτε); this key word is then taken up again two more times (vv. 30a, 31a). The coherence of this part also finds expression in the fact that there is twice talk of God as “your Father” (vv. 30b, 32b) and of the βασιλεία. The third part (vv. 33-­34) gives the disciples instructions for handling their possessions. The imperatives of the first two parts—­i.e., μὴ μεριμνᾶτε (v. 22c) with the twice repeated κατανοήσατε as substantiation (vv. 24, 27), μὴ ζητεῖτε . . . καὶ μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε (v. 29), ζητεῖτε (v. 31), and μὴ φοβοῦ (v. 32)—­refer not to specific actions but to affective and cognitive attitudes. The substantive action level is only reached with the imperatives of the third part (“Sell your possessions and give alms”; v. 33). This slope makes clear that the first two parts are meant to be read as psychagogic preparation for vv. 33-­34. This is supported by the fact that in this verse the Lukan Jesus reaches back behind the beginning of his speech and picks up v. 21. Here the disciples learn for the first time the concrete actions in which they are meant to implement the pragmatic of v. 21. The speech of Jesus in vv. 22-­31 has clear overlaps with Matthew 6.25-­34 and in vv. 33b-­34 with Matthew 6.20-­21. In both places Luke probably takes up Q material. In P. Oxy IV 655.1.1–­17 a text from the Gospel of Thomas is handed down that contains elements of vv. 22c, 27, 25; the Coptic version of Gospel of Thomas only has an equivalent to P. Oxy IV 655.1.1–­7 (par. Luke 12.22c); v. 33b has a parallel in Gospel of Thomas 76.3.

22-­23 The justification in 23 determines the meaning of the exhortation in 22. The anxiety for ψυχή and σῶμα (both terms are dativus commodi; cf. BDR §188.11) should not have the form of anxiety over food and clothing. In 22 the juxtaposition of ψυχή and σῶμα does not describe the anthropological dualism of soul and body but designates in a complementary manner the inner and outer corporality, i.e., human existence as such (see also Menander, Fragment 649 [Kock 1880–­1888]: εἶναί τε παίδων . . . πατέρα μερίμνας τῷ βίῳ πολλὰς φέρει [“To be a father of children prepares for life many anxieties”] as well as Dautzenberg 1966, 93–­94). Presumably the lexical pair is formed here as an anthropological extension to ἐσθίειν and ἐνδύεσθαι, for “food and clothing” are the basic needs of human life (cf. 3.11 and the texts mentioned there). It is not the bodily existence of humans as such (thus ψυχή and σῶμα) which is devalued but the anxiety for its material safeguarding. The two questions τί φάγητε and τί ἐνδύσησθε describe the form of the anxiety. This specification indicates that μεριμνᾶν here, unlike in 10.41, does not designate an action (“the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 149

anxious or managing attending to something”; R. Bultmann, ThWNT 4: 593.21) but the emotional state “of being anxious, which is bound up with angst and fear” (Hoffmann 1995, 112). This μεριμνᾶν is associated with sleeplessness and doubt (1 Maccabees 6.10: συμπέπτωκα τῇ καρδίᾳ ἀπὸ τῆς μερίμνης [“From anxiety I am broken together in heart”]; see also Sirach 31.1-­2; 42.9: the “anxiety” for the daughter drives away sleep; Psalm 38.19), and words like “fear” and “grief” are characteristic of this understanding (cf. R. Bultmann, ThWNT 4: 593.30ff; see also Diphilus Comicus, Fragment 88 [Kock 1880–­1888]; Lucian of Samosata, Saturnalia 26; Vettius Valens, ed. Kroll 1973, 131.6 as well as Zeller 1977b, 87–­88; D. Zeller, EWNT 2: 1005–­6). The last word of this part of the speech says what comes to expression in this kind of anxiousness—­‘little faith’ (v. 28b). 24 For the topic of “food” Jesus gives an example from the animal world (in vv. 27-­28 an example from the plant world follows on the topic of “clothing”). The selection of the raven in particular as an example could have had many reasons. Perhaps it was their voracity, which is thematized in many texts (e.g., Job 38.41; Psalm 147.9; 1 Enoch 90.8; Jubilees 11.11, 19; Aesop, Fabulae, ed. Hausrath/Hunger 1970, 130). But perhaps the fact that they were regarded as “homeless, hearthless, stateless, wild, implacable, and unsociable” (Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 2.38 [trans. Marcus 1961, 116]) also played a role. The reference to the ravens would be understood entirely incorrectly if one would ascribe to them the function of a model. The disciples are not meant to become like ravens, for they have lived like them for a long time already: they sow not; they harvest not; they have neither storeroom nor barn. Rather, through the example of the ravens the disciples are to recognize that God also keeps his creatures alive when they do not stockpile. To this extent, the reference to the ravens can develop its argumentative potential only under the presupposition that not all people but only the disciples are addressed. For what is said about the ravens in 24b-­c is true only for them. That the reference to the ravens has not a paraenetic but rather an assuring function is also confirmed by the concluding argumentum a comparatione (cf. Lausberg 1973, §395–­97) in 24e, which, with διαφέρετε + genitivus comparationis (cf. W. Bauer 1988, 382 [s.v. 2.b]), calls to mind 12.7. The comparison switches here from the level of the concreta (ravens/disciples) to the level of the appellativa (“birds”; the disciples as ‘humans’ are juxtaposed with them virtually). In this way the commonality of behavior is related to the difference of genre in order to strengthen the rhetorical persuasiveness of the comparison. If God does not let the ravens starve, although they are only birds, he will certainly take care that the disciples have something to eat, since they are, after all, humans.

150

The Gospel According to Luke

25 The rhetorical question that wants to be answered with ‘No one!’ is meant to illustrate the uselessness and ineffectiveness of anxiety. With the the opposition of μεριμνᾶν and δύνασθαι it is made clear that anxiety accomplishes nothing. This does not sound “pessimistic” or “resigned” (Luz 1985–­2002, I: 480–­81). Rather the opposite is the case. One should not direct one’s anxiety to things that one cannot do anyway. The disciples are exhorted to be relaxed. Here ἡλικία means not “body size” but also not “duration of life” (e.g., Wiefel) or “length of our life” (e.g., Bovon)—­these two translations are excluded on the basis of the lexical meaning of the word—­but “age of life.” In terms of content the point is that no person is able to add by himself even a small span of time to his current age of life (on πῆχυς in a temporal sense cf. Mimnermus, Fragment 2 [West 1994] = Joannes Stobaeus, Anthologium IV: 34.12 [Wachsmuth/Hense 1958, IV/2: 828.2]), for this remains reserved for God alone (cf. H. D. Betz 1995, 476). Anxiety does not even secure the next day. 26 presupposes the answer to the rhetorical question and draws the conclusion. If anxiety cannot even ensure that one can add even a minimum (ἐλάχιστον) to one’s current age of life, it is also senseless to be anxious about what goes beyond this minimum (περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν); a similar coordination of ἐλάχιστον and τὰ λοιπά also occurs in Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.287. The verbs in vv. 25-­26 are arranged chiastically (μεριμνᾶν / δύνασθαι / δύνασθαι / μεριμνᾶν), which intermeshes these two verses with the theme of the speech. Furthermore, the concluding question τί . . . μεριμνᾶτε takes up the introductory exhortation μὴ μεριμνᾶτε. Thus τὰ λοιπά refers back to the object of anxiety described in v. 22. 27-­28 After the example from the world of animals on the theme of “food,” Jesus brings an additional example from the world of plants on the theme of “clothing.” The parallelism of the two presentations is clear. Verse 27a corresponds to v. 24a (κατανοήσατε etc.); v. 27b (οὐ κοπιᾷ οὐδὲ νήθει) corresponds with v. 24b-­c (οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν etc.); v. 27d (the lilies are more beautiful than Solomon) corresponds with v. 24d (καὶ ὁ θεὸς τρέφει αὐτούς); v. 28 corresponds with v. 24e (in each case πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὑμεῖς/ὑμᾶς).

27 The pointer to the lilies is also meant to remove the disciples’ anxiety that they could come into an existential situation of want due to their way of life, namely (in the words of James 2.15) “to stand naked.” The argumentation proceeds in the exact same way as with the ravens in v. 24. The lilies do not do the same things that the disciples do not do—­namely κοπιᾶν and νήθειν—­and despite this every single one of them is more beautiful than Solomon. Thus, this comparison also intends to mediate



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 151

assurance. It is generally assumed that κρίνον designates the lily, more precisely the white lily (lilium candidum), whose beauty and fragrance were already praised in the Old Testament (cf. Sirach 39.14; 50.8; Isaiah 35.1; Hosea 14.6; see also Testament of Simeon 6.2). The reading οὔτε νήθει οὔτε ὑφαίνει (“they neither spin nor weave”; D sys,c and others; see also Marcion) describes the activities required for the production of clothing more precisely than the overwhelmingly better attested phrasing οὐ κοπιᾷ οὐδὲ νήθει (𝔓45,75 rell.), but the latter can be suspected of being an adjustment to Matthew 6.28. Thus, the originality of the reading preferred by Nestle-­Aland27 is not beyond all doubt.

Reference is made to Solomon because of the proverbial glory of his reign (cf. especially 1 Kings 10.1-­13, 14-­29; 2 Chronicles 9.1-­12, 13-­28; it also occurs with δόξα, as here, in 1 Chronicles 29.25: “The Lord made Solomon great . . . and gave him δόξαν βασιλέως . . .”; see also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.190: Solomon as πάντων βασιλέων ἐνδοξότατος [“most illustrious among all kings”]; 1 Kings 3.13); for περιβάλλεσθαι without attribute in the sense of “get dressed; be clothed,” cf. Haggai 1.6; Revelation 3.18. 28 says that it is God who gives the lilies their beauty. περιεβάλετο from v. 27d is taken up here by ὁ θεὸς οὕτως ἀμφιέζει. But apart from that this verse has the same function as v. 24e. The correspondence between the concreta “lilies” and “disciples” are raised to the level of the appellativa “grass in the field . . .” and “you” (sc. the disciples as ‘humans’) in order to obtain an argumentum a comparatione from this difference (πόσῳ μᾶλλον; cf. Lausberg 1973, §395–­97) and to further reinforce the certainty that God will also provide the disciples with clothing. The relative clause “. . . which is in the field today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven” (see also Psalm 90.5-­6) is intended to further devalue the lilies in relation to humans and in this way increase the persuasiveness of the argument. The first part of the speech is concluded with the designation of the disciples as ὀλιγόπιστοι. According to Sextus Pomponius, Enchiridion 6 a “person of little faith” is one who is ἐν πίστει ἄπιστος. Within the New Testament and early Jewish literature this expression only occurs elsewhere in Matthew 6.30; 8.26; 14.31; 16.8 (see also 17.20). This designation is used to characterize the existential anxiousness of the disciples as a lack of faith in God’s provision. 29-­32 The paraenetic keyword of the second part of the speech is ζητεῖν, which is used both in an apotreptic (vv. 29-­30) and in a protreptic admonition. The closest New Testament parallels are in Romans 2.7 (“glory, honor, and incorruptibility”); 1 Corinthians 10.24 (“not τὸ ἑαυτοῦ

152

The Gospel According to Luke

but τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου”); Colossians 3.1 (τὰ ἄνω, “where Christ is”); see also Romans 11.7; 1 Corinthians 14.12; Hebrews 11.14; 13.14; outside the New Testament, see among others 1 Maccabees 2.29; PsalmLXX 33.15 = 1 Peter 3.11; Epictetus, Dissertationes 4.1.46 (“What is it that every person seeks? εὐσταθῆσαι, εὐδαιμονῆσαι, πάντα ὡς θέλει ποιεῖν, μὴ κωλύεσθαι, μὴ ἀναγκάζεσθαι [to live securely, to be happy, to do everything as he wants, not to be hindered, not to be compelled]”); Marcus Aurelius 11.16. This designates an orientation of existence that is directed to a specific good and whose intentionality is guided by it. Accordingly, 29 teaches the disciples first that their interest should not be directed to obtaining foodstuffs. Luke then supplements this instruction with the prohibition (vetitive) μή μετεωρίζεσθε. The exhortation was long regarded as a crux interpretum since the use of this verb—­which only occurs here in the New Testament—­is very diverse (cf. the lexicons and especially K. Deissner, ThWNT 4: 633–­34; Spicq 1994, II: 483ff). In the meantime, however, a certain consensus has developed according to which μετεωρίζεσθαι here means “to worry,” “to be tense or stressed,” “to be in limbo,” “to be pulled back and forth,” “to be uncertain”; there are parallels, e.g., in Polybius 5.18.5 (due to certain rumors “they were pulled back and forth in their considerations” [ταῖς διανοίαις ἦσαν μετέωροι]); Josephus, Bellum judaicum 4.118 (a wrongdoer is μετέωρος ἐν φόβῳ [“beside himself from fear”]); P. Mich. Inv. 855 (Youtie 1977, lines 11–­12: πολλὰ μετεωρίζομαι ὧδε ἄνω [“Here above I am very unsettled”]); P. Oxy. XIV 1679.16–­17 (in a letter to the mother: μὴ μετεωρίζου, καλῶς διάγομεν [“Don’t worry, we are doing well”]). In BGU 417.3–­7 τὰ μετέωρα and ἀμέριμνος are set over against each other; Spicq 1994, II: 484–­85 mentions other examples. Hoffmann 1995, 75ff, 127ff places the exortation μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε in the context of ancient psychagogy and assumes that this instruction is oriented to the ethical ideal of the “tranquility of soul” (εὐθυμία; Lat.: tranquillitas animi) and is meant to warn the disciples against an unsettling of the equilibrium of their soul that comes from the outside; he refers among others to Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares 5.13; De finibus 1.19; Seneca, De tranquillitate animi 2.7; Pap. Herculanensis 831 (on this topos, cf. H. D. Betz 1978).

Thus, the second exhortation in this verse is meant to comment on the first. To concern oneself with obtaining foodstuffs as disciples would be μετεωρίζεσθαι. In v. 31 the corresponding protreptic admonition will then follow. 30 In 30a Luke makes the instruction formulated at the beginning of v. 29 into an identity-­establishing boundary marker. That apotreptic admonitions are furnished with a demarcation from the ἔθνη is a topos of paraenetic rhetoric; cf. Jubilees 3.31 (“They should not be uncovered as the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 153

gentiles are uncovered” [trans. O. S. Wintermute, OTP 2: 60]); Matthew 6.7 (“Do not babble like the Gentiles”); 1 Thessalonians 4.5 (“. . . not in passionate desires like the Gentiles who do not know God”); see also Ephesians 4.17 and Sirach 5.11 (with regard to the “sinners”); Luke 6.32-­ 34. The phrasing τοῦ κόσμου is never found elsewhere as a characterizing genitive attribute of τὰ ἔθνη (in rabbinic literature ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ֻאּמֹות ָה‬then becomes, of course, “one of the most frequent rabbinic designations for non-­Israelite people”; Bill. II: 191 with attestations). It corresponds to the adjective πάντα, which here (and as distinct from Matthew 6.32) is connected with τὰ ἔθνη (cf. also Matthew 4.8: πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου), and is intended to express that “the Gentiles” in particular are not in view but rather the entirety of all humans. In this way an ethical identity that is unique in the entire world is ascribed to the circle of disciples. With regard to the joining with v. 29, on the one hand, and with v. 31a, on the other hand, the resemblance to Letter of Aristeas 140–­141 is unmistakable. The concern there is with the difference between Jews and non-­Jews, and the latter are “people of food and drink and clothing (βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν καὶ σκέπης), for their entire behavior (διάθεσις) is oriented to these things (ἐπὶ ταῦτα καταφεύγει). Among those who belong to us, however, this is regarded as worthless; rather, they have the kingdom of God (τοῦ θεοῦ δυναστεία) in view for all their life.”

30b correlates this paraenetic provocation with reality, for disciples also need to eat and drink. This fact is formulated, however, as a statement about God: οἶδεν ὅτι χρῄζετε τούτων (see also Matthew 6.8). From the extensive inventory of possible designations of God “your Father” is consciously chosen in this context. The disciples not only become “children of God” through this, but they are also enabled to apply their social knowledge to this relationship—­namely that it belongs to the nature of fathers to provide for their children with food and clothing. In 31 there follows, first, the corresponding protreptic admonition (31a). What is meant by “his (sc. God’s) kingdom,” toward which the existence of the disciples is to be oriented in an exclusive manner, is known to the readers on the basis of their previous reading of the Lukan story of Jesus—­the salvation that Jesus proclaims (4.43; 8.1), which is present in his activity (11.20), promised to the disciples (6.20), for whose coming they should pray (11.2), and in whose proclamation they themselves are also participants (9.2, 60; 10.9, 11). In 31b the instruction is supplemented with an outlook to the consequences of the actions. This corresponds to common paraenetic argumentation (see at 6.46-­49). ταῦτα refers via τούτων (v. 30) to τί φάγητε καὶ πίητε (v. 29), and the logical subject of προστεθήσεται is, of course, God (passivum divinum). For

154

The Gospel According to Luke

the understanding of this promise, too, one must pay attention to the fact that it is always the disciples and not all people who are addressed (see also at v. 24). To them—­who share Jesus’s proclamation of peregrination (8.1) and were themselves sent out to proclaim the kingdom of God—­it is promised that the kingdom of God feeds its proclaimers. Exhortation and promise point back in this respect to the two mission discourses in 9.1-­6; 10.2-­16 and to the bread petition of the Lord’s Prayer (11.3). 32 Ever since Genesis 15.1 μὴ φοβοῦ/φοβεῖσθε has been used time and again to introduce announcements of salvation that promise God’s support and salvation (cf. also Genesis 26.24; Isaiah 41.10, 13; 43.5; Jeremiah 46.27; Jubilees 35.17; 1 Enoch 96.3; 102.4; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 6.9). When the disciples are metaphorically designated as “flock,” a term is applied to them that was common as a designation for Israel, the people of God (cf. Isaiah 40.11; Jeremiah 13.17; Ezekiel 34; Zechariah 10.3; Psalms of Solomon 17.40; Apocalypse of Elijah 42.7–­8; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 23.12; for the Christian community, see also Acts 20.28; 1 Peter 5.2-­3; 1 Clement 44.3; 54.2; 57.2). εὐδοκεῖν occurs again for the first time since 3.22; no different than there, the verb here also has the connotation of a caring that arises solely from God’s free decision (see also Psalm 39[40].14; 2 Samuel 22.20 as well as G. Schrenk, ThWNT 2: 736–­40; Spicq 1994, II: 99–­106). Elsewhere the phrasing βασιλείαν διδόναι τινί always describes the installation of a person into the position of a ruler (2 Chronicles 21.3; Daniel 7.14Theodotion, 27; Isocrates, Panegyricus 62; Ad Philippum 33; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 64.9; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 2.41 [at the enthronement]; Testament of Judah 21.2; Philo, In Flaccum 25; Legatio ad Gaium 179; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 7.384; 8.270; 10.99; 14.403 and elsewhere). Thus, the promise pronounced here assures the disciples of the future reversal of their present fate. God promises the small and defenseless group that he will equip them with ruling power and let them share in his own universal reign (see also at 22.29). In 33 the theme of v. 21 is taken up again. The instruction for action in 33a communicates to the readers concretely what they have to do if they want to be rich εἰς θεόν, and in which doing the μὴ μεριμᾶτε (v. 22) or the ζητεῖτε τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ (v. 31) is to be expressed. In 18.22 Jesus makes this demand in relation to the rich ἄρχων; moreover, he furnishes it with the same motivation (through this one obtains a “treasure in heaven”) and joins it with the exhortation to enter into discipleship. Thus, both here and there Jesus norms the ethos of the circle of disciples; it is actually misleading to translate ἐλεημοσύνη with “charity” (see at 11.41 for this and for the phrasing ἐλεημοσύνην διδόναι; see also Diogenes Laertius 5.17). The exhortation is rhetorically supported with the help of the motif of true and false riches (on this cf. at v. 21). By surrendering their earthly



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 155

possessions the disciples obtain a wealth that is much more valuable because it is heavenly. For “treasure” or the like as a metaphor for the salvation that the righteous obtain with God through their works cf. Psalms of Solomon 9.5 (“The one who does righteousness treasures up life for himself with the Lord [θησαυρίζει ζωὴν αὐτῷ παρὰ κυρίῳ]”); Sirach 29.10-­11 (“Give your money for the sake of the brother and friend . . . ; use your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High and he will benefit you more than gold”); Philo, De praemiis et poenis 104 9 (“True riches lie in heaven and are obtained through wisdom and piety”); 2 Baruch 14.12 (“For the righteous justly have good hope for the end and go away from this habitation without fear because they possess with you [sc. God] a store of good works which is preserved in treasuries” [trans. A. F. J. Klijn, OTP 1: 626]); 2 Enoch 50.5 (“Let each one of you put up with the loss of gold and silver on account of a brother, so that he may receive a full treasury in that age” [trans. F. I. Andersen, OTP 1: 178]); rabbinic parallels in Bill. I: 430.

The characteristics of the heavenly treasure that account for its superiority in relation to earthly riches are described rather pragmatically. It does not get lost (e.g., through worn-­out money bags); it is inexhaustible (cf. Wisdom of Solomon 7.14; 8.18 concerning wisdom); and it is not exposed to the dangers of earthly riches (for the constantly present danger of the destruction of expensive clothing through moths, cf. Psalm 39.12; Job 13.28; Isaiah 50.9; 51.8; Sirach 42.13; James 5.2). 34 Taken on its own, the concluding sentence is a sapiential proverb (cf. the analogous ὅπου ἐκεῖ sentences in Philo, Legum allegoriae 3.115; Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 18; Marcus Aurelius 5.16.1; Sextus Pomponius, Enchiridion 316; Matthew 24.28; James 3.16). However, through the two adverbs of place ὅπου and ἐκεῖ it is connected with v. 33, and in this way it receives semantic and pragmatic clarity. It places before the disciples the alternative of being aimed either toward heaven or toward earth in the orientation of their existence and salvation (this is what heart stands for metonymically) (cf. also Testament of Job 36.3; Colossians 3.2). Because they have only one heart, they can also have only one treasure—­ either (expressed with v. 21) with God or with themselves. The question of where the heart is located (for the phrasing cf. 1 Kings 9.3 = 2 Chronicles 7.16) is decided solely by whether or not the disciples comply with the exhortation pronounced in v. 33a. Accordingly, the pragmatics of this statement are also oriented toward inculcating this double demand with additional emphasis. However, the general validity of this sentence now also has the additional consequence that it reaches beyond the narrated situation and runs

156

The Gospel According to Luke

over into the world under discussion. With its help the readers of the Gospel of Luke are also confronted with the three exhortations in v. 33 and compelled to write them forward hermeneutically into their own situation. 12.35-­48: On the Watchfulness and Reliability of the Service Personnel 35

“Let your loins be girded and your lamps be burning. 36And be like people who await their lord, when he leaves the wedding, so that they can immediately open to him when he comes and knocks. 37Blessed (are) those slaves whom the lord at his coming will find awake! Amen, I say to you: He will gird himself and have them sit at the table, and he will approach and wait on them. 38Even if he comes at the second or third night watch and finds (them) like that—­blessed are they! 39But know this: if the master of the house had known in which hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 40Hold yourselves ready, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man is coming.” 41 But Peter said, “Lord, do you tell this parable to us or also to all?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the trustworthy manager, the wise one, whom the lord sets over his servantry so that he distribute the food at the proper time? 43Blessed (is) that slave, whom the lord will find acting in this way at his coming! 44Truly I say to you: he will set him over all his possessions! 45But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My lord is not coming for a long time,’ and begins to beat the male and female slaves, to eat and drink, and to get drunk, 46the lord of that slave will come on a day on which he does not expect (it), and at an hour that he does not know. And he will cut him into pieces and assign him a place among the unbelievers. 47 “But that slave who knew the will of his lord and prepared nothing and did not act according to his will shall be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who did not know (him) and does what merits strokes shall be beaten with few blows. But to everyone to whom much has been given—­much will be demanded from him; and to whom one has entrusted much—­all the more they will require of him.” Without a narrative break Luke changes the topic in Jesus’s speech to the disciples. The topic is no longer the means of subsistence and material possessions but the proper preparation for the parousia. Thus, the ones being addressed are primarily the readers in the world under discussion, for whom Luke had already opened a window in vv. 33-­34, so that they can listen in on what Jesus says to the disciples in the narrated world.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 157

Form-­critically we are dealing here with an allegorical admonition speech that seeks to teach the readers that their way of life must always be parousia-­proof. The established metaphors that redescribe the significance of the parousia of Jesus for the disciples and the readers constitute the coherence of the whole text. The concern is with how the “slaves” (δοῦλοι: vv. 37a, [42b], 43a, 45a, 46a, 47) of a “lord” (κύριος: vv. 36a, 37b, 42c, 43b, 45b, 46a, 47a) who is currently absent should behave in his house. The situation of the “coming” (ἔρχεσθαι: vv. 36b, 37b, 38a, 39b, 43b, 45b; see also 46a: ἥξει) of the κύριος is taken into view throughout. Furthermore, it is important that the κύριος wants to find the δοῦλοι in a certain state at his return (εὐρίσκειν [οὕτως]: vv. 37b, 38a, 43b). Terms from the semantic field of time also function as an element that establishes coherence: πότε (v. 36a); χρονίζειν (v. 36b); “second and third night watch” (v. 38a); ὥρα (vv. 39b, 40b, 46a); χρονίζειν (v. 45b); ἡμέρα (v. 46a). These temporal terms refer to the coming of the κύριος. They consistently have the function of characterizing this coming as not knowable beforehand. Thus, the problem of the delay of the parousia stands in the background, and the disciples, or rather the readers, should be moved to reckon at every moment with the return of Jesus and shape their conduct of life accordingly. The speech is composed of two parts (vv. 35-­40 and vv. 42-­46) and a summary of the two parts (vv. 47-­48). Luke makes the structuring division with the help of the question of Peter in v. 41 (it is lacking in the parallel in Matthew). The paraenetic keyword in the first part is the “readiness” of the “slaves” (v. 40) and in the second part the “doing” (ποιεῖν; v. 43b) of the task for which the κύριος installed his slave as οἰκονόμος (cf. v. 42c). In the summary the two keywords are repeated (v. 47b). The two parts differ, however, in the fact that in the first part the slaves are spoken of in the plural and the addressees are also addressed with the second person plural (vv. 37a, 38b, 39a, 40a-­b), while in the second part the concern is always with only a single slave (v.v. 43, 45, 46), who as οἰκονόμος (v. 42b diff. Matthew 24.45) is set over the other slaves (παῖδες καὶ παιδίσκαι; v. 45c). Verses 39-­40 (par. Matthew 24.43-­44) and vv. 42b-­46 (par. Matthew 24.45-­51) have a parallel in Matthew, so that there was probably a Vorlage in Q for this part of the speech. The same has sometimes been assumed for vv. 35-­38 (e.g., Schneider 1975, 32–­33; Kollmann 1990; März 1990); differently e.g., Fitzmyer; Wiefel; CEQ; Fleddermann 2005a. There are sporadic cross-­connections to two other texts: There are connections to the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25.1-­ 13 (“lamps” [λύχνοι or λαμπάδες]: v. 35 and Matthew 25.1, 3, 4, 8; ἕτοιμος + ἔρχεσθαι: v. 40 and Matthew 25.10; φρόνιμος: v. 42 and Matthew 25.2; χρονίζειν:

158

The Gospel According to Luke

v. 45 and Matthew 25.5; vv. 35-­38 takes place, like Matthew 25.1-­13, in the night). For the most part the correspondences concern the Q material. The fact that the commonalities do not pertain to the narrative plot speaks against the assumption of a tradition-­historical connection between the two texts (thus, e.g., as a possibility, Bovon). Thus, we can merely say that both texts make recourse to the same stock of linguistic blocks in order to speak metaphorically about the parousia and its delay. Especially for vv. 35-­38 there are connections to the parable of the guard of the gate in Mark 13.33-­36 (the reference to the opening of the door: v. 36 and Mark 13.36; the exhortation to γρηγορεῖν: v. 37 and Mark 13.34, 35; δοῦλοι: v. 37 and Mark 13.34; the ἔρχεσθαι of the lord of the house: vv. 36, 37 and Mark 13.35, 36; his εὑρίσκειν of his servantry as awake: vv. 37, 38 and Mark 13.36). It is rather unlikely that the Lukan version is based literarily on Mark 13.33-­36. However, the two texts probably have a common origin. It is very likely that Didache 16.1 also participates in the tradition history of the two texts (“Watch [γρηγορεῖτε] over your life! Your lamps [λύχνοι] should not go out, and your loins [αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν] should not become powerless, but be ready [γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι; see v. 40] for you know not [see Mark 13.35] the hour in which our Lord [see Mark 13.35] comes”). It is questionable whether the tradition history of the parable has also left traces in Revelation 3.20 (cf., on the one hand, Bauckham 1977, 170ff; Roloff 1989, and, on the other hand, Aune 1997/1998, I: 250ff). There is a parallel to v. 39 in Gospel of Thomas 21.5, which is closer to Matthew 24.43 (in both places it is the master of the house who watches). In Gospel of Thomas 21.7; 103 the exhortation to gird the loins is grounded by the threat of “robbers” (ⲛⲗⲏⲥⲧⲏⲥ), without the point in time of their coming also playing a role as it does in v. 39. It is therefore rather unlikely that both sayings have a common tradition-­historical origin.

35 The exhortation to have “the loins girded” is, despite the terminological correspondence, not an allusion to the Passover symbolism of Exodus 12.11. Rather, it must be understood from the context described in vv. 36-­38, in which “girding oneself” (περιζώννυμι) and “being ready” (ἕτομος and cognates) are directly connected with each other: 1 Maccabees 3.58 (περιζώσασθε . . . καὶ γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι [“Gird yourselves and be ready!”]); Philo, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 63 (ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ὀσφῦς περιεζωσμένους ἑτοίμως πρὸς ὑπηρεσίαν ἔχοντας [“to make the loins girded and ready for service”]); Luke 17.8; Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes 8.4.2 (περιεζωσμένος καὶ ἕτοιμος ὢν τοῦ διακονεῖν [“girded and prepared to serve”]). Since the corresponding instruction γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι concludes the first part of the speech (v. 40), Luke has created here an inclusio with a clearly recognizable semantic profile. For the dress conventions (a broad ankle-­length garment is gathered with a belt so that it



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 159

does not get in the way in the work) cf. Dalman 1964, II: 151–­52; III: 28; V: 232–­33. If one relates the perfect περιεζωσμέναι and the present of (οἱ λύχνοι) καιόμενοι to each other, it becomes clear that Luke sketches an evening situation in which the house slaves should not give up their preparedness to work, although it has become dark by now. Accordingly, the exhortation to light the lamps in the house says that they should not go to sleep but should remain awake (cf. v. 37). The reason for the two instructions emerges from 36, where the situation that was merely signaled in v. 35 is concretized. The lord of the house participates as a guest in a wedding celebration (γάμος can, however, also simply mean “festive meal”; cf. Esther 1.5; 9.22; Luke 14.8). He will leave the celebration at some point in the night and return home again (for ἀναλύειν ἐκ τῶν γάμων cf. Sententiae Pythagoreorum 68a: ὥσπερ ἐκ συμποσίου τοῦ βίου . . . ἀναλύειν [“to depart from life as from a symposium”]). At the center stands the exhortation to be προσδεχόμενοι τὸν κύριον. Within the source domain, this expresses what is expected from a house slave in such a situation. Moreover, the concrete instructions formulated in v. 35 now find their explanation: girded loins and burning lamps make slaves into nightly προσδεχόμενοι of their lord. This participle is simultaneously the bridge from the source domain to the target domain, for the same verb also characterizes the orientation of Christian existence to the coming of eschatic salvation that is still outstanding (cf. Mark 15.43par. Luke 23.51; Acts 24.15; Titus 2.13; Jude 1.21). 37-­38 The two macarisms in 37a and 38b place a bracket around these two verses, in which the narrative is commented on (rhetorical figure of the redditio; cf. Lausberg 1973, §625–­27). In 37b-­e the narrated narrator Jesus makes a “certain anticipation” in order to direct the attention of the readers to the denouement of the narrative (Vogt 1990, 123). This commentary is meant to be read within the source domain and within the target domain. Within the source domain the participle γρηγοροῦντας summarizes the behavior of the slaves described in vv. 35-­36: girded loins, burning lamps, and the prompt opening of the door are indications that they have remained awake and await their lord. Within the target domain the parousia is taken into view. 1 Corinthians 4.5; 11.26; 16.22; 1 Thessalonians 3.3; 4.16; 2 Thessalonians 2.8; Revelation 22.20 show that the designation of Jesus as κύριος is connected precisely with the expectation of his coming again. Furthermore, the exhortation to “to be awake” (γρηγορεῖν) is a topos of protreptic paraenesis that is widespread in early Christianity (Matthew 25.13; Acts 20.31; 1 Corinthians 16.13; Ephesians 6.18; Colossians 4.2; 1 Thessalonians 5.5-­6; 1 Peter 5.8; Revelation 3.2-­3; 16.15; Ignatius of Antioch, Polyk. 1.3; see also Romans 13.11 and Lövestam 1963, 76, who connects this exhortation additionally with the existence of

160

The Gospel According to Luke

the baptized “in light” [= in salvation]). The macarism in Sibylline Oracles 2.178–­181 is probably a Christian interpolation that may be dependent on the tradition that stands behind Mark 13.33-­37; Luke 12.43par. Matthew 24.46: “Oh blessed servants (ὦ μάκαρες θεράποντες), as many as the master when he comes finds awake (ἀγρυπνοῦντας εὕροι); for they have all stayed awake all the time looking expectantly (προσδοκάοντες) with sleepless eyes” (trans. J. J. Collins, OTP 1: 349). The assumption that this imagery goes back to the practice of so-­called “prayer vigils” (thus Luz 1985–­2002, III: 456) is not likely. In 37d-­e the denouement of the story is narrated. It is not at all by chance that the introduction ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν has a parallel in 11.8 (see also 12.44; 14.24; 19.26; 20.15b), for here too the levels of the source domain and of the target domains are interlocked in the same way (cf. also the analogous use of the future verb forms περιζώσεται, ἀνακλινεῖ, and διακονήσει; see also εὑρήσει in 37b). The narrated Jesus assigns a narrative perspective to his hearers in which the return of the lord is still outstanding and directs their view into the future. The situation of the readers between ascension and parousia corresponds to this on the level of the target domain. Plus, the reaction of the lord who has returned bursts the plausibility of the picture (cf., on the other side, 17.7-­8). This therefore speaks of the eschatic salvific consequences that Jesus’s disciples may expect if they are encountered at the parousia as ἕτοιμοι (v. 40; cf. also vv. 44, 46 as well as 3.17; 8.8b; 13.19; 19.17, 19, 27 and the reception of this tradition in Ascension of Isaiah 4.16: “The Lord will serve those who have been watchful in this world”). 38 The repetition of the macarism serves the rhetorical intensification of v. 37a-­b (οὔτως refers back to γρηγοροῦντας). φυλακή (“night watches”) functions as a temporal specification for the division of the night. Attested are subdivisions into three and four watches of the night: three (i.e., 18–­22 / 22–­2 / 2–­6 o’clock), e.g., in Diodorus Siculus 19.38.3; Josephus, Bellum judaicum 5.510; four (i.e., 18–­21 / 21–­0 / 0–­3 / 3–­6 o’clock), e.g., in Mark 6.48; 13.35; Acts 12.4; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 18.356; see also Bill. I: 688ff. This temporal specification is intended to express that the lord of the house can also come quite late and his slaves have to wait a long time for him. It is used to convey the same subject matter as χρονίζει in v. 45b. This narrative move speaks more for the view that a rhythm of three is in mind (otherwise the third and fourth night watches would probably have been mentioned), and it also very likely reflects the experience of the delay of the parousia. 39 The parabolic saying of the intruder and the unpredictability of his coming is also related to the parousia outside the synoptic tradition (1 Thessalonians 5.2 [with γρηγορεῖν]; 5.4; 2 Peter 3.10; Revelation 3.3



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 161

[with γρηγορεῖν]; 16.15 [with γρηγορεῖν]; on this, see Harnisch 1973). In these texts, however, the picture is merely used as a comparison (ὡς); moreover, in them the “master of the house,” who is offered to the disciples as a metaphoric exemplum, is lacking. He makes the parabolic saying into a complementary supplement to the situation described in vv. 35-­38, for in the social world of the imagery the οἰκοδεσπότης is none other than the κύριος whom the slaves should await. In light of the parousia the social differences in status are nullified, for the same applies to the master of the house and to the slaves. What the away-­from-­home κύριος is for them is what the intruder is for him, for neither they nor he knows the time of his—­the lord’s or the intruder’s—­coming (on διορύσσειν as a dead metaphor for “break in” cf. Luz 1985–­2002, 456). Since this parabolic saying is formulated in the irrealis of the past (cf. BDR §360), the master of the house does not function as a paraenetic model for the readers. Rather, his example is intended only to illustrate that one cannot in principle know the point in time of the parousia. Therefore, there is not a “logical incongruence” (Harnisch 1973, 92) between this example and the application in v. 40. The application in 40 formulates the pragmatics of both examples. The disciples are exhorted “to a constant readiness” (Schneider 1975, 96), and as justification reference is made to the unknowability of the point in time of the parousia (see also 21.7-­31). The exhortation γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι occurs in the New Testament only in this text and in its synoptic parallel Matthew 24.44; however, it is attested repeatedly in the Septuagint: Exodus 19.15 (of Moses before the encounter again with God); Numbers 16.16 (γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι ἔναντι κυρίου [“Be prepared before the Lord!”] as a rendering of Hebrew ‫“ = ֱהיּו ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬come before YHWH”); Joshua 8.4; 1 Maccabees 3.58 (see at v. 35 above); Tobit 5.17. Within the target domain γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι is therefore more than simply a “synonymous variation of γρηγορεῖτε” (Luz 1985–­2002, III: 457). The disciples’ conduct of life should be such that they can persist at the epiphany of the Son of Man (cf. Matthew 25.31; Mark 8.38parr.; 13.26parr.; 14.62par.) and in the encounter with him. 41 The question of Peter, with which Luke interrupts Jesus’s speech, distinguishes between “us” and “all.” On the basis of the scenic constellation that is in place from v. 1 on, there is no other possibility than that within the narrated world Luke wanted the question to be related to the juxtaposition of disciples and crowd. Peter only receives an answer to his question in vv. 47-­48 (see also Nolland). The distinction between “us” and “all” is taken up there with the distinction between ὁ γνοὺς τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ (v. 47a) and ὁ δὲ μὴ γνούς (v. 48a). The popular assumption that Luke specially intended the parable speech in vv. 42-­46 for Christian

162

The Gospel According to Luke

officials founders on this connection (see at vv. 47-­48a below). With παραβολὴ αὕτη Luke probably means the entire parable speech of vv. 35-­ 40, for elsewhere he also subsumes multiple parables under the singular παραβολή (cf. 5.36[-­39]; 6.39[-­49]; 15.3[-­32]). Further, quite a bit speaks for understanding the preposition πρός, which designates the addressees of the parable, in a characterizing manner—­not, as e.g., in 5.36, merely as a designation of the hearers, but, as in 18.9; Mark 12.2par. Luke 20.9, as a characterization of those who participate in playing behind the mask of one of the narrative figures in the parable. 42-­46 This text is not actually a narrative. Rather, at the discursive level of the text two opposing models of behavior are set over against each other. The narrative plots that are meant to illustrate these two models remain in the background or arise merely in the imagination of the readers. The structure is clear. Verse 42c-­d describes the starting situation that underlies both models. In v. 43 and v. 45 the two different ways of behaving are “narrated,” while v. 44 and v. 46 describe their respective consequences. 42 Source domain and target domain are interwoven with each other in the description of the starting situation. On the level of the source domain there arises in the imagination of the readers the idea of a lord of a house who temporarily leaves his house and appoints a slave as manager (οἰκονόμος; diff. Matthew 24.45: δοῦλος) for the time of his absence. Of course, in Luke as well he still remains a slave from a legal perspective, to whom merely the function of an οἰκονόμος is transferred (see also Plutarch, Moralia 4b: “Some of their competent slaves they make into γεωργοί, some into ναύκληροι, some into ἔμποροι, some into οἰκονόμοι, some into δανεισταί”). From the virtual inventory of his tasks (on this cf. the survey in Spicq 1994, II: 568ff) only two elements are chosen—­his position as supervisor of the rest of the service personnel and the concomitant commission to distribute the food rations (σιτομέτρια) at the appropriate times. θεραπεία is also found in this sense in Genesis 45.16; Philo, In Flaccum 149: ἡ οἰκετικὴ θεραπεία (“the household servantry”); see also Diodorus Siculus 1.57.7: οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπείας τοῦ βασιλέως τεταγμένοι (“those set over the servantry of the king”); Deuteronomy 1.13: καταστήσω ἐφ’ ὑμῶν ἡγουμένους ὑμῶν (“I will appoint them over you as leaders”) as well as Genesis 39.4, 5 of Joseph: Pharaoh κατέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτου . . . καὶ ἐπὶ πάντα, ὅσα ἦν αὐτῷ (“set him over his house . . . and over everything that belonged to him”). For σιτομέτρια cf. Plutarch, Moralia 313b, c; Genesis 47.12; Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.79; the title of a σιτομέτρης is attested in papyri and inscriptions;



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 163

cf. P. Tebt. 701.296; SGUÄ 4623.8; see further in Preisigke 1925–­1931, II: 463; III: 156–­57; Moulton/Milligan 1963, 576.

The transition to the level of the target domain is marked by the adjectives πιστός and φρόνιμος, for they are meant to be read on both levels. πιστός—­i.e., “faithful” or “reliable”—­belongs to the most important characteristics of “managers” (cf. 4 Baruch 7.2; 1 Corinthians 7.2). φρόνιμος is used here in the sense of sapiential rationality (cf. ProverbsLXX 3.7; 11.12; 14.17; 15.21; 17.21, 27, 28; 18.14 and elsewhere). A specification in terms of content is possible from vv. 45a, 46a. This manager is “clever,” because he reckons on the fact that the κύριος can return at any time. In the κύριος the readers can, of course, recognize Jesus himself. The future form καταστήσει (diff. Matthew 24.45: aorist), which points to the separation of Jesus from his disciples that is still outstanding at this point in time, is also open toward the level of the target domain. 43 The macarism is not by chance an almost word-­for-­word repetition of vv. 37a-­b (for the narrative function see there) and it likewise ought to be read on both levels. In place of γρηγοροῦντας there we have here ποιοῦντα οὕτως, which refers back to the commission given in v. 42c-­d. The future εὑρήσει expresses that the return of the Lord is still outstanding from a narrative perspective. Here the target domain with the view to the expected parousia is again superimposed upon the source domain. 44 tells how the story continues, after the returning “lord” has found his manager ποιοῦντα οὕτως (for the introduction with ἀληθῶς λέγω ὑμῖν see at v. 37 and 11.18). One cannot say that there is no great difference between the previous and the new status of the manager (thus, e.g., Marshall), for in the future he is no longer set only temporarily and only “over the service personnel” of his lord (with the restricted responsibility for the pantry) but rather “over all his possessions” (both here and there with καθίστημι ἐπί). The promotion is thus unmistakable. Luke 19.17, 19par. Matthew 25.21, 23 (cf. also the careers of Joseph, according to Genesis 41.39-­41, and Daniel, according to Daniel 6.4) argues similarly. As an alternative model of behavior 45 describes a slave entrusted with the function of the manager who abuses the trust placed in him. With the help of a thought report (for the phrasing “to say in one’s heart” cf. Deuteronomy 9.4; Psalm 10.6, 11, 13; 14.1; 53.2; 74.8; Jeremiah 5.24; Zephaniah 1.12; Revelation 18.7) Jesus juxtaposes him with the ‘reliable and clever’ manager, whose ‘cleverness’ is specified e contrario. This servant is not φρόνιμος, precisely because he thinks that the return of his lord “delays” (χρονίζει; see also Luke 1.21; Matthew 25.5; Hebrews 10.37; Weiser 1971, 188ff). The interpretation of Strobel 1961b, 218ff, according to which the slave reckons that his lord no longer comes at all, is refuted by

164

The Gospel According to Luke

v. 46a. It is “the unexpectedly early return” (Weiser 1971, 190 [emphasis in original]), not the return as such that surprises him. This false assumption results in the behavior of the manager (45b), which is described with recourse to familiar clichés, which are, to be sure, never plucked out of thin air but rather confirmed time and again by reality (cf. Lucian of Samosata, Timon 23; examples from rabbinic literature in Weiser 1971, 194–­ 95). In the Septuagint the triad ἐσθίειν, πίνειν, and μεθύσκεσθαι describes, on multiple occasions, the celebration of lavish feasts: 2 Samuel 11.13 (David called him καὶ ἔφαγεν . . . καὶ ἔπιεν καὶ ἐμέθυσεν αὐτόν [“and he ate . . . and drank and made him drunk”]); Song of Songs 5.1 (φάγετε, πλησίοι, καὶ πίετε καὶ μεθύσθητε, ἀδελφοί [“Eat, friends, and drink and get drunk, brothers”]); see also Isaiah 49.26; Ps.-­Diogenes, Epistulae 28.4 (ἐν μέσῃ τῇ ἀγορᾷ ἐσθίετε καὶ πίνετε, μεθύετε [“In the middle of the agora you eat and drink and get drunk”]). 46 The description of the consequences refers, first, to the false assumption communicated in v. 45a. The manager’s lack of ‘cleverness’ results in him being surprised by the return of the κύριος (46a; the dative of the second ᾗ, which does not actually fit with γινώσκει, is an attraction of the relative pronoun to the antecedent [here ὥρᾳ] as is also common elsewhere; cf. BDR §294). It is self-­evident that this description also belongs to and can and should be read on both levels—­i.e., on the level of the source domain and on the level of the target domain. Moreover, in the background the “foolish” rich man from vv. 16-­21 is also recognizable as a kindred spirit of the manager (see also Kim 1998, 184 and the terminological connection via ἄφρων in v. 20 and φρόνιμος in v. 42: like the rich ἄφρων, this manager is not φρόνιμος). Both think that they still have much time ahead of them, and both miscalculate dramatically. 46b-­c refers to the behavior of the manager described in v. 45b. διχοτομεῖν (46b) literally means “to hack/cut into two parts” or “to cut into pieces” (cf. Exodus 29.17; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.31; Plutarch, Pyrrhus 24.6; Moralia 290d; Spicq 1994, I: 350ff). Attempts to explain away the brutality of this announcement through the assumption of a translation error or the like (cf. above all O. Betz 1964; on his interpretation, see K. Weber 1993) have failed (cf. Weiser 1971, 199–­200). It is obviously entirely conceivable within the source domain that a slave who behaves in the manner described in v. 45b must lose his life (cf. Beavis 1992, 42–­43 with additional literature). Nevertheless, it is probably necessary to ascribe to the choice of precisely this term a semantic surplus that points to the level of the target domain. Wherever there is talk of comparable punishments in Old Testament-­Jewish texts, God is involved: Jeremiah 34.18 (“I will make the men who have transgressed my covenant . . . like the calf that they have cut in two . . .”; on this cf. Friedrichsen 2001a); SusannaTheodotion 55 (“The



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 165

messenger of God who has received the commission from God σχίσει σε μέσον [will cut you through in the middle]”; 59 (“The messenger of God has the sword in order to hack you through in the middle [πρίσαι σε μέσον]”); 3 Baruch 16.3–­4 (“Hack them into two parts with the sword and with death [διχοτομήσατε αὐτοὺς ἐν μαχαίρᾳ καὶ ἐν θανάτῳ] . . . for they have not obeyed my voice”).

Thus, “to hack into pieces” is a drastic metaphor for God’s eschatic act of destruction. There are comparable conclusions of parabolic sayings and parables in 3.17 (“unquenchable fire”) and 19.27 (“slaughter them before me!”). 46c is likewise meant to be read on both levels, as the semantic play with the meaning of ἄπιστος makes clear. Within the source domain the adjective points back to πιστός in v. 42b and marks the contrast between the two models of behavior in the sense of the semantic opposition of “reliable” and “unreliable,” while within the target domain it gains its meaning from πίστις as the central Christian identity marker and obtains the meaning “unbelieving.” Accordingly, on this level οἱ ἄπιστοι are the ones who do not believe in Jesus Christ (see also 1 Corinthians 6.6; 7.12-­ 15; 10.27; 14.22-­23, 24; 2 Corinthians 4.4; 6.14-­15; 1 Timothy 5.8; Titus 1.15). They form an eschatic community of unsalvation, and Luke makes the text into a warning to the disciples that they will be assigned to it if they prove to be “unreliable”; for the phrasing μέρος (or μερίς) μετά τινος cf. Deuteronomy 14.27; PsalmLXX 49.18 (as here with τίθημι: μετὰ μοιχῶν τὴν μερίδα σου ἐτίθεις [“You had fellowship with adulterers”]); DanielTheodotion 4.15, 23; 1QS II, 17; John 13.8 and elsewhere. 47-­48a The return of the keywords ἕτοιμ-­(see v. 40a) and ποιεῖν (see v. 43b) makes the parabolic saying into a summary of both parts of the speech of Jesus. Peter’s question in v. 41 is taken up and connected with the two parables. The typological difference between the slave ὁ γνούς and ὁ μὴ γνούς (sc. the will of the Lord) takes up the distinction between “us” and “all” from v. 41, for this is what in the narrated world separates disciples and crowd and (in the world under discussion) Christians and non-­Christians. This connection makes it extremely unlikely that Luke wanted to distinguish here between so-­called “leaders of the Christian communities” (Weiser 1971, 219) and “Christian laypeople” (Klostermann 140) of his time and correspondingly aimed the parable speech of Jesus at the ecclesiastical office holders (for criticism of this view, see also Kim 1998, 140ff). Luke could not have said about any Christian, no matter how average, that he or she does not know “the will of the Lord” (47a). Thus, πρὸς ἡμᾶς (v. 41) is transparent for those who know this will, and in the world under discussion of the Lukan present these are all Christians—­ particularly, of course, the readers of the Gospel of Luke. ἐκεῖνος does not

166

The Gospel According to Luke

refer back to vv. 45-­46 but rather points ahead to the participles ἑτοιμάσας and ποιήσας, which specify ὁ γνούς (cf. also the analogous use in v. 43). However, an allegorizing interpretation of the entire parabolic saying would distort its intention, for Luke is interested only in the slave who knows the will of his Lord; the other slave, whose case is described in 48a, functions merely as a rhetorical foil. 48b-­c also makes this orientation clear, for the climactic parallelism of this saying, which leaves the context of the lord–­slave relation behind, corresponds only to the case of the slave who knows the will of his Lord addressed in v. 47; a continuation parallel to v. 48a is lacking. Taken on their own, the two future verb forms ζητηθήσεται and αἰτήσουσιν would have gnomic meaning (cf. BDR §349.1); in the context of the Lukan speech of Jesus, however, they point to the last judgment. The narrated (ἡμεῖς according to v. 41) and the literary addressees (the readers of the Gospel of Luke) are meant to reckon themselves to those to whom “much was given/entrusted.” The assumption that rich Christians are intended and that πολύ refers to the ὑπάρχοντα in v. 44 (thus Kim 1998, 144) fails to recognize the metaphorical character of the statement. Accordingly, the pragmatic of this saying aims at the fact that higher claims are placed upon the ethos of the “disciples” of Jesus than on the ethos of the “crowd of people.” The readers know the ethical concretions from the Sermon on the Plain (6.20-­49). 12.49-­53: Fire That Destroys Families

“I have come to throw fire on the earth and how much I wish that it were already ignited! 50But I must be baptized with a baptism, and how impatient I am until it is finally accomplished! 51Do you think that I have come to bring about peace on the earth? No, I say to you, but nothing but division? 52For from now on five will be divided in one house, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-­in-­law against daughter-­in-­law and daughter-­in-­law against mother-­in-­law.” 49

Luke has Jesus continue the speech addressed to the disciples in the crowds. The thematic connection remains preserved here. What is at issue is the existence of the Christians between Jesus’s earthly activity and his parousia. At the center stands now, of course, no longer the correct preparation for the parousia but the consequence of the coming of Jesus. Two units can be distinguished. The double saying about “fire” and “baptism” (vv. 49-­50) is held together by the semantic opposition between “fire” and “water,” since one



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 167

needs water for baptism. Furthermore, the latter parts of the sentences are constructed in parallel. v. 49b: καὶ τί θέλω v. 50b: καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι

εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη ἕως ὄτου τελεσθῇ

The saying about the destruction of intra-­familial harmony (vv. 51-­53) obtains its coherence through the triple appearance of the lexeme διαμερ-­ (vv. 51b, 52a, 53a). The two units are joined with each other through v. 49a and v. 51a(b). After the substitution of εἰρήνην by διαμερισμόν, the syntactical and to some extent terminological parallelism of the two sentences gives rise to a synthetic parallelism. v. 49a: πῦρ v. 51b(a): διαμερισμόν

ἦλθον βαλεῖν (παρεγενόμην δοῦναι

ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐν τῇ γῇ)

There are points of contact with Matthew 10.34-­35 in v. 49 (ἦλθον βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γήν), in v. 51 (ὅτι εἰρήνην, ἐν τῇ/ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, οὐχ/οὐκ) and v. 53 (the reference to Micah 7.6), though the overlaps in wording are very slight. Nevertheless, one can probably assume a Q basis here, though its wording cannot be reconstructed. A Q-­Vorlage is also assumed for v. 50 and v. 52 by some, but this is contested by others (on this cf. Garsky/Heil 1997, 4–­35, 44–­61, 108–­21); v. 50 is probably based on Mark 10.38-­39 (τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι). Gospel of Thomas 10 attests a parallel to v. 49 (“Jesus says: I have thrown fire into the world, and behold, I am preserving it until it goes up in flames”) which could either be a reworking of the Lukan phrasing or a variant of the tradition that is independent of Luke. The parallels to vv. 51-­53a in Gospel of Thomas 16.1-­3 (“Jesus says, Perhaps people think that I have come to throw peace into the world. But they do not know that I have come to throw dissension upon the world, fire, sword, war. For there will be five in one house: three will be against two and two against three, the father against the son and the son against the father”) is very likely dependent on both synoptic versions.

49 ἦλθον + telic infinitive aorist is found as a self-­statement of Jesus, besides in v. 51, also in Mark 2.17parr. and Matthew 5.17; Matthew 10.34-­ 35 (see also Mark 10.45par. Matthew 20.28; Luke 19.10: in each case ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἦλθεν + infinitive aorist; on this cf. Arens 1976; Bühner 1977, 138–­52). The understanding of the content of this statement is a notorious crux interpretum.

168

The Gospel According to Luke

In early Jewish literature the expression πῦρ βάλλειν is only attested additionally in Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 2.19: “God said, πῦρ βάλλω ἐπί Sodom and Gomorrah” as a rephrasing of Genesis 19.24 (“And the Lord caused brimstone and fire to rain over [ἔβρεξεν ἐπί] Sodom and Gomorrah”) (cf. also Revelation 8.5). However, we are certainly not dealing with a Semitism in our text, for Homer already uses this phrasing; cf. Ilias 13.628–­29 (πῦρ ὀλοὸν βαλέειν [“to throw destroying fire”] on the ships); see also 24.787; Odyssea 8.501 (πῦρ ἐν κλισίῃσι βαλόντες [“They threw fire into the camp”]); Euripides, Iphigenia aulidensis 1112. In the Greek historians the expression πῦρ ἐμβάλλειν is a fixed expression for “set fire to”; cf. e.g., Thucydides 2.77.3; Polybius 1.42.13; 53.3; 5.8.9; 100.5; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 12.6.5; Diodorus Siculus 17.24.5.

It emerges from 49b that the fire does not yet burn, because God has not yet ignited it (πῦρ ἀνήφθη as passivum divinum is also found in Judges 6.12A; 2 Maccabees 1.22; PsalmLXX 77.21; Jeremiah 11.16; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 3.207). The introduction of this exclamation (καὶ τί θέλω εἰ . . .) is syntactically unclear; it may be a Semitism like 2 Samuel 6.20; Psalm 3.2 (on this, see Seper 1958; BDR §299.34; 3.60.4; W. Bauer 1988, s.v. τίς, τί 3.b). This, of course, does not yet answer the question of what Luke has Jesus speak of here. The following options are up for discussion: •

•

•

•

“Jesus’s death” as the “fire of judgment to which Jesus is given over” (Delling 1970, 251); it speaks against this that Jesus’s death is not mentioned until v. 50 and that it precedes the igniting of the fire; the “division” that is described in vv. 51-­53 in dependence on Micah 7.6 as the signature of the post-­Easter period (e.g., G. Klein 1964, 377; Arens 1976, 80); however, it speaks against this interpretation that in vv. 52-­53 the consequences of the fire (and this also only partially) are described and not its activity; the eschatic “fire of judgment” that was already spoken of in 3.16 (P. Hoffmann in Garsky/Heil 1997, 28; März 1985, 502ff and many others); it speaks against this assumption that the aorist ἦλθον characterizes not Jesus’s future coming but his earthly activity (for this reason the fire also does not come from above here); the Pentecost event and the proclamation of Christ after Pentecost; the fire is the Spirit (thus recently Garsky/Heil 1997, 23; but see also already Bultmann 1995, 165: “the Christian community or the Spirit active in it”); against this interpretation one can object that πῦρ βάλλειν semantically connotes ‘destruction,’ that the fire in Acts 2.3 does not come ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, and



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 169

that fire imagery does not play a role in the Lukan presentation of the proclamation of Christ after Pentecost.

Thus, there is no interpretation against which objections could not be advanced. The interpretation associated with the smallest problems is undoubtedly the one mentioned last, which is also supported by the parallelism of 49a and v. 51b(a) (see above). This parallelism makes it likely that the same period of time is taken into view both here and there—­namely, the time between the completion of what v. 50 designates as the ‘baptism’ of Jesus and his future coming, which was spoken of in vv. 35-­48. That Luke never describes the proclamation of Christ after Pentecost as a fiery event is not a weighty counterargument, for βάπτισμα (v. 50) also occurs only here (and in Mark 10.38-­39) as a metaphor for the fate of Jesus. 50 explains why the fire does not yet burn. Luke has presumably taken over this phrasing from Mark 10.38-­39, and he viewed baptism as its source domain, since in Luke the term βάπτισμα remains reserved for baptism elsewhere (cf. 3.9; 7.29; 20.4; Acts 1.22; 10.37; 13.24; 18.25; 19.3, 4: always with reference to the “baptism of John”; for the figura etymologica βάπτισμα βαπτισθῆναι see also 7.29 on the λαός and the tax collectors: βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου; BDR §153.2). Plus, in terms of linguistic history, this word appears for the first time at all in Romans 6.4 (here with reference to Christian baptism; see then also Ephesians 4.5; 1 Peter 3.21). Therefore, the general meaning postulated by Delling 1970 for this passage (“immerse” as a metaphor for the “sinking of the human being into unsalvation”; 245) is probably scarcely possible any longer for Luke. It is beyond question that he wanted this expression, following Mark 10.38-­39, to designate at least the event of Jesus’s suffering and death. Perhaps resurrection and exaltation also belonged to it for him (as in 9.22; 18.31-­33; 24.26, 46). The exclamation that follows in 50b and is parallel with v. 49 expresses not fear of the event (in the sense of ‘if only it were already over!’), but the desire that God would bring it to pass as quickly as possible (τελεσθῇ is likewise passivum divinum) so that the wish expressed in v. 49b can be fulfilled. For πῶς as an introduction for exclamations see also 18.24; Mark 10.23, 24; John 11.36 (parallels outside the New Testament can be found in W. Bauer 1988, s.v. πῶς 3). The meaning of συνέχομαι nevertheless remains unclear (a connection to the Gethsemane scene is very unlikely). In the Septuagint the verb without attribute in the middle or passive designates being physically enclosed (1 Samuel 21.8; 2 Samuel 20.3; 2 Esdras 16[= Nehemiah 6].10). The proposed translation of H. Koester, ThWNT 7: 883.1 (“how I am completely dominated by it”) is suboptimal because he underhandedly supplies an object.

170

The Gospel According to Luke

51-­53 describe the consequences of the fire, which is sparked off after Jesus’s death and resurrection. The dialogical structure of rhetorical question and answer in 51 (subiectio; cf. Lausberg 1973, §771–­75) is also used by Luke with the same words in 13.2-­3, 4-­5 (δοκεῖτε ὅτι. . . ; οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλά . . .); there is an analogy in Epictetus, Dissertationes 4.1.33 (δοκεῖτε ὅτι. . . ; οὔ, ἀλλά . . . [“Do you think that . . . ? No, but . . .”]; see also Dissertationes 1.4.25: δοκεῖτε ὅτι. . . ; ἀλλά [“Do you think that . . . ? Rather . . .”]; James 4.5); ἀλλ’ ἤ stands for εἰ μή: BDR §4489. εἰρήνην . . . δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ sounds like the Septuagint; cf., in each case as a promise of God, Leviticus 26.6 (δώσω εἰρήνην ἐν τῇ γῇ ὑμῶν [“I will give peace in your land”]); Jeremiah 14.13 (εἰρήνην δώσω ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ [“Peace I will give over the land and in this place”]); Haggai 2.9 (ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ δώσω εἰρήνην [“In this place I will give peace”]). Simple εἰρήνην δοῦναι corresponds to conventional Greek idiom (e.g., Thucydides 4.19.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 9.17.2; Appian, Libyca [= Punica] 228). What needs explanation is the relation between the announcement that on earth Jesus brings not peace among humans but “division” (διαμερισμός; Luke uses this term here in the sense of 11.17-­18) and the proclamation of universal peace on earth at the occasion of Jesus’s birth in 2.14. The information that there the offer of freedom applies only to those who receive the offer of salvation is certainly incorrect (contra Bock; Eckey). The tension between these two statements is part of the overarching tension that runs through the whole of Luke–­Acts and was articulated for the first time in 2.29-­32—­that the salvation of God leads to a division among humans because there are people who will reject it (cf. also the end of the last episode of Luke–­Acts in Acts 28.24-­25a). In this respect, the self-­statement of the Lukan Jesus reflects the historical experience that turning to the confession of Christ often brought with it a rupture of the social relationships within the lifeworld of Christians. 52-­53 ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν (in the New Testament it only occurs elsewhere in Luke 1.48; 5.10; 22.18, 69; Acts 18.6; 2 Corinthians 5.16; it is used frequently in the LXX) refers to the entirety of the coming of Jesus. The primary lifeworld of humans is the house, and accordingly, the closest social relations are family relations. That precisely the rupture of these relations is chosen as an example for concretizing the effect of the spread of the proclamation of Christ is meant to illustrate its power. Luke has Jesus, alluding to Micah 7.6 (“The son despises [ἀτιμάζει] the father, the daughter rises up against [ἐπαναστήσεται] her mother, the daughter-­in-­ law against [ἐπί] her mother-­in-­law”; on this, cf. C. Heil 1997; Allison 1999 and 1 Enoch 56.7; 100.1–­2; Jubilees 23.16; Bill. IV/2: 977ff), take a five-­person household into view and describe the division between the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 171

generations of the parents and children separately by genders. The constellation “two against three” fits the six names for people, because “mother” and “mother-­in-­law” refer to the same person. While Micah one-­sidedly blames the generation of the children for the collapse of familial relations (thus also Matthew 10.35), Luke describes it as a reciprocal process that proceeds from both generations. In this way he wants not only to intensify the presentation of the collapse but also to characterize the effect of the proclamation of Christ as a power that is independent of humans and autonomous, which intervenes into social structures and changes them (see also 8.20-­21; 11.27-­28). 12.54-­59: This Kairos as the Time of Decision 54

But he said to the crowd, “When you see in the west a cloud rising, you immediately say, ‘Rain is coming,’ and so it happens. 55And when (you feel) the south wind blow, you say, ‘It will be hot,’ and it happens. 56 Dissemblers, you know how to judge the appearance of the earth and the heaven; but this kairos—­how (can it be that) you do not know to evaluate (it)? 57 “Why do you not decide for yourselves for what is right? 58For when you are on the way to judgment with your adversary, endeavor (still) on the way to get free from him; otherwise he hauls you before the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the bailiff, and the bailiff will throw you into prison. 59I say to you, you will not get out of there until you have paid back the last cent!” Jesus now turns again to the crowd (for the phrasing ἔλεγεν δὲ καί with a comparable change of addressee see at 16.1), which remains the addressee of the speech of Jesus to the end of the scene in 13.9. The textual unit is composed of two parts. Verses 54-­56 is a reproach that accuses the crowd of only feigning ignorance of the special character of the present (of καιρὸς οὗτος; v. 56). In vv. 57-­59 he says what gives the present its special character. It is the time of decision and for his hearers the last possibility to still escape the coming eschatic unsalvation. Verses 54b-­56 have an only very dimly recognizable parallel in Matthew 16.2-­3 with minimal verbal points of contact. Plus, the Matthean version is textually disputed (the external attestation speaks more against its belonging to the original Gospel of Matthew). Either way, the tradition-­historical origin must remain in the dark. The parallel to vv. 58-­59 in Matthew 5.25-­26 is very clearly recognizable, so that here one should assume a Vorlage in Q. The question of whether vv. 58-­59

172

The Gospel According to Luke

already followed vv. 54b-­56 in Q is discussed in a manner that is as intense as it is fruitless (cf. the presentation of the opinions in Amon 1997, 287ff). Gospel of Thomas 91.2 (“You test the face of heaven and earth. But the one who is before you—­you have not recognized him, and you do not know how to test this point in time”) presupposes the Lukan version of v. 56.

54-­55 Two meteorological examples (again one of the typically Lukan “double examples”; cf. Morgenthaler 1948, I: 60; see also 4.25-­27; 11.31-­ 32; 12.24, 27; 13.18-­21; 14.28-­32; 15.4-­10; 17.26-­29, 34-­35 and 3.12-­14; 13.1-­5; see also 4.4.3 in the introduction to this commentary) are used to illustrate the hearers’ capacity for secure prognoses about the future. For the cloud rising in the west (54) see also 1 Kings 18.44-­45. Although the situation described in 55 probably does not correspond to Palestinian conditions (cf. Bovon 1993, 177, 179; Theissen 1992, 264ff with reference to Philo, De vita Mosis 1.120), the text allows no inferences to be drawn about the place of composition of the Gospel of Luke, for in the Septuagint νότος is on multiple occasions a translation for Hebrew ‫ק ִדים‬,ָ i.e., for the hot east wind coming from the wilderness (Exodus 10.13; 14.21; Job 38.24; Psalm 78[LXX: 77].26; Ezekiel 27.26; see also Exodus 27.13; Ezekiel 48.10). In Job 27.21; Jeremiah 18.17; Ezekiel 19.12; Hosea 12.2; 13.15; in Jonah 4.8 ‫ ָק ִדים‬is rendered with (ἄνεμος) καύσων. Thus, it is entirely conceivable that Luke mentions a literary cardinal direction here. This capacity for meteorological prognoses of the people is generalized in 56 to “knowing how to evaluate the appearance of earth and heaven.” This does not intend to minimize this capacity, but rather the opposite, for τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς καὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ . . . δοκιμάζειν is much more difficult than τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον . . . δοκιμάζειν. Luke has Jesus argue from the difficult to the easy. The interrogative question introduced by πῶς presents it as doubtful that the ones who can interpret “heaven and earth” could not interpret “this kairos” (πῶς + negation in this sense is also found in Matthew 16.11; Romans 8.32; 2 Corinthians 3.8). The designation of the narrated hearers as ὑποκριταί (on this see also at 12.1) also corresponds to this idea, for it accuses them of presenting themselves as dumber than they really are. Thus, the address and the form of the question contain the unspoken accusation that the people only act as though they are incapable of recognizing the significance of the activity of Jesus and that they de facto refuse this knowledge consciously. There is, to be sure, talk of an exhortation to interpret the “signs of the time” only in Matthew 16.3, and this phrasing should not be foisted on Luke. Jesus’s words and deeds are themselves καιρός and not merely σημεῖα τῶν καιρῶν. With this it is also said that by καιρὸς οὗτος, here and in 18.30, Luke means, of course, the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 173

time characterized by the activity of Jesus and not “the world-­historical phase post Christum” (thus G. Klein 1964, 378). In 56b the textual tradition is not unified. One must decide between πῶς οὐκ οἴδατε δοκιμάζειν; (𝔓75 ‫ א‬B L Θ 33, 892, 1241 pc syhmg [co]) and πῶς οὐ δοκιμάζετε; (𝔓45 A [D] W Ψ f 1,13 𝔐 lat syp,h). It is quite possible that the reading mentioned first is a secondary adjustment to 56a. But it is no less plausible that the accusation of Jesus was intensified after the fact (Metzger 1971, 162 votes in this vein). The external attestation favors the reading mentioned first.

57-­59 illustrates the special character of the καιρὸς οὗτος. Form-­critically v. 58 is a sapiential admonition saying (cf. Zeller 1977b, 64ff; Kirk 1998a, 239–­40) that grounds a paraenetic instruction through a reference to the consequence that follows when the advised action is left undone (parallels for the form e.g., Proverbs 26.5; Sirach 22.13; 26.10; 30.12-­13; 33.28). 57 The question is rhetorical and exhorts the hearers to form their own judgment (ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν; cf. Luke 21.30 diff. Mark 13.28). Vis-­à-­vis δοκιμάζειν in v. 56 κρίνειν sets a new accent, for the concern is now with drawing the correct consequences from the evaluation of “this kairos.” Along these lines κρίνειν τὸ δίκαιον always stands for the decision about the right action outside the New Testament (e.g., Isocrates, Plataicus 10; Antiphon Orator, Tetralogiae 3.1.3; Aristotle, Ethica eudemia 1243a15; Politica 129a23; see also Acts 4.19; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 19.289). 58 introduces the example that is intended to make plausible the urgency of the reaction. The hearer is placed in the fictive situation of a debtor against whom his creditor has taken legal action. This narrative level includes, among others, ἀντίδικος as designation for the litigation adversary (cf. Preisigke 1925–­1931, I: 133; see also 18.3); the description of the situation in 58a (cf. Aesop, Fabulae 57.7 about a physician whom a woman refuses the agreed-­upon fee: ἤγαγεν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας [“He brought her before the authorities”]); ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι as designation of the extrajudicial settlement (cf. Preisigke 1925–­1931, I: 153; see also BGU 969.1.11–­12: ἀπηλλάγησαν . . . οἱ ἀντίδικοι [“The litigation opponents have settled”]); the πράκτωρ as executive organ of the legal authority, who is especially responsible for the collection of debts. Cf. H. Schäfer, PRE 22/2: 2538ff; Spicq 1994, II: 23, 152–­59 with many examples; P.  Mich. 58.5–­8: γείνωσκε Ἐτέαρχον παραδεδωκότα με τῶι πράκτορι (“Know that Etearchos has handed me over to the bailiff”); P. Col. 83.8–­10: τὴν γυναῖκά μου παραδώσειν τῶι πράκτορι πρὸς τὸ δάνειον (“My wife has given me over to the bailiff for the loan”); in OGIS 515.32–­33 the prison is regarded as πρακτόρειον.

174

The Gospel According to Luke

Already this imagery is transparent for the addressees’ relation to God, for what constitutes sin in relation to God is often described in analogy to debts of money that one has toward other people (cf. especially Mark 6.12par. Luke 11.4; Matthew 18.23-­35 and at 11.2c-­4). 58b says what is important in this situation. While still on the way to judgment—i.e., at the last moment—­the debtor should do everything (δὸς ἐργασίαν is widely regarded as a Latinism [da operam]; however, this phrasing is also attested elsewhere in Greek popular language; cf. Deissmann 1923, 93; W. Bauer 1988, 389) so that the creditor might surrender his claim against him. The urgency arises for him from the fact that the approaching confrontation with the judge sets in motion an automatic process that will end with his personal catastrophe. Luke expresses this effectively through the interlinking of the terms in 58c-­e (gradatio; cf. Lausberg 1973, §619). Text and context overlap in 58b. The καιρὸς οὗτος (v. 56b), in which the narrated hearers are located, is metaphorically transformed into the situation of the debtor who is ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ to the court and now has the very last possibility to escape the sanction of the apparatus of justice that approaches him. In 13.3, 5 Jesus then defines the concrete feature wherein the corresponding action demanded of them is to consist. It is repentance in the face of the imminent judgment with its unsalvific consequences. 59 With the concluding threat saying, which underlines the mercilessness of the judgment verdict, the example spreads over to the hearers. Its point is formulated in such a way that the boundary between them and the fiction blurs (cf. Zeller 1977b, 66: “eschatological deeper meaning”). The fiction becomes a threatening reality for the hearers of Jesus, and the fate of the debtor becomes their fate if they do not draw the necessary conclusions from the special character of the καιρὸς οὗτος and repent. A λεπτόν (lit. “the thin thing,” “the small thing”) was not a minted coin (such as the denarius or the drachma) but it is (down to the present) the colloquial designation for the smallest coin in a series (cf. H. Chantraine, KP 3: 582; B. Schwank, EWNT, 2: 862–­63; the translation in W. Bauer 1988, s.v. λεπτός 2 is therefore misleading). Within the Roman coin system in Judaea at the time of Jesus, this would have been the prutah (so-­called in the Mishnah) with the value of half a quadrans (or 1/8 of an as; cf. Mark 12.42)—­“the commonest coin circulating in Judea . . . , the definitive Jewish currency” (Burnett 1999, II/1: 302). 13.1-­9: Last Call to Repentance 1

But there arrived at that very time people who reported to him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2And he answered and said to them, “Do you think that these Galileans



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 175

were greater sinners than all (other) Galileans, because they suffered these things? 3No, I say to you! But you will all perish similarly, if you do not repent. 4Or those eighteen on whom the tower fell at Siloam and killed them—­do you think that they were more guilty than all (other) inhabitants of Jerusalem? 5No, I say to you! But you will all perish in the same manner, if you do not repent.” 6 And he narrated to them this parable: “Someone had a fig tree, which was planted in his vineyard. And he came and sought for fruit on it, but he found none. 7But he said to the vinegrower, ‘Behold, for three years I have come and sought a fruit on this fig tree, but I have found none! Therefore, cut it down! For what purpose should it still use up the ground?’ 8But he answered and said to him, ‘Lord, leave it yet this year until I dig around it and spread manure. 9And if it brings fruit in the future . . . ; but if not, you may have it cut down.’” Jesus’s speech to the crowd is concluded with an exhortation to repentance that is fortified with a drastic threat of unsalvation. Form-­critically it is a chreia. Farmer 1961/1962, 305–­6 has drawn attention to the fact that the textual unit is constructed in exactly the same way as chapter 15: (a) After a narrative exposition (vv. 1-­2a; cf. 15.1-­3), which ends with a quotation introduction (εἶπεν αὐτοῖς [v. 2a]; cf. εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς [15.3]), (b) reference is made both here and there to two events (vv. 2b-­3, 4-­5; cf. 15.4-­7, 8-­10); in the present case the concern is with real events, whereas chapter 15 is concerned with fictive ones that Luke therefore subsumes under the umbrella term παραβολή (15.3). In both cases, the events are not only (c) presented in the form of a rhetorical question (v. 2b, 4; cf. 15.4, 8), but also (d) furnished with an application that is introduced by λέγω ὑμῖν and in which the concern is with (e) repentance (μετανοεῖν, μετάνοια [v. 3, 5]; cf. 15.7, 10), namely (f) of “sinners” (ἁμαρτωλοί, ὀφειλέται [v. 2b, 4b]; cf. ἁμαρτωλός [15.7, 10]). Both here and there the two texts are (g) juxtaposed with the help of the copulative conjunction ἤ (v. 4; cf. 15.8). This is followed in each case by (h) a quotation introduction formulated by the narrator himself (ἔλεγεν δὲ ταύτην τὴν παραβολὴν [v. 6a]; εἶπεν δέ [15.11]) and (i) a parable that references the applications of the two previously narrated occurrences (vv. 6-­9; cf. 15.11-­32). This agreement is due, of course, not to a source taken over by Luke (thus Farmer 1961/1962, 315) but to his redactional activity. Apart from the aforementioned differences, the main difference between the two texts is that 15.1-­32 is a controversy dialogue in which the concluding dictum of the father in vv. 31-­32 is tied back to the starting situation in vv. 1-­2 and answers the Pharisees’ and scribes’ criticism of

176

The Gospel According to Luke

Jesus’s behavior (see there). If one reads chapter 15 in the light of 13.1-­9, the impression arises that for Luke “the tax collectors and sinners” were the ones who responded to the last call for repentance formulated here. 13.1-­9 is only handed down in Luke. Therefore, no specific statements can be made about the tradition-­historical provenance. We cannot rule out the possibility that both parts of the text were already connected with each other before Luke. In any case, the linguistic configuration of vv. 1-­5 probably goes back to Luke in the main (see at vv. 2-­3, 4b-­5 below), and the possibility that Luke was the first person to narrate this chreia certainly cannot be ruled out. This assumption is also supported by the fact that here Luke again features one of the so-­called “double examples” (Morgenthaler 1948, I: 60) with which he has Jesus illustrate his speech time and again (see also 4.25-­27; 11.31-­32; 12.24, 27; 12.54-­55; 13.18-­ 21; 14.28-­32; 15.4-­10; 17.26-­29, 34-­35 and 3.12-­14; 13.1–­5; see also 4.4.3 in the commentary introduction). The parable of the unfruitful fig tree (vv. 6-­9) has neither a parallel nor a tradition-­historical relative (contra Schneider II: 296 and others) in the narrative of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11.12-­14, 20-­21par. Matthew 21.18-­19, 20), which is lacking in Luke.

1a The temporal specification ἐν αὐτῷ καιρῷ (this same phrasing is also found in [2]Ezra 5.3; Tobit 3.1‫א‬‎, 16‫א‬‎, 17AB; Polybius 2.28.11; Polyaenus Historicus, Strategemata 8.53.5; Galen, De Venae Sectione, ed. Kühn 1964, XI: 217.4) is intended to express that the scenic situation is still the same as before. The τινές were previously not yet present. They join and bring news with them. The phrasing with which Luke introduces them is widespread in Hellenistic literature; cf. Plutarch, Lucullus 12.2 (παρῆσαν ἐξ Ἰλίου τινὲς ἀπαγγέλλοντες . . . [“People arrived from Ilion, who reported . . .”]); Demosthenes 22.1 (παρῆσαν οἱ τὸν φιλίππου θάνατον ἀπαγγέλλοντες [“Some arrived who reported Philip’s death”]); Agesilaus 29.2; Moralia 509b; Diodorus Siculus 17.8.2; 19.73.6; 20.113.1. 1b The massacre about which the new arrivals report is mentioned neither in Josephus nor in any other source. In the literature other incidents about which Josephus reports have sometimes been identified with this event (cf. Fitzmyer II: 1006–­7). Nothing of this, however, has been able to endure critical testing. Ever since Blinzler 1957/1958, it has repeatedly been assumed that the event took place on the eve of the Passover festival, since on this occasion alone “lay people . . . were permitted to slaughter the sacrificial animals themselves, in this case the Passover lambs (the priests and Levites took care of this on all other occasions)” (Blinzler 1957/1958, 31; see also 29–­30). This judgment, however, is based on an overly literal interpretation of “to mix blood with their sacrifices.” The use of this same linguistic image in Philo, De specialibus legibus 3.91 shows



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 177

that it does not at all have to be a “rhetorical expression for the simultaneity of the blood shedding” (Blinzler 1957/1958, 28): If a murderer were given the right of asylum in the temple, there would be a danger that he would be killed there by the family members of his victim. This, however, would mean that “the blood of the sacrifices would be mixed with the blood of a murderer” (αἵματι . . . ἀνδροφόνων αἷμα θυσιῶν ἀνακραθήσεται; rabbinic attestations in Bill. II: 193). There can be no talk here of “simultaneity” (Blinzler 1957/1958, 29). Thus, it is a metaphor that merely wants to highlight the fact that the incident took place in the temple complex. According to Josephus, Bellum judaicum 2.10–­13, a similar occurrence took place in 4 BCE, when Archelaus had “ca. three thousand” Passover pilgrims (2.13) killed “next to their offerings” (παρὰ ταῖς ἰδίαις θυσίαις) (2.30; see also 2.89; Antiquitates judaicae 17.230, 237, 240–­242). S. E. Johnson 1935 assumes that Luke incorrectly assigned the incident to Pilate (see also Klausner 1952, 204, 218). 4a There is also no reference elsewhere to the collapse of a tower at the spring of Siloam located at the southern edge of Jerusalem (ὁ πύργος ἐν τῷ Σιλωάμ).

2-­3, 4b-­5 Two parallel-­structured threat sayings proceed from the two incidents. The introduction with the rhetorical question δοκεῖτε ὅτι . . . ; and its self-­answer with οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλά . . . is modeled on 12.51; see also Epictetus, Dissertationes 4.1.13 (δοκεῖτε ὅτι . . . ; οὔ, ἀλλά [“Do you think that . . . ? No, but . . . !”]). The agreements make it likely that at least the sentence structures come from Luke. 2, 4b The two rhetorical questions refer to an interpretation of suffering that is based on the sapiential (and by no means specifically “Pharisaic,” as is often suggested, e.g., in Marshall; Schneider; Wiefel) principle of the connection between deeds and consequences, and understands experiences of suffering as punishment for violating the will of God. In the way that this nexus is formulated here, the unsalvific fate of those killed by Pilate and by the tower at Siloam function as the basis for knowing the sin of the ones affected (see also John 9.2; the friends of Job also argue along this line; cf. e.g., Job 4.4-­8; 8.4). The theodicy question stands in the background. Because God is just, there can be no innocent suffering. Therefore, this interpretation of suffering must postulate that the ones struck by a special disaster differ from the ones who are not through the fact that they have loaded a special sin upon themselves. The preposition that Luke also uses to characterize a differentiating comparison (on this see BDR §245.3a; 246.2b) marks precisely this difference. That we are not dealing with a Hebraism here (thus Jeremias 1980, 226 and others) is shown by the many examples of this usage in Greek literature (e.g., Plato, Timaeus 24d: πάσῃ παρὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὑπερβεβληκότες ἀρετῇ [“distinguished beyond all people in every virtue”]; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii

178

The Gospel According to Luke

3.19.2: “Achilles is great παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Ἀχαιούς” [cf. Exodus 18.11]; 4.21: “Boreas who is manly παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνέμους”; cf. further LSJ s.v. παρά C.I.7; see also W. Bauer 1988, s.v. παρά III.3). There is no difference in meaning between ἁμαρτωλοί (“sinners”; v. 2b) and ὀφειλέται (“debtors” v. 4b) (see at 7.41-­42a and 11.2c-­4). 3, 5 The two answers, which are almost identical in wording, do not dispute that there is a connection between deed and consequence, between sin and unsalvation, but rather the opposite is the case. Jesus disputes that the death of the Galileans murdered by Pilate and of the Jerusalemites killed by the tower of Siloam permits the inference that those not affected are not sinners. Rather, the same fate of unsalvation threatens them if they refuse Jesus’s exhortations to repentance (cf. 5.32). Thus, the “retribution system” of the connection between deed and consequence is by no means rejected (contra Wiefel), but rather remains completely intact. The theological provocation of this announcement lies rather in the fact that the criteria used to establish the identity of a sinner receive a christological profile. Whether or not someone stands before God as a sinner depends solely on how he or she reacts to Jesus’s call to repentance (Nave 2002, 178 plays off the understanding of “sin” and “repentance” against each other in an inappropriate way). Τhe tax collector Levi (cf. 5.28) and the “woman sinner in the town” (7.37) have demonstrated by way of example what repentance is (see at 5.32 and 7.37-­38). The conditional phrasing of the threat saying does indeed express that an avoidance of the fate of unsalvation is still possible. Beyond this, however, the pragmatic impulse cannot be missed—­the exhortation to repent while it is still possible to do so. The parable of the unfruitful fig tree that follows in 6-­9 takes up both aspects of Jesus’s answer. The central character in the narrative is the fig tree (συκῆ). Not only do the first and last words of the parable point to it, so that a “narratively elegant inclusio” is produced (Heininger 1991, 123), but it is also mentioned (apart from the speech introduction in 7a, 8a) in every syntactical unit. Another feature that establishes coherence is provided by the “fruit” (καρπός), which the owner of the fig tree has vainly searched for on it for three years (vv. 6c, 7b), and which the fig tree receives one last chance to produce (v. 8b). The parable is composed of three parts—­a narrative exposition (v. 6) as well as a dialogue with speech (v. 7) and counterspeech (vv. 8-­9)—­which, beyond the aforementioned features, are joined together by the correspondence of τρία ἔτη / τοῦτο τὸ ἔτος (vv. 7b, 8b) and ἔκκοψον/ἐκκόψεις (vv. 7c, 9b). Whether the version of the material handed down in the Ahiqar novel is independent of this parable must remain open, for it is not yet attested in the Aramaic version (P. Eleph. 13446), but only in the Syriac (8.35), Arabic (8.30), and Armenian



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 179

(8.25) translations, whose preserved textual tradition does not begin until the fifth century CE (cf. Heininger 1991, 129 n. 36). Küchler 1979, 392 has translated the Arabic version: “You were to me, my son, as the date palm that stood by the river but produced no fruit. When its owner then came to cut it down, it said: Move me to another place; if I (also) bring no fruits there, then cut me down (for real). To this he responded: In your own place you have not done well; how will you do so in a foreign one?”; cf. also the discussion of the different versions in von Gemünden 1993, 135ff. The version related in Apocalypse of Peter 2 is most likely dependent on the Lukan parable. This is certainly true for the version preserved in Pistis Sophia 122, which displays an interesting difference vis-­à-­vis v. 9 (see there).

6 From the exposition it becomes clear that the tree has already been in the vineyard for a long time (6b). In antiquity it was common to plant fig trees in vineyards (cf. m. Kil’ayim 6.4; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 17.199–­200 reports of trees as growth support for vines; see also Aelian, Epistulae rusticae 4); Theophrastus, De causis plantarum 3.10.6 advises against this (for the reasons see at v. 7) and in this way confirms the practice. It is also referred to in a saying attributed to Hipponax—­ συκῆν μέλαιναν, ἀμπέλου κασιγνήτην (“the black fig tree, the vineyard’s sister”) (in Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 314 [78b])—­and in 1 Kings 4.25 (“Judah and Israel lived securely, each under his vine and under his fig tree”; see also Micah 4.4; Zechariah 3.10 as well as V. Reichmann, RAC 7: 640–­82; Goor 1965). The fig tree functions as a metaphorical designation for Israel at best in Joel 1.6-­7 (“A people . . . has made my vineyard into a wilderness and snapped my fig tree”); to be sure, the Septuagint had already given up this connection again, for it speaks in this passage of “my fig trees.” Thus, a specific connection to Israel does not belong to the pre-­ defined semantics of the fig tree metaphor. Rather, the metaphor obtains its potential from the fruits that the fig tree produces and for which it is valued. From the Jotham fable (cf. Judges 9.9) via Proverbs 27.18 through to Mark 11.12-­14 and precisely also in the present parable, it is always specifically this characteristic with which the fig tree occurs in proverbs and narratives (see also von Gemünden 1993, 133). Therefore, here too, as in Jeremiah 8.13, the characteristic of “producing fruit” is the point of contact between the source domain and the target domain, for this is a metaphor for human action that is common in all antiquity (see further at 3.8). 7 “Three years” (7b) does not designate the age of the tree (the calculations of Jeremias 1977, 170 therefore go wide of the subject matter). The owner of the vineyard merely laments that the tree has not borne fruit in the last three years (for ἰδού as a rhetorical intensification with quantified specifications of time cf. Deuteronomy 2.7; 8.4; Tobit 5.3‫ ;א‬Zechariah 7.5;

180

The Gospel According to Luke

BGU 948.6 [see at v. 16 below]; Luke 13.16; 15.29); it is certainly possible that previously this had been different. ἀφ’ οὗ/ἧς is found as a specification of time in the New Testament not only in Luke (7.45; 13.25; 24.21; Acts 20.18; 24.11) but also in 2 Peter 3.4; Revelation 13.14 (see also BDR §1445). Apart from this, the construction of formulaic ἀφ’ οὗ with reference to a nominativus pendens as the front-­placed “psychological subject” (BDR §466.2) is also attested in the Septuagint and in Greek literature: cf. especially Tobit 5.3‫( א‬καὶ νῦν ἰδοὺ ἔτη εἴκοσι ἀφ’ οὗ παρεθέμην τὸ ἀργύριον τοῦτο ἐγώ [“And now, behold, twenty years have passed since I left this money behind”]); Joshua 14.10 (τεσσαρακοστὸν καὶ πέμπτον ἕτος ἀφ’ οὗ ἐλάλησεν κύριος . . . [“forty-­five years since the Lord has spoken . . .”]); Xenophon, Anabasis 3.2.14 (οὐ πολλαὶ ἡμέραι, ἀφ’ οὗ ἀντιταξάμενοι τούτοις . . . ἐνικᾶτε [“not many days since you opposed them . . . and conquered them”]); see also (without nominativus pendens) Plato, Kritias 108e (τὸ κεφάλαιον ἦν ἐνακισχίλια ἔτη ἀφ’ οὗ . . . [“Taken together nine thousand years have elapsed since . . .”]); Demosthenes, Orationes 33.4. The present of ἔρχομαι ζητῶν in 7b expresses vis-­à-­vis the other texts that here, unlike there, the reference is not to the point in time of the past but rather “the duration of the action or a recurrence up to and including the present” (BDR §322.3).

For the justification for the removal of the unfruitful fig tree cf., in addition to Theophrastus, De causis plantarum 3.10.6 (“Olive trees and fig trees are harmful for the vineyard, because they soak up much nourishment and produce a lot of shade”), Plutarch, Solon 23.7: They “are not harmless neighbors for all plants but they extended further with the roots . . . and take away the nourishment.” With the exhortation of the owner of the vineyard in 7c the parable has arrived at the announcement of John the Baptist recounted in 3.9: “Every tree that produces no good fruit will be cut down (as here ἐκκόπτειν) and thrown into the fire.” That this cross-­connection to the proclamation of the Baptist is not coincidental (cf. also Gourgues 1992, 1600–­1601; Böhlemann 1997, 163) can be recognized in the fact that with the demand for repentance and the “fruit” metaphor, reminiscences of the Lukan presentation of John are also present in the nearer context (cf. 3.8: καρποὶ ἄξιοι τῆς μετανοίας). 8 The counter-­suggestion of the vinedresser (ἀμπελουργός is a technical designation for an occupation; cf. OGIS 535.17; Preisigke 1925–­1931, I: 71) to give the tree still one last chance (8b, 9) and to let special care be given to it during this time (8c) is uncommon within the source domain, for no one normally gives such attention to a single fig tree that has not borne fruit for three years. However, the suggestion of the gardener receives an



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 181

appropriate meaning if we interpret it as an allegorical element that was carried into the narrative from the target domain. In the foreground stands the characterization of the time, which touches upon a theme that was also already the subject of Jesus’s speech in 12.19-­20, 35-­46, 54-­56, 58. Luke has Jesus say to his contemporaries that the present is “this year” (8b), which God has set for them as the very last period of time for repentance (vv. 3, 5) or for bearing fruit (9a), and after whose passing the event of destruction that John the Baptist announced will then actually come to pass. Then again, in addition to this, the narrated Jesus also interprets his own activity after the Baptist and in coordination to him. He sees his own task in preserving the people in Israel from the unsalvation that threatens them and in guiding their “feet on the way of peace” as it says in the Benedictus (1.79) 9 With the help of two antithetically coordinated conditional sentences (κἀν μέν / εἰ δὲ μή) the concluding sentence looks at the two possible outcomes. As in 6.46-­49 (see further there) and 8.18, the positive outcome precedes the negative one. εἰς τὸ μέλλον (in the New Testament it only occurs elsewhere in 1 Timothy 6.19) is a Greek idiom. It occurs frequently in Polybius (2.4.2; 22.2; 3.57.8, 9; 5.83.6) as well as in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 9.53.7; Plutarch, Lycurgus 29.2; Pompeius 48.3; 59.2; Moralia 279e; 392–­393 and elsewhere; Appian, Bella civilia 2.18.128 and others. In texts of Jewish provenance this expression is attested only in Philo of Alexandria and Josephus (Philo, De virtutibus 159; De vita contemplativa 46; Legatio ad Gaium 51; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 1.197; 4.189; 9.162; Bellum judaicum 5.66; 7.94); it is lacking in the Septuagint and in the Greek Pseudepigrapha. In the manuscript tradition the placement of this temporal specification fluctuates. 𝔓75 ‫ א‬B L (070), 33vid, 579, 892, 1241 pc co connect it with κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ (thus also Nestle/Aland27), whereas 𝔓45 A D W Θ Ψ f 1,13 𝔐 latt sy read κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ εἰ δε μή γε εἰς τὸ μέλλον ἐκκόψεις αὐτήν (“If it bears fruit . . . ; but if not, you may cut it down in the future”). In both readings the first half of the antithesis is elliptical (see below), so that the variant mentioned first can scarcely be regarded as lectio difficilior (contra Metzger 1971, 162). Only the external evidence speaks for it.

The description of the positive outcome in 9a is elliptical, for no apodosis follows the hypothetical protasis κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπόν (on this cf. BDR §454.4; 482.2). Such a use is widespread in Greek from ancient times: Plato, Protagoras 325d (ἐὰν μὲν ἑκὼν πείθηται· εἰ δὲ μή . . . [“if he willingly obeys—­but if not . . .”]); Demosthenes, Orationes 32.27 (ἐὰν μὲν αὐτῷ ποιῶσιν ἃ ὡμολογήκασιν—­, εἰ δε μή . . . [“if they do for him

182

The Gospel According to Luke

what they have agreed—­but if not . . .”]); see also Homer, Ilias 1.135–­137; Plato, Leges 854c; Polybius 6.39.6; Daniel 3.15LXX; Kühner/Gerth 1890–­ 1898, II/2: 484–­85 with additional examples; Wettstein 1962, I: 745; Hebrew and Aramaic parallels in Beyer 1962, 97–­98. In general, a “well and good!” or the like is added in place of the apodosis that has fallen away (this differs in the version handed down in Pistis Sophia 122, which reads as apodosis in the first conditional clause “then you have let it”). On the other hand, however, there are also enough examples for complete conditional antitheses (cf. in the New Testament Luke 10.6par. Matthew 10.13; Acts 25.11). Plus, the description of the failure and the unsalvific fate that follows it is not only complete but also stands in the emphatic end position. The narrator was evidently concerned to move the possible failure of the efforts of the gardener into the foreground. This is also plausible without further ado for the narrator Luke, since from his standpoint looking back, τοῦτο τὸ ἔτος (v. 8b) no longer lies in the future (εἰς τὸ μέλλον) but has passed without Israel having borne the required “fruit.” Moreover, with the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. 13.34-­35; 19.41-­44) the unsalvific consequence that is still formulated hypothetically by the narrated narrator Jesus in 9b has occurred by the time Luke is writing. 13.10-­21: On the Sabbath in a Synagogue Luke constructs a scene whose coherence is established by the information that is given regarding time and place. It takes place on a Sabbath in a synagogue (v. 10). This structuring signal demarcates the new scene from the episode before it both temporally and spatially. At the same time, vis-­à-­vis the summary in v. 22, with which Luke separates this scene from the continuation of his story of Jesus, it marks a comparably minor break. The scene is composed of two parts—­a controversy dialogue, which is prompted by a Sabbath healing, and a double parable that identifies Jesus’s punctiliar healing activity as a component of the establishment of God’s universal reign. 13.10-­17: Sabbath III 10

And he was teaching in a synagogue on the Sabbath. 11And behold, (there was) a woman who had had a spirit of sickness for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten herself up completely. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her and said to her, “Woman, you are released from your sickness.” 13And he placed (his) hands on her. And immediately she straightened herself up again and praised God.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 183 14

The leader of the synagogue, however, was vexed, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, and he said thereupon to the crowd, “There are six days on which it is necessary to work. So come on these to let yourselves be healed and not on the Sabbath day!” 15But the Lord answered him and said, “You dissemblers! Does not each one of you release his ox or the donkey from the feed trough and lead him to drink? 16But was it not necessary for this one, who is a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had already bound for eighteen years, to be released from this chain on the Sabbath day?” 17 And when he said this all his opponents were put to shame, and the entire crowd rejoiced over the glorious deeds that took place through him. This narrative is a combination of healing story and chreia (see also 5.17-­ 26; 6.6-­11; 7.10; 11.14-­26; 14.1-­6). The healing on a Sabbath (vv. 11-­13) becomes the occasion for a controversy dialogue over the observance of the Sabbath (vv. 14-­17). Unlike in 6.6-­11; 7.1-­10 and 14.1-­6, the two genres are not interwoven with each other but ordered consecutively. After the introduction to the whole scene (v. 10) there follows first the healing story, which is comprised of exposition (v. 11), center (vv. 12-­ 13b), and finale (v. 13c). Thus, unlike the exorcism narrative in 11.14, it is complete from a form-­critical perspective. Viewed as a whole, however, the form of the chreia dominates. The healing story is connected to it as the starting situation. After it, things continue in the typical style of controversy dialogues: introduction of an antagonist, who is identified as such through his speech (v. 14), and dictum of the protagonist (vv.  15-­16). The narrator’s remark concerning the reaction of the antagonists and other hearers (v. 17) does not belong to the obligatory features of the form. But controversy dialogues are also followed by such additions in Mark 12.17cpar. Luke 20.26b; Mark 12.34cpar. Luke 20.40 and elsewhere. Thematically the controversy dialogue is connected to 6.1-­5, 6-­11, for both here and there the concern is with the question of Sabbath observance. If one reads this episode in the light of the parable of the unfruitful fig tree (vv. 6-­9), the furnishing of the narrative with Israel symbolism (synagogue, Sabbath, “daughter of Abraham”) makes it possible that Luke wanted the healing of the woman by Jesus to be interpreted as an example for the special care through ‘digging and dunging’ in order to help the fig tree Israel to bear fruit after all and preserve it from being cut down (see also J. B. Green 1989, 651–­52). To be sure, the reaction of the leader of the synagogue (v. 14) suggests that Jesus will ultimately fail with this effort.

184

The Gospel According to Luke

The text is handed down only in Luke. We can therefore say nothing specific about its tradition-­historical origin. On the basis of the numerous references back to the healing story in vv. 15-­16 (cf. only the anaphoric pronomina ταύτην and ἥν in 16a,b and the wordplay with ἀπολύειν and λύειν ἀπό in vv. 12b, 15, 16c), however, the idea that the dialogue part ever existed without the narrative part can be ruled out with a fair level of certainty.

10 The introduction with the coniugatio periphrastica ἦν διδάσκων and the place specification ἐν μιᾷ τῶν συναγωγῶν corresponds to the phrasings in 4.31; 5.17 (see also 19.47; 21.37) and in 5.12 (see further there). Luke wants to express in this way that Jesus continues to do what he has always already done since the beginning of his public activity (cf. 4.14-­ 15, 16.31)—­teach in the synagogues (cf. also 4.44; 6.66). On the other hand, here Jesus appears in a synagogue for the last time within the Gospel of Luke. 11 That Jesus encounters a sick woman while visiting a synagogue on a Sabbath calls to mind the situation described in 4.32-­33; 6.6. Thus, Luke already uses the structure of the scene to announce to the readers an event that must seem familiar to them. Despite the resonances with Mark 3.30; 7.25; 9.17; Acts 8.7; 16.16; 19.13, the description of the woman as πνεῦμα ἔχουσα ἀσθενείας does not characterize her as possessed, so that she could be helped only through an exorcism (contra Klostermann and others). Rather, the substitution of πνεῦμα ἀσθενείας through a simple ἀσθένεια in v. 12b makes clear that “spirit” functions here as a sort of material hypostasis in whose form the abstractum “sickness” is present in a person. Analogies for such a use are found especially in the Septuagint (e.g., Exodus 31.3: πνεῦμα θεῖον σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης; 35.31; Wisdom of Solomon 7.7; Sirach 39.6; Psalms of Solomon 8.14; Susanna 63) and in the Hellenistic-­ Jewish literature (Testament of Reuben 2.1: in every person can be found seven πνεύματα τῆς πλάνης; Testament of Simeon 3.1; 4.7; Testament of Levi 9.9; Joseph and Aseneth 19.11), but also already in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Exodus 28.3: ‫;רּוח ָח ְכ ָמה‬ ַ Numbers 5.14, 30; Deuteronomy 34.9; Isaiah 11.2; Hosea 5.4) and in the texts from Qumran (1QapGen XX, 16, 26: ‫“[ רוח מכדש‬spirit of the plague”] or ‫“[ רוח שחלניא‬spirit of sleep”]); see also 1 Enoch 49.3; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 27.10; Wolter 1978, 164–­65.

Luke describes the external manifestation of this sickness with the help of a synonymous parallelism. The same sequence of positive and negative statements with identical reference occurs in Luke 1.20 (ἔσῃ σιωπῶν καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος λαλῆσαι) and Acts 27.15 (συναρπασθέντος . . . καὶ μὴ δυναμένου ἀντοφθαλμεῖν); see also Philo, De confusione linguarum 66;



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 185

Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 2.160; see further in Radl 1986. One cannot, of course, make a medical diagnosis, though some have tried (Grundmann 279: “scoliosis hysterica”; Wilkinson 1980, 71–­72: “spondylitis ankylopoietica”; see also van der Loos 1965, 520–­21; Eckey II: 624–­ 25). The prepositional expression εἰς τὸ παντελές stands for the adverb παντελῶς; based on its placement it probably refers to ἀνακύψαι (see also Hebrews 7.25; Plummer; Klostermann; cf. further W. Bauer 1988, 1230–­ 31; G. Delling, ThWNT 8: 67–­68). 12 Luke has the initiative to heal proceed from Jesus himself. In this way he accelerates the narrative tempo (he also does not report that the woman responded to Jesus’s προσφωνεῖν). This is undoubtedly connected to the fact that the healing story is not recounted for its own sake but rather as part of the pronouncement story. With the resultative perfect ἀπολέλυσαι Jesus does not announce the healing in the first place (contra Bovon) but rather states that it has already taken place. The passive points to God as the actual subject of the action (see also 5.20; 7.48). 13 The healing action of God established in v. 12b is transferred to the sick woman through the gesture of the laying on of hands (for the laying on of hands as a healing gesture, see at 4.40). Jesus thus plays the role of the mediator who extends God’s salvific action to the affected person. In 13b, as often elsewhere, Luke lets the healing action take place “immediately” (παραχρῆμα; on this see at 1.64). The passive form ἀνωρθώθη takes up the passivum divinum ἀπολέλυσαι from v. 12b and maintains that God should be regarded as the actual initiator of the healing. This is thus also the reason why Luke then makes God the addressee of the acclamation of the healed woman, with which he ends the healing story in a way that is typical for the genre. That not the public but the healed person praises God is a typically Lukan narrative motif (see also 5.25 diff. Mark 2.12; 17.15; 18.43; diff. Mark 10.52; Acts 3.8). Hamm’s postulate (M. D. Hamm 1987), according to which the element of the salvation-­historical reestablishment of Israel resonates in the use of ἀνωρθώθη (28.33), probably overinterprets the text, even though he can refer to Acts 15.16. Rather, ἀνορθόω should be understood as a complementary term to συγκύπτω, and Luke uses this verb in order to avoid repeating ἀνακύπτω. 14 Luke has the intervention of the synagogue leader (for the function of the ἀρχισυνάγωγος see at 8.41) be motivated by his annoyance over the fact that Jesus has healed on the Sabbath (for ἀγανακτεῖν cf. Spicq 1994, I: 5–­8). He places him in this way alongside the scribes and Pharisees from 6.7. The phrasing “day of the Sabbath” (ἡμέρα τοῦ σαββάτου; 14e) is not specifically Septuagintal style, for the attestations of it there (Psalm 92.1; ָ ‫ יֹום ַח‬in each case]; 2 Macca2 Esdras 10.32; 13.15, 17, 19, 22 [Heb.: ‫ּׁשּבת‬ bees 5.25) are too sporadic to justify this conclusion (beyond this cf. also

186

The Gospel According to Luke

Jubilees 2.17, 19, 20, 24; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 11.8; 44.7; Cyranides, ed. Kaimakis 1976, 2.47). Surprisingly, however, the synagogue leader does not attack Jesus but rather the crowd, whom he reminds of the Sabbath Torah (cf. Exodus 20.9 = Deuteronomy 5.13; Jubilees 50.9; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 11.8). To be sure, the accusation made against them is left hanging narratively in mid-­air, for Luke did not report that the crowd had come to Jesus to be healed on the Sabbath (14c), as he had in 6.18. Rather, the initiative for the healing proceeded from Jesus, who found the woman in the synagogue. The effect of this narrative incoherence lies in the fact that Jesus is taken out of the line of fire and the conflict is deescalated with regard to Christology. The difference from the Sabbath conflicts in 6.1-­11 is unmistakable (cf. above all at 6.3-­4, 5, 7, 11). Perhaps it is for precisely this reason that Luke has not Pharisees and scribes but rather a synagogue leader appear as the antagonist. In any case, the answer of Jesus related in vv. 15-­16, which is comprised of two rhetorical questions, lies entirely on the same level as the de-­christologicalization of the conflict. Unlike in 6.9 Jesus argues here not with reference to himself but on the basis of the identity of the sick woman. Luke has formed Jesus’s dictum in parallel to v. 14, for the phrasings τῷ σαββάτῳ and τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου form an inclusio both here and there. The two verses are also connected with each other through the complementarity of the rhetorical loci used in them. In v. 15 Jesus makes use of an argument that wants to call into doubt the trustworthiness of the opposing party, while in v. 16 he justifies his own behavior (cf. Lausberg 1973, §377ff). 15 Although Luke has presented only a single person as the antagonist, he has Jesus answer with the plural ὑποκριταί and thus make a counterattack against a plurality of people. The crowd (thus Fitzmyer) can hardly be meant by this; it more likely means “the synagogue ruler and his kind” (Nolland II: 724). In any case, through this designation the conflict is generalized beyond the individual case. This perspective is taken up in v. 17a with “all his opponents” (πάντες οἱ ἀντικείμενοι αὐτῷ), so that the synagogue leader functions here as their representative. Semantically ὑποκριταί lies entirely on the line of the meaning of ὑπόκρισις in 12.1 (see at 12.1d-­3), for Jesus confronts his critics with their own behavior. With their criticism of the healing of the woman they evoke a false impression of themselves, because they place themselves in contradiction to their own Sabbath practice. They do with their domestic animals nothing different than what Jesus has done with the sick woman. The two actions are comparable to each other, because both here and there the concern is with a ἀπολύειν (v. 12b) or λύειν ἀπό (vv. 15b, 16c)—­the woman from her “sickness” (v. 12b), which is designated metonymically as a “fetter,” and the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 187

domestic animals from their manger (15b). Jesus’s argumentation presupposes a halakhic practice that differs from the one that is later prescribed in m. Shabbat 7.2. Here the loosening of a knot belongs to the thirty-­nine prohibited main works (see also m. Shabbat 15.1 and Doering 1999, 464–­ 65). There are no regulations in the Mishnah for giving water to animals (for Talmudic material see Bill. II: 199; Doering 1999, 464–­65). However, this aspect of the Sabbath halakah (on this see m. Shabbat 5.1–­4; m. Eruvin 2.1–­4) plays no role here, for the concern is solely with the “loosening.” Jesus also argues, by the way, in a manner that is entirely analogous rhetorically in John 7.21-­23. 16 Vis-­à-­vis v. 15, 16a argues a minore ad maius (cf. Lausberg 1973, §397). The superiority of the woman vis-­à-­vis the domestic animals is marked thereby not merely (as in 12.7, 24, 28) by her humanity (contra Marshall; Bock and others) but by her designation as a “daughter of Abraham.” It is, of course, anything but a coincidence that from the extensive inventory of characteristics with which her identity could have been described, her belonging to the people of God elected in Abraham (see also 19.19 with reference to Zacchaeus: “son of Abraham”) is mentioned in the primary position. In this way the Lukan Jesus not only makes the woman a representative of Israel but also refers back to the interpretations of the salvific initiative of God, which were pronounced with reference to Abraham in 1.54-­55, 73-­74. Therefore, the designation of the woman as “daughter of Abraham” has the function of interpreting her healing by Jesus as a realization of the promise issued to Abraham. In 16b the level of interpretation is elevated once more, for here the healing is interpreted as part of the conflict with the unsalvific activity of the devil, who was also called σατανᾶς previously in 10.18 and 11.18 (see then also 22.3, 31). In both cases the concern in the contexts is with actions that are interpreted as part of the eschatic disempowering of Satan, and everything indicates that Luke also intended this interpretation here (see also Green 525, who rightly speaks of a “cosmic conflict”). This interpretation finds its abutment in the summary of the activity of Jesus in Acts 10.38: “He went about and did good and healed all who were oppressed by the devil” (ἰώμενος πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου). That Luke makes Satan responsible for the sickness of the woman therefore does not yet imply the assumption of possession. The renewed emphasis on the duration of the sickness (for ἰδού with specification of time see at 13.7, especially BGU 948.6: ἡ μήτηρ σου ἀσθενεῖ ἰδοὺ δέκα τρεῖς μῆνες [“Your mother has already been sick for thirteen months”]) serves the rhetorical evocation of pathos (cf. Lausberg 1973, §257.3). The impersonal imperfect ἔδει also fits this interpretation. In its negated version it expresses that the synagogue leader does not want to allow “that something

188

The Gospel According to Luke

that happened absolutely had to happen” (W. Bauer 1988, 344; cf. also BDR §3582; Luke 15.32; 22.7; 24.26; John 4.4; Acts 1.16; 17.3; Romans 1.27). In this, yet another difference to the Sabbath healing story in 6.6-­11 is recognizable. While the concern there was with the permissibility of the healing (cf. ἔξεστιν in 6.9; see also 6.4; 14.3), here the necessity of the healing is emphasized (see also Kilgallen 2001c, 403). The readers will therefore have no difficulty recognizing in the ἔδει of this Sabbath healing the δεῖ (εὐαγγελίσασθαι . . . τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ) of 4.43 (see also O’Toole 1992, 93). In addition, M. D. Hamm 1987, 27–­28 wants to understand τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου not concessively (‘even on the Sabbath day’) but affirmatively (‘precisely on the Sabbath day’). The texts mentioned by him do not allow for such an interpretation, however, and the conception of the Sabbath as the day of redemption is only attested in late rabbinic texts (cf. B. Schaller, TRE 29: 526.48ff). The examples of a comparable metaphorical use of δεῖν and δεσμός in the Hellenistic environment of the New Testament mentioned by Fitzmyer II: 1014 are only of limited explanatory force, for most of the texts mentioned by him speak only of the “fetter” of the tongue or of the mouth (see also Mark 7.35). Much closer to the Lukan understanding is Aristotle, Rhetorica 1411a23, where it says concerning a “lame person” ὑπὸ τῆς τύχνης ἐν . . . νόσῳ δεδεμένος (“By fate . . . he had been bound with a sickness”); Aelius Aristides, Dionysus 7 says entirely analogously that a person can be “bound by a sickness” (δεδήσεται . . . νόσῳ).

In 17 Luke records the different reactions in the form of a syncrisis of Jesus’s opponents (put to shame: 17a) and the crowd (joy: 17b). On both sides he transcends the individual situation. In 17a he speaks, taking up the plural ὑποκριταί (v. 15b), of a multiplicity of “opponents” of Jesus, although only the synagogue leader appeared in the controversy dialogue; the phrasing calls to mind Isaiah 45.16LXX: αἰσχυνθήσονται καὶ ἐντραπήσονται πάντες οἱ ἀντικείμενοι αὐτῷ (“All his opponents will be put to shame and disgraced”) (see also 41.11). In the acclamation report in 17b Luke relates the joy of the crowd not only to the one healing but to πάντα τὰ ἕνδοξα of Jesus. In the Septuagint there is only one who does τὰ ἔνδοξα, and that is the God of Israel for the benefit of his people (cf. Exodus 34.10; Deuteronomy 10.21; Isaiah 12.4; 48.9; 64.2). Both generalizations have the effect that the view of the readers is directed to the entirety of the activity of Jesus. In this way they bestow upon the preceding healing story, which was interpreted theologically in v. 16, the character of being a representative pars pro toto for Jesus’s mission as a whole (see also O’Toole 1992, 92–­93 with reference to 4.14-­44). Although M. D. Hamm 1987, 35 is certainly incorrect when he interprets the woman “as emblematic of the Christian community as the restoration of Israel,” one can nevertheless say that in the straightening up again of the woman bound by Satan (ἀνορθόω;



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 189

v. 13b) Jesus’s sending to Israel is symbolically compressed. The fact that healing and interpretation are also furnished scenically with Israel features fits with this, for the episode takes place on a Sabbath in a synagogue (see also J. B. Green 1989, 649). 13.18-­21: Two Parables on the Kingdom of God 18

He said then, “What is the kingdom of God like, or with what shall I compare it? 19It is like a mustard seed that a person took and threw into his garden. And it grew, and it became a tree, and the birds of heaven lived in its branches.” 20 And again he said, “With what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21It is like leaven that a woman took and mixed in three seahs of flour until it was completely leavened through.” With the help of a “double example” (Morgenthaler 1948, I: 60), which occur frequently in Luke (see 4.25-­27; 11.31-­32; 12.24, 27; 12.54-­55; 13.1-­5; 14.28-­32; 15.4-­10; 17.26-­29, 34-­35 as well as 3.12-­14; 13.1-­5; see also 4.4.3 in the commentary introduction), Jesus comments on the healing of the woman with a view to the kingdom of God. In doing so he simultaneously provides an overall interpretation of his own activity. In the two examples from the everyday world of the hearers/readers the concern is to help the readers understand the eschatic character of Jesus’s particular salvific activity (e.g., in the healing of the bent over woman that was just narrated). This salvific activity relates to the eschatic establishment of God’s universal reign in the same way as the mustard seed relates to the grown mustard plant or as the leaven relates to three seahs of fermented flour. Accordingly, the two parables are intended to show that every end must also have a beginning, that beginning and end are indissolubly connected with each other, and that this connection also encompasses the contrast between small and great. In Matthew 13.31-­32, 33 the two parables also stand next to each other in the same sequence. It is therefore probable that Luke already found the pair of parables in Q. There is also a parallel to the parable of the mustard seed in Mark 4.30-­32, but this has left no traces in Luke, apart from the form of the interrogative question in Mark 4.30. The introductory questions in v. 18b-­c could be based on Mark 4.30b-­c and could reflect the style of Jewish parable narration (see at 7.31). Thus, Luke mostly orients himself to Q. Characteristic of its version are in the parable of the mustard seed the following Lukan–­Matthean agreements over against Mark 4.30-­32: ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία (18bpar. Matthew 13.31b); ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος (19bpar. Matthew 13.31c); the “growing” (ηὔξησεν/αὐξηθῇ; 19c/Matthew 13.32);

190

The Gospel According to Luke

καὶ ἐγένετο/γίνεται δένδρον (19dpar. Matthew 13.32c); the addition of ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ at the end (19epar. Matthew 13.32e). In the parable of the leaven the Lukan wording differs only minimally from Matthew 13.33. For the relationship of Mark 4.30-­32 and Q 13.18-­19 cf. Laufen 1980, 174–­200; Fleddermann 1995, 90–­99. The version of the parable of the mustard seed handed down in Gospel of Thomas 20 is closer to the Markan–­Matthean version, because both here and there it is explicitly stressed that the mustard seed is smaller than all other seeds. Moreover, all the other elements that are characteristic of Q are lacking (see above). The parallel to the parable of the leaven in Gospel of Thomas 96 is even more distant from the synoptic tradition: “The kingdom of the father is like a woman. She took a little leaven, mixed it into flour and from this made large loaves of bread.”

18, 20 The double question in 18, which indicates that a parable follows, is closer to 7.31 (see further there) than to the phrasing of Mark 4.30. 19 Luke has Jesus tell the story of a mustard seed, namely from the point in time of its sowing until it has become a grown plant. The relation between the proverbial smallness of the mustard seed, on the one hand (cf. Luke 17.6par. Matthew 17.20; Bill. I: 669; Löw 1928, 516ff; Kähler 1995, 84ff), and the largeness of the grown plant, on the other hand (Dalman 1964, II: 293 speaks of 2.5–­3 meters), functions as the source domain. This cultural knowledge is implicitly presupposed here, while it is explicitly emphasized in the two synoptic parallels with a view to the other seeds or plants (see C.-­H. Hunzinger, ThWNT 7: 286–­87). Mustard is an annual plant that is sown anew every year and then grows very quickly; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 19.170 says that “the falling seed greens at once” (semen cadens protinus viret). What matters in the parable, however, is not the speed of the growth. Rather, the focus is on the fact that the contrast between ‘small’ and ‘large’ is integrated through the growth (ηὔξησεν) into the continuity of a natural sequence. The illustration of the largeness of the “tree” takes place with the help of linguistic pieces that have their closest parallels in Old Testament texts. Texts that come into consideration include—­in addition to Psalm 104.12 (“in them [sc. the springs of water] live the birds of heaven” [PsalmLXX 103.12: ἐπ αὐτὰ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώσει])—­especially the variations of the motif of the world tree in Ezekiel 17.23 (“On the high mountain of Israel I will plant it [a cedar shoot]; and it will put forth branches and bear fruit and become a glorious cedar; and all birds will rest under it [LXX: καὶ πᾶν πετεινὸν ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ ἀναπαύσεται], everything that has wings; in the shadow of its branches they will live”); 31.6 (“In its [sc. the cedar’s] branches nest all the birds of the heaven [LXX: ἐν ταῖς παραφυάσιν αὐτοῦ ἐνόσσευσαν πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ], and among their



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 191

branches [LXX: ὑποκάτω τῶν κλάδων αὐτοῦ] all the animals of the field brought their young into the world; and in their shade all the many nations lived”); Daniel 4.18 (“Its folliage was thick and its fruit abundant, and there was food for all on it; under it lived the animals of the field, and in its branches lived the birds of the heaven” [4.21Theodotion: ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ κατεσκήνουν τὰ ὄρνεα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ]; the Septuagint adds: “The power of the earth and of the nations and all the tongues to the ends of the earth and all the lands will be enslaved to you”); see also Daniel 4.9(12Theodotion). Ezekiel 31.6 and Daniel 4.18 are parts of threat sayings that are directed against the worldwide rule of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar and announce their downfall. Ezekiel 17.23 also presupposes this background, but here the reversal of this process is announced. Restitution and equipping with power is promised to defeated Israel (see also Klauck 1978, 215; Kogler 1988, 149ff).

Because mustard is a green plant and does not turn into a “tree” with “branches” and because, accordingly, no one has yet seen birds “living” in it, the description of the grown plant is a hyperbolic intensification that is based not on the observation of nature but on the aforementioned world-­ tree texts (nowhere else is the largeness of a tree illustrated by the fact that birds nest in its branches). Thus, the point of the parable lies in the fact that it is precisely the inconspicuous mustard seed, from which a plant grows, to which the attributes known from the Old Testament world-­tree metaphor are ascribed, or—­transferred to the level of the target domain—­in the fact that it is precisely the particular and controversial (cf. v. 14) deeds of Jesus that stand in direct continuity with the universal dimension of the coming kingdom of God (see also Funk 1973, 7–­8; Welker/Wolter 1999). In this way, the same thing takes place in this parable that also can be observed in Luke 3.17; 8.8b; 12.37, 44, 46; 19.27. The hyperbolic conclusion of the parable bursts the coherence of the source domain and brings the target domain into view. The picture of the birds that live in the branches of the tree is often understood as an allegorical paraphrase of “the worldwide Gentile mission” (Weder 1984, 136; see also Grässer 1977, 142; Klauck 1978, 218 and many others). However, the dimensioning of the kingdom of God that is undertaken here with recourse to the world-­tree metaphor goes far beyond this. 21 The narrative of the leaven is also concerned to connect the contrast of beginning-­and end-­point with the help of an organic process. The image field is the experience that is proverbially quoted in 1 Corinthians 5.6; Galatians 5.9: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” After the parable of the mustard seed was determined by the opposition ‘small—­large,’ the parable of the leaven works with the contrast ‘little—­much.’

192

The Gospel According to Luke

The text-­critically disputed ἐνέκρυψεν (this is read by 𝔓75 ‫ א‬A D W Θ Ψ 070 f 13 l 𝔐 against ἔκρυψεν, which is read by B K L N 892 1424, 252 al) is not intended to express the current hiddenness of the rule of God (thus, e.g., A. J. Hultgren 2000, 406) but it is connected to ἐγκρυφία as a designation for baked things (‘cakes’ or ‘flatbreads’; in LXX: Genesis 18.6; Exodus 12.39; Numbers 11.8; 1 Kings 17.12, 13; 19.6; Ezekiel 4.12; Hosea 7.8; Heb.: ‫ ֻענָ ה‬or ‫)מעֹוג‬. ָ The verb ‫“( עּוג‬to bake”) is accordingly translated with ἐγκρύπτειν in Ezekiel 4.12. In Genesis 18.6 Abraham asks Sarah to make “cakes” (‫;ענֹות‬ ֻ LXX: ἐγκρυφίας) from three “seahs” (‫;ס ִאים‬ ְ LXX: μέτρα) for the three messengers of God. The Greek equivalent for the measure mentioned in 18.6 is σάτον (see 21b and Haggai 2.16LXX; Heb.: ‫ ְס ָאה‬also in 1 Samuel 25.18; 1 Kings 18.32; 2 Kings 7.1, 16, 18; Isaiah 27.8; etymologically σάτον is a Graecising of Aramaic ‫אתא‬ ָ ‫)ס‬. ָ We know its size from Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 9.85: μόδιον καὶ ἥμισυ Ἰταλικόν (“one and a half Italian modius”). A modius holds 8.75 liters; thus, 3 seahs of flour are equivalent to a volume of about 40 liters or a weight of approx. 50 kilograms of flour (see also Ben-­David 1974, 334ff).

It is decisive that ζύμῃ (21a) is taken up again through the predicate ἐζυμώθη (21c). This construction shows that the leavened flour has, for its part, become sourdough at the end. Transferred to the kingdom of God present in Jesus’s activity, the parable therefore wants to say this: As surely as leaven transforms an amount of flour that is gigantic in comparison with it into leavened dough when one mixes it in, so also the kingdom of God present in Jesus’s particular activity will just as surely make the whole world into the kingdom of God. 13.22-­35: Travelling to Jerusalem With the help of a summary, which is situated on the same narrative level as 8.1-­3; 9.51; 10.38, Luke locates the following scene in an unspecified temporal and spatial distance from 13.10-­21. This situation remains in place until the end of chapter 13. Luke establishes the coherence of this scene by placing a ring around the whole scene with the help of the key words πορεύεσθαι (vv. 22, 33) and “Jerusalem” (vv. 22, 33, 34). The narrative does not make a temporal jump again until 14.1, where the place of the scene and the characters are changed. Therefore, the summary does not begin a second part (extending to 17.10) of the so-­called ‘travel narrative’; rather, it merely sketches the scenic background for what is narrated in 13.23-­35. The scene consists of two parts that Luke has separated from each other in v. 31 by having new narrative figures appear as cue-­givers (see also 13.1).



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 193

13.22-­30: Outside before the Narrow Door 22

And he went through towns and villages, teaching and journeying to Jerusalem. 23And someone said to him, “Lord, are there (only) few who will be saved?” And he said to them, 24“Strive to enter through the narrow door, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter, and they will not succeed. 25After the master of the house has risen and closed the door and you then knock and say, ‘Lord, open to us!’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know you (and know not) whence you are.’ 26Then you will begin to say, ‘We have eaten and drunk in your presence and on our streets you have taught.’ 27And he will answer you and say, ‘I know not whence you are. Depart from me, all you evil doers!’ 28In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abaham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God—­but you yourselves cast outside. 29And they will come from east and west and from north and south to recline to eat in the kingdom of God. 30And behold, there are the last, who will be first ones, and there are the first, who will be last.” After the introduction (v. 22), Luke opens the first subscene by having an anonymous questioner appear (v. 23), whom Jesus answers with a small speech (vv. 24-­30). The structure of the speech is clear. (1) A protreptic exhortation (v. 24a) is followed by (2) a description of the unsalvific fate of the “many” (vv. 24b-­29), which consists of three parts: (a) a general statement (v.  24b-­c), (b) its narrative development (vv. 25-­27; the connecting element is the key word “door,” vv. 24a, 25b, c), and (c) a threat saying that describes the final condition (vv. 28-­29). At the end there is (3) a commentary (v. 30), which interprets the future allocation of salvation and unsalvation as a reversal of the current assignments of status. The semantic coherence of the speech is established through the opposition of “inside” and “outside” (on the one side, εἰσέρχεσθαι [v. 24a, b] and ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ [vv. 28b, 29b]; on the other side, ἔξω [vv. 25c, 28c] and ἐκβάλλεσθαι [v. 28c]). Other spatially connoted terms are also related to this: θύρα (v. 24a, 25b, c) and ἐκεῖ (v. 28a). In v. 24 the addressees of the speech are originally all the hearers of the words of Jesus, for with the exhortation formulated in v. 24a and the justification that follows in v. 24b-­c a protreptic situation is constructed in which they have the possibility to respond or not respond to the exhortation. From v. 25 on, however, only those who have reacted negatively are still addressed. With the help of the second person plural their future fate of unsalvation is described until v. 28. Correspondingly, v. 29 then uses the third person to speak of those who have a share in the eschatic salvation.

194

The Gospel According to Luke

In the speech that Jesus delivers in vv. 24-­30 Luke has incorporated fragments from the Jesus tradition that have also left traces in the Gospel of Matthew—­ though in completely different places. v. 24: The motif of the “narrow” door and the exhortation to “enter” through it also occurs in Matthew 7.13-­14. Here it also says that “few” will find the way to life (cf. Luke 13.23b). v. 25: The “closing” of the “door,” the petition of the ones locked out, “Lord, open for us!” and his “answer,” “I do not know you,” are announced with the same words in Matthew 25.10-­12. vv.  26-­27: The dialogue has rhetorical correspondences in the first part and terminological correspondences in the second part to Matthew 7.22-­23 (these include above all the recourse to Psalm 6.9a). vv.  28-­29: The opposition of those who are shut out of the eschatic banquet and those who are admitted is found in the opposite sequence in Matthew 8.11-­12. v. 30: The announcement that “last people” become “first people” and vice versa has a parallel in Matthew 20.16. The counterparts in Matthew 10.31par. Matthew 19.30 have the sequence “first–­last/last–­first”; P. Oxy. IV 654.25–­26 (par. Gospel of Thomas 4.2–­3 in part) is also close to this version. As an explanation for these findings it is usually assumed that Luke has composed the speech himself and in doing so has made recourse to material of different provenances (including Q), without it being still possible to identify its origin in detail (cf. Bultmann 1995, 137–­38; Hoffmann 1995, 135–­61; Fitzmyer II: 1021–­22; Bovon II: 430 and many others). The thesis that Luke already found the composition in his “special tradition” (Grundmann 284) has found only a few supporters (among others Schweizer 149; Tuckett 1996, 189–­95: vv. 24–­29 already stood together in Q; Bock II: 1230 even considers the option that it might be traced back to Jesus himself).

22 The construction of the scenic background is reminiscent of 8.1 in several ways—­on account of the iterative imperfect διεπορεύετο here and διώδευεν there, the distributive κατὰ πόλεις καὶ κώμας (in 8.1 singular; see also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 11.172; 14.160; BDR §224.3), and the participle διδάσκων (8.1: κηρύσσων καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενος). However, unlike in 8.1, Jesus’s itinerancy has in the meantime obtained a goal—­Jerusalem. The phrasing πορείαν ποιεῖσθαι is a Greek idiom (cf. just Diodorus Siculus 1.18.3; 55.2; 2.30.4; 4.19.3; 12.67.1; 14.20.7; 21.5; in the LXX only 2 Maccabees 3.8; 12.10; as here with εἰς + goal: Demosthenes, Orationes 49.28; Vita Homeri 130; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 14.358). 23 Here, as in Matthew 12.10 and elsewhere, the εἰ of the indirect question introduces a direct question (cf. BDR §440.3). The expression οἱ σῳζόμενοι (present participle with future meaning; cf. BDR §339.2a)



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 195

already designates in Jewish Greek literature the entirety of the sharers in eschatic salvation. In that regard, what is most suspicious is the affinity of this designation to the expectation of the endtime gathering of Israel; cf. Isaiah 37.32 (“The remaining ones will come out of Jerusalem, and οἱ σῳζόμενοι from Mount Zion”); Isaiah 45.20 (“Gather yourselves and come, hold counsel together, οἱ σῳζόμενοι from the nations”); Tobit 14.7‫“( א‬All children of Israel, οἱ σῳζόμενοι in those days, who remember God in truth, will be brought together and come to Jerusalem and live in security forever in the land of Abraham”); see also Philo, De praemiis et poenis 165 (ἀνασῳζόμενοι as an umbrella term for the Jews who are led home from all over); Testament of Abraham A 11.1 (see below); 12.18. The expression then occurs as a Christian self-­designation in 1 Corinthians 1.18 (τοῖς σῳζομένοις ἡμῖν) and 2 Corinthians 2.15 (in each case in opposition to the outsiders who are designated as ἀπολλύμενοι); see also Acts 2.47 (“The Lord added daily τοὺς σῳζομένους”); see also van Unnik 1973–­1983, I: 30–­31. The question already anticipates the answer. There are indeed only “few” to whom the eschatic salvation will be given, while “many” will be shut out of it. This eschatological conception is also found in early Judaism: cf. especially Testament of Abraham A 11.1 (πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀπολλύμενοι, ὀλίγοι δὲ οἱ σῳζόμενοι [“There are many who go to ruin, but few who are saved”]); 4 Ezra 7.47 (Ad paucos . . . futurum saeculum iucunditatem facere, multis autem tormenta [“For few the coming world will bring well-being, for many, however, torments”]); 9.15 (Plures sunt qui pereunt quam qui salvabuntur [“There are more who go to ruin than those who will be saved”]); see also Bill. I: 883. “Many” and “few” are contrasted with one another here, and this distinguishes this expectation from texts such as Matthew 22.14 (“Many are called but few are chosen”); 4 Ezra 8.1-3 (Hoc saeculum fecit Altissimus propter multos, futurum autem propter paucos. . . . Multi quidem creati sunt, pauci autem salvabuntur [“The Most High made this world for the sake of the many, but the coming one for the sake of few. . . . For many have been created, but few will be saved”]), in which the “few” are described not as an opposition but as an elite excerpt from the “many” (cf. also the saying handed down in Plato, Phaedo 69c and others: ναρθηκοφόροι μὲν πολλοί, βάκχοι δέ τε παῦροι [“Staff bearers are many but Bacchants are few”]).

Despite terminological overlaps, however, one may not bring this conception together with the paraenetic motif of the broad and the narrow way, which has found expression in Matthew 7.13-­14 (cf. already Hesiod, Opera et dies 288–­292 and then especially Tabula Cebetis 15.2–­3: The way to true education exhibits among other things an “exceedingly narrow

196

The Gospel According to Luke

ascent” [ἀνάβασις στενὴ πάνυ]; it leads to a “small door” [θύραν τινὰ μικράν] and only “very few” [ὀλίγοι πάνυ] take it). The difference to this notion is made visible by 24, for unlike in the tradition of the broad and the narrow way, here it is not contested that the “many” also want to go “through the narrow door.” Testament of Abraham A 11.3 shows the idea that stands in the background. Abraham sees a broad and a narrow way at whose ends there is a broad gate and a narrow gate. “Many souls” are led by angels through the broad door that leads to unsalvation, while “(only) a few souls are brought by the angels” through the narrow door leading to salvation (εἶδον ἄλλας ψυχὰς ὀλίγας καὶ ἐφέροντο ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης). Thus, the many go not willingly but under compulsion upon the broad way through the broad door, and the small door is narrow because it has been designed from the outset only for “few.” Thus, “to enter through the narrow door” (24a) is a metaphor for the access to salvation. Verses 25-­29 will show that Luke imagines this salvation as a banquet that takes place in the house with the narrow door. This entrance does not take place until the future (see also Hoffmann 1995, 143), and the future verbs ζητήσουσιν and οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν, which address the future fate of the “many,” also refer to this situation. On the basis of vv. 25-­27 it then becomes recognizable that οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν means not ‘because their strength is not sufficient’ but ‘because they are not let in.’ At the same time, the imperative ἀγωνίζεσθε makes clear that it is already being decided in the present who will enter through the narrow door into the house and participate in the banquet. The exhortation ἀγωνίζεσθε is usually interpreted on the basis of the Hellenistic agon metaphor, which presents the struggle for an ethically perfect life in analogy to athletic competition (cf. Plato, Gorgias 526d–­e; Epictetus, Dissertationes 1.24.1–­2; in the New Testament especially 1 Timothy 6.12; 2 Timothy 4.7; Hebrews 12.1; on this see G. Dautzenberg, EWNT 1: 59–­64; Hoffmann 1995, 143: “Luke brings an ethical accent into the logion through ἀγωνίζεσθε”). However, this overlooks the fact that ἀγωνίζεσθαι is construed with a telic infinitive here (εἰσελθεῖν). The parallels for this linguistic use show that in such cases the agonistic connotation is entirely lost and ἀγωνίζεσθαι means “simply exert oneself, strive” (W. Bauer 1988, 27): Thucydides 4.87.6 (“Strive [ἀγωνίσασθε] to be the first among the Greeks to establish freedom and eternal glory”; 8.89.4 (“Each strove . . . to become the first leader of the people” [ἠγωνίζετο . . . πρῶτος προστάτης τοῦ δήμου γενέσθαι]); Plutarch, Phocion 14.3 (οἱ ῥήτορες ἠγωνίσαντο τὸν Χάρητα στρατηγὸν ἀποσταλῆναι [“The orators campaigned to send out Chares as general”]); Daniel 6.15Theodotion (“The king endeavored to save him and until



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 197

evening he was endeavoring to save him [. . . ἠγωνίσατο τοῦ ἐξελέσθαι αὐτὸν καὶ . . . ἦν ἀγωνιζόμενος τοῦ ἐξελέσθαι αὐτόν]”).

Thus, the motif of “ethical agon” by no means stands behind ἀγωνίζεσθε (contra Hoffmann 1995, 142). However, Luke also does not want to have this exhortation directed to Christians of his time. Rather, it remains entirely within the narrated world and corresponds to Jesus’s exhortations to repentance (vv. 3, 5) and to bear fruit (v. 9). 25-­27 The scene develops v. 24b-­c. The “narrow door” of v. 24a is closed, and the “many” who want to enter into the house as well now stand before it. Their ζητεῖν εἰσελθεῖν is articulated in the petition “Lord, open up to us!” (v. 25d) and in the calling to mind of the shared past (v. 26b-­c), while οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν finds its expression in the double rejection by the master of the house (vv. 25-­26, 27b-­c). 25 The subjunctive chain ἀφ’ οὗ ἂν ἐγερθῇ . . . καὶ ἀποκλείσῃ . . . καὶ ἄρξησθε describes a three-­stage sequence of events that temporally precedes the ἀποκριθεὶς ἐρεῖ ὑμῖν of the main clause (the same sentence structure is also found in Daniel 12.11LXX: ἀφ’ οὗ ἂν ἀποσταθῇ . . . καὶ ἑτοιμασθῇ + main clause; for specifications of time with ἀφ’ οὗ see at 13.7). Thus, the addressed come too late, but they are not “stragglers” (Mussner 1967, 117) in the sense that they would be surprised by the closing of the door. The reason for their exclusion from salvation is not the closing of the door but their failure to have endeavored to enter into the house of salvation in the time of the presence of Jesus with them (see also 16.16; 17.21). The words with which the master of the house rejects the request of the ones who only now desire entry belong to the semantic field of ‘denial’ (cf. Matthew 26.72; 2 Timothy 2.19 as well as Matthew 7.23; 10.33par.; see also at Luke 9.23). Syntactically the sentence is a prolepsis (“anticipation of the subject of the subordinate clause as object in the superordinated sentence”; Lausberg 1949, §64). 26 The objection of the rejected ones reacts to the words of the master of the house. They want to help him remember them. In doing so they labor under the misapprehension that his “I do not know you . . .” is merely due to an inability to remember and not to an intentional ‘denial’ (see at 9.23). Only now does it become clear that with the “master of the house” mentioned in v. 25a we are dealing with Jesus. Here, too, Luke does not direct the view of his readers beyond the narrated world. The phrasing “to eat [and drink] ἐνώπιόν τινος” is also used in 2 Samuel 11.13; 1 Kings 1.25; 2 Kings 25.29 to describe shared meals (see also Luke 24.43), and this makes it completely impossible to interpret the phrase in relation to “participation in the Eucharist” (contra Meiser 1998, 346). But especially through the reference to Jesus’s teaching “on our streets,” Luke identifies

198

The Gospel According to Luke

the speakers as Jesus’s contemporaries; this phrasing cannot be intended to be transparent for the readers of his story of Jesus. The complementary reciprocity of this description is unmistakable. 26b describes the actions of the speakers in relation to Jesus, while 26c reverses the perspective. It is precisely in this way that Luke lets their deficit surface clearly, for tellingly, they say nothing about accepting the teaching of Jesus (see also Marshall). 27 First, the master of the house reacts to the appeal of the rejected “many” with a shortened repetition of his first answer (27b). The reading without ὑμᾶς is better attested (𝔓75 B) than the reading with ὑμᾶς (thus ‫ א‬A W Θ Ψ f 1,13 𝔐 and others). Moreover, the latter can be explained well as an adjustment to vv. 25-­26, while there is, in fact, no rationale for its subsequent omission.

In addition to this, Jesus announces to his hearers that the master of the house will exhort them to depart from his vicinity (27c), namely in dependence on PsalmLXX 6.9a (ἀπόστητε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, πάντες οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν [“Depart from me, all you who do lawlessness”]). In Luke the first four words agree with this wording; in Matthew 7.23 the last four do (for the reconstruction of a possible Q version cf. C. Heil 1998, 264ff). First Maccabees 3.6 probably designates—­likewise in orientation to Psalm 6.9a—­the adherents of the Hellenistic reform among the Jews fought by the Maccabees as πάντες οἱ ἐργάται τῆς ἀνομίας (“all doers of lawlessness”). The Lukan phrasing does not reflect the interest of an “ethicizing and generalizing of the statement of judgment” (thus Hoffmann 1995, 148); rather, it is intended to characterize the failure to comply with the exhortation of Jesus as an offence against the will of God. This is suggested at least by the Lukan use of ἀδικίας as a characterizing genitive attribute (cf. 16.8, 9; 18.6; Acts 1.18: Judas; 8.23: Simon Magus; see also G. Schrenk, ThWNT 1: 154.35ff for the meaning of the term in the Septuagint and BDR §1652: genitivus qualitatis or genitivus objectivus). 28 Form-­critically we are dealing with a threat saying here. The adjective ἐκεῖ refers to the situation of the rejected ones “outside” (ἔξω) before the door (v. 25c), through which they were not let in. “Weeping” (κλαυθμός) as a reaction to experiences of suffering has always been a component of prophetic announcements of unsalvation (e.g., Isaiah 15.3; 22.12; Jeremiah 3.21; Micah 7.4; see also 1 Enoch 108.3, 5). In the Old Testament “gnashing of teeth” belongs to the description of enemies of the pious (Psalm 35.16; 37.12; Job 16.9; Lamentations 2.16) and is intended there to illustrate their aggressiveness. However, it is also attested in Psalm 112.10 in a completely analogous context:



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 199

In vv. 1-­9 the well-­being of the pious and righteous is first described (v. 9 ends with “his righteousness endures forever, his horn shall be exalted in glory”). With this the fate of the “sinner” is then confronted at the end. He “will see it and be angry, with his teeth he will gnash, and he will perish” (PsalmLXX 111.10: ὄψεται καὶ ὀργισθήσεται, τοὺς ὀδόντας αὐτοῦ βρύξει καὶ τακήσεται).

The three patriarchs are also placed together with a series of prophets in 5 Ezra 1.39–­40 (cf. JSHRZ III/7: 806), and there too the concern is to place Christians in the continuity of the history of the people of God and to expel the Jews from it. Thus, there is considerable support for the view that the spatial separation from the patriarchs and the prophets not only intends to highlight the exclusion of the addressees from salvation but also has a salvation-­historical component. They will recognize that they were excluded from the history of the people of God. For Luke, however, this is only the eschatic sanctioning of their refusal to respond to the exhortation of Jesus pronounced in v. 24. In 29 the situation of the σῳζόμενοι (v. 23b) is contrasted with their fate. Luke describes their situation with recourse to the conception of the eschatic meal of salvation (cf. Isaiah 25.6-­8; 1 Enoch 62.12; 1Q28a 2.11–­ 22 and Smith 1991). The widespread assumption that with this contrast Luke wanted to describe the rejection of the Jews and the joining of the Gentiles (e.g., Mussner 1967; Marshall; Bovon and many others) is very doubtful (see also Dupont 1967; Schlosser 1980, II: 615; Giesen 1988, 222; Nolland), for πολλοί (Matthew 8.11) is lacking in 29a, and the motif of the endtime pilgrimage of the nations (cf. Zeller 1971/1972, 225ff) also cannot be identified here with sufficient clarity: in the Old Testament ἥξουσιν stands both for the endtime flocking in of the nations (1 Kings 8.42; PsalmLXX 85.9; Isaiah 2.2; 60.5-­6; 61.5; 66.18; Jeremiah 1.15; 16.19; Zechariah 6.15; 8.20, 22; see also Revelation 15.4) and for the expected gathering of Israel (Tobit 14.7‫ ;א‬PsalmLXX 125.6; Isaiah 27.13; 35.10; 51.11; Jeremiah 3.18; 31[38].12; 50[27].4-­5; Micah 7.12). The coming of those who share in salvation from the four cardinal directions continues the thought expressed in texts that articulate the expectation of the endtime gathering of Israel and do not take the Gentiles into account at all, not even from a distance; cf. in this sense above all Psalm 107.2-­3 with reference to the “saved of the Lord” (‫אּולי יְ הוָ ה‬ ֵ ְ‫ ;ג‬PsalmLXX 106.2: οἱ λελυτρωμένοι ὑπὸ κυρίου); Isaiah 43.5-­6 (on this see Grimm 1972) as well as Isaiah 49.12; Baruch 4.37; 5.5; Psalms of Solomon 11.2; 1 Enoch 57.1. Furthermore, it is also important to recall that the umbrella term οἱ σῳζόμενοι used in v. 23 is also anchored in this expectation (see further there). Thus, here too the allocation of salvation and unsalvation is oriented not toward the opposition of Israel and the nations but toward the reaction to Jesus’s

200

The Gospel According to Luke

proclamation. In terms of reference, the circle of those who are spoken of here is indeed also open to non-­Jews, but this is not stated so clearly yet. Nevertheless, a paradigm is installed here that nullifies the distinction between Israel and the nations. In 30 the consequences and dimensions of this paradigm change are outlined. If one wanted to let the sequence “last–­first/first–­last” refer to the groups described in vv. 28-­29, a chiastic arrangement would result. Verse 29 speaks of the ἔσχατοι who become πρῶτοι (30a), while v. 28 describes the fate of the πρῶτοι who became ἔσχατοι. However, the announcement should not be reduced to the referent of the terms, for it is meant to describe much more than only the exchange of positions of Jews and Gentiles. That Gentiles will find themselves on the side of salvation and Jews on the side of unsalvation is merely part and consequence of a much more far-­reaching new-­ordering of the assignments of status among humans (see also 1.43, 46-­55; 22.25-­27). That this new-­ordering is formulated precisely with the semantically polyvalent polarity of πρῶτοι and ἔσχατοι and is described as the swapping of their extensions has no other function than to underline the radicality and totality of this paradigm change. Nothing will remain as it was before. 13.31-­35: Herod and Jerusalem 31

In the same hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Leave and go from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” 32And he said to them, “Go and say to that fox: Behold, I cast out demons and perform healings today and tomorrow, and on the third (day) I will be completed. 33 Meanwhile, I must be underway today and tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, for it is impossible that a prophet be killed outside of Jerusalem. 34 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children, just as a hen (gathers) her brood under her wings, and you were not willing. 35 Behold, your house is abandoned to you. But I say to you: You will not see me until (the day) will come on which you say, ‘Praised (be) the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’” Luke narrates the second part of the scene just like the first part. A ‘cue-­ giver’ appears (v. 23 a τις, here τινὲς Φαρισαῖοι; v. 31a), who prompts Jesus to a speech, which Luke has compiled from multiple individual elements of different origins. Form-­critically we are dealing both here and there with a chreia. The speech is comprised of two parts, which are joined through the topic “murder of prophets in or by Jerusalem” (vv. 33b-­34b).



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 201

The addressees of the first part (vv. 32-­33) are “some Pharisees.” In contrast, the second part (vv. 34-­35) has only fictive addressees (because they are not present)—­Jerusalem and its children. Form-­critically this is not a “lament” (thus Schneider and others and especially Weinert 1982, 74), but an announcement of judgment. There are no synoptic parallels to the narrative setting and the first part of the speech (vv. 31-­33). It is usually assumed that Luke knows it from his so-­called ‘Sondergut.’ Voices that regard this verse as a Lukan creation (Schmithals; Denaux 1989; Rese 1989) have remained in the minority. The second part of the speech (vv. 34-­35) has an almost word-­for-­word parallel in Matthew 23.37-­39, so that a derivation from Q is likely. What is controversial is whether in the Sayings Gospel Q it followed the announcement of unsalvation handed down in Q 11.49-­ 51, which immediately precedes it in Matthew 23.34-­36, or whether it followed Q 13.24-­29(30) (on this see J. M. Robinson 1998; C. Heil 2003, 66).

31 With the help of the temporal specification αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ, which only occurs in Luke in the New Testament (on this see at 2.38), Luke marks the scenic continuity. “Herod” means Herod Antipas (on him see at 3.1). In the Gospel of Luke he last appeared in 9.7-­9, specifically with the wish to see Jesus (9.9). Moreover, the readers know that he is a villain (3.19-­20) and that he had John the Baptist beheaded (9.9). Thus, it need not appear implausible to them that he also sought to kill Jesus. What is surprising, of course, is that it is Pharisees who warn Jesus of Herod. They were most recently not only attacked by Jesus in a sweeping manner and addressed with woes (11.39-­44), but he had also attributed “dissembling” to them as a typical characteristic (12.1). Elsewhere, Luke can indeed perceive the Pharisees in a differentiated manner (cf. 6.2 [diff. Mark 2.24]; 19.39: in each case τινὲς τῶν Φαρισαίων). They also do not belong to those who promote Jesus’s execution in Jerusalem, but that applies to all the Synoptic Gospels. There is therefore no indication that Luke charges the Pharisees who warn Jesus of Herod with insincerity let alone deceit (contra Denaux 1989, 171ff). Nevertheless, a shadow falls on them here, for Jesus’s answer in vv. 32-­33 will make clear that they have understood nothing about him. His πορεύεσθαι is not flight but a πορεύεσθαι to Jerusalem. Also, it does not serve the avoidance of death but rather leads him straight into death. Finally, Jesus’s πορεύεσθαι is prompted and guided by nothing other than God’s plan of salvation (δεῖ; see at 9.22 and Rese 1989, 217). Here, Luke wants to characterize the Pharisees not as being concerned with Jesus’s survival but as ignoramuses. 32 This same ignorance also characterizes Herod when he seeks to kill Jesus outside Jerusalem. Therefore, a good portion of irony stands

202

The Gospel According to Luke

behind his designation as “fox.” From the semantic profile of the typical characteristics that were ascribed to the fox in antiquity (for this cf., by way of example, Cyranides, ed. Kaimakis 1976, 2.2: “The fox is an animal that is known to all: exceedingly shrewd and devious as well as clever, a bird-­eater and ill-­smelling [θηρίον . . . δεινότατον καὶ πανουργότατον καὶ σοφόν, ὀρνιθοβόρον καὶ δύσοσμον]”), the characteristic of “shrewdness” (sensu malo: “deviousness”; sensu bono: “clever”) is undoubtedly invoked here. However, this characteristic is simultaneously devalued, for with his intention Herod reveals that he lacks insight into God’s plan of salvation. An exchange between fox and humans in the ascription of features also takes place elsewhere, often with the intention of moral devaluation; cf. in this sense e.g., Aristotle, Historia animalium 488b20: τὰ μὲν πανοῦργα καὶ κακοῦργα, οἷον ἀλώπηξ . . . (“Some [sc. among the animals] are cunning and malicious, such as the fox . . .”); Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 14.76 (658d): a man is called ἀποτράγημα . . . ἀλώπεκος (“remnant of a fox”), because he “was either small in stature or bad in character or treacherous (κακοήθη καὶ πανοῦργον)”; Epictetus, Dissertationes 1.3.8: “What is an abusive and malicious human being (λοίδορος καὶ κακοήθης ἄνθρωπος) but a fox?”; see also Plato, Respublica 365c; Cicero, De officiis 1.41; Aesop, Fabulae, ed. Hausrath/Hunter, 9; 109 (the fox as example for “worthless [φαῦλοι] people”). It is regarded as typical of the shrewdness of the fox that it is of limited range and the fox founders time and again on its overestimation, because he does not think it through to the end. A saying attributed to Solon, which is handed down multiple times, points in this direction. In the version of Diodorus Siculus, 9.20.3 it reads: “Each one of you wanders individually on the tracks of the fox (ἕκαστος ἀλώπεκος ἴχνεσι βαίνει); but in you taken together there is found an empty understanding (κοῦφος . . . νόος), for you look only at the tongue . . . of a person, but you never pay attention to what he does” (see also Plutarch, Solon 30.3; Diogenes Laertius 1.52); cf. further Aesop, Fabulae, Hausrath/Hunger 1970, 24; 41 and C. Hünemörder, DNP 4: 687; for rabbinic texts see Bill. II: 200f.

Jesus answers the Pharisees and Herod that he initially continues in the same way as before (32c-­d). ἐκβάλλω δαιμόνια καὶ ἰάσεις ἀποτελῶ formulates the same comprehensive paraphrase of his activity as the summaries in 4.40-­41; 6.18; 7.21; 8.2 (see also 9.1; in the New Testament the noun ἴασις occurs only in Luke: see also Acts 4.22, 30). This activity is only ended through his τελειοῦσθαι (32e). This is a passive, and semantically it means death both here and in Wisdom of Solomon 4.13. But the paraphrase with precisely this verb expresses that death does not come prematurely but at the end of a “fulfilled” life. In plain language, Jesus will only die after he has fulfilled the commission given to him by God. The passive



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 203

emphasizes that it is God who will bring his life to completion. Therefore, the temporal specification is not meant literally, and thus, Exodus 19.10-­ 11 does not stand in the background here. Rather, it designates a period of time that is of unspecified duration. The string σήμερον καὶ αὔριον καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ does not have a Semitic (thus, e.g., Marshall) but rather a Hellenistic basis; cf. Plutarch, Phocion 22.6 = Moralia 459–­460 (Alexander σήμερον τέθνηκε, καὶ αὔριον ἔσται καὶ εἰς τρίτην τεθνηκώς [“has died today, and he will also be dead tomorrow and to the third (day)”]); 459–­460 (εἰ σήμερον οὗτος ἠδίκηκε, καὶ αὔριον ἔσται καὶ εἰς τρίτην ἠδικηκώς [“If this one has become guilty today, he will also be guilty tomorrow and to the third (day)”]); Epictetus, Dissertationes 4.12.21 (. . . πολὺ μᾶλλον σήμερον, ἵνα καὶ αὔριον δυνηθῇς καὶ μὴ πάλιν ἀναβάλῃ εἰς τρίτην [“. . . how much more today, so that you can also do it tomorrow and do not postpone it again to the third (day)”]). The difference between ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ here and εἰς τρίτην there has its basis in the fact that the period of time that is taken into view with this series is limited in Luke by the “becoming completed” of Jesus (see also Ps.-­Hippocrates, ed. Delatte 1939, 483.11–­12, on handling poultry: σφάξον σήμερον, ἔψησον αὔριον καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἔσθιε [“Slaughter (it) today, pluck (it) tomorrow, and on the third day eat (it)”]; Plautus, Cistellaria 524–­526: hodie . . . cras . . . tertio [“today . . . tomorrow . . . on the third day”]).

33 sums up with a view to the exhortation of the Pharisees. Here πλήν has not an adversative or concessive meaning but concludes the discussion and summarizes what is essential (see also BDR §449.2; Rese 1989, 217). Accordingly, the key word πορεύεσθαι from v. 31b is taken up again. Jesus is compelled (δεῖ) to πορεύεσθαι further not because Herod is after him, but because he must fulfill his commission and because he can—­in the words of v. 32e—­“be completed” only in Jerusalem. That the temporal specification in 33a corresponds to that of vv. 32d-­33 (thus Rese 1989, 218) is rather unlikely, for the time of Jesus’s πορεύεσθαι is concluded before his τελειοῦσθαι. It is therefore probably no coincidence that τῇ τρίτῃ is replaced here by τῇ ἐχομένῃ (sc. ἡμέρᾳ; cf. Acts 21.26); cf. in this sense also Acts 20.15; 1 Chronicles 10.8; 2 Maccabees 12.39; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 6.174, 235; 7.18; Plato, Symposium 217d; Polybius 3.112.1; Diogenes Laertius 9.42 (τῇ μὲν πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ . . . τῇ δ’ἐχομένῃ [“on the first day . . . but on the next”]) and others. The justification—­mentioned in 33b—­for the δεῖ of the further journey of Jesus is formulated as a general rule. οὐκ ἐνδέχεται + accusative with infinitive is a Greek idiom (cf., e.g., Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.2.23; Aristotle, Metaphysica 1063b15; Epictetus, Dissertationes 1.19.7; in Jewish sources it occurs only in Daniel 2.11LXX). The statement ends at the

204

The Gospel According to Luke

same point as v. 32—­at the death of Jesus. Beyond what is said in v. 32, however, Jesus now mentions also the place of his death in the emphatic final position. In this way he unveils to the Pharisees (and via them indirectly also to Herod Antipas) the goal and purpose of his journey—­and he does so even before he reveals this to the disciples, for they fell asleep in 9.31 and will not learn where things are leading and what awaits Jesus until 18.31. The generalization that is expressed in the statement is hyperbolic and probably goes back to Luke himself, for it is later always only the Jerusalem Jews who are held liable for the death of Jesus. This is shown by the relevant passages in the speeches of Acts. In the Jerusalem speeches it is always the second person that is used (“you”: Acts 2.23, 36; 3.13-­15; 4.10; 5.30), while in the speeches that are given in other cities Luke uses the third person (“they”: Acts 10.39; 13.27-­29). Thus, in this respect “Jerusalem” precisely does not represent Israel in its entirety (contra Steck 1967, 227). On the other hand, the Jerusalem connection does not play an independent role at all in the texts that are sometimes invoked as evidence for supposed “traditions about martyrdoms of prophets in Jerusalem” (Eckey II: 641; see also Fitzmyer II: 1032; Bock II: 1248). For this reason one should probably assume that we are dealing here with a specific Lukan interest (see also Weatherly 1994, 50ff). 34 With Jerusalem as the goal of the peregrination of Jesus, “the actual adversary of Jesus” comes into view (Rese 1989, 219), for not Herod but the city will kill him. 34a calls to mind the tradition of the violent fate of the prophets (on this see at 6.23 with texts and literature) and transfers it to Jerusalem. ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα . . . καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα is in apposition and makes the killing of the prophets and the stoning of God’s emissaries into a timeless characteristic of Jerusalem. Thus, what we have here is not a historical retrospective but rather a statement of identity. With 34b the tense changes to the aorist. Jerusalem is now addressed directly (second person), and Jesus reports about his “personal experience” with her (Hoffmann 1972, 173 with the pointer that “Jerusalem,” “your children,” and “you” designate the same circle of persons). Form-­critically we are dealing with an accusation saying that demonstrates the guilt of the addressee. For Luke the “I” of the speaker is, of course, the “I” of Jesus (the question of whether the Q version is based on a Jewish wisdom saying should probably be answered in the negative; cf. Hoffmann 1972, 173–­74; Zeller 1985, 514–­15). The understanding of the statement that Jesus has already attempted to gather the “children” of Jerusalem “often” (ποσάκις), although he has not yet set a foot in this city (Luke 2.41-­50 does not count), is difficult. It is certainly no solution to say that Jesus speaks here merely of a wish that he had already held for a long time but that he



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 205

had not yet been able to carry out due to a lack of opportunity (thus Fitzmyer II: 1034). Rather, the conclusion of the sentence with οὐκ ἠθελήσατε makes clear that Jesus speaks of vain attempts that all foundered on the behavior of the “children” of Jerusalem. An integration of this statement into the Lukan story of Jesus is made possible through the fact that one could regard as “children” of Jerusalem not only the inhabitants of Jerusalem (as in 19.44; for the designation of the inhabitants of this city as their “children” see there) but all members of the Jewish people (cf. e.g., Josephus, Bellum judaicum 7: 375: Jerusalem as τοῦ παντὸς Ἰουδαίων γένους μητρόπολις [“mother city of the entire Jewish people”]; 4 Ezra 10.7; Galatians 4.25). Thus, Luke has Jesus present his activity up to this point in a comprehensive manner as the effort to bring about the endtime gathering of the people of God. This is a common element of Jewish eschatology (with [ἐπι]συνάγειν: PsalmLXX 146.2; Isaiah 52.12; 56.8; Jeremiah 32[39].37; Tobit 13.15‫א‬‎; 14.7; 2 Maccabees 2.7, 18; Psalms of Solomon 10.7). Accordingly, the tertium comparationis of the comparison with the ὄρνις (ὃν τρόπον is an accusative of respect [cf. BDR §160.1]; in the New Testament also Acts 1.11; 7.28; 15.11; 27.25; 2 Timothy 3.8) is not the protective covering with the wings, but the gathering (ἐπισυνάγειν). The image field here is not of altricial birds but of precocial birds, which soon after hatching leave the nest and run around and for precisely this reason must also be gathered from time to time by the mother bird. Luther has therefore rightly translated ὄρνις with hen. The image causes many commentators to think of the metaphor of God’s wings under which the pious seek refuge (cf. Ruth 2.12; Psalm 17.8; 36.8; 57.2; 61.5; 63.8; 91.4; see also Deuteronomy 32.11; Isaiah 31.5; 2 Baruch 41.4), but these texts never speak of “gathering.” 35 The accusation with the demonstration of guilt is followed by the threat saying with the announcement of punishment. It is usually assumed that in 35a Jesus announces the departure of God from the Jerusalem temple or from Zion-­Jerusalem (ἀφίεται is passivum divinum). And indeed, there are numerous attestations in Jewish literature for this notion (Ezekiel 10.18-­19; 11.23; 1 Enoch 89.56; Josephus, Bellum judaicum 5.412; 6.299; 2 Baruch 8.1–­2; 41.4; 64.6; see also Diodorus Siculus 17.41.7: Apollo leaves Tyre, which is destined for perdition; Tacitus, Historiae 5.13.1). The fact that the Jerusalem temple is never called “our” or “your house,” but always only “house of God” or the like (a certain exception is only Isaiah 64.10LXX: ὁ οἶκος, τὸ ἅγιον ἡμῶν [“the house, our sanctuary”]; Heb.: ‫“[ ֵבית ָק ְד ֵׁשנּו‬our holy house”]) does not contradict this thesis, but makes the announcement even more pointed. The “house of God” turns into “our house.” Further, ἀφίημι with double object (i.e., τινί τι) means not merely “leave” but “to abandon/bequeath something to someone” (cf. Ecclesiastes

206

The Gospel According to Luke

2.18; PsalmLXX 16.14; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 7.274; Matthew 5.40; 22.25; John 14.27). Israel is left, so to speak, with ‘its’ house. In any case, all the texts describe a irrevocable separation, and in terms of subject matter Jesus announces that God will leave Israel and move out of Jerusalem; cf. Jeremiah 12.7: “I have left my house, given up my inheritance” (ἐγκαταλέλοιπα τὸν οἶκόν μου, ἀφῆκα τὴν κληρονομίαν μου) and the corresponding fear in Psalms of Solomon 7.1 (μὴ ἀποσκηνώσῃς ἀφ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός [“Do not move away from us, O God” (trans. R. B. Wright, OTP 2: 658)]). The threat saying is supplemented in 35c-­d with another announcement in which the story of Jesus with Jerusalem (“your children”/“you”) begun in v. 34c is narrated further and extended into the future. It says that Jesus, after a time of absence, will be greeted with Psalm 118.26 by those who now oppose his gathering. This cannot refer to his entry into Jerusalem, for it is only the disciples who celebrate Jesus with these words there (Luke 19.38). Rather, the parousia is taken into view here. This view is also supported by the fact that with οὐ μὴ ἴδητέ με (35c) his translation is announced (cf. the tradition-­historical evidence in Zeller 1985, 515). ἡμέρα or the like must be supplemented to ἥξει ὅτε (cf. PsalmLXX 36.13; Joel 1.15, on the one hand, and Luke 17.22, on the other). Despite its weaker attestation, the reading with ἥξει (D and A W [Ψ f 1] 𝔐) is to be preferred as lectio difficilior over the reading without this verb (𝔓75 B and others and 𝔓45 ‫ א‬N [Θ] f 13 and others). Allison 1983 interprets the announcement as a temporal clause in the sense of ‘You will only see me again when you . . . say.’ However, this idea founders on the fact that one can only be greeted as someone who is coming when one is already in the process of coming.

The announcement that the children of Jerusalem, who now deny Jesus, will greet him at his parousia as God’s representative is certainly not intended to express hope that the story will still have a happy ending after all (contra Wiefel; Bovon; H. Merkel 1994, 396–­97 and others). Rather, the situation is analogous to the one described in 13.24-­25 (see also Räisänen 1991, 105–­6). The addressees of the words of Jesus will do something at his parousia that they have failed to do in the present, although they were exhorted to do so. But then it will be too late (see also Manson 1949, 128; Hoffmann 1972, 177–­78). In addition, texts such as 1 Enoch 48.5; 62.3–­5, 9–­10; 63.2 show that homage to the coming judge does not preserve one from eschatic punishment. According to v. 34 the crux of the announcement thus consists in the fact that Jesus will come in a completely different role from that which he now exercises. Then, he will come no longer as gatherer but as judge.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 207

14.1-­24: A Guest at the House of a Leading Pharisee Luke constructs again a meal scene, which takes place—­after 7.36-­50 and 11.37-­52—­for the third and last time at the house of a Pharisee. Unlike in the last two cases, this meal takes place on a Sabbath, but that is important only for vv. 1-­6 and plays no role thereafter. A definite break is set in relation to chapter 13, for in addition to the change of place and characters, the narrative makes a temporal jump as well. The end of the scene is marked through a signal indicating the beginning of a new episode in 14.25: Jesus is journeying again with a great crowd. The scene consists of four subscenes. A controversy with the scribes and Pharisees (vv. 1-­6) is followed by a series of three chreiae. A reference to the superordinated meal situation is made only in the narrative expositions throughout (vv. 1, 7, 12a, 15a). The coherence is established above all via the verb καλεῖν (here: “invite”: vv. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 24). The connections between adjoining text scenes also cannot be missed: vv.  7-­11 and vv.  12-­14 display the same structure (in each case ἔλεγεν . . .  ὅταν . . . μὴ . . . μήποτε . . . ἀλλ’ ὅταν + an outlook to the rewarding of the recommended behavior). Furthermore, the interlocking of vv.  12-­14 and vv.  15-­24 through the series πτωχούς, ἀναπείρους, χωλούς, τυφλούς is evident (v. 13 and v. 21 [there with a reordering of the two concluding members]). In addition there is the thematic isotopy of the three speeches. They all deal with questions that are connected with banquets, focusing on different perspectives—­the guests (vv. 1-­11), the host (vv. 1-­14), and the invitees (vv. 15-­24). However, the meal situation forms only the exterior frame for the speeches of Jesus. Thus, Luke knows what took place at meals in his own day. Form-­critical points of contact with the literary genre of the symposium (de Meeûs 1961; Ernst 1978, 74–­75) exist only at the very margins, for from the characteristic topoi of the symposium literature (cf. J. Martin 1931, 33–­148) we find here only the competition among the guests for the best places (J. Martin 1931,135–­36; see also Braun 1992, 74–­75). Braun’s interpretation of the text as a programmatic “anti-­symposium” in the Cynic tradition (p. 75ff) is likewise based on an overinterpretation of the literary frame, however. 14.1-­6: Sabbath IV 1

And it happened when he had come into the house of one of the leading Pharisees for a meal on the Sabbath—­and they watched him closely—­2and behold, there was there a man who had dropsy before him. 3And Jesus answered the scribes and the Pharisees, “Is it permitted to heal on the Sabbath or not?” 4But they became silent. And he

208

The Gospel According to Luke

touched him and healed him and sent him forth. 5And he said to them, “Who of you, whose son or ox falls into a cistern, does not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath?” 6And they could not reply to this. The scene continues the series of Sabbath conflicts after 6.1-­5, 6-­11, and 13.10-­17. Form-­critically it is a mix of healing story and chreia, the latter of which Bultmann rightly designated as a controversy dialogue (Bultmann 1995, 10), although Jesus’s conversation partners say nothing and it is only Jesus himself who pronounces the question that stands for debate (v. 3). As in 5.17-­26; 6.6-­11; 7.1-­10 the two genres form two narrative threads that are intertwined with each other. The healing storyline includes the introduction of the sick man (v. 2) and the portrayal of his healing (v. 4b-­c), while the controversy-­dialogue line consists of vv. 1b, 3-­4a, 5-­6. The fact that the controversy-­dialogue line dominates the narrative as a whole can be seen not only in its greater extent but also in the fact that Luke builds up the dialogue scene (v. 1) before he introduces the sick man (v. 2), recounts the healing with very few words (vv. 4b-­c), and connects the concluding reaction of the Pharisee not with the healing but with the rhetorical question related in v. 5 (ἀνταποκριθῆναι; v. 6). Hence, the following structure emerges: The introduction (v. 1a) prepares both narrative lines and describes the narrative setting for the entire meal episode. Verses 1b-­4a function as an exposition of the controversy dialogue. Into this exposition v. 2 embeds the exposition of the healing story, whose center (portrayal of the healing action) follows in v. 4b-­c. Verse 5 continues the controversy-­dialogue line with the dictum of Jesus, and Luke concludes this line in v. 6 by describing the reaction of the opponents (see also 6.11; 20.26). The scene is handed down only in Luke. But there are evidently points of contact with the Sabbath conflict narrated in 6.6-­11 (par. Mark 3.1-­6; Matthew 12.9-­14) on the occasion of the healing of the “withered hand” (cf. above all v. 1b with 6.7a [“but the Pharisees and scribes watched him furtively”] and v. 3b with 6.9b [“Is it permitted on the Sabbath to do good or evil, to save a life or to destroy?”]). The rhetorical question in v. 5b-­c has a counterpart in Matthew 12.11, a Matthean insertion in the text adopted from Mark 3.1-­6. One should also point out the agreements with Matthew 12.9-­14 against Mark 3.1-­6 (cf. Neirynck 1974b, 78; 1991, 25). These findings receive very different explanations: there is mention or advocacy of an origin from the Sayings Gospel Q (e.g., Schneider; Ernst; Marshall), of a separate tradition (“Sondergut”; e.g., Wiefel; Nolland; Bovon), or of a more or less complete assignment to Luke himself (e.g., Busse 1979; Fitzmyer [v. 5 comes from the Lukan “special material”]; C. F. Evans; Neirynck



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 209

1982/1991/2001, II: 183–­204 [v. 5 comes from Q]; for discussion cf. Kosch 1989, 200ff; C. Heil 2003, 74ff).

1 The καὶ-­ἐγένετο-­clause reaches to the end of the verse, and the structure of the sentence corresponds to 5.1-­2. The elements that Luke uses to build the sentence are already familiar to the readers (cf. 6.1-­11 [Pharisees + Sabbath + παρατηρεῖν] as well as 7.36 and 11.37 [in each case Pharisees + eating]). They can infer from this that another episode from the history of the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees follows (on παρατηρεῖν see at 6.7). The designation of the host as “τις τῶν ἀρχόντων of the Pharisees” does not yet make him “a member of the Sanhedrin belonging to the Pharisees” (W. Bauer 1988, 228). The information that the Pharisees “were not hierarchically organized” (Bovon II: 470) does not contradict the Lukan characterization, for no group can exist without at least an informal hierarchical slope (see also Plummer 354: “Of course they had their leading men”; Josephus, Vita 21: chief priests and οἱ πρῶτοι τῶν Φαρισαίων). In addition, Luke merely wants to convey to his readers the notion that Jesus is invited to the house of an important man and moves in the higher circles. “To eat bread” is an Old Testament expression and means nothing more than “to eat” (cf. Genesis 3.19; 37.25; Exodus 16.3; Judges 19.5-­6; 2 Samuel 9.7 and elsewhere as well as in Luke 7.34-­34). 2 Luke also uses καὶ ἰδού + (ἥ)τις + subject + ἦν to introduce new characters in 7.37 and Acts 16.1 (see also 10.25: ἀνέστη instead of ἦν). The clinical symptoms of dropsy (ὕδρωψ) always include a boundless thirst; cf. e.g., Cassius Iatrosophista, Quaestiones Medicae et Problemata Naturalia 4 (Ideler 1841–­1842, I: 146): ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδρωπικῶν δίψα γίνεται, καίτοι πολλοῦ τοῦ ὑγροῦ ὑποκειμένου “thirst arises among those with dropsy, even if much water is at their disposal”; Horace, Carmina 2.2.13–­16: “Dropsy (hydrops) . . . does not drive away thirst unless the cause of the sickness goes out of the veins and the watery languor out of the pale body (aquosus albo corpora languor).” Braun 1995, 30ff draws attention to the fact that dropsy was sometimes compared with greed: cf. Joannes Stobaeus, Anthologium III: 10.45 (Wachsmuth/Hense 1958, III: 419.8–­11): “Diogenes compared the greedy with those with dropsy (Δ. ὡμοίου τοὺς φιλαργύρους τοῖς ὑδρωπικοῖς): that those, although they are full of fluid, still long for more (ἐπιθυμεῖν ποτοῦ)”; Gnomologium Vaticanum 434: “Plato said that the rich and those filled with ὑδρωπιῶσις are similar: the one group thirsts, although they are filled with water, the other group with goods (οἱ μὲν γὰρ πεπλησμένοι ὑδάτων διψῶσιν, οἱ δὲ χρημάτων)”; Polybius 13.2.2: “As among those with dropsy the supply of liquids from outside never effects a ceasing or stilling of desire (ἐπιθυμία) . . . so it is also not possible to still the desire for more (τὴν πρὸς τὸ πλεῖον ἐπιθυμίαν)”; see also Bion apud Joannes Stobaeus,

210

The Gospel According to Luke

Anthologium IV: 33.31 (Wachsmuth/Hense 1958, IV/2: 813.3ff); Ovid, Fasti 1.215f as well as Hobart 2004, 24; Braun 1995, 34ff. If one takes account of the fact that the Pharisees are referred to as “greedy” (φιλάργυρος), then one can certainly regard it as conceivable—­with Braun—­that Luke does not unintentionally have the man with dropsy appear in the house of a leading Pharisee.

3-­4a An introductory ἀποκριθείς, which is not used for actual ‘answering’ but merely for ‘reacting’ to a certain situation, is also used by Luke in 9.49; 13.14; 17.17; 22.51. It is possible, however, that he wants the παρατηρεῖν of the Pharisees (v. 1b) to be understood as an unspoken objection to which Jesus’s question refers (see also 5.22; 7.40). The question of whether it was permitted (for the use of ἔξεστιν in this context see the comments at 20.22) “to heal” on the Sabbath was never discussed in Judaism in such a fundamentally dualistic manner (the conjunction ἤ is “sharply disjunctive” [BDR §4461] and “separates exclusive things from each other” [BDR §4461a]). Instead, what mattered was always the kind of sickness and above all whether it was life-­threatening and which actions in particular were being considered (cf. Bill. I: 623ff). According to m. Yoma 8.6, one may give medicine to someone suffering throat pain on the Sabbath “because his life is in danger and every life-­threatening danger overrides the Sabbath” (cf. also Deuteronomy Rabbah 10 on Deuteronomy 29.14: “If an Israelite has an earache may he heal it on the Sabbath? The wise have taught thusly: life-­threatening danger overrides the Sabbath and if ear pains are a danger, then one may heal on the Sabbath”). We are dealing here, however, with post-­New Testament texts; for the older texts cf. Doering 1999, 448: “Not a single non-­Christian source from pre-­Tannaite times (mentions) healing on the Sabbath.” In the sweeping manner in which the Lukan Jesus formulates it (healing on the Sabbath: yes or no?), the question is unanswerable on the basis of Jewish presuppositions. It is therefore not surprising that his ‘dialogue partners’ become silent (4a). This dialogue too, which is taken over from Mark 6.4 (cf. Neirynck 1982/1991/2001, II: 188ff), has the function of showing the untenable nature of the Pharisaic reservations against Jesus. 4b-­c Luke narrates scarcely more than what is absolutely necessary concerning the healing (cf. also 9.42c-­ 43): the healing action (ἐπιλαβόμενος), the establishment of the result (ἰάσατο is used only in Luke in the New Testament: see also 9.42; 22.51; Acts 28.8), and the sending off of the healed man, which calls to mind 8.38 (diff. Mark 5.19; the same meaning is also found in Acts 19.40). 5 The rhetorical question most likely has the same source as Matthew 12.11 and argues thematically in exactly the same way as the question in Luke 13.15. If they fell into water, everyone would pull out his son or his



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 211

ox, even on the Sabbath. In this way the objections of the Pharisees against Jesus’s healing activity on the Sabbath, which Luke has called to mind with the introductory παρατηρούμενοι αὐτόν from 6.7, is refuted on the basis of their own Sabbath practice. Matthew 12.11 speaks of a “sheep” that has fallen into a pit, and Luke 13.15 is concerned with the untying of cattle and donkey. Against this background, the question arises of how the human child (υἱός) has come alongside the ox here. This incoherence is removed in some manuscripts by replacing υἱός (thus P45, 75 [A] B W 𝔐 et al.) with ὄνος (‫ א‬K L Ψ et al.) or with πρόβατον (D). But these represent obvious attempts to make easier the lectio difficilior υἱός, which is also better attested. Doering 1999, 458–­59 seeks to resolve the problem by arguing that in the Aramaic there was originally talk only of a beast of burden (‫ )בערא‬that fell into a “cistern” (‫)בירא‬. In part of the “Aramaic oral tradition” this wordplay was then expanded with the similarly sounding ‫“( ברא‬son”). There is a certain plausibility to this. To be sure, the argumentative logic of the rhetorical question presupposes a halakhic practice that is nowhere attested outside of the New Testament. In Qumran the pulling out of household animals that have fallen into a cistern or the like is expressly forbidden; cf. CD XI, 13–­14: “No one should help an animal give birth on the Sabbath”; 4Q265, Fragment 6, 5–­7: “No one should pull up an animal that has fallen into water on the day of the Sabbath” (cf. Doering 1999, 193ff, 231ff). According to b. Shabbat 128b it is at most permitted to enable the animal to rescue itself (see also Bill. I: 629). For Doering 1999, 460 the dictum taken up here reflects “an unburdening practice in a (small) rural milieu . . . in which one is prepared to exempt the Sabbath healing for the benefit of averting economic losses.”

6 The plural πρὸς ταῦτα refers not only to what is said by Jesus but includes the healing action as well. In this way Luke makes clear that in this controversy dialogue too, just as in 5.17–­6.11, the concern was not with a conflict over the question of which norm should be followed but with a demonstration of the superiority of Jesus over his pharisaic critics (see also 20.26). 14.7-­11: “Whoever exalts himself will be lowered” and Vice Versa 7

And he spoke a parable to those invited, when he observed how they sought out the best places, and said to them, 8“When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not recline at the best place, lest—­if someone who is more distinguished than you has been invited by him—­9the one who invited you and him comes and says to you, ‘Make place for this person,’ and you sit in the last place in shame. 10But

212

The Gospel According to Luke

when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that, when your host comes he says to you, ‘Friend, move higher up!’ Then you will have honor in the presence of all your table companions. 11For everyone who exalts himself will be lowered and whoever lowers himself will be exalted.” The subscene consists of a narrative exposition (v. 7), a two-­part admonition speech (vv. 8-­10), which is oriented to the form of the antithetical paraenesis, and a generalizing justification (v. 11). Verses 7-­10 have no synoptic parallel. Verse 7 is ascribed to Luke by most scholars, whereas opinions differ in relation to vv. 8-­10. Did Luke formulate these verses himself (e.g., Braun 1995, 47); do they come from the Christian community (e.g., Bultmann 1995, 108; Zeller 1977b, 69); or do they go back to Jesus (e.g., Marshall)? Verse 11 has an almost verbatim parallel in Luke 18.14 and a clearly recognizable counterpart in Matthew 23.12 (cf. also Matthew 18.4; James 4.10; 1 Peter 5.6). Many assume that the saying was in Q (e.g., Fitzmyer; CEQ; Fleddermann 2005a, 718ff), but it could also be a “Wanderlogion” (Zeller 1977b, 68), i.e., a free-­floating saying. It is conspicuous that it stands in connection with criticism of the Pharisees not only here but also in Luke 18.14 and Matthew 23.12. In Codex D and a few other manuscripts (Φ it sychmg) we find a parallel to vv. 8-­10 after Matthew 20.28. It is conceived as an address to the disciples, and further, it has a different introduction. The formulation there is identical in content to the Lukan version but entirely different from it in wording. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that we are dealing here with an independent variant of the topos of seating order.

In 7 Luke sketches the context of Jesus’s speech—­namely, the efforts of the guests to get the best places at the table. These were the places in immediate proximity to the host or an important guest of honor. The placement at table was an important indicator of status (cf. d’Arms 1990, 308–­ 20; Plutarch, Brutus 34.8; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 12.210; 1Q28a II, 11–­17), and the striving for the most prestigious place is a topos that was widely circulated in ancient literature. Cf. Theophrastus, Characteres 21.1–­2 on the μικροφιλότιμος (“the vain”) and his “striving for honor” (ὄρεξις τιμῆς): “Invited to a dinner he strives to recline next to the one who invited him (παρ’ αὐτὸν τὸν καλέσαντα κατακείμενος)”; Plutarch, Moralia 149a–­b and 615c–­619a with a conversation about whether the host should seat the guests or whether they should seek out their own places; see also J. Martin 1931,135–­36; Braun 1995, 45–­6; Derrett 2002, 153–­54.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 213

In addition to this verse, πρωτοκλισία occurs with this meaning only in Mark 12.39par. Matthew 23.6par. Luke 20.46 (in 2 Maccabees 4.21 it designates something like an accession to power celebration). In v. 7a Luke announces the admonition speech as a παραβολή, although the “world under discussion” (v. 7b) and the “fictional world” (vv. 8-­10) are isotopic. On both levels the concern is with questions of seating order, so that semantic dissonance, which after all brings forth the metaphorical tension, is lacking here. A hermeneutic opening that enables a transfer to other contexts follows only in v. 11 (see there). 8-­10 The content of this sapiental admonition saying corresponds to Proverbs 25.6-­7: “Do not make pretensions before the king and do not stand in the place of the great. For it is better if one says to you ‘Come up to me!’ than if one lowers you in the presence of a great one” (LXX: κρεῖσσον γάρ σοι τὸ ῥηθῆναι ἀνάβαινε πρός με ἢ ταπεινῶσαί σε ἐν προσώπῳ δυνάστου); cf. also the later rabbinic parallels Avot of Rabbi Nathan 25 (Bill. I: 916) and Leviticus Rabbah 1 (105c) (Bill. II: 204). The form is oriented to the schema of antithetic paraenesis (cf. at 21.34-­36). The apotreptic instruction in vv. 8-­9 states what one should not do and the protreptic instruction in v. 10 states what one should do. Both instructions are furnished with an explanation and constructed largely in parallel. They each begin with (1) a description of the situation (ὅταν κληθῇς; v. 8a/v. 10a); on the form (ὅταν + second person + imperative) cf. Matthew 6.2, 5-­6 (with the same antithetical structure); 6.16; Mark 11.25 and often in Egyptian life teachings (cf. in the teaching of the Ptahhotep [trans. Brunner 1988, ad loc.]: 5.76; 7.101; 8.121; 9.133; 11.147; 13.182 and elsewhere). This is followed by (2) the instructions (v. 8b, 10b), which are then (3) justified through an outlook on the respective consequences of the two forms of action—­namely, the action that is to be avoided (vv. 8c-­9c; introduced by μήποτε) and the one that is to be striven for (v. 10c-­e; introduced by ἵνα). The description of these consequences is configured in a parallel manner as well: (a) the host “comes” (ἐλθών/ἔλθῃ) and “will say to you” (ἐρεῖ; v. 9a/10c), (b) the quotation (v. 9b [on δὸς τούτῳ τόπον in this sense cf. Epictetus, Dissertationes 4.1.106] and v. 10d), and (c) the establishment of the result, introduced in each case by τότε, which is described with recourse to the antithetical terms “shame” (αἰσχύνη) and “honor” (δόξα). The entire admonition speech leads to this: sitting at the best place at a table contains the danger of a social loss of prestige, whereas the choice of the last place can lead only to a gain of prestige. Thus, the rationale is based on the question of which behavior results in greater personal advantage. The pragmatic of the argument is thus oriented toward the perspective of individual benefit. The opposition of αἰσχύνη and δόξα comes from the Hellenistic world of values and expresses nothing less than its

214

The Gospel According to Luke

master paradigm (cf. e.g., Demosthenes, Orationes 19.146: ἀντὶ δὲ δόξης αἰσχύνην γεγενῆσθαι [“to come to shame instead of honor”]; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ars rhetorica 7.6 [Usener/Radermacher 1965, 291.15–­16]; Plutarch, Moralia 7d; 822d). However, there is not a word about a reversal of this structure of value; the concern is solely with the question of what hinders the attainment of social recognition and what is conducive to it. 11 is not the application that would make the double scene sketched in vv. 8-­10 into a parable, for as a connective Luke does not use the correlative οὕτως, which would be customary in this case (cf. Luke 15.7par. Matthew 18.14; Luke 12.21; 14.33; 15.10; 17.10; Matthew 12.45; 13.40, 49; 18.35; 20.16; Mark 13.29parr. Matthew 5.16), but the explanatory ὅτι, which designates, as in 18.14c, the general principle (πᾶς) that defines the respective individual cases that have previously been narrated (see also at 19.26). This is why the proverbial saying quoted here, which is possibly taken from Ezekiel 21.31 (see also at 1.52; see further Braun 1995, 47–­48; York 1991, 79–­80), functions not as a recipient of meaning but rather as a provider of meaning. It is used to explain why the κατακλίνειν εἰς τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν (v. 8b) has “shame” as its result, whereas the ἀναπίπτειν εἰς τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον (v. 10b) draws “honor” after it. Whether the passive verb forms, as passiva divina, are intended to express the fact that the principle formulated here “comes from God and has its full effect only eschatologically” (Zeller 1977b, 68, with many others) is uncertain, for this future form could also be gnomic (cf. BDR §349.1), as is often the case with such sayings (cf. the statements with πᾶς ὁ / πάντες οἱ + participle + verbum finitum in the future passive in the New Testament: Matthew 7.26; Luke 20.18; Romans 10.11; 2 Timothy 3.12; and in the LXX: Exodus 29.37; 30.29; 31.14; Leviticus 6.11 and elsewhere). Plus, according to vv. 8-­10, it is none other than the host who lowers those who exalt themselves (v. 9) and exalts those who lower themselves (v. 10c-­e). Beyond this, however, the formulation of this principle also now opens up the two individual scenes sketched in vv. 8-­10 for the transference to other contexts and does, in fact, give Jesus’s admonition speech the character of a παραβολή. The example of a fictional table scene is used to illustrate what applies in general: “Whoever exalts himself is lowered” and vice versa; the relation to God is not, of course, excluded from this. 14.12-­14: The Nullification of the Principle of Symposial Reciprocity 12

And he said also to the one who had invited him, “When you have a midday or evening meal, invite neither your friends nor your brothers, nor your relatives nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you receive a repayment. 13But when you arrange a meal,



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 215

invite the poor, disabled, lame, and blind. 14Then you will be blessed, for they have nothing with which to repay you. For it will be repaid to you at the resurrection of the righteous.” The subscene is constructed in exactly the same manner as vv. 7-­11, and this admonition speech too is oriented to the form of antithetical paraenesis (see above at vv. 8-­10). Verses 12c-­e advise what not to do, and v. 13b advises what to do. The coherence is established by the parallel introductions (v. 12b: ὅταν ποιῇς ἄριστον ἢ δεῖπνον; v. 13a: ὅταν δοχὴν ποιῇς), by the formal symmetry of the two series of four (v. 12c/v. 13b), and by the four uses of the prefix ἀντ(ι) in the description of the consequences of the respective behaviors (v. 12d-­e: ἀντικαλεῖν, ἀνταπόδομα; v.  14b-­c: two instances of ἀνταποδιδόναι) that are to be avoided or strived for. In terms of content we are dealing with a variation of Luke 6.27-­35. Just as the concern there was with the nullification of the principle of ethical reciprocity (cf. especially at vv. 32-­34), so here the principle of symposial reciprocity is annulled. The main word that established coherence there was χάρις (“return” or “restitution”; vv. 32, 33, 34), to which the aforementioned ἀντι-­composites correspond here. Both terms can, of course, also be joined with each other syntagmatically (ἀνταποδιδόναι χάριν; see above at 6.32-­34). 12 ἄριστον (see also 11.37) is the meal at the end of the morning or at midday, whereas the δεῖπνον is the main meal in the late afternoon or in the evening (a discussion of the etymology of the two terms is found in Plutarch, Moralia 726c–­d). The series of people mentioned in v. 12c designates the people who form the immediate social environment of a person. Similar series in Luke 21.16 (γονεῖς, ἀδελφοί, συγγενεῖς, φίλοι), Philo, Legum allegoriae 3.71 (φίλος, συγγενής, ἀδελφός), and Diodorus Siculus 13.28.5 (ἀδελφοί, συγγενεῖς, φίλοι) reveal that “friends,” “brothers” (or “siblings”; see at 18.29-­30), and “relatives” are a common grouping. The fact that the specifying adjective “rich” is added to the “neighbors” expresses the fact that here Luke wants to define the social proximity in an economic manner (cf. by contrast 15.6, 9: “neighbors” alongside “friends” without qualification). The background is not, of course, the demand, which is widespread in ancient symposium literature, to invite only guests that fit with one another so that the meal is a success (on this cf. Braun 1995, 55–­56). Here the “friends” and “brothers,” etc., do not play the role of meal guests but of potential reciprocal inviters, and this means that the instruction relates to the interaction between inviters and invitees within which the alternating invitation functions as an instrument for the exchange (ἀντι-­) of social recognition. The texts mentioned by Braun 1995, 55–­56 are therefore not relevant.

216

The Gospel According to Luke

Verse 12d-­e describes the consequence of this practice, which is to be avoided (μήποτε). That the concern here, as in vv. 8c-­9c, is with an unsalvific consequence is admittedly recognizable only with the help of a detour via v. 14b-­c and Luke 6.24b; 16.25 (see, however, also Zeller 1977b, 70): whoever invites the people mentioned in v. 12c receives his reward already in this world and will go out empty-­handed at the eschatic balancing of conduct and consequence spoken of in v. 14, because he is regarded as already compensated. By contrast, the demand formulated in 13 demands that one invite only such people for a meal who are not in a position to return the favor with a reciprocal invitation and cause the addressee to receive social recognition. The expression δοχὴν ποιεῖν is a Septuagintism, for apart from Luke 5.29 it is attested only in the Septuagint (21.8; 26.30; 1/3 Ezra 3.1; Esther 1.3; 5.4, 8; Daniel 5.1Theodotion) and nowhere else in Greek literature. With a slightly altered sequence this series occurs again in v. 21. Also in 7.22 Luke mentions the πτωχοί, χωλοί, and τυφλοί (for the semantics of the designation πτωχοί see at 6.20) among those who are liberated from their suffering through Jesus’s activity (par. Matthew 11.5). ἀνάπειροι and ἀνάπηροι are used in similar groupings as umbrella terms for people who would be regarded as “disabled” today; cf. Plato, Crito 53a (οἱ χωλοί τε καὶ τυφλοὶ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἀνάπηροι [“the lame and the blind and the other disabled people”]); see also Plutarch, Moralia 194c and the witticism of Diogenes handed down in Diogenes Laertius 6.33: ἀνάπηροι are “not the deaf and blind (κωφοὶ καὶ τυφλοί) but the ones who do not have a bag (οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες πήραν).” M. Avot 1.5 is comparable only in part (it lacks the apotreptic side): “Let your house be wide open; let the poor be your house companions.” 14 The macarism describes the salvific consequence of this action and is meant to motivate one to this action (sapiential parallels in Zeller 1977b, 70). In terms of content it presupposes that the nexus of conduct and consequences functions smoothly, because God guarantees it. God is the logical subject of ἀνταποδοθήσεται, and he will ensure that the good deed that remains unrewarded in this life will find eschatic reward (the same applies, of course, to evil deeds). The proximity to 6.32-­35 makes clear that here we are dealing with an interpretatio sympotica of the demand raised there not to orient oneself toward the principle of reciprocity in one’s social behavior. There, too the “reward” (μισθός) for such behavior is expected from God (6.35c). A sociohistorical interpretation of vv. 12-­14 (cf. Rohrbaugh 1991, 146–­47) places the macarism in the light of the saying of v. 11. Such a perspective can perceive the invitation of the poor and disabled (v. 13) rather than those mentioned in v. 12 as a societal ‘self-­lowering’ that God



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 217

will reward with ‘exaltation’ “at the resurrection of the righteous” (see at 20.34-­35) (see also Tannehill 1992, 1615). 14.15-­24: The Parable of the Rejected Invitation 15

And when one of those who reclined with him at the table heard this, he said to him, “Blessed (is) the one who will eat in the kingdom of God!” 16But he said to him, “A certain man wanted to give a great banquet and invited many people. 17And at the hour of the banquet he sent out his slave to say to those invited, ‘Come, for it is now ready!’ 18And uniformly they all began to excuse themselves. The first said to him, ‘I have purchased a field and must necessarily go out to examine it. I ask you to consider me excused.’ 19And another said, ‘I have purchased five pair of oxen and am now going to examine them. I ask you to consider me excused.’ 20And another said, ‘I have married a woman and therefore I cannot come.’ 21And when the slave returned he reported this to his lord. Thereupon the master of the house became wrathful and said to his slave, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city and bring here the poor and disabled and blind and lame!’ 22And the slave said: ‘Lord, what you have commanded has taken place and there is still room.’ 23And the lord said to the slave, ‘Go out to the ways and fences and compel (them) to come in so that my house becomes full; 24for I say to you: None of those men who were invited will eat from my meal.’” The last subscene consists of an introductory scenic exposition (v. 15) and the reproduction of a parable of Jesus (vv. 16-­24). Jülicher 1976 designated it as a “half-­allegorizing narrative” (418) in which the target domain is superimposed on the source domain, producing all sorts of narrative peculiarities. That “all” (v. 18) of the invitees actually excuse themselves is completely improbable and a very extravagant narrative move (cf. Jülicher 1976, 407–­33). Moreover, the fact that the master of the house thinks that the guests that originally rejected his invitation actually still want to come later (v. 24) would be incomprehensible as a punch line if one does not take into account the fact that an entirely different story is being told. The last of these incoherencies finds a clear correspondence in 13.24-­30 (see also already Jülicher 1976, 416), and in this way the resumption of the topic of 13.29 in v. 15 then also makes clear that in reality the story of God’s invitation to the eschatic meal of salvation is being told in vv. 16-­24. It is debated whether Luke has also allegorically coded the three groups of guests. Widespread above all is the so-­called ‘salvation-­historical’ interpretation that sees “the recognized ‘pious’ in Israel” designated with the

218

The Gospel According to Luke

first group of invitees, “those whose sins are understood as sickness (5.31-­ 32) to whom Jesus has devoted himself in such a friendly manner” with the second invitees, and “the Gentiles” with the third invitees (all quotations in Jülicher 1976, 416–­17; see also Vögtle 1996, 33ff, who then modifies this interpretation: “the Israelites who refuse the Jesus message and the Christ message” / “the previous Gentile mission” / the “continuing Gentile mission”; p. 37). Other interpretations are represented, inter alia, by F. Hahn 1970, 70ff; Dormeyer 1974; L. Schottroff 1987; Snodgrass 1998. The question of the constellation of the figures helps a bit. Unlike many other parables (see at 7.41-­42a), this narrative does not construct a dramatic triangle (contra Harnisch 1985, 245), for no reaction from the second and third groups of invitees is recounted, which is what would actually be necessary to make them into the counter-­twin of the first invitees. Moreover, they never appear as independent narrative figures but are present only in the speech of the host (vv. 21c-­d, 23b-­c). And finally it must also be observed that, in terms of the scene, the narrative always remains only with the host after the refusal of the first invitees. The story does not tell what happens with the commission conveyed in v. 21 (there is a narrative gap between v. 21 and v. 22), and the narrative breaks off after the issuing of the concluding commission in vv. 23-­24. Thus, we are dealing with a binary constellation of figures. At the narrative level only the host and the first invitees are present as interactants. The slave plays the role of the extra: because the two narrative figures do not meet, he must mediate the communication between them. The second and third invitation are meant to illustrate the reaction (sc. the “wrath”; v. 21) of the host to the refusal of his invitation by the first invitees. This view of things is also supported by the fact that ἐκείνων τῶν κεκλημένων (v. 24) refers back to τοῖς κεκλημένοις (v. 17) so that an elegant inclusio is formed. Thus, the second and third invitees do not function as allegorical symbols for specific groups; rather, their invitation illustrates the reaction of the host to the behavior of the first invitees (see also Snodgrass 1998, 198; L. Schottroff 1987, 204: they have “only the negative function of taking away the places of those actually invited”). And the first invitees—­do they at least refer to a specific group? J. A. Sanders 1974 and Snodgrass 1998 bring into play the concept of election bound up with καλεῖν and see “many in Israel, and especially the leaders” designated with the κεκλημένοι (Snodgrass 1998, 197). It speaks against this view that truly “all” (πάντες) refuse the invitation. Thus, the question arises of whether it is the case at all that the first invitees represent a specific group that also exists independently of its invitation. Instead, quite a bit speaks for the view that κεκλημένοι should be understood narrowly (see below at vv. 16, 17) and only designates those who do not accept Jesus’s “invitation” to the eschatic banquet (see also L.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 219

Schottroff 1987, 199). For this reason they are also defined solely by the fact of their being invited and not by a further appellative (v. 16). With the statement in v. 24 it is obviously not Israel that is excluded from salvation but only the group of those who have rejected Jesus’s “invitation.” The parable has a variant in Matthew 22.1-­10. Both narratives are based on one and the same plot, and yet they have only very few phrases in common. It is therefore debated in the literature whether Luke and Matthew found the parable in Q (thus the majority) or whether we are dealing with two tradition-­historically independent versions of the same parable of Jesus (thus, e.g., Linnemann 1960, 247; Ernst; Weiser 1971, 59–­60). There is another counterpart in Gospel of Thomas 64, which shows close points of contact with the Lukan version, especially in the formulations of the excuses. In addition, as in Luke 14.17 (and in contrast to the Matthean version), only one slave is sent out only once. Moreover, the parable in Luke 14.24 and Gospel of Thomas 64.12 ends with the statement that the first invitees, who declined, are now definitively excluded. Against Luke, Gospel of Thomas 64 agrees with the Matthean version that there are not two groups but rather only one group of people invited subsequently. Since nothing speaks for the view that Gospel of Thomas 64 is literarily dependent upon Luke 14.15-­24, it is probable that the plot of the Lukan version reproduces an older stage of the tradition than Matthew 22.1-­10.

15 That Luke has a macarism from the public become an occasion for a saying of Jesus could already be seen in 11.27-­28. Its content is trivial, for to call blessed those who will participate in eschatic salvation is actually not worth mentioning (“to eat bread” takes up again the formulation from v. 1; see further there). But Luke uses the exclamation not only to provide an occasion for the following narrative, but in this way he also conveys to his readers how the following parable should be understood. The macarism thus functions as a hermeneutical reception instruction for the following narrative, and the reference back to 13.29 (“to recline to eat in the kingdom of God”) in 15b (“to eat in the kingdom of God”) makes clear that the banquet spoken of in vv. 16ff is also concerned with the eschatic meal of salvation. Beyond this, however, the entire parable is also set in the light of 13.23-­30 (see also Wendland 1997). 16 The story’s master of action is initially only “a certain man” (for the typically Lukan beginning of a parable with ἄνθρωπός τις see at 10.30). Later the narrator calls him ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης (v. 21b) and ὁ κύριος (v. 23a). This is another way in which he becomes transparent for God. God appears as ἄνθρωπός τις in other parable openings as well (15.11; 20.9). The narrated Jesus configures the exposition of his story in idiomatically flawless Greek; cf. Diphilus Comicus, Fragment 61 (Kock 1880–­1888) (ὅταν με

220

The Gospel According to Luke

καλέσῃ πλούσιος δεῖπνον ποιῶν [“if a rich man who is arranging a banquet invites me”]); Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 7.352 (λαμπρὸν . . . αὐτὸν ποιήσαντα δεῖπνον κεκληκέναι τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ πάντας [“He (Adonia) is said to have given a lavish . . . banquet and invited all his (David’s) sons”]); Joseph and Aseneth 21.8 (Pharaoh ἐποίησε . . . δεῖπνον μέγα . . . καὶ συνεκάλεσε πάντας τοὺς ἄρχοντας γῆς Αἰγύπτου [“gave . . . a great banquet . . . and invited all the rulers of Egypt”]); see also Herodotus 9.15; Polybius 31.13.5; Daniel 5.1Theodotion; and Joseph and Aseneth 20.1 (in each case δεῖπνον μέγα ποιεῖν); Testament of Naphtali 1.2; Mark 6.21; John 12.2. The punctiliar aorist ἐκάλεσεν is part of the process that is designated with the durative imperfect ἐποίει. The banquet is “great,” because “many” are invited to it (see also Jülicher 1976, 409). 17 The practice of initially inviting the guests of a banquet and then calling them to come right before it begins has left traces in other texts as well. In Metamorphoses 3.12.2–­3, Apuleius portrays a scene that not only attests the existence of this invitation practice but also has an at least partially analogous continuation, which has previously been completely overlooked. A famulus comes to the narrator and says: “‘Your aunt . . . convivii, cui te sero desponderas, iam adpropinquantis admonet [reminds you that (the beginning) of the banquet to which you promised to come yesterday has come].’ To this I answered terrified . . . : ‘How much I would like to follow your summons, if my conscience would allow me to. For my host Milo has . . . adjured me and brought it about that I am obligated to eat today with him. . . . Therefore we should postpone the date of the meal (prohinc epulare vadimonium differamus).’” See also Esther 5.8 / 6.14; Philo, De opificio mundi 78 (“The hosts do not call earlier to the meal [οὐ πρότερον ἐπὶ δεῖπνον καλοῦσιν] than when everything required for the meal is well prepared”). Lucian of Samosota, De mercede conductis 14 apparently has a process in view, as this is described in v. 17b (a house slave “comes by and summons . . . to the meal” [παραγγέλλων . . . ἥκειν ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον]); in Terence, Hauton timorumenos 168–­170 the host himself takes over this task: Sed, ut diei tempus est, tempest monere me hunc vicinum Phaniam ad cenam ut veniat; ibo, visam si domist (“But, in view of the time of day, it is time that I summon this neighbor Phania to come to eat; I will go in order to see if he is at home”). This practice probably also stands in the background in Proverbs 9.2-­3LXX: “(Lady Wisdom) has slaughtered the animals for sacrifice, mixed her wine in the cup, and prepared her table. She has sent her slaves and calls together . . . to the cup.”

Despite Hebrews 9.15, οἱ κεκλημένοι can, according to v. 16 (see also vv. 7, 8), only mean “the invitees” (see also 1 Samuel 9.22; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 6.48, 52; 7.350, 360; Revelation 19.19), without a



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 221

reference to Israel’s election faith resonating with it (contra J. A. Sanders 1974; Snodgrass 1998, 196–­97). In the Septuagint it has a theological sense of election only with or as a modifier; cf. Isaiah 48.1 (house of Jacob, οἱ κεκλημένοι τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰσραήλ); Sirach 36.11 (λαὸς κεκλημένος). ἤδη ἕτοιμά ἐστιν (cf. Lucian of Samosata, Tyrannicida 6) may interact with v. 15 and the world under discussion (see also Marshall). As in 13.24, the concern is therefore with responding now—­i.e., in the time of the appearance of Jesus—­to the invitation to the eschatic meal of salvation. This does not yet make the slave of the narrative into an allegorical symbol for Jesus, but in this way the characteristic of making this summons heard is ascribed to Jesus’s proclamation. If so, the concern at the level of the target domain would be with recognizing the soteriological character of the proclamation of Jesus. 18-­20 That all the invitees remain absent from the banquet and give excuses is quite an extravagant narrative move. The three excuses produced in vv. 18b-­20 stand as examples for all excuses (for the narrative principle of the rule of three see at 10.30-­35). That Luke regards them as poor excuses cannot be inferred from the text. What is clear, however, is that he describes the reaction of people who are at least well off (cf. especially Braun 1995, 74ff) and are on the same social and economic level as the host, who is after all in a position to organize a banquet for “many” (v. 16; cf. also v. 12). On the other hand, however, it is also not recognizable that Luke criticizes their economic engagement as such. Rather, their mistake is that they set their priorities in the wrong place and fail to recognize the importance of the summons to come to the banquet that is ready. The reasons for excusing themselves have nothing to do with Deuteronomy 20.5-­7; 24.5 (contra C. F. Evans 574; Ballard 1972; J. A. Sanders 1974, 256–­57 and others; this reference is also not to be rescued as a joke [thus Palmer 1976]; for criticism see also Snodgrass 1998, 191–­92). A banquet is, after all, not as dangerous as a war. ἀπὸ μιᾶς in 18a is a common Greek idiom, which is, to be sure, used in an elliptic manner here (cf. W. Bauer 1988, s.v. ἀπό VI; BDR §2419; Zahn 549 n. 43); γνώμης, ὁρμῆς, γλώσσης, and φωνῆς have been suggested as supplements. As here ἀπὸ μιᾶς is also connected elsewhere with πάντες, and it then makes clear that a great number of people surprisingly do the same thing (e.g., Philo, De decalogo 153; Thucydides 7.71.6 = Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Thucydide 26; Plutarch, Dion 27.5; Cassius Dio 58.10.7). The two identical requests to be excused in 18d and 19c have a good linguistic parallel in Martial, Epigrammata 2.79: “You invite me only if you know, Nasica, that I have called (guests). I ask you to regard me as excused (excusatum habeas me rogo). I am eating at home.” But whether

222

The Gospel According to Luke

it is adequate to regard the formulation as a Latinism (Fitzmyer) is questionable, since it is otherwise not attested (plus, ἔχειν τινά τι in the sense of “consider, regard as” is good Greek; cf. W. Bauer 1988, s.v. ἔχω I.5). The rationale formulated in 20 has intensively engaged the imagination of interpreters; cf., on the one hand, Marshall 589 (“No doubt the banquet would last into the night, and the newlywed bridegroom felt under obligation to sleep with his wife. The importance of begetting a child may be the dominant factor”; or even: “Was the man under his wife’s thumb?”), and, on the other hand, Braun 1995, 78 (“The Lukan newlywed is taking over a woman; he is closing a deal not unlike the men who are finalizing purchases of land and plough animals”). Van Tilborg 2002, 805–­6 advances yet another interpretation: γαμεῖν designates sexual intercourse (in more detail at 17.27), and the answer accordingly wishes to say that the invitee must first take a purification bath and it would then be too late for his participation at the feast. Presumably, it was not without reason that Luke left this question open—­and to the imagination of his readers. 21 The exposition of the second part is formulated in a typically Lukan way, for παραγενόμενος/παραγενόμενοι + verbum finitum is used only by Luke in the New Testament (7.4, 20; Acts 5.21, 22, 25; 9.26; 11.23; 14.27; 15.4; 17.10; 18.27; 23.16; 24.24; 28.21; see also 25.7); outside the New Testament this linguistic use is widespread (as here with following ἀνήγγειλεν/ἀνήγγειλαν also in Acts 5.25; 23.16; 28.21; Genesis 14.13; 26.23; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 12.171; 13.18; Plutarch, Moralia 241c; Joannes Stobaeus, Anthologium III: 39.33 [Wachsmuth/Hense 1958, III: 730.12ff]; see also 1 Maccabees 4.26; Acts 14.27). The reaction of the master of the house is surprising, for the fact that he reacts to such a snub by then having the socially marginalized brought in from the streets (πλατεῖαι καὶ ῥύμαι exists as a lexical pair only in Isaiah 15.3 [and nowhere else; at least according to TLG #E]) goes beyond what readers could expect on the basis of their cultural encyclopedia. The verb εἰσάγειν, which is a Lukanism (nine of the eleven attestations in the New Testament are in Luke–­Acts), does not so much signal the master of the house’s break with societal conventions (contra Green) but takes the narrated situation into account, for after all, “everything is already ready” (v. 17); this is also why the slave should hurry (ταχέως; v. 21c). The listing of the people whom the slave ought to get repeats the catalogue from v. 13 with one insignificant change in the order, and in this way also calls to mind the character of this group mentioned in v. 14. They are the sort of people who are not in a position to answer the invitation with a reciprocal invitation. In both cases “the poor” are mentioned in the first position. For this reason, quite a bit speaks for the view that this designation receives the key function here, as in 6.20, and is concretized through the terms that follow.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 223

Through the reception instruction in v. 15 it is made clear that within the target domain it is not an identification with Gentiles that is intended, but an identification with the ones who, according to 13.29, will come from all directions under heaven to eat in the kingdom of God. On this level the contrast between this group and the first invitees thus falls together with the contrast between the meal participants of 13.29 and the ἐκβαλλόμενοι ἔξω of 13.28. 22 The narrative makes a jump, for it is not narrated that or how the commission is carried out. The narrative only picks up again after the commission has been completed and the slave has returned again to his lord to notify him. The scene’s concentration on the master of the house (sc. God) makes it clear that the narrative is exclusively concerned to illustrate his reaction to the refusal of the first group of invitees. The observation of the slave that “there is still room” (v. 22c) also serves this intention. Here too we are dealing with an extravagant narrative move that seriously strains the cultural knowledge of the fictive hearers or intended readers. Everyone knows that there are more “poor, disabled, blind, and lame” people on the “streets and lanes of the city” than there are people whom a member of the urban upper stratum normally invites to a private banquet, even if this banquet is “great” and “many” are invited (v. 16). In contrast, the remark of the slave suggests that the relationship of the numbers is the opposite. But this inconsistency is accepted because the narrator wants to produce another narrative hub with multiple options for the continuation of the course of action, so that he can continue the narrative a bit further. The continuation in vv. 23-­24 makes clear with sufficient clarity which intention directs this opening of the narrative. 23 The imperative ἔξελθε and the preposition εἰς are repeated from the instruction in v. 21. The “streets and lanes of the city” (v. 21) are replaced by the “ways and fences” (ὁδοὶ καὶ φραγμοί; a combination that is attested nowhere else) as the goal. With this the slave is probably sent outside the city, for φραγμοί probably means “the enclosures of vineyards . . . or gardens,” which are naturally found outside of the city (W. Michaelis, ThWNT 5: 69 with reference to Mark 12.1 par Matthew 21.33). In addition, the exhortation εἰσάγαγε ὧδε (v. 21) is now replaced with ἀνάγκασον εἰσελθεῖν. That the sentence is grammatically incomplete, because the object of ἀναγκάζειν is lacking (see also 1/3 Ezra 3.24; 1 Maccabees 2.25), is to be explained as an ellipsis ἀπὸ κοινοῦ: the missing words “can easily be taken or supplemented from what precedes or follows” (BDR §479.1), and here that would be “the poor and disabled and blind and lame” from v. 21c (the suggestion of Kreuzer 1985, 125 that the slave should be regarded as the elliptical object of ἀνάγκασον is impossible for linguistic reasons). The socially marginal groups are to be brought not

224

The Gospel According to Luke

only from within the city but also from outside of it. That the Gentile mission is in view within the target domain is not recognizable by any stretch of the imagination. Nevertheless, on this level there is talk of the same people who, according to 13.29, come from all directions under heaven in order to participate in the eschatic banquet. Therefore, the announcement formulated in 13.30 also applies to the transposition of the meal participants here: ‘The last will be first and the first will be last.’ In 23c the fetching of the poor, etc., also from outside the city is furnished with a justification that is developed further in 24. The house of the host ought to be full—­not, however, because every unoccupied eating sofa depresses the mood or the like but for the sake of the first invitees. Any thought that they could perhaps still have a possibility of participating in the banquet is excluded a limine. In this cascading chain of justification it is also recognizable that the fetching of the third group also has only the function of taking away the places of the first invitees. This is why explicit reference is made to them again with οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κεκλημένων. The question addressed in the parable thus runs: “What are the consequences of refusing the invitation?” For the reasons mentioned at the outset, the conclusion formulated in 24b is plausible only in the target domain. In v. 24 the two levels are fused with each other in such a way that the “I” of the narrated narrator Jesus and the “I” of God as the organizer of the meal are projected onto each other. As in 11.8; 12.37d, 44, here too, through λέγω ὑμῖν (ὅτι), the narrated situation is read into the situation of the narrative (24a). Here, Jesus thus addresses his hearers (ὑμῖν). In 24b, however, he calls the narrated banquet “my meal” (μοῦ τὸ δεῖπνον) and thereby transfers the narrated events into the world of the narrated hearers. They thus become the ones who find themselves in the rhetorical situation of v. 17b and the ones to whom the parable shows what will happen if they do not respond to Jesus’s invitation to the eschatic meal of salvation. Jülicher 1976 was therefore justified in stating: “One should not overlook the fact that the statement οὐδεὶς . . . γεύσεται formulates the heart of the parable.” 14.25–­18.34: Somewhere on the Way With 14.25 a section begins that reaches to 18.30. The coherence of this part of Luke’s story of Jesus is established by having the two frame pieces refer to each other and in this way form a clear inclusio. At the beginning stands Jesus’s speech about the conditions of discipleship (14.25-­35), and at the end Peter states for all the disciples that they have fulfilled these conditions. Jesus reacts to this with a generalizing (οὐδείς ἐστιν) promise for all those who fulfill it in the same way (18.28-­30). In 18.31-­34, with



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 225

the second announcement of the passion and the resurrection, there then follows a section that reveals to the disciples for the first time that Jesus is on the way to Jerusalem and what awaits him there. It is situated in the same “nowhere” as the preceding section and thus still belongs to this part of the ‘travel narrative.’ Luke only makes a jump in the narrative with v. 35. Luke marks the internal structure by changing the addressees of Jesus’s speeches in a well-­planned way. The section in 14.25-­35 is opened with a speech to the public (ὄχλοι πολλοί; v. 25), in which Jesus prospectively (cf. especially vv. 28-­32) specifies the conditions that everyone who wants to be his disciple must fulfill (vv. 26, 27, 33). After this, the crowd (ὄχλος) disappears from the narrative and does not return again until 18.36. In between the change of listeners repeatedly made by Luke is oriented to the conditions formulated in the opening speech. With a nice regularity the addressees who fulfill the conditions (i.e., the disciples) switch with those who do not fulfill them. 15.1-­32: 16.1-­13: 16.14-­31: 17.1-­10: 17.20-­21:

Pharisees and Scribes Disciples Pharisees Disciples (or apostles from v. 5) Pharisees (with the narrative of the thankful Samaritan [vv. 11-­19] as a foil) 17.22–­18.8: Disciples 18.9-­14: “Some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised the rest” (v. 9); this stance is illustrated by a Pharisee. 18.15-­17: Disciples 18.18-­27: An ἄρχων who cannot separate himself from his money 18.28-­30: The disciples who have left τὰ ἴδια and followed Jesus.

In addition, it is characteristic of this part of the Lukan story of Jesus that not a single episode receives a specific topographical placement. They all take place somewhere on the way of Jesus to Jerusalem. The most concrete is 17.11 (“a village” on Jesus’s way through Samaria and Galilee). This specification, however, should not be placed on the level of the framing narrative; rather, Luke needs it in order to make plausible the appearance of a Samaritan. 14.25-­35: Conditions for Discipleship 25

A great crowd of people went with him. And he turned and said to them: 26“If anyone comes to me and does not reject his father and

226

The Gospel According to Luke

mother and wife and children and brother and sister and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27Whoever does not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28 “For who of you, who wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and reckon the costs, to see if he has (enough) to finish? 29Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and cannot complete (the building), all who look on begin to mock him 30and say, ‘This person began to build and could not complete it.’ 31Or what king goes out to meet another king in battle without first sitting down and considering whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32But if that is not the case—­so long as the other is still far away—­he sends a negotiating delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33In the same way, none of you who does not divest himself of all his possessions can be my disciple. 34 “Salt is something good. But if salt becomes tasteless, with what can it be seasoned? 35It is useful neither for the field nor for the manure pile. One throws it away! The one who has ears to hear should hear!” The rhythm of the speech of Jesus is determined by the thrice-­made formulation of the conditions for entering into discipleship (vv. 26, 27, 33). In all three cases the apodosis is identical in wording (in each case οὐ δύναται εἶναί μου μαθητής), and the materially changing conditions for entry are formulated as negations (v. 26b: τις . . . οὐ μισεῖ; v. 27a: ὅστις οὐ βαστάζει. . . ; v. 33a: ὃς οὐκ ἀποτάσσει . . .). In contrast to the parallel in Matthew 10.37-­39, the addressee of the speech is not the circle of disciples but the crowd. Thus, Luke creates a rhetorical situation in which the act of becoming a disciple still lies ahead, and he has Jesus formulate necessary presuppositions for entering into the circle of his disciples (see also at 9.23). This perspective is also shared by the two parables that are inserted in vv. 28-­30, 31-­32, between the second and third entrance condition. In this speech Luke has joined together material of varied provenance. There is a parallel to vv. 26-­27 in Matthew 10.37-­38, even though the formulations differ greatly in detail. The tradition preserved in Matthew 10.39 (par. Luke 17.33) has probably also left traces in v. 26, for the insertion of τὴν ψυχὴν ἑαυτοῦ to the list of family members cannot be explained otherwise. Thus, it is very likely that Luke reworks material from Q here (see further C. Heil 2003, 97ff; see also Schröter 1997a, 404ff; but cf. also the conspicuous parallels in John 12.25, where there is likewise talk of “hating” [μισεῖν] one’s own life [ψυχή]). In addition, v. 27 has a parallel in Mark 8.24b; we are thus dealing here with a Mark–­Q double tradition (on this see above at 9.23). The parallel handed down in Gospel of Thomas 55 (“The one who does not hate his father and his mother [= μισεῖ;



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 227

Luke 14.26] cannot be my disciple [Luke 14.26]. And the one who does not hate his brother and his sister [Luke 14.26] and does not carry his cross as I do is not worthy of me [= οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος; Matthew 10.38]”) is a combination of the two synoptic versions (see also Gospel of Thomas 101.1). For the tradition-­ historical relationship between vv. 26-­27, 33, on the one hand, and the two parables in vv. 28-­32, on the other hand, the statement of Marshall 594–­95 applies: “The connection of thought could be smoother, and this confirms that originally independent sayings have here been joined together”—­namely, in all likelihood, only by Luke himself. Verses 34-­35b have a parallel in Mark 9.50a-­c, but the agreements with Matthew 5.13 against the Markan text make it probable that Luke reproduces here a Q version of the salt saying: cf. above all μωρανθῇ (v. 34bpar. Matthew 5.13b) against ἄναλον γένηται (Mark 9.50b) as well as the passive ἀρτυθήσεται (v. 34c) and ἁλισθήσεται (Matthew 5.13c) against ἀρτύσετε (Mark 9.50c). οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν (v. 35a)par. εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει (Matthew 5.13d) and ἔξω βάλλουσιν (v. 35b)par. βληθὲν ἔξω (Matthew 5.13d) are without a Markan equivalent. See also Fleddermann 1995, 166–­69; C. Heil 2003, 111ff.

25 The readers know ever since 7.11 that Jesus is accompanied on his way by many people (see also 5.19; 7.9; 8.4; 9.11; 18.36). However, this scenic exposition functions here as a foil for the content of the speech of Jesus. It aims to inculcate the point that simply going along with Jesus (συμπορεύεσθαι) does not yet make one a disciple (μαθητής), because much more is expected from a disciple than from one who simply tags along. 26 For ἔρχεσθαι πρός με, see at v. 27. Here μισεῖν does not designate the emotion of “hating.” Rather, the basis is the Hebrew ‫( ׂשנא‬in the LXX mostly μισεῖν), which designates deliberate decisions that have the semantic connotation of “discard,” “refuse,” “reject.” With this meaning, the verb often describes decisions: God or a human has the choice between two persons or things, and ‫ ׂשנא‬or μισεῖν stand for the side of the decision that is not chosen. The semantic spectrum is marked, on the one side, by the comparative description of Jacob’s relation to Rachel and Leah in Genesis 29.30-­33 (μισεῖν [v. 31, 33] correlates with ἀγαπᾶν μᾶλλον ἤ [v. 30]; see also Deuteronomy 21.15-­17; Judges 15.2; Sirach 7.26LXX) and on the other side by the antithetical statement of Malachi 1.2-­3 (“Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have rejected”; see also Psalm 31.7; 44.8; 97.10; 119.113, 163; Proverbs 8.36; Micah 3.2; Matthew 5.43; Luke 16.13par. Matthew 6.24; Romans 9.13; Hebrews 1.9). The one who “comes to me (sc. Jesus)” (v. 26a) also stands in such a situation of decision—­namely, between his family (v. 26b) and Jesus (“to be my disciple”; 26c).

228

The Gospel According to Luke

Hommel 1983/1984, II: 61 points to a Hellenistic counterpart in Epictetus, Dissertationes 3.3.5–­7: “The good (τὸ ἀγαθόν) is given priority over every family (πάσης οἰκειότητος). I have nothing to do with my father, but (only) with the good . . . When the good is something other than the beautiful and righteous, father and brother and fatherland and all matters disappear.” Cf. also Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 3.111–­113 on the ideal king: in most things he is content with less than the citizens; “only in friendship does he want to have more” (111), and because he “regards friendship as a higher good than kinship (συγγένεια; 113),” “he rejoices if he is loved more by the young than the parents, by the old more than the children. . . .” Philo of Alexandria reports about the Therapeutae that they not only separate from their possessions (τὰ οὐσία), but also “leave brothers, children, wives, parents, the great number of relatives, friendships, the homeland” (De vita contemplativa 18).

It remains open by which actions the decision in favor of discipleship is made visible (cf. the concretization especially in 18.23 [“leaving”], but also in 9.59-­60, 61-­62). With the expansion of the list of family members in 26b (“father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” instead of “father or mother . . . and son or daughter” [Matthew 10.37; probably also Q]) Luke wants here, as then also in 18.29, not to relativize marriage, let alone specifically to exhort one to leave one’s wife (thus, e.g., Klauck 1986, 40ff; Melzer-­Keller 1997, 311ff), but only to express the totality of the intra-­familial relationships. In the form of a climax (contra Nestle/Aland27, ἔτι δὲ καί is to be preferred on the basis of the better manuscript support [𝔓45 ‫ א‬D W Θ Ψ f 1,13 𝔐 et al. against B L Δ 33.892 pc for ἔτι τε καί]), one’s own life (on ψυχή in this sense see at 6.9) is also included in this constellation and placed on the side that is not chosen. For a further specification in terms of content, reference can be made to 9.24: “to reject one’s life” is exactly the opposite of “to want to save one’s life”; John 12.25 (“Whoever loves one’s life [ψυχή] loses it; and whoever rejects one’s life [ψυχή] in this world will preserve it to eternal life [ζωὴ αἰώνιος]”) can be read as a connecting link between Luke 9.24 and 14.26. 2 Sam 5.8LXX describes with οἱ μισοῦντες τὴν ψυχὴν Δαυίδ the enemies of David, and elsewhere “to hate one’s ψυχή” designates a behavior as self-­destructive, which flouts the order given by God or simply only sapiential rules of prudence: PsalmLXX 10.5 (“Whoever loves unrighteousness μισεῖ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν”); Proverbs 15.32 (“Whoever rejects παιδεία μισεῖ ἑαυτόν [MT: ‫]מֹואס נַ ְפׁשֹו‬, ֵ but the one who takes correction to heart ἀγαπᾷ ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ”); see also 8.36. The assumption that Luke took this intensification from the Socratic tradition (thus Hommel



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 229

1983/1984, II: 42ff, 58ff) is completely improbable, and not just on account of these parallels.

27 For the origin and understanding of the exhortation to “carry one’s cross” (as here with βαστάζειν also in Artemidorus, Onirocriticon 2.56 [Pack 1963, 185.6–­7]) see at 9.23. Contra Bock II: 1284, there exists between ἔρχεσθαι πρός με (v. 26a) and ἔρχεσθαι ὀπίσω μου (v. 27a) precisely the difference that Luke is concerned to explain here: the ὄχλοι and the rich ἄρχων from 18.18 also do the former, without already becoming disciples in doing so; by contrast, the latter means nothing less than “following after” Jesus (ἀκολουθεῖν; cf. especially the coordination of these two formulations in 9.23par. Matthew 16.24). 28-­32 The two parables of tower construction (vv. 28-­30) and warfare (vv. 31-­32) belong to the τίς (ἐξ ὑμῶν) parables (see at 11.5). These are formulated as rhetorical questions, with regard to which it is clear from the beginning how they are to be answered. No one among the hearers or readers would act differently in the two narrated situations than the two figures of the narrative (Jülicher 1976, II: 202: “None of you, of course, will do this not in this way, i.e., in such a case everyone will act in the way that I describe”). Furthermore, they belong to the “double examples,” which are typical for the Lukan narration (Morgenthaler 1948, I: 60; see also 4.25-­27; 11.31-­32; 12.24, 27; 12.54-­55; 13.18-­21; 15.4-­10; 17.26-­29, 34-­35 as well as 3.12-­14; 13.1-­5; see also section 4.4.3 in the commentary introduction). Both parables are one-­person pieces and are constructed in a parallel manner: (a) Exposition with τίς + description of intention in the form of an attributive participle in the present, on which an aorist infinitive is dependent: θέλων . . . οἰκοδομῆσαι (v. 28a); πορευόμενος . . . συμβαλεῖν (v. 31a). (b) Partially identical (οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας + verbum finitum + εἰ) description of the action with which the project begins in both cases: the scrutinizing of whether it can be accomplished (vv. 28b-­c, 31b-­c); the object of the testing is in both cases the means that are at the protagonist’s disposal. (c) Description of the consequences with different points of reference: vv. 29-­30 sketch the consequences that could result if the testing is not carried out; by contrast, v. 32 describes the reaction of the protagonist when the testing shows that his means for a successful carrying out of the project are insufficient. Both parables illustrate the same thing that Epictetus, Dissertationes 3.15.1 demands: “Look at the beginning and the consequences of every undertaking and act accordingly. Otherwise you will proceed energetically at the beginning

230

The Gospel According to Luke

because you have considered none of the subsequent problems. But afterwards, when some of them crop up, you will give up in shame (αἰσχρῶς ἀποστήσῃ).” In Dissertationes 3.15.8–­13 Epictetus applies this principle to the wish of many people to become a philosopher: “Human, look first at what kind of task this is (σκέψαι πρῶτον τί ἐστὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα), and then your own φύσις, what you are able to bear (τί δύνασαι βαστάσαι). . . . Do you think that as a philosopher you can do the same things as now? Do you think that you can eat in the same way, drink in the same way, be angry in the same way, and be discontented in the same way? One must then remain awake, endure discomforts, conquer certain desires, leave the family (ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκείων), be despised by a young fellow . . . Make that all clear to yourself and if you regard it as right (εἴ σοι δοκεῖ), proceed . . . ; otherwise, do not proceed (εἰ δὲ μή, μὴ πρόσαγε).” Cf. also Dissertationes 3.22.9–­ 12 and Philo, De Abrahamo 105: Before peace-­loving virtue takes up the fight against vice, it first checks its power, and only if it is sufficient for victory does it take up the fight; otherwise it leaves it be (τῆς ἰδίας δυνάμεως ἀποπειρᾶσθαι πρότερον, ἵν,’ εἰ μὲν. . . , εἰ δ’ . . .).

The meaning of the double parable in the context of the reported speech of Jesus is clear, even though it can be recognized only indirectly. If one of the many who go along with him (v. 25) wants to become Jesus’s disciple, then he should “first” (πρῶτον)—­and that means: prior to entering into discipleship—­test whether he is able to take upon himself the consequences described in vv. 26-­27, 33. This thrust converges with the pragmatics of the three scenes on discipleship in 9.57-­62. Interpretations that relate the tower builder and the king to God or Jesus (e.g., Hunzinger 1960, 212ff; Jarvis 1965/1966; Fletcher-­Louis 2000) founder on the fact that the renunciation of the project is also offered as an option. Whether Luke wanted to let the two parables also point to the narrative-­external context of his present is anything but certain, since the intended readers of his story of Jesus are already Christians and thus find themselves in another rhetorical situation than the narrated hearers. And the suggestion that Luke had in mind readers “who are still considering becoming members of the community of Jesus Christ” (Heininger 1991, 139) is even more unlikely. 28 On ψηφίζειν τὴν δαπάνην cf. Anthologia Graeca 11.172 (“Aulus the miser drowned his newborn child, ψηφίζων αὐτοῦ σῳζομένου δαπάνας [after he had calculated how expensive it would be alive]”); SGUÄ 11371.13–­15 (ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ἐψηφισμένης . . . κοινῆς δαπάνης [“from the calculated . . . common money for spending”]); Lysias, Orationes 30.19 (only carry out such offerings ἃ ὁ δῆμος ἐψηφίσατο καὶ δυνησόμεθα δαπανᾶν ἐκ τῶν προσιόντων χρημάτων [“which the people have resolved and that we can pay from the previous revenues”]).



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 231

29-­30 The telic clause ἵνα μήποτε . . . ἄρξωνται is syntactically dependent on ψηφίζει τὴν δαπάνην and describes the reason that causes the builder to begin his project with a calculation of the costs. It is of some interest that the narrator places not the financial damage but the mocking in the foreground. He thus regards the social loss of prestige to be more severe than the financial loss. 31 The concern is with a king who is attacked by another king with an army (ἔρχεσθαι ἐπί τινα in this sense also in 1 Maccabees 5.39; 8.4) that is double the size of his own (on ἐν δέκα χιλιάσιν ὑπαντῆσαι cf. the linguistic analogy in 1 Maccabees 4.29; see also 5.39); he considers whether under these circumstances he can seek the military confrontation with some prospect of success (on συμβάλλειν . . . εἰς πόλεμον in this sense see also 1 Maccabees 4.13, 34; 10.78; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 6.79; 12.222; Historia Alexandri Magni Recensio β [Bergson 1965] 2.9: συνέβαλλον δὲ ἀλλήλοις εἰς πόλεμον [“They met together with one another for war”]). 32 narrates what the king does when he comes to the conclusion that he cannot win the battle (εἰ δυνατός ἐστιν is elliptical and takes up εἰ δυνατός ἐστιν from v. 31c; see also Matthew 6.1; Luke 5.36, 37; 10.6; 13.9). In the Septuagint ἐρωτᾶν (τὰ) εἰς εἰρήνην means so much as “to wish one luck,” “to greet” (Heb.: ‫;ׁש ַאל ְל ָׁשלֹום‬ ָ cf. Judges 18.15; 1 Samuel 10.4; 25.5; 30.21; 2 Samuel 8.10; 11.7; 1 Chronicles 18.10; PsalmLXX 121.6; see also BDR §1552). On the other hand, Testament of Judah 9.7 (“αἰτοῦσιν ἡμᾶς τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην [They beseeched us for peace], and after we had consulted with our fathers we accepted them as people obligated to pay a tribute”) establishes that the delegation (πρεσβεία is a metonymic abstractum pro concreto) sent out in v. 32b has the task of signaling readiness to submit. 33 οὕτως introduces the application (see also 12.21; 15.7-10; 17.10; 21.31) with which the central point of the narrative is transferred to the world under discussion. This transfer is also facilitated by the fact that with πᾶς ἐξ ὑμῶν a connection is made to the address of the hearers in the first parable (τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν; v. 28a). De facto, however, another condition for entering the circle of the disciples of Jesus is formulated, which is similar to the conditions of vv. 26, 27, even with regard to the wording. The fact that the uncompromising abandonment of all one’s possessions (on ὑπάρχοντα, see at 8.2-­3) belongs to the identity-­forming marks of being a disciple and following Jesus is familiar to the readers already since 5.11, 27-­28; 12.33 (see then also 18.22, 29; many therefore regard this verse as a Lukan creation). This statement overlaps with the central point of the double parable in that one should only attach oneself to Jesus as a disciple if a careful self-­examination has shown that one is willing and able to abandon one’s possessions.

232

The Gospel According to Luke

34-­35 The parabolic saying about salt is also related to the disciples in Matthew 5.13 and Mark 9.50. For the opening statement of v. 34a cf. above all Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 31.88: “Without salt there is no life fit for humans.” The imagery of vv. 34b-­c has been much discussed, for salt can never actually lose its saltiness due to its chemical properties. This subject matter is thematized by b. Bekorot 8b: “R. Joshua ben Hanania was asked: ‘With what does one salt salt if it becomes bad smelling?’ He answered: ‘With the afterbirth of a mule.’—‘Does a mule have an afterbirth?’—‘Can salt become bad smelling?’” The strange μωραίνειν (“to become stupid”) in this passage is usually explained as an error in translation. The Hebrew adjective ‫ּתפל‬ ֵ can mean either “tasteless” and “flavorless” (cf. Job 6.6: “Is one tasteless without salt?” [‫י־מ ַלח‬ ֶ ‫)]היֵ ָא ֵכל ָּת ֵפל ִמ ְּב ִל‬ ֲ or “stupid” and “foolish” (cf. Lamentations 2.14: “Your prophets have seen what is false and stupid for you” [‫ביאיִ ְך ָחזּו ָלְך ָׁשוְ א‬ ַ ְ‫ ;]נ‬see also ‫ ִּת ְפ ָלה‬in Job 1.22; 24.12; Jeremiah 23.13). In light of this, the idiomatically correct translation would then be preserved in Mark 9.50 with ἄναλον. This detour is not required, however, for the same also applies for the Greek adjective μωρός, which not only can mean “stupid,” “foolish,” but is also applied to food, in which case it then means something like “tasteless” or “flavorless.” In a fragment from a comedy, ἁλμυρόν (“salty”) and μῶρον form a contrast (Kock 1880–­1888, Fragment 596: μήθ’ ἁλμυρὸν εἶναι μήτε μῶρον [“to be neither salty nor stupid”]); cf. also F. Hauck, ThWNT 4: 837.

Colossians 4.6 makes a complementary metaphorical predication, according to which speech ought to be “seasoned with salt” (λόγος . . . ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος; see also Diogenes Laertius 4.67: the manner of speech of the academic is “unsalted” [ἀνάλιστος]). If there is ‘salted speech,’ there can, of course, also be ‘foolish salt.’ ἀρτυθήσεται (34c) ensures that the concern is with the use of salt as seasoning (see also Moultοn/Milligan 1963, 80); Dioscurides Pedanius, De materia medica 2.147.1 [τοῖς ἀρτυτοῖς ἁλσί]). The interesting question, of course, is whether and how salt can lose its saltiness at all. A plausible explanation is found in Jeremias 1977, 169: According to him, what was regarded as “salt” in antiquity and used as such contained a much smaller proportion of pure sodium chloride (NaCl) than today. Rather, to a great extent it contained “foreign elements (magnesia, lime, plant remains), which were left over when the salt was dissolved by moisture over time” (see also Deatrick 1962; Bergier 1989). This remainder was still called salt and perhaps still looked like it; but this “salt” had lost the taste of salt.

The subject of ἀρτυθήσεται in 34e is unquestionably the salt, and the answer to the rhetorical question can only be “with nothing!”, for salt that



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 233

has lost its saltiness never gets it back again. 35a corresponds to εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει (Matthew 5.13d), but is formulated more vividly—­“salt” that consists only of its foreign elements cannot even be used as manure. One can only throw it away. For the meaning “manure” for κοπρία and cognates, cf. above all 13.8, but see also 2 Kings 9.37 (ὡς κοπρία ἐπὶ προσώπου τοῦ ἀγροῦ [“as manure on the surface of the field”]); Jeremiah 32.33LXX (εἰς κόπρια ἐπὶ προσώπου τῆς γῆς [“as manure on the face of the earth”]); Xenophon, Oeconomicus 20.3 (ἀγαθόν ἐστι τῇ γῇ κόπρον μιγνύναι [“It is good to mix manure with the earth”]); information on realia in Gressmann 1911, 156–­57; Deatrick 1962, 45.

Within the literary context this parabolic saying makes good sense as a warning for all those in the crowd who want to become disciples of Jesus without being clear about the consequences specified in vv. 26, 27, 33. Every disciple who does not stay the course but makes compromises is like salt that has lost its saltiness, and he or she is threatened with a comparable fate. The rigorism of this parabolic saying was originally intended primarily to furnish the socially deviant ethos of the itinerant-­charismatic Jesus movement with additional authority and in this way to stabilize the group. For Luke the parabolic saying has become a component of the image of Jesus and the image of the disciples. It intends to show how demanding and uncompromising the demands were that Jesus required of his disciples—­and that they fulfilled. For the call to attentiveness in 35c see at 8.8c-­d. 15.1-­32: The Controversy Dialogue over the Repentance of Tax Collectors and Sinners

The readers notice that a new scene begins only via the change of narrative figures. “Tax collectors and sinners,” on the one hand, and “Pharisees and scribes,” on the other hand, are singled out from the ὄχλοι πολλοί (14.25) and brought together with Jesus. In vv. 2-­3 Luke makes the latter the addressees of the speech of Jesus, which begins in v. 4. In terms of place and time, the scene is situated at an undefined time and place on the way to Jerusalem. Luke has combined three fictional narratives into a parable speech (παραβολή; v. 3) and through the addition of a narrative exposition (vv. 1-­3) he has given the entire text the form of a controversy dialogue (detailed elucidation in Wolter 2002b, 25ff). He first sketches a starting situation (v. 1) and then produces a conflict situation. For this he has antagonists turn up, who criticize the behavior of Jesus (v. 2). In response,

234

The Gospel According to Luke

Jesus answers not with a short dictum as is usually the case but with a longer speech (vv. 4-­32). With the help of an interjection (εἶπεν δέ; v. 11) Luke divides the speech into two parts. The first part consists of the double parable of the lost sheep and the lost drachma (vv. 4-­10; the transition between them is marked only by a copulative ἤ [“or”] from the side of the narrator of the parable). The second part consists of the parable of the prodigal son (vv. 11-­32). For the structural correspondence with 13.1-­9, which Farmer 1961/1962, 305–­6 observed, see at 13.1-­9. The coherence of the entire speech is produced by the pair of terms “losing–­finding” (ἀπόλλυμι–­εὑρίσκω; vv. 4b, d, 5a, 6c / vv. 8a-­b, d, 9a, c / vv. 24a, 32b) and by the connection of the pair of terms via the key word “joy” (χαρά/χαίρω/συγχαίρω; vv. 5, 6b, 7a / vv. 9b, 10b, 32a). Both parts of the parable speech are related to each other in that they display a reciprocal tension between the narrated event and its interpretation. The applications of the first two parables each speak with the same wording of the joy “over one sinner who repents” (ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι; vv. 7, 10), though it is previously stated that sheep and drachma were “found” (vv. 4c-­d, 8c-­d). In the parable of the prodigal son the exact opposite applies. Although he is also “lost” (ἀπόλλυμαι; v. 17), he is not “found” like the sheep and drachma (vv. 24, 32). Rather, he repents (see at v. 17). By having the father interpret the story of his younger son as “lost–­found,” it is placed in the hermeneutical light of the first two parables. Furthermore, with the help of the words “sinner” (ἁμαρτωλός; vv. 7b, 10c) and “I have sinned” (ἥμαρτον; vv. 18b, 21b) the two parts of the speech are connected with the scenic exposition (two times ἁμαρτωλοί: vv. 1a, 2b). Furthermore, an essential element of coherence is the repetition of the constellation of v. 2 (the Pharisees and scribes criticize Jesus) in the older son’s criticism of the father (vv. 29-­30), which Luke has the father conclusively answer (vv. 31-­32). He thus constructs a controversy dialogue within the controversy dialogue and imports the constellation of the narrative setting into the metaphorical narrative. In this respect, it is actually the father who in vv. 31-­32 answers the accusations of the Pharisees and scribes against Jesus. Thus, Luke places the parable of the prodigal son not on the same textual level as the first two parables but on the level of the two applications (vv. 7, 10). In none of the parables are conscious intertextual references to specific Old Testament texts and materials recognizable (see also at vv. 4a-­d and vv. 20b-­21).



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 235

15.1-­3: Exposition 1

And the tax collectors and the sinners were continually coming to him in order to listen to him. 2And the Pharisees and scribes grumbled and said, “This one receives sinners and eats with them.” 3Thereupon he told them the following parable speech: The narrative introduction, which was probably configured by Luke himself, is not only intended to join the three parables with the narrative frame. It also has the important function of providing the parables, which originate from different contexts of tradition, with a common context and thus to place them under a unified hermeneutical perspective, that is, Jesus’s conflict with the Pharisees and scribes over his behavior toward tax collectors and sinners. This is not to say that this contextualization also corresponds to the historical situation in which Jesus originally told the parables. The introduction reveals only how Luke wanted the three parables to be understood as a part of the story of Jesus. 1 describes the cause of the controversy dialogue in a generalizing manner. The coniugatio periphrastica (in a comparable position also in 5.29; 11.14; cf. BDR §353; for its use in the Gospel of Luke see Verboomen 1992) and the hyperbolic πάντες (see also 3.15-­16; 4.15; 5.17 and elsewhere) transcend the situation and make it into a typical occurrence. Luke uses it in a comparable position, i.e., as an element of the exposition of a controversy dialogue, also in 5.29 (diff. Mark 2.15) and 11.14. The fact that people come to Jesus in order “to hear” (him or the word of God) is also a typical element of Jesus’s public activity in Luke (cf. 5.1, 15; 6.18, 47; 21.38). Likewise the appearance of “tax collectors and sinners” produces déjà vu, for their nearness to Jesus is also already known to the readers (cf. 5.29-­32; 7.34, 36-­39; on the tax collectors see at 3.12, on “tax collectors and sinners” see at 5.30 and 18.10). What is new is only the fact that here this lexical pair is used for the first time as part of the narrator’s language, for it was previously found only in the mouth of critics of Jesus (5.30; 7.34; in 5.29 Luke reformulated Mark 2.15). In this way Luke directs the expectation of the readers in a certain direction and this is also immediately confirmed by the next verse. 2 The following points call to mind the controversy dialogue of Luke 5.27-­32: (a) the opposition of the umbrella terms “tax collectors and sinners,” on the one side, and “Pharisees and scribes,” on the other side (5.30 diff. Mark 2.16); (b) the διαγογγύζειν of the latter (5.30: ἐγόγγυζον; see then also 19.7); and (c) their criticism of the table fellowship of Jesus with sinners, which was not mentioned at all in v. 1. By directing the vision beyond the individual situation and to texts from the beginning of his

236

The Gospel According to Luke

story of Jesus (in addition to 5.27-­32, esp. 7.34, 39), Luke has the Pharisees and scribes here pronounce something like a general criticism of Jesus’s behavior. One can best explain προσδέχεσθαι from συνεσθίειν, for also in texts outside the New Testament it often stands in connection with σύν-­statements and designates then the establishment of a fellowship (e.g., Plato, Leges 708a: προσδέχεσθαι συνοίκους [“to receive as fellow inhabitants”]; Plutarch, Moralia 777b: προσδέχεσθαι καὶ συνεῖναι [“receive and live together”]; Polybius 21.25.2: προσδέξασθαι . . . εἰς τὴν συμμαχίαν [“to receive . . . into alliance”]). Plutarch’s report about the Spartan table companionship (συσσίτια) and their practice when new members were admitted (Lycurgus 12.5–­6) is instructive for the meaning of the verb in Luke 15.2. The Syssites who are already present vote on the application for admission, and even if there is only a single vote in opposition “they do not admit the candidate” (οὐ προσδέχονται τὸν ἐπεισιόντα). Both προσδέχεσθαι and συνεσθίειν are often connected outside the New Testament with φίλος and cognates (cf., on the one hand, Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 14.354; Plutarch, Lycurgus 12.6; Diodorus Siculus 11.61.2; 80.4; 15.46.2; 16.79.1, and, on the other hand, Aesop, Fabulae, Hausrath/Hunger 1970, 35.3; Plutarch, Moralia 697d; Lucian of Samosata, De parasito 22). Thus, Luke has Jesus’s opponents concretize the general accusation already pronounced in 7.34 (namely that Jesus is a “friend of tax collectors and sinners”).

3 Luke turns over the floor to Jesus and introduces in this way, despite the singular παραβολή, the whole parable speech. 15.4-­10: The Double Parable of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Drachma 4

“What person among you who has a hundred sheep and loses one of them does not leave the ninety-­nine in the wilderness and go after the lost one until he finds it? 5And when he has found it he places it on his shoulders and rejoices. 6And when he comes home he calls together the friends and neighbors and says to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep, which was lost.’ 7I say to you: in the same way there will be joy in heaven over a single sinner who repents—­(more) than over ninety-­nine righteous who need no repentance. 8 “Or what woman who has ten drachmas, if she loses a drachma, does not light a lamp and sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds (it)? 9And when she has found (it), she calls her female friends and female neighbors together and says: ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the drachma, which I had lost.’ 10Likewise, I say to you, there is joy among the angels of God over one single sinner who repents.”



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 237

Both τίς (ἐξ ὑμῶν) parables (on this, see at 11.5) are formulated as rhetorical questions whose answer is clear from the beginning. No one among the hearers or readers would act differently than the two narrative figures in the two narrated situations. Similar pairs of parables are found in Matthew 13.44-­46; Luke 13.18-­21par; 14.28-­32; but cf. also the rest of the “double examples,” which are typical for the Lukan narration (Morgenthaler 1948, I: 60): 4.25-­27; 11.31-­32; 12.24, 27; 12.54-­5; 13.1-­5; 14.28-­32; 17.26-­ 29, 34-­35 as well as 3.12-­14 (see also section 4.4.3 in the commentary introduction). There is a special formal closeness to the double parable of tower construction and warfare (14.28-­32), insofar as both here and there the first parable is introduced by τίς . . . ἐξ ὑμῶν (14.28a/15.4a) and Luke attaches the second parable with ἢ τίς + appellativum (14.31: “king”; 15.8: “woman”). The two parables are constructed in a parallel manner. They first sketch (a) a starting situation, which in both cases consists of a quantified specification of possessions (v. 4a/v. 8a; ἔχειν both here and there), then let (b) a problem situation arise (in each case one portion of the possessions is lost; v. 4b/v. 8b), and narrate thereafter (c) the resolution of the problem situation through actions that lead to the finding again of what was lost (v.  4c-­e/v.  8c-­d). A (d) detailed description of the reaction triggered by the finding again of what was lost concludes the two narratives (vv. 5-­6/v. 9). The narrated narrator then lets (e) an application follow (v. 7/v. 10). The parable of the lost sheep (vv. 4-­7) has a parallel in Matthew 18.12-­14, where it is told not to the Pharisees and scribes but to the disciples. The majority view is that Luke found the parable in Q (contrast, e.g., Luz 1985–­2002, III: 26; Marshall; Forbes 2000, 114), with debate over which addressee the parable had here—­the disciples as in the Gospel of Matthew or the Pharisees and scribes as in the Gospel of Luke (the CEQ places it with P. Hoffmann and J. M. Robinson between Matthew 17.1-­2 and Matthew 17.3-­4, whereas J. S. Kloppenborg and Fleddermann 2005a, 906 place it between Q 14.35 and Q 16.13; cf. CEQ 480). The version handed down in Gospel of Thomas 107 is probably a further development of the synoptic versions, for the narrative is oriented not to the shepherd but to the sheep. Another question is whether Luke also took the parable of the lost drachma (vv. 8-­10) from Q (thus, e.g., J. M. Robinson and J. S. Kloppenborg in CEQ 484ff) or whether he knew it as a separate tradition (thus, e.g., Fitzmyer; P. Hoffmann according to CEQ 484; C. Heil 2003, 154–­55; Fleddermann 2005a). This question is, of course, unanswerable.

4a-­d The logic of the rhetorical question presupposes that the narrator is certain of the answer of his hearers: everyone would take these same steps to resolve the problem situation. This applies also for the leaving of

238

The Gospel According to Luke

the flock “in the wilderness” (v. 4c). This element stands here at the same position as the lighting of the lamp and sweeping of the house in the parable of the lost drachma (v. 8c). This lets one conclude that this narrative feature has the narrative function of illustrating the special engagement of the owner of the flock for the one lost sheep. For the reasons mentioned at 1.80 ἔρημος should not be translated with “desert.” In addition, this narrative feature makes the widespread assumption that the imagery of the parable is intended to allude to God as the shepherd of Israel unlikely (so often with reference to Psalm 23.1-­3; 119.176; Jeremiah 23.1-­8; Ezekiel 34.11-­16), for the leaving of sheep by shepherds is as negatively charged (cf. Zechariah 11.17; John 10.12) as the fact that God “left” Israel in the wilderness (καταλείπειν; cf. Numbers 32.15; 2 Esdras 19[= Nehemiah 9].19). The argumentative strategy of the narrative is based on the contrast between a great and a small number, and it juxtaposes two systems of value. The smaller value of the smaller number (on the relation 1:99 in analogous rabbinic narratives cf. Bill. I: 784–­85) is not only balanced out, but is even surpassed through a criterion from another symbolic universe. It is the fact that the one sheep is lost that makes it more valuable than the ninety-­nine sheep that are not lost. Thus, what is up for debate is the dominance of the systems of value. Related to the context narrated in vv. 1-­2, this means that with the help of the parable Jesus’s critics are led into the neutral territory of a world of value in which the concern is not with “sinners” but with “the lost.” 4e and εὑρών at the beginning of v. 5 mark the peripety, and this is followed by the description of the reaction that the finding again of the lost sheep triggers. The notice that the shepherd puts the found-­again sheep on his shoulders is meant to illustrate his affection and care for it. This is a motif that is attested already in Near Eastern iconography as a representation of a person carrying a (ram-­)offering (cf. Parot 1939, 171–­82). In the imperial period it had become a widespread “expression and symbol of the care of the shepherd as such” (Klauser 1958, 30; see also Veyries 1884; V. Muller 1944). Correspondingly, a bucolic catalogue of professional duties for shepherds in Calpurnius, Eclogues 5.39–­41 states, “You should not be ashamed (te quoque non pudeat) . . . to carry on your shoulders (umeris portare tuis) a sheep that lies around powerless because it has just given birth.” According to Exodus Rabbah 2 (68b), the love of the shepherd for his flock is recognizable therein.

The postpositive participle χαίρων shows that this action is meant to be understood as an expression of the joy of the shepherd. This introduces the term that Luke makes into the keyword for the finale of the narrative and



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 239

of the application and that he characterizes as an appropriate reaction to the finding again of that which was lost. 6 There are two narrative gaps in this verse. Luke does not report what happens with the sheep that is found again, and he also does not narrate further that—­or whether—­the “friends and neighbors” (on this lexical pair see, e.g., also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 1.176; 18.276; Plutarch, Cicero 7.2; Fragment 48.3 [Sandbach 1969]; Epictetus, Dissertationes 2.4.3; Anthologia Graeca 8.97) accepted the invitation to συγχαίρειν with the shepherd nor, if they did, wherein the common joy of all then came to expression. Rather, the shepherd alone stands in the focus of the narrative, and in this it becomes recognizable that Luke is exclusively concerned with showing how extraordinarily great his joy is. 7 In the application, the symbolic universes of the parable, on the one hand, and the context, on the other hand, are joined with each other. From the parable Jesus takes up the key word “joy” (χαρά) as well as the relation 1:99, and from the context the appellative “sinner” (ἁμαρτωλός). The “lost” (ἀπολωλός) of the parable is thereby transformed back into the “sinner” (ἁμαρτωλός) of the context, and the “finding again” (εὑρίσκειν) of the lost corresponds to the “repenting” (μετανοεῖν) of the sinner. This decoding transfers the narrated events to the level of meaning of the relation to God (this is represented by ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) and formulates an analogy between the earthly and heavenly world. As humans here rejoice over the finding again of only one single lost sheep, so everybody rejoices there over the repentance of only one single sinner. Jesus’s critics should thus be prompted to look at “sinners” as “lost.” Now, Luke certainly did not want to impute to the Pharisees and scribes the opinion that there is no rejoicing in heaven over the repentance of a sinner (cf. already Deuteronomy 30.8-­10). With regard to the description of the starting scene in vv. 1-­2, the central point of the application consists rather in the fact that there the concern is with Jesus. The coming of tax collectors and sinners to Jesus and his table fellowship with them is presented as an event of repentance that triggers the same joy in God’s heavenly world as the joy that ensues at the finding again of what is lost. Thus, a christological thesis is included in the application’s back reference to the starting scene: the encounter with Jesus has a significance that reaches to heaven. The particle ἤ in 7c has comparative meaning (cf. BDR §245.3b) and is not intended as a devaluation of the “righteous, who have no need of repentance.” There is, of course, also joy in heaven over them. Rather, the parable has the rhetorical function of further underlining the extraordinary greatness of the joy over the repenting sinner. It thus takes up the narrative move of v. 4c-­d, according

240

The Gospel According to Luke

to which the shepherd “leaves behind” the ninety-­nine sheep who are not lost in order to “go after” the one lost sheep.

8a-­c corresponds to v. 4a-­d (see above): starting situation (8a), problem situation (8b), and resolution (8c); a parallel to the use of this imagery within a parable is found in the Midrash on Song of Songs (Shir ha-­Shirim Rabbah 1.1 [79b]; Bill. II: 212), but that was not written until the middle of the sixth century CE. Unlike in the parable of the lost sheep, the parable in vv. 8-­10 neither works with a contrast between great and small numbers nor does it implement a reversal of values. Rather, the engagement for the lost results from the numerical relation, for the woman has, after all, lost ten percent of her assets. Hence, in the movement from the first to the second parable there occurs an intensification effect. Whoever affirmed the engagement of the shepherd for the benefit of the lost on the basis of the ratio of 1:99 (and the parable starts from this assumption) will certainly affirm the engagement of the woman on the basis of the ratio of 1:9. The adverb ἐπιμελῶς characterizes the efforts of the woman in discursive speech and corresponds to the narrative characterization in v. 4c (cf. Spicq 1994, II: 47ff). The drachma was a Greek silver coin and is mentioned in the New Testament only here, whereas the “double drachma” (δίδραχμον) appears twice in Matthew 17.24. One hundred drachma corresponded to one mina (μνᾶ; see at 19.13), and six thousand drachma were a “talent” (τάλαντον; Matthew 18.24; 25.15-­18); cf. H. Chantraine, KP 2: 155–­56; W. Pesch, EWNT 1: 855–­57 with additional literature. That it is completely impossible to specify the purchasing power of the woman’s money, even only by means of approximation, emerges from Josephus, Vita 75. According to this text, in Caesarea Maritima two sextars (thus, roughly 1.1 liters) of oil was sold for a drachma, whereas one received at the same time eighty sextars for four drachmas in the Galilean Gischala (thus, a good 43.5 liters). According to Josephus, Bellum judaicum 7.218, the fiscus Judaicus, introduced by Vespasian, likewise came to two drachmas per head and year, as the temple tax paid by Jews in the Diaspora previously did (see also Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 186–­187, 189 following Exodus 30.11-­16; Nehemiah 10.33-­4). Cf. also Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 20.5: “If even only a drachma is lost (ὅμως μιᾶς δραχμῆς ἀπολομένης), it is inevitably noticed and hurts somehow (δηχθῆναι ἁμῃγέπῃ).”

8d and εὑροῦσα at the beginning of 9 mark the peripety. The description of the reaction to the finding again of the lost corresponds to v. 6, with the woman calling together her “female friends and female neighbors” in a gender-­role specific manner. The narrative function of the invitation (see



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 241

above) makes speculations about the scope of a possible “provision of hospitality” (Jeremias 1977, 134) entirely superfluous. The application in 10 draws the same conclusion by analogy from the earthly to the heavenly world as v. 7. By the “angels of God” the heavenly court is meant, among whom the repentance of every single sinner evokes joy (on γίνεται χαρά, cf. Acts 8.8; Tobit 11.18‫)א‬. As in 1.15, 75; 12.6; 14.10; 15.18, 21; 16.15, ἐνώπιον designates here the judging instance (see also W. Bauer 1988, 546–­47). 15.11-­32: The Parable of the Prodigal Son 11

And he said, “A man had two sons. 12And the younger of them said to the father, ‘Father, give me the share of the inheritance that is coming to me!’ Thereupon he divided to them the assets. 13And not long afterwards the younger son packed up everything and moved to a distant land. There he squandered his possessions through a dissolute life. 14 But when he had given out everything, a severe famine came over that land, and he began to be in want. 15And he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that land, and he sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16And he longed to fill his stomach with the carob pods from which the pigs ate, but no one gave to him (from them). 17Then he came to himself and said, ‘How many wageworkers of my father have bread in abundance while I die here of hunger! 18I will get up and go to my father and say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19I am no longer worthy to be regarded as your son. Treat me like one of your wageworkers.’ 20And he got up and went to his father. But when he was still far away, his father saw him and he was filled with compassion, and he ran and fell on his neck, and he kissed him. 21And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be regarded as your son.’ 22But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quick, bring the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and shoes on the feet! 23And bring the fatted calf, slaughter it! We want to eat and celebrate, 24for this one—­my son—­was dead and has become alive again, he was lost and he has been found!’ And they began to celebrate. 25 “And his older son was in the field. And when he came near the house he heard music and dancing. 26He summoned one of the slaves and asked him what this might be. 27He answered him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has had the fatted calf slaughtered, because he received him back healthy.’ 28Then he became angry and refused to go in. But his father came out and appealed to him. 29But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look, for so many years I have served you and

242

The Gospel According to Luke

I have never transgressed any command from you and you have never given a goat to me so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30But when this one—­your son—­came, who has devoured your possessions with prostitutes, you slaughtered the fatted calf for him.’ 31But he said to him, ‘Child, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 However, it was necessary to celebrate and rejoice, for this one—­ your brother—­was dead and has become alive, and was lost and has been found.’” Up to v. 24b the structure corresponds to that of the first two parables. Here too (a) a starting situation is first described (v. 11b). It is followed by (b) the portrayal of a problem situation, which leads both here and there to a separation of the master of the action (shepherd or woman / father) and the dramatic central character (sheep or coin / younger son) (vv. 12-­16). This is not contradicted by the fact that this part is configured in greater detail than the analogous processes in vv. 4b, 8b, for adult persons do not simply get lost like sheep or coins. The parallelism also finds expression in the fact that the narrator leads the younger brother into a situation that the father later interprets—­taking up the terminology of vv. 4bd, 6e, 8b, 9e—­as ἦν ἀπολωλώς (vv. 24b, 32c). There then follows (c) the resolution, i.e., a narrative of the actions that lead to the removal of the problem situation (vv. 17-­20a). The father then interprets this result again—­following the first two parables—­as εὑρέθη (vv. 24b, 32c). As a last part, there then follows (d) the description of the reaction that the return of the son evokes from the side of his father (vv. 20b-­24b). Thus, the parable of the prodigal son initially ends at the same point as the first two parables. In v. 24c (καὶ ἤρξαντο εὐφραίνεσθαι)—­unlike in v. 6 and v. 9—­the narrator does not stop after the exhortation and its justification, but also describes the implementation. The reason for this is that another scene follows for which the feast marks the starting situation. Therefore, this information is narratively necessary for the continuation, for it joins the two scenes together. The continuation of the narrative in vv. 25-­32 refers back to the Pharisees’ and scribes’ criticism of Jesus’s table fellowship with sinners (v. 2). In so doing Luke imports the constellation of the framing narrative into the parable. Through this there arises a controversy dialogue within a controversy dialogue. In the narrative figure of the father we are dealing with an established metaphor, concerning which every reader immediately knows that God is meant (cf. Strotmann 1991; Chen 2006, 73ff). This parable thus points to the same sphere of meaning that was spoken of already in the applications of the first two parables, namely God’s heavenly world. What was



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 243

indirectly claimed in the applications of the first two parables is narratively staged here—­namely, the fact that God rejoices when a sinner repents. The father’s reaction to the return of the son is therefore anything but surprising. No reader who still has the application of the first two parables in his or her ear will have expected something different from the father than what is related in vv. 20b-­24. And for this reason one can indeed say that the narrated reaction of the father illustrates the thesis formulated in vv. 7, 10 (see also Jülicher 1976, 357; L. Schottroff 1971, 51). As in Matthew 20.1-­16; 21.28-­32; Luke 7.41-­43; 10.25-­37; 18.9-­14, the constellation of the narrative figures is oriented toward the model of the dramatic triangle (cf. Sellin 1975, 180). A master of the action (the father) is set over against a pair of narrative ‘twins’ (the two brothers), whose status at the beginning of the parable is equal, whereas they differentiate themselves from each other through their actions. At the end of the narrative the conditions of nearness and distance that existed at the beginning are reversed. In addition, the twins always communicate only with the master of the action and never with each other. For this reason it is clear that the parable also does not involve the motif of enemy brothers (e.g., Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Eteocles and Polyneices), for such characters always engage in their conflict directly. In the narrative two topoi are taken up that are also often attested in texts outside the New Testament (cf. the detailed presentation of the material in Pöhlmann 1993, 89ff): (a) The figure of the prodigal son (υἱὸς ἄσωτος or filius luxuriosus), which is well known in the Hellenistic environment of early Christianity: cf. above all the corresponding clichés in Aeschines, In Timarchum 42, 75, 105; see also Proverbs 28.7LXX; P. Flor. 99.6–­8 (as well as at v. 13). The stereotypes attached to this image also include that the profligate young man falls into hardship because of his way of life: cf. Aesop’s fable of the “young prodigal who has gone through his patrimony (νέος ἄσωτος καταφαγὼν τὰ πατρῴα) and has only the outer garment left” (Fabulae, ed. Hausrath/Hunger 1970, 179); Seneca, Epistulae morales 99.13 (“Look at those young men who have led an excessive life [luxuria] in the arena, though they come from the best families”); see also Gnomologium Vaticanum 25 on Aristippus (“He threw out the son who had become ἄσωτος”). (b) The motif of the father with two unequal sons: cf. Matthew 21.28-­32 and Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 9.1 (see below at v. 11). One of these two sons is not uncommonly the filius luxuriosus, and the special care of the father is often given precisely to him; cf. Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 4.198; Quod omnis probus liber sit 57; De providentia 2.15 in Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio evangelica 8.14.2–­6 (in each case with the justifying explanation that the good son could care for himself whereas the profligate [ἄσωτος] depended on

244

The Gospel According to Luke

the support of their father or parents) as well as the reception of this motif in the fictive declamation “The ransomed sick person” of Ps.-­Quintilian, Declamationes 5: “A certain man had two sons, one frugal (frugi), the other a spendthrift (luxuriosus). They took a trip abroad and were captured by pirates. The spendthrift son became ill. Both wrote a letter to their father asking to be ransomed. After converting his entire fortune into cash, the father proceeded to them. The pirates then told him that he had only brought enough to ransom one of them, and that he should choose which of the two sons he wanted. He ransomed the sick son, who then died when they returned home. The other son broke out of confinement and escaped. His father demands support, but the son objects” (trans. Sussman 1987, 53; cf. Pöhlmann 1993, 111); see also—­admittedly with a different plot—­Seneca the Elder, Controversiae 3.3 as well as the casus narrated in Controversiae 2.4 and in Calpurnius Flaccus, Declamationes 30: “A certain man who had two sons, one sober-­minded, the other dissolute, disinherited [the dissolute son] because of his love affair with a prostitute. The disinherited son moved in with the prostitute. After he had started to become ill there, he dispatched to his father and commended to him the son that he had acknowledged of the prostitute, requesting that he take him into the family, and then he died. The old man wants to take him into the family. His other son charges him with insanity” (trans. Sussman 1994, 71). Contra Heininger 1991, 150–­51, the debate over the right way to bring up a male youth in Aristophanes, Nubes 949–­1024 has just as little to do with this motif as Menander, Samia 3 (here the ἡμάρτηκα spoken to the public by the son refers to the fact that he persuaded his father [!] to get involved with a hetaera). The points of contact with the fate of R. Eliezar ben Hyrcanus also relate only to the narrative atmosphere and not to the plot.

11 For the typically Lukan introduction of parables with ἄνθρωπός τις, see at 10.30. For narratives that begin with the phrase “a person had two sons,” cf., in addition to Matthew 21.28-­32, Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 9.1 (“The verse means therefore that God has set love of little children in their fathers’ hearts. For example, there was a king who had two sons, one grown up, and the other a little one. The grown-­up one was scrubbed clean, and the little one was covered with dirt, but the king loved the little one more than he loved the grown-­up one” [trans. Braude 1959, 131]). The constructions of the casus in the rhetorical school declamations also begin in a similar manner (see above). 12 The action begins with the wish of the younger son to be paid out his share of the inheritance while his father is still living. A comparable event is narrated in Genesis 25.5-­6: “Abraham gave Isaac everything that belonged to him. And Abraham gave gifts to the sons of his concubines [Heb.: ‫נָ ַתן‬ . . . ‫;מ ָּתנֹת‬ ַ LXX: ἔδωκεν . . . δόματα] and sent them away from his son Isaac while he was still living . . .” Sirach 33.20–­34 addresses a



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 245

different constellation. There the father of the house is warned against handing over his entire possessions to his sons too early, because he would thereby become economically dependent on them. He is thus advised to distribute the inheritance shortly before his death (LXX: ἐν καιρῷ τελευτῆς διάδος κληρονομίαν [“in the time of the end (i.e., of death) distribute the inheritance”]; v. 24). Tobit 8.21, where Tobias receives from his father-­in-­ law half of his assets and is promised the other half upon the death of his parents-­in-­law, is also not relevant. A procedure called “Abschichtung” in German law (cf. Grimm/Grimm 1854, 99: “to separate out children, when they exit the fellowship of assets and receive for themselves a portion therefrom”) comes closest to the process described here. The term was still used in 1998 in a decision of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany (see Bundesgerichtshofes für Zivilsachen 138 [1999], 10): “Co-­inheritors can, by mutual agreement, separate out (Abschichtung) from the fellowship of inheritance with compensation” (I thank the late Friedrich Garbers, Bonn, for this reference). The understanding of the term that is taken as a basis here differs, of course, from the case construed by Luke in the fact that in Luke the testator is still alive and the younger son declares his renunciation of inheritance in return for compensation (Bürgerliches Gesetzesbuch §2346). The terminology corresponds throughout with the professional idiom. The portion of inheritance falling to every son is also called τὸ μέρος τῆς πατρῴας οὐσίας (“the share in the patrimony”) in Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.249; cf. also Isaeus, Orationes 6.63 (if one has children, the law requires τὸ μέρος ἑκάτερον ἔχειν τῆς οὐσίας καὶ κληρονομεῖ ὁμοίως ἀμφοτέρους [“that each has a share in the assets and both likewise inherit”]); Polybius 20.6.6 (“Many . . . bequeath τὸ πλεῖον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας [the greater portion of the assets] to the meal societies”); Isocrates, Aegineticus 5 (ἀποθνῄσκων . . . αὐτῷ . . . καὶ τῆς οὐσίας μέρος τι . . . ἔδωκειν [“When he died . . . , he gave to him . . . also a portion of the assets”]); see further Lysias, Orationes 12.20; 17.6; Demosthenes, Orationes 40.48; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 47.21. τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος (often with the dative, which may also be the case here [in this case we would have to assume an ellipsis ἀπὸ κοινοῦ]) designates the share in a whole that falls to a person. Parallels are found especially in papyri and on ostraca (examples in Pöhlmann 1979, 205ff), but also in literature (cf. Philo, De specialibus legibus 2.183; De somniis 2.10; De opificio mundi 146; De vita Mosis 2.148; Demosthenes, Orationes 18.254; Diodorus Siculus 4.37.4; 14.17.5; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 3.29.4; 8.76.2; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 46.6; Aelius Aristides, Orationes, Lenz/Behr 1976, 3.612 and elsewhere; see also Mayser 1926/1934, II/1: 84). Even if the expression “was also common in popular language” there is no basis for tradition-­historical inferences (contra Pöhlmann 1979, 208).

246

The Gospel According to Luke

διαιρεῖν τινί τι can also designate elsewhere the division of assets among the heirs undertaken during the lifetime of the testator; cf. Judith 16.24 (“She divided her property before she died [διεῖλεν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῆς πρὸ τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν] to all the dependents of her husband Manasseh and to all the dependents of her own family”); 1 Maccabees 1.6 (διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ ἔτι αὐτοῦ ζῶντος [“He divided among them his kingdom while he still lived”]); see also Joshua 18.5; Xenophon, Hellenica 3.2.10; papyrus attestations can be found in Moulton/Milligan 1963, 149.

In any case, the compensated son loses all further claims to the inheritance (see also t. Bava Batra 2.5: “A son, who has received his portion, is like anyone of all the other people”), whereas the brother has the complete right to inheritance with regard to all the rest (cf. v. 31c), over which the father, in turn, has unrestricted power of disposal until the devolution of the inheritance to the heir (cf. vv. 22-­23). 13 μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας is a litotes (Lausberg 1973, §586: “a periphrastic combination of emphasis [ . . . ] and irony [ . . . ]”). In the New Testament this figure is attested, aside from instances in Paul, especially in Luke–­Acts (cf. especially Acts 1.5, but also 2 Maccabees 6.1; John 2.12; Acts 27.17 as well as Acts 12.18; 14.28; 15.2; 17.4, 12; 19.11, 23, 24; 20.12; 21.39; 26.19, 26; 27.20; 28.2; BDR §495.2). With reference to Plutarch, Cato Minor 6.7 (“an inheritance . . . εἰς ἀργύριον συναγαγών [to convert into cash]”), the meaning “to convert into cash” is often assumed for συνάγειν (see also Moulton/Milligan 1963, 600; Holgate 1999, 140 with n. 3). But perhaps the narrator wanted only to emphasize the ironic antithesis, for συνάγειν (13a) and (δια)σκορπίζειν (13c) are semantic oppositions (in the New Testament cf. Luke 11.23par. Matthew 12.30; Matthew 25.24; John 11.52). In the distant land (for the phrasing χώραν μακράν see also Luke 19.12) the young man scatters what he gathered at home. The adjective belonging to ἀσώτως (lit. ‘without salvation’ or ‘not-­saveable’) has given the type of the profligate son (υἱὸς ἄσωτος) its name (see the introductory comments on 15.11-­32; in addition to the texts mentioned there cf. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 4.60 [166f–­167a]; 4.67 [168e]: πάντα . . . ἀνάλωσε τὰ πατρῴα εἰς ἀσωτίαν [“All . . . his patrimony he dispelled in profligacy”]; Plutarch, Moralia 55c; Philostratus, Vita sophistarum 2.603; Diogenes Laertius 5.82). The phrasing ζῆν ἀσώτως is also found in Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 12.203 and with an instructive semantic field in Demosthenes, Orationes 40.58 (Crito has not lived μετρίως [“in moderation”], but πολυτελῶς καὶ ἀσώτως [“extravagantly and profligately”]); Plutarch, Moralia 847e (Demosthenes “is said to have lived ἀσώτως, wearing women’s clothing and regularly having orgies”); Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 4.62 (167c; ζῆν μὴ κοσμίως, ἀλλ’ ἀσώτως [“to live not decently but



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 247

ἀσώτως”]); cf. also Aristotle, Ethica nicomachea 1119b32ff: “We call the incontinent and those who spend money for debauchery ἄσωτοι. . . . For an ἄσωτος is someone who has the flaw of destroying the assets (τὸ φθείρειν τὴν οὐσίαν), for an ἄσωτος is one who goes to ruin because of himself (δι’ αὑτὸν ἀπολλύμενος)”; see also Holgate 1999, 142ff. The term ἄσωτος also exists as a loanword in Latin (asotus). Cicero writes: “For my part, I would resist your habit of imagining the kind of sybarites (asotos) who vomit at the table (qui in mensam vomant) and then have to be carried home from the party, only to return still queasy to the trough the following day. Such people, as the saying goes, have seen the sun neither set nor rise, and end up destitute, with their inheritance squandered (qui consumptis patrimoniis egeant). None of us think sybarites of that type (istius generis asoti) live a pleasant life” (De finibus bonorum et malorum 2.23 [trans. R. Woolf (modified) in Annas/Woolf 2001, 34]).

14-­16 describe the situation of hardship into which the young man falls because of his way of life. The catalyst of this hardship is a severe famine (14). λιμὸς ἰσχρυρά is a Greek idiom (cf. Thucydides 3.85.2; Plutarch, Lysander 13.3; Aelian, De natura animalium 3.1; Cassius Dio 5.18.4; 39.9.2; 55.26.1; 60.11.1; see also Genesis 41.31). It is true that ἐγένετο λιμός is frequently found in the Septuagint (Genesis 12.10; 26.1; 41.54 43.1; Ruth 1.1; 2 Samuel 21.1; 2 Kings 6.25), but this expression is too frequently attested in pagan literature as well (e.g., Thucydides 3.85.2; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 9.39 [388a]; Aelian, De natura animalium 15.27; see also Cassius Dio 5.18.4; 39.9.2; 60.11.1) for it to be called a “biblical expression” (contra Wiefel). The connections, to be sure, remain unnarrated. Luke evidently presupposes that his readers can construct them from their cultural encyclopedia. Famines are triggered by food shortages, which can have many causes (failed harvests, natural disasters, wars, distribution problems, human-­induced scarcity). At any rate, they lead to a price increase that naturally affects primarily the economically weak, which includes now also the profligate youth. Therefore, the problem is not that there is no food at all but rather that food products have become too expensive for him. Thus, the fact that he is in want is not a direct consequence of his profligacy (πάντα has the same reference in v. 14 as in v. 13a: everything that he had brought with him), but he only falls into hardship when the factors of shortage of food products and inflation are added. In any case, it is not “nature” that turns against him (contra Nolland; Bock), but the economy. 15 In order to improve his situation the young man is forced to sell his labor and enter into an employment based on payment. For κολλᾶσθαι the translations “attach himself to” (Klostermann; Wiefel; Bovon), “join himself to” (Schweizer), and “turn to” (Burchard 1998, 317) are too vague,

248

The Gospel According to Luke

and the solution “press himself on” (Schneider; Kremer; similarly W. Bauer 1988, 897) is wrong. Rather, the term designates the acceptance of a work relationship, which in distinction from that of a day laborer was established on a long-­term basis and which as part of the compensation often also (or only) included the provision of food, lodging, and clothing. In terms of its legal form, the notion of a so-­called paramonē contract, with which a debtor hires himself out to his creditor in order to work off what he owed (cf. Adams 1964; Hengstl 1972, 9ff; Harrill 1996), might stand in the background. Hengstl and Harrill refer to P. Oxf. 10.15–­19: because of financial hardship a man obligates himself to “remain” (παραμένειν) for one year with a landowner and tend his pigs. The fact that the narrative has the young man, of all things, tending pigs (15b) is meant to display his social descent before the eyes of the readers (cf. also the commentary of the editor of the Oxford Papyri, i.e., Wegener 1942, 42ff). 16 wishes to illustrate that the young man sinks even lower socially. He competes with the pigs for food and even the pig feed is denied him. This information suggests quite hyperbolically that pigs are regarded as more important than he and do not want to allow him to take some of their food. While the reading χορτασθῆναι (𝔓75 ‫ א‬B D L f 1,13 and others) is better attested than γεμίσαι τὴν κοιλίαν αὐτοῦ (A Θ Ψ 𝔐 lat sys.p.h), it is nevertheless also conceivable that the more ‘animal-­like’ phrasing was replaced in the course of the tradition of the text by the more moderate one, which furthermore was perhaps transferred here from 16.21.

κεράτια designates the pods of the carob tree (botanical: Ceratonia siliqua L; cf. its description in Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 13.59; an image can be found in Zohary 1995, 63). They can be ten to twenty-­five centimeters long and up to three centimeters thick. The flesh of their fruit is initially soft and sweet; later it dries out and can then be used (as is the case with the husks) only as animal feed; see also Bill. II: 214–­15 with the saying attributed to Rabbi Acha (ca. 320 CE): “When the Israelites have to eat carob (‫)חרובא‬, then they repent” (Leviticus Rabbah 35.6). 17-­20a The peripety from the crisis to the resolution is introduced here, as in 16.3-­4, via an interior monologue (vv. 17-­19). We are dealing here with a typical element of Lukan parable narration, which always marks a nodal point that decides how the narrative proceeds (see also 12.17-­19; 18.4-­5; 20.13 as well as Sellew 1992, 245ff; Heininger 1991, 31ff). 17 The phrasing εἰς ἑαυτὸν . . . ἔρχεσθαι (17a) is used to describe changes of mind elsewhere as well:



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 249

Cf. Testament of Joseph 3.9 (“ἦλθον εἰς ἐμαυτόν [I came to myself] and mourned . . . because I had recognized”); Diodorus Siculus 13.95.2 (τοῖς λογισμοῖς εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἔρχεσθαι [“to come to oneself through reflections”]); Epictetus, Dissertationes 3.1.15 (“You come to yourself and will recognize”); see also 3 Baruch 17.3 with reference to 1.1–­2 (from lament to praise of God) as well as Seneca, De beneficiis 7.20.3; Lucretius, De rerum natura 996.1023: in each case redire ad se (this phrasing is therefore not a Semitism; contra Jeremias 1977, 129–­30; Marshall). According to Acts of Peter 35 (Martyrdom of Peter 6; Lipsius/ Bonnet 1959, I: 88.9–­10), Peter, as he flees from Rome, meets the Lord and the well-­known quo vadis dialogue takes place with the result: “And Peter came to himself (ἐλθὼν εἰς ἑαυτόν) . . . and returned to Rome.”

In 17b-­c the young man compares his own situation with that of the wageworkers of his father. μίσθιοι do not have to be day laborers, for there are also work relationships based on pay for piecemeal work and monthly pay (cf. Hengstl 1972, 98ff, 106ff). He realizes that the usual correspondence of social status and economic situation has turned into its opposite. The wageworker is much better off (περισσεύονται ἄρτων) than he, the son (λιμῷ . . . ἀπόλλυμαι). The axis of this comparison is the semantically incoherent opposition between “my father” and “here” (ὧδε). In this way it is suggested that proximity or distance in relation to the father determines weal or woe. Here, it is obvious that the target domain already infringes on the narrated world of the parable. For this reason, the terminological acrobatics that are carried out in order to be able to describe the behavior of the son as “only a return and not repentance” (Merklein 1984, 195 for many others) also misses the point. The son returns to his father because he recognized that even his wageworkers are better off than he, the son, is—­ solely because they are with his father (see also Méndez-­Moratala 2004, 138ff). It is certainly no accident that Luke has the young man designate his situation as ἀπόλλυμαι and thus places in his mouth the same word that stands at the center of the chapter as a whole (vv. 4, 6, 8, 9, 24, 32; in each case see ad loc.). 18 The pleonastic ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι is a Septuagintism (see at 1.39). An allusion to Hosea 2.9 is not recognizable (contra Hofius 1977/1978, 240–­41), for in v. 17b-­c the son did not compare his situation with his own past. 18c is a typical confession of sin: phrasings with εἰς, e.g., Genesis 20.6, 9; Proverbs 8.36; 2 Maccabees 7.18; Judith 5.20; with ἐνώπιον, e.g., Exodus 32.33; 1 Samuel 7.6; 20.1; Judith 5.17; Tobit 3.3; Joseph and Aseneth 12.4, 5; 21.11–­21 (see also G. Lohfink 1975a: “confession formula”). Here, as in v. 7, “heaven” stands for God. The double orientation of the confession of sin to God and to his father does not destroy the father’s transparency for God. Rather, Luke has the young

250

The Gospel According to Luke

man speak as pious Jews would; cf. in this vein Joseph and Aseneth 7.4 (Joseph: “I will not sin ἐνώπιον κυρίου . . . and not κατὰ πρόσωπον of my father Jacob”); 23.11 (“We have sinned before God and before our father Israel and before our brother Joseph”; ἐνώπιον in each case); see also Josephus, Bellum judaicum 1.635 (“I am already condemned παρὰ θεῷ καὶ παρὰ σοί, πάτερ [from the side of God and from your side, father]”); see also Exodus 10.16 (“I have sinned ἐναντίον τοῦ κυρίου . . . καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς [before the Lord . . . and against you]”). The proposal of Joosten 2003 (‘I have sinned up to heaven [i.e., beyond all measure] against you’) is based on an overly narrow perception of Jewish linguistic usage and is dependent on too many hypothetical auxiliary assumptions to be acceptable. 19 The declaration of one’s own unworthiness is combined with a confession of sins elsewhere as well; cf. Prayer of Manasseh 8–­9 (“You Lord, God of the righteous, . . . you have placed μετάνοια on me, the sinner, for I have sinned . . . καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἄξιος . . . to see the height of heaven”); Joseph and Aseneth 12.5 (“I have sinned, Lord, before you . . . καὶ νῦν οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀξία to open my mouth before you, Lord”). At the end, the petition spoken in v. 19b formulates not only an antithesis (with regard to the father) to 19a (εἷς τῶν μισθίων vs. υἱός σου), but by taking up μίσθιοι τοῦ πατρός μου from v. 17b it also constructs an inclusio (with regard to the readers) for the entire monologue. For the possibility of being accepted again by his father the son is prepared to accept a renunciation of status because he promises himself an improvement of his existential situation from it. “Not a guilty conscience but hunger drives him home” (A. Stock 1978, 41). The modulation of the predicate accusative through ὡς (ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου) is a Septuagintism (cf. Genesis 13.16; 45.8; 48.20; Habakkuk 1.14; Isaiah 41.15; 44.13). The use of ὡς takes into account the dissonance of status resulting from the wish, for even as μίσθιος he remains a physical son (cf. the address πάτερ in v. 18c as well as Jülicher 1976, 349 with reference to Ruth 2.13LXX: ἐγὼ ἔσομαι ὡς μία τῶν παιδισκῶν σου [“I will be as one of your female servants”]; for differentiation see, e.g., Luke 19.46parr.; Acts 2.36 and W. Bauer 1988, 1367. 20a The first part of the interior monologue (v. 18a) is now converted into narrative. In the process the purposeful orientation toward the father is maintained, which had already determined the self-­dialogue of the young man (see at v. 17b-­c). 20b-­24 The scene that narrates the reaction of the father to the return of his son corresponds to vv. 5-­6 and v. 9 in the first two parables. Both here and there the portrayal ends with the direct speech of the master of the action. In addition, all three scenes are structured in parallel, for in each case (a) shepherd, woman, and father turn to narrative extras—­the first two to the (female) friends and neighbors (vv. 6b, 9b), and the father to his



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 251

slaves (v. 22a)—­and direct (b) a command to the narrative extras (imperative or cohortative; vv. 6d, 9d: συγχάρητέ μοι; v.  22-­23: ἐξενέγκατε, ἐνδύσατε, δότε, φέρετε, θύσατε, εὐφρανθῶμεν), which the masters of action then finally justify (c) with a ὅτι sentence (v. 6e, 9e and v. 24ab). 20b-­21 The narrator interrupts the further realization of the interior monologue by having the father be filled with compassion (on the sequence of “seeing” and ἐσπλαγχνίσθη see at 7.13)—­namely, before the son has come near enough (Luke also uses the phrasing [οὐ] μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος in 7.6) to recite the confession of sin that he had prepared. It is not clear why Luke interrupts the young man before he can express his request that his father hire him as wageworker (‫ א‬B D and others add v. 19b as a harmonization). Perhaps he wants to create a narrative-­dramatic intensification between the “no longer your son” (21c) and the fatherly “this is my son” (v. 24a); but perhaps he just wants to accelerate the narrative tempo. The central point of the scene is based, at any rate, on the difference between the expectation of the readers (they know what the son will say) and the actual behavior of the father (see also Weiser 1996, 267). That the confession of sins is only added in 21 has a demarcating function. Through this the narrator wants to make clear what did not prompt the action of the father. To be sure, the action of the father is also not entirely “prevenient” (Weiser 1996 and others) or “unconditional” (Landmesser 2002, 254), for with his return the son had taken the first step (for the potential transparency of the fatherly σπλαγχνίζεσθαι for God see at 1.78 as well as H. Koester, ThWNT 7: 551–­52). No reader who still has v. 7 and v. 10 in his or her ear can be surprised by the reaction of the father—­ especially if he or she may also know Psalm 103.13 (“As a father has compassion over his children, so the Lord has compassion over those who fear him”; see also CD XIII, 9: “Have compassion [‫]רחם‬ . . . like a father over his sons”). The joy of the father is staged by having him run to meet the returning son and fall on his neck; cf. in this vein above all the greeting of the returning son in Tobit 11.9 (“Anna ran thereto and fell on the neck of her son”) and other reunion scenes: Genesis 33.4MT (“Esau ran to meet him [sc. Jacob], embraced him, fell on his neck and kissed him, and wept”); see also Genesis 45.14-­15 (Joseph with his brothers: fall on the neck, kiss, weep); Genesis 46.29 (Joseph with his father: fall on the neck and weep); Tobit 7.6 (Raguel with Tobias: kiss and weep); Jubilees 31.6–­7 (Rebecca with Jacob and his sons: embrace and kiss); Homer, Odyssea 16.14–­15 (Eumaios with Odysseus: run to meet and kiss—­“as a father greets the son with a loving heart”; Homer, Odyssea 16.17); Homer, Odyssea 16.20–­21 (embrace and kiss); and in farewell scenes: 3 Maccabees 5.49 and Acts 20.37 (fall on the neck and kiss in each case). In light of these texts it is unlikely that the kiss in particular

252

The Gospel According to Luke

should express forgiveness (as is often suggested with reference to 2 Samuel 14.33). Furthermore, the breadth of the examples speaks decisively against a conscious intertextual appeal to Genesis 33.4 (thus Hofius 1977/1978, 242–­43) or to Genesis 45.14-­15LXX (thus Carlston 1975, 371–­72).

22 The instructions for clothing the son anew express that the father wants to distinguish the returnee with special honor. One cannot say it better than Jülicher 1976, 351: what is to “be illustrated is that in this very moment the father makes the returning son into the opposite of a day laborer, a noble man, that he distinguishes him instead of lowering him. . . . The . . . man is shown to be a guest of honor, as more than a son usually is” (see also Klostermann). The text neither states that “power is transferred” to the son (thus Rengstorf 1967, 39) nor that the legal situation concerning the assets prior to v. 12 has been reinstated and the returning son is now an eligible heir again. If the latter were the case, Luke would scarcely have the older brother protest only against the celebration in v. 29. And the father’s assurance in v. 31 that all his assets belong also to the elder son would then no longer be accurate. Aseneth also has a στολὴ πρώτη (Joseph and Aseneth 15.10; 18.5). She takes it out of the chest (ἐκφέρειν as in 22b) in order to put it on for the wedding (cf. Burchard 1998, 318). For the phrasings of the instructions in 22c cf., on the one hand, Esther 3.10LXX (ὁ βασιλεὺς τὸν δακτύλιον ἔδωκεν εἰς χεῖρα τῷ Αμαν [“The king put the ring on the hand of Haman”] [diff. MT]; see also Genesis 41.42) and, on the other hand, Judith 10.4: Judith preens herself and before she puts on her jewelry (which includes δακτύλια [“rings”]) “she put shoes on her feet” (ἔλαβεν σανδάλια εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτῆς). The instructions of the father have nothing to do with Genesis 41.42; Jubilees 40.7; 1 Maccabees 6.15; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 12.360, which are repeatedly mentioned with regard to this, for not only do these texts make no mention of shoes, but the concern is always with the conferment of a certain task or with the appointment to an office; there is no indication of this at all in the Lukan narrative. 23 The fatted calf receives not only green fodder but also grain (therefore σιτευτός; see also Theopompus, FGH 2b: 115, Fragment 106a: when Agesilaos came to Egypt “the Egyptians sent him geese and fatted calves [μόσχους σιτευτούς]”; Judges 6.25A, 28A; Jeremiah 26.21LXX [MT: 46.21]). The definite article is apparently meant to show that there was only one fully fatted calf in the stable (see also vv. 27, 30). In this way the significance that the father ascribes to the return of the son is underlined even further. The combining of ἐσθίειν and εὐφραίνεσθαι only occurs elsewhere in Deuteronomy 12.7; 14.26; 27.7 (with “drinking”: Luke 12.19; 1 Kings 4.20MT; 8.65; 1/3 Esra 9.54; Tobit 8.20‫ ;א‬Ecclesiastes 8.15; Joseph



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 253

and Aseneth 20.8; Testament of Abraham B 5.1). At any rate, it is the εὐφραίνεσθαι on the part of the father prompted by the return of the son that becomes the keyword in the further course of the narrative and the object of the controversy dialogue with the older son (vv. 24c, 29c, 32a). 24a-­b Luke has the father formulate the justification for the instructions using a synonymous parallelismus membrorum and thereby interpret the story of the son narrated up to v. 20 in a double manner. First, with the diachronic antithesis “(once) dead–­(now) alive” he makes recourse to traditional conversion terminology, with which the time prior to conversion is described as “death” and the conversion itself as gaining life; cf. Joseph and Aseneth 8.9; 15.5; 27.10; Philo, De migratione Abrahami 122f; Ps.-­Philo, De Iona 153; Colossians 2.13; see also K. Berger 1977b, 64 (Romans 6, however, does not belong in this context, because there the focus is on ‘dying’ in baptism and not the state of being dead as a designation for the time prior to conversion; the same error is also found in Braumann 1980, 158). Second, he makes recourse to the paradigm “lost–­ found,” which is already known to the readers from the first two parables. In this way their plot (the finding again of what was lost gives rise to joy) becomes a guide for interpreting the change in the life of the filius luxuriosus who has returned to his father. 24c-­32 The concluding scene is configured as a controversy dialogue and reproduces in this way the constellation of the literary frame (see the introductory comments on 15.1-­32). After the portrayal of a starting situation (v. 24c), there follows the introduction of an antagonist (vv.  25-­30), and the conclusion is formed by a dictum of the protagonist (here: the father, vv. 31-­32). 25 That the narrator has the older son return from the field should not be taken as an occasion for speculation concerning the size of the father’s farm (cf., e.g., Nolland; Green; Bovon) but has narrative reasons. What matters to Luke is that the older son knows nothing of the events narrated in vv. 20b-­24b but only comes onto the scene after the feast in v. 24c has begun. συμφωνία καὶ χοροί set into scene εὐφραίνεσθαι (v. 24c). Accordingly, the concern in 26-­27 is to inform the older son about these events that he had missed. 26 For παῖς as a designation for slaves cf. at 7.7. πυνθάνεσθαι is a typically Lukan word (Luke–­Acts contains nine of the eleven New Testament attestations), and the optative in indirect speech is found only in Luke (cf. BDR §386.1; but see also πυθέσθαι τίς ἃν εἴη in John 13.24). 27 In the case of the explanation that the older son receives, we are dealing with an interpretive selection from the events narrated in vv. 20-­24, which is meant to steer the dialogue between the father and his older son in a certain direction. From the instructions of the father (vv. 22-­23) only the

254

The Gospel According to Luke

slaughtering of the fatted calf (v. 23a) is left (27c), while the instruction to clothe his brother anew (vv. 22b-­c) remains unmentioned. In addition, the servant modifies the explanation given by the father in v. 24a-­b. He does not “report” it “entirely objectively” (thus Jülicher 1976, 354) but falls short of it, because his own explanation, unlike that of the father, ignores the life story of the younger brother. One wishes to “receive back healthy” (ὑγιαίνοντα ἀπολαμβάνειν) every traveler (cf. the formulaic expressions in BGU 332.5: εὐχομένη ὑμᾶς ὑγιαίνοντας ἀπολαβεῖν [“praying, to receive you back healthy”]; P. Oxy. IX 1217.4–­6: γράφω σοι . . . εὐχομένη παρὰ πᾶσι θεοῖς ὑγιαινον[τά] σε . . . ἀπολαβεῖν [“I write to you . . . praying to all the gods, that you receive them back healthy”]; see also Tobit 5.17‫א‬‎, 21). To this extent the interpretation of the servant is not false, to be sure. But it trivializes the event by transferring the event into a completely different symbolic universe (this difference is not adequately taken into account by Hock 2002, 18ff). The narrator does not, of course, place this answer in the slave’s mouth to show the readers his simple-­mindedness. Rather, the concern is that the interpretation of the father is initially withheld from the older brother and the narrative can continue as a controversy dialogue in which the father then has the last word. In 28 the narrator prepares the scene for the concluding dialogue that follows in vv. 29-­32. The degree of compression is extremely high, for much remains unsaid and must be supplied by the imagination of the readers. This elevates, of course, the significance of what is actually stated. Here already, only father and son are present; all other persons who must have collaborated so that it could come to the final confrontation of the two main persons have disappeared in the unnarrated gaps. And just as the son speaks first and then the father in vv. 29-­32, so here too the behavior of the son (28a) is described before that of the father (28b). Two durative imperfects are related to each other here: to the οὐκ ἤθελεν on the side of the older son corresponds the παρεκάλει of the father. In addition, the refused εἰσελθεῖν of the son finds its direct counterpart in the ἐξελθών of the father. The chiastic ordering of these four verbal forms (οὐκ ἤθελεν εἰσελθεῖν . . . ἐξελθὼν παρεκάλει) shows how carefully the narrator has configured the scene. The imperfect οὐκ ἤθελεν is meant to express the definitive rejection and not a momentary hesitation that could possibly still be revised (cf. the corresponding usage in Genesis 37.35; 39.8; Psalm 77.10; Jeremiah 9.5; 11.10; 38.15LXX; Matthew 18.30; 22.3; Mark 8.30; Luke 18.13; John 7.1 as well as the modulation in Luke 18: οὐκ ἤθελεν ἐπὶ χρόνον). The metaphorical transparence of the parable for God’s heavenly world allows the readers to be reminded by the refusal of the son “to enter in” of the corresponding accusation against the scribes in 11.52 (αὐτοὶ



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 255

οὐκ εἰσήλθατε). The exhortation “strive to enter (εἰσελθεῖν) through the narrow door” and the talk of those who “will attempt to enter (ζητήσουσιν εἰσελθεῖν) and not succeed” in 13.24 also provide a context of association, for there the concern is likewise with participation in a banquet (13.28-­29). With his refusal the older son belongs then also to those who according to 14.18-­20 refuse the invitation to the banquet (Matthew 22.3 describes their behavior as οὐκ ἤθελον ἐλθεῖν) and whom the master of the house in Luke 14.24 definitively excluded (cf., by contrast, v. 23 concerning the replacement guests: ἀνάγκασον εἰσελθεῖν). The existence of such a connection (see also Johnson) is supported above all by the fact that both the two οἰκοδεσπόται of 13.25 and 14.21 and the father in this parable point to God and by the fact that the same imagery is used in all three cases. In 29-­30 the older son justifies his refusal “to enter in,” and with this the narrator has him simultaneously respond to the παρακαλεῖν of the father (cf. ἀποκριθείς in 29a). The older brother contrasts his own good behavior (29b-­c with an echo of the phrasing on Deuteronomy 26.13; for the translation cf. BDR §2955) with the bad behavior of his younger brother (30a; on κατεσθίειν in relation to the patrimony cf. the fable of the young profligate quoted in the introductory comments to 15.11-­32) and complains that the father has treated his younger son better than him. The two datives ἐμοί (29d) and αὐτῷ (30b) in the sentences about the father are antithetically set over against each other and form as such the axis of the comparison. The fact that his father had previously not even left to him a goat with which to celebrate (29d-­e with rhetorical intensification through the repetition of οὐδέποτε) is not yet reason for complaint when taken on its own. It is only in the light of the reaction of the father to the return of his brother (whom he is nonetheless unable to call “brother”; cf. 30a) that he perceives it as a deficit (see also Jülicher 1976, 356). Thus, the reference to his own good behavior functions only as a foil in order to bring out with all due clarity the inappropriateness of the reaction of the father to the return of the wayward son. Whence he knows that his younger brother has spent the received assets “with prostitutes” is left unnarrated. Thus, Luke implicitly presupposes—­without placing a particular strain on the imagination of the readers—­that his profligate way of life is known in his family. There was not previously talk of καταφαγεῖν . . . μετὰ πορνῶν, but such an action was an integral element of what one imagined at that time under ζῶν ἀσώτως (v. 13; see there). From v. 7 two beams of light fall on the speech of the older brother. First, the comparison of the two modes of behavior corresponds to the semantically isotopic opposition of ἁμαρτωλός and δίκαιος. Second, when he accuses his father in this sense of treating the sinner better than him, the righteous (or in the words of Jülicher 1976, 357, of “a massive privileging

256

The Gospel According to Luke

of the dissolute over the virtuous”), he sets himself precisely against heaven, since for heaven it holds true that the joy over the repentance of even one single sinner surpasses the joy over all the righteous. The cause and object of the criticism of the older son is solely the celebration that the father has organized for his brother on the occasion of his return. Not only is there no indication whatsoever that he fears a new division of the inheritance, as exegetes repeatedly impute to him (e.g., Marshall; Bock; Hock 2002, 23), but this is also refuted by v. 31c. 31-­32 The answer of the father is related in all its details to the accusation of the son and thus also structured using the same double comparison—­ between the different modes of life of the two sons, on the one hand, and between their different treatments by the father, on the other hand. SON 29b: For so many years I have served you and I have never transgressed any command from you. 29c: You have never given a goat to me so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30b: . . . you slaughtered the fatted calf for him. 30a: But when this one—­your son—­came, who has devoured your possessions with prostitutes . . . 

FATHER 31b: Child, you are always with me,

31c: and all that is mine is yours. 32a: It was necessary to celebrate and rejoice. 32b: This one—­your brother—­was dead and has become alive, and was lost and has been found.

Like the older son’s accusation, the answer of the father is also comprised of two parts. Both here and there the first part is concerned with his older son (31b-­c), and the father explains why he has not previously ever given him a goat for celebration—­because everything already belongs to him anyway (correspondingly διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον [v. 12] also includes the older brother), while evidently being still available to the father at this time (for the presupposed model for distributing the inheritance see at v. 12). The second part of the answer of the father is concerned, like the accusation of the older son, with the younger son (32), whom the father, in a conscious antithesis to the older son’s distancing ὁ υἱός σου οὗτος (v. 30a), calls ὁ ἀδελφός σου οὗτος (32b). It is important, however, to note that here the statements about the fate of the younger son and the necessity of celebration that follows from it (32) form a hysteron proteron at the level of the text (cf. Lausberg 1973, §891: “an ordering of two sentence-­ contents that runs counter to the natural course of events”). Although the life story of the younger son precedes the decision to celebrate at the level



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 257

of actual events, the sequence is reversed at the level of the text. Three consequences for the interpretation of the answer of the father follow from this. (1) The statements about the relations between the father and his sons (31b, on the one side, and 32b, on the other side) occupy the beginning and end position and thus form an inclusio that encloses the entire answer. (2) The description of the identity of the two brothers by the older son is not adopted by the father but altered in a characteristic manner. The older son sees his and his brother’s identities determined through their respective life conducts. He has always served the father and always followed his instructions (v. 29b), whereas his brother has devoured the patrimony with prostitutes (v. 30a). Neither is contested by the father, but his statements about the identity of his sons show that for him something entirely different stands in the foreground—­namely, that his children are with him. Correspondingly he sees his two sons distinguished by the fact that the older one was always with him (31b), whereas the younger had gone lost or died in the intervening time, but had then been found again or become alive again (32b). It is thus the πάντοτε (μετ’ ἐμοῦ εἶναι) of the older son (31b) and the reversals, expressed through the sequence of the verbs in 32b, of the younger son that constitute the actual difference between the sons and mutually interpret each other. “Dead” or “lost” is the one who is not with the father, and the one who returns to the father is regarded as “one who has become alive” or “one who has been found again” (on the meaning of this metaphor see at v. 24). Thus, the father explains to his older son what advantages his younger son has over him, namely that he—­unlike the son who was “always” with the father—­was “dead” and “lost” in the intervening time, but has now returned again to the father (see also Jülicher 1976, 358). In this opposition, the “more,” expressed in v. 7 with the help of the comparative conjunction ἤ, is pictured, which elevates there the one repenting sinner over the ninety-­nine righteous with respect to the joy (χαρά) in heaven. The difference claimed by the older brother between his and his brother’s life conduct corresponds to the majority ratio in v. 7 (99:1). The one, however, is as trivial as the other, and therefore it is, of course, no accident that it is precisely here—­in the comparison of the life stories of the two sons—­that the narrator has the father take up the key word of joy, which dominates the first two parables of the chapter (cf. vv. 5, 6b, 7a, 9b, 10b). (3) The retrospective orientation of the answer of the father makes clear that the story narrated in the parable—­in contrast to what is often claimed—­does not have an open ending. This situation finds its linguistic expression in the imperfect ἔδει (εὐφρανθῆναι δὲ καὶ χαρῆναι). Two different uses for this exist, but only one of them comes into consideration here.

258

The Gospel According to Luke

(a) First, it can express “that something that remained undone actually should have happened” (W. Bauer 1988, 344; see also BDR §358: “That something is or was actually necessary etc., but nevertheless does not or did not happen”). This understanding is attested in Matthew 18.33 (“Should you not have had mercy [οὐχ ἔδει] on your fellow servant?”—­which, however, did not take place); 23.23par.; 25.27; Acts 24.19; 27.21; 2 Corinthians 2.3; Hebrews 9.26. (b) Second, it can emphasize “that something that has happened absolutely had to happen” (W. Bauer 1988, 344 with the proposed translation “had to”; cf. also BDR §3582: “the past necessity”); see also 13.16; 22.7; 24.26; John 4.4; Acts 1.16; 17.3; Romans 1.27. The same applies to the attestations outside the NT.

ἔδει in Luke 15.32a belongs to the second group (the interpretations of Jeremias 1977, 130 and Landmesser 2002, 259 are untenable because they smuggle into the text a σε that is not present; against this cf. already Jülicher 1976, 357–­58). Thus, the father defends the decision to have a celebration (cf. also the analogous constellation in 13.16). There is no indication that he exhorts his son a second time to participate after all in the celebration. In this case δεῖ would have had to be used here, as, e.g., in Colossians 4.6; 1 Thessalonians 4.1; 2 Thessalonians 3.7; 1 Timothy 3.15 and elsewhere. The genre provides another argument in support of this assumption. Like chreiae in general, controversy dialogues always end with a dictum of the protagonist. How the addressed narrative figures react to it remains entirely irrelevant for the narrative goal (for the exception of Luke 20.20-­26, cf. Wolter 2002b, 52). With regard to the context of the parable narrated in vv. 1-­2 one must hold fast to the fact that the older son is transparent for the Pharisees and scribes (contra C. F. Evans 592; Räisänen 1992, 1622–­23 and others). This interpretation is also supported by the similarity between the self-­presentation of the older son (vv. 29-­30) and the Pharisee in 18.11-­12 within the framework of the respective narrative constellations (see further at 18.9-­14). However, one cannot justifiably speak of an explicit “condemnation” of the Pharisees and scribes by Luke or the Lukan Jesus (in agreement with Lambrecht 2005b, 302). Nevertheless, the entire chapter does continue the series of conflict stories involving Jesus and the Pharisees (previously: 5.17-­26, 27-­32, 33-­39; 6.1-­5, 6-­11; 7.37-­47). With a view to these conflicts, the first two parables and the third parable work together in a way that can be illustrated with the help of rhetorical categories. Luke lets Jesus present a metaphorical argumentatio against the criticism of the Pharisees and scribes. According to Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 3.9.1, this always consists of two parts—­namely, a probatio, in which the speaker develops his own position in a positive manner, and a refutatio, with the help of which the standpoint of the opposing party is rejected. The



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 259

probatio usually precedes the refutatio. Jesus’s speech in Luke 15.4-­32 corresponds to these two parts insofar as the parables of the lost sheep and the lost drachma (vv. 4-­7, 8-­10), with their affirmation-­oriented structure of argumentation, have the function of a probatio, while the parable of the prodigal son, which culminates in the dictum of the father in vv. 31-­32, functions as a refutatio, with the help of which the standpoint taken by the Pharisees and scribes in v. 2 is rebutted. It cannot be shown—­or can at best be shown via a methodologically highly problematic mirror reading—­that the Lukan intention is guided by the aim of having the dictum of the father or the entire chapter be understood as being related to a specific context outside the text in his own time, as many allegorizing interpretations assume (cf. e.g., Bonnard 1980; Pokorný 1990; Räisänen 1992; Heininger 1991, 166 [see section 5 in the commentary introduction]; see also the criticism of corresponding attempts by Wolter 2002b, 53ff). This does not, of course, exclude the fact that the text is open at every time for a reception-­hermeneutic opening by every real reader (in response to Lambrecht 2005b, 305–­6). 16.1-­31 On Rightly Dealing with Money and Possessions

The time and place remain unchanged; Jesus only turns with a new topic initially to other addressees—­ the disciples. The Pharisees, however, remain present in the background, as is shown by v. 14. The coherence of the chapter is established especially by the topic—­dealing with money and possessions. The question is developed in two speeches of Jesus. The first is directed to the disciples (vv. 1-­13) and the second to the Pharisees (vv. 15-­31). Occasional attempts to construct a connection with chapter 15 (e.g., Austin 1985; Green 587) have failed because the cross-­connections are consistently accidental (the διασκορπίζειν of the young man who lives ἀσώτως has nothing more than the word in common with the accusation raised against the manager in 16.1; for the correspondence of ἐπιθυμεῖν χορτασθῆναι [16.21] with a portion of the textual tradition of 15.16 see there). A further indication of the coherence of the two speeches of chapter 16 is the fact that not only does the first speech begin with a fictional narrative and the second end with such a narrative, but both narratives also begin with the same words: ἄνθρωπός τις ἦν πλούσιος (v. 1b/v. 19a). This agreement should not, however, blind us to the fact that the role of the rich man in the two narratives is completely different. In vv. 1-­7 he appears only at the beginning and only as an extra, whereas he is the dramatic main character in vv. 19-­31. His antithetical counterpart in vv. 1-­7 is the manager; the two function as alternative models for dealing with money

260

The Gospel According to Luke

and possessions. The rich man in vv. 19-­31 fails to do exactly what the example of the manager is meant to teach—­to make friends with money who will receive one after death into “eternal dwellings” (v. 9c). 16.1-­13: The Speech to the Disciples 1

And he said also to the disciples, “There was once a rich man who had a manager. This one was accused to him that he was squandering his possessions. 2And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Submit the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’ 3But the manager said to himself, ‘What should I do, since my lord is taking away the management from me? I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4I know what I will do so that they receive me into their houses when I am removed from the management!’ 5He had each one of the debtors of his lord come and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my lord?’ 6He answered, ‘One hundred baths of oil.’ Thereupon he said to him, ‘Take your certificate of debt, sit down and quickly write fifty.’ 7Thereafter he said to another, ‘But you, how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred cor of wheat.’ To him he said, ‘Take your certificate of debt and write eighty.’ ” 8 And the Lord praised the dishonest manager because he had acted cleverly: “The children of this world are cleverer among their fellows than the children of light. 9And I say to you: Make friends for yourselves with the mammon of dishonesty so that they receive you into the eternal dwellings when it passes away. 10 “Whoever is faithful in the smallest matter is also faithful in much, and whoever is dishonest in the smallest matter is also dishonest in much. 11If you have not been faithful now with dishonest mammon: the true—­who will entrust it to you? 12And if you have not been faithful with what is foreign: what is yours—­who will give it to you? 13 “No slave can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will toil for the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon.” Luke has Jesus begin his speech with the narrative of the “dishonest” or “clever manager” of a rich man and end it with an admonition on the significance of faithfulness and reliability ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ and ἐν τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ (vv. 10-­12) and on the relation between God and money (v. 13). In this respect all are in agreement. However, there is controversy over where the narrative stops and where the commentary begins (cf. Ireland 1992, 60ff; Bock II: 1340ff). In a methodologically inadmissible manner this question is consistently joined with the question of the pre-­Lukan version of the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 261

parable. But even if we separate these two questions—­by abstaining from the search for the form of a pre-­Lukan version, which is futile in any case, and by only taking the existing text into consideration—­there is no clear-­ cut solution. The dominant view, which maintains that v. 8 still belongs to the narrative and the κύριος mentioned here means the employer of the manager, has against it the extreme improbability of such a reaction. The rich man would now praise the manager for the exact thing for which he had previously dismissed him. Against the alternative, which holds that the authorial narrator Luke speaks in v. 8a (the κύριος would then be Jesus himself; so, e.g, Jülicher 1976, II: 503; Schneider; Ernst; Boismard 2002), it can be objected that in that case the taking up again of the direct speech of Jesus in v. 9 (“and I say to you”) would remain unmarked. This difficulty is only removed if one understands the second ὅτι in v. 8 as ὅτι recitativum (cf. BDR §470.1; see also Marshall 1968); it has the function of marking the transition from the authorial speech to the direct speech of Jesus beginning in v. 8b (thus already Wellhausen; see also Heininger 1991, 167). The narrative, which encompasses only vv. 1-­7, has an open ending like many other parables. Verses 1-­12 have no synoptic parallels, so that we can say nothing about the tradition-­historical provenance of these verses. By contrast, v. 13 has an almost word-­for-­word parallel in Matthew 6.24 (it lacks only the noun οἰκέτης from v. 13a), so that at least for this verse an adoption from Q is probable. A variant of v. 13a-­c in the Lukan version is found in the Gospel of Thomas, followed by the saying about old and new wine that is handed down only in Luke 5.39.

The story that Jesus narrates in 1-­7 can be recognized without difficulty as the counterpart to the narrative of the foolish rich man (Luke 12.16-­ 20). (a) Both here and there the most important narrative nodal point is marked by an interior monologue, which is introduced by τί ποιήσω, ὅτι (v. 3b/12.17). (b) The actions planned by the dramatic main character lead in the case of the rich farmer to God calling him a “fool” (12.20), while the actions of the dishonest manager earn him the praise of having acted “cleverly” (φρονίμως) (v. 8a). (c) This antithesis is thematically profiled by having the foolish farmer falsely calculate his situation (he reckons on many more years; see at 12.20), while the manager draws the right consequences from the situation in which he finds himself and does everything to be “rich with God” (12.21). The narrative is comprised of three parts. First, (a) a starting situation is sketched (v. 1b). Then the narrator (b) has a problem situation arise (vv. 1c-­2) and reports (c) in the center what actions are undertaken for

262

The Gospel According to Luke

its solution (vv. 3-­7). As in 18.9-­14, the finale (v. 8) is moved outside the narrative. It is noteworthy that the center is divided into two scenes (interior monologue [vv. 3-­4] and implementation [vv. 5-­7]) and that the narrative has an open ending. It tells neither how the rich man reacted to the action of his manager nor whether it was successful and whether he was actually received by the debtors of his lord after he was let go. The taking up again of the phrasing of v. 4b in the pragmatic application (v. 9c: “so that . . . they receive you into the eternal dwellings”) shows that both—­the division of the center into two scenes and the uncertainty of the success—­ hang together. Within the temporal sequence of the narrative the hearers/ readers are placed precisely in the situation in which the dismissed manager speaks the interior monologue and the question arises of what he should do (vv. 3-­4). The narrator has the hearers/readers step in at exactly this place in the storyline of the parable because he wants to exhort them to an analogous action, which will, furthermore, be rewarded with the consequences mentioned in v. 9. 1 In the New Testament ἔλεγεν/εἶπεν δὲ καί marks a new beginning within a situation that remains the same only in Luke (with or without a change of addressee; cf. 5.36; 6.39; 12.54; 14.12; 18.9). For the introduction of parables with ἄνθρωπός τις see above at 10.30; Luke is the only New Testament author who introduces new narrative figures in this way (appellative + τις ἦν + characteristic; see in addition 7.37; 14.2; 18.1; Acts 9.36; 16.1, 9). Unlike 12.42ff, the narrative does not imagine the οἰκονόμος as a household slave (see further there), but rather as a manager of assets or a managing agent, as Arion in Alexandria was as οἰκονόμος of the Tobiad Joseph who lived in Jerusalem (Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 12.199–­204). In Antiquitates judaicae 12.200 it says of him that “he managed (διῴκει)” Joseph’s “entire assets in Alexandria”; see also Diodorus Siculus 36.5.1, which speaks of a slave, who was the οἰκονόμος “of two extremely rich brothers” (δυοῖν ἀδελφῶν μεγαλοπλούτων); cf. also the catalogue of the obligations of a paterfamilias in Plutarch, Moralia 526–­527: οἰκετῶν ἀνάκρισις καὶ γραμματείων ἐπίσκεψις καὶ πρὸς οἰκονόμους ἢ χρεώστας διαλογισμός (“control of the household servants and scrutinizing of the accounts and dealings with managers or debtors”); Cato, De agricultura 5.1–­5 compiles an even more detailed picture of the occupational duties of an agrarian manager (Latin vilicus). Plutarch, Moralia 457b also has points of contact with the imagery of the parable: “The avaricious man becomes most angry over the manager (ὀργιλώτατος . . . ὁ φιλάργυρος πρὸς τὸν οἰκονόμον), the gourmet over the cook . . .” (see also Spicq 1994, II: 568ff; Pellegrini 2004, 164ff). We have detailed information about Zenon of Caunus, the οἰκονόμος of Apollonius the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 263

dioiketes in early Ptolemaic Egypt; more than two thousand papyri are preserved from his archive (cf. W. Ameling/D. Rathbone, DNP 12/2: 749–­50). The continuation of the narrative shows that the manager has been imagined not as a slave but as a free employee, for otherwise he could not be let go into unemployment (cf. vv. 2d, 4b).

With the change from the imperfect to the aorist in 1c the narrative picks up speed. Although it is not explicitly said whether or not the accusations against the manager are accurate (both are possible linguistically; cf. W. Bauer 1988, 363), the continuation of the narrative presupposes that the manager assumes that he cannot ward off the accusations. The communication of the fact is lacking for reasons of narrative economy, for it is not the prehistory that is important but only the fact that the manager loses his job. In what follows the narrative is also no longer interested in the rich man, for he appears again only indirectly in vv. 5-­7 as creditor. This renders improbable all interpretations that want to make him into the main character with the help of the paradigm of ‘honor and shame’ (Kloppenborg 1989; Landry/May 2000). One should take seriously the fact that there is talk of “squandering” (διασκορπίζειν) and not “embezzlement,” “theft,” or the like (on this see Demosthenes, Orationes 27.48 at v. 2). This is also why the manager is only fired and not punished in v. 2 (see also Ireland 1992, 50). All interpretations that trace back the characterization of the manager as “dishonest” not to the actions narrated in vv. 5-­7 but to the accusation of squandering (thus, among others, Fitzmyer; Landry/May 2000, 304) founder on this fact. 2 The reaction of the rich man (comparable disclosures are found in P. Eleph. 9 and P. Hibeh 69; translation in Spicq 1994, II: 571) is recounted in a way that gives the impression that he is convinced of the legitimacy of the accusations. He asks the manager to submit the balance of his management. The decision has evidently already been made concerning his dismissal; an examination of the books that is open with regard to its result is no longer envisaged. On (τὸν) λόγον ἀποδιδόναι in this sense cf. BGU III: 778.7–­10 (κελεύσαι αὐτὸν ἀχθῆναι ἐπί σε, λόγον ἀποδώσοντα περὶ τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τετολμημένων [“to arrange that he be brought to you and give an account concerning the risky business carried out by him”]); P. Fam. Tebt. 15.80–­81; W. Bauer 1988, 971; on the subject matter cf. Demosthenes, Orationes 27.48 on an executor who deceived him: παρὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν αὐτὸς ἀπέδωκε τοσαῦτα κλέπτοντα (“according to the account that he presented he had embezzled so much”); see also BGU I: 98.24–­25; 164.21–­22; Plato, Phaedrus 63e; 2 Chronicles 34.16, 28; Josephus, Antiquitates

264

The Gospel According to Luke

judaicae 19.307: τῶν πεπραγμένων λόγον ἀποδιδόναι (“to give an account of the actions”); Romans 14.12.

3-­4 On the interior monologue with the question τί ποιήσω; see at 12.17 and 15.17-­20a. The fact that it is decided here what course the narrative will subsequently take also comes to expression in the fact that in 3 two solutions to the crisis are mentioned but immediately rejected again. Of the two rejected solutions, the first appears to be a well-­known saying. In Aristophanes, Aves 1432 the sycophant defends his controversial activity with the words: τί γὰρ πάθω; σκάπτειν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταμαι (“What should become of me? For I don’t know how to dig”) (see the reference to the scholia ad loc. in Wettstein 1962, 762–­63). Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit 34 regards digging among the “most slavish jobs” (δουλοπρεπέσταται τέχναι) to which a person can be forced. Begging is yet another level lower (cf. Sirach 40.28: “It is better to die than to beg”). 4 Unlike the foolish rich man in 12.18-­19, the manager does not yet describe the way to a solution in his conversation with himself but only the goal that he hopes to reach. In Greek literature “to receive into the house” (δέχεσθαι εἰς τὸν οἶκον or the like) is an idiomatic expression for the practice of hospitality. Cf. already Herodotus 1.41, 44 with Croesus’s words to Adrastus, who was cast out and disinherited by his father (1.35). In this text the friendship-­ethical background of this practice is clear: “You come from friends, you come to friends. Remain with me; you will lack nothing here”; cf. also Demosthenes, Orationes 40.13 (“εἰσεδεξάμην τε τούτους εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν [I have received these into the house] and given them a share in all the possessions”); Dionysius of Halicarnasus, Antiquitates romanae 15.3, 4 (“They received them into the houses, served them with glorious meal times καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐξένιζον φιλοφροσύναις [and were hospitable with other demonstrations of friendship]”); Diodorus Siculus 34/35.17.2 (“Neither did someone receive him into the house nor did someone give him food [οὐδὲ τροφῆς μετέδωκεν]”); Plutarch, Moralia 632e (“Crates . . . who entered into every house μετὰ τιμῆς καὶ φιλοφροσύνης δεχομένων [was received with honor and friendliness]”); Epictetus, Dissertationes 3.26.25 (“If you make yourself so useless and unusable [ἄχρηστον καὶ ἀνωφελῆ], no one will receive you into the house [εἰς οἰκίαν . . . δέξασθαι]”); see also Herodotus 3.52.2; Plutarch, Cicero 32.2.

This background explains why Luke speaks of “making friends” in v. 9. This excludes the possibility that “receive into their houses” means something like “to hire as manager” (thus Kloppenborg 1989, 491; Landry/May 2000, 301–­2). In 4b the aorist subjunctive μετασταθῶ makes clear that the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 265

temporal clause speaks of an action that still lies in the future (see also BDR §382.3; Drexler 1967, 288). The corresponding element in 5-­7 is that the manager has not yet prepared the final account required of him in v. 2 and that he still has access to the business records. The adverb ταχέως indicates that the period of time available to him is limited and that a quick action is necessary (see also Porter 1987, 143). It is conspicuous that in 5b and 7a the narrative has the manager ask the two debtors, who stand as examples for all his debtors, about the extent of their debts, for the certificates of debt are always in the possession of the creditor. This is why the creditor or—­as in the present case—­his representative should not have to ask about the extent of the debt. The fact that he nevertheless does so here has narrative reasons, for only in this way is it possible to fill the readers in on the course of events. On γράμμα as a designation for a certificate of debt (vv. 6b, 7c) see also P. Oxy. VII 1040.31; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 18.156; Testament of Job 11.6 (γραμματεῖον). An example for such a certificate of debt is P. David 4: “I confirm (ὁμολογῶ) that I have obtained three metretes of wine from you . . . which I will give back in the Month Epiph of the third year of the yield of my possession, tasty new wine. . . .” (see also Derrett 1972b; Kloppenborg 1989, 483; Bormann 2001, 149–­50). Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 18.157 is repeatedly appealed to wrongly in this context, for there a debt discount is not simply made, but rather the loaned amount recorded on the certificate of debt is reduced by a debt sum that is still outstanding: “He accused Agrippa of withholding certain amounts of money (χρημάτων τινῶν ἀποστέρησις) and forced Marsyas to accept a debt of 20,000 Attic drachma but to receive 2,500 less.” The extent of the debts must remain open because the values of the amounts cannot be determined with precision; cf. the overviews in Strobel 1964: in the case of bath the spectrum of the suggestions reaches from 22 liters to 45 liters and in the case of cor from 220 liters to 450 liters (Strobel himself argues for “ca. 36 liters” [bath] and “ca. 360 liters” [cor]); see also K. Jaroš, NBL 2: 733. But the amount is insignificant for the plot of the narrative (except, of course, that it must be great). It is not evident why the manager reduces the debt of the one by 50 percent but that of the other by only 20 percent (Jülicher 1976, 502: “in order not to be boring”). Interpretations according to which the manager takes back excessive interest that had originally been raised (Derrett 1970, 48–­77) or forgoes a provision that had originally been specified for himself (Fitzmyer 1964) run contrary to the text (cf. especially the criticism of Kloppenborg 1989, 479ff). There is no mention of interest, nor does the manager renounce his own money; rather, he does damage to his employer. Finally, his designation as οἰκονόμος τῆς ἀδικίας (v. 8a) and the

266

The Gospel According to Luke

distancing stance in relation to his action formulated in v. 8b speak against such attempts to clear him of wrongdoing.

According to ancient legal notions as well, the action of the manager is, of course, deceit to the disadvantage of the one who is still his employer. And it is undoubtedly this action that causes Luke to speak of a “dishonest manager” (οἰκονόμος τῆς ἀδικίας) in 8a. The narrative breaks off after v. 7 (see also Drexler 1967, 288). The manager has the μεθίστασθαι ἐκ τῆς οἰκονομίας (v. 4b) still ahead of him, and whether his action results in the expected success likewise remains unstated. 8 In 8a Luke takes the floor and communicates to the readers that Jesus has approved the action of the manager. An identification of the κύριος with Jesus is supported primarily by the lack of any plausibility for a word of praise from the mouth of the defrauded rich man. The ὅτι following ἐπαινεῖν provides the reason for the praise (“because”; see also 4 Maccabees 2.2; 1 Corinthians 11.2, 17). Indirect speech is not present. The genitive attribute τῆς ἀδικίας is a qualitative genitive, which represents an adjective in a Hebraising manner; cf. in this sense μαμωνᾶς τῆς ἀδικίας (v. 9) with ἄδικος μαμωνᾶς (v. 11; see also 18.6 and BDR §45; 165.1). The view that we are dealing with an objective genitive (e.g., Horn 1986, 73; Porter 1987, 143–­44) founders on the fact that ἀδικία cannot be the object of οἰκονομεῖν (the verb derived from οἰκονόμος)—­this is what distinguishes the “dishonest manager” from the ἐργάται ἀδικίας in Luke 13.27. Here Luke expresses in his own words how he wants the direct speech of Jesus that follows in 8b to be understood. The expression φρονίμως ποιεῖν exists in the ancient Jewish and Christian literature otherwise only in Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit 59, who first quotes a proverbial saying (ὁ φρονίμως πάντα ποιῶν εὖ ποιεῖ πάντα [“The one who does everything cleverly does all things well”]) and then continues: “The virtuous person does everything cleverly.” The Stoic ethic stands in the background; for the background of the proverbial saying cf. the Zeno fragment handed down in Joannes Stobaeus, Anthologium II: 7.11g (Wachsmuth/Hense 1958, II: 99.3ff) = SVF I, Fragment 216, as well as the saying ascribed to Theophrastus directed to one who is notoriously silent when eating: “If you are uneducated, φρονίμως ποιεῖς, but if you are educated, ἀφρόνως” (Diogenes Laertius 5.40); see also Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 4.47 (158b); Cassius Dio 38.41.6. Attempts to understand the narrative as a “picaresque comedy” (Via 1967, 159; see also Heininger 1991, 168–­69) succeed only if they not only impute “easy standards” to the rich man, but also suggest that “having some humor and detachment, he praised his steward’s ingenuity even though it had cost him something,” as Via 1967, 158 describes the matter in a frighteningly trivializing



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 267

manner. Much too great a distance stands between the literary genre of comedy and this parable to allow such a cross-­connection. And how one can designate the deception of the manager as “an amusingly successful trick” (Fasl 1981,136 with recourse to a phrasing of Hermann Gunkel on the Esau story) remains completely incomprehensible.

The commentary of Jesus “praises” (8a) the manager for his cleverness, however, in such a way that he distances himself from him at the same time. He presents his deceptive course of action as typical of those people who do not belong to the group of the intended readers, for among the latter he presupposes higher ethical standards as a given. In this way φρόνιμος is ethically neutralized and made into a purely formal term. “Children of this world” (see also Luke 20.34) has the same intension as the corresponding phrasing in CD XX, 34 (‫ )כל בני תבל‬in contrast to the “men of the community” (‫ ;אנשי היחד‬CD XX, 32): all those who do not belong to one’s own group. “Children of light” is attested as a Christian self-­designation in John 12.36; Ephesians 5.8; 1 Thessalonians 5.5; but the phrasing is also often found in the Qumran texts (inter alia 1QS I, 9; II, 16; III, 13, 24, 25; 1QM I, 3, 9, 11,13; see also 1 Enoch 108.11). This designation is meant to express the group’s nearness to God, for light is the distinguishing feature of the heavenly sphere of God and thus an attribute that identifies God (cf. Psalm 104.2; Habakkuk 3.4; 1 Timothy 6.16; 1 John 1.5; O. Böcher, TRE 21: 91ff). The two halves of the verse thus serve the further specification of the tertium comparationis of the parable. 8a identifies the behavior of the manager as a positive exemplum, while 8b ensures that this may not be misunderstood as an exhortation to deception. In 9 the narrator of the parable tells the hearers/readers what consequences they are meant to draw from the narrated story. The manager becomes an example for how one can draw a really sustainable and crisis-­ proof benefit from wealth and possessions—­namely, by making it benefit others and thus making friends for oneself. However, the metaphorical overlap of the source domain and target domain is not very extensive, for the application goes further and says that the manager used not his own money but someone else’s money. Further, unlike the narrative it distinguishes between the recipients of the financial turning and the “friends” (see below). μαμωνᾶς “reproduces the status determinatus of the Aramaic substantive ‫ָממֹון‬ ‘possessions, wealth, assets’: Jewish-­Aramaic ‫ה‬/‫( ”ממונא‬Rüger 1973, 127). It is documented especially in the Targums (attestations in Rüger 1973, 127). In Hebrew it is found in Sirach 34.8 (LXX: 31.8) and in the Qumran texts (CD

268

The Gospel According to Luke

XIV, 20; 1QS VI, 2; 1Q27 1 II, 5) and in rabbinic literature (m. Sanhedrin 4.1; m. Avot 2.12 and elsewhere; see Bill. I: 434–­35). Augustine also knows it as a Punic word (De sermon Domini in monte 2.14.47 [CChr.SL 35.138]; Sermones 113.2 [PL 38.648]). Etymologically the Hebrew ‫ ָממֹון‬comes either from ‫‘( מון‬supply with food, care, provisions’; cf. Rüger 1973, 131) or from ‫“( אמן‬firm, reliable”; Fitzmyer II: 1109; see at v. 11a). The phrase ὁ μαμωνᾶς τῆς ἀδικίας, in which the genitive attribute takes the place of an adjective (cf. BDR §45; 165.1), may have already stood in the Greek Vorlage of 1 Enoch 63.10. Jewish-­Aramaic correspondences are found in the Targums; cf. Targum Ps.-­Jonathan on Exodus 18.21 (“honest people who hate to receive mammon of unrighteousness [‫;)”]ממין שיקרא‬ Targum Jonathan to Isaiah 5.23 (“who find in favor of the guilty in order to receive mammon of unrighteousness [‫ ]ממון דשקר‬from them”); see also Targum Jonathan to 1 Samuel 8.3; 12.3; 2 Samuel 14.14; Isaiah 33.15; Ezekiel 22.27; Hosea 5.11; Amos 5.12 (all the texts are in Rüger 1967, 128–­29).

While the genitive attribute has specifying function in the aforementioned texts and is meant to denigrate the “mammon” (cf. the analogy μισθὸς τῆς ἀδικίας in Acts 1.18; ‫ ָממֹון‬or ‫ ָממֹונָ א‬are basically used in a neutral manner in all the other texts outside the New Testament as well), τῆς ἀδικίας in 9b has a characterizing meaning. Every “mammon,” not only mammon gained dishonestly, carries the label of unrighteousness. This does not mean, however, that one cannot also use it in a useful manner (according to v. 11 one can even be “faithful” [πιστός] in relation to the “unrighteous mammon”), e.g., by making friends with its help (φίλον/φίλους ποιεῖν is a Greek idiom; e.g., Thucydides 1.28.3; Plutarch, Marcellus 10.4; Phocion 24.2 [φίλον σε ποιοῦμαι καὶ οἰκεῖον (“I make you a friend and member of the household”)]; Moralia 96.3; 273b; 1 Maccabees 10.16; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 13.405; Vita 79). What concrete action is in view remains open. Both here and, e.g., in Herodotus 2.96; Xenophon, Anabasis 4.5.14; Exodus 26.31, 36; 1 Chronicles 18.8; Acts 17.26, ἐκ (τοῦ μαμωνᾶ . . .) designates the “material” from which something is produced. To be sure, the assumption that Luke thought of the passing on of money to the poor must be filled in from 12.33; 18.22, but it is probably not a false judgment. This interpretation is supported especially by the convergence of v. 9c with 12.33, for both here and there the argument makes use of the opposition between perishable earthly possessions and the imperishable heavenly salvation (cf. also the terminological correspondence between ἀνέκλειπτον [12.33b] and ἐκλείπειν [9c]). With ὅταν ἐκλίπῃ (cf. above all Horn 1986, 78–­79) both death and the parousia can be meant; the temporal specification corresponds to ὅταν μετασταθῶ ἐκ τῆς οἰκονομίας in v. 4b. On the basis of the background of hospitality of v. 4c (see there), one can also say who the “friends” are—­those who receive “into the eternal



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 269

dwellings” (9c). Thus, the subject of δέξωνται in 9c is the “friends” from 9b. These are not the recipients of the alms (contra Plummer; Nolland; Bovon), but they must be sought in heaven, for “eternal dwellings” only exist there, of course (by this is meant what 1 Enoch 39.4–­5 calls heavenly “dwellings of the holy ones and resting places of the righteous”; see also 41.2; 71.16; Testament of Abraham A 20.14; 2 Enoch 61.2–­3; John 14.2; 5 Ezra 2.11). The σκηναί are the heavenly counterpart to the οἶκοι of v. 4. This same structure of the correspondence between earthly deeds and heavenly consequences is also found in 6.37-­38 (see further there). 10-­12 The three verses are comprised of two pairs of synthetic parallelisms, which are connected in each case by καί. Their coherence is established especially by the word πιστός (v. 10a, b, 11a, 12a; see also πιστεύειν in v. 11b). The opposite ἄδικος is also found in both pairs (v. 10c-­v. 11a). Their intention is disclosed by the context. The Lukan Jesus explicitly distances himself from a certain aspect of the action of the manager in order to prevent possible misunderstandings. After praising him because he had made friends for himself with money in vv. 8-­9, he now wishes to ensure that this judgment is not extended to the methods used to achieve this goal. Because the manager dipped into the assets of his employer, he was precisely not “faithful” (πιστός) ἐν τῷ ἀδίκῳ μαμωνᾷ (v. 11a) and ἐν τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ (12a), and the hearers or readers are meant not to take this aspect of the action as a model. 10 In the first pair (10a-­b/10c-­d) we are dealing with antithetically related sapiential statements that reason from the smaller to the greater in the manner of an a fortiori argument and formulate a general principle; see also the parallels in Philo (De plantatione 101 and De specialibus legibus 4.67), who objects against using “faithfulness in small things” (ἐν ὀλίγοις πίστις) to receive “trust in greater things” (πίστις ἐν πλείοσι / ἐν μείζοσιν). 11-­12 In both cases the second pair is comprised of a sequence of a negated conditional clause as the protasis and a rhetorical question as the apodosis. The inferential οὖν in v. 11a and the second-­person plural indicate that the saying of v. 10 is now applied to the hearers/readers. As is common in paraenetic argumentation, a possible action is described first, to which a possible consequence is then assigned. The form of the argumentation is apotreptic (on this see at 21.34-­36), for in the protasis the hearers/ readers are advised against undertaking a certain action, and in the apodosis reference is made to the disastrous consequence of this action (the rhetorical questions must be answered in each case with “no one!”; a protreptic counterpart is found in Luke 19.17). At the same time, the replacement of ἐλάχιστος (v. 10a, c) by τὸ ἄδικος μαμωνᾶς (11a) and τὸ ἀλλότριον (12a) ties the content to the manager’s course of action. If the word “mammon” went back etymologically to the Hebrew ‫“( אמן‬firm, reliable”; see above

270

The Gospel According to Luke

at v. 9), then 11a could have originally contained an Aramaic wordplay, since also the Aramaic equivalent of πιστός is based on ‫אמן‬. The hearers/ readers are thus warned against taking the methods of the manager as a model, for dishonesty within their everyday life is threatened with the loss of eschatic salvation, which is already designated for the hearers/readers and also already prepared (τὸ ὑμέτερον accentuates this aspect). A specific reference to ecclesiastical office holders is not recognizable. The nominalized adjective τὸ ἀληθινόν (11b) is neuter and therefore does not simply contrast the “true” mammon with the ἄδικος μαμωνᾶς. For semantic reasons it does not fit with the tradition of “true wealth” (Aristotle, De respiratione 1256b29–­30; Philo, De fuga et inventione 17; De praemiis et poenis 104: in each case ἀληθινὸς πλοῦτος), for this is not “entrusted” to one. Elsewhere, absolute τὸ ἀληθινόν designates “the actual/real” (Plato, Sophista 240b; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Lysia 14 [opposite: τὸ ποιητικόν]; De Isocrate 12). Here it probably functions as a comprehensive designation for eschatic salvation. It is possible, however, that here too we are dealing with an original Aramaic wordplay, for the Hebrew equivalents of ἀληθινός—­like those of πιστός/πιστεύειν and μαμωνᾶς—­go back etymologically to Hebrew ‫“( אמן‬to be firm, reliable”) (see above; cf. Hatch/Redpath 1975, I: 53ff; R. Bultmann, ThWNT 1: 233).

13 The concluding saying, which presumably comes from Q, is structured in the same way as vv. 10-­12. It begins with a sapiential saying based on experience (13a-­c), which is then applied paraenetically to the readers/hearers (13d). Both parts are joined with each other by “being able to serve” (δυνᾶσθαι δουλεύειν; 13a/13d). The “two lords” of 13a-­c are “God” and “Mammon” in 13d. Elsewhere, the antithesis of “hating” (μισεῖν)/“loving” (ἀγαπᾶν) characterizes the stance towards enemies and friends or the opposition of “rejecting”/“electing” or “favoring”/“turning away”; cf. Matthew 5.43 (‘love the neighbor, hate the enemy’); Malachi 1.2-­3 and Romans 9.13 (“Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated”); Hebrews 1.9 (‘to love righteousness and hate lawlessness’); Psalm 119.113, 163; Micah 3.2 (see also at 14.26). All these uses have in common the fact that every decision for a person or thing simultaneously implies also the decision against another person or thing, and this is also how the opposition is meant here. This is also shown by the chiastic specification of this opposition by ἀντέχεσθαι vs. καταφρονεῖν (cf. Diodorus Siculus 24.5.1 on Hamilcar: ἀντεχόμενος μὲν τῆς δόξης, καταφρονῶν δὲ τῶν κινδύνων “he strived for glory and despised dangers”). Although 13a-­c stylize in an ideal-­typical manner, the example in Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 66.13 takes a similar tack: It is difficult to be a slave (οἰκέτης) in



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 271

a house “in which there are two or three lords who differ in age and disposition . . . the miserly old man and his young sons who want to drink and gorge themselves . . . because he must serve many masters and each of them wants and commands something different.” The saying of Jesus considers this situation with reference to the slave and notes that it is impossible for him to please both sides (in Dio Chrysostom the miserly old man and the pleasure-­loving sons), but that he must decide with which party he wants to side. The alleged Demophilus quotation that Nolland II: 807–8 has taken from Wettstein 1962, I: 333 does not exist. What is meant is probably Sententiae 110 from the Pythagorean sayings handed down in Sextus Pythagoreas: “It is impossible (ἀδύνατος) to be φιλήδονος and φιλοσώματος and φιλόθεος simultaneously. . . . For the φιλήδονος is also φιλοσώματος. The φιλοσώματος is also φιλοχρήματος. But the φιλοχρήματος is necessarily ἄδικος. The ἄδικος is, however, ἀνόσιος in relation to God, παράνομος in relation to people.” An economic-­ political variant is found in Plato, Respublica 555c: “In a polis it is ἀδύνατος to honor wealth (πλοῦτον τιμᾶν) and at the same time to produce . . . moderation (σωφροσύνη) in the citizens.”

The absence of the article before μαμωνᾶς makes this designation into a personifying name and ‘Mammon service’ into a form of idolatry, which calls God’s uniqueness into question. 16.14–­31: The Speech to the Pharisees 14

All this the Pharisees heard. They were avaricious and mocked him. And he said to them, “You are the ones who present yourselves before people as righteous. But God knows your hearts; for what is held in high regard among humans is an abomination before God. 16The law and the prophets until John—­since then the kingdom of God is being proclaimed, and everyone is compelled into it. 17But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one single stroke of the law to fall. 18Everyone who dismisses his wife and marries another commits adultery. Also the one who marries one who has been dismissed by a man commits adultery. 19 “There was once a rich man. He clothed himself in purple and byssus and day by day he enjoyed himself excellently. 20But a poor man, named Lazarus, lay before his gate covered with sores 21and he longed to be filled from what fell from the table of the rich man. But even the dogs came by and licked his sores. 22And it happened that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died, and he was buried. 23And in the underworld he lifts his eyes, being in torments, and sees Abraham 15

272

The Gospel According to Luke

from afar and Lazarus in his bosom. 24And he called and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to put the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torments in this burning heat!’ 25But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you received your good things in your life and Lazarus correspondingly the bad. But now he is comforted here while you suffer torments. 26 Morever, a great chasm has been established between us and you so that no one who wants to go from here to you is able and no one can cross over from there to us.’ 27Thereupon he said, ‘Then I ask you, father, to send him to the house of my father—­28for I have five brothers—­so that he may adjure them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29But Abraham answered, ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them!’ 30But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but they will repent (only) if one from the dead comes to them.’ 31But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will also not let themselves be convinced if one rises from the dead.’” Luke changes Jesus’s conversation partners, but with the presentation of the Pharisees as φιλάργυροι (greedy) he makes clear that the concern is still with money and possessions. Nevertheless, Jesus’s speech is interrupted at no point by an intervening remark of the narrator (only an unobtrusive δέ within the speech has something like a text-­structuring function in v. 19a). At the same time, the taking up again of the phrasing “law and prophets” (v. 16) by “Moses and the prophets” in vv. 29, 31 binds the two parts of the speech together. While for v. 15 and vv. 19-­31 no judgment is possible in relation to the tradition-­ historical origin due to the absence of synoptic parallels, a basis in Q is probable for the sayings recorded in vv. 16-­18, though they occur in a completely different place in Matthew. Verse 16 has a parallel in Matthew 11.12–­13, v. 17 shows overlaps with Matthew 5.18 (heaven and earth, παρελθεῖν, τοῦ νόμου, μία κεραία), and v. 18 has a parallel in Matthew 5.32. There is a counterpart to v. 18a in Mark 10.11 (par. Matthew 19.9), to which καὶ γαμῶν ἑτέραν possibly goes back (in Mark 10.11bpar. Matthew 19.9b: καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην); we are thus dealing with a Mark–­Q double tradition here (cf. Laufen 1980, 343ff; Fleddermann 1995, 171ff). There is debate over whether this verse already stood in Q (thus, e.g., Hoffmann 1972, 60ff; Catchpole 1981, 81–­82; Kosch 1989, 430ff), and, of course, over the wording of the pre-­Lukan tradition.

14 The characterization of the Pharisees as “avaricious” is meant to explain their reaction to Jesus’s speech to the disciples. In this way Jesus makes them into “Mammon servants” in the sense of v. 13.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 273

From time immemorial φιλαργυρία has been regarded as the origin of all evil. Democritus is already attributed with the saying that φιλαργυρία is the μητρόπολις . . . πάσης κακίας (“metropolis of all evils”) (Gnomologium Vaticanum 265); Diogenes Laertius 6.50 traces it back to Diogenes of Sinope, while in Joannes Stobaeus, Anthologium III: 10.37 (Wachsmuth/Hense 1958, III: 417.5–­6) it is placed in the mouth of Bion; see also Apollodorus Comicus, Fragment 4 (Kock 1880–­1888): τὸ κεφάλαιον τῶν κακῶν (“the epitome of all evil [things]”); 1 Timothy 6.10: “the root of all evil”; Polycarp, Epistula ad Philippenses 4.1: ἀρχὴ . . . πάντων χαλεπῶν (“beginning of all evil”); see also at 12.15. See further in Spicq 1994, III: 446–­47.

ἐκμυκτηρίζειν (actually “to turn up the nose”; in Greek literature this composite is attested only in the New Testament and in the LXX) is also used by Luke in 23.35 (diff. Mark 15.31), where he takes up a phrasing from PsalmLXX 21.8. In this way he places the reaction of the Pharisees in a series with the behavior of the fools toward wisdom (Proverbs 1.30; 15.5; 23.9), the godless toward the pious (PsalmLXX 34.16), or Israel toward the messengers of God (2 Chronicles 36.16; 1/3 Ezra 1.49; Jeremiah 20.7); cf. also the joining with (κατα)γελᾶν (“laugh [at]”): PsalmLXX 2.4; 43.14; 1 Maccabees 7.34; Psalms of Solomon 4.7; Jeremiah 20.7 (further information in G. Bertram, ThWNT 4: 804ff; Spicq 1994, II: 534f). 15 is composed of two parts. They are each determined by the opposition “humans” vs. “God,” who are set over against each other as judging instances with the help of the preposition ἐνώπιον (see also 1.15, 75; 12.6; 14.10; 15.10, 18, 21; W. Bauer 1988, 546–­47). In the first part (15b-­c) Jesus accuses the Pharisees of only being concerned with presenting themselves as righteous outwardly, i.e., in the sphere that is accessible to humans (on δικαιοῦν ἑαυτόν see at 10.29), and thus neglecting the relation to God for which “the heart” is crucial. This accusation is based on an idea as it is formulated in 1 Samuel 16.7LXX: “God sees not like a human, for a human looks at the exterior, but God sees into the heart”; see also 2 Corinthians 5.12; 1 Kings 8.39 (“You alone know the hearts of all the children of humankind”); Jeremiah 12.3 as well as in Luke 2.35; 5.22; 11.39. The broader milieu also includes 1 Thessalonians 2.4 (“Not to please humans but God who tests our hearts”) and Matthew 6.1-­6, 16-­18. With the reference to the judgment of humans, the second part (15d) first takes up 15b, for ‘to be righteous in the judgment of humans’ and τὸ ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὑψηλόν meet up on the same level. With the assertion that humans and God have opposing systems of value, the Pharisees are accused of estimating highly the very thing that God ‘abhors,’ because it is an “abomination” in his eyes (cf. as here with ἐνώπιον: Proverbs 11.1; Joseph and Aseneth 8.7; with ἐναντίον: Deuteronomy 24.4; Testament of Job 15.8;

274

The Gospel According to Luke

with dativus iudicantis: Deuteronomy 7.25; 17.1; 22.5; 25.16; Proverbs 11.20; 12.22; 15.8-­9, 26). The points of contact with 1 Enoch 96.4 (“Woe to you, you sinners, for your wealth lets you appear to be righteous, but your heart shows you that you are sinners”) suggests an interpretation that factors in the designation of the Pharisees as “avaricious” (v. 14a). The thing that is a βδέλυγμα for God, while it is reckoned as ὑψηλόν among humans, is wealth. The Pharisees are accused of striving after it because it lets them appear righteous according to the judgment of humans, which is oriented toward the correlation between conduct and consequences (see also Klostermann). That this interpretation is not accurate for the historical Pharisees is, of course, no counterargument (contra Bock). If the story of the rich man followed now, everything would be quite simple. It would then ground the assertion, formulated in 15d, that the riches valued highly among humans are worth nothing from God’s perspective. With 16-­18, however, Luke has placed a series of sayings of Jesus in between, whose relatedness to the topic treated in vv. 14-­15, 19-­ 31 can be recognized only with difficulty. In 16a-­b Luke brings “law and prophets” and the εὐαγγελίζεσθαι of the kingdom of God into a chronological sequence. It has been intensively discussed above all whether ἀπὸ τότε in 16a should be understood exclusively, with John being separated from the εὐαγγελίζεσθαι of the kingdom of God (thus Conzelmann 1977, 17 and elsewhere; Ernst; Schneider; Kremer), or whether it should be understood inclusively, with John being included (thus, e.g., Kümmel 1974, 410ff; Marshall; Wiefel). Since ἀπὸ τότε, which does not occur elsewhere in Luke (in the New Testament it occurs only in Matthew 4.17; 16.21; 26.16), allows for both views, considerations of content must tip the scales, and they require a decision in favor of the exclusive interpretation, for in Luke the proclamation of the kingdom of God has not already begun with John but only with Jesus (cf. 4.43; 8.1; 9.2, 60). 7.28 also draws a similar boundary between John and the kingdom of God. What does Luke mean with “law and prophets,” and what verb is to be supplied in 16a? All the recent Bible translations and commentaries have the expression “law and prophets” designate a historical epoch (there is thus talk of the “time of the law and the prophets”: Conzelmann 1977, 93; see also Kümmel 1974, 410), and a verb is supplied that designates John as part of this epoch, placing him under the rubric “prophet.” One could appeal to 1.76 and 7.26 (in these texts “more than a prophet” does not mean that John was not a prophet); see also 7.28. The alternative is the addition of a verbum dicendi (a form of κηρύσσειν or of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι in the sense of an ellipsis ἀπὸ κοινοῦ, in which the word that must be supplied is to be taken from the context [cf. BDR §479.1]; Burchard 1998,



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 275

122; Klinghardt 1988, 78): “Law and prophets” is regarded as the object of this ‘proclamation.’ In this case, “John” does not belong to the “prophets”; rather, he is placed with reference to Acts 15.21 (Μωϋσῆν κηρύσσειν) in the series of those who have ‘proclaimed’ the “law and prophets”: “‘The law and the prophets (have been validly proclaimed) until . . . John’” (Burchard 1998, 122). In this interpretation “law and prophets” designates the entirety of the Holy Scriptures of Israel as in Sirach Prologue 1.8–­9; 2 Maccabees 15.9; 4 Maccabees 18.10; Matthew 5.17; 7.12; 22.40; Luke 24.44 (+ “Psalms”); John 1.45; Acts 13.15; 24.14; 28.23; Romans 3.21; see also Testament of Levi 16.2 (“to reject the law and despise the prophets”); Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 30.5; as well as the lexical pair “Moses and prophets”: 1QS I, 2–­3; VIII, 15–­16; 4Q397, Fragments 14–­21, 10 = 4QMMT C 10 (+ “David”); 4Q504 III, 12; Luke 16.29, 31; 24.27, 44; Acts 26.22; 28.23.

A clear decision is not possible. It supports the second option that elsewhere Luke always uses “law and prophets” as a literary designation and that in vv. 29, 31 (“Moses and the prophets”) this occurs also within the same speech. On the other hand, the “prophets” of course also include John, if one understands by this not a literary umbrella term but people whom God sent to Israel. It is thus certainly conceivable that Luke omitted the verb only because he wanted not to exclude either of the two readings. In a very similar way, the relation between continuity and discontinuity also remains up in the air (see also Conzelmann 1977, 17). Continuity is undoubtedly created in this context (cf. vv. 29, 31) by the fact that “law and prophets” already demand that one help the poor. And the readers know from 3.10-­14 that John the Baptist is also included here. This aspect is important with regard to the confrontation with the Pharisees (16.14). With their ‘mocking’ of what is said in vv. 1-­13, they set themselves against the demand of “law and prophets.” One could read comparable material already in 7.30 (with Burchard 1998, 122). But one must also not overlook the discontinuity, for the demand of Jesus, which comes with the proclamation of the kingdom of God, goes far beyond what John required—­not only to share clothing and food (3.11), but to sell everything and distribute the proceeds among the poor (12.33; 18.22). 16c The debate over the understanding of the relative clause is concentrated on the question of the meaning of εἰς αὐτήν (sc. the kingdom of God) βιάζεται. Especially controversial is the voice of βίαζεται. Is it intransitive middle (“presses oneself into it”; see among others Kümmel 1974, 408; Burchard 1998, 122–­23; Plummer; Klostermann; Schneider; Wiefel; Nolland; C. F. Evans; Ernst; Bovon; Meynet), or is it transitive passive (“is compelled into it” in the sense of 14.23 [ἀνάγκασον εἰσελθεῖν]; thus among others Menoud 1975; Cortés/Gatti 1987,

276

The Gospel According to Luke

248–­49; Lagrange; Schweizer; Fitzmyer; Johnson; Bock; Green; Eckey)? Both are possible linguistically (for passive βιάζεται with εἰς, cf., e.g., Philo, De praemiis et poenis 130; Josephus, Bellum judaicum 6.248); see also Bock II: 1352ff.

The passive understanding is probably more appropriate to the subject matter, for the tempora in 16b and 16c want to express the fact that the βιάζεσθαι in the kingdom of God and its εὐαγγελίζεσθαι fall together. For this reason, the claim that “everyone” (πᾶς) presses into the kingdom of God (or only attempts this) is refuted already by the previous course of the Lukan story of Jesus. Plus, transitive βιάζεται in the sense of “to compel,” “to press,” or especially (with εἰς; see above) “to press in” is attested not infrequently (e.g., Genesis 19.3; 33.11; Judges 13.15A; 19.7; 1 Samuel 28.23; 2 Samuel 13.25, 27; 2 Kings 5.23A; Philo, De cherubim 115; De somniis 2.124; De Abrahamo 59; Joseph and Aseneth 20.5; P. Oxy. 294.16–­17; Luke 24.29; Acts 16.15). In terms of content this statement takes up the exhortation of 13.24 (see also Giesen 1988, 222ff). In context, “to compel into the kingdom of God” has the same meaning as the instruction pronounced in 16.9. 17 Apparently in order to hinder the impression that Jesus in v. 16a-­b asserts the nullification of the law and its replacement by the kingdom of God, Luke has him maintain that the Torah is still valid without the smallest qualification. The construction of the sentence corresponds with 18.25parr. Here κεραία probably means the smallest unit in writing—­the stroke; cf. above all Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 31.86: “If one goes where your public documents are and deletes a stroke of some law (κεραίαν νόμου τινός) or a single syllable of a resolution of the people . . .”; see also Philo, In Flaccum 131 (“He received money for every syllable, indeed even for every stroke [κατὰ . . . κεραίαν ἑκάστην]”); Plutarch, Moralia 1011d (“as with fragments and strokes of letters [ὥσπερ γραμμάτων σπαράγμασι καὶ κεραίαις] among the quick copyists”); 1100a. On πίπτειν in the sense of “to lose its validity,” “to become lapsed” see Joshua 21.45; Sirach 34.7; Romans 9.6; 1 Corinthians 13.8.

It is unmistakable that Jesus’s statement about the validity of the Torah falls short of what he says about his own words in 21.33par. Mark 13.31, at least rhetorically. They will outlast the “passing away” (like here παρέρχεσθαι) of heaven and earth. 18 It might be the case that the regulation formulated here functions as an example for the still binding character of the law. Neither divorce (Luke has not adopted Mark 10.2-­9) nor a second marriage as such is prohibited but that a divorced man marries again, and that a man marries



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 277

a divorced woman. In contrast to Mark 10.11, where this prohibition is reciprocally divided to man and woman, Luke, in line with the Q version (cf. Matthew 5.32), related both parts exclusively to the man. Why he places this instruction here of all places, although it has nothing to do with the theme of the context, remains a mystery. That it was connected with v. 17 already in Q is regarded as very improbable by many (e.g., Hoffmann 1972, 54ff; Klinghardt 1988, 20ff; Schröter 1997b, 443ff; C. Heil 2003, 120), while others do not find it improbable (among others Marshall; Fitzmyer; Kosch 1989, 427ff). But even in this case, Luke would certainly not have simply dragged along the instruction but would have had something in mind with it. In the Old Testament one searches in vain for a general prohibition of the (re) marriage of divorcees. It is required, inter alia, only of the priests that they marry no woman “who was cast out by her husband (LXX: ἐκβεβλημένη ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς),” for—­so runs the explanation—­“He is holy to the Lord, his God” (Leviticus 21.7). Only the high priest himself is not permitted to marry a widow (vv. 14-­15; see also Philo, De specialibus legibus 1.105–­109; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 3.276–­277). In Deuteronomy 24.1-­4 it is only prohibited that a man marry the same woman a second time, after he has initially sent her away and she has then married another man who has in the end also sent her away or who has died (see also Philo, De specialibus legibus 3.30–­31; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.253). Later this question is addressed only by Sirach 7.26: μισουμένῃ μὴ ἐμπιστεύσῃς σεαυτόν (“Do not entrust yourself to a woman who has been detested!”). A distinction between the remarriage of widows and divorcees is made for the first time in early Christianity. Outside of the synoptic tradition (see above) Paul stipulates in 1 Corinthians 7.11a that a divorced woman “should remain unmarried” (μενέτω ἄγαμος); contrast the much more cautiously formulated advice for the widows in vv. 8-­9, 39-­40. This distinction becomes clear above all in the Shepherd of Hermas: cf. on the one hand Shepherd of Hermas, Mandates 4.1.6 (if a man, “after he has sent away the woman [caught in adultery], marries another, then he too commits adultery [καὶ αὐτὸς μοιχᾶται]”) and on the other hand 4.4.1–­2 (widows who marry again do not sin, “but if one remains alone, then one obtains greater honor and greater praise with the Lord”). Whoever is not afraid of bold historical explanations can trace back the special interest in the question of the remarriage of divorcees in early Christianity to its character as a conversion religion. Many Christians evidently had “unbelieving” marriage partners and “divorces” often occurred (cf. 1 Corinthians 7.10, 11b–­16), in the aftermath of which the obvious question was raised of whether the Christian women and men who were now single should marry one another (see also Jacobson 1995, 371).

278

The Gospel According to Luke

19-­31 The speech to the Pharisees ends with an example story. With the example of a rich man there is first an illustration of what the consequences are when a rich man does not use his riches (in the words of v. 9) to make friends who will receive him after his death into the eternal dwellings. Thus, the rich man functions as a negative role model and in this respect is a counter-­image to the clever manager as a positive role model, even though the Lukan Jesus had to distance himself in part from his behavior (see above at vv. 8b, 10-­12). The story begins (a) with the expositional description of an existing starting situation (vv. 19-­21). It is then narrated how it (b) comes to a reversal of this situation (vv. 22-­23). Finally, the new situation then evokes (c) a dialogue between the dead rich man and Abraham (vv. 24-­31). It is comprised of two courses of speech (vv. 24-­26 and vv. 27-­31), which are introduced by two petitions of the rich man (vv. 24b; v. 27b); the second round of speech is then divided once more into two exchanges of words (vv. 27-­29 and vv. 30-­31). Of great importance for the interpretation of the parable since the beginning of the twentieth century has been the Egyptian narrative, made known by Gressmann 1918, 62ff, of Setme Chamois, who first observes the pompous burial of a rich man and then sees how a poor man is brought out to the cemetery, wrapped only in a mat and completely unaccompanied by other people. Setme is then transported in a vision into the realm of the dead and sees there that the poor man, clothed in a byssus robe, is residing as an “elevated transfigured one” in immediate proximity to the god Osiris, while the rich man is suffering great torments. The reason given for this reversal of fates is that the good deeds of the poor man were more numerous than his sins, while it was exactly the opposite in the case of the rich man. In both cases the fate experienced on earth did not correspond with the deeds, and therefore a counterbalancing is now established in the beyond. At the end it states: “Whoever is good on earth, to him one is also good in the realm of the dead, and whoever is evil on earth, to him one is also evil (there).” Gressmann 1918, 59, claimed that Jesus’s parable is based on this narrative, and many interpreters in the twentieth century have followed him. This assumption, however, is untenable, for the quoted explanation, in which the reversal of the earthly fate in the beyond of the rich man and the poor man is justified, makes clear that the two narratives have something to do with each other only at very select points. It unmistakably emerges from v. 25 that in the Lukan parable the attribution of salvation and unsalvation in the beyond is oriented precisely not toward the good and evil works as in the Egyptian narrative, but depends solely on the richness of the rich man and the poorness of the poor man (see also Bauckham 1991b, 229–­30 and Despotis 2009).



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 279

This same difference separates the Lukan parable from the constellations of motifs, as they are found in Lucian of Samosata’s dialogues Cataplus and Gallus, to which Hock 1987, 451ff first drew attention. In Cataplus it is exclusively the earthly conduct of life that decides about the distribution of salvation and unsalvation in the beyond (cf. 24-­28), and the rich tyrant’s begging for an extension of his life span (8–­10) can scarcely be seriously compared with the petition of the rich man in vv. 24, 27-­28, 30 (contra Hock 1987, 459). It is even more certain that the topic treated in Gallus has nothing to do with the Lukan parable, for there the concern is with the demonstration of the thesis that the poor are already happier on earth than the rich (21). Luke does not indicate with a single word that Jesus criticizes the rich man because of his hedonism (contra Hock 1987, 461); for criticism see also Bauckham 1991b, 234ff.

19 Luke characterizes the rich man by describing his lifestyle. According to TLG #E, the lexical pair “purple and byssus” occurs only in Jewish and Christian texts (among others Esther 8.15; Proverbs 31.22 [the good housewife makes her clothing “from byssus and purple”]; Joseph and Aseneth 5.5; Testament of Abraham 4.2; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.93; 1QapGen 20.31; Revelation 18.12.16). For the names that the rich man receives in the textual tradition cf. Lefort 1938; Metzger 1971, 165–­66. πορφύρα (“purple”) is actually the colorant obtained from the purple snail (murex trunculus); but clothing dyed with this colorant is also designated with this term. Due to its costliness (even today purple is the most expensive colorant) it was regarded as a symbol of rulership (cf. 1 Maccabees 8.14: “to put on the diadem and clothe oneself in purple”; Mark 15.17, 20; John 19.2, 5). βύσσος (“byssus”) designates a fabric that was considered costly. It is unclear what material (sea silk, cotton, or linen) it consisted of—­on the one hand, cf. Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 2.20.1: the normal population wears clothing from linen (στολὴ . . . λίνου), while the upper strata (οἱ φανερώτεροι) clothes itself in byssus; on the other hand, cf. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 3.103: λίνου βύσσος (“byssus from linen”); see also Esther 6.8LXX (στολὴ βυσσίνη as a translation of Hebrew ‫[ ְלבּוׁש ַמ ְלׁשכּות‬royal garment]); Daniel 10.5; 12.6-­7 (garment of byssus as mark of an angel); Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 11.331 (“the priests in their garments of byssus”); for the etymology cf. W. Bauer 1988, 296; Fitzmyer II: 1131.

20-­21 The introduction of the poor man (on the meaning of πτωχός see at 6.20) corresponds to the episodic style of Hellenistic history writing (see further at 1.5). The name Λάζαρος (on this cf. Ilan 2002, 65ff) is the Greek version of the Hebrew ‫ל ְעזָ ר‬,ַ a colloquial contraction of ‫“( ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬God has helped”). Why he (unlike the

280

The Gospel According to Luke

rich man and singularly in the New Testament parables) receives a name and why it is this particular name must remain open. An allusion to Abraham’s slave Eliezer (Genesis 15.2; so recently again Tanghe 1984, 564–­65; C. F. Evans 613) is certainly not intended. It is, by contrast, less improbable that the poor man has a name for narrative reasons, for only in this way can he be identified as a particular person in the rich man’s dialogue with Abraham in v. 24ff, without it being necessary to make recourse to cumbersome circumscriptions (Jülicher 1976, II: 622). But this does not explain why it is precisely this name. John 11 knows a person with this name as the brother of Mary and Martha.

Lazarus is not simply placed next to the rich man in an unconnected manner, but made into an inhabitant of his world and written into his life. The narrative places him “before his (sc. the rich man’s) gate” (20), and it attributes to him the longing to be permitted to feed himself from the crumbs of the meals of the rich man (21a). ἐπιθυμῶν χορτασθῆναι (21a) is a narrative nodal point, for this disclosure not only illustrates the misery of the poor man but also evokes a hope that can either be confirmed or disappointed. 21b stands at the point at which the hearers/readers expect information about the result of the longing (cf. 15.16). The adversative conjunction ἀλλά signals the negative result. That, in addition, dogs come running is anything but surprising, since they are the ones who take what falls from the table at a meal (cf. Mark 7.28; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 1.1.3; see also Plutarch, Moralia 68d; Marshall). Lazarus thus competes with the dogs for food, and his intention in relation to the rich man (21a) remains unanswered from his side. He is simply ignored in the world of the rich man. When it is instead said that the dogs lick his wounds (21b), this functions not as a counterimage to the rich man, but as an element of the description of his misery. However, 21b is also the conscious non-­ narration of a reaction of the rich man to the longing of the poor man described in v. 21a. The narrative gap that is opened here has its correspondence in the pragmatic gap that the narrator has left open in the telic clause of v. 28c (see below). 22 In chiastic sequence the narrator has the poor man die first and then also the rich man (22a, c). With this the narrative lines, which narrate the fate of both and are now extended beyond death, meet. While the poor man is carried to Abraham’s bosom (22b; for the semantic nuancing of ἀπενεχθῆναι cf. Horst 2006), it says of the rich man in contrast and in a comparatively terse manner that he “was buried” (22d). The absence of such a notice in the case of Lazarus is not another indication of his misery, for it does not mean that he was denied burial by people (contra Fitzmyer and others). Rather, the opposite is the case. For it is precisely at the place of the notice of burial with regard to the rich man that it says with



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 281

regard to Lazarus that he was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. Lazarus’s post-­mortem fate is thus narrated as a translation and precisely in such cases there is often no grave with a corpse lying in it. Cf. Deuteronomy 34.6 in connection with Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.326: because nobody knew the location of Moses’s grave, one assumed that he was translated; 2 Kings 2.16-­17 with the vain search for the corpse of Elijah; see also Testament of Job 39.9-­12 (the corpses of Job’s children are not found, “for they were taken up [ἀνελήφθησαν] into heaven by their maker, the king” [12]); Chariton of Aphrodisias 3.3.4 and the narrative of the absence of the corpse of Jesus in Mark 16.1-­8parr.; see further at 24.3. A translation to the place of salvation immediately after death or even instead of death is reserved in the Jewish tradition exclusively for especially pious or righteous individuals such as Enoch (Genesis 5.24; Sirach 44.16; 49.14; Hebrews 11.5) or Elijah (2 Kings 2; Sirach 48.9; 1 Maccabees 2.58). These include, of course, above all the martyrs (cf. Wisdom of Solomon 4.7-­18; 4 Maccabees 17.17-­18; Philippians 1.23; Revelation 6.9-­11; 11.11-­12). 4 Maccabees 13–­16 expects that such a translation leads the martyrs into the fellowship with Abraham: “If we depart in this way from life, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us (ὑποδέξονται).” For the notion that angels will bring the dead to their eschatic place of salvation cf. Testament of Asher 6.6; Testament of Job 47.11; 53.2, 5; Sibylline Oracles 2.313–­315 (“. . . as many as were concerned with justice and noble deeds, and piety and most righteous thoughts, angels will lift them through the blazing river” [trans. J. J. Collins, OTP 1: 353]); Testament of Abraham A 20.12; see also O. Nussbaum, RAC 9: 963ff; Mach 1992, 148ff: “angels as conveyers of the dead”; Lehtipuu 2007, 198ff (later rabbinic texts in Bill. II: 223ff).

Jubilees 22.26–­23.2 speaks about resting in the “bosom of Abraham” (“And Jacob slept on the bosom of Abraham, his father’s father. . . . [Abraham blesses Jacob and dies] . . . During all this (time) Jacob was lying on his bosom and did not know that Abraham, his grandfather, was dead” [trans. O. S. Wintermute, OTP 2: 99]); Testament of Abraham A 20.14 knows it as a designation for the heavenly place of salvation: “The dwellings (σκηναί; see v. 9) of my righteous ones and the dwellings of my holy ones Isaac and Jacob are τῷ κόλπῳ αὐτοῦ (sc. Abraham’s); no suffering, grief, or groaning are there, but peace and jubilation and endless life” (for the notion of Abraham’s bosom as a place of salvation in rabbinic texts cf. Bill. II: 226). The intimacy that this image seeks to express is therefore oriented less toward the notion of the eschatic meal of salvation, at which the place of honor would be assigned to Lazarus (like the beloved disciple according to John 13.23; cf. also Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 4.22.4: to sit at the meal with Nerva proximus atque etiam in sinu [“very close and

282

The Gospel According to Luke

even in the bosom”]), but is determined by the image of the child resting in the bosom and secure in the arms (as in Numbers 11.12; Ruth 4.16; 1 Kings 17.19; 2 Samuel 12.3; 1 Kings 3.20; Isaiah 49.22; Anthologia Graeca 7.260; cf. also the petition to Persephone on a tomb inscription for a son in Anthologia Graeca 7.387: “Place the child ἐς κόλπους of the dead mother”). The rest of the texts mentioned by Hock 1987, 456 n. 34 speak always of the “bosom” of the earth, which encloses the dead; they are thus not relevant here (see also Peres 2003, 74). 23 The topography of the beyond corresponds to that of 10.15 (see further there). It emerges from ἐν βασάνοις that here too “Hades” is regarded not simply as the abode of the dead but as a place of unsalvation (see also v. 28: “this place of torment”; 4 Maccabees 13.15; Psalms of Solomon 14.9: “Your [sc. the sinner’s] inheritance is Hades and darkness and condemnation”; 3 Baruch 4.3–­6 with 5.3). In the background stands not the notion of an intermediate state, but rather an eschatology oriented toward the fate of the individual that reckons on a final allocation of salvation and unsalvation immediately after death and therefore does not have to reflect on a final judgment that still lies ahead. The emphasis on the great distance (ἀπὸ μακρόθεν) stages the reversal of the respective fates. The spatial distance illustrates the qualitative difference between salvation and unsalvation. Despite the great distance between the places, the narrative presupposes that one can see from here to there (according to vv. 24ff conversation between them is even possible). That those who find themselves in the eschatic place of unsalvation can see the salvation of the righteous is part of their punishment and is a common element of early Jewish eschatology (e.g., 1 Enoch 108.15; 4 Ezra 7.83, 85; Luke 13.28-­ 29); the opposite also applies (e.g., 1 Enoch 56.8; 62.12; 108.14; 4 Ezra 7.93). ἐπαίρειν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς is a Septuagintism (cf. Genesis 13.10; 2 Samuel 18.24; 1 Chronicles 21.16; Ezekiel 18.6; but see also Chariton of Aphrodisias 1.4.7). 24 The request of the rich man (on ἐλέησόν με see at 17.13) presupposes that it is hot in Hades or at least where the rich man finds himself. In the background stands the idea—­which goes back to Isaiah 66.24—­that at the eschatic place of unsalvation, where sinners receive their punishment, an unquenchable fire burns (texts at 3.17). It is doubtful that the request that Abraham send Lazarus of all people to alleviate his torments is intended to express his continuing obtuseness (Marshall) or selfishness (Fitzmyer). It is more likely that we are dealing with a narrative means through which the reversal of the fates can be expressed yet again. In this respect the request can be understood, in the exact opposite way, as the rich man’s recognition of the new situation. The hyperbolism of the content of that recognition is meant to illustrate how badly the rich man fares.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 283

He promises himself an alleviation of his torments from even such a small amount of liquid as remains on a fingertip when it is dipped in water. 25 Abraham reacts to the request by explaining to the rich man why it has come to a reversal of the two fates. The chiastic structure corresponds to vv. 19-­22, and the disclosure calls to mind the opposition of blessings and woes in 6.20b-­21, 24-­25. It presupposes that God has assigned to each person a balance of good and bad and that if this balance is disturbed in the earthly life to one side or the other, then God balances things out in the beyond. In this sense the phrasing τὰ ἀγαθά σου (25b) designates the entirety of good things that is due to the rich man in the earthly life and in the beyond. But in this lies also the rejection of his request (vv. 24b/d). As a request for a good thing it is denied because during his lifetime the rich man already completely exhausted the measure of good things assigned to him. For τὰ ἀγαθά and τὰ κακά as designations for good and bad in life, cf. e.g., Genesis 50.15; Sirach 25; Job 21.13; for ἀπολαμβάνειν τὰ ἀγαθά cf. the apocryphal quotation in 2 Clement 11.4: “My people had confusion and distress; thereafter it will receive good things (ἔπειτα ἀπολήψεται τὰ ἀγαθά)”; see also Diodorus Siculus 18.53.1: παρ’ ἐλπίδας ἀγαθῶν τε καὶ κακῶν μεταλαμβάνειν (“to receive a [a share] of good and evil unexpectedly”). Thus, unlike the Egyptian narrative introduced earlier, here the bad fate of the rich man and the good fate of the poor man in the beyond are precisely not explained as consequences of ‘evil’ and ‘good’ behaviors. This same tension, however, also exists in relation to the pragmatics implied in vv. 27-­29 (see further there). 26 The transitioning ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις announces an additional matter (cf. 2 Esdras 20[= Nehemiah 10].1; Isaiah 5.25; Jeremiah 3.10; 1 Maccabees 8.14; PsalmLXX 77.32 = Sirach 48.15; Plato, Respublica 561c; Plutarch, Moralia 98–­99) that would make a fulfillment of the request of the rich man impossible, even if Abraham wanted to overlook the factor mentioned in v. 25. That the spheres of salvation and unsalvation are separated by a χάσμα μέγα in the beyond is also presupposed in 2 Enoch 18.11–­12. The χάσματα in the depictions of the beyond by Plato (Respublica 614c–­d) and Plutarch (Moralia 565e; 590–­591) have a different function. In Luke the reference to the chasm is meant to express the uncorrectable finality of the unsalvific fate that has fallen upon the rich man. In this respect, the separation of the places described in 1 Enoch 22.8–­12, in which the souls of the righteous and the wicked are kept until the judgment, is based on a completely different concept. ἐστήρικται is probably a passivum divinum and as such is meant “to call to mind . . . the στηρίζων” (Jülicher 1976, II: 629; see also Spicq 1994, III: 291–­95). 27-­31 With the second round of conversation the narrative spreads to the audience within the story, i.e., to the Pharisees as the addressees of

284

The Gospel According to Luke

Jesus’s speech. They are the ones who, according to v. 29, “have Moses and the prophets” and who are exhorted here to follow their demands (ἀκουσάτωσαν αὐτῶν), if they want to avoid the fate of the rich man. An allegorical application to the intended readers of the Gospel of Luke is difficult, since by now, they not only have more than “Moses and the prophets” (cf. above all 24.27; Acts 26.22-­23; 28.23), but the scenario that is in view in vv. 30-­31 also does not fit them. Luke does not open up the parable to his readers until 17.2. 27-­28 That people who find or have already found themselves in the realm of the dead come back to those who are still living in order to bring them messages is a motif that is attested in the whole of ancient literature. The most well known parallel is the Myth of Er in Plato’s Republic (Respublica 10; 613e–­621d). After staying for many days in the beyond, during which time he receives insight into the fate of the souls in the time between the leaving of the body and the reentry into life, the Pamphylian Er is sent back into life with the commission that “he should become a proclaimer to the people of the things there” (δέοι αὐτὸν ἄγγελον ἀνθρώποις γενέσθαι τῶν ἐκεῖ; 614d). This text is taken up in Plutarch, Moralia 563b–­568a and 589f–­592e (there, admittedly, without the construction of a temporary death) and in Somnium Scipionis (Cicero, De republica 6.9–­26). The apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres (Jamnes and Mambres) knows of a Jewish variant. Jamnes is brought up from the underworld by his brother via necromancy and communicates to him the following message: “. . . I resisted the two brothers Moses and Aaron . . . For this reason I died and was led down from the openness into the underworld where a great burning and a sea of damnation is found, from which there is no ascent. . . . And now, my brother Mambres, take care in your life that you do good to your sons and friends, for in the underworld there is nothing good but only sadness and darkness . . .” (British Library Cotton MS Tiberius B V, fol. 87, ed. Pietersma 1994, 280, lines 7–­15); see also Bauckham 1991b, 237ff.

What makes the second request of the rich man significant in terms of content is undoubtedly the extensive gaps in connection with the presupposition underlying the telic clause in 28c—­viz., that the unsalvific fate that met the rich man after his death was quite avoidable. It is neither said what Lazarus should communicate to the brothers of the rich man, nor by which behavior they could avoid the fate of their dead brother. The readers must supply both from the context (unlike 1 Timothy 5.21, the ἵνα-­sentence dependent on διαμαρτύρεσθαι provides not the content but the intention). The content of the communication emerges from the course of the narrative up to now—­that on the basis of the principle mentioned in v. 25, their present well-being in this world will be reversed to future



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 285

torment in the beyond. It is much more difficult to answer the question of the pragmatics of this communication, especially since the postmortem fate, contrary to the principle mentioned in v. 25, is now suddenly placed in the nexus of conduct and consequences. It emerges from v. 30 that it is only “repentance” (μετανοεῖν) that can preserve the brothers of the rich man from the same unsalvific fate, but it is not yet said by what actions this should be expressed. Only the reference to “Moses and the prophets” (on this lexical pair see at v. 16a-­b) in 29 makes a certain concretization possible. As in 1QS I, 2–­3 (“. . . in order to do what is good and just in his presence, as he commanded through Moses and all his servants, the prophets”) they are deployed here as mediators of God’s will. The rich brothers within the narrative are thereby accused of ignoring the will of God that is accessible in “Moses and the prophets.” On the level of the literary context the parable is opened up at this point toward the Pharisees as the parable’s narrated addressees. It is all the more known to them what “Moses and the prophets” require, for they also know their interpretation by John the Baptist (cf. the linkage to 3.11 via 16.16a and 17.29-­30). But with this the readers can also fill in the pragmatic gap. If the five rich brothers “repent” (v. 30) and give clothing and food to those who have nothing (3.11) as “fruits of their repentance” (3.8), then they will avoid the unsalvific fate that has met their brother. 30-­31 The concluding exchange of words has caused most recent commentators to see Abraham’s concluding saying (31b-­c) as an allusion to the resurrection and the virtually unanimous Jewish rejection of the Christian proclamation (Bauckham 1991b, 243 remains skeptical). It can be adduced in favor of this interpretation that in Luke there is, in fact, a close connection between “Moses/law and prophets” and the proclamation of Christ (cf. Luke 24.27; Acts 26.22-­23; 28.23). Three points, however, speak against it: (a) with the verb πείθειν (31c) in Acts 17.4; 18.4; 19.8; 26.28; 28.23, 24, where it is used in the context of the proclamation of Christ to Jews, Luke never designates its rejection (the ‘most negative’ use is still found in 26.28, i.e., in the exclamation of King Agrippa II: ἐν ὀλίγῳ με πείθεις χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι). (b) The post-­Easter witnesses of the resurrection summon Jews to “repentance” only in Jerusalem (μετάνοια; cf. 30c; Acts 2.38; 3.19; 5.31); as soon as the Christian proclamation has left Jerusalem it is always only Gentiles who “repent” or are invited to “repentance” (Acts 11.18; 17.30; 20.21; 26.20). (c) It is hardly possible to recognize metaphorical representatives of non–­Christ-­believing Judaism in the five rich brothers. It is therefore by no means settled that Luke concludes the parable here with a coded announcement of the failure of the proclamation of Christ before Jews.

286

The Gospel According to Luke

In 31c part of the textual tradition reads not ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ but ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀπέλθῃ (W it sys, c MarcionA). Codex D combines both readings. Tanghe 1984, 562 defends ἀπέλθῃ as original because this reading is attested both in Western and in Syriac manuscripts. In its favor one could also adduce the fact that it could indeed be the lectio difficilior (see also Bauckham 1991b, 243 and already Jülicher 1976, II: 632: “Would a Christian such as the writer of Luke 16.31 have intentionally avoided the term ἀναστῆναι in favor of such a bland ἀπέλθῃ?”). On the other hand, however, one can also explain the origin of ἀπέλθῃ from ἀναστῇ through the influence of the narrative about the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11.1-­45. Following it the Pharisees and chief priests together with the Sanhedrin form a resolution to kill Jesus (11.46-­53); in addition, ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀπέλθῃ fits well with the Johannine Lazarus. Therefore, rebus sic stantibus, there is more in favor of following the external attestation and giving precedence to ἀναστῇ.

17.1-­10: Another Speech to the Disciples 1

But he spoke to his disciples, “It is impossible that no harms come, but woe (to the one) through whom they come. 2It is better for him if a millstone is hung around his neck and he is thrown into the sea than that he harms one of these little ones. 3Watch yourselves! “If your brother sins, correct him. And if he is sorry, forgive him. 4 And if he sins against you seven times in a day and turns again to you seven times and says, ‘I am sorry,’ you must forgive him.” 5 And the apostles said to the Lord, “Add faith to us!” 6But the Lord said, “If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, ‘Uproot yourself and plant yourself in the sea.’ And it would obey you. 7 “Who of you who has a slave for plowing or shepherding will say to him, when he comes from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down at the table’? 8Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare my food for me, gird yourself, and wait on me until I have eaten and drunk; after that you may eat and drink’? 9Is he thankful to the slave because he has carried out the tasks? 10Thus also you: If you have done everything that was commanded you, then say, ‘We are good-­for-­nothing slaves; we have done what we were obligated to do.’” The narrative does not make any progress, for the new speech to the disciples receives no scenic embedding of its own. Luke no longer even makes an effort to distance it temporally and spatially from the preceding speech to the Pharisees. The readers get the impression that Jesus simply continues the speech of 16.1-­13, which was interrupted by 16.14-­31.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 287

On the tradition history: (a) The hypothetical threat saying in vv. 1-­3d is evidently a Mark–­Q double tradition (cf. Fleddermann 1995, 159ff): The announcement of σκάνδαλα and the woe saying are also connected with the saying about the millstone in Matthew 18.6-­7 (though in the opposite order). The latter is also handed down in Mark 9.42, with which Luke 17.2 has in common the phrasings περίκειται . . . περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ καί and εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν as well as (with lightly deviating word placement) σκανδαλίσῃ τῶν μικρῶν τούτων ἕνα. There are no Lukan–­Matthean agreements against Markan phrasings. How much of v. 2 goes back to Q must remain open (see also Schlosser 1983, 76ff). An early tradition of the woe saying outside of the New Testament is found in 1 Clement 46.8. It shows elements of all the synoptic versions; with the Lukan version it shares the sequence of threat and reproach. (b) The exhortation to forgive the brother who is willing to repent (vv.  3b-­4) overlaps with Matthew 18.15 (ἐὰν . . . ἁμαρτήσῃ ὁ ἀδελφός σου) and 18.22 (seven times [ἑπτάκις] sinning and forgiveness), so that an origin from Q is not unlikely. (c) The saying about faith like a mustard seed (v. 6) has points of contact with Matthew 17.20. Here, too, an origin from Q is conceivable. A parallel tradition is found in Mark 11.23 (with a parallel in Matthew 21.21; cf. F. Hahn 1985, 155; Fleddermann 1995, 178f)—­specifically, in the context of the cursing of the fig tree omitted by Luke (Mark 11.12-­14, 20-­26). There are two parallels in Gospel of Thomas 48, 106 to the Markan-­Matthean parallels that speak of moving not a mulberry tree but a mountain. In neither of these two logia, however, is it the faith that brings it about. (d) The parable of the slave who may expect no gratefulness (vv. 7-­10) exists nowhere else. Thus, we do not know where it comes from.

Thus, the material comes, at least for the most part, from Q, without it already forming a literary unit there. Luke placed it together into an admonition speech about the right behavior of disciples. 1-­3a Form-­critically this is a warning that is formulated as a hypothetical announcement of judgment. The threat includes a fate that is worse than being thrown into the sea with a millstone around one’s neck (2a-­b). Presumably the so-­called ‘runner’ of a donkey mill is in mind (cf. Matthew 18.6 and its description in Bill. I: 775–­76; Luz III: 20; see also the image in D. Baatz, DNP 8: 431). By contrast the reproach refers to a behavior that causes “harm” (σκάνδαλα) (1c) or “harms (σκανδαλίσῃ) one of these little ones” (2c). σκάνδαλον originally designated the trigger in the animal trap and then the trap itself; cf. Alciphron, Epistulae 2.19.1 (“I placed a trap for the . . . foxes, in which I attached some flesh to the trigger [κρεᾴδιον τῆς σκανδάλης ἀπαρτήσας]”); Julius

288

The Gospel According to Luke

Pollux, Onomasticon 7.114; 10.156; P. Zeno 59.608.6–­7 (conjecture). Noun and verb are attested almost exclusively in the Septuagint (in other Jewish writings they are completely absent) and in the New Testament, and here always with a figurative meaning (thus also already in Aristophanes, Acharnenses 687 on the litigation adversary: ἐρωτᾷ σκανδάληθρ’ ἱστάς [“he asks and places a trap”]); for the history of the term cf. Stählin 1930, 10ff; G. Stählin, ThWNT 7: 338–­58; K. Müller 1969. Thus, σκάνδαλα are events or actions that have harm as a consequence, which can reach from subjective displeasures to complete ruin. In this sense, the following can be designated as σκάνδαλα: the population of Canaan for Israel (Joshua 23.13; Judges 2.3); ambushes (1 Maccabees 5.20); offenses against the Jewish food taboos or other sins (Judith 12.2; 5.20; PsalmLXX 48.14; Revelation 2.14); “idols” (Wisdom of Solomon 14.11; see also PsalmLXX 105.36 [“They served other idols and they became εἰς σκάνδαλον for them”]; Hosea 4.17LXX [“Ephraim is an associate of idols, it has set up for itself σκάνδαλα”]). An analogous finding applies to the verb σκανδαλίζειν. As in Luke 17.2 (i.e., actively and with an accusative object), it is used in Psalms of Solomon 16.7 (“Preserve me, God, from evil sins and from every evil woman, σκανδαλιζούσης ἄφρονα [who leads a fool to ruin]”); see also 1 Corinthians 8.13 and the passive equivalent in Sirach 9.5: “Do not look at a virgin intently lest you be harmed (μήποτε σκανδαλισθῇς) and suffer penalties for her”; 23.8; 32.15; Daniel 11.41 variant reading; Matthew 15.12 and John 6.61 (here in combination with γογγύζειν) with reference to Jesus’s words. Thus far the only nonbiblical attestation for the verb is Philogelos 44: “A student, who slept beside his father in his room, got up at night from his bed and ate the grapes that hung over it; τοῦ δὲ πατρὸς σκανδαλισθέντος (but because the father was disturbed [or the like]). . . .”

In the vicinity of the warning may stand texts such as 1 Corinthians 8.13; 1 John 2.10. Thematically it would then refer to a behavior of a disciple of Jesus that leads to another disciple being “harmed” by it—­whatever that might mean (1 Clement 46.8b replaces σκανδαλίζειν with διαστρέφειν). Turning away from faith in the sense of Matthew 24.10; Mark 4.17par. can be meant as well as the scenarios described in 1 Corinthians 8.7-­11 and Romans 14.13-­15. The immediate context and the use of σκάνδαλον and σκανδαλίζειν elsewhere in the New Testament make it likely that Luke has the disciples be instructed here to care for the preservation of the integrity of the community in a very special way. However, it is not impossible that here Luke now also confronts the readers with Lazarus (see at v. 2). The assertion in 1b corresponds to the announcement of a future turning away from the right path and the rise of deceivers, as these occur especially in early Jewish and New Testament texts (cf. in the New Testament: Acts 20.29-­30; 2 Timothy 3.1-­5a, 6-­7; 4.3-­4; for Jewish examples see



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 289

Wolter 1988b, 238ff). On ἀνένδεκτος as an expression of unavoidability cf. Chrysippus, Fragment 55 in Diogenes Laertius 7.50; Artemidorus, Onirocriticon 270 (Pack 1963, 201.12); Aristophanes Byzantinus, Fragment, ed. A. Nauck 1963, 13; P. Lond. IV 1404.8; for the construction with a substantivized infinitive in the genitive see BDR §400.4. The threat saying in 2 employs the form of the “better-­than sayings,” which is widespread in Hellenistic gnomic literature; as in this passage with impersonal λυσιτελεῖ + ἤ (in any case rabbinic usage [so Ernst] is not present here): Gnomologium Vaticanum 39 (λυσιτελεῖ δι’ ἐμὲ τὸ ἀργύριον ἀπολέσθαι ἢ ἐμὲ δι’ αὐτό [“It is better that the money is lost for my sake than that I am for its sake”]); Plutarch, Moralia 1104b; widespread in various variants is the saying λυσιτελεῖ τεθνάναι μᾶλλον ἢ ζῆν (“It is better to die than to live”) (Isocrates, Philippus 55; see also Epistulae 7.9; Andocides, De mysteriis 125; Tobit 3.6); contrast Chrysippus, Fragment 760 (SVF III: 1888.21ff: λυσιτελεῖ ζῆν ἄφρονα μᾶλλον ἢ [μὴ] βιοῦν [“It is better to live as a fool than not to exist at all”]; cf. further K. Berger 1984b, 1064, 1102). “One of these little ones” stems here from Mark 9.42. Matthew also adopted this designation in 10.42; 18.10, 14, while it is replaced in 1 Clement 46.8 with “one of my elect” (ἕνα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν μου). As a self-­designation of the people of God it also occurs in 2 Baruch 48.19 (“Look at the small ones who submit to you, and save all those who come to you. And do not take away the hope of our people, and do not make short the times of our help” [trans. A. F. J. Klijn, OTP 1: 636]). It is not ruled out that Luke wanted the demonstrative pronoun to be understood anaphorically and that εἷς τούτων τῶν μικρῶν directs more than a mere sideways glance of the readers to Lazarus (cf. already John Chrysostom, De Lazaro 2.5 [PG 48.989]). 3a The exhortation προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς occurs in the New Testament only in Luke (cf. in addition 12.1 [see further there]; 21.34; Acts 5.35; 20.28). It should be understood as a conclusion and rhetorical intensification of the warning pronounced in vv. 1-­2, for the plural fits better with this than with the second person singular of vv. 3b-­4. 3b-­4 There follows a climactic double saying, which exhorts limitless readiness to forgive among the adherents of Jesus. This is a topic that is also addressed in Matthew 18.15-­18, 21-­35 and Colossians 3.13. 3b-­c In Testament of Gad 6.3 an exhortation that is parallel, partly even in its wording, concretizes the reciprocal love command: “Love one another from the heart, καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμαρτήσει εἰς σέ, speak to him in peace . . . , καὶ ἐάν . . . μετανοήσῃ ἄφες αὐτῷ” (see also Sirach 28.2). That we are dealing with a common ancient social ideal is shown by a quotation from Plutarch’s tractate De fraterno amore:

290

The Gospel According to Luke

“Asking for and receiving forgiveness (συγγνώμη) reveals goodwill and affection in no less a way than granting it to ἁμαρτοῦσι. . . ; therefore we must not refuse it to those who ask for it” (Moralia 489.c). When in Luke ἐπιτίμησον αὐτῷ (3b) stands in the place of “speak to him in peace” (Testament of Gad 6.3), this is a reaction to interpersonal ἁμαρτάνειν that is common in the pagan environment: e.g., Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.7.3 about Socrates and the politicians (ὅταν τι ἁμαρτάνωσιν, ὀρθῶς ἐπιτιμῶν [“if they fail in any way, rightly reproving (them)”]); Plutarch, Moralia 14a (τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν υἱοῖς ἐπιτιμᾶν [“to reprove the sons who are failing”]); see also Moralia 70a; 186–­187; 198e; Isocrates, Ad Nicoclem 28; Demosthenes, Orationes 5.2; Dionysius of Halicarnasus, De Demosthene 6 and the elsewhere.

In terms of content, the Lukan regulation does not differ from Matthew 18.15: ἐπιτίμησον αὐτῷ corresponds to ἔλεγξον αὐτόν (Matthew 18.15b; see also Leviticus 19.17; CD IX, 7–­8; 1QS V, 25–­26), ἐὰν μετανοήσῃ corresponds to ἐάν σου ἀκούσῃ (Matthew 18.15c) and ἄφες αὐτῷ corresponds to ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν σου (Matthew 18.15d). With hyperbolic intensification 4 wants to ensure that really every “repentance” finds forgiveness. This unlimitedness is brought to expression by ἑπτάκις τῆς ἡμέρας, which is certainly not meant literally. And even if this were in fact the case, such a restriction would of course never be exhausted in reality, so that the regulation leads de facto to every “repentance” finding forgiveness. That Luke wants to refer to Psalm 119.164 (“I praise you seven times a day because of the regulations of your righteousness”) is unlikely. μετανοῶ (I have found no other attestation for the form, even with the aid of TLG #E) is quoted here as an explicitly performative utterance. 5-­6 Form-­critically this is an apophthegmatic chreia, for which the narrative setting was created by Luke himself. As elsewhere (e.g., in 15.1-­2; 17.37), the scene interprets the saying of Jesus that follows. 5 The petition of the apostles is usually understood as a petition to increase their faith, which already exists but is experienced by them as insufficient. The phrase προστίθημι τινὶ πίστιν appears in multiple places in non-­Jewish Greek literature. Here the dative can designate the one who “believes” or ought to “believe”; cf. Demosthenes, Orationes 54.42 with reference to a testimony: “after I presented all the legal circumstances and added to you (sc. the judges) proof (καὶ πίστιν προσθέντος ὑμῖν).” But the majority of the texts relate the expression in the exact opposite manner to the person or the thing that is “believed”; cf. Plutarch, C. Gracchus 31.4 (through his behavior “Fulvius himself gave credibility to the rumors [λεγομένοις . . . προσετίθει πίστιν] that were neither proven nor



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 291

investigated”); see also Galba 3.3; Moralia 1123d; Galen, In Hippocratis aphorismi, ed. Kühn 1964, XVIIb: 562.4; Aelius Aristides, Rhodian Oration 559.16.

The petition of the apostles cannot be explained from this usage, and it certainly does not mean “ayez foi en nous” (contra Delebecque 1976, 103). Therefore, one must make a detour via the answer of Jesus in 6. Jesus’s response is formulated as though it attacks a thesis that underlies the petition (although the thesis does not appear on the surface of the text), namely that the apostles claimed they already had faith, which one only needed to increase. In that case, Jesus is stating that this assumption is an illusion and they did not yet have faith that was as large as a mustard seed, i.e., they had no faith at all (as in 13.19 reference is made here to the mustard seed because of its proverbial smallness; see further there). The answer begins as a real conditional sentence (better: as “indefinitus. . . , since a personal view about the reality or actualization is not suggested”; BDR §3721: “if you really have faith [as you petition,—­but you do not have it; but if you had it], then you would”). Thus, ἐλέγετε ἄν . . . (6c) does not belong to the protasis but to the apodosis, which continues the conditional sentence. The πίστις is not an accompanying circumstance but the presupposition of the λέγειν. In this way Luke establishes an antithetical opposition between the two imperatives in v. 5b (πρόσθες ἡμῖν πίστιν) and 6d (ἐκριζώθητι καὶ φυτεύθητι ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ). If the apostles had faith at all, then they would not petition Jesus for its increase, but exhort the mulberry bush (συκάμινος; on this cf. C.-­H. Hunzinger, ThWNT 7: 758) to uproot itself and plant itself in the sea. It emerges from the content of the answer that the topic of the saying is not the “power of faith” (thus Eckey II: 731 as a representative for many), but the absent faith on the side of the apostles. That Luke makes precisely the apostles into questioners and has Jesus address his answer to them is presumably meant to remove the irritation that is otherwise associated with the saying of faith and the mulberry tree. For Luke knows just as well as his readers that even a faith that is greater than a mustard seed cannot move a mulberry tree and both also know, of course, that there is no mulberry tree that would “obey” the exhortation pronounced in 6d. Luke must fix Jesus’s saying about faith that can uproot a mulberry tree and plant it in the sea historically so that he can keep it at a distance from the faith of his readers. For this reason he has it be spoken to the apostles as the figures of an irrecoverable past who are “chosen” by Jesus and distinguished in a special way. Thus, what Jesus says about the power of the faith of the apostles (if they had it) is not meant to apply to normal Christian faith. After all, in light of 9.1-­2, this seems at least plausible. Still, we have here a hard saying. It makes clear, however, that in the Lukan understanding

292

The Gospel According to Luke

the apostles are not distinguished by their own power but solely through Jesus’s “election” (6.13). What “faith” means has been understood far better by other people whom Jesus has encountered than by the apostles (cf. 5.19-­20; 7.9-­10, 50; 8.28, 50). 7-­10 Luke has Jesus now narrate his last τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν parable (after 11.5-­8, 11; 14.5, 28, 31; 15.4, 8; see further at 11.5). Here, however, we are not dealing with a narrative in the strict sense, but, similarly to 11.5-­8, with the scenic description of a situation with two alternative actions (on the one hand, v. 7b-­c; on the other hand, v. 8), which are each marked by ἐρεῖ αὐτῷ (v. 7b, 8a). However, the rhetorical question in v. 7a already anticipates the decision. None of the apostles (provided that he had a slave) would greet his slave returning home from the field work with the words quoted in v. 7c, but always with the words of v. 8b-­d. Syntactically the interrogative sentence that opens with τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν in v. 7a concludes with the end of v. 7. A new question sentence is opened with ἀλλ’ οὐχί in v. 8a. 7 The relative clause actually requires that an ἐστίν be added to τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν (see also Acts 19.35 and Luke 5.21; 7.49). The hearers are assigned the perspective of the lord. The question is meant to be answered with “no one!” This clarity is, to be sure, possible only in connection with the following verse, for it is only through it that the hearers/readers receive the additional information required for their decision. Although Luke uses ποιμαίνειν in Acts 20.28 as a metaphor for the activity of leading the community (see also John 21.16; Ephesians 4.11; 1 Peter 5.25), here neither the verb nor ἀροτριᾶν point beyond the sphere of the image; something analogous also applies to διακονεῖν in v. 8b (contra Minear 1974, 85 among others). The alternative is also introduced with the help of a rhetorical question in 8. The question is meant to be answered with “Yes!” (see, in addition, 2 Samuel 10.13; Philo, Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat 33: here too ἀλλ’ οὐχί stands between two alternative rhetorical questions and introduces the question that is to be answered positively). This alternative question is absolutely necessary for the understanding of the question formulated in v. 7a, for it becomes clear only through it that the lord has only this one slave who must attend to the field work and the house work. Without this verse, the answer to v. 7 would definitely not be as clear as is required in the case of a rhetorical question. This viewpoint speaks decisively against the assumption that v. 8 was not connected with v. 7 from the beginning (contra Weiser 1971, 109–­10; Marshall; Wehr 1998, 79 and others). Here διακονεῖν (8b) means nothing more than to wait on at the table, as in 4.39; 10.40; 12.37; 22.26-­27, and does not spread to the world under discussion (see also at v. 7). For the understanding of περιζώννυμι see at 12.35.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 293

In 9 another rhetorical question follows. The introductory negation μή makes clear that it must be answered with “No!” (cf. BDR §427.2a). Correspondingly, part of the textual tradition (A D W Θ Ψ f 13 𝔐 and others) has the speaker himself answer his question with οὐ δοκῶ (the two words are absent in 𝔓75 ‫ א‬B L f 1 and others). This question generalizes the issue beyond the situation described in v. 7 and thereby paves the way for the ‘application’ in v. 10. χάριν ἔχειν τινί . . . ὅτι is a Greek idiom, which consistently means “to thank” or “to be thankful” (e.g., Plato, Protagoras 328d; Xenophon, Hellenica 3.4.11; 11.2; Isocrates, Aegineticus 2; Plutarch, Timoleon 36.5; Moralia 177e; 480c; 485d; Epictetus, Dissertationes 3.5.10; Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.49; never in the LXX or in Philo); this finding is not taken into account in Knowles 2003, 258 (on his thesis see also at v. 10). On ποιεῖν τὰ διαταχθέντα cf. BDR §761: “administrative language” with reference to Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 5.252; 11.138 (here, however, we always find τὸ προσταχθὲν ποιεῖν); but cf. the Jewish fragment handed down in George Hamartolus, Chronicon breve 218.5 (Denis 1970, 213.18–­19): “The high priest carried out all the orders [τὰ διατεταγμένα πάντα πεποίηκε]”). 10 provides the application (as here with οὕτως also in 12.21; 14.33; 15.7, 10; 17.10; see further at 14.11), i.e., the transference of the parable to the world under discussion. Surprisingly the perspective now changes. The hearers/readers are now assigned the position of the slave, who may expect no thanks from his lord—­who is transparent for God—­when he has done the tasks assigned to him. This change in perspective, however, should not become an occasion for source-­critical surgeries, for the fact that the hearers/readers are first offered the perspective of the lord is part of a persuasive strategy that is meant to establish the evidential basis. Whoever has answered all the rhetorical questions concerning the action of the lord in vv. 7-­9, as they were posed, is trapped when he or she is suddenly assigned the role of the slave in the application. Within the context, the concern is therefore with how the apostles are meant to evaluate themselves (10d) and their deeds (10e). As a characteristic of slaves ἀχρεῖος is also common elsewhere; cf. Matthew 25.30; P. Par. 68.3r.27 (Wilcken 1982: [τ]οὺς ἀχρείους δούλου[ώ]); Vita Aesopi 54 (“The guilt lies not with us but παρὰ τὸν ἀχρεῖον δοῦλον”); 140 (“I was killed not by honorable and reputable [ἔντιμοι καὶ ἐλλόγιμοι] men, but ὑπὸ κακίστων καὶ ἀχρείων δούλων”); Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon 5.17.8. We are thus dealing with a cliché that does not describe an action but characterizes the person (the etymological detour taken by Kilgallen 1982 is therefore unnecessary); cf. also the overview in Houzet 1992, 340ff.

294

The Gospel According to Luke

The exhortation to regard themselves as δοῦλοι ἀχρεῖοι (10d) refers to the self-­assessment of the apostles. It summons them to not be smug about their status, but to relativize it in a self-­abasing manner. In contrast, 10e refers to the deeds of the apostle and points back to χάριν ἔχειν (v. 9). They are instructed to view their deeds as nothing other than the obligatory carrying out of what is assigned to them and therefore to derive no claim to gratitude from it. Contra Knowles 2003, the ancient ethic of reciprocity (see further at 6.32-­34) remains completely unaffected, for when a slave does τὰ διαταχθέντα, this is not a χάρις that demands a recompense (Knowles 2003, 260: “χάρις in return”) but an ὀφείλημα. Knowles 2003 confuses two different meanings of χάρις. In this vein, the oppositions of χάρις and ὀφείλημα in Romans 4.4 and Thucydides 2.40.4–­5 are based on a completely different meaning of χάρις than χάριν ἔχειν in Luke 17.9 (see also Spicq 1994, III: 500–­501 with section III, on the one hand, and section IV, on the other hand). 17.11-­21: The Thankful Samaritan and the Question of the Pharisees

The narrative of the thankful Samaritan does not at all interrupt the sequence of disciples and Pharisees as alternating discussion partners of Jesus that Luke began in 15.1; rather, it functions as a preparation for the question of the Pharisees in v. 20. It is meant to confront the ignorance of the Pharisees, who have still not grasped that the kingdom of God is present in the activity of Jesus (vv. 20–­21), with the insight of an ἀλλογενής (cf. v. 18), who identifies his healing by Jesus as God’s action (vv. 15-­16; see also Danker; Meynet 673; D. Hamm 1994, 286). 17.11-­19: The Thankful Samaritan 11

And it happened on the way to Jerusalem that he passed right through Samaria and Galilee. 12And as he was entering a village, ten leprous men came (to him), who stood at a distance. 13And they raised their voices and said, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” 14And when he saw (them), he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And it happened as they went that they were made clean. 15And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, returned and praised God with a loud voice. 16And he fell on his face at his feet and thanked him. And he was a Samaritan. 17But Jesus answered and said: “Were not ten made clean? The (remaining) nine—­where are they? 18Were no others found who returned to praise God, but only this foreigner?” 19And he said to him, “Get up and go! Your faith has saved you.”



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 295

The episode is reminiscent not only of 5.12-­14 but also of the narrative of the faith of the centurion in 7.1-­10 (see also at v. 14). Both here and there a healing story is joined with a chreia, and both here and there the concluding saying of Jesus praises the faith of a non-­Jew with words that cause a shadow to fall upon Israel (cf. 7.9 and 17.18-­19). 7.1-­10 and 17.11-­19 differ, however, in the fact that there the elements of the two genres are interwoven with each other, whereas Luke orders them sequentially here and in doing so fully develops the healing story. After the introduction (v. 11) the exposition (vv. 12-­13) sets the form-­critical course in the direction of the healing story. However, the casualness with which the healing is narrated in the center (v. 14) already suggests that the focal point of the narrative lies elsewhere. And indeed the finale of the healing story (vv. 15-­ 16) becomes the starting point of the chreia, which ends with two sayings of Jesus (vv. 17-­18, 19). Against Bruners’s thesis (Bruners 1977) that Luke himself constructed vv. 11-­19 on the basis of the narrative of the cleansing of the Syrian Naaman in 2 Kings 5.1-­ 15 in order to make clear that Jesus is greater than Elisha (cf. 103ff, 297ff) stands above all the fact that the correspondences between the two narratives are much too general and unspecific to be able to identify 2 Kings 5.1-­15 as a specific pretext of Luke 17.11-­19. Furthermore, it emerges from vv. 17-­19 that Luke ascribes to the episode a completely different point than that of the “outdoing” of an Old Testament prophet.

11 The travel note (on the phrasing καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν + καί + verbum finitum see at 5.12, 17; 8.1) does not signal the beginning of a new main part in the so-­called travel narrative, but is instead motivated by the content of the following episode (see also von Bendemann 2001, 349; Klein 562). It is only meant to pave the way for the meeting of Jesus with a Samaritan. The specifications about Jesus’s travel route are controversial. Controversy begins already with the textual tradition. Instead of διὰ μέσον (𝔓75vid ‫ א‬B D [without διά] L 579 1424 pc: “right through Samaria and Galilee”; see also ἀνὰ μέσον f 1,13 2542 Titus Bostr.), A W Θ Ψ 33 𝔐 read διὰ μέσου (“between Samaria and Galilee straight through”). This variant, however, is not only more poorly attested but also less difficult linguistically: διὰ μέσον is very uncommon (only Sibylline Oracles 3.316: “a sword will pass through you [διελεύσεται . . . διὰ μέσον σεῖο]”; Arrian, FGH 2b: 866, Fragment 76b [in the sense of “underway”]; Cyranides, ed. Kaimakis 1976, 3.10; Joannes Stobaeus, Anthologium I: 49.44 [Wachsmuth/Hense 1958, I: 400.6]: διὰ μέσον ἀνατέμνειν “to cut through the middle”; see so BDR §222.11), while διὰ μέσου is a common Greek idiom. Plus, the sequence of the territories does not fit wth διὰ μέσον (whoever wants to go to

296

The Gospel According to Luke

Jerusalem does not wander “right through Samaria and Galilee”—­at least not in this sequence), while διὰ μέσου allows the idea that Jesus went along the border region between Galilee and Samaria (cf. e.g., Lindemann 1993, 59; for the older discussion see Bruners 1977, 156ff). It is therefore more likely that διὰ μέσον is the original reading.

With Conzelmann one can explain the geographically inexact sequence of the territory names with the fact that Luke did not have a precise knowledge of the geography of Palestine (“the whole land appears to be viewed from overseas”), especially since Luke also lists the territories in a geographically disordered way in Acts 9.31 (“Judea and Galilee and Samaria”). This is at least more probable than the historizing reconstruction attempt of Böhm 1999, 271ff, who does not distinguish cleanly between the literary and historical levels of interpretation. In addition, the use of the imperfect suggests that Luke does not seek to portray a travel journey (see also von Bendemann 2001, 350), but rather seeks only to indicate the geographical sphere in which Jesus moves. On διέρχεσθαι as a typically Lukan word see at 2.15. 12 The episode is opened with an exposition that lets the readers expect that Jesus will heal the ten lepers according to the pattern of 5.12-­ 14. On leprosy see at 5.12. That Luke has the leprous men stand “at a distance” (πόρρωθεν) is probably motivated by the leprosy command of Leviticus 13.46, according to which lepers must keep their distance from other people (“He should dwell alone, his dwelling should be outside of the camp”; see also Numbers 5.2). The continuation of a pronominal subject in a genitive absolute (here: εἰσερχομένου αὐτοῦ) through another pronoun (here: αὐτῷ) is rather uncommon, but it is prevalent in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 1.20; 5.2; Mark 5.2; cf. BDR §423.27; see also at Luke 8.27). The repetition of the pronoun, which is strongly demanded by ἀπαντάω, is accordingly lacking in part of the textual tradition (𝔓75 B [D] L pc; with αὐτῷ: ‫ א‬A W Θ Ψ f 1,13 33 𝔐 lat syp, h). A decision is not possible. The reading without is better attested.

13 “To raise the voice” ([ἐπ]αίρειν τὴν φωνήν) in the sense of “to speak loudly” is found only in Luke in the New Testament (see in addition 17.13; Acts 2.14; 14.11; 22.22). The same is true for the address ἐπιστάτα, which is otherwise always used only by the disciples; cf. 5.5 (see further there); 8.24, 45; 9.33, 49. That the miracle worker is petitioned for his helping intervention with the petition ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς/ἐλέησόν με (or the like) also belongs to the expositional motifs of miracle stories in Mark 10.47-­48par. Luke 18.38-­39par. Matthew 20.30-­31; Matthew 9.27; 15.22;



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 297

17.15 (cf. Theissen 1987, 63–­64). In the Psalms this petition is part of the turning to God and the petition for salvation and preservation (‫חּנֵ י‬/‫נּו‬ ָ ֵ‫;חּנ‬ ָ cf. Psalm 6.3; 9.14; 24[25].16; 25[26].11; 26[27].7; 30[31].10; 40[41].5, 11; 50[51].3; 55[56].2 and elsewhere; see also Isaiah 33.2; Sirach 36.1; 3 Maccabees 6.12). In Luke 16.24 the rich man turns with it to Abraham (see also 2 Maccabees 7.27), and it is also found in comparable contexts in pagan Greek literature: e.g., Sophocles, Philoctetes 501 (σὺ σῶσον, σύ μ’ ἐλέησον [“You, save, you, have mercy on me!”]); Aristophanes, Vespae 393 (ἐλέησον καὶ σῶσον νυνὶ τὸν σαυτοῦ πλησιόχωρον [“Have mercy and save now your neighbor!”]). 14 Unlike in 5.13, the action and/or saying that effects the healing remains unstated (this gap is filled out in the manuscript tradition; cf. the variant in Codex D and the marginalia from Matthew 8.3 in 𝔓75). Similar to 7.10, a healing also occurs without an action or a saying of Jesus (ἐκαθαρίσθησαν is passivum divinum). Rather, Luke has Jesus immediately give the instruction for the demonstration of the success of the healing (see at 5.14b; according to Leviticus 13–­14 the disappearance of the leprosy can be established only by a priest). The abbreviating manner of narration shows that Luke does not place the healing at the center but seeks to get as quickly as possible to its post-­history. Verse 14c also already heads for this. Unlike in 5.14, the narrator does not remain with Jesus scenically but temporarily leaves him. It is evidently presupposed that the ten lepers comply with the instruction of Jesus and lose their leprosy on the way to “the priests.” Only this sequence makes it possible to stage the reaction of the one in contrast to the nine in a plausible manner. If the healing had taken place right then and there, Luke could not have separated the one, who returned to Jesus to praise God, from the nine, who did not do this, without violating the verisimile after 13b. 15-­16a Form-­critically this is an acclamation report (cf. Theissen 1987, 80–­81). It refers first to God (15) and then to Jesus (16). That it is not the public but the healed man or woman who praises God (15b) is typically Lukan (see also 5.25 diff. Mark 2.12; Luke 13.13; 18.43 diff. Mark 10.52; Acts 3.8). δοξάζων τὸν θεόν with reference to the healed person is typically Lukan (see also 5.25; 18.43). The narrator has the healed person “return” for that purpose (ὑποστρέφειν is a typically Lukan word [thirty-­ two of thirty-­five New Testament attestations occur in Luke–­Acts]), which has a certain parallel in 2 Kings 5.15-­16. It says there regarding the Syrian Naaman, who is likewise healed of leprosy, that he “returns” (ἐπέστρεψεν) to Elisha, converts to the God of Israel (“Behold, I have recognized that there is no God on the whole earth except only in Israel”), and attempts to foist a remuneration on the prophet, which Elisha refuses. Here, however, we are not dealing with an allusion that is meant to guide the interpretation

298

The Gospel According to Luke

(contra Bruners 1977, 103ff), for the return of the Samaritan has an entirely different narrative function in the present episode (see at v. 14). Plus, in the case of healings that take place with temporal delay and spatial distancing, the return and thanksgiving of the person healed (cf. v. 16a) evidently belonged to the inventory of forms of corresponding narratives; cf. especially the healing reports on the so-­called “Maffei inscriptions” (SIG3 1173; text and translation in Edelstein/Edelstein 1945, #438): καὶ ἀνέβλεψεν καὶ ἐλήλυθεν καὶ ηὐχαρίστησεν δημοσίᾳ τῷ θεῷ ([“And he could see again and came and thanked God publicly”); lines 17–­18; see also lines 9–­10, 13–­14. The description of proskynesis as “fall on the (or ‘one’s’) face” is a Septuagintism (cf. Genesis 17.3, 17; Leviticus 9.24; Numbers 16.4 and elsewhere; see further Bruners 1977, 229–­30) and from a communicative perspective a gesture of submission (as here in connection with “at his feet” also 1 Samuel 25.23-­24 [Abigail before David]; Joseph and Aseneth 14.10 [Aseneth before the angel] and with εὐχαριστεῖν also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 7.95; 9.11 [in each case before God]).

16b The identification of the one who returns as a Samaritan, which is added retrospectively, places two characteristics in relation to each other that distinguish him from the other nine lepers who were healed. This correlation is commented on in the two following verses. Moreover, Luke, of course, also invokes the same constellation that he had already thematized in 9.52-­53 and 10.30-­35—­that is, the question of the correct worship of God, which was controversial between Jews and Samaritans (cf. above all the overlap of the semantic fields of 9.52-­53: “Samaritans,” “Jerusalem”; 10.30-­35: “Jerusalem,” “priest and Levite,” “Samaritan”; 17.14-­16: “priest,” “Samaritan”; see further at 9.53). Against this background, the narrative makes clear that of the ten who were healed, only the Samaritan recognized where the correct place of the glorification of God is (v. 15 and then also v. 18), and he therefore returned to Jesus (see also D. Hamm 1994, 285–­86). 17-­18 From the inventory of potential reactions with which Jesus could have answered the behavior of the Samaritan Luke realizes only a single one. He uses the Samaritan’s return and praise of God to call—­with the help of three rhetorical questions—­attention to the fact that the remaining nine who were healed failed to do so (on the translation of οἱ ἐννέα cf. BDR §265). The questions by no means remain open (thus Klein 566), but can be answered clearly: ‘yes’ (17b)—‘they did not return’ (17c—­that is at least the propositional content of this question)—‘no’ (18). However, Luke saves the most important accent, as already in v. 16, for the conclusion: the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 299

designation of the Samaritan as ἀλλογενής, which likewise functions as a reception-­steering choice from a multiplicity of other possible designations, makes an ascription of identity that is formulated from a Jewish perspective (cf. Böhm 1999, 194ff). οὐχ εὑρέθησαν is likewise a Septuagintism (cf. 1/3 Ezra 5.38; 2 Esdras 2.62; Job 42.15; Daniel 1.19Theodotion; see also 2 Enoch 102.10; Revelation 16.20; often also in the singular) like δοῦναι δόξαν τῷ θεῷ (“to give honor to God”) (cf. Joshua 7.19; 2 Chronicles 30.8LXX; 1/3 Ezra 9.8; PsalmLXX 67.35; Isaiah 42.14; Jeremiah 13.16; see also Deuteronomy 32.3; 1 Samuel 6.5; 1 Chronicles 16.28, 29; Malachi 2.2; Baruch 2.17; Luke 18.43; John 9.24; Acts 12.23; Romans 4.20; Revelation 11.13; 14.7; 16.9; 19.7). The term ἀλλογενής is never applied to the Samaritans elsewhere. It is noteworthy that this term is also used by the inscription in the Jerusalem temple that warns non-­Jews against entering the court of the Israelites: “No stranger (ἀλλογενής; in the rendering in Josephus, Bellum judaicum 5.194: ἀλλόφυλος; in Antiquitates judaicae 15.417: ἀλλοεθνής) is to enter within the balustrade round the temple and enclosure. Whoever is caught will be responsible for his death, which will ensue” (trans. C. Clermont-­Ganneau). This inscription is also preserved archaeologically in two copies (cf. Barrett/Thornton 1991, No. 54 [p. 60]). Nevertheless, here the intension of the term ἀλλογενής is not only marked by the fact that he reacts to his healing in a different manner than the other nine healed persons (contra Weissenrieder 2003, 203ff). Rather, his identity as ἀλλογενής precedes the action narrated in vv. 15-­16 and consists in the fact that he, as distinct from the other nine lepers, is a Samaritan; otherwise the corresponding information in v. 16b would remain completely without function.

Luke, however, has Jesus express nothing more than his amazement at the fact that, of all people, it is a non-­Jew who has understood him and his work better than the Jews in his group. For the moment this has no consequences. To be sure, readers who have already read through Luke–­Acts once and come to this passage a second time will hear a tone that not only calls to mind Luke 7.9 but also sounds similar to Acts 28.25-­28. 19 The exhortation ἀναστὰς πορεύου is found only in Luke in the whole Greek Bible (see in addition Acts 10.20; 22.10). However, the pleonastic joining of a participle of ἀνίστημι with a form of πορεύεσθαι is a Septuagintism (see at 1.39). Luke has taken over twice the concluding statement of assurance from the Gospel of Mark (8.48 and 18.42 from Mark 5.34 and 10.52). Unlike in 7.50; 8.48 and 18.42, the basis of knowledge for the presence of “faith” is not the behavior that preceded the healing or the forgiveness of sins, but the return of the Samaritan, his praise of God, and his falling-­at-­the-­feet thanksgiving (vv. 15-­16), for this expresses

300

The Gospel According to Luke

his insight into the identity of Jesus and the character of his activity. In his expression of the soteriological relation of cause and effect between faith and salvation, Luke participates in a widespread early Christian linguistic usage (documentation at 7.50). 17.20-­21: The Question of the Pharisees 20

And when he was asked by the Pharisees, “When does the kingdom of God come?” he answered him and said, “The kingdom of God comes not with observation. 21One will not say, ‘Look here!’ or ‘there!’ for look, the kingdom of God is among you.” The structuring through ἐπερωτηθείς . . . ἀπεκρίθη . . . καὶ εἶπεν shows that we are dealing with an almost classic chreia (cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 1.59 on Solon: “ἐρωτηθείς why he left no law on patricide ἔφη· . . .”; Plutarch, Moralia 189–­190: “King Charillus ἐρωτηθείς why Lycurgus left so few laws ἀπεκρίνατο . . .”; see also with the same verbs: Aristotle, Ethica eudemia 1215b7; Plutarch, Cato Major 21.1; Moralia 786d; Diogenes Laertius 3.38; 6.43; Philogelos 6; 174 as well as the collection in Hock/ O’Neil 1986, 301ff). In the literature it is debated whether these two verses should be read as a separate unit or whether they should be joined with vv. 22-­27 (thus, among others, Klostermann; Ernst; Bovon; Klein; Zmijewski 1972, 335ff; Hartman 1992b, 1665–­66). This question is clearly to be decided in favor of the first position mentioned (see also Lagrange; Meynet; Fitzmyer; Nolland; Eckey), for in addition to the form-­ critical independence of vv. 20-­21, the change of addressee from the Pharisees to the disciples and the change of topic (in vv. 20-­21 the concern is with the kingdom of God and in vv. 22-­37 it is with the events at the coming of the Son of Man) clearly show that what separates predominates over what unites (the correspondence of οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν· ἰδοὺ ὧδε ἤ· ἐκεῖ [v. 21a-­b] and καὶ ἐροῦσιν ὑμῖν· ἰδοὺ ὧδε [v. 23a-­b]). A summary under the key word ‘eschatology’ (this argument is found, e.g., in Zmijewski 1972) does not come into consideration, because this umbrella term involves a systematization, whose application to Luke would undoubtedly be anachronistic. The conversation is handed down only in Luke. We can therefore say nothing about its origin (for discussion of a possible origin from Q cf. C. Heil 2003, 166–­67). A clear parallel is found in Gospel of Thomas 113: “His disciples said to him: ‘The kingdom of God—­on what day will it come?’ [Jesus said:] ‘It will not come in expectation! They will not say, “Look, here!” or “Look there!” Rather, the kingdom of the Father is spread out over the earth, but the people do not see it.” Furthermore, there are echoes in Gospel of Thomas 3.3 (“The kingdom of



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 301

God is within you and outside of you”; P. Oxy IV: 654.15–­16 [to be sure, with an uncertain reconstruction]: ἡ βασ[ιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ] ἐντὸς [ἐσ]τι [κἀκτός . . .]). None of these versions contains elements of a pre-­Lukan stage of tradition.

20a-­b The question of the Pharisees is directed not to a specific date or period of time, but to prodigies by which one can recognize that the kingdom of God “comes,” or from which a date or period of time can be calculated (on the talk of the “coming” [ἔρχεσθαι] of the kingdom of God see at 11.2d-­e). An analogous question is posed by the disciples in Mark 13.4parr. In the background stands a conception coming from ancient manticism, according to which exceptional historical or eschatic events announce themselves through specific portents. Cf. in this vein the reception of Joel 3.4 in Acts 2.20 (“The sun will be changed into darkness and the moon into blood, before [πρίν] the great and glorious day of the Lord comes”); Sibylline Oracles 3.796–­797: (“a sign [σῆμα] . . . so that you recognize when on earth the end of all things will enter in”); see also Josephus, Bellum judaicum 6.288ff; 4 Ezra 4.51–­5.13; 8.63–­9.6 (“. . . you have now shown me a multitude of the signs . . . but you have not shown me when [quo tempore] . . . When you see that a certain part of the predicted signs are past, then you will know that it is the very time when the Most High is about to visit the world which he has made . . .” [trans. B. M. Metzger, OTP 1: 544]); b. Sanhedrin 98a (“His students asked Rabbi Jose ben Kisma: ‘When does the son of David come?’ . . . ‘When this gate collapses and is built again and collapses anew and is built again and collapses once more, and before one comes to build it, the son of David comes’”). See for this, with other examples, Bill. IV/2: 977–­1015 (“Signs and Reckoning of the Days of the Messiah”); K. Berger 1980.

20c-­21 Along these lines the answer of Jesus says, first, that there are no portents that announce the coming. παρατήρησις (20d) is the Hellenistic terminus technicus for the observation of stars (e.g., Diodorus Siculus 1.9.6; 28.1; 69.5; 81.4) and of portents for specific events of the future; cf. Diodorus Siculus 5.31.3 about the Gauls: they jab a person with a sword in the body and “from the falling and wrenching of the members and from the flow of the blood they interpret the future (τὸ μέλλον), trusting an old and longstanding observation concerning these things (παλαιᾷ τινι καὶ πολυχρονίῳ παρατηρήσει περὶ τούτων πεπιστευκότες)”; see also Diodorus Siculus 17.112.2 (διὰ . . . παρατηρήσεως προλέγειν . . . τὰ μέλλοντα [“through . . . observation to predict . . . the future”]). Thus, παρατήρησις designates not the “prediction of the future from prodigies” (thus K. Berger 1980, 1460), but the observation of certain phenomena on which the prediction is based (see also H. Riesenfeld, ThWNT 8: 148ff).

302

The Gospel According to Luke

21a-­b takes up οὐκ . . . μετὰ παρατηρήσεως from 20d and announces that no observable portents will be given for the coming of the kingdom of God (the impersonal οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν in 21a refers to this). Thus, “look, here!” and “there!” refers not to the kingdom of God but to the portents that should announce its coming. This does not mean, however, that the kingdom of God comes ‘without signs’—­that is, suddenly (contra Klostermann; Bultmann 1995, 128). As justification (γάρ) for his rebuff of the question of signs that announce the coming of the kingdom of God, in 21c Jesus instead refers to the fact that the kingdom of God no longer “comes” at all, because it is (ἐστίν) already present in his activity (cf. already 11.20). It is anything but clear, however, how this being present is meant, i.e., how the expression ἐντὸς ὑμῶν is to be understood (cf. the survey in Mattill 1979, 203ff): in the sense of “in you” (Vulgata: intra vos) or “inside of you” (Luther: “inwendig in euch”) or, alternatively, in the sense of “among you,” “in your midst,” or “right in the midst of you” (cf. already Bengel 1855, 274: Intra, non respect cordis singulorum pharisaeorum . . . sed respect totius populi Judaici [“within, not with reference to the heart of the individual Pharisees . . . but with reference to the entire Jewish people”])? Today, the latter view, in which one sees a reference to the earthly presence of the salvation of the kingdom of God in the activity of Jesus, is advocated in most Jesus books and commentaries on Luke. Roberts 1948, 5–­6 has proposed a third possibility with reference to P. Ross. Georg. 3.1.8–­9; P. Oxy. XXII 2342.1.7–­8, 10.1274.13 (see below): “in the hands of, in the control of” (see now also Klein 570–­71). Against the majority position, Riesenfeld 1991 and Holmén 1996 have recently strongly advocated again the old interpretation in the sense of “in you” (see also Feuillet 1981). Above all Holmén 1996 has drawn attention to the fact that in pagan Greek literature ἐντός + genitive designates a sphere, which is delimited by the entity that follows in the genitive. In this vein Herodotus 7.100.3 means by ἐντὸς τῶν πρῳρέων πλέων . . . καὶ τοῦ αἰγιαλοῦ the intervening space delimited by the “beaks of the ships and the beach.” Analogously, in 7.41 Herodotus uses οἱ εἰνακισχίλιοι ἐντὸς τούτων ἐόντες (“the nine thousand were within these”) to designate a marching formation in which nine thousand footsoldiers were taken into the middle of a thousand others (see also Diodorus Siculus 19.22.2: ἐντὸς ἀλλήλων ὄντες of multiple concentric circles). Similarly also Plutarch, Pelopidas 35.5: ἡ τυραννίς ἐντὸς τῶν ὅπλων καὶ τῶν φυλακῶν οὖσα (“the tyranny that is found in the midst of weapons and sentinels,” i.e., “fortified behind weapons and sentinels”). Herodotus 6.44 can also be placed alongside this usage: “All the nations ἐντὸς Μακεδόνων had already been subjected” by the Persians. Here we are likewise dealing with a geographical piece of information in the sense of “this side” as in Plutarch, Nicias 12.3 (ἡ ἐντὸς Ἡρακλείων στηλῶν θάλασσα [“the sea



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 303

on this side of the pillars of Heracles”]) or Strabo, Geographica 5.1.1 (οἱ ἐντὸς Ἄλπεων Γαλάται [“the Galatians on this side of the Alps”]). For a distributive use of this linguistic usage in the sense of “in every single one” the following examples can, e.g., be provided: Plato, Timaeus 45b (τὸ . . . ἐντὸς ἡμῶν . . . πῦρ [“the fire in us”]); Leges 789a (οἱ ἐντὸς τῶν αὑτῶν μητέρων τρεφόμενοι [“those growing in their mothers”]). A partitive use can be recognized in Demosthenes, Orationes 43.51 and Xenophon, Hellenica 2.3.19, where ἐντὸς τούτων εἶναι expresses in each case the belonging to a certain group. Psalm 87.6Symmachus (ἐντὸς νεκρῶν ἀφεθείς [“left among the dead”]; PsalmLXX 87.5: ἐν νεκροῖς) probably belongs here as well. Left open is the concrete spatial conception in a portion of the texts that are drawn on by Roberts 1948: Xenophon, Anabasis 1.10.3 on the Greek soldiers who opposed a plundering: τἆλλα, ὁπόσα ἐντὸς αὐτῶν καὶ χρήματα καὶ ἄνθρωποι ἐγένοντο, πάντα ἔσωσαν (“Everything else which was found among them—­both goods and people—­they rescued”); P. Ross. Georg. 3.1.8–­9: a Roman military doctor asks his family: πέμψατέ μοι τὸ ἐραιοῦν κολώβειν, ἵνα ἐντός μου αὐ(τὸ) εὕρω (“Send me the wool coat so that I have it with me”); P. Oxy. XXII 2342.1.7–­8 on the widow of a wine dealer: ἥδε ἔχουσα τὸ φόρτιον τοῦ οἴνου ἐντὸς αὑτῆς (“and she also kept the whole wine delivery with her”). While the ἐντός τινος phrasings in all these texts have a spatial connotation, it is precisely not explicated. The criticism of the interpretation of Roberts 1948 by Riesenfeld 1991, 193 and Holmén 1996, 213 therefore misses its target, for it plays off the extensional meaning against the intensional meaning of the terms in an illegitimate way. In the aforementioned texts it also becomes clear that ἐντός does not always mark a ‘delimitation,’ as Holmén 1996, 207ff, 213 tries to make us believe. When it is connected to a personal term, it instead wants to emphasize the accessibility through people (see also Rüstow 1960). It also has a spatial component, of course, but this would also be the case in Luke 17.21. The parallel produced by Strobel 1961a, 29 can be listed in support of the majority view, for in the question “Is YHWH in our midst or is he not?” the Hebrew ‫ ְב ִק ְר ֵּבנּו‬is translated ἐντὸς ἡμῶν (LXX: ἐν ἡμῖν; Theodotion: ἐν μέσῳ ἡμῶν). To be sure, Holmén 1996 attempted to reinterpret this translation along the lines of a distributive “in us,” but he was not successful in this. Lamentations 1.3Symmachus points in this same direction, though the meaning of the sentence is unclear, also in the Hebrew: “All her (sc. Judah’s) pursuers have overtaken her in the midst of the oppressors (‫”)ּבין ַה ְּמ ָצ ִרים‬ ֵ is translated by Symmachus with ἐντὸς τῶν θλιβόντων ἀυτήν (LXX: ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν θλιβόντων). The elliptical interpretation (“in the land of those troubling her”), which is demanded by Holmén 1996, 221 among others, is based again on an insufficient distinction between intension and extension (see above).

304

The Gospel According to Luke

The problem cannot be resolved linguistically. The distributive translation with “in you” would certainly be less complicated and therefore more likely (see also the translation in Gospel of Thomas above). In this respect, Holmén 1996 is undoubtedly right. Neverthless, it remains difficult for reasons of content, since such an internalization contradicts the Lukan notion of the kingdom of God. Since an interpretation in the sense of “among you” is also possible linguistically, everything speaks for interpreting the text in this sense. Testament of Benjamin 9.1 also formulates a similar idea (though, unfortunately, not with ἐντός): “You will commit the sexual offence of Sodom, and you will die, with the exception of a few, and you will renew the lust with women. And the kingdom of the Lord will not be among you, for immediately he will take it away (ἡ βασιλεία κυρίου οὐκ ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν ὅτι εὐθὺς αὐτὸς λήψεται αὐτήν).” 17.22–­18.8: When the Son of Man Comes

Luke has Jesus give a speech to the disciples again. It is comprised of two parts (17.22-­37 and 18.1-­8), which he has joined with each other not only via the same addressee but also via the reference to the coming of the Son of Man in 18.8. 17.22-­37: The Day of the Son of Man 22

And he said to the disciples, “The days will come in which you will long to see (even a single) one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see (it). 23And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go there and do not run thereafter! 24For as lightning, when it flashes, shines from one side of the horizon to the other, so it will also be with the Son of Man. 25But first he must suffer much and be rejected by this generation. 26 “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will also be in the days of the Son of Man: 27They ate, drank, ‘married’ and were ‘married’—­ until the day on which Noah climbed in the ark and the flood came and destroyed all. 28Likewise, just as it happened in the days of Lot: They ate, drank, bought, sold, planted, built. 29But on the day on which Lot departed from Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed all. 30It will be likewise on the day on which the Son of Man appears. 31 “On that day—­whoever is (then) on the roof and has his property in the house must not come down in order to get it. And whoever (is) in the field must not turn back. 32Think of Lot’s wife! 33Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it. But whoever loses it will preserve it alive.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 305 34

“I say to you in this night two will be in one bed; the one will be taken away and the other will be left. 35Two will grind together, the one will be taken away, but the other will be left.” [36] 37 And they asked him, “Where, Lord?” And he said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the eagles also gather.” The speech is divided into four parts: (a) Verses 22-­25 deal with the question of when and how the Son of Man comes. (b) Verses  26-­30 illustrate with the help of two examples obtained from Scripture (one of the many numerous Lukan double examples; see section 4.4.3 in the commentary introduction) the ignorance of the people to whom the coming of the Son of Man will bring disaster. (c) Verses 31-­33 illustrate how things will go on the “day of the Son of Man.” (d) Verses 34-­35 introduce a second double example in order to illustrate how salvation and unsalvation are distributed. In v. 37 Luke then has a question of the disciples follow, which is answered with a parabolic saying. The overlappings especially with parts of the eschatological discourse of Matthew 24, which—­apart from minor exceptions—­have no parallel in Mark 13, are unmistakable. We find the following correspondences: 23:

Matthew 24.26 (?; cf. Hampel 1990, 52ff vs. U. Bauer 1998, 85ff); see also Mark 13.21. 24: Matthew 24.27 26: Matthew 24.37 27: Matthew 24.38b-­39a Matthew 24.39b 30: 31: Matthew 24.17-­18 and Mark 13.15-­16 with the minor agreements τά (31apar. Matthew 24.17b) instead of τι (Mark 13.15b) and ἐν (τῷ) ἀγρῷ (31cpar. Matthew 24.18a) instead of εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν (Mark 13.16a) 33: Matthew 10.39 34-­35: Matthew 24.40-­41 37d: Matthew 24.28 Since these overlappings also correspond—­with the exception of v. 37dpar. Matthew 24.28—­to the order of Matthew 24.1-­44, and since Luke features another eschatological discourse in 21.5-­36, which much more closely follows Mark 13, the present findings are usually explained by postulating that there was also such a speech in Q and that Luke 17.22-­37 is based on it (Matthew is then said to have merged the two speeches). I cannot contradict this. A basis in Q is also not ruled out for v. 31 (cf. Lambrecht 1967, 157–­58), and an origin from Q is probable for v. 31 (contra Zmijewski 1972, 479ff; Neirynck 1982/1991/2001, III: 400–­503,

306

The Gospel According to Luke

with C. Heil 2003, 103–­4), because the Markan version of the saying about losing and saving one’s life (Mark 8.35) is taken up in Luke 9.24 and Matthew 16.25. There is a parallel to v. 34 in Gospel of Thomas 61.1 (“Two will rest on one bed; the one will die, the other will live”).

22 The speech begins with the announcement that the disciples will not experience the time of salvation that begins with the parousia. ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι corresponds to ἡμέραι ἔρχονται (Heb.: ‫)יָ ִמים ָּב ִאים‬, which is common in the Septuagint. It is often used to introduce prophetic announcements of salvation and unsalvation (1 Samuel 2.31; 2 Kings 20.17; Amos 4.2; 8.11; 9.31; Isaiah 39.6; Jeremiah 7.32; 9.24; Zechariah 14.1 and elsewhere; see also Luke 23.29; Hebrews 8.8); but the future with the verb at the beginning of the sentence is found only in the New Testament (see in addition Mark 2.20parr; Luke 19.43; 21.6). The phrasing “days of the Son of Man” is a construction by analogy to “days of Abraham” (Jubilees 24.2); “days of Moses” (Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 20.5; 47.1); “days of David” (2 Samuel 21.1); “days of Asa” (1 Kings 16.28dLXX), etc. (cf. later also “days of the Messiah” [m. Berakhot 1.5; see further in Bill. IV/2: 826ff]). Thus, it is a metonymic designation for the period of time that is determined by the activity of the Son of Man and that begins with his coming (see also Luke 4.25: “in the days of Elijah”; 17.26 and 1 Peter 3.20: “in the days of Noah”; Luke 17.28; W. Bauer 1988, 704 [s.v. ἡμέρα 4.b]). “Seeing days” describes here, as also in Psalm 34(33).13; 1 Peter 3.10 (in each case ἡμέρας ἰδεῖν), the experience. Not far away is Psalms of Solomon 17.44, where it says with reference to the rule of the messianic king: “Blessed are those who live in those days, to see the salvation of Israel (ἰδεῖν τὰ ἀγαθὰ Ἰσραήλ)”; see also Psalms of Solomon 18.6 and John 3.3; Luke 9.27 and the parallels outside the New Testament noted there. The numerical specification μία rhetorically intensifies the announcement (see also Matthew 26.40; Luke 12.6; Acts 4.32; Romans 3.10). Not even the smallest possible part of the hope of the disciples is fulfilled, for they will experience not even a single one of the days of the Son of Man (see also Rigaux 1970, 410: “un seul des jours”). For Luke this announcement has long since reached the majority, if not all, of the hearers within the story, for they have died without the Son of Man having come. But the readers of the Gospel of Luke as well could undoubtedly find themselves again in this announcement, and perhaps they were also meant to do so. In any case, the speech is opened with regard to the intended readers of the Gospel of Luke at the latest in 23. It is difficult to say who is meant to be the subject of ἐροῦσιν in the Lukan understanding. It is hardly likely that he thought of Jewish prophets or Messianic claimants in the sense of



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 307

Josephus, Bellum judaicum 2.261ff; 6.285f; 7.437f; Antiquitates judaicae 20.167ff (see on this at 21.8). It is more likely that Luke had in mind Christian parousia alarmists (cf. e.g., 2 Thessalonians 2.2; Hippolytus, Commentarium in Danielem 4.19). ἀπέρχεσθαι and διώκειν take up the local adverbs ἐκεῖ and ὧδε (this sequence is also found in Marcus Aurelius 10.15.1). Luke apparently imagines a scenario in which the coming of the Son of Man is announced at one time for one place and then again for another place, and he sees Christians in danger of breathlessly running after such announcements. The next verse justifies the admonition to not let onself be disturbed by the alarm calls that are cited. 24 It is not so much “the lightning-­quick suddenness” (C. Heil 2003, 176) that characterizes the coming of the Son of Man for Luke (there are certainly signs at least according to Luke 21.25-­26). Rather, the comparison with lightning, which illuminates the whole field of view from one horizon to the other, stresses that this coming will be recognizable everywhere. The elliptical ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν / ἡ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν is a Septuagintism and designates the entirety of the world that is accessible and visible to people; cf. Baruch 5.3 on the future glory of Jerusalem: “God will show your splendor (λαμπρότης) τῇ ὑπ’ οὐρανὸν πάσῃ” and as a translation of Hebrew ‫ּת ַחת ַה ָּׁש ָמיִם‬: ַ Exodus 17.14; Deuteronomy 25.19; 29.19; of ‫ּת ֵבל‬: ֵ Proverbs 8.26; Job 34.13; of ‫א ֶרץ‬: ֶ Job 2.2; 9.6; 18.4; 38.18, 24; 42.15; of ‫ּפנֵ י חּוצֹות‬: ְ Job 5.1; see also Esther 4.17c; 2 Maccabees 2.18; JobLXX 1.7; 18.19; 28.24; 41.3; Psalms of Solomon 2.32; Testament of Simeon 6.4; Testament of Levi 18.4 on the messianic high priest: “He will shine like the sun on earth and he will take away every darkness ἐκ τῆς ὑπ’ οὐρανόν.”

Along these lines, the sequence of ἐκ and εἰς with the same reference word is also meant to express totality: cf. also Jeremiah 9.2; PsalmLXX 83.8; Philo, Legum allegoriae 3.7 (ἐκ κόσμου πάντα καὶ εἰς κόσμον ἀνάγειν [“to lead back all things from the world and to the world”]); De aeternitate mundi 30; Romans 1.1. It also becomes clear through this how the comparison of the parousia of the Son of Man with lightning justifies the admonition pronounced in v. 23. Because the coming of the Son of Man is visible everywhere, no one needs to run after people who claim to know the specific place of the appearance. Thus, it is precisely the linguistic and spatial plerophory of ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰς τὴν ὑπ’ οὐρανόν which is pointedly set over against the punctiliarness of the local adverbs “there” and “here.” To be sure, the attributive specification ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ is found in the majority of the manucripts (‫ א‬A L W Θ Ψ f 1,13 𝔐 lat sy bo). However, their number is more

308

The Gospel According to Luke

than compensated for by the age and geographical distribution of the manuscripts in which it is lacking (𝔓75 B D it sa). The distance between the two endings in relation to their number of letters is too large for the assumption of a subsequent omission due to homoioteleuton -­που . . .-­του (e.g., Metzger 1971, 167). Plus, a subsequent addition is plausible inasmuch as it makes a clarification.

25 With partial recourse to the language of the first Passion announcement (9.22; cf. “Son of Man”; δεῖ; πολλὰ; παθεῖν; ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ἀπό) a terminus ante quem non is formulated for the coming of the Son of Man (πρῶτον δεῖ with this function also occurs in Mark 9.11par. Matthew 17.10; Mark 13.10; Luke 21.9). For γενεὰ αὕτη, which stands here in the place of “elders, chief priests, and scribes” (9.22), see at 7.31. This information is certainly not intended to make clear to the readers that “the time . . . is extended and the end (is) further postponed” (Grässer 1977, 172), for they know that already, having been located beyond this point in time for some time already. For the same reason, however, it also cannot be the necessity of the suffering that the Son of Man still has to take on himself that the readers have to be made extra aware of (contra C. Heil 2003, 176–­77 for many others). Rather, hearers and readers are transferred from the future (ἐλεύσονται [v. 22b]; ἐροῦσιν [v. 23a]; ἔσται [v. 24b]) into the present or the past of the story of Jesus. Thus, the verse has a text-­structuring function in the first instance. 26-­30 Jesus presents one of the typically Lukan “double examples” (Morgenthaler 1948, I: 60; see also 4.25-­27; 11.31-­32; 12.24, 27; 12.54-­ 55; 13.1-­5, 18-­21; 14.28-­32; 15.4-­10; 17.34-­35 as well as 3.12-­14; 13.1-­5; see also section 4.4.3 in the commentary introduction). As in 4.25-­27 and 11.31-­32, it is taken from the history of Israel. The linking of the flood with the destruction of Sodom was apparently also common before and outside of Luke; cf. the compilation of the material in Wettstein 1962, I: 777; Lührmann 1972b; 1969, 75–­83; Schlosser 1973; 3 Maccabees 2.4-­7; Testament of Naphtali 3.4–­5; Jubilees 20.5; Philo, De Abrahamo 1; De vita Mosis 2.52–­65; Josephus, Bellum judaicum 5.566; Genesis Rabbah 27.3 on Genesis 6.5; 2 Peter 2.5-­7. Here, however, this tradition is taken up as an example not of God’s destructive action toward sinners and the wicked but of the fact that those involved go unsuspectingly toward their destruction. While these examples originally had a comforting and assuring function within a speech to the disciples and were meant to immunize the disciples against doubting their decision to follow Jesus (cf. Wolter 2002a, 383–­84), it is certainly conceivable that Luke wants to warn his readers against making themselves at home in their daily life in such a way that they forget the day of the Son of Man.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 309

The parallelism of the two examples is carefully worked out (see also Fleddermann 2003, 69–­70): (a) 26a // 28a: Opening with comparative introductions, which are word-­for-­ word identical except for the transition particle καί and ὁμοίως at the beginning and the personal name at the end. (b) 27a // 28b: Description of the everyday behavior of people with a catalogue of asyndetic imperfects. (c) 27b // 29a: Naming of the day on which everyday life was ended: ἡμέρα with an attracted relative pronoun (cf. BDR §294.5) + repetition of the name + complementary juxtaposition of εἰσέρχεσθαι and ἐξέρχεσθαι. (d) 27c // 29b: Description of the destruction with different means (water // fire), but with identical result (καὶ ἀπώλεσεν πάντας).

Only the applications of the examples in v. 26b and v. 30 fall out of this pattern. The transference of the events in the days of Noah and in the days of Lot to what happens “in the days” or “on the day of the Son of Man” stands at the end in the Lot example and not at the beginning as in the Noah example (v. 26b). Furthermore, Luke also switches from the plural (v. 26b) to the singular (v. 30). 26a, 27 // 28-­29 For the temporal specification with the help of the phrasing “in the days + personal name,” see at v. 22. The flood generation and the Sodomites are not portrayed as sinners, but characterized by their everyday behavior, with the iterative imperfect being used to underline this emphasis. Therefore, one should not tacitly introduce an ethical accusation into the description (thus, e.g., Schnackenburg 1970, 224: “Whoever, like the Sodomites, thinks only of himself and wants to enjoy his life [v. 28] falls prey to ruin”; see also Klein 573: “revelries”), for the point of the description consists precisely in the fact that recourse is made to unspecific and atemporal tasks in order to enable the transference into the present. Precisely these modes of behavior connect the contemporaries of Jesus and of the disciples with the flood generation and the Sodomites (and in which the readers of Luke’s portrayal of Jesus can perhaps also recognize themselves). Here the lexical pair ἐγάμουν/ἐγαμίζοντο (27a) designates not the contraction of marriages but the sexual activity of men and women (van Tilborg 2002, 805; see also LSJ s.v. γαμέω 1.2: “of mere sexual intercourse”), for only with this meaning does it designate a similarly regular and daily event as “eating and drinking” (cf. also Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7.12.70.6 on the Gnostic: ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει καὶ γαμεῖ; likewise 7.12.78.5). On the corresponding semantics of γαμεῖν cf. Tilborg 2002, 803–­4; 807ff, who refers, among others, to Anthologia Graeca 5.94 (about a woman: “Blessed is the one who looks at you, thrice blessed the

310

The Gospel According to Luke

one who hears your voice, a demi-­god who kisses you, ἀθάνατος δ’ ὁ γαμῶν”); Ps.-­Lucian, Asinus 32 (concerning an attempted rape: “throwing the woman on the street γαμεῖν ἐβούλετο”); Callimachus, Hymnus in Delum 240–­41 (Hera about Zeus’s female lover: “May you be secretly copulated [γαμέοισθε λάθρια] and give birth to hidden ones!”); Epigrammata Graeca, ed. Kaibel 1965, 336.5 (Zeus as λάθριος γαμέτης [“secret lover”]); Xanthus, FGH 3c: 765, Fragment 31 (ὅταν θέληι γῆμαι ὁ ἕτερος τὴν τοῦ ἑτέρου [“when the one wants to sleep with the (wife) of the other”]); in Philo, De cherubim 92 μεθημερινοὶ γάμοι (“midday sex”) is found within a vice catalogue. In Luke 20.34-­35 and 1 Timothy 4.3 too the corresponding verbs (γαμεῖν/γαμίσκεσθαι/γαμίζεσθαι) probably have this meaning.

With regard to the pragmatic intention of the two examples, it should be observed that with Noah and Lot in the past, precisely those who were prepared for the catastrophe were saved. Their role is ascribed to the disciples (or offered to the readers of the Gospel of Luke). Those who reckon with the coming of the Son of Man and prepare themselves for it will be saved, while all others will perish. 26b, 30 It is not without reason that Luke has placed the plural apodosis of the comparison in 26b (“in the days of the Son of Man”), which also stands between v. 28a and b virtually, at the beginning of the double example, for it has a cataphoric orientation. It refers to the everyday behavior of the people described in the two catalogues of vv. 27a, 28b and transfers it to the days that will precede the coming of the Son of Man. In this way Luke manages to fuse past and present, for the people do the same now as then. Verse 30, by contrast, is oriented anaphorically. The verse picks up vv. 27b-­c, 29a-­b and functions as a singular apodosis of the comparison (κατὰ τὰ αὐτά as Luke 6.23, 26; the variant reading κατὰ ταῦτα [𝔓75vid ‫ *א‬A L W Θ f 1,13 𝔐 lat] is probably due to haplography; cf. Bock II: 1442–­43). Even the respective attraction of the relative pronoun is repeated. Luke has therefore placed this verse at the end, although of course it also stands behind v. 27c virtually (as in Matthew 24.39b). As those days of iterative everyday life found their respective ends on the day when Noah entered into the ark and on the day when Lot departed from Sodom, so the everyday behavior of the people in the present, described in vv. 27a, 28b, will find its end on the day on which the Son of Man “appears.” ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι stands here because the Son of Man was expected to come from heaven at the parousia; cf. the parallels in Colossians 3.4 (Christ who sits at the right of God [v. 1] and is “hidden with God” [v. 3] will “be made manifest” [φανερωθῇ]); 1 Peter 1.7, 13 (the parousia as ἀποκάλυψις of Jesus Christ); 5.4; 1 John 2.28. See also Galatians 1.16 concerning the appearance of the risen one.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 311

31 The two instructions apply to those who on the day of the Son of Man do not belong—­like the πάντες of the flood generation and the inhabitants of Sodom (vv. 27c, 29b)—­to the people who fall prey to destruction but rather are—­like Lot and Noah—­saved. We are not dealing with paraenesis that exhorts the readers to distance themselves from earthly goods (contra Zmijewski 1972, 466; Geiger 1973, 109; Marshall; Eckey and others) but rather with an illustration of the character of the destroying judgment, which breaks in upon people on the day of the Son of Man. It comes so quickly and massively that even those who escape it can save nothing but the clothes on their backs. The notion that the destructive action of the Son of Man is oriented especially against human settlements apparently stands in the background. 31a-­b is based on the conception of a flat roof house with exterior stairs, and τὰ σκεύη is used to mean the same thing as in Mark 3.27par. Matthew 12.29: “household goods” or the like. 32 Luke presumably came upon the idea of calling to mind Lot’s wife as a warning example through the linguistic echo of ἐπιστρέφειν εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω (v. 31cpar. Mark 13.16) with Genesis 19.26 (ἐπιβλέπειν εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω; see in addition Philo, De somniis 1.247, likewise with reference to Lot’s wife: ἐπιστραφεῖσα εἰς τοὐπίσω). 33 also characterizes the “day of the Son of Man,” and here too Jesus argues with the same double understanding of “life” as in 9.24parr. (see further there)—­namely, the physical life, which ends with death, and the life beyond the physical life, which cannot be harmed by death. Correspondingly, the verse makes clear that on the “day of the Son of Man” every attempt at preserving the physical life will necessarily fail. Moreover, the content of the saying requires that ἀπολέσει (33a) be understood as intransitive and ἀπολέσῃ (33b) as transitive. Only in this way is it ensured that one does not misunderstand the saying as a “chain inference” (in terms of rhetoric: gradatio; cf., e.g., Romans 5.3-­4; Lausberg 1973, §623 with the schema x . . . y / y . . . z). The intention of the chain inference always aims at a joining of the first part with the last part of the sentence and that would be a completely impossible thought here: ‘Whoever seeks to save his life . . . will preserve it alive.’ “But whoever gives it up” (33b) marks to this extent the antithesis to ζητεῖν τὴν ψυχὴν . . . περιποήσασθαι (33a; see also Zmijewski 1972, 473). περιποεῖσθαι τὴν ψυχήν with the meaning “to preserve/save the life” is also in Isocrates, Epistulae 2.7; Xenophon, Cyropaedia 4.4.10; Ezekiel 13.19; see also Hebrews 10.39 (περιποίησις ψυχῆς); 2 Maccabees 3.35 (περιποιεῖσθαι τὸ ζῆν); see also Spicq 1994, III: 100ff. For the semantic opposition of περιποιεῖν and ἀπολλύναι cf. Jeremiah 31(48).36 (ἂ περιεποιήσατο ἀπώλετο [“What it (sc. Moab) has obtained has perished”]); Plutarch, Moralia 809d (τὴν πόλιν . . . παρ’

312

The Gospel According to Luke

οὐδὲν ἐλθοῦσαν ἀπολέσθαι περιεποίησεν [“He saved the city that was on the brink of destruction”]); Epictetus, Enchiridion 24.3 (τὰ ἀγαθὰ τὰ ἐμαυτοῦ ἀπολέσαι, ἵνα ὑμεῖς τὰ μὴ ἀγαθὰ περιποήσησθε [“to surrender my own goods so that you obtain non-­goods”]). For τὴν ψυχὴν ζωογονεῖν see 1 Kings 21.31LXX; Spicq 1994, II: 164–­65.

Thus, no physical life survives the “day of the Son of Man,” for “life” only still exists from the hand of the Son of Man as life beyond physical life and it is obtainable only under the presupposition of the surrender of physical life. How Luke concretely imagined this must remain open, for the semantic differentiation is covered by the rhetorical steering of the emotions with the help of the polyptotic resumption of ἀπολέσει through ἀπολέσῃ (cf. Lausberg 1973, §640 on “Loosening of the Inflexion Form in the Repetition of a Word” [polyptoton]). 34-­35 Another aspect of the events on the “day of the Son of Man” is developed with the help of another “double example” (Morgenthaler 1948, I: 60; for the others see at vv. 26-­30; see also section 4.4.3 in the commentary introduction), which is composed, as in 4.25-­27; 11.31-­32; 13.18-­21; 15.4-­10, of an example involving a man and an example involving a woman. This aspect stands in a certain tension to the scenarios of unsalvation invoked in vv. 26-­30 with their sweeping destruction of all, for Jesus announces, in contrast, a radical individualizing distribution of salvation and unsalvation. In a pointed manner, the two examples are meant to illustrate trans-­individual relations that belong together. With their help, it is made clear that even two people who are as close to each other at the coming of the Son of Man as two men who sleep on one and the same bed or two women who use one and the same mill will or can have a different fate in terms of salvation. Thus, the two examples want to make clear that strict individual decisions take place, without specifying a criterion on which the decisions would be based in each case. It is highly probable that παραλαμβάνειν designates the fate of salvation and ἀφιέναι the fate of unsalvation (cf. the arguments in Friedl 1996, 185–­86 n. 1053). Plus, παραλαμβάνειν can designate the event of a translation (2 Enoch 17.1; Testament of Levi 17.4.6; Testament of Abraham A 15.1; 16.5; see also Friedl 1996, 184ff and Numbers 23.27: παραλάβω σε εἰς τόπον ἄλλον [“I bring you to another place”]; Matthew 4.5, 8). Should this meaning also be intended here, παραλαμβάνειν would designate the fate of those who are removed in time from the world before its destruction and who are thereby brought to safety, while the others must remain there (ἀφιέναι) and be swept into the downfall. This would also fit well with the opposition of the two verbs in Mark 4.36 (the disciples ἀφέντες



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 313

τὸν ὄχλον παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτόν [sc. Jesus]). In any case, the passive forms are to be understood as passiva divina. “In this night” (34b) means not specially the Passover night (contra Strobel 1961a; Ernst and others; for criticism see also Friedl 1996, 120–­21), for here the temporal specification is an element of the picture (see also Steinhauser 1981, 201). In 34b-­c there is talk of two men (cf. ὁ εἷς . . . ὁ ἕτερος [34c] in contrast to ἡ μία . . . ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα [v. 35b]). ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (35a; in the New Testament, see also Matthew 22.34; Acts 1.5; 2.1, 44, 47; 4.26; 1 Corinthians 7.5; 11.20; 14.23) is a Septuagintism (Exodus 26.9; Deuteronomy 12.15; 22.10; 25.5, 11; Joshua 11.5 and elsewhere; in Hebrew usually ‫ יחד‬and ‫)יַ ְח ָּדו‬. When the expression refers to people, it can express the commonality of activity, place, and fate, or else a temporal togetherness (cf. e.g., Deuteronomy 12.15; 25.5; Judges 19.6; Isaiah 66.17; Daniel 11.27: “to dine ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό and to eat at one table”); see also Friedl 1996, 139ff, esp. 148ff.

36 is a secondary addition from Matthew 24.40 and is handed down only in a few manuscripts. 37 Luke interprets the parabolic saying of the eagles (cf. Matthew 24.28), which comes from Q, by placing it at the end of the speech of Jesus and by making it into an answer to a question of the disciples that was created by Luke himself. The only problem is that it is not clear what the question refers to (cf. the survey in Bridge 2003, 3ff). If the disciples, as is usually assumed, are supposed to be asking about the place of the appearance of the Son of Man, then the parabolic saying could be conveying that one can recognize this place as easily as one can recognize by a gathering of eagles where a corpse is located. However, it is also possible to refer the question to the two concluding words of the preceding double example: “the other ἀφεθήσεται” (vv. 34c, 35b; so, e.g., Grundmann; see also Schnackenburg 1970, 234; Steinhauser 1981, 311; Guenther 1989, 143). In response to the question of the disciples about the whereabouts of those left behind Jesus would answer in this case that one could recognize the place by the gathering of the eagles, because they always arrive where there are corpses. On the imagery cf. Aristotle, Historia animalium 619a2, where it says of the eagle (ἀετός) that it “carries away dead animals” (τὰ τεθνεῶτα φέρων); Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 10.8 on the “blackwings”: sola aquilarum exanima fert corpora [“as the only one of the eagles it drags away cadavers”]. In the Hebrew text of Job 39.30 it says about the eagle (v. 27): “Where slain things are, it is there,” while the Septuagint writes about the young of the vultures (sic!; cf. v. 27: γύψ): οὗ δ’ ἄν ὦσι τεθνεῶτες παραχρῆμα εὑρίσκονται (“Where dead are, they arrive

314

The Gospel According to Luke

immediately”); cf. also the critical portion of the essay of O’Day 2004; history of ornithology information is also found in Topel 2003, 404ff and above all in Bridge 2003, 57ff, though his own proposed interpretation (the disciples are said to ask about the whereabouts of the elect [51], the eagles symbolize the righteous [21], and σῶμα designates “the crucified Lord as a living entity, namely, the resurrected Christ” [52; see also 87ff]) does not have very much to do with the text.

18.1-­8: The Parable of the Judge and the Widow 1

And he told a parable to them that they should always pray and never give up: 2“There was once a judge in a city who did not fear God and respected no person. 3And in that city there was also a widow and she came (time and again) to him and said, ‘Give me justice against my (litigation-­)adversary!’ 4And he was not willing for a while. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I do not fear God and respect no person, 5because of the harassment that this widow causes me I will give her justice so that she will not finally come and beat me up.’” 6But the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says! 7But God—­will he not exact retribution for his elect who call out to him day and night? And does he delay with them (of all people)? 8I say to you: He will exact vengeance for them shortly!—­But when the Son of Man comes will he find faith on earth?” Luke interprets the story of the judge and the widow (vv. 2-­5) through the introductory reading instruction (v. 1) and the application that he places in the mouth of the narrator of the parable (vv. 6-­8). The interlocking between narrative and frame occurs through the taking up of the word ἐκδίκησις from vv. 3c, 5a in vv. 7a, 8b and with the help of terms from the semantic field of time: πάντοτε (v. 1b); ἐπὶ χρόνον (v. 4a); ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός (v. 7a); ἐν τάχει (v. 8b). The parable is interlocked with the preceding speech about the day of the Son of Man through 8c (“when the Son of Man comes”). The thematic correspondence to 11.5-­8 is evident, although there it was not the persistence but the “shamelessness” (ἀναιδεία; 11.8) that led to success. Beyond this, however, the application in vv. 7-­8b is based on the same logic as in 11.13: as a counter-­image to God, the κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας stands at the same position here as ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες in contrast to the “father in heaven” in 11.13 (see also Catchpole 1977, 89). Verses 1 and 8 formulate the paraenetic intention of the narrative—­ undaunted persistence in faith, which is made visible through persevering prayer. Verses 7-­8b place this pragmatic on the foundation of an assurance that is anchored in the picture of God: that God will certainly and quickly



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 315

(ἐν τάχει; v. 8b) answer persevering prayer. There is no indication of a tension between narrative and frame. The parable is handed down only in Luke; we therefore do not know where it comes from. As usual, the spectrum of opinions reaches from “a thoroughly Lukan composition” (Freed 1987, 56) to “the teaching of the whole unit goes back to Jesus” (Bock II: 1446; see also Catchpole 1977, 104). 1 With the help of a reading instruction placed at the beginning, Luke communicates to the readers how they are meant to understand the following parable. He proceeds in a completely analogous way also in 18.9 and 19.11. πρὸς τό + infinitive designates the purpose that Jesus pursues with the narration of the parable (see also Matthew 5.28; 6.1; 13.30; 23.5; 26.12; Mark 13.22; 2 Corinthians 3.13; 1 Thessalonians 2.9 = 2 Thessalonians 3.8 with BDR §402.4 and §239.7 against the mention of this verse in §2396; Nolland; C. F. Evans); as here with substantival infinitive + subject also in Ephesians 6.11 (see also Plutarch, Moralia 1039e: πρὸς τὸ δεῖν ἡμᾶς ἀπιέναι [“in order for it to be necessary for us to depart (i.e., die)”]). The infinitive δεῖν occurs in the New Testament only in Luke (see in addition Acts 25.24; 26.9). πάντοτε is specified by μὴ ἐγκακεῖν. Jesus exhorts the disciples not to lengthy prayer but to repeated prayer (in 21.36 the exhortation to pray ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ corresponds to this). ἐγκακεῖν is attested very rarely outside the New Testament (cf. Delling 1962, 5–­6; Spicq 1994, I: 398–­99; Preisigke 1925–­1931, I: 411; Moulton/Milligan 1963, 215). In the New Testament the verb is found otherwise only in the Corpus Paulinum where it is always used, as is the case here, with a negation (2 Corinthians 4.1, 16; Galatians 6.9; Ephesians 3.13; 2 Thessalonians 3.13; see also 2 Clement 2.2). Luke says nothing about the content of the prayer; therefore, one should not read into the text that the prayer “for the coming of the kingdom of God” is meant (Klein 578; see also Grässer 1977, 37). The prayer of the disciples in 11.2b-­4 has a much broader perspective and according to 11.13 one can also pray to God for the Spirit. 2-­5 The narrative takes up a widespread motif as the convergences with the story narrated in Plutarch, Moralia 179c–­d show: “When a poor, old woman demanded to receive a judicial hearing before him (ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ κριθῆναι; sc. King Philip II of Macedonia) and often harassed (him), he said that he had no time. But the old woman cried out and said, ‘Then stop being king any longer as well!’ He, however, marveled at what was said and began immediately not only to hear her but also the others” (another translation can be found in Berger/Colpe 1987, 144). Plutarch narrates the same story in another place about Demetrius (it ends with: “He returned into the house, postponed everything, and dealt for many days with all those who came with a petition, beginning with the

316

The Gospel According to Luke

old woman”; Demetrius 42.4), and the same material can also be recognized in a chreia handed down in Joannes Stobaeus, Anthologium III: 13.48 (Wachsmuth/ Hense 1958, III: 463.11–­14), which is said to come from Serenus: “A man from the country handed Antipater a petition. But he said that he had no time. ‘Then stop being king any longer,’ said that one, ‘if you have no time.’” The plot of the narrative of Jesus’s encounter with the Syrophoenician is also not far from these stories.

Unlike the two stories handed down in Plutarch and Mark 7.24-­30, the Lukan parable does not report how the request of the petitioner was actually implemented. Rather, it narrates only an interior monologue (vv. 4b-­5) in which the judge announces that he will yield (ἐκδικήσω αὐτήν; v. 5). Thus, the narrative seeks to work out only that through her insistence does the widow prompt the judge to take up her cause. 2 The characterization of the judge is in line with the basic schema of Hellenistic ethics, which is widespread in all antiquity and can reduce human life conduct, in orientation to the canon of two virtues, to two elementary fields of action—­namely, behavior in relation to God and behavior in relation to other humans (see at 1.75). Correspondingly, the categories employed here are also used in political polemic: βεβούλευνται . . . δεινὰ καὶ ἀνόσια ἔργα, οὔτε θεῖον φοβηθέντες χόλον οὔτε ἀνθρωπίνην ἐντραπέντες νέμεσιν (“They plan . . . abominable and ungodly deeds, without fearing divine wrath and without regard for human disapproval”; Dionysius of Halicarnasus, Antiquitates romanae 10.10.7; see also Antiquitates romanae 12.13.2 and Lysias, Orationes 12.9 on Peison, “the scoundrel”: “I knew that he had regard neither for gods nor for humans [οὔτε θεοὺς οὔτ’ ἀνθρώπους νομίζει]”; Philo, De specialibus legibus 3.209; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 1.72; 10.83; ἐντρέπεσθαι + accusative object also in Exodus 10.3; Wisdom of Solomon 2.10; 6.7); the positive counterpart appears in Joseph and Aseneth 28.7: ἄνδρες θεοσεβεῖς καὶ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεὸν καὶ αἰδούμενοι πάντα ἄνθρωπον (“pious men who feared God and had regard for every human being”). Thus, the judge is presented as ethically unprincipled, and this is the basis for his designation as κριτὴς ἀδικίας in v. 6b. 3-­4a The narrative stays with the judge and brings to him a widow, who repeatedly petitions him for legal help without success (the imperfect ἤρχετο [3b] and οὐκ ἤθελεν [4a] have iterative meaning and correspond to ἐπὶ χρόνον [4a]). Because the concern is only with the interaction between the judge and the widow, the cause of the conflict can be left unstated, as can the concrete result that the judge is asked to achieve (on ἀντίδικος as a designation for the litigation adversary cf. Preisigke 1925–­1931, I: 133; see also 12.58). All contemporary hearers or readers could effortlessly fill



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 317

in this gap with their cultural encyclopedia, for everyone knew that on account of her social position, the widow was defenseless and therefore dependent on the help of the legal institution (cf. G. Stählin, ThWNT 9: 430ff). The reason that the judge initially did not want to take up the cause of the woman is sufficiently explained through his characterization in v. 2, so that further speculations are superfluous. ἐκδικεῖν ἀπό is a Hebraism (from ‫ ;)נָ ַקם ִמן‬cf. Judges 11.36B (ἐν τῷ ποιησαί σοι κύριον ἐκδίκησιν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἄμμων [“as soon as the Lord has procured vindication for you from your enemies, from the sons of Ammon”]); Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 6.211 with reference to 1 Samuel 18.25 (David παρέσχεν . . . τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμίων ἐκδικίαν [“procured . . . vindication from the enemies”]); see also Testament of Levi 2.2 with allusion to Genesis 34 (ἐκδίκησις for our sister Dina ἀπὸ [τοῦ] Ἐμμώρ). The use of this phrasing in P. Babatha 20.14–­16.37–­39 (Lewis 1989) allows in addition the possibility that it was a legal technical term (ἐκδικήσωμεν . . . σοί ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀντιποιουμένου [“We will procure vindication . . . for you against everyone who raises counterclaims”]); Delling 1962, 10.

4b-­5 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα takes up ἐπὶ χρόνον from v. 4a (the same linking is found also in Polybius 31.6.2; Philumenus Medicus 17.5). That the characterization of the judge from v. 2 is taken over in his self-­description (4c) is a very extravagant narrative move. It has the function of making clear that the insistence of the widow does not cause the judge to change himself. Rather, the continuation of the narrative presses him even lower ethically. Correspondingly, it has him ground the decision to yield to the pressing of the widow not for the widow’s sake but for his own sake. The judge yields because she harrasses him (παρέχειν κόπον; see at 11.7) and because he is concerned for himself. Accordingly, the interior monologue has no other function than to characterize the judge (sermocinatio or ethopoeia; cf. Lausberg 1973, §820–­25). Correspondingly, the woman does not take action against the judge on the narrative level but only in his imagination. Moreover, the parable does not actually return to the narrative level, for it breaks off with the interior monologue. ὑπωπιάζειν means “to strike someone in the face (below the eye) in such a way that he receives blue marks (‘a black eye’) and is disfigured in this way” (K. Weiss, ThWNT 8: 588.32f); cf. Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 2.53: ὑπώπια τὰ ὑπὸ τοὺς ὦπας τῶν πληγῶν ἴχνη (“ὑ. [are] the traces of the blows under the eye”). The term comes from the language of boxing (cf. Philostratus Maior, Imagines 2.6.3); 1 Corinthians 9.26-­27; see also Aristophanes, Pax 541; Aristotle, 1413a22; Plutarch, Moralia 921–­923; Diogenes Laertius 6.89 (at present these are all the

318

The Gospel According to Luke

identifiable attestations from ancient literature). The fact that ἐρχομένη and above all ὑπωπιάζῃ in 5b are in the present tense could support the view that the narrative does not have the judge fear that the woman would finally come and give him a black eye (such a punctiliar event in the true sense of the word would, strictly speaking, require the aorist in the finite verb form) but that εἰς τέλος . . . ὑπωπιάζειν has to be interpreted figuratively, i.e., in the sense of “completely wear down” (K. Weiss, ThWNT 8: 589.18) or “completely wear out” (BDR §2077); see also Plummer; Wiefel; Klein; Freed 1987, 50; Jeremias 1977, 153–­54 among others. The only problem is that none of the aforementioned texts permit such an interpretation, and the conjecture proposed by Haacker 1994, 278 (intead of ὑπωπιάζῃ one should read ὑποπιάζῃ) is not really a satisfactory solution either. Perhaps Luke had a conative present in mind (cf. BDR §319; it would then have to be translated ‘so that she may not come at the end and want to beat me up’); in any case, ἐρχόμενοι θεραπεύσεσθε in Luke 13.14, which is not far removed linguistically, should probably be understood in this way.

6 Luke takes the floor and signals in this way the transition from the narrative to the application. The κύριος is Jesus, and the genitive attribute τῆς ἀδικίας is a qualitative genitive, which stands in for an adjective in a Hebraizing manner (see also 16.8, 9; Acts 1.18; 8.23 as well as BDR §45; 165.1). It is based on the characterization of vv. 2, 4 and prepares the argumentum a comparatione in vv. 7-­8b, for God is, of course, the opposite of ‘unrighteous’ (in 11.13 the πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες correspond to it; cf. Lausberg 1973, §395–­97). 7-­8b The application makes clear that the question of whether the parable presents the judge or the widow as the narrative main figure (thus recently again Curkpatrick 2002) misses its concern, for its focus is not on the individual people but on the relation between them. In this sense the story of the judge and the widow is outdone in three ways in the world under discussion—­the unrighteous judge by “God” (7a), the widow by “his elect” (7a), and the duration of the insisting, which is indicated through ἐπὶ χρόνον, by “day and night” (7b), i.e., by its intensity. Each of these three outdoings on their own already make it more likely that God will exercise vengeance for his elect. But because these outdoings are also cumulative, the disciples can be certain that God (unlike the judge originally did to the widow) does not put them off, but will act “within a short time” (8b). The movement from the parable to the application leads to this outdoing of ἐπὶ χρόνον (v. 4a) by ἐν τάχει. The rendering of ἐν τάχει with “suddenly” or “unexpectedly” or the like (cf. now again Wiefel; Bovon) does not take this connection into account and thus misses the intention of the parable, which activates precisely not fear (metus) but hope (spes) as the rhetorical main emotion (cf. Lausberg



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 319

1973 §229, 437). It also fits well with this that ποιεῖν ἐκδίκησιν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ (7a, 8b) designates a punishing and avenging action of God against the enemies of “his elect.” For ποιεῖν ἐκδίκησιν + genitive of the person the closest correspondence is in Testament of Reuben 6.6 (θεὸς ποιήσει τὴν ἐκδίκησιν αὐτῶν [“God will exercise vengeance for them”]); Testament of Levi 2.2 (ἐποίησα . . . τὴν ἐκδίκησιν . . . τῆς ἀδελφῆς ἡμῶν Δείνας [“I exercised . . . vengeance for our sister Dina”]); Testament of Joseph 20.1 (θεὸς ποιήσει τὴν ἐκδίκησιν ὑμῶν [“God will exercise vengeance for you”]); cf. also in the same sense 1 Maccabees 2.67; 9.42 (in each case ἐκδικεῖν ἐκδίκησιν + genitive of the person for whom the vengeance is exercised). An avenging or punishing action toward those who have become guilty in relation to the person designated in the gentive is always described. ποιεῖν ἐκδίκησιν has the meaning “to act in an avenging, punishing, retributive manner” even when the genitive is absent: Exodus 12.12; Numbers 33.4; Judges 11.36; 15.7; 1 Maccabees 3.15; 6.22; 7.9, 24, 38; Psalm 149.7; Testament of Levi 3.3; 5.3 (“on Shechem for Dina”); Testament of Joseph 15.5; Testament of Solomon 22.4; Acts 7.24. In non-­ Jewish and non-­Christian texts this expression is attested only with the middle ποιεῖσθαι; cf. Polybius 3.8.10: δόγματι . . . τὴν ἐκδίκησιν ποιεῖσθαι (“to obtain satisfaction for oneself through a resolution”); Polyaenus Historicus, Excerpta Polyaeni 3.10; Historia Alexandri Magni Recensio α, ed. Kroll 1958, 3.4.16; CIG II: 2826.15–­16.

But with this a decision is also made on the meaning of μακροθυμεῖν, for now it need no longer serve to reinterpret the delay of the parousia as the granting of a period of time for the moral improvement of the Christians (thus, e.g., Wiefel; Bovon; see also the presentation of the proposed solutions in Marshall; Bock). Instead, μακροθυμεῖν must be understood here from Sirach 35.17-­19 (thus already Jülicher 1976, II: 286; then Riesenfeld 1963; Wifstrand 1964/1965; Dumoulin 1999), where it refers to the delay of God in the carrying out of his judgment, which responds, as here, to the prayer of the wretched: “The prayer of the wretched penetrates the clouds . . . and he does not stop until the Most High exercises care (ἐπισκέψηται). He will establish what is right for the righteous and carry out the judgment. The Lord tarries not and does not delay in relation to them (οὐ μὴ βραδύνῃ οὐδὲ μὴ μακροθυμήσῃ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς).” μακροθυμία in Artemidorus, Onirocriticon 2.25 (ed. Pack 1963, 1.44.8; here the term is parallel to παρολκή [“delay, postponement”]) and μαρκρόθυμος in Anthologia Graeca 11.317 (“Someone gave me a recalcitrant and stubborn [μακρόθυμον] donkey . . . , a son of inertia [υἱὸν τῆς βραδυτῆτος]”) have the corresponding meaning.

320

The Gospel According to Luke

Thus, μακροθυμεῖν is something that God precisely does not do, and therefore 7b must likewise be read as a question; the indicative μακροθυμεῖ does not continue the subjunctive οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ. This thematic orientation of μακροθυμεῖν is correspondingly taken up by ἐν τάχει (8b). It should not be doubted that the readers are meant to think here of the “day of the Son of Man” from 17.24, 30-­31 and that the temporal specification ἐν τάχει receives an eschatological quality. But this announcement is scarcely an “example of Lukan near expectation” (Erlemann 1995, 167), for according to 21.27 one can first speak of a “nearness” (ἐγγίζειν) of these events when the cosmic signs described in 21.25 “begin to take place.” How this announcement is intended from the Lukan point of view is another question entirely. How can Luke have the narrated Jesus announce to the disciples about sixty years after his death that God will exercise vengeance for them “within a short time”? We therefore cannot rule out that Luke wants to make it possible for his readers to think of the destruction of Jerusalem in this context. Such a reference also belongs to the sphere of possibility because in 21.22 Luke interprets this event—­against his Vorlage, with reference to Hosea 9.7, and with the use of the terminology of 7a, 8b—­as “days of vengeance” (ἡμέραι ἐκδικήσεως). 8c places the prayer paraenesis in the context of the topic of 17.22-­ 37. The phrasing ἐλθὼν . . . εὑρήσει makes the dubitative question into a linguistic and thematic correspondence to the macarisms of 12.37, 43par. Matthew 24.46, in which the concern is likewise with the parousia. There can therefore be no talk of “skepticism” (thus Mussner 2002; see also Haacker 1994, 284; Paulsen 1997, 131). Here the pragmatic is the same as above all in 12.37: “believing” (πιστεύειν) and “staying awake” (γρηγορεῖν) are semantically isotopic and the readers are exhorted to hold fast to their Christian orientation of existence (the πίστις; see also Taeger 1986, 112) until the coming of the Son of Man. Such exhortations to “constant readiness” (Schneider 1975, 91) are meaningful above all in situations in which the parousia is not forseeable and in which the addressees’ profile of Christian existence is in danger of becoming unrecognizable. From a rhetorical perspective the paraenesis switches from the main emotion of hope (vv. 7-­8b) into that of fear (cf. Lausberg 1973 §229, 437). 18.9-­14: The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector 9

And he told the following parable to some who were convinced regarding themselves that they were righteous and despised others: 10“Two men went up to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood and said to himself this prayer: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of people—­robbers,



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 321

unrighteous, adulterers—­or also as this tax collector there. 12I fast twice in the week (and) tithe everything that I obtain.’ 13But the tax collector stood far away and did not want to raise the eyes to heaven. Instead he beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14I say to you: this one, as distinct from that one, went home justified. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke presents the parable similarly to the previous parable of the judge and the widow. He interprets the story through a reading instruction at the beginning (v. 9) and through an application at the end (v. 14). As in 11.8; 12.37d, 44; 15.7, 10; 16.9; 19.26, here too the latter is introduced by λέγω ὑμῖν (v. 14a; see also at 14.24). As in 11.8 and 12.37d, 44, the story is first narrated to its end (14b) before there is a return, in the form of a sentence that transcends the narrated situation (v. 14c-­d), to the discursive level of v. 9 and before the application for the hearers/readers in the world under discussion is formulated. This overlap of the narrated world and the world under discussion occurs through the fact that God is present not only in the world under discussion (ταπεινωθήσεται and ὑψωθήσεται [v. 14c-­d] are divine passives) but also in the narrated world. He is addressed by the two other narrative figures (vv. 11b, 13d), and as the logical subject of δεδικαιωμένος he also speaks the concluding judgment (v. 14b). Thus, the constellation of narrative characters in the story of the Pharisee and tax collector is oriented toward the model of the dramatic triangle (see also Matthew 20.1-­16; 21.28-­32; Luke 7.41-­42a; 10.25-­37: 15.11-­32) in which God plays the role of the master of action (see further at 7.41-­42a). All the other elements that are characteristic for the constellation of figures and the plot of the other parables can also be identified in this narrative. The Pharisee and the tax collector face God as a pair of narrative twins, whose status at the beginning of the action is the same (both are “men” and “go up to the temple to pray”; v. 10a), while they differ from each other at the social level (the one is a Pharisee, the other a tax collector; v. 10). At the end of the narrative the relation is reversed (v. 14b); cf. also the correspondence between v. 10 and 7.41 in the presentation of the pair of narrative twins: δύο. . . , ὁ εἷς, . . . ὁ ἕτερος. 9 The introduction signals a change of addressees (see also 12.44; 16.1). Their description is a generalizing interpretation of the words of the Pharisee of vv. 11-­12 (on the meaning of this fact for the placement of the parable in the literary context see at 14.25–­18.34). It makes the self-­ picture that articulates itself in it into a stance of piety that is detachable from the individual situation and transferable to other humans. These two

322

The Gospel According to Luke

aspects come to expression in the opposition of πεποιθότας ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῖς and ἐξουθενοῦντας τοὺς λοιπούς (see also Amos 6.1). Unlike in 2 Corinthians 1.9, the concern here is not with the opposition “trusting in oneself –­trusting in God” (contra Jeremias 1977, 139); cf. also the devaluation of πεποιθέναι ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῖς in Jeremiah 7.4; Proverbs 14.16LXX. 10 The exposition constructs an ideal-­typical fiction, which is meant to pave the way for the syncrisis of Pharisee and tax collector. Both come not only at the same time and with the same intention, but also go to pray in the temple in Jerusalem, i.e., not only to the same place but to the place of the presence of God. In this way the readers are already encouraged now to expect a concluding assessment by God. This juxtaposition of Pharisee and tax collector is attested only within the Jesus tradition (cf. Mark 2.15-­ 16par. Luke 5.29-­30; Luke 7.34par. Matthew 11.19; Luke 15.1-­2; 19.2, 7). 11-­13 The two prayers have the function of a sermocinatio or ethopoeia, i.e., they are intended to characterize the two persons (cf. Lausberg 1973, §820–­25). The narrative constructs a syncrisis (cf. Focke 1923; Vollenweider 1994). Its form-­specific elements include the fact that the one who subsequently comes off worse in the comparison speaks first (cf. Vollenweider 1994, 98). Correspondingly, Jesus narrates first the prayer of the Pharisee. 11-­12 There is discussion over whether the prayer of the Pharisee is an authentic expression of Pharisaic piety (majority position) or whether it needs to be understood as a parody or caricature of a Pharisaic prayer (thus, among others, L. Schottroff 1973, 448ff; Kähler 1995, 202; Green; Bovon; see also Downing 1992). This is an entirely skewed alternative, however, for Luke never suggests that he is reporting a typically Pharisaic prayer. The prayer of the Pharisee is no more intended to represent Pharisaic piety in general than the prayer of the tax collector intends to be understood as the prayer of a ‘typical tax collector.’ Instead, both prayers are meant to be read in the first instance only as the prayers of these two specific persons. However, on the basis of the introduction to the parable, the prayer of the Pharisee is typical for humans “who trust regarding themselves that they are righteous and despise the rest” (v. 9). That this person is a Pharisee will, of course, scarcely surprise the readers of the Lukan story of Jesus, for it fits the picture that Luke has previously sketched of this group. (If the parable actually went back to the historical Jesus, then the point for him resided, in exactly the opposite way, in the surprising disturbance of what was expected—­not the everyday ethos but the encounter with God is what decides over salvation and unsalvation; see also Kähler 1995, 205–­6.) In Luke the Pharisee behaves toward the tax collector in the exact same way as the dutiful older son relates to his lost brother according to 15.29-­30.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 323

The scenic introduction (11a) is text-­critically disputed. The better external attestation supports σταθεὶς ταῦτα πρὸς ἑαυτὸν προσηύχετο (𝔓75 ‫א‬‎2 B f 1 lat and others), while the variant preferred by Nestle/Aland27 σταθεὶς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ταῦτα προσηύχετο (A W f 13 𝔐 syh) finds only modest support in the manuscripts (‫*א‬ reads σταθεὶς ταῦτα προσηύχετο). It is difficult to decide which of the first two readings represents the easier reading; reasons can be advanced in both directions. The better external attestation of the reading mentioned first should therefore tip the scales. For the use of σταθείς see at 19.8.

In the prayer of the Pharisee two statements about fasting and tithing (12) explicate the way in which the one praying distinguishes himself from the λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (11b). The catalogue “robber, unrighteous, idolater” “is meant to . . . specify which other people are intended” (Merklein 1977, 36; contra Kilgallen 1998b, 70: the list is said to characterize all people who do not fulfill the law in the way the Pharisees do as sinners). 11c (ἢ καὶ ὡς οὗτος ὁ τελώνης; the same devaluation through οὗτος is found also in 15.30) creates a link, beyond the list, with ὥσπερ οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (11b). The fasting on two week days (12a) goes beyond the demand of the Torah, which requires only fasting on the Day of Atonement (cf. Leviticus 16.29ff; 23.27ff). This text is the oldest attestation for such a practice of piety. With Didache 8.1 (ca. 100–­120 CE) the second oldest attestation is also of Christian provenance. Further, it becomes clear from this text that these two fast days were Monday and Thursday: “Your fast days should not be with the hypocrites (μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν), for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week.” Later rabbinic texts in Bill. II: 241–­42; see also Böhl 1987. On fasting in general see at 5.33. Also the tithing of everything that one “obtains” (12d)—­i.e., not only one’s income but also one’s purchases—­goes beyond the tithing command of the Torah (cf. Leviticus 27.30; Numbers 18.21-­24; Deuteronomy 14.22-­23, 28-­29; see further at 11.42). The purchases were tithed because it could always be the case that what was bought was not yet tithed on the previous channel of trade. Tithing it after the fact guaranteed that one did not unintentionally consume food that had not been tithed.

13 The fact that the narrative has the tax collector stand μακρόθεν is intended to stage his distance from God, which is perceived by him as such. The two other gestures attributed to him also point in this same direction. Lifting the eyes to heaven can be done only by one who knows himself to be in accord with God (cf. Isaiah 38.14; 51.6; Psalm 123.1; 1/3 Ezra 4.58; Susanna 35; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 11.162; John 11.41; 17.1), but not by sinners (13b); cf. 2 Enoch 13.5:

324

The Gospel According to Luke

οὐκ . . . δύνανται . . . ἀπᾶραι αὐτῶν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀπὸ αἰσχύνης περὶ ὧν ἡμαρτήκεισαν . . . (“They could . . . not . . . lift their eyes to heaven because of shame over the sins they had committed . . .”); Susanna 9: “They cast down their eyes in order not to look into heaven and have to think of the righteous punishments” (see also Ezra 9.6: “I am embarrassed and ashamed to lift my face to you, my God! For our sins have grown over the head . . .”; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 11.143); see also at 9.16. Beating one’s breast is a symbolic self-­punishment and is regarded as an expression of regret, grief, and pain (see also Luke 23.48; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 7.252; Life of Adam and Eve 42.8; Joseph and Aseneth 10.1, 15; Philo, In Flaccum 157; Menander, Dyscolos 647; Arrian, Anabasis 7.24.3; Apuleius, Metamorphoses 7.27.2; 9.31.1). In 13d the tax collector does not ask for forgiveness of sins (as, e.g., the one praying in Psalm 51.3) but that God’s grace preserve him from the destruction that threatens him as a sinner; cf. the parallel in Exodus 32.12, 14: ἵλεως γενοῦ . . . καὶ ἱλάσθη κύριος περὶ τῆς κακίας, ἧς εἶπεν ποιῆσαι τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ (“‘Be merciful!’ . . . and the Lord was gracious in relation to the disaster about which he had said that he would do it to this people”) (see also Additions to Esther C 10: “Hear my prayer and be gracious to your inheritance [ἱλάσθητι τῷ κλήρῳ σου] and turn our grief into joy”; Daniel 9.19Theodotion: “Lord, hear, Lord, be gracious [ἱλάσθητι; LXX: σὺ ἱλάτευσον], Lord, take note and act! Delay not for your sake, my God . . .”; PsalmLXX 78.9: “Because of the glory of your name, Lord, save us and deal graciously with our sins [καὶ ἱλάσθητι ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν] . . .”); as well as 2 Kings 5.18LXX. The imperative ἱλάσθητι is not attested elsewhere in Greek literature; on the interpretation of ἱλάσθητι cf. Breytenbach 1999, 426ff; Stemm 1997. 14 λέγω ὑμῖν (14a) signals the interweaving of the situation of narration and the narrated situation (see also 11.8; 12.37d, 44; 15.7, 10; 16.9; 19.26). Luke has Jesus formulate the decision of God in the comparison between the two people who are praying (14b). Whether παρ’ ἐκεῖνον (this is to be read with ‫ א‬B D L T f 1 and others; contra Cortés 1984, who favors ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος with A [W] Θ Ψ f 13 𝔐 and others but with not very convincing arguments) is to be understood comparatively (for this use of the preposition παρά + accusative see at 13.2, 4b) or exclusively (in the sense of the Hebrew ‫;מן‬ ִ see also BDR §2364; W. Bauer 1988, 1236; W. Köhler, EWNT 3: 31 among others) must probably be decided in favor of the latter. The following explanatory (ὅτι) proverb, which may come from Ezekiel 21.31 and had already been used in Luke 14.11, states the general principle (πᾶς) on which the individual decision of 14b is based. It explains what the sinner did rightly according to the judgment of God and what the Pharisee did wrongly. In a certain sense, the tax collector behaved as



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 325

14.10a suggests and was rewarded for this in line with 14.10b-­d (see also Nützel 1980, 259). On the one hand, the future verb forms ταπεινωθήσεται and ὑψωθήσεται are gnomic (cf. BDR §349.1), but on the other hand, they bring the eschatic judge onto the stage. In this way the narrative spreads to the hearers or readers, and there emerges a temporal slope that reaches from the narrated situation to the final judgment. On this slope the hearers or readers stand exactly between 14b and 14c-­d. 18.15-­17: The Children and the Kingdom of God 15

But people also brought small children to him so that he would touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called them and said, “Let the children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these! 17Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.” Luke takes up again the Markan narrative thread, which he had left after 9.46-­50par. Mark 9.33-­40, and continues with Mark 10.13-­16. From Mark 9.41–­10.12 he has taken over only passages for which there is a parallel in Q: Mark 9.42 in Luke 17.2par. Matthew 18.6; Mark 9.49 in Luke 14.34par. Matthew 5.13; Mark 10.11-­12 in Luke 16.18par. Matthew 5.32. However, Markan traces can be recognized in certain phrasings of Luke 16.18a and 17.2 (see further ad loc.). Form-­critically this is a chreia, which is based on Mark 10.13-­16. From a scenic exposition (v. 15) grows a two-­part dictum (vv. 16-­17), which transcends the individual situation primarily in the second part. This accentuation emerges even more clearly in Luke than in Mark, because he omits the concluding note (Mark 10.16) about the blessing of the children (cf. Robbins 1983). Whether one may bring the intention of the narrative into connection with an early Christian discussion about arguments for and against the baptism of children (thus, among others, Lindemann 1983) is hard to decide. But it is probably relatively unlikely that this question was relevant for Luke, for otherwise it would have left traces also at other points in his writings (see also Michaelis 1964). There are two minor agreements to note: the lack of ἰδών (Mark 10.14a) in v. 16apar. Matthew 19.14a and the insertion of καί before μὴ κωλύετε (v. 16bpar. Matthew 19.14b); see further Neirynck 1974b, 134; 1991, 58; Ennulat 1994, 219ff. Gospel of Thomas 22 knows of a parallel tradition: “Jesus saw little ones who received milk. He said to his disciples: ‘These little ones who receive milk are like those who enter into the kingdom.’”

326

The Gospel According to Luke

15 The iterative imperfect προσέφερον (cf. BDR §318.3) describes an ongoing manner of action. Previously Jesus’s ἅπτεσθαι had always been concerned with healing or the like (cf. 5.13; 6.19; 7.14; 8.44, 46-­47; see also 22.51). Since it is not explicitly noted that the children are sick, the concern here is probably very generally with receiving a share in the salvation-­bringing “power” (δύναμις) that is present in Jesus (cf. also 6.19; see further there). It is not evident why Luke replaces the Markan παιδία (“children”) with βρέφη (“small children, infants”), especially since he has taken over παιδία in v. 16. Furthermore, the use of παιδίον in 1.59; 2.27 alongside βρέφος in 2.12, 14 should also warn against an overemphasis on the semantic difference; we are probably dealing simply with a word that Luke likes to use (apart from the eight occurrences in Luke–­Acts it is found in the New Testament only in 2 Timothy 3.15; 1 Peter 2.2). The disciples shuffle between this intention and Jesus (15b) and want to hinder (κωλύειν) the children from being brought to Jesus, as the pragmatic of ἐπιτιμῶν is interpreted in v. 16. The Lukan presentation does not provide an indication of possible motives; 9.49 is not a parallel. 16 Luke has taken over Jesus’s dictum word-­for-­word from Mark 10.14. κωλύειν should not be interpreted here with reference to Acts 8.37; 10.47; 11.17, for there is no sign of a connection to baptism here. Moreover, within the target domain the concern is with much more than whether children are merely “admitted,” i.e., tolerated. The substantive demonstrative pronoun οἱ τοιοῦτοι in the justification of 16c expresses the fact that symbolic significance is assigned to the children who are spoken of in the narrative. They stand for people to whom the kingdom of God belongs. To put it differently, the kingdom of God belongs not to the children but to those who are like children. The genitive of belonging formed with εἶναι (BDR §162.7) makes the ones who are like children into ‘possessors’ of the kingdom of God (cf. BDR §189.1), i.e., to such ones to whom God will transfer the exercising of his reign (cf. Psalm 21.29LXX; Demosthenes, Orationes 59.74: ἡ βασιλεία [ἦν] τῶν ἀεὶ ὑπερεχόντων διὰ τὸ αὐτόχθονας εἶναι [“The kingdom of God (belonged) to those who, because of their autochthonous origin, were always distinguished”]). With this, of course, the question arises of which characteristic of being a child is invoked and made into a model for the way of life of adults. A small anthology illustrates the cluelessness that predominates at this point: “the openness and sheer receptivity of these tiny human beings. Their freshness, their lack of guilt or suspicion, their loving warmth, and their lack of a claim to achievement” (Fitzmyer II: 1193); “regarded as nothing, insignificant” (Luz III: 115); “who have nothing to offer and do not count in society” (Bovon III: 224); “the helplessness, the condition of being handed over, and the inability to assert



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 327

oneself” (Ernst 378); “‘lowliness’; no claim that rests on achievement; in need of help” (Schneider II: 367). Nothing of any of this plays a role here.

More conceivable is an interpretation from Matthew 18.4 (ταπεινοῦν ἑαυτὸν ὡς τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο), because this would fit well with the conclusion of the preceding pericope (ὁ δὲ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται; 18.14). 17 With regard to this verse there are also more questions than answers. What is ὡς παιδίον meant to express? In any case it explains the subject ὅς and not the object τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. If one relates the talk of the δέχεσθαι of the kingdom of God (17b) to the widespread talk of the δέχεσθαι of the “word” (i.e., the proclamation; Luke 8.13; Acts 8.14; 11.1; 17.11; 1 Thessalonians 1.6; 2.13; James 1.21), however, it would fit with the typically Lukan talk of the “proclamation” of the kingdom of God (Luke 4.43; 8.1; 9.2, 60; 16.16; Acts 20.25; 28.23, 31). For δέχεσθαι τὴν βασιλείαν there are a few attestations outside the New Testament in which this phrasing always means “to take over the reign” in the sense of “accede” (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 8.3.26; Aristocritus, FGH 3b: 493, Fragment 5; Josephus, Antiquitaes judaicae 17.185; Philo of Byblos, De adfinium vocabulorum differentia, ed. Nickau 1966, 22; Plutarch, Numa 7.1), and this would at least fit well with our interpretation of v. 16d. But this does not yet explain what Luke meant by “entering into it (sc. the kingdom of God)” (17c). There are identical admission-­sayings in Matthew 5.20; 7.21; 18.3; Mark 9.47; 10.24; 10.23, 25par. Matthew 19.23-­24par. Luke 18.24-­ 25; John 3.5; Acts 14.22. The closest New Testament correspondences are found in words about entering into the “joy of your Lord” (Matthew 25.21, 2), into “life” (Mark 9.43par. Matthew 18.8; Mark 9.47 [εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν] diff. Matthew 18.9 [εἰς τὴν ζωήν], into “his glory” (Luke 24.26), into the “rest” (Hebrews 3.11.18; 4.1 and elsewhere). But the talk of “entering” can fit with the notion of “receiving” (δέχεσθαι) the kingdom of God insofar as one can “enter” also into a dynamic action (cf. Marcus 1988 among others with reference to John 4.38 [εἰς τὸν κόπον . . . εἰσέρχεσθαι]; PsalmLXX 68.28 [εἰσέρχεσθαι ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ σου]; 142.2 [εἰς τὴν κρίσιν εἰσέρχεσθαι]; Job 14.3 [εἰσέρχεσθαι ἐν κρίματι]; Hebrew in each case ‫ּבֹוא‬ ‫)ב־‬. ְ In Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 9.260 πρῶτον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν παρελθών means, at least, “when he acceded to the reign.” This same conception also comes to expression in δοῦναι/διατιθέναι ὑμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν in 12.32; 22.29 (see further ad loc. respectively). 18.18-­30: Riches and Discipleship 18

And a certain person, an important man, asked him, and said, “Good Rabbi, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19And Jesus said to him,

328

The Gospel According to Luke

“Why do you call me ‘good’? No one is good except one: God. 20You know the commandments: you shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and (your) mother.” 21But he said, “I have kept all these things from my youth.” 22When Jesus heard that, he said to him, “One thing is still left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it among the poor. Then you will have a treasure in heaven. And come, follow me!” 23When he heard that, he became very sorrowful, for he was exeedingly rich. 24But when Jesus saw him [having become so sorrowful], he said, “How difficult it is for those having possessions to enter into the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 Thereupon those listening said, “Who then can be saved (at all)?” 27He answered, “What is impossible with humans—­with God it is possible.” 28 Then Peter said, “Look, we have left our homes and followed you.” 29Thereupon he said to them, “Amen, I say to you: there is no one who has left house or wife or siblings or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30who does not receive back fourfold in this age and in the coming world eternal life.” The scene is structured by the change of Jesus’s conversation partners and consists of three chreiae. The first (vv. 18-­25) is opened by the question of an ἄρχων, the second (vv. 26-­27) by a question of earwitnesses of the first conversation who are not further identified, and the third (vv. 28-­30) by a remark that Peter speaks on behalf of all those who follow Jesus. Luke has created this structure through purposeful interventions into the narrative dramaturgy of his Vorlage (Mark 10.17-­31). The division that Mark places between 10.22 and 10.23 (the rich man goes away and Jesus turns to the disciples) is leveled out by Luke. The ἄρχων remains present in the background, and his reaction becomes the occasion for the dictum of vv. 24-­25. Moreover, unlike in Mark 10.26, in Luke it is not the disciples who react to the saying about the camel and the eye of the needle but unknown hearers (v. 26). Luke brings the disciples onto the stage for the first time in v. 28, i.e., in the last subscene. The coherence of the entire scene is based, first, on the inclusio that is established with the key phrase “eternal life” (ζωὴ αἰώνιος). The ἄρχων asks Jesus about this at the beginning (v. 18), and the last dictum of Jesus ends with it (v. 30). Second, the individual subscenes are nonetheless also joined with one another. The designation of the questioners of the second subscene as οἱ ἀκούσαντες (v. 26) creates a link to what has just been said, and with the statement “we have followed you” (ἠκολουθήσαμέν σοι) the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 329

saying of Peter in v. 28 takes up the exhortation “follow me!” (ἀκολούθει μοι; v. 22e), which was directed to the ἄρχων. Furthermore, the repeated reference to the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (vv. 24b, 25b, 29c) also functions as an element that establishes coherence. The high number of minor agreements is conspicuous: the absence of μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς from the series of the Decalogue commandments listed in Mark 19); the lack of διδάσκαλε (Mark 10.20b) 10.19 (v. 20par. Matthew 19.18-­ in v. 21par. Matthew 19.20; ἐφύλαξα (v. 21bpar. Matthew 19.20b) instead of ἐφυλαξάμην (Mark 10.20b); ἔτι (v. 22bpar. Matthew 19.20c); the lack of ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ἠγάπησεν αὐτὸν καί (Mark 10.20) in v. 22par. Matthew 19.21; ἀκούσας (v. 23apar. Matthew 19.22) instead of στυγνάσας (Mark 10.22); εἶπεν (v. 24apar. Matthew 19.23a) instead of λέγει (Mark 10.23a); the lack of Mark 10.24 between v. 24 and v. 25 (par. Matthew 19.23-­24); ἀκούσαντες (v. 26apar. Matthew 19.25a diff. Mark 10.26); εἶπεν (v. 27apar. Matthew 19.26a) instead of λέγει (Mark 10.27); εἶπεν (v. 28par. Matthew 19.27a) instead of ἤρξατο λέγειν (Mark 10.28); εἶπεν . . . ὅτι (v. 29apar. Matthew 19.28a) instead of ἔφη (Mark 10.29); see further Neirynck 1974b, 135ff; 1991, 58–­59; Ennulat 1994, 223ff. An apocryphal variant is cited by Origen from what he calls the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Origen, Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 15.14 on Matthew 19.16–­30 [GCS XL, Origenes Werke X: 389.15–­390.7]; translation from Schneemelcher 1963, 148–­49): “The other of the two rich men said to him: Master, what good thing must I do that I may live? He said to him: Man, fulfill the law and the prophets. He answered him: That have I done. He said to him: Go and sell all that thou possessest and distribute it among the poor, and then come and follow me. But the rich man then began to scratch his head and it [the saying] pleased him not. And the Lord said to him: How canst thou say, I have fulfilled the law and the prophets? For it stands written in the law: Love thy neighbor as thyself; and behold, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are begrimed with dirt and die of hunger—­and thy house is full of many good things and nothing at all comes forth from it to them! And he turned and said to Simon, his disciple, who was sitting by him: Simon, son of Jona, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven” (on this see Klijn 1966, 149–­55; K. Berger 1972, 455–­56; Mees 1972).

18 Luke makes an ἄρχων out of the man who is not described further in Mark 10.17. It must remain open whom or what he meant by this (cf. Klinghardt 1988, 132ff; Eckey II: 769: “figure in a leading position”). In 8.41 he had called Jairus an ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς (Matthew 9.18, 23 calls him only ἄρχων). In Luke (and only in Luke) the Jerusalem ἄρχοντες are significantly involved in Jesus’s death (Luke 23.13, 35; 24.20; Acts 3.17; 13.27); in Acts 14.5; 16.19 Luke speaks of (indeed also non-­Jewish)

330

The Gospel According to Luke

ἄρχοντες in other cities. Perhaps he meant by this a synagogue leader or perhaps just a member of the municipal magistracy. In vv. 20-­21, at any rate, he portrays him as a Jew. The address διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ is a Hellenistic captatio benevolentiae (cf. the same address in Ps.-­Plutarch, De musica 1146c; 1146d; the parallel in b. Ta’anit 24b [Bill. II: 24] is a few centuries later; see also at 7.40). In 10.25 Luke had already had a scribe pose the question of the ἄρχων (see there for additional attestations for the typically Lukan ‘what-­should-­I-­do-­questions’). “To inherit eternal life” (for the phrasing and imagery see also Sibylline Oracles 3.47; Psalms of Solomon 14.10; Matthew 19.29) means the same as “to enter into the kingdom of God” (v. 24, 25). 19 Jesus reacts with a rhetorical counterquestion. The phrasing οὐδεὶς εἰ μὴ εἷς in statements about God is found also in Mark 2.7; 1 Corinthians 8.4 (never in the LXX and in the rest of early Jewish literature). At that time no one actually needed to be told that God is “good” (cf. e.g., PsalmLXX 134.3: “Praise the Lord, ὅτι ἀγαθὸς κύριος”; Philo, De decalogo 176: “κύριος ἀγαθός, the cause only of the good, of no evil”; De specialibus legibus 1.209: “God is good, for he is the creator and maker of all things”); in De mutatione nominum 7 Philo calls him μόνος ἀγαθός; see also De somniis 1.149 (εἷς ὁ ἀγαθός). There has been much speculation regarding the propositional content and the pragmatics of the question and its rationale (cf. Fitzmyer II: 1199; Bock II: 1477–­78). Both scholars assume that here Jesus wants to point the ἄρχων away from himself (sc. Jesus) and toward God. He should not ask him, but he should hold fast to what God has said. The continuation could support this interpretation, for in the next verse Jesus quotes from the Decalogue. 20 Jesus’s answer demands from the ἄρχων what is a given, for life is already associated with the keeping of the commandments in the Torah as a promise (cf. Leviticus 18.15; Deuteronomy 6.29; 30.16; see then also Proverbs 4.4 [“Keep my commandments and you will live”]; 7.2). The sequence of the five commandments differs from the Decalogue handed down in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. In relation to the Decalogue of the Hebrew text the sequence of “you shall not kill” and “you shall not commit adultery” is reversed, as it is in DeuteronomyLXX 5.17-­18. The prohibition of adultery is also reversed in the LXX version of Exodus 20.13-­15. This sequence also occurs in numerous early Jewish renderings of the Decalogue: Philo, De decalogo 36; 51; 121; 168; De specialibus legibus 3.8; Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 173; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 11.10–­11; P. Nash (cf. Albright 1937, 145–­76); see also Romans 13.9; James 2.11. While Mark 10.19 reproduces the sequence of the Hebrew version, Luke aligns himself with the reception of the Decalogue in Hellenistic Judaism. Philo, De decalogo 121 ascribed the front placement of the



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 331

prohibition of adultery to the fact that adultery is the “greatest wrongdoing” (see also De specialibus legibus 3.8ff). The postposition of the command to honor one’s parents is completely singular in relation to the entire Jewish Decalogue tradition.

But with his answer Jesus has not gone as far as the opening question of the ἄρχων, for he had asked about eternal life. This difference therefore makes a second round of questions necessary, which Luke now narrates in 21-­22. Here, the ἄρχων is allowed to present himself first as a pious and law-­observant Jew without this being contested (21; in the version of the Gospel of Hebrews this is different [see above]). However, it already emerges from the first words of Jesus’s response that the fulfillment of the Decalogue commandments is not sufficient for the “inheritance” of eternal life (v. 18; according to vv. 24, 25 for “entering into the kingdom of God”; see also K. Berger 1972, 413). On ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει (22b) see also Alciphron, Epistulae 4.1.1: ἓν ἔτι τῇ δωρεᾷ λείπει (“One thing is still lacking to the gift”); Testament of Abraham A 14.3: τί ἔτι λείπεται ἡ ψυχὴ εἰς τὸ σῴζεσθαι (“What does the soul still lack in order to be saved?”). The continuation then makes clear how Luke understood the distinction formulated in 16.16 between “law and prophets” and the proclamation of the kingdom of God ethically. The kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus does not take the place of the ethical demand of “law and prophets” (sc. the observance of the “commandments”—­this demand remains valid as a given without any curtailments), but rather expands it with additional demands: the selling of all possessions, the distribution of the proceeds among the poor, and the entrance into the discipleship of Jesus (see also Salo 1991, 156). In 12.33 Jesus had required the same of the circle of disciples, and in 18.29-­30 he will promise eschatic compensation to those who fulfill it. Thus, the difference between vv. 20-­21 (keep commandments) and v. 22 (sell everything, etc.) reflects the difference between “law and prophets” and “proclamation of the kingdom of God” from 16.16. Viewed as a whole, 12.32-­33; 16.16 and 18.22, 28-­30 are interconnected, and the constant that binds all the texts together is the kingdom of God. What Jesus requires from the ἄρχων is no more and no less than to enter into the circle of his disciples. For this reason Luke has probably also deleted the instruction ὕπαγε from Mark 10.21 (par. Matthew 19.21). The “treasure in heaven,” which Jesus offers and which was the βασιλεία of God in 12.32-­ 33, is specified here (and then also in v. 30) as ζωὴ αἰώνιος (for the use of “treasure” as a metaphor for salvation that comes from God see at 12.33). 23 The reaction of the ἄρχων makes clear that he refuses Jesus’s summons to enter into discipleship. For the readers his decision is commented on through the interplay of its explanation (23b) with v. 22d (ἕξεις

332

The Gospel According to Luke

θησαυρὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) and 12.33-­34. His heart is with his (perishable) earthly treasure and not with his “inexhaustible treasure in heaven” (12.33). In Luke it is not the case (see above) that the ἄρχων leaves the scene, as he does in Mark 10.22par. Matthew 19.22. 24-­25 The reaction of the ἄρχων prompts Jesus to make another position statement. The two words περίλυπον γενόμενον (24a) are only found in part of the textual tradition (A D W Θ Ψ 078 f 13 𝔐 latt sy and others). They are lacking in ‫ א‬B L f 1 and others. Reasons can be produced for both a secondary addition (naked ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτόν no longer fits after the two have spoken with one another and would obtain through περίλυπον γενόμενον a specification that would make it easier) and a secondary deletion (removal of a pleonasm), so that the better manuscript attestation should tilt the scales for the assumption of a secondary addition. The argument invoked in favor of the originality of περίλυπον γενόμενον in Metzger 1971, 168, namely that Luke tends to repeat words and expressions, cannot decide individual cases.

Although in 24 Luke has transformed the tense of the statement adopted from Mark 10.23 from the future into the present, the predicate εἰσπορεύονται retains a future sense because it formulates a situation that is always applicable (cf. BDR §323). For δυσκόλως cf. Spicq 1994, I: 387ff, and for the notion of “entering into the kingdom of God” see at v. 17. The pragmatics of the statement, to whose hearers the narrative also has the rich ἄρχων belong, can be crosslinked with 13.24a: “Strive to enter into through the narrow door”—­namely, ‘by separating yourself from your riches.’ The statement is also closely tied to 16.9 and to the pragmatics of 16.19-­31. The οἱ χρήματα ἔχοντες of 24b also include, of course, the πλούσιος of 25b. 25 The parabolic saying of the camel and the eye of the needle is a rhetorical hyperbole, which employs the means of expression of the comparatio (cf. Lausberg 1973, §909, 910.3). It provides an ironic specification for δυσκόλως (v. 24), which had not announced an exclusion of the rich from the kingdom of God as a matter of principle and had left open for the rich an even more than only theoretical possibility—­under certain circumstances—­of entering the kingdom of God after all. Now the degree of difficulty is specified. It is more difficult than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. The irony consists in the tension between the comparative nature of the comparison, which still leaves open a theoretical possibility and the knowledge of the hearers that it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 333

That fact that the decisive characteristic of a camel is its size also provides the rhetorical stinger in the parabolic saying of Matthew 23.24 (‘strain a gnat, swallow a camel’); cf. also Lucian of Samosata, Epistulae saturnales 1.19: ant and camel. This also applied in comparison with the elephant, for strength was assigned to the elephant as a typical characteristic; cf. Aesop, Fabulae, ed. Hausrath/Hunger 1970, 246.1: The camel and the elephant want to become king of the animals. The camel hopes to be chosen διὰ τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ σώματος (“because of the size of its body”), the elephant, however, διὰ τὴν ἰσχύν (“because of its strength”). Oddly enough the irony conveyed in the absurdity of the picture has caused difficulty for many interpreters. Some manuscripts (S f 13 579vid 1424 al), ancient Christian authors (e.g., Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarius in Lucam, PG 72: 857c), and also modern exegetes have therefore sometimes read here κάμιλον “mooring rope,” which was pronounced in the same way as κάμηλον (for the history of this interpretation cf. Aicher 1908; Denk 1904; Kobert 1972; see also Bovon III: 231 n. 37). Here the imagery would fit better together, but precisely this fact makes this solution certainly a secondary lectio facilior. Others attempt to avoid the difficulty by assuming that “eye of the needle” is the designation for a small town gate—­possibly even in Jerusalem (overview in Aicher 1908, 16–­21). This is entirely plucked out of thin air, however, for there is no attestation for this anywhere. What Ishodad of Merv already said in the ninth century in his commentary on Matthew 19.24 still applies today: “He calls a camel here the camel of the flesh, and not anything else, according to the opinions of fools” (trans. M. Gibson 1911, I: 76).

26 Questions with τίς δύναται . . . ; are rhetorical and are always meant to be answered with “no one!” Cf. Psalms of Solomon 17.39 (“His [sc. the Messiah’s] hope [rests] on the Lord, καὶ τίς δύναται πρὸς αὐτόν; [and who can (come) against him?]”); 1 Enoch 68.2 (“Who can . . . bear the severity of the judgment?”); 2 Baruch 14.8–­9 (“O Lord . . . , who can understand your judgment? Who can investigate the depth of your way . . . ?”); 75.2–­4; Mark 2.7par. Luke 5.21; Revelation 6.17; 13.4; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 26.5; Epictetus, Dissertationes 3.3.10 (“Who can drive you out of such a possession? Not even Zeus!”).

Thus, we are actually dealing with an assertion, which emerges from v. 25. If it is more likely that a camel “enters” through the eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom of God, then actually no one can enter into the kingdom of God or—­as it says here—­“be saved.” 27 The first part of Jesus’s answer appears to confirm this impossibility. But the second part then sounds more like a relativization of v. 25, which gives hope also to the rich—­God is certainly in a position to save

334

The Gospel According to Luke

them too (cf. 2 Chronicles 14.10: κύριε, οὐκ ἀδυνατεῖ παρὰ σοὶ σῴζειν [“Lord, with you it is not impossible to save”]). This tension often leads to harmonizations. It is said that Jesus wanted to say that God can still turn the rich into good people by bringing it about that they separate themselves from their riches and thereby fulfill the condition for admission into the kingdom of God (e.g., Schmithals; Fitzmyer; Nolland; Bock; Eckey). If, however, there is an interpretation that is certainly wrong, then it is this one, for the concern here is not with the how of a possible saving of the rich, but with the whether. And this remains exclusively and solely reserved for the possibilities of God, which cannot be reached, spoken, or thought by humans. 28 In Luke the disciples (i.e., the ones whom Peter calls “we,” as in 12.41; see also 9.49) do not turn up until the last round of the conversation. While the extension of this “we” remains undetermined, its intension is precisely specified. It is those who have left their home and followed after Jesus. τὰ ἴδια is more than simply “possessions”; it encompasses the material, personal, and spatial totality of the social lifeworld of a person (cf. in the New Testament John 16.32; 19.27; Acts 21.5; 1 Thessalonians 4.11; and Spicq 1994, II: 205ff). What is meant by the τὰ ἴδία ἀφιέναι of the followers of Jesus emerges from Luke 5.11, 28; 9.59-­60, 61-­62; 14.26. Peter presents the “we” as a counter-­image to the rich ἄρχων, who had not complied with a corresponding demand of Jesus (vv. 22-­23). The question does not provide a contribution to the Lukan image of the disciples. Instead, it functions solely as a trigger for the concluding saying of Jesus. 29-­30 The sentence structure of Jesus’s answer with the double negation οὐδείς ἐστιν . . . ὃς οὐχί . . . is idiomatically correct Greek (cf., e.g., Plato, Meno 92e; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 6.51.3; Strabo, Geographica 16.1.20; Plutarch, Timoleon 41.2; Moralia 397d; 1000b). What τὰ ἴδια (v. 28) consists in is unpacked via diairesis with the help of a five-­part catalogue in 29. From the seven-­part Markan list (Mark 10.29) Luke has lumped together “father” and “mother” into “parents” and “brothers” and “sisters” into “siblings” (for the use of ἀδελφοί as an umbrella term also for siblings, which encompasses sisters, cf. Polybius 10.18.15; Epictetus, Dissertationes 1.12.20 [γονεῖς, τέκνα, ἀδελφοί, γείτονες]; 4.1.111 [τέκνα, γύνη, ἀδελφοί]; Artemidorus, Onirocriticon 3.31 [ed. Pack 1963, 217.18]; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 2.15 and Diogenes Laertius 7.120 [γονεῖς καὶ ἀδελφοί]; 10.18 [πάτηρ, μήτηρ, ἀδελφοί]). He has omitted “fields” and added “women.” The profile of the changes is clear. Luke takes the “house” as the principal concept and mentions—­from the perspective of the married man—­all the family relations. That Luke adds the “wife” is not, of course, meant to relativize



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 335

marriage (contra Melzer-­Keller 1997, 311ff and others). Rather, Luke is just concerned with the completeness of his list (see also 14.26: all the family members mentioned there turn up here as well). ἕνεκεν τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ specifies the motivation for the separation of the disciples from their families. What βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ means here in terms of content is known to the readers on the basis of their reading of the Lukan story of Jesus up to this point—­the salvation which Jesus proclaims (4.43; 8.1), which is present in his activity (11.20), which is promised to the disciples (6.20; 12.32), for whose coming they should pray (11.2), and in whose proclamation they themselves have a share (9.2, 60; 10.9, 11). 30 The sentence is structured chiastically: (a) πολλαπλασίονα / (b) ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ // (b) ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τῷ ἐρχομένῳ / (a) ζωὴν αἰώνιον. With the juxtaposition of the two middle members the Jewish conception of the dualism of “present age” (‫עֹולם ַהּזֶ ה‬ ָ ‫)ה‬ ָ and “coming age” (‫עֹולם ָה ָּבא‬ ָ ‫)ה‬ ָ is taken up; cf. 4 Ezra 7.50 (“the Most High has created not unum saeculum, but two”); Bill. IV/2: 799–­857; cf. also Luke 20.34-­35; Matthew 12.32. Jesus formulates the relationship between deeds and consequences in a manner that is frequently encountered in eschatological discourses. The present contrary experiences are more than outdone by the future eschatic salvation (cf. e.g., Romans 8.18; 1 Peter 1.4-­6; 2 Baruch 44.8; 48.50). It is new in relation to this tradition here that the surpassing compensation takes place not only in the coming age (through “eternal life”) but also already in the present (ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ). However, unlike in Mark 10.30, it is not said here what the compensation consists in. Testament of Zebulun 6.6 also formulates in a similarly unspecific manner: “Whoever gives away (μεταδιδούς) to the neighbor, receives manifold from the Lord (λαμβάνει πολλαπλασίονα παρὰ κυρίου).” 18.31-­34: Jesus’s Second Announcement of the Passion and the Resurrection 31

And he took the twelve to himself and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem and everything that was written by the prophets will be completed against the Son of Man. 32For he will be handed over to the Gentiles, and he will be mocked and mistreated and spit on. 33And they will flog and kill him, and on the third day he will rise.” 34 But they understood nothing of this, and this matter remained concealed from them, and they did not understand what was said. The significance of this section for the Lukan story of Jesus is based not so much on the fact that Luke has the δώδεκα appear again for the

336

The Gospel According to Luke

first time since 9.12, for he had already found them at this point in Mark 10.32, and moreover, he had already brought them onto the stage in between as “apostles” (17.5). Rather, this scene obtains its special significance, in the first place, through the fact that now the disciples too learn for the first time that they are following Jesus on the way to Jerusalem, where suffering, death, and resurrection await him. In 9.31-­32, where there was already talk of Jerusalem as the place of Jesus’s ἔξοδος, Luke had let the disciples fall asleep, so that they could not come to understand anything of this. Moreover, Luke had lifted out this present announcement from the previous course of presentation especially by having Jesus interpret his fate as the fulfillment of Scripture and its prophetic promises for the first time in v. 31c: “Everything that was written through the prophets will be completed against the Son of Man.” He then lets Jesus make reference to this saying also in 24.44 (see also Rusam 2003, 240). With v. 31 Luke moves on that salvation-­historical level of interpretation that supports the entirety of Luke–­Acts—­that in the story of Jesus the prophetic promises are fulfilled. The comprehensive reference to πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα διὰ τῶν προφητῶν lifts the text onto the same level upon which the beginning of the inaugural address of Jesus in Nazareth was located (cf. above all 4.18-­21) and upon which the interpretations of Jesus’s suffering and death in Acts 2.29-­32; 3.18, 21, 24; 13.27, 29, 32-­37; 26.22-­23, 27; 28.23 move as well (for the phrasing πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα see at v. 31). In this way Luke leads the narrative back to the highest text level of his story of Jesus (von Bendemann 2001, 155 therefore rightly speaks of a “resumption of the plot of the ‘framing narrative’ of the third gospel”). Thus, this text concludes in an effective way the so-­called ‘travel narrative.’ The πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ of 9.51 is taken up and replaced through ἀναβαίνομεν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ in 18.31, and both phrasings place a frame around the whole section of the story of Jesus. Luke’s Vorlage was presumably Mark 10.32-­ 34. Luke has heavily revised this text, however. He deletes Mark 10.32a-­c and in this way causes the announcement to take place not during the ascent to Jersualem (Mark 10.32a: ἦσαν . . . ἀναβαίνοντες εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα) but before it. In addition, Luke has expanded the Markan text with the interpretation of Jesus’s fate as an event in which the prophetic promises come to fulfillment (18.31c; see above). With regard to the disciples Luke removes the notice about their consternation and fear (ἐθαμβοῦντο and ἐφοβοῦντο; Mark 10.32c-­d) and replaces it with a reference to their complete lack of understanding (18.34); see also at v. 32. In this way he makes clear that since 9.45 nothing has changed on the side of the disciples.



9.51–­18.34: The Journey to Jerusalem 337

There are hardly any noteworthy minor agreements: εἶπεν (v. 31apar. Matthew 20.17) instead of ἤρξατο . . . λέγειν (Mark 10.32d) and τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ (v. 33bpar. Matthew 20.19 [τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ]) instead of μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας (Mark 10.34c); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 139–­40; 1991, 60–­61; Ennulat 1994, 188ff).

31 Luke had previously spoken of Jesus’s παραλαμβάνειν of the disciples (31a) in 9.10 (retreat to Bethsaida; diff. Mark 6.32) and 9.28 (ascent up the mountain of the transfiguration). In 31b he describes Jesus’s way to Jerusalem for the first time as “going up” (ἀναβαίνειν). For the interpretation of the fate of Jesus as fulfillment of the prophetic promises cf. the introductory remarks on this text section. The dative of “Son of Man” is dependent on τελεσθήσεται and not on τὰ γεγραμμένα, for γράφειν + dative means “write to” (in the New Testament cf. Romans 15.15; 2 Corinthians 2.4; 7.12; Philemon 21; 2 Peter 3.15; 1 John 2.12ff and others); 3 Maccabees 6.41 and 1/3 Ezra are not comparable (contra W. Bauer 1988, 333), since the concern here is with letters of recommendation “in support of” certain persons and groups (for the use of τελεσθῆναι + dativus commodi cf. e.g., Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 15.323). The phrasing πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα is typically Lukan in the New Testament (see also 21.22; 24.44; Acts 13.29; 24.14; elsewhere only in Galatians 3.10) 32-­33 From the description of the future fate of the Son of Man in Mark 10.33-­34 Luke has completely omitted the activity of the Jews (i.e., “he will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes and they will sentence him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles”). In this way the announcement of the coming suffering is reduced exclusively to what the “Gentiles” (ἔθνη) will do to the Son of Man. The fact that Luke changes the Markan Ἱεροσόλυμα to Ἰερουσαλήμ probably has its rationale in the fact that here, as also always elsewhere (cf. 10.30; 13.4, 33, 34; 18.31; 21.20, 24; 23.28; 24.47; Acts 1.8; 22.18), he wants to have Jesus use the Hebraizing form. Since the first announcement of suffering and resurrection was exclusively concerned with the action “of the elders and the chief priests and the scribes” (i.e., with the Jewish participation in Jesus’s suffering), the second announcement reads as a complementary supplement to the first. Luke’s reason for adding καὶ ὑβρισθήσεται (32c) to the Markan listing of the suffering experiences of Jesus after ἐμπαιχθήσεται certainly has nothing to do with the fact that this term “has great significance . . . especially in tragedy” (Grundmann 356). Rather, one can more likely interpret this term from the ancient typology of the enemy of God (cf. Wolter 1989), where it is—­alongside βλασφημεῖν, which frames the scene of the mocking of Jesus in 22.63-­65 together with ἐμπαίζειν (cf. 32b)—­of central

338

The Gospel According to Luke

importance (see also 1 Timothy 1.13 with the series βλάσφημος, διώκτης, ὑβριστής). 34 As in 9.45, here too Luke notes three times that the twelve do not comprehend the announcement (for the phrasing of 34a see also the characterization of the elders of Jesus in 2.50: καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ συνῆκαν τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς). This lack of understanding is only removed with the resurrection—­namely, after Jesus explains the point of his fate from Scripture (cf. 24.26-­27, 44-­46) and he is taken up. It is only in this way that they grasp what Jesus is all about. This comprehension finds its expression in the fact that they worship Jesus falling at his feet (προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν; 24.52).

18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination Luke makes a jump in the narrative, for he not only changes the place and introduces new narrative figures, but he also markes an unspecified temporal distance from the situation narrated in vv. 31-­34. In this way he lays down a deep structuring marker, for he replaces all three episodic structuring parameters (see 4.1 in the commentary introduction). Nevertheless, this section occupies an intermediate position. On the one hand, the episodes narrated here are still part of Jesus’s peregrination to Jerusalem, for Jesus does not come to Jerusalem until 19.45, i.e., at the very end. The repeated εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ/Ἱεροσόλυμα (9.51, 53; 13.22; 17.11) continues to occur through 19.44. Accordingly, in this respect one could certainly still place the entire section under the heading “the journey to Jerusalem,” and most commentaries do so. On the other hand, the character of the narrative changes so clearly that this section is identifiable as an independent narrative “collecting basin” (Lammert 1975, 73). This section differs from everything that Luke has narrated from 9.51-­52 to 18.31-­34 already by the fact that Luke differentiates individual “steps” of the approach to the city at all. While there is not a single episode that occurs at a specific place between 9.51-­52 and 18.31-­34 (see at 9.51–­18.34), the last bit of the way can suddenly be reproduced with great precision topographically and, most importantly, in an irreversible manner—­from ‘near to Jericho’ (18.35) via “Jericho” (19.1), “near to Jerusalem” (19.11), “near to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives” (19.29), and “near to the descent of the Mount of Olives” (19.37), up until the city finally comes into view (19.41) and Jesus enters the temple (19.45). The coherence of this section also finds expression in the repeated use of the words ἐγγίζειν and ἐγγύς; cf. 18.35; 19.11, 29, 37, 41. Further, it also emerges from 19.11 that “in Jericho” means something like “near to Jerusalem” (ἐγγὺς Ἰερουσαλήμ). Moreover, the



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 339

readers know already from 10.30 that Jericho lies in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Thus, with 18.35 they learn that Jesus has arrived near to Jerusalem and that the end of the peregrination has begun. 18.35–­19.28: Jericho Luke has Jesus arrive in Jericho in 18.35 and enter the city in 19.1. He places the next note pertaining to the peregrination at 19.28. After the healing of the blind man before Jericho (18.35-­43) Jesus not only meets with Zacchaeus in Jericho (19.1-­10), but he also narrates the parable of the entrusted minas and the returning king there (19.11-­27). 18.35-­43: The Healing of a Blind Man before Jericho 35

And it happened when he came into the vicinity of Jericho that a blind man sat there on the way and begged. 36And when he heard many people going by he asked what this was. 37Thereupon they told him, “Jesus the Nazorean is passing by.” 38Then he cried out and said, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 39And those going ahead rebuked him that he should be silent, but he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 40Jesus stopped and commanded that he be brought to him. When he had come near, he asked him, 41 “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, that I can see again.” 42And Jesus said to him, “See again! Your faith has saved you.” 43And immediately he could see again and he followed him, glorifying God. And the whole people, which had seen (it), praised God. Luke has left out Jesus’s conversation with the sons of Zebedee and Jesus’s saying on ruling and serving (Mark 10.35-­40, 41-­45) or else moved it in fragmentary form after 22.24-­27. As a result the narrative of the healing of a blind man before Jericho now immediately follows the second announcement of Jesus’s suffering and resurrection and the note about the disciples’ lack of understanding, which concludes it. Luke has taken over the narrative from Mark 10.45-­52. However, unlike in Mark, he does not have Jesus meet the blind man only when he is leaving Jericho but shortly before he reaches the city. Luke has presumably made this change because after it he additionally wanted to tell the story of Jesus’s meeting with Zacchaeus in Jericho. The reason that Luke did not place the Zacchaeus story before the healing of the blind man is probably that dramaturgically it more plausibly follows the acclamation report of 18.43b than the saying about the disciples’ lack of understanding (18.34).

340

The Gospel According to Luke

Matthew even narrates the healing of the blind twice and, more specifically, with two blind men in each case—­in 9.27-­31 (when leaving Nazareth) and in 20.29-­34. Form-­critically this is a healing story (see also at vv. 35b-­41 and in v. 43). The structure is clearly recognizable, but reveals a few peculiarities: the usual introduction, which serves to embed the episode in the literary context (v. 35a), is followed by an extremely extensive exposition (vv. 35b-­41), by the center with the healing action, i.e., the saying that effects the healing (vv. 42-­43a), and by the finale with the usual acclamation report (v. 43b-­c). The number of noteworthy minor agreements is kept within limits: the lack of πολλοί (Mark 10.48) in v. 39par. Matthew 20.31 and of ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (Mark 10.52) in v. 43par. Matthew 20.34; κύριε (v. 41cpar. Matthew 20.33b) instead of ῥαββουνί (Mark 10.51); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 141ff; 1991, 61–­62; Ennulat 1994, 237ff.

35a With the introductory ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ + infinitive + main clause Luke again imitiates Septuagintal style (see further at 1.8); on the meaning of ἐγγίζειν, see Porter 1992. Jericho is not only the deepest lying (ca. 250 meters below sea level) but also the oldest known human settlement. The Jericho of the New Testament period (today’s Tulul Abu el-­Alayiq) lay ca. 2 kilometers south of the Old Testament Jericho and ca. 2.5 kilometers south-­west of the center of today’s city at the entrance of the Wadi Qelt, which leads from the Jordan Valley into the hill country of Judea. It was still 25–­30 kilometers to Jerusalem. Although the difference in elevation between the two cities is considerable, one can make it from Jericho to Jerusalem in a day. Herod the Great had built up the city luxuriously. After his death (in Jericho), the city fell to his son Archelaus. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, it was destroyed by the Romans in the Jewish War (Onomasticon, GCS XI/1, Eusebius Werke II/1: 104.25ff), while Josephus reports nothing of this but merely communicates that Vespasian and Trajan met in Jericho (Bellum judaicum 4.450) and that the tenth legion was stationed in Jericho before it moved from there to Jerusalem (Bellum judaicum 4.486; 5.42, 69). On the excavations cf. Kenyon/Holland 1960–­ 1982; E. Netzer, NEAEHL 2: 682–­91; see also Tsafrir 1994, 143–­44.

35b-­41 The exposition is extensively developed compared to most other healing stories. This alone already gives it great weight within the narrative. From the inventories of motifs compiled by Theissen 1987, 61ff, not only the indispensible “characterization of the need” (Theissen 1987, 61–­ 62) is realized (35b), but also quite a few others (cf. ad loc. in each case).



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 341

They demonstrate that not only the miracle worker but also the healed man himself is the object of the narrative. It is therefore not surprising that his name has remained preserved in the exposition of Mark 10.45-­52 and that the finale in v. 52 brings not only the usual note of acclamation or wonder but also reports the entrance of the healed man into discipleship. 36-­37 Luke separates out the sequence described in very compressed manner in Mark 10.47a (καὶ ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός ἐστιν) into individual steps. He imagines that Jesus is still travelling in the company of a great crowd (see also already in 7.11; 8.4; 9.11; 14.25). ἐπυνθάνετο τί εἴη τοῦτο agrees almost word-­for-­word with 15.29. Although Luke changes the epithet of Jesus into ὁ Ναζωραῖος (37b), he certainly understood this designation as a reference to Jesus’s origin from Nazareth. Luke also uses this designation of Jesus in Acts 2.22; 3.6; 4.10; 6.14; 22.8; 26.9 (see also Matthew 2.23; 26.71; John 18.5, 7; 19.19). Elsewhere, however, he calls him ὁ Ναζαρηνός (Luke 4.34 [following Mark 1.24]; 24.19; see in addition Mark 14.67; 16.6). For the other evangelists as well the two forms of apposition were exchangeable designations of origin (for Ναζωραῖος cf. above all Matthew 2.23). According to Acts 24.5, Tertullus designated Paul as “leader of the sect τῶν Ναζωραίων,” but that has no historical value, for Luke purposefully has him say something false in order to discredit him in this way. It is yet another question whether this interpretation—­namely, that Ναζωραῖος designates Jesus’s origin from Nazareth—­also applies to the etymology of the designation. Different models compete with one another in the literature (cf. Davies/Allison 2001–­2004, I: 276ff): (a) Derivation from the place name “Nazareth” (H. H. Schaeder, ThWNT 4: 879–­84. (b) Derivation from Hebrew ‫“ נָ זִ יר‬consecrated one”; cf. Numbers 6.2; Deuteronomy 33.16; Judges 13.5, 7; 16.17; Lamentations 4.7; in the LXX-­versions of the last four texts and in Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.72; 19.294 ‫ נָ זִ יר‬is transcribed into Greek [in Judges 16.17 only in A]; see also 1 Maccabees 3.49 (e.g., Schweizer 1963; Zuckschwerdt 1975; K. Berger 1996). (c) Derivation from Hebrew ‫“ נֵ ֶצר‬shoot, sprout,” as in Isaiah 11.1a: “And a plant will come forth from the stump of Jesse and a shoot from its roots will bring fruit” (cf. also Revelation 22.16; in 4Q174 1, 11 and 4Q252 1 V, 3–­4 we find not ‫ נָ זִ יר‬but ‫צ ַמח‬, ֵ as in Zechariah 3.8; 6.12), by which means Jesus is intended to be designated as messianic king of the Davidic line (e.g., Rüger 1981). In the present text, this explanation would at any rate fit well with the double designation of Jesus as Son of David; see at vv. 38-­39. (d) Derivation from Hebrew ‫“ נצר‬watch, follow, keep” (e.g., Psalm 119.22, 56, 100, 129; Proverbs 4.13; 6.20) or ‫“ נ ֵֹצר‬preserver, guard, observer” of the law among other things (e.g., Psalm 119.2; Jeremiah 31.6), with which Jesus’s special

342

The Gospel According to Luke

faithfulness to the Torah or to rites that are not part of the Torah would be emphasized (e.g., H. Thyen, RGG3 4: 1385; V. Wagner 2001). Philological objections can be brought against every one of these derivations (cf. H. H. Schaeder, ThWNT 4: 880.17ff; V. Wagner 2001, 274ff) so that none of them has established itself thus far. For this reason, however, it is also the case that none of them can be excluded.

38-­39 The petition ἐλέησόν με—­which occurs twice here—­corresponds to 17.13 (for the tradition-­historical background see there). As a request for help it belongs to the expositional motifs of healing stories (see also Matthew 9.27; 15.22; 17.15; Theissen 1987, 63–­64). The fact that a person seeking help is hindered from approaching the miracle worker by people who are already in his vicinity also belongs in this form-­critical connection (cf. Mark 2.4par. Luke 5.19; Theissen 1987, 62–­63). Unlike the ten lepers in 17.13, who address Jesus with ἐπιστάτα, the blind man twice uses the title υἱὸς Δαυίδ, which is found as a titular designation of Jesus in Luke and Mark only in this passage. By contrast, it is characteristic for the Christology of the Gospel of Matthew, where υἱὸς Δαυίδ is used as a title not only in this story (Matthew 9.27; 20.30, 31) but also in 1.1; 12.23; 15.22; 21.9, 15 (in 1.20 Matthew also has Joseph called this). However, it corresponds to Luke 1.32c, where there is mention of David as “father” of Jesus (see also Acts 2.30: “fruit of his loins”; 13.23: “from his seed,” as in Romans 1.3; 2 Timothy 2.8). It is therefore not completely improbable that in a very early (and that means pre-­Greek) stage of the tradition-­history of this narrative, Jesus’s designation as Son of David was prompted by the fact that the designation, which was found where Luke writes Ναζωραῖος, was understood in the sense of Isaiah 11.1 (‫“ = נֵ ֶצר‬shoot”; see above). It is more than only possible that Luke has the blind man project messianic expectations onto Jesus (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17.21 where υἱὸς Δαυίδ is an appositional specification for the messianic king: ἰδέ, κύριε, καὶ ἀνάστησον αὐτοῖς τὸν βασιλέα αὐτῶν υἱὸν Δαυίδ [“Look, Lord, and awake for them their king, the Son of David”]). 40-­41 Luke relates the conclusion of the exposition as though a king on a journey is moved by a petitioner who meets him on the way to accept his request (cf. especially ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ἀχθῆναι in Vita Aesopi 107 concerning Lycurgus with reference to Aesop; see also Plutarch, Lucullus 8.6; Moralia 184d; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 10.95 about Jehoiakim: “He ordered that Jeremiah and Baruch be brought to him [ἐκέλευσεν ἀχθῆναι . . . πρὸς αὐτόν]”); according to BDR §5.4; 392.4, we are dealing with a Latinism (duci eum iussit). In accord with this fiction, Luke then also has the blind man address the benevolent Jesus who turns



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 343

to him not with “my Rabbi,” as in Mark 10.51, but with κύριε. For the phrasing cf. the angel’s question to Adam in Life of Adam and Eve 29.2: τί θέλεις ποιήσωμέν σοι; (“What do you wish that we should do for you?”) (see also 22.9). 42-­43a The healing takes place through the directive to the sick man to become well again (ἀνάβλεψον; 42b). That is singular in Luke, for elsewhere such imperatives are either accompanied by a touch (5.13; 7.14; 8.54) or it is stated that the healing has already taken place (13.12). But precisely the naked imperative corresponds to the Lukan image of Jesus as a miracle worker who heals through the “authority” (ἐξουσία) of his word and drives out demons (see at 4.32). Not unlike what the centurion of Capernaum expects according to 7.7, here Jesus speaks literally only “with a word” and the blind man can see again. The commentary ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε (42c), which is already known from 7.50, 8.48, and 17.19, defines the petitions of the blind man narrated in the exposition as illustrations of his faith and in this way makes clear again what Luke understands by “faith”—­the Jesus-­directed trust in his healing and saving power (see also 5.20; 7.9, 50; 8.50 as well as 8.25). That the healing “immediately” (παραχρῆμα) occurs (43a) belongs to the topics of healing stories and is typically Lukan in the New Testament (see further at 1.64). 43b-­c The episode ends with a discipleship note and two acclamation reports (cf. Theissen 1987, 80–­81). The discipleship note, which is taken from Mark 10.52 in a shortening manner, leaves open whether the healed man joined Jesus as a disciple (i.e., under the conditions formulated in 14.26-­27; 18.28) or whether he simply comes along as part of the crowd (ὄχλος), about which Luke had already said in 7.9 and 9.11 that they “follow” Jesus (see also 14.25). Luke has supplemented the two acclamation reports in comparison to the Markan Vorlage and thereby strengthened the form-­critical character of the episode as a healing story. A Lukan distinctive is the description of the reaction of the healed man. In the New Testament, phrasings such as δοξάζων τὸν θεόν (see in addition 5.25; 17.15 and 13.13), εὐλογῶν τὸν θεόν (1.64), and αἰνῶν τὸν θεόν (Acts 3.8) appear in the mouths of the persons healed only in Luke–­Acts. The report of the reaction of the people is based on the Septuagintism δοῦναι δόξαν τῷ θεῷ (“to give glory to God”; see at 17.17-­18). Presumably Luke has replaced δόξαν (cf. the corresponding variants in Codex D) with αἴνον because he had used δοξάζειν shortly before (on the parallelism of the two words cf. also 2.20). This is significant christologically, of course, because a certain interpretation of the healing is articulated therein—­namely, that in Jesus none other than God himself acts (see also 7.16; 8.39; 9.43a).

344

The Gospel According to Luke

19.1-­10: Zacchaeus 1

And after he had entered he crossed through Jericho. 2And behold, there was a man who was called Zacchaeus by name. He was chief tax collector, and he was rich. 3And he longed to see who Jesus was. But on account of the crowd he was not able, because he was small in stature. 4So he ran ahead to the front and climbed up a sycamore tree in order to see him, for he was going to pass at that place. 5And when Jesus came to the place he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, climb down quickly, for today I must stay in your house.” 6And he climbed down quickly and received him with joy. 7And all who saw (it) grumbled and said, “He has taken up residence with a sinner!” 8 But Zacchaeus stood there and said, “Look, half of my assets, Lord, I give to the poor, and if I have extorted something from someone, I reimburse him fourfold.” 9And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house. For he too is a son of Abraham. 10For the Son of Man has come to seek and save the lost.” In this episode two narrative threads that belong to different genres (see also already 5.17-­26; 6.6-­11; 7.1-­10; 9.37-­45; 13.10-­17; 14.1-­6) are interwoven with each other—­a narrative that places the tax collector Zacchaeus at the center and a controversy dialogue between Jesus and antagonists who remain unnamed. The episode begins as a Zacchaeus narrative (vv. 2-­6). Through the introduction of anonymous narrative figures (v. 7) who criticize Jesus’s behavior, the events narrated in vv. 2-­6 become the narrative starting point of a controversy dialogue. Luke makes the ἰδόντες πάντες into antagonists—­which are necessary for a controversy dialogue—­by having them “grumble” (διαγογγύζειν). The dictum with which Jesus answers his critics then follows in vv. 9b-­10 (for the form-­critical status of v. 8 within the controversy dialogue, see below). The echoes of the controversy dialogue in Luke 15 are certainly not accidental. Zacchaeus is a tax collector, and in the narrative exposition of chapter 15 tax collectors are likewise mentioned (v. 2b and 15.1). The διαγογγύζειν of the antagonists refers both here and there to Jesus’s proximity to a ἁμαρτωλός or to ἁμαρτωλοί (v. 7 and 15.2). Jesus then turns “sinners” into “lost ones” (v. 10 and 15.4, 6, 8, 9, 24, 32), and just as there is talk of “finding” there (15.4-­6, 8-­9, 24, 32), so we encounter the corresponding “seeking” here (v. 10). 1-­2 διέρχεσθαι is a typically Lukan word (see at 2.15). Zacchaeus is introduced in three syntactically independent sentences. His identification by name (2a) with καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι + personal name has its closest counterpart in the introduction of Joseph of Arimathea (23.50; see also Acts 16.1 and in Luke 1.5 and 7.37). It is not attested elsewhere (for



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 345

the pleonastic phrasing ὀνόματι καλούμενος Ζακχαῖος see also Sibylline Oracles prologue 33 [the Chaldean or Persian Sibyl, ἡ κυρίῳ ὀνόματι καλουμένη Σαμβήθη (“who is called by her real name Sambethe”)]; in Sibylline Oracles prologue 33, the same is said of the Samian Sibyl, ἡ κυρίῳ ὀνόματι καλουμένη Φοιτώ; Historia Alexandri Magni, Recensio α, ed. Kroll 1958, I: 31.9 [. . . , ὃς εἶχεν ἀδελφὸν ὀνόματι καλούμενον Ὑπόνομον (“. . . who had a brother, who was called Hyponomos by name”)]). Ζακχαῖος (also Ζακχαῖος; Josephus, Vita 239) is the Greek version of Hebrew ‫זַ ַּכי‬ (also ‫ זַ ַּכאי‬or ‫ ;)זַ ַּכיי‬cf. 2 Esdras (= Ezra) 2.9 and 17.14 (= Nehemiah 7.14) (the LXX has Ζάκχος in each case); 2 Maccabees 10.19 (Ζακχαῖος). This name is derived from ‫“( זכך‬to be innocent, to be pure”). We are possibly dealing with a short form of ‫“( זְ ַכ ְריָ ה‬Zechariah”; see also Ilan 2002, 90–­91 with n. 15).

The two other characteristics are important for the narrative, for from the perspective of the previous course of the Lukan story of Jesus, they stand in sharp tension with each other. On the one hand, Zacchaeus’s designation as ἀρχιτελώνης (2b; this word exists only here in ancient literature; it is an analogous formation to, e.g., ἀρχιμάγειρος [“chief cook”; Plutarch, Moralia 11b], ἀρχιοινοχόος [“chief cup bearer”; Plutarch, Pyrrhus 5.9], or ἀρχικυβερνήτης [“chief taxman”; Strabo, Geographica 15.1.28]) places this episode in continuity with the previous tax collector stories (cf. 3.13; 5.27-­32; 15.1-­32; 18.9-­14; see also 7.29, 34). On the other hand, the characteristic “rich” (πλούσιος; 2c) likewise takes up a profiled topic of the Lukan story of Jesus (cf. 6.24-­26; 12.16-­21; 16.19-­31; 18.18-­25) but points in a completely different direction. On the basis of their reading of the Lukan narrative thus far, the readers know Jesus to be a “friend of tax collectors” (7.34) but certainly not a ‘friend of the rich’ (see also Green 667; J. P. Heil 1999, 150–­51). Thus, through the bringing together of these two heterogenous characteristics in the same person, there arises a quite tense set-­up whose outcome is not forseeable. 3 The initiative originates with Zacchaeus. Luke places him more in the vicinity of Herod Antipas (cf. 9.9: ἐζήτει ἰδεῖν αὐτόν [sc. Jesus]; see also Ps.-­Plato, Alcibiades II 150d: . . . ἶδεῖν τοῦτον τὸν ἄνθρωπον τίς ἐστιν [“. . . to see this man, who he was”]) than alongside the tax collectors of 15.1, who seek Jesus’s nearness “in order to hear him.” Thus, he attributes to him no more than a lukewarm curiosity. With the crowd that blocks Zacchaeus’s view of Jesus because he is too short (ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου stands here for διὰ τὸν ὄχλον 5.19; 8.19; see also 22.45; Acts 11.19; BDR §201.1), Luke means not only the people of Jericho standing on the side of the street but also the ὄχλος that constantly accompanies Jesus (cf. 14.25; 18.36). Luke needs the reference to Zacchaeus’s body height in order to

346

The Gospel According to Luke

have a reason for having Zacchaeus climb a tree so that the story in vv. 4-­5 can proceed as it does. The physiognomological explanation of Parsons 2001 shifts the ambivalence of the Lukan image of Zacchaeus (see at v. 2) too one-­sidedly into the negative. 4 The readers are meant to imagine that Zacchaeus anticipates the way of Jesus. “He ran ahead to the front” need not be redundant, for προδράμων can refer to the route that Jesus will take, while εἰς τὸ ἔμπροσθεν can mean the nearness to the way of Jesus (ἐκείνης must be supplemented with ὁδοῦ), i.e., ‘to the front (of the row of spectators) on the side of the street.’ Zacchaeus could now also simply place himself in the way of Jesus, but Luke has his intention reach no further than “seeing” Jesus, which is explicitly registered once more with the help of a thought report (ἵνα ἴδῃ αὐτόν; cf. Vogt 1990, 157ff). Thus, from Zacchaeus’s perspective the tree also functions to maintain distance. Everything else then originates from Jesus. Zacchaeus, of course, must also climb up a tree so that Jesus can see him. In 5 there is an abrupt change of direction in the course of narrative. Before Zacchaeus can realize his intention of seeing Jesus, the role of the protagonist passes over to Jesus. For the first time since 4.21, his first statement in public, Jesus speaks again of σήμερον (“today”; 5d). Here too it undoubtedly has a salvation-­historical meaning. However, this fact is revealed only by the interpretation (v. 9b) that Jesus gives to his stay in Zacchaeus’s house. Furthermore, the readers can infer from the δεῖ that the stay at Zacchaeus’s house lies on the same level in the story of Jesus determined by God’s plan as the proclamation of the kingdom of God (4.43) and the suffering and resurrection of Jesus (9.22; 17.25; 22.37; 24.7, 44). Thus, Jesus identifies his self-­invitation to Zacchaeus’s house as an integral component of his mission. In v. 10 he will additionally designate it as part of his ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός. For the intransitive use of σπεύδω, which is exclusive to Luke in the New Testament, see at 2.16. 6 The structure of the sentence (verbum finitum with postpositive χαίρων at the end of the sentence) is exclusive to Luke within the entire Greek Bible (see also 15.5; Acts 8.39), but it is widespread elsewhere; e.g., Homer, Ilias 23.565.797; Odyssea 15.130 (in each case ὃ δ’ ἐδέξατο χαίρων); Herodianus Historicus 1.10.7; Philo, De Iosepho 208; De decalogo 117; Plutarch, Alexander 38.6; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 3.13.1 (ἠκολούθει χαίρων). Thus, Luke wants to say no more than that Zacchaeus receives Jesus with joy as a guest at his house (see also 10.38); the connection to 1.14—­which is often made (e.g., by Marshall; Nolland; Eckey; O’Hanlon 1981, 15: “eschatological joy”)—­is an overinterpretation. With ὑπεδέξατο αὐτόν the narrative has arrived in Zacchaeus’s house. Whether the narrative also implies a shared meal (thus, e.g., Heil 1999, 154) must



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 347

remain open. While the nearness of Jesus to “tax collectors and sinners” is consciously portrayed as table fellowship in the two other controversy dialogues (cf. 5.30; 15.2), this aspect remains unmentioned here. This matter can be interpreted in either way. 7 Luke, however, leads the readers once more to the street and has antagonists turn up there. In this way he takes a form-­critical step that changes the Zacchaeus narrative into a controversy dialogue. The ἰδόντες πάντες (see also Xenophon, Cyropaedia 8.3.14; Dionysius of Halicarnasus, Antiquitates romanae 10.33.2; Xenophon of Ephesus 1.2.8) can be recognized as antagonists by the fact that Luke has them “grumble” (διαγογγύζειν) and thus places them alongside the critics of Jesus from 5.30 and 15.2 (on the tradition-­historical background see at 5.30). There the criticism applied to Jesus’s proximity to the “tax collectors and sinners” (see also 7.34; 18.13), and it corresponds to this fact that here, too, the critics characterize the tax collector Zacchaeus as a ἁμαρτωλὸς ἀνήρ (7b). Luke thus places this episode in the horizon of the controversy dialogues from 5.27-­32 and 15.1-­32—­though with the difference that Jesus’s behavior in relation to the tax collectors is now criticized not by the Pharisees and scribes but by all those who witness it. The problem is, of course, that the narrative does not initially proceed like a controversy dialogue, for before Jesus answers the criticism of the antagonists Luke has Zacchaeus speak. 8 Luke has the critics of v. 7 stand on the street and continues the narrative in Zacchaeus’s house where it had arrived with ὑπεδέξατο αὐτόν (v. 6b). The participle σταθείς occurs only in Luke in the entire Greek Bible (see in addition 18.11, 40; Acts 2.14; 17.22; 27.21); with the exception of Luke 18.40 it always serves as preparation for speech. The interpretation of Zacchaeus’s speech is controversial in the literature. Do the two present forms δίδωμι (8b) and ἀποδίδωμι (8c) have future meaning, so that they formulate an announcement, which is the expression of Zacchaeus’s conversion (thus most commentators as well as Kariamadam 1985, 56–­57; O’Hanlon 1981, 16–­17; D. Hamm 1988; Tannehill 1993, 203–­4; Méndez-­Moratalla 2004, 160ff)? Or do they have iterative meaning and does Zacchaeus want to defend himself before Jesus against the accusations pronounced in v. 7 by stressing that he is not at all so bad but rather regularly gives half of his assets to the poor, etc. (thus, among others, Fitzmyer; Johnson; Green; A. C. Mitchell 1990; Ravens 1991)? Everything speaks for the interpretation mentioned first. From the reasons that are invoked in its favor, two may be singled out: (a) ὑπάρχοντα means not “income” but rather “assets,” and it is impossible for someone to regularly give away “half” of his assets—­or at least it is senseless not to furnish such a claim with specifications that would perhaps make such

348

The Gospel According to Luke

a practice possible (such as “every ten years” or the like). (b) The fact that Zacchaeus regularly makes fourfold restitution for what he has extorted from others would be a quite peculiar justification, for thereby he would simultaneously say that it is also a dear custom of his to extort money from those who are economically and socially weaker and that he does not intend to stop doing it. Thus, Zacchaeus remains far behind what Luke narrates of Levi in 5.28 and what Jesus had demanded from the rich ἄρχων in 18.22. He neither enters into the discipleship of Jesus as a disciple nor does he want to leave behind or give away “everything” (cf. πάντα in 5.28; 18.22). He is willing to separate himself only from the half of his assets and to make fourfold restitution for money that he extorted (συκοφαντεῖν) from other people. συκοφαντεῖν occurred already in the apotreptic instruction that John the Baptist gives to the soldiers in 3.14 (for the semantics see there). It designates the violence that those who are economically and politically powerful exercise against those who are economically and politically weak. Accordingly, the concern here is with the money that Zacchaeus has obtained in this way. For the promise to make fourfold restitution, reference is often made to Corpus Iuris Civilis, Digestae 39.4.4, according to which the fourfold value of the thing is established as a punishment for robbery and furtum manifestum, i.e., when the thief is caught in the very act (see also Gaius, Institutiones 3.189, 209). Others invoke Old Testament texts such as Exodus 22.1: “If someone steals a cow or a sheep and slaughters or sells it, he shall repay five cattle for one cow and four sheep for the one sheep”; see also 2 Samuel 12.6 (cf. Grindlay 1987); Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.272; 7.150; 16.3: according to the old laws a thief has to pay fourfold as a penalty. Luke has probably taken the color that he has used to color in his Zacchaeus picture from one of these pots, especially since there existed also beyond this a poena quadruplex (“penalty of the fourfold”) in every ancient legal system; cf. Spicq 1994, III: 377–­78. In the entire Greek Bible τετραπλοῦς is attested only here.

The renunciation of half of the assets calls to mind the demand of John the Baptist (cf. 3.11), and in his case, too, there occurred the instruction μηδὲ συκοφαντήσητε (3.14), which was directed to soldiers. Although Zacchaeus does not become a disciple of John with his promise, this crossreference can provide the Lukan picture of Zacchaeus with a number of contours. In the sense of 3.8a Zacchaeus brings forth “fruit corresponding to repentance,” and it is probably no accident that both here and there in the context we find talk of Abraham as father (3.8) and being children of Abraham (19.9c). In the words of 16.16, Zacchaeus’s announcement remains, on the one hand, completely within the framework of “law and



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 349

prophets,” without him answering Jesus’s “compelling (βιάζεσθαι) into the kingdom of God” (the address of Jesus as Lord does not contradict this). But on the other hand, he is also an example of the fact that the encounter with Jesus also changes people ‘outside’ the kingdom of God by changing their—­expressed in modern terms—­prereligious ethical orientation, and that the encounter with Jesus alone already causes a rich chief tax collector to become aware of his ethical responsibility and to act accordingly. With all of this, the repentance of Zacchaeus becomes an integral component not only of the Lukan picture of Jesus but also of the controversy dialogue narrated by him. Thus, the result of the encounter with Jesus expressed in v. 8 becomes an argument within the controversy dialogue, and narratively it occupies the same functional position as the healings do in the mixed chreiae of 5.17-­26; 6.6-­11; 13.10-­17; 14.1-­6. Both here and there the success is meant to legitimate the action of Jesus that is criticized by the antagonists. 9 Although Luke announces that Jesus speaks to Zacchaeus (9a), the use of the third person in v. 9b-­c shows that Jesus speaks not with Zacchaeus but about him. The dictum of Jesus thus belongs to the controversy dialogue, and it functions as an answer to the criticism of his behavior expressed in v. 7. Some want to resolve this tension by understanding πρὸς αὐτόν in v. 9a like πρὸς αὐτούς in 20.19 in the sense of “about him” (e.g., Zahn; Schweizer; Marshall; O’Hanlon 1981, 17). In this case they would charge Luke with failing to notice how carelessly and ambiguously he had expressed himself in this passage. But this is unlikely, and Wellhausen 104 also makes the matter much too easy for himself (πρὸς αὐτόν “is . . . a false addition—­this kind of thing was arbitrarily mixed in”). We will thus have to accept this incoherence without being able to explain its origin.

With σήμερον and τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ Jesus takes up his self-­invitation from v. 5d. Correspondingly, it is not the announcement pronounced by Zacchaeus in v. 8 but Jesus’s stop off with him that brings “salvation” to his house. Luke has Jesus reach back to the term σωτηρία, which in the Gospel of Luke only appears elsewhere in the Benedictus (1.69, 71, 79; Luke only uses it more widely in Acts: 4.12; 13.26, 47; 16.17). This term, which does not occur in any of the other Synoptic Gospels (in John it appears only in 4.22), is located in Luke on the same level of interpretation—­ namely, the highest theological level—­as σήμερον and δεῖ (see at v. 5); on σωτηρία ἐγένετο + dativus commodi or the like see also Tobit‫א‬‎6.18; 8.5; 3 Maccabees 6.33, 36 (without attribute: Revelation 12.10).

350

The Gospel According to Luke

The Lukan Jesus grounds his behavior with the help of the causal conjunction καθότι (only in Luke in the New Testament; cf. 1.7; Acts 2.24, 45; 4.35; 17.31; see also BDR §456.4). The fact that from the inventory of characteristics with which he could have described Zacchaeus’s identity, Luke selects, of all things, the belonging to the people of God elected in Abraham calls to mind, first of all, 13.16, where a Sabbath healing is justified with the same argument (it is certainly no accident that the two texts are also form-­critically related to each other; see above). Moreover, this justification points to the interpretation of the salvific initiative of God pronounced with reference to Abraham in 1.54-­55, 73-­74, and the aforementioned reencounter with the term σωτηρία from 9b also occurs there. This semantic crosslinking indicates the theological level at which Luke locates the encounter with Zacchaeus. This level is also not left in 10. This verse has its material and form-­ critical counterpart in 5.32. The visit to Zacchaeus is identified as an integral component of Jesus’s mission. Here the same semantic recoding takes place as from 15.2 to 15.4-­7, 8-­10 (see at 15.7-­8): the tax collector classified as a “sinner” is turned into “one who is lost,” whom one must “seek” (in 15.7, 10 the joy over the finding again of the lost corresponded to this reaction). The phrasing ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἦλθεν + telic aorist infinitive also occurs in Mark 10.45par. Matthew 20.28 (cf. in addition the analogous statement formed with the first person singular [ἦλθον] in Luke 2.49; Mark 2.17parr.; Matthew 10.34-­35; see Arens 1976; Bühner 1977, 138–­52). The aorist ἦλθεν has perfective meaning: ‘The Son of Man has now arrived, in order to . . .’ The Lukan Jesus formulates the aspect of his mission which led him to Zacchaeus with partial recourse to Ezekiel 34.16, where God says about his salvific action toward Israel: “I will seek the lost (τὸ ἀπολωλὸς ζητήσω), and I will bring back the strayed.” σῶσαι also belongs in this same context (cf. the announcement in Ezekiel 34.22: καὶ σώσω τὰ πρόβατά μου [“And I will save my sheep”]); on the crosslinks with chapter 15, cf. the preliminary observations on this textual unit. That Jesus acts in the place of God and realizes what had been announced by the prophets as God’s salvific action for Israel could already be identified in 7.22 as the christological thrust of a self-­statement of Jesus. 19.11-­28: The Parable of the Throne Claimant 11

As they heard these things, he also told them a parable. For he was near to Jerusalem and they thought that the appearance of the kingdom of God was imminent. 12He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a distant land to obtain a kingly power for himself and to return. 13 He had ten of his slaves come, gave to them ten minas, and said to



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 351

them, ‘Do business until I come (back)!’ 14But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him and said, ‘We do not want this one to be king over us.’ 15 “And it happened when he returned after receiving the kingship that he had the slaves to whom he had given the money called to him in order to find out what profit they had made. 16So the first came and said, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten more.’ 17And he said to him, ‘Well done, good slave, for you have been faithful in the smallest thing! Be a ruler over ten cities!’ 18And the second came and said, ‘Your mina, lord, has made five minas.’ 19And he said also to this one, ‘And you, be over five cities!’ 20And the other came and said, ‘Lord, here (is) your mina, which I have kept in a cloth. 21For I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.’ 22He said to him, ‘From your own mouth I judge you, wicked slave. You knew that I am “a severe man,” that I “take what I did not lay down and reap what I did not sow”? 23Why then did you not take my money to the bank? I would have come and collected it with interest.’ 24And he said to those standing there, ‘Take the mina away from him and give (it) to the one who has ten minas!’ 25 And they said to him, ‘Lord, he (already) has ten minas.’ 26 ‘I say to you: to everyone who has shall be given. But to the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But my enemies there, who did not want me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them before me!’” 28 And after he had said this he went ahead—­going up to Jerusalem. Luke has Jesus narrate another parable on the spot (vv. 12-­27), which he provides with an instruction for interpretation in v. 11. It is presupposed that Jesus is still in Jericho. However, it is not the place as such that is important but only the fact that it is located “near Jerusalem” (ἐγγὺς Ἰερουσαλήμ). The narrative is composed of two threads of action. The first narrates that a nobleman wants to go on a journey and before his departure gives ten slaves a mina each and the commission to do business with it (vv. 12a, 13). After his return they must give an account of their activity (vv. 15a, 16-­26). The plot of the other thread can be grasped in vv. 12b (λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν καὶ ὑποστρέψαι), vv. 14, 15b (λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν), and in v. 27. The man goes on a journey because he wants to become king. A delegation of his future subjects travels after him in order to prevent this. But they have no success. Rather, he returns into his land as king and commands the execution of his opponents.

352

The Gospel According to Luke

There is a parallel to the first narrative thread in Matthew 25.14-­30. The agreement in the narrative plot is so clear that a shared foundation of tradition is probable. However—­and apart from the fact that the so-­called thread about the claimant to the throne has left no traces in the Matthean version—­there are only very small agreements in wording. This has made a shared Q-­foundation of both versions doubtful for some interpreters (e.g., Weiser 1971, 255ff; Schneider; Luz III: 495; A. J. Hultgren 2000, 273 and others), whereas others continue to regard a Q-­Vorlage as probable (CEQ; C. Heil 2003, 197–­207; Denaux 2001, 429–­60; Fleddermann 2005a, 837ff and those mentioned in Denaux 2002, 38–­39 n. 15). The thread about the claimant to the throne was only joined secondarily with the parable of the entrusted money, for the dialogue in vv. 24-­25 only makes sense if the slave who had made ten minas and now receives yet another has not previously also been made governor of a decapolis. It is also probable that this narrative thread was not an originally independent parable (contra Zerwick 1959; Weinert 1977, 505–­6; Jeremias 1977, 56) but was written into the already existing parable of the entrusted money, namely probably by Luke himself in the first place (with Schmithals; Fitzmyer; Klein and others). The imagery of this thread takes up the practice of the installation of vassal lords by the hegemonial power (see at v. 12), with the details narrated in v. 14 reflecting the events during the endeavors of Archelaus in 4 BCE (see there and at v. 27).

For the interpretation of the parable one must carefully distinguish between the “points of view” internal to the text and external to the text (cf. Fusco 1992, 1683–­84; Wolter 1997b, 415). The parable is intended to explain why, despite Jesus’s arrival in Jerusalem, the kingdom of God does not come. This expectation may not be understood as an allegorical encryption of the near expectation of the parousia, for the readers of the Gospel of Luke have known for a long time that the kingdom of God has not begun with Jesus’s coming to Jerusalem. Thus, the parable does not intend to address the problem of the delay of the parousia on the side of the readers; rather, it aims to correct a false expectation within the narrated world. This expectation must have lain near at hand due to the eschatological semantics of the Jewish understanding of the kingdom of God and due to the Lukan interpretation of the activity of Jesus. It was oriented toward the idea that Jesus, as the earthly representative of God’s eschatic salvific intervention, would liberate Jerusalem. Luke had first given a voice to this expectation with Anna in 2.38, and he places it once more in the mouth of the Emmaus disciples (24.21a). This connection is also recognizable in the correspondence between 10.1 (Jesus sends the seventy-­two in all places “in which he himself wanted to come”) and 10.9 (they are to say there: “The kingdom of God has come near!”), for there Jesus gives the disciples the commission to announce his coming as the coming of God’s



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 353

kingdom. This expectation in relation to Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem is rejected with the help of the parable. But its fulfillment is not corrected in terms of the subject matter but rather postponed to the point in time of Jesus’s return. Therefore, an allegorical interpretation of the thread about the claimant to the throne in relation to Jesus’s ascension (v. 12) and his parousia (v. 15a) with a concluding evaluation of the works of his disciples (vv. 15b-­26) and the destruction of his opponents (v. 27) cannot be denied. However, what remains important is the fact that Luke does not want to explain to his readers that they must still wait for a long time for the parousia, for he himself does not know when Jesus will return. The interpretation in relation to Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem proposed by L. T. Johnson 1982, 139–­59 and Denaux 2002, 55 (see also Potterie 1985; Guy 1997) founders on the fact that the throne-­claimant travels “into a distant land” (εἰς χώραν μακράν), that a time of absence is presupposed between v. 13 and v. 15, that this time must be of some duration so that the slaves can multiply the entrusted money, and that in vv. 12, 15 there is talk of “returning” (ὑποστρέφειν and ἐπανέρχεσθαι). A variant is handed down in a fragment from the “Gospel in Hebrew letters” preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea, which tells of three other types of slaves: “one who squandered his master’s substance with harlots and flute-­girls, one who multiplied the gain, and one who hid the talent; and accordingly one who was accepted (with joy), another merely rebuked, and another cast in prison” (Theophania 22 [PG 24.6888A]; translation from Schneemelcher 1963, 149, fragment 18).

11 Luke leaves open who the ἀκούοντες αὐτῶν are (there is a similar transition, though without anaphoric ταῦτα, also in 20.45). They are only characterized by the fact that they hold the view reproduced in v. 11c. προσθεὶς εἶπεν looks like a Septuagintism (thus Fitzmyer I: 115; cf. above all Job 27.1; 29.1; 36.1 [Heb.:: ‫אמר‬ ַ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ . . . ‫ וַ ּי ֶֹסף‬in each case], in addition Esther 8.3; Genesis 25.1; 38.5; Apocalypse of Peter 4 [GCS.NF XI: 107.7]; see also BDR §435.4); but it is also found in Galen, In Hippocratis aphorismi, ed. Kühn 1964, XVII/2: 748.4 (cf. also Polybius 30.31.4 [προσθέμενος ἐξηγεῖτο τὰς ἐλαττώσεις (“He went on and enumerated the losses”)]); see also Luke 20.11, 12; Acts 12.3 (in each case προσέθετο + infinitive). Luke makes the view that Jesus’s spatial nearness (ἐγγὺς εἶναι) to Jerusalem also means the temporal nearness (παραχρῆμα; see at 1.64) of the establishment of God’s universal reign on earth (for the background of this expectation cf. the introduction to this pericope) the occasion for the telling of the parable. The talk of the “appearance” (ἀναφαίνεσθαι) of the kingdom of God corresponds to conventional Jewish eschatology for which the coming of the kingdom of God

354

The Gospel According to Luke

was accompanied by a theophany (see at 11.2d-­e). God’s reign will establish itself from heaven over the whole earth; cf. Sibylline Oracles 3.47–­48 (“The βασιλεία μεγίστη of the immortal king will appear over the people [ἐπ’ ἀνθρώποισι φανεῖται]”); Assumption of Moses 10.1 (Et tunc parebit regnum illius [sc. Dei] in omni creatura illius [“And then his (sc. God’s) reign will appear over his entire creation”]) as well as Targum Isaiah 24.23; 31.4; 40.9; 52.7; Targum Ezekiel 7.7, 10; Targum Obadiah 21; Targum Micah 4.7–­8; Targum Zechariah 14.9 with the expectation that the kingdom of God will “reveal” itself (cf. Koch 1979; Schlosser 1980, I: 280ff); see also 2 Timothy 4.1.

The semantic opposition of ἐγγύς/παραχρῆμα, on the one hand, and (εἰς χώραν) μακράν (v. 12b), on the other hand, makes it evident that Luke wants the parable to be understood as a correction of the expectation expressed in 11c (contra L. T. Johnson 1982, 145ff; Potterie 1985, 622ff; Hagene 2003, 269–­70, who additionally argues with a false translation of παραχρῆμα and sees “the sudden inbreaking of the basileia” thematized here). 12 For the typically Lukan parable opening with ἄνθρωπός τις see at 10.30. The imagery points to the practice of the installation of vassal rulers by a hegemonial power. An example is Herod the Great, who admittedly fled rather than travelled to Rome, but was installed there by a resolution of the senate as “king of the Jews” in 40 BCE and returned thereafter to Judea (Josephus, Bellum judaicum 1.279–­ 285; Antiquitates judaicae 14.378, 385, 394ff). Josephus also narrates concerning Herod’s sons Archelaus and Antipas that they went to Rome after the death of their father in 4 BCE in order to be installed as rulers (Archelaus: Antiquitates judaicae 17.208, 222; Antipas: Antiquitates judaicae 17.224). According to Antiquitates judaicae 18.237, Herod Agrippa was likewise installed as “king” over the tetrarchy of Philip. The expression λαμβάνειν βασιλείαν is also attested in this context. With regard to Herod the Great, Josephus speaks, first, of the fact that Herod “received the reign” in Rome (λάβοι τὴν ἀρχήν; Bellum judaicum 1.284) and, then, of the “first day of the βασιλεία” (285). Concerning Archelaus, whose appointment a delegation unsuccessfully attempted to prevent (see at v. 14), it says: νικήσας ἔλαβεν τὴν βασιλείαν (“Having prevailed he received the reign”; Antiquitates judaicae 17, praefatio, line 19 [Niese 1892, 62.5–­6]), and concerning the Nabatean king Aretas it says: “to wait in order to receive from him (sc. the Caesar) the reign” (παρ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν βασιλείαν ἀναμεῖναι λαβεῖν); see also Antiquitates judaicae 10.139 (Zedekiah is said to have “received” [λαβών] his βασιλεία from Nebuchadnezzar).



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 355

For the plot of the source domain, it is not narratively necessary that the throne-­claimant has to travel “into a distant land” (εἰς χώραν μακράν) to receive the reign. Rather, this narrative move, which aims to suggest a longer period of absence, seeks to mark the antithesis to ἐγγύς and παραχρῆμα (v. 11). Thus, the context protrudes into the narrative here, and this also applies to the narratively redundant ὑποστρέψαι. In both cases we are dealing with allegorical building blocks Luke wants to use to make clear at the very beginning that here Jesus is being spoken of and his ascension to heaven and parousia form the framework of the story. The βασιλεία, which is in view here and in v. 15, is the same one that Gabriel had promised for him in 1.33. 13 The issuing of the charge by the departing nobleman is narrated in a manner that is not very close to reality. Rather, the merely schematic nature of his action shows that his concern is not with the increase of his assests but with a testing of his slaves. Luke also narrates this thread of the plot as allegory. The ten slaves who are all handed the same sum stand for Christians who are to handle what was entrusted to them in accordance with what Jesus wants them to do (for πραγματεύεσθαι cf. Spicq 1994, III: 150–­151). Whoever asks what is meant concretely need only read the Gospel of Luke (see also at vv. 16-­26). A “mina” (μνᾶ; Heb.: ‫)מנֶ ה‬ ָ was originally a weight measurement (cf. 1 Kings 10.17; Ezra 2.69; Nehemiah 7.71-­72; Ezekiel 45.12; see also 1 Maccabees 14.24; 15.18; 3 Maccabees 1.4). In the Greek and Roman monetary systems the mina was a calculated value, i.e., it was not minted as coins. Its value amounted to 100 drachmae or 1/60 talent (cf. H. Chantraine, KP 3: 1368–­69; DNP 16: 450). In Matthew 25.15 the slaves, with 5, 2, and 1 talent(s), receive 300, 120, and 60 times more money than in Luke.

The phrasing ἐν ᾧ ἔρχομαι has parallels in John 5.7 (ἐν ᾧ δὲ ἔρχομαι ἐγώ, ἄλλος πρὸ ἐμοῦ καταβαίνει) and Tobit 11.3‫“( א‬We want to run ahead of your wife and prepare the house [τὴν οἰκίαν] until they come [ἐν ᾧ ἔρχονται]”), which also makes possible linguistically the translation “until I come,” which is required by the sense here (with BDR §3831 against Potterie 1985, 635 [“pendant que je viens”] and Fitzmyer II: 1235 [“while I am gone”]). On the level of the target domain, this ἔρχεσθαι of the nobleman certainly does not refer to the ἐρχόμενος of 19.38 (contra Denaux 2002, 55) but rather to the ἔρχεσθαι that is spoken of in Acts 1.11. 14 This episode can be identified without difficulty as an allusion to the events on the occasion of the endeavors of Herod’s son Archelaus in 4 BCE (see at v. 12 and at v. 27).

356

The Gospel According to Luke

In Bellum judaicum 280–­292 and Antiquitates judaicae 17.299–­314, Josephus reports on a fifty-­person “delegation of Jews” (πρεσβεία Ἰουδαίων; Antiquitates judaicae 17.300), which followed Archelaus to Rome in order to hinder the transfer of the kingship to him. This delegation refers, among other things, to the bloodbath that Archelaus had brought about in the temple after the death of his father (see at 13.1b) and petitions Augustus not to place Judea under his rule (βασιλεία; Antiquitates judaicae 17.304, 314), but under that of the Roman administration in Syria.

When Luke has the “citizens” “hate” (μισεῖν) their future ruler, this should not be misunderstood in an affective sense (contra Bovon). Rather, we are dealing with a semantic Septuagintism (Heb.: ‫)ׂשנא‬, which designates a conscious rejection (cf. at 14.26); βασιλεύειν ἐπί τινα is also a Septuagintism (see at 1.33). 15 For the introduction (καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ + infinitive with subject) see at 5.12 and for λαμβάνειν τὴν βασιλείαν see at v. 12. The reading τί διεπραγματεύσαντο is much better attested (‫ א‬B D L Ψ and others) than τίς τί διεπραγματεύσατο (A [W] Θ 047 f 1,13 𝔐 lat syp.h). The latter variant can also be recognized without difficulty as an individualizing specification that was made with a view to the individual testing that is implemented from v. 16 onward, while the former variant is also open to a collective interrogation.

It is clear to the readers of the Gospel of Luke that Jesus is talking about his parousia and the judgment that follows it. In 1 Corinthians 3.13 Paul speaks of the judgment as the “day” on which “the work of each will become manifest.” 16-­26 The portrayal of the reckoning is meant to make clear in allegorical coding that at the parousia, believers too must face an evaluation of their works. But in their case the concern is not with salvation and unsalvation but—­in the words of 1 Corinthians 3.14-­15—­with μισθὸν λαμβάνεσθαι, on the one hand, and ζημιοῦσθαι, on the other hand. Thus, in this respect the Pauline and Lukan conceptions are not far apart from each other (see also Konradt 2003, 258f); Matthew 25.30 is entirely different: there the “useless slave” is punished with eschatic loss of salvation. The fact that Luke has only three of the ten slaves, who each received a mina according to v. 13, appear is connected with the narrative law of three (règle de tri; cf. Olrik 1982, 60–­61; Bultmann 1995, 207, 342–­43 with additional examples; G. Delling, ThWNT 8: 223–­24). As in 6.47-­49, the positive and negative consequences of certain kinds of action are shown. In both cases, not only are the different consequences contrasted with one another, but the negative example also



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 357

stands, in each case emphatically, at the end (for the tradition-­historical background see at 6.46-­49). The two texts are also thematically isotopic. “To hear my words and do them” (6.47a) is what the first two slaves have done, while 6.49 applies to the third slave—­he “heard and did not do.” The staging of the reckoning finds its counterpart in the constellation of figures of the parable of the merciful Samaritan (10.30-­35). In both cases the master of action (the one robbed / the king) is juxtaposed with three different narrative figures who are presented as a pair of narrative twins (two who pass by –­one helper / two obedient slaves –­one disobedient slave). Thus, the narrative structure of a dramatic triangle also emerges here (see at 7.41-­42), and the course of action likewise corresponds to the other narratives that are based on this constellation of figures. A formal parity of the narrative twins (each receives the same starting capital) has turned into a disparity at the end. However, in contrast to the other parables that have this constellation of figures, here there is no reversal of an initial equality of status. 16, 18 παραγίνεσθαι (16a) is a typically Lukan word (twenty-­eight of thirty-­seven New Testament attestations are in Luke–­Acts). It would be wrong to attempt to make plausible the increase of the capital by 1000 percent or 500 percent with reference to the economic basic conditions of that time, for the concern, of course, is with theological numbers which let the target domain be superimposed upon the source domain. The reason for the hyperbolism of the imagery is that in reality the concern is not with money but with what Jesus has bequeathed to his own—­namely, his sayings (see at v. 13). For an analogous superimposition of the target domain upon the source domain, see already 8.8a-­b, 15 with the hyperbolic description of the yield produced by the ‘seed-­word’ that falls on “the good land.” 17, 19 The clause 17b is dependent on εὖγε (see also Plutarch, Antonius 76.9; Gnomologium Vaticanum 298; Diogenes Laertius 6.58). If one wanted to make it into the front-­placed justification for the imperative of 17c, it would be left hanging in the air syntactically. The phrasing ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ πιστός (Matthew 25.21: ἐπὶ ὀλίγα) has already been used by Luke in 16.10a. The conclusion expressed there (“Whoever is faithful in the smallest matter is also faithful in much”) provides the ratio for the promotion in 17c, 19b. Applying this principle, the κύριος makes his slaves into governors of a decapolis or a pentapolis. In this way the thread about the claimant to the throne spills over into the narrative of the entrusted money, for only a king can make such a disposition. The hyperbolism of the ‘reward’ with regard to the yielded ‘achievement’ corresponds to that of 12.37, 44.

358

The Gospel According to Luke

By no means, however, must it be overburdened in an allegorizing manner, as happens in the chain of quotations that reaches back from Bovon III: 297 via Bock II: 1536 and Jeremias 1976 down to Manson 1949, 247 and that is based on a false translation of m. Avot 4.2 (instead of “Be swift towards a light precept, and flee from transgression; for precept leads to precept and transgression to transgression. For the reward of a precept is a precept and the reward of a transgression is a transgression” [trans. Herford 1971, 96], Jeremias translates the concluding sentence with “The reward of duty done is the duty to be”).

That the praise of v. 17b (εὖγε . . . πιστὸς ἐγένου) has no counterpart in 19 is not intended, of course, to be an indirect degradation of the second slave. Instead, the omission occurs for narrative reasons. In the repetition what remains constant must be narrated only once and is then dispensable, because the readers can supply it (cf. in this respect, especially Mark 14.35-­38, 39-­40, 41-­42). 20 A σουδάριον is not a “handkerchief” in today’s sense (contra W. Bauer 1988, 1517) but a cloth that one lies around the neck or over the shoulder. The word is a Latinism (sudarium, from sudor [“sweat”]; see also Acts 19.12; Vita Aesopi 21), and Julius Pollux 7.71 still knows that it was previously called καψιδρώτιον (“sweat absorber”). According to John 11.44; 2.7, people wrapped it around the heads of the dead when they were buried. Luke obviously imagines that the slave knotted the money handed over to him in a cloth and then stored it somewhere. He thus treated it as a depositum (παρακαταθήκη; cf. Spicq 1994, III: 24ff). The examples of insecure safekeeping of deposita mentioned in m. Bava Metzia 3.10–­11 are not relevant. The sole important point is that the slave did not carry out the charge to do business with the money (v. 13). 21 The rhetorical strategy of argumentation with which the slave defends his behavior is difficult to make out. The fear of the “severity” of the Lord (21a-­b), on the one hand, and his characterization as a person who takes what does not belong to him and what he has not worked for (21c), on the other hand, do not fit with each other. Furthermore, it is not very plausible that a slave would say such a thing to his master’s face. In this respect, a rebellious defiance is expressed in v. 21 that stands in a certain tension to the fear of 21a. αὐστηρός is regarded as a characteristic that makes a person difficult to live with but can nevertheless be respected; cf. in this sense Plutarch, Cato Major 16.4 about Cato: “They feared the severity of the man (ἐφοβοῦντο τὴν αὐστηρίαν τοῦ ἀνδρός) as unrelenting . . . and difficult (ἀπαραίτητος . . . καὶ χαλεπή), because it was endowed with power”; Philo, De Iosepho 64–­65 provides a list of characteristics of a “statesman” (πολιτικός), who is rejected by the “masses” (ὄχλοι): he



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 359

is “severe (αὐστηρός) and self-­willed (αὐθέκαστος), a friend of peace (ἀληθείας ἑταῖρος) and a fanatic for righteousness (ἀκριβοδίκαιος), who . . . yields . . . in no point.” On various occasions αὐστηρός functions as a semantic opposition to φιλάνθρωπος (Plutarch, Phocion 3.8; Joannes Stobaeus, Anthologium IV: 5.76 [Wachsmuth/Hense 1958, IV/1: 223.9–­10]; BGU I: 140.18–­20). Plutarch, Moralia 14b speaks of a housewife who is “severe and tyrannical . . . and unpleasant” (αὐστηρὰ καὶ ἄκρατος . . . καὶ ἀνήδυντος). It fits with this that in P. Tebt. II 315.18–­19 one is warned against a finance inspector with the words ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος λείαν ἐστὶ αὐστηρός (“for the man is very severe”). Cf. also the frequently handed down Stoic principle (SVF III: 638): αὐστηρόν τε λέγεσθαι τὸν σπουδαῖον καθ’ ὅσον οὔτε προσφέρει τινὶ οὔτε προσίεται τὸν πρὸς χάριν λόγον (“They say that the one who is ethically excellent is so severe that he neither directs a word of favor to another person nor does he accept it”). In 21c illegal encroachments into the property of others are mentioned. There are numerous parallels for the first example. It comes from ancient law for deposits (cf. Erhardt 1958; F.-­S. Meissel, DNP 3: 480–­81; G. Thür, DNP 9: 316–­17), according to which the depositor alone has the right to take back to himself again the depositum left by him; cf. Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.208, 216 as part of his Torah paraphrase; Plato, Leges 913c calls this rule “the most beautiful and simplest of the laws,” and according to Diogenes Laertius 1.57, Solon required that an offense against it be punished with death; see also Aelian, Varia historia 3.46 (ὃ μὴ κατέθου. . . , μὴ λάμβανε [“What you have not deposited . . . take not to yourself”) and the expansion in the direction of the second example in Philo, Hypothetica 7.6 (“What he has not deposited may not be taken [ἃ μὴ κατέθηκεν, μηδ’ ἀναιρεῖσθαι], neither from a garden bed nor from a winepress nor from a threshing floor”).

There is a relatively large consensus concerning the interpretation of the self-­justification of the third slave. He is said to have refused the πραγματεύεσθαι with which he was charged because he feared a possible loss and that his severely greedy lord would make him responsible and punish him for it. One must not allow the picture that the slave sketches of his lord to become independent (contra Ernst), for it exists only as a constituent part of the picture that the narrator paints of the slave. The concern is not with the lord but with the slave, and precisely the slave himself becomes recognizable in the caricature that he sketches of his lord. 22-­23 Correspondingly, the lord is not interested in whether or not what the slave says about him is true. Rather, he presupposes that the explanation of the slave is accurate and demonstrates to him that even in this case it does not release the slave from obligation but rather places him under obligation. This is also why in 22c the lord does not ask him ‘Am I . . . ?’ but ‘You knew that . . . ?’ (ᾔδεις ὅτι . . . ;).

360

The Gospel According to Luke

“Mouth” stands metonymically for the words that come out of it (see also 11.54; 21.15; 22.71; additional attestations in W. Bauer 1988, 1536; cf. in this sense ἐκ τῶν λόγων κρίνειν [“to judge on the basis of the words”]: Life of Adam and Eve 25.4; Dinarchus, In Demosthenem 41; Philemon Comicus, ed. Kock 1880–­ 1888, 228.1; Joannes Stobaeus, Anthologium II: 15.30 [Wachsmuth/Hense 1958, II: 190.13–­14]; see also Bill. II: 252). The address πονηρὲ δοῦλε (22b) marks the antithesis to ἀγαθὴ δοῦλε (v. 17). τράπεζα (lit. “table”; 23a) is the Greek designation for the bank (cf. Moulton/Milligan 1963, 639–­40; T. Pekáry, KP 5: 926–­27; W. Schmitz, DNP 2: 432). τόκος (23b) designates the interest that the bank pays for the deposit, which was given over to it not merely for safekeeping but also for further use. For πράσσειν as a technical term for the collecting of of money see at 3.13.

The lord demonstrates to his slave that the explanation he presented as an excuse in v. 21—­which the lord ironically repeats—­and his handling of the money of the lord do not fit with each other. Instead, his behavior shows his words to be lies, for if he had actually known what he put forward in v. 21, he would have acted differently. Thus, the concern is only with unmasking the excuse of the slave as a sorry excuse and with destroying the semblance that he is morally in the right. It remains open whether he is really the sort of person whom his slave has presented him to be. And what are the readers, who know that the king stands for Jesus and the reckoning for the last judgment, to think theologically? I do not know and Luke probably also did not know. The interpretations of Ernst 394 (“In the view of Luke, the aspect of caring for the poor could have played a role in the motif of interest transactions”) or Eckey II: 798 (“Whoever regards himself as incapable of directly helping those in need with his money . . . can entrust it to the community leadership so that they may use it appropriately”) certainly do not capture what Luke intended. 24 τοῖς παρεστῶσιν means the entourage without which no king travels. Nothing more happens to the “wicked slave” (v. 22a) than that he is relegated again to the condition that he was in before v. 13 and placed on an equal level with those slaves to whom the nobleman had not given any mina at his departure. Thus, he loses, as it were, his elevated status. Besides this, he experiences a further slight in the fact that the “good slave” (v. 17) is additionally rewarded at his expense. 25 The interjection intends to make the readers aware of the fact that God’s judgment is oriented not toward human conceptions of economic fairness and justice (cf. the complaint in Martial, Epigrammata 5.81: “You will always be poor, Aemilianus, if you are poor. Nowadays riches only flow to the rich”).



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 361

The protest against the unequal distribution of the money is lacking in a number of manuscripts (D W 69 565 pc b d e ff2 sys.c boms). However, the reading that includes this line is not only much better attested but is also the lectio difficilior (at the beginning of v. 26 the indication that Jesus takes his speech up again, which would actually be required, is lacking). Further, a deletion after the fact can be traced back to the influence of the parallel in Matthew, where this verse is missing.

26 As in 14.24, in 26a Luke lets the “I” of Jesus fuse with the “I” of the narrative figure in the introduction to the speech (see also Marshall). There is a parallel in Mark 4.25 (par. Luke 18.18b-­c and Matthew 13.13; unlike in the Q version handed down in 26apar. Matthew 25.29, the protasis begins with a nominative both there and in Gospel of Thomas 41) to the saying of 26b-­c, with which the instruction of v. 24 is grounded. The “having” and “not-­having” in 8.18b-­c refers to the “fruit” of hearing (see further there), whereas it refers in 19.26 to the money that is generated. On the level of the target domain, the two fields of imagery are semantically isotopic (see above at vv. 16-­26). δοθήσεται and ἀρθήσεται are passiva divina and function as metaphorical descriptions of the allocation of salvation and unsalvation in the last judgment. The form and function correspond to the saying formulated in 14.11 and 18.14c (cf. in each case the final position in a παραβολή, introduction with a form of πᾶς, antithetical structure, passiva divina with gnomic future). Both here and there, the general principle that guides God in his decision is specified. 27 At the end Luke has Jesus take up once more the thread about the claimant to the throne. With the adversative conjuction πλήν (cf. BDR §447.2b; 449.1) he sets off the unsalvific fate of the πολῖται of v. 14 from that of the “wicked slave.” The recourse to v. 14 comes to expression above all in the echo of the quotation from v. 14c in 27a. While the events at the endeavors of Archelaus in 4 BCE were quite clearly incorporated in v. 14, the situation is different in 27. Josephus reports that after his return Archelaus only deposed the high priest who was in office (Antiquitates judaicae 17.339) because he regarded him as a supporter of his opponents. It is therefore probable that we are facing the same phenomenon as in 3.17; 12.37, 44, 46; 13.19. Both here and there the coherence of the narrated event is burst open at the end of the parable by the fact that the target domain spills over into the source domain and the eschatic consequences of salvation or unsalvation are described (see also at 3.17; 12.37, 44, 46). Luke is not thinking of the destruction of Jerusalem (thus, e.g., Potterie 1985, 637; Fusco 1992, 1689; Fitzmyer; Klein), for that lies in the past from his temporal standpoint, while parousia and the last judgment, which are spoken of here, still lie in the future. We must therefore remain with the interpretation that creates considerable difficulty for the present-­day

362

The Gospel According to Luke

readers and interpreters of the Gospel of Luke. Luke has Jesus announce that at his parousia his enemies will be brutally punished for their opposition against him (βασιλεύειν ἐπί τινα is a Septuagintism; see at 1.33). Luke specifies whom he means particularly in Acts 13.27 (see, however, also Luke 13.33, 34-­35; Acts 2.23; 3.13-­15; 4.10; 5.30; 10.39)—­the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their ἄρχοντες who had Jesus killed and despite the proclamation of the risen one through the apostles did not repent (see also Tannehill 1986, 161). 28 After a short note indicating the end of the speech (εἰπὼν ταῦτα; see also Luke 23.46; 24.40; John 7.9; 18.1, 38; 20.20, 22; 21.19; Acts 1.9; 7.60; 19.40; 20.36), Luke takes up again the thread of the framing narrative. One could therefore also place this verse at the beginning of the following pericope as an introduction, since it prepares the specification of place in v. 29. It stands to a certain extent between the two episodes on a higher narrative text-­level. With the help of the resumption of ἀναβαίνειν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ from 18.31 (the rephrasing into the Greek Ἱεροσόλυμα is due to the influence of Mark 11.1 and has no further meaning), Luke expresses that what Jesus had announced to the disciples for the first time in 18.31 now begins—­namely, the ascent to Jerusalem. ἔμπροσθεν (perhaps adapted from Mark 10.32: ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς) stresses in addition that Jesus himself is the one who takes the initiative and determines the direction of his journey. 19.29-­46: The Entrance into Jerusalem 29

And it happened when he came into the vicinity of Bethphage and Bethany, to the mountain that is called the “(Mount) of Olives,” he sent two of the disciples 30with the words: “Go into the village ahead. When you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which a person has never sat. Untie it and bring it here. 31And if someone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it,’ then say, ‘Because the Lord has need of it!’” 32And those who were sent went out and found (everything) as he had said to them. 33And when they untied the colt, its owners said to them, “Why are you untying the colt?” 34Thereupon they said, “Because the Lord needs it!” 35And they brought it to Jesus. And after they had placed their outer garments on the colt, they set Jesus thereupon. 36While he proceeded they spread their clothing on the way. 37When he had come right into the vicinity of the ascent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples, full of joy, began to praise God with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen. 38They shouted, “Praise (be) to the one who comes, the king, in the name of the Lord! In heaven peace, and glory in the highest!”



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 363 39

And some of the Phariseees from the crowd said to him, “Rabbi, rebuke your disciples!” 40But he answered and said, “I say to you, if these were silent, then the stones would cry out.” 41 And when he came nearer and saw the city, he began to weep over it, 42and said, “If you, even you, had recognized on this day what (leads) to peace! But now it has been hidden from your eyes. 43For days will come upon you; then your enemies will erect an entrenchment against you and enclose you and oppress you from all sides. 44And they will raze you to the ground and your children in you. And they will leave no stone on another in you, because you did not recognize the moment of your visitation.” 45 He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were sell46 ing. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it into a den of robbers.’” Luke takes up again the Markan narrative thread that he had left after the healing of the blind man before Jericho (18.35-­43) and narrates Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem as a messianic procession, which ends, as in Matthew 21.1-­17, with the temple action of Jesus. The narrative unity of this episode is established through the omission of Mark 11.11-­15a. Luke marks the demarcation from what follows by making a new start in 19.27 and by portraying Jesus’s teaching in the temple over multiple days up to 21.38. The absence of ἐδίδασκεν (Mark 11.17) in the Lukan version of the temple action is therefore probably due to a conscious redaction. Luke wants to let Jesus’s teaching begin only in 19.47. The entire section can be divided into five parts. (a) In vv. 29-­36 Luke recounts the preparations and the beginning of the procession. (b) Verses 37-­38 tell, after a small temporal and spatial jump (marked by ἐγγίζοντος + specification of time and place), what happened when the procession began with the ascent of the Mount of Olives. (c) Verses  39-­40 is identifiable as a new section by the change of narrative characters. The temporal-­spatial situation remains the same as in vv. 37-­38. (d) With καὶ ὡς ἤγγισεν ἰδὼν τὴν πόλιν (v. 41a) Luke again marks a jump and relates what Jesus did and said when he came within sight of Jerusalem (vv. 41b-­ 44). (e) After a final temporal-­spatial jump, the narrative arrives in the temple and ends with a portrayal of Jesus’s temple action (vv. 45-­46). The semantic coherence of the narrative comes about especially through the fact that Luke configures it with the help of motifs that are attested in the context of the description of the entrances of rulers into a city (παρουσίαι), of festive and triumphal processions (πομπαί and θρίαμβοι), and of similar actions (cf. above all Catchpole 1984, 319–­25; Cukrowski 1997; Duff 1992; Kinman 1995, 25ff, 48ff). From the inventory of motifs,

364

The Gospel According to Luke

the following are incorporated in the Lukan presentation (for individual documentation see ad loc. respectively): (a) the procession begins outside the city; (b) the special status of the riding animal (vv. 30, 35); (c) clothing is placed on the ground before the ruler (v. 36); (d) the one entering is praised by the other participants in the procession (vv. 37-­38); (e) the population greets the one entering before the gates of the city (v. 39); (f) the one who enters greets the city (vv. 41-­44); (g) the entrance ends in the temple (vv. 45-­46). The discussion about whether in Luke Jesus enters “triumphally” or “a-­triumphally” (Kinman 1995; 1998) misses the intention of the presentation. On the one hand, it is beyond question that Luke describes Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem as a messianic festive procession. But it is equally beyond question that according to the understanding of Luke the concern is not with a triumphal procession in the sense of the political expectation that was referred to, among others, in 19.11 and rejected through the parable that followed (see also at 2.38). Rather, every reader of the Gospel of Luke knows that Jesus will only assume his rule when he has “entered into his glory” (24.26) and seated himself on the “throne of his father David” (1.32). Thus, for Luke here only the first part of a triumphal procession takes place, which leads Jesus through suffering and death and is completed only with his resurrection and exaltation. Consistent with this dissociation from the conventional descriptions of triumphs within the Lukan portrayal of the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem are the ‘greeting’ of Jesus by the Pharisees (v. 39), the ‘greeting’ of the city through the lament of the one entering (vv. 41-­44), and Jesus’s action in the temple (v. 45). A comparison with the other portrayals of this event results in a very complex picture. Parallels to 19.29-­38, 45-­46 are found in Mark 11.1-­10, 15b-­17; Matthew 21.1-­17; and John 12.12-­15. Jesus’s lament over Jerusalem (vv. 41-­44) and the reaction of the Pharisees together with Jesus’s counterreaction are handed down only in Luke (vv. 39-­40; it is hardly likely that Matthew 21.15-­16 is based on the same tradition [see below]). As in Luke, Jesus’s temple action directly follows the festive procession in Matthew as well (Matthew 21.1-­17). In comparison with the Markan sequence of events, the following items are thus lacking in Luke and Matthew: (a) Jesus’s uneventful first visit in the temple (Mark 11.11a); (b) Jesus’s overnight stay in Bethany (Mark 11.11b) with the return to Jerusalem on the following day (Mark 11.15a); and (c) the episode of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11.12-­14). Conversely, (d) the Lukan and the Matthean presentations add a reaction by the opponents of Jesus to the shouts of joy—­in Luke the Pharisees to the shouts of the journeying disciples (19.39), in Matthew the chief priests and the scribes to the



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 365

shouts of the children in the temple (21.15-­16b); in both cases there is also an answer by Jesus (Luke 19.40; Matthew 21.16c-­d). The relatively large number of minor agreements is notable. The following are especially noteworthy: the lack of αὐτοῦ (Mark 11.1b) in v. 29bpar. Matthew 21.1b; ἀπέστειλεν . . . λέγων (vv. 29-­30par. Matthew 21.1-­2) instead of ἀποστέλλει . . . καὶ λέγει (Mark 11.1-­2); λύσαντες . . . ἀγάγετε (v. 30epar. Matthew 21.2) instead of λύσατε . . . καὶ φέρετε (Mark 11.2); ἐρείτε ὅτι (v.  31c-­dpar. Matthew 21.3) instead of εἴπατε (Mark 11.3); ἀπελθόντες δὲ οἱ ἀπεσταλμένοι (v. 32apar. Matthew 21.6: πορευθέντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταί) instead of καὶ ἀπῆλθον (Mark 11.4); καθώς . . . αὐτοῖς (v. 32par. Matthew 21.6) is without a Markan equivalent; the lack of καὶ ἀφῆκαν αὐτούς (Mark 11.6b) in v. 34par. Matthew 21.6; ἤγαγον (v. 35apar. Matthew 21.7) instead of φέρουσιν (Mark 11.7); ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (v. 37par. Matthew 21.8) instead of εἰς τὴν ὁδόν (Mark 11.8); λέγοντες (v. 38par. Matthew 21.9) is lacking in Mark 11.9; the lack of εὐλογημένη ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυίδ (Mark 11.10a) in v. 38par. Matthew 21.9; the lack of καὶ ἐδίδασκεν (Mark 11.17a) and πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Mark 11.17b) in v. 46par. Matthew 21.13; unlike Mark 11.17, Luke and Matthew do not present the Scripture quotation as a question (οὐ γέγραπται . . . ;), but as a statement (γέγραπται αὐτόν; v. 46apar. Matthew 21.13a); the transposition of αὐτόν (v. 46cpar. Matthew 21.13c; diff. Mark 11.17c); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 143ff; 1991, 63–­64; Ennulat 1994, 245ff. Luke and Matthew probably did not use other narrative traditions beyond Mark 11.1-­17. Matthew brings both Jesus’s overnight stay in Bethany (Mark 11.11b; see above [b]) with the return to Jerusalem on the following day (Mark 11.15a) and the episode of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11.12-­14, 20; see above [c]) into the story later in 21.17, 18-­19. Plus, the dialogue between Jesus and his opponents mentioned under (d) are too different, despite the parallelism of αἰνεῖν (Luke 19.37b) and αἶνος (Matthew 21.16), to allow them to be traced back to a common tradition-­historical foundation. It is probably necessary to reckon merely with a few post-­Markan changes (but not to the extent that Fuchs 1998 would have us believe in his not very differentiated argument). One can only speculate about the question of why Luke did not also bring the narrative of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11.12-­14, 20) into the story later but rather omits it completely (cf. Kinman 1995, 126ff, 129ff). In my view the simplest solution is the most probable: Luke had no more space for the story, because it was important to him that Jesus, once he arrived in the temple, remained there and did not return to Bethany again (see also Borse 1997, 9).

29-­35a The preparation of the festive procession directs attention to the riding animal, whose procurement is very elaborately described. The finding legend has, first, the function of transferring the narrated event onto an extraordinary level of reality. Furthermore, it is meant to furnish Jesus’s

366

The Gospel According to Luke

riding animal with theological significance. Not just any donkey comes into consideration for his entrance into Jerusalem but only one that fulfills certain conditions (cf. v. 30). 29 The introduction with καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς is a Septuagintism (see at 1.23). Bethphage (probably “house of the unripe figs”; contrast Origen, GCS, Origenes Werke IV: 204.1; IX: 217.14–­15; X: 532.3: οἶκος σιαγονῶν [“house of the cheeks”]) is mentioned only here in the Bible. In Jewish literature it appears for the first time in Sifre to Numbers §151 on Numbers 29.35 and m. Menahot 11.2 (cf. Dalman 1921, 214ff; Bill. I: 839–­40), and Eusebius knows nothing more than what stands in the Gospels (“a village at the Mount of Olives into which Jesus came”; Onomasticon, GCS XI/1, Eusebius Werke III/1: 58.13–­14); see also Küchler 2007, 932ff. Bethany (probably “house of Ananiah”; today el-­ʿāzarīje [“of Lazarus”]) was located immediately under the crest of the Mount of Olives on its eastern side, i.e., on the side facing away from Jerusalem. It is possibly identical to the Ananiah of the Benjamites mentioned in Nehemiah 11.32 (it has nothing to do with the Βατάνη ‫[ א‬Βλιτάνη A; Βαιτάνη B] of Judges 1.9; cf. E. Zenger, JSHRZ I/6: 452 n. 9b). According to John 11.1, it was the place of residence of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, and Luke 24.50 makes it the place of the ascension. According to John 11.18 it is located “about 15 stadia” (= 2.775 kilometers) from Jerusalem (according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, GSS XI/1, Eusebius Werke III/1: 58.15 “at the second milestone from Aelia [= Jerusalem],” thus at a distance of about 3 kilometers); see also Tsafrir 1994, 80; Storme 1992; Küchler 2007, 920ff.

Ἐλαιῶν is a shortening of τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν (“Mount of Olives”; cf. Matthew 21.1; 24.3; 26.30; Mark 11.1; 13.3; 14.26; Luke 19.37; 22.39; John 8.1; in LXX 2 Samuel 15.30 [ἀνάβασις τῶν ἐλαιῶν (“ascent of the Mount of Olives”)]; Zechariah 14.4; Acts 1.12 is different). The phrasing corresponds to Josephus, Bellum judaicum 2.262; 5.70 (in each case τὸ ἐλαιῶν καλούμενον ὄρος); see also Antiquitates judaicae 20.169; BDR §1433. 30 The commission that Jesus gives the disciples refers, as in Mark 11.2, to a colt (πῶλος; contrast Matthew 21.2). Although the word πῶλος as such can designate both a horse colt and a donkey colt, it is very likely that here Mark and Luke are thinking of a young donkey (cf. the documentation in H.-­W. Kuhn 1959; O. Michel 1959/1960). This supposition is supported by Zechariah 9.9, according to which the messianic king “is mounted on a donkey, on a young colt” (ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον νέον) and is announced to Zion-­Jerusalem as messianic savior. And what is said about Judah in Genesis 49.10-­11 (LXX: αὐτὸς προσδοκία ἐθνῶν δεσμεύων τρὸς ἄμπελον τὸν πῶλον αὐτοῦ καὶ τῇ ἕλικι τὸν πῶλον τῆς ὄνου αὐτοῦ [“He is the expectation of the nations, who binds his colt



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 367

to a vine and the colt of his donkey to the vinebranch”]) also makes the donkey colt a messianic riding animal. And not too far removed is 1 Kings 1.33-­35, 38-­40, according to which Solomon is led on a kingly “half-­ donkey” (ἡμίονος), i.e., a mule, to the Gihon Spring and is anointed and acclaimed as king there (see also Fernández Marcos 1987). The characteristic mentioned in 30d is unsuitable for the identification of the colt by the disciples, for they cannot, of course, see from it whether it had already been ridden on or not. This characteristic therefore has no other function than to justify why Jesus wanted precisely this animal. It can therefore aim both to reflect νέος (“young, new”) as a characteristic of the colt of Zechariah 9.9 and to transfer the messianic exclusivity of its future rider to the animal (cf. also Luke 23.53par. John 19.41 concerning the tomb of Jesus “in which no one had yet been laid”; Matthew 27.60 is also similar). From a functional perspective this characteristic is comparable to the requirement that cows that are brought for rituals of atonement or meant to pull the wagon with the ark must have not yet carried a yoke (cf. Numbers 19.2; Deuteronomy 21.3; 1 Samuel 6.7; see also Derrett 1971; Fitzmyer; Nolland). 31 Luke leaves in the air who the κύριος is. For the readers on the discourse level it is, of course, none other than Jesus himself, whereas the narrated addressees could and should assume nothing other than that the two disciples speak of God (see e.g., also 1.6, 9, 28, 46; 2.15, 22). The view that with ὁ κύριος Luke wants to create the impression that Jesus was already known in the region and the owners therefore knew whom the disciples meant (thus, e.g., Zahn; Marshall; see also Klein) can be safely ruled out. Whoever reaches for this explanation has not grasped the narrative’s christological point, for we have before us the same ambiguity in the use of the Kyrios title that could be observed already in 1.76 (see further there; see also Rowe 2006, 162). 32-­35a The carrying out of the commission is recounted with a large proportion of lexical repetitions. The phrasing εὗρον καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς is word-­for-­word identical with Mark 14.16, the corresponding note in the story of the finding of the room for the Passover meal. There is an analogy to the plural οἱ κύριοι + genitive as a designation for the owners in Tobit 2.13‫( א‬ἀπόδος αὐτὸ [sc. τὸ ἐρίφιον] τοῖς κυρίοις αὐτοῦ [“Give it (sc. the goat) back to its owners”]; but see also Luke 20.13, 15; Acts 16.16, 19 and W. Bauer 1988, 932). A reaction from the owners of the colt is not recorded; but the continuation assumes that the disciples’ statement was sufficient for them to hand over their donkey to them. 35b Luke portrays the further events as actions of the disciples. They are the ones who determine the action through v. 38. Their outergarments placed on the donkey’s back function as a substitute for the absent riding

368

The Gospel According to Luke

cover. Whether Luke placed the attributive αὐτῶν in the front (diff. Mark 11.7) in order to illustrate the dedication of the disciples (Plummer) must remain open. That the future king is placed by his followers on the riding animal for the entrance is also a component of the narrative of the enthronement of Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 1.33, 38; in v. 33 even with the same verb; Zechariah 9.9 is different: here ἐπιβαίνειν is used; against Creed; Marshall; Green). 36 The spreading out of the clothing is reminiscent of 2 Kings 9.13: Jehu recounts his anointing as king, after which all those present spread out their clothing on the steps and shout “Jehu has become king” (cf. also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 9.111). This was originally a symbolic gesture of submission. Cf. also Plutarch, Cato Minor 12.1 on Cato’s departure: (“. . . they placed clothing under his feet and kissed his hands”); Acts of Pilate 1.2, where a comparable gesture is interpreted as “like letting a king go over” (ὡς βασιλέα . . . περιπατῆσαι). See also Aeschylus, Agamemnon 906–­909 (Clytaemnestra to Agamemon returning victorious): “Descend to me from the chariot. But set not to earth, / lord, your foot, which was Ilium’s destroyer! / Maidens, why do you tarry whose charge and office it is / to cover the ground of the path for him with carpets (πετάσμασιν)?”; see also Bill. I: 844–­45.

37-­38 The narrator apparently imagines that the festive procession has crossed the crest of the Mount of Olives and begins with the descent that leads first into the Kidron Valley and then again up to Jerusalem. The convergence with the angel’s praise of God from 2.13-­14 cannot be missed (see also Brandenburger 1973, 33; G. Klein 1997, 146; Lambrecht 2003, 107). Just as it was τὸ πλῆθος of the angels at Jesus’s birth, so it is now τὸ πλῆθος of the disciples that praises God (αἰνεῖν τὸν θεόν both here and there). And as the angels shouted δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ and ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη from heaven, so the disciples now join this doxology and give the greeting of peace back to heaven (ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰρήνη καὶ δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις; v. 38b; see G. Klein 1997, 150–­51). Their exclamation is situated on the same level of interpretation as 2.14, and through this Luke places the activity of Jesus in the light of the angel’s praise of God. The peace proclaimed over the whole world, which Jesus has brought as messianic Savior, can be experienced in his deeds of power. That the one who enters a city as ruler or triumphator is praised by others participating in the procession is already attested in 1 Kings 1.34. Nathan and Zadok are to anoint Solomon and then proclaim him as king with the words “Long live King Solomon!”; v. 38 narrates the people’s response of acclamation (see at v. 39



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 369

below). This motif is often found in reports of Roman triumphal processions. Varro 6.68 narrates that the “soldiers returning with the imperator called out Io triumphe (hurrah, triumph!) to the one processing through the city to the Capitol” (see also Horace, Carmina 4.2.49–­50; Epodi 9.21, 23); cf. further Plutarch, Aemilius Paullus 34.7 (the army following the triumphator “in the traditional way sang partly mocking songs and partly victory songs and songs praising the deeds to Aemilius” [ᾄδων . . . παιᾶνας ἐπινικίους καὶ τῶν διαπεπραγμένων ἐπαίνους εἰς τὸν Αἰ.]); Appian, Libyca (= Punica) 9.66; Livy 4.20.1; 39.7.3 (carmina . . . a militibus ea in imperatorem dicta [“. . . such songs were sung by the soldiers to the imperator”]); 45.38.13 (Imperatoris laudes canentes per urbem incedunt [“Singing songs of praise to the imperator they proceed through the city”]); Suetonius, Divus Julius 49.4; 51; Nero 25.1 (see also Versnel 1970, esp. 384ff; Künzl 1988; Itgenshorst 2005).

37 The object of the praise of God is the entirety of the activity of Jesus. πᾶσαι αἱ δυνάμεις designates Jesus’s healings, exorcisms, and raisings of the dead. They are, to be sure, subsumed under this umbrella term only in Luke 10.13; Acts 2.22 (see also Acts 8.13; 19.11), but Luke explicitly indicates time and again that it is the δύναμις indwelling Jesus that was active in his healings and exorcisms (Luke 4.36; 5.17; 6.19; 8.46; see also Luke 9.1; Acts 6.8; 10.38; for the worldview background see at 6.18b-­19). Moreover, that God is praised for something that Jesus has done is also already familiar to the readers from the acclamation reports of numerous miracle stories (5.25; 7.16; 9.43a; 13.13b; 17.15; 18.43b-­c; see also 8.39). A characteristic element of Lukan Christology comes to expression in this. Jesus’s activity makes God’s eschatic salvific intervention in favor of his people something people can experience (see also at 7.22). But the role of the disciples is also emphasized. After Luke had always put such acclamations only in the mouths of the people who are healed and of the crowd, it now remains reserved for the disciples to formulate something like an ‘aggregative acclamation’ and thus to offer an overall interpretation of the activity of Jesus. 38 The disciples speak with words from PsalmLXX 117.26 (εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου). Luke had taken them from Q and had placed them in in the mouth of Jesus already in 13.35 (par. 23.39). Originally the pilgrims processing into the temple were greeted with these words (cf. Seybold 1996, 461). They were also called out in Mark 11.9 and introduced there with ὡσαννά, the Greek transcription of Hebrew ‫יעה‬ ָ ‫הֹוׁש‬ ִ ‫“( ּנָ א‬help indeed”; Psalm 118.25; PsalmLXX 117.25: σῶσον δή). Luke omits this introduction and through the insertion of ὁ βασιλεύς in apposition to ὁ ἐρχόμενος turns the quotation into an exclamation of the entering messianic king by the disciples. From a motif-­historical perspective the call is

370

The Gospel According to Luke

reminiscent of 1 Kings 1.34 (see above; cf. also 2 Kings 11.12). When the disciples of Jesus have Jesus come as king “in the name of the Lord” (see also 1 Samuel 17.45 [David to Goliath]): “You come to me with sword, lance, and spear, but I come to you in the name of the Lord Sabaoth” [πορεύομαι πρὸς σὲ ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου σαβαωθ]), they present him in this way not merely as a messenger of God but as the king installed and authorized by God (see also at 9.48, 49). Luke has omitted the benediction of the inbreaking “reign of our father David” (Mark 11.10a) and replaced it in 38b by the answer of the disciples to the doxology and the angels’ proclamation of peace in 2.14. He presumably came upon this idea because he found “Hosanna ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις” in Mark 11.10b and was reminded by this of 2.14a. The two parts of the exclamation are chiastically structured (ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰρήνη καὶ δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις). The exclamation “peace in heaven!” does not mean the salvific good that is prepared in heaven for humans (contra Creed; Fitzmyer; Eckey and others); rather, it is meant, together with the repetition of the doxology from 2.14a, to direct the view of the readers to the place where Jesus is enthroned as king—­to heaven (see also Nolland; the objection of Bock II: 1558 is unfounded, for what matters is not what the “world” knows, but what Luke knows). Thus, Luke formulates here an important further specification of 38a and takes precautions against political misinterpretations of the proclamation there (see also the introductory comments on 19.11-­28). 39 In 1 Kings 1.39, the people react to the proclamation of Solomon as king with the responsorial acclamation “Long live King Solomon” (v. 34). In the Hellenistic context the custom of the so-­called “Einholung” (official reception) is attested (cf. Peterson 1929/1930). When a ruler or triumphator or other high-­ranking person comes into a city, the populace comes to meet him and prepare for him a jubilant reception, in which speeches honoring the one entering and his deeds can be delivered; cf. e.g., 1 Samuel 18.6; 2 Maccabees 4.21122; Judges 15.8ff; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 11.329ff; Aristophanes, Aves 1706ff; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.62 (253c); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 2.60.2–­3; Diodorus Siculus 37.26; Plutarch, Aemilius Paullus 34.7; Lucullus 2.5 (for this cf., with many other examples, Peterson 1929/1930; O. Nussbaum, RAC 9: 965ff; Kinman 1995, 31ff; Duff 1992, 58ff). Luke apparently imagines that the Pharisees from out of the crowd (ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου; see also 9.38; Mark 7.17, 33) demand of Jesus that he enjoin his disciples to be silent (ἐπιτιμᾶν as in 9.21 after the Messiah confession; see there with the reference to Plutarch, Aemilius Paullus 13.6). This reaction stands at the place that the “Einholung,” which was just sketched, occupies in the descriptions of festive entrances into the city. Against this



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 371

background, it becomes clear that here Luke very consciously wants to report that the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not take notice of the entrance of Jesus as messianic king. The shout of the disciples finds no response, and this non-­reaction is then commented on by Jesus in vv. 41-­44. With this demand, the involvement of the Pharisees in the story of Jesus comes to an end. By contrast, there are also further encounters between Jesus and the Pharisees in Jerusalem in the Gospel of Mark (12.13) and especially in the Gospel of Matthew (21.45-­46; 22.15-­16, 34-­35, 41). For the address of Jesus as διδάσκαλος, see at 7.40. 40 The rare construction with ἐάν + indicative future in the conditional clause, which then continues with the future in the main clause, corresponds to PsalmLXX 88.32-­33 (ἐὰν τὰ δικαιώματά μου βεβηλώσουσιν. . . , ἐπισκέψομαι ἐν ῥάβδῳ τὰς ἀνομίας αὐτῶν . . . [“If they profane my ordinances . . . , I will visit their offenses with a rod”]). For the interpretation of the content of Jesus’s answer, two possibilities come into consideration (cf. Ruiz 1984; Kinman 1994, 232–­33; additional proposals in Marshall). Should it be read in the light of v. 44 (see also 21.6) and be understood as an announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g., Fitzmyer; Schneider; Ruiz 1984)? Or does Luke want to express in a hyperbolic manner that it is impossible to suppress the jubilation at Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem (e.g., Kinman 1994, 234–­35)? In support of the first interpretation, reference is made to Habakkuk 2.11: “A stone from the wall will cry out, and the rafters answer it from the woodwork.” Here, the crying out of a stone has an accusing function. Elsewhere it is attested as a sign of the coming of the unsalvation of the endtime: 4 Ezra 5.5 (“Blood will drop from wood, and a stone will raise its voice [lapis dabit vocem suam]”); Lives of the Prophets 10.8 (“He [sc. Jonah] gave a sign over Jerusalem and the whole earth: When they see a stone that woefully cries out, then the end draws near”; Sibylline Oracles 3.804 (797–­808: “When . . . suddenly a blood rain pours upon the earth and the rocks begin to cry out [πετρῶν δὲ βόημα γένηται] . . . This is the end of the war, which God on the heavenly throne brings”; text and translation according to Gauger 2002, 110-­111; cf. J. J. Collins, OTP 1: 380; Buitenwerf 2003, 245, 294).

Because the context of usage in these texts is completely different from that in Luke, more speaks for the second possibility. According to this, it is impossible for there to be no jubilation at Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem. If this jubilation did not come from the mouths of the disciples, then the stones would raise their voices. The hyperbolism of the statement is based on the obvious impossibility of such an event (cf. e.g., Plato, Symposium 198c; Cicero, De oratore 1.245; Ovid, Metamorphoses 2.696: Tutus

372

The Gospel According to Luke

eas; lapis iste prius tua furta loquetur [“You can go without danger; the stone here will sooner betray your theft”]; see also BDR §4957: “paradox”; Servius in Wettstein 1962, I: 788: hyperbolice dictum, cum res eiusmodi est, ut nulla ratione celari aut occulta manere possit [“a hyperbolic dictum insofar as a thing is of such a kind that it cannot for any reason be hidden or remain secret”]). In support of this interpretation one can also invoke the use of the motif of the speaking stones in a comparable context in Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit 96. Here Philo has the Indian gymnosophist Calanus write to Alexander the Great: “Your friends urge you to apply violence and compulsion to the philosophers of India. These friends, however, have never even in their dreams seen what we do. Bodies you will transport from place to place, but souls you will not compel to do what they will not do, any more than force bricks or sticks to talk” (trans. Colson 1941, 65). C. F. Evans 682 and J. R. Wagner 1997, 168 want to combine the two interpretations and connect v. 44 and 21.6 with the crying out of the stones. That would make the destruction of Jerusalem an eschatic event, but that concept does not fit Lukan eschatology particularly well (see below at 21.20-­24).

41-­44 Form-­critically this is a prophetic lament embedded in a narrative, which functions as an “enclothing of an announcement of Judgment” (Westermann 1971, 145): vv. 41-­42 recount the lament of Jesus, vv. 43-­ 44b formulate the threat saying that announces the punishment (see also 13.34-­35 and, e.g., 2 Kings 8.12; Isaiah 22.4-­8; Jeremiah 8.18-­23; 9.9-­10, 16-­21; 14.16-­18; Amos 5.1-­3; Micah 1.8-­16; see further C. A. Evans 1992, esp. 107ff), and v. 44c provides the reason. The coherence of the lament is also expressed by means of the inclusio of the whole unit through the repeated εἰ ἔγνως + specification of time (vv. 42b, 44c). From a narrative-­ dramaturgical perspective the lament occurs where the greeting of the city by the entering ruler stands in Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 17.201ff. 41 The weeping of Jesus is an anticipating lament over the destruction of Jerusalem announced in vv. 43-­44b. That Jesus already weeps for the fate of the city beforehand is meant to express the inevitability of the disaster coming over it (see also 2 Kings 8.11; Isaiah 22.4; Jeremiah 8.23; 9.9; 14.17). Furthermore, with this portrayal Luke wants to make clear Jesus’s solidarity with Jerusalem, for one weeps only over the unsalvific fate of those whom one loves. Conversely, of course, the guilt of this city emerges even more clearly against this background. 42 The irrealis εἰ ἔγνως (see also εἰ ἔγνωσαν in 1 Corinthians 2.8) lacks an apodosis that specifies the hypothetical consequence (cf., by contrast, e.g., Isaiah 48.18; see also BDR §482.2), so that the exclamation becomes a statement of an unfulfillable wish (BDR §3591). It is therefore



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 373

the fact that the wish cannot be fulfilled that becomes the basis for the weeping of Jesus. The propositional content of the exclamation consists in the fact that the inhabitants of Jerusalem—­unlike the disciples (the phrasing καὶ σύ accents this opposition)—­have not recognized who has come to them “on this day,” namely, the messianic king who brings peace over the whole earth. With εἰρήνη Luke reaches back via v. 38 to 2.14, thereby turning the interpretation of Jesus pronounced by the angel into the subject matter that has remained hidden from the inhabitants of Jerusalem (for the phrasing τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην see at 14.32). With νῦν δέ in v. 42 “the true situation is set over against” the irrealis (W. Bauer 1988, 1104; see also John 9.41; 15.2, 24). ἐκρύβη is passivum divinum, and the joining with ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου is probably a Septuagintism (see also Sirach 17.15; 39.19; Hosea 13.14; this expression is not found in pagan Greek texts). The fact that God himself has effected Jerusalem’s inability to attain knowledge cannot exculpate the Jerusalemites but turns their guilt into a guilt inflicted by God. Like the hardening model based on Isaiah 6.9-­10 (cf. Acts 28.26-­27; see also Luke 8.10; Mark 4.12par. Matthew 13.14-­15; John 12.40; Romans 11.8), ἐκρύβη ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου has no other function than to explain the incomprehensible circumstance of how it could come to be that the inhabitants of Jerusalem did not recognize the messianic king sent to them as such. The later talk of their ‘ignorance’ (Luke 23.34; Acts 3.17; 13.27) corresponds with this idea. This is why, after Easter, they also receive the possibility of repenting through the proclamation of the resurrection of the “witnesses” (Acts 2.38; 3.17-­19; 5.30-­31). Because their ignorance is thereby removed, the rejection of this second chance is irreparable.

43a is the introduction, which is then unfolded in five paratactical καί-­ sentences. On ἥξουσιν ἡμέραι see at 17.22. In 43b-­44b there is a description of what happens in every siege (43b-­d) and in the destruction of the city that follows (44a-­b). A specific reference to the conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE is not recognizable. Conversely, however, the description is so general that it can also be applied to the fate of Jerusalem (cf. H. Schwier 1989, 27ff). For Luke, of course, there is no doubt that Jesus announces here the besiegement and destruction of Jerusalem. 43b-­d The first three sentences describe very precisely the events that take place during a siege. The besiegers construct an entrenchment out of palisades or earthwalls (παρεμβάλλειν χάρακα) until they have enclosed the city (περικυκλοῦν) and encircle it from all sides (συνέχειν πάντοθεν; cf. Spicq 1994, III: 339–­40); συνέχειν is a typically Lukan word (nine of twelve New Testament attestations are in Luke–­Acts).

374

The Gospel According to Luke

The portrayal reflects common siege-­technical knowledge; cf. Genesis 19.4; 2 Kings 6.14; Ecclesiastes 9.14; Isaiah 29.3; Jeremiah 27.29; Ezekiel 4.2; 21.27; 26.8; Polybius 3.68.6: περιλαβὼν τάφρῳ καὶ χάρακι τὴν παρεμβολήν (“surrounding the place with a ditch and palisade wall”); 3.100.5: “He encamped (παρεμβάλων) the army before the city and fortified the camp with ditches and a palisade wall (χάρακι)”; 5.50.5; 6.38.3; 18.24.1; Diodorus Siculus 16.42.8 (βαλόμενοι δὲ χάρακα καὶ τὴν παρεμβολήν ὀχυρώσαντες [“They erected a palisade wall and fortified the encampment”]); 19.39.1; Theophilus Comicus, Fragment 9 (Kock 1880–­1888): ἐν χάρακι . . . καὶ παρεμβολῇ.

In 44a-­b the fate of the city and its inhabitants after the conquest is described. “They will raze you to the ground and your children in you” (ἐδαφιοῦσιν; 44a) may echo PsalmLXX 136.9; Nahum 3.10; Hosea 14.1, where an ἐδαφίζειν of the “children” (νήπια) or “infants” (ὑποτίτθια) is announced (see also Hosea 10.14: “On the day of slaughter they razed the mother to the ground over the children [μητέρα ἐπὶ τέκνοις ἠδάφισαν]”); such a usage of the verb is nowhere attested outside the Septuagint (BDR §4793 declares this usage of ἐδαφίζειν to be an ellipsis with a shift in meaning). Nevertheless, the people referred to here are not children in the literal sense of the word, for τέκνα stands here as a metaphorical designation for the inhabitants of Jerusalem (see also Joel 2.23; Zechariah 9.13; 1 Maccabees 1.38; Baruch 4.12ff; 5.5; Psalms of Solomon 11.2; 4Q179, Fragment 2, 8–­9; 2 Baruch 10.16; Luke 13.34par. Matthew 23.37; Galatians 4.25 and at Luke 19.34). The wording of 44b probably comes from Mark 13.2 (see at 21.6). In terms of the subject matter, the announcement corresponds with, e.g., Micah 3.12: “Therefore, on account of you Zion will be ploughed like a field, and Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble and the mountain of the house a wooded mountain” (see also 2 Samuel 17.13). Josephus, Bellum judaicum 7.1 recounts that Titus instructed his soldiers after the conquest of Jerusalem “to dig down (κατασκάπτειν) the entire city and the temple.” 44c The explanation for the threat saying (for the phrasing ἀνθ’ ὧν see at 1.20) picks up v. 42b again and points back to 1.78-­79 (cf. especially the terminological correspondences ἐπισκέπτεσθαι/ἐπισκοπή; εἰρήνη/εἰρήνη; ἐπιφαίνειν/κρύπτεσθαι). The intent of the framing of Jesus’s lament is to say that the inhabitants of Jerusalem have not recognized this very character of the coming of Jesus described by Zechariah because they have not recognized the character of his sending as a whole—­namely, that in him God himself “visits” (see also 1.68; 7.16) his people. This failure to recognize their καιρὸς ἐπισκοπῆς for salvation causes it to become an unsalvific καιρὸς ἐπισκοπῆς in the sense of Jeremiah 6.15; 10.15 (see also Isaiah 10.3).



18.35–­19.46: The End of the Peregrination 375

45-­46 Luke has Jesus’s entrance end in the temple, which corresponds to the ancient parallels (e.g., Polybius 16.25.5–­7; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 7.153, 155; 11.336; 16.14; 17.200, 205; Suetonius, Nero 25.2; the Roman triumphal procession ended with a sacrifice before the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus). In this context, he describes an action of Jesus that explains why he neither sacrifices nor prays in the temple. Luke usually has people do the latter there (cf. 1.10; 2.37; 18.10; Acts 3.1; 8.27; 22.17; 24.11). Furthermore, he also makes clear to the readers Jesus’s assessment of the condition of the temple encountered by him. Form-­critically the episode can probably best be designated as a “mixed chreia” (K. Berger 1984b, 1103), for which it is characteristic that the action and its grounding form a narrative unity. The widespread assumption that in Luke Jesus wants to make the temple suitable for the teaching activity that follows in Luke from v. 47 (thus, e.g., Conzelmann 1977, 70; Fitzmyer II: 1265; Söding 1992, 43) has no basis in the text. 45 Luke does not separately mention that Jesus comes into Jerusalem but has him immediately enter the temple. In this way he makes clear that the temple is meant to stand for the city as a whole and that he wants Jerusalem to be understood as the city of the temple. Vis-­à-­vis Mark 11.15, Luke lacks especially the statements that Jesus also overturned the tables of the money changers and the booths of the dove sellers. Whether Luke still knew about their significance for the carrying out of the sacrificial cult in the Jerusalem temple (cf. Bill. I: 850ff; Safrai 1981, 201ff) is uncertain. In any case, he presents the action as though Jesus was merely concerned with a liberation of the temple from commercial side issues that had nothing to do with the actual operation of the cult. Zechariah 14.21 could not have played a role (contra Ganser-­Kerperin 2000, 164), although πωλοῦντες could stand for Hebrew ‫“( ְכנַ ֲענִ י‬trader”). The Septuagint transliterates Χαναναῖος there and ‫ ְכנַ ֲענִ י‬is never translated with πωλοῦντες elsewhere either (cf. Tilly 1991, 32). 46 The Lukan Jesus grounds his course of action with the help of a combination of two Scripture quotations (Isaiah 56.7 and Jeremiah 7.11) that is taken over from Mark 11.17. The quotation introduction γέγραπται refers only to Isaiah 56.7 (46b). In 46c the subject, predicate, and object come from the Lukan Jesus; only the object-­complement σπήλαιον λῃστῶν is taken from Jeremiah 7.11. The “sellers” are addressed: Jesus accuses them and not the Jerusalemites as a whole of alienating the temple from its divinely determined purpose as “house of prayer.” 1 Maccabees 7.37 shows that the connotation of a dissociation from the sacrificial cult is not necessarily bound up with this purpose. After Nicanor threatens to burn down the temple (“this house”), the priests ask God for his saving

376

The Gospel According to Luke

intervention, after reminding him of the function of the temple that he himself established: “You have chosen this house so that your name will be named over it and it will be a house of prayer and supplication for your people (εἶναι οἶκον προσευχῆς καὶ δεήσεως τῷ λαῷ σου)”; cf. also Isaiah 60.7LXX: “And acceptable sacrifice will be offered upon my altar, and my house of prayer will be glorified” (καὶ ἀνενεχθήσεται δεκτὰ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριόν μου, καὶ ὁ οἶκος τῆς προσευχῆς μου δοξασθήσεται; Heb.: “and I will make glorious the house of my glory” [‫)]בית ִּת ְפ ַא ְר ִּתי ֲא ָפ ֵאר‬. ֵ

For Luke the temple was meant to be a “house of prayer” from the beginning—­and not only “in the time of salvation,” i.e., “when Jesus appears” (thus Klein 620).

19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” This narrative collecting basin is framed by the summaries in 19.47-­48 and 21.37-­38 and in this way is shown to be a distinct part of the Lukan story of Jesus that is clearly demarcated in relation to what precedes and follows. The intensive terminological overlaps make clear that they refer to each other. In detail there are the following correspondences: ἦν διδάσκων (19.47a; 21.37a); τὸ καθ’ ἡμέραν / τὰς ἡμέρας (19.47a; 21.37a); ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ (19.47a; 21.37a); ὁ λαὸς ἅπας / πᾶς ὁ λαός (19.48b; 21.38); αὐτοῦ ἀκούων / ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ (19.48b; 21.38); see also Grangaard 1999, 44–­ 45. Luke uses the two summaries to enclose a longer period of Jesus’s teaching activity in the Jerusalem temple (cf. also the iterative imperfects ἦν διδάσκων [19.47a; 21.37a]; ἐζήτουν [19.47b]; οὐχ εὕρισκον [19.48a]; ἐξεκρέματο [19.48b]; ηὐλίζετο [21.37b]; ὤρθριζεν [21.38]). The actions described by them apply to the whole period of time, the duration of which remains undetermined. It is this part of the Lukan story of Jesus to which Jesus refers with καθ’ ἡμέραν ὄντος μου μεθ’ ὑμῶν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ in 22.53a at his arrest. In terms of content, Luke mostly aligns himself with Mark 11.27–­13.37. The only portion he has not included is Mark 12.28-­34b, with the scribe’s question about the greatest commandment, for it has already found entrance in somewhat altered form in Luke 10.25-­28.

19.47-­48: Initial Frame 47

And he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes were seeking to put him to death, and also the leaders among



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 377

the people. 48But they did not find anything they could do, for the whole people were hanging on to him, listening. 47 The note that Jesus was teaching “daily” (τὸ καθ’ ἡμέραν; see at 11.3) in the temple is flanked in 21.37b by a specification: he spent the nights on the Mount of Olives. The coniugatio periphrastica ἦν διδάσκων accentuates the temporal extension (cf. BDR §353; on its use in Luke see Verboomen 1992). Luke has taken over from Mark 11.18 the note that the chief priests and scribes sought to kill him. In the announcement of the passion and the resurrection of Jesus (9.22) Luke had already mentioned these two groups together with the “elders” (πρεσβύτεροι) as the ones responsible for Jesus’s fate of suffering and death, and that text is evoked as is 13.33. He had already reported in 6.11 that the scribes and Pharisees had discussed taking action against Jesus (τί ποιήσωσιν; see v. 48a); only now does he communicate to the readers that they want to kill him. But of the initial opponents of Jesus, only the scribes remain; Luke already had the Pharisees take leave of his story of Jesus in 19.39-­40. In place of the “elders” in 9.22 there stands in 47c the “leaders of the people” (πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ), whom Luke adds—­in a manner that is not especially elegant linguistically—­to the chief priests and scribes taken over from Mark 11.18. This is an informal designation for the politically influential people in the city; cf. Acts 13.50; 25.2; 28.17; Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 7.53; 11.142 (priests and Levites as πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ); Vita 9 (the chief priests and the τῆς πόλεως [sc. Jerusalem] πρῶτοι); 64 (πρῶτοι τοῦ δήμου in the sense of “the leading persons of the population”; see also 169); 310 (οἱ τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν πρῶτοι). In 23.13, 35; 24.20; Acts 3.17; 4.5, 8 Luke calls them οἱ ἄρχοντες. Luke mentions them here in order to be able to make the leading stratum of Jerusalem in its entirety responsible for the proceedings against Jesus. He initially places the ‘normal’ population of Jerusalem (the λαός) on Jesus’s side (cf. v. 48b; 20.19; 21.38; 22.2; see also 20.6, 45). Only at the very end will they also set themselves against Jesus (see at 23.4, 13-­25). 48 Luke suspends the realization of this intention (τὸ τί ποιήσωσιν; for the article in indirect interrogative questions, see at 1.62) and refers as a reason to the resonance that Jesus’s teaching activity finds among the ‘normal’ population of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the concrete intention of the groups mentioned in v. 47 to kill continues and accompanies the days of Jesus’s teaching in the temple as an ever present background (see also 20.19, 20). It is only in 22.3-­6 that this thread of action begins to determine the plot of the narrative. The syntactical relations in 48b are unclear, for αὐτοῦ can be dependent upon either ἐξεκρέματο or ἀκούων. The translation has chosen the

378

The Gospel According to Luke

first possibility; for ἐκκρεμᾶσθαι with the genitive of person see also Euripides, Electra 950 (τὰ γὰρ τέκν’ αὐτῶν Ἄρεος ἐκκρεμάννυται [“Their children are adherents of Ares”]); Thucydides 7.75.4 (“They hung themselves on the ones now going away [ἀπιόντων ἐκκρεμαννύμενοι] and followed them”); Philo, De Abrahamo 170 (Abraham “hung on to the child with ineffable affection” [τοῦ παιδὸς ἐκκρεμάμενος]); none of the attestations mentioned in G. Bertram, ThWNT 3: 920 are relevant. 20.1-­26: Jesus as Teacher of the Jewish People and His Opponents Luke creates a scenic complex whose coherence is established by the constellation of the narrative characters. Jesus, the Jerusalem λαός, and Jesus’s opponents form a dramatic triangle. It is especially noteworthy that Luke repeatedly inserts the λαός into the narrative against his Markan Vorlage: v. 1 (without correspondence in Mark 11.27); v. 6 (Mark 11.32: ὄχλος); v. 9 (the λαός becomes the addressee of the parable of the wicked tenants; diff. Mark 12.1: Jesus tells the parable to his opponents who, according to v. 19, only remain present in the background in Luke); v. 19 (Mark 12.12: ὄχλος); v. 26 (without correspondence in Mark 12.17); see also 20.45 diff. Mark 12.37b: ὄχλος. In this connection, Luke highlights time and again the distance between the opponents of Jesus and the λαός. The opponents are afraid of being stoned by the crowd (v. 6); they fear them (v. 19); and they do not succeed in diminishing Jesus in the judgment of the λαός (v. 26). It is obvious that with this configuration of the subscenes Luke endeavors to make concrete the situation intimated in 19.47-­49 (Jesus’s opponents want to kill him; this founders, however, on the positive stance of the λαός toward him). The end of this complex is marked in v. 26 by the statement that the opponents became silent (ἐσίγησαν; ingressive aorist) and by the introduction of the Sadducees as a new conversation partner in v. 27. 20.1-­8: The Questioning of Jesus’s Authority 1

And it happened one day as he was teaching the people in the temple and gospeling that the chief priests and scribes approached with the elders 2and said to him, “Tell us: in which authority do you do this?” Or, “Who is it who has given you this authority?” 3Thereupon he gave them as an answer, “I will also ask you something. Tell me: 4the baptism of John—­was it from heaven or from humans?” 5They considered carefully and said to one another, “If we say, ‘from heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ 6But if we say, ‘from human,’



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 379

the whole people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John is a prophet.” 7And they answered that they did not know where (it was) from. 8Thereupon Jesus said to them, “I also am not telling you in which authority I am doing these things.” This conversation is usually regarded as a controversy dialogue. This is supported by the fact that the episode begins with a starting situation (v. 1a) that is then commented on by narrative characters that are clearly identifiable as antagonists (vv. 1b-­2 here). But while controversy dialogues otherwise continue and conclude with a dictum of the protagonist (cf. Wolter 2002b, 26–­27), here Jesus answers with a counterquestion (vv. 3-­4) that is initially followed by something like an ‘interior dialogue’ (vv. 5-­6) before the conversation between Jesus and his opponents enters another, final round (vv. 7-­8). Unlike in the other controversy dialogues, of course, there is no material object of conflict here; rather, the concern is to condense the comprehensive statement of 19.47-­48 in a concrete episode (see at v. 1). In that regard, the object of the controversy between Jesus and his opponents is the conflict itself. For the determination of the form see also the introduction to 20.20-­26. Luke presumably used Mark 11.27-­33 as Vorlage. The relatively great number of minor agreements is noteworthy; cf. especially διδάσκοντος/διδάσκοντι (v. 1apar. Matthew 21.23; an equivalent is lacking in Mark 11.27); λέγοντες (v. 2apar. Matthew 21.23) instead of ἔλεγον (Mark 11.28); the lack of ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς (Mark 11.28) in v. 2par. Matthew 21.23; ἀποκριθείς . . . εἶπεν (v. 3apar. Matthew 21.24) instead of εἶπεν (Mark 11.29); ἐρωτήσω (v. 3bpar. Matthew 21.24) instead of ἐπερωτήσω (Mark 11.29); κἀγώ (v. 3bpar. Matthew 21.24; an equivalent is lacking in Mark 11.29); εἴπατέ μοι/εἴπητέ μοι (v. 3cpar. Matthew 21.24) instead of ἀποκρίθητέ μοι (Mark 11.29); the lack of ἀποκρίθητέ μοι (Mark 11.30) in v. 4par. Matthew 21.25; οἱ δέ (v. 5apar. Matthew 21.25) instead of καί (Mark 11.31); ἐὰν δέ (v. 6apar. Matthew 21.26) instead of ἀλλά (Mark 11.32); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 148ff; 1991, 65–­66; Ennulat 1994, 258ff. The evaluation is difficult. It is not impossible that the minor agreements go back, at least in part, to a deutero-­ Markan recension (cf. Ennulat 1994, 262–­63).

1 In a way that is characteristic for episodic narratives, the wide lens of the narrative angle of 19.47 is focused on a singular event (cf. especially the resumption of important terms: διδάσκειν, ἡμέρα, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, λαός, as well as the analogous transition of 8.1 to 8.4). The introduction with καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν corresponds to 5.17 (see also 8.22 and Burchard 1998, 335 and at 5.12); it is not a Septuagintism. Luke describes Jesus’s activity with the lexical pair διδάσκειν καὶ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (in the New

380

The Gospel According to Luke

Testament it appears elsewhere only in Acts 5.42; 15.35; see also Luke 8.1: κηρύσσων καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενος and Acts 28.31: κηρύσσων . . . καὶ διδάσκων; Matthew 4.23; 9.35; 11.1 [in reversed sequence in each case]) and expresses in this way that Jesus does the same thing in the Jerusalem temple that he has always done since the beginning of his public activity in Galilee (cf. 4.14-­15). It is likewise part of the episodic focusing that Luke also has the same groups turn up about whom he had said in 19.47 that they were seeking to kill Jesus—­the chief priests and the scribes as well as the “elders” who have taken the place of the “leaders of the people.” The concern of the episode already becomes clear in the first verse. It intends to characterize the action of the opponents as part of their ζητεῖν αὐτὸν ἀπολέσαι (19.47) first and then explain their endeavor’s lack of success. 2 The question, which is configured as a synonymous parallelismus membrorum, refers to the source of the authority of Jesus (for διδόναι ἐξουσία see at 4.6). Via the insertion of the summary 19.47-­48, Luke changes vis-­à-­vis Mark 11.28 the reference of ταῦτα ποιεῖς. While in Mark that phrase primarily referred to Jesus’s temple action, the readers in Luke are to assume that Jesus’s opponents ask him about the legitimation of his teaching activity in the temple (for the connection between ἐξουσία and διδάσκειν, cf. Sirach 45.17LXX about Moses: ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ . . . ἐξουσίαν ἐν διαθήκαις κριμάτων διδάξαι Ἰακὼβ τὰ μαρτύρια [“He gave him . . . authority through the ordinances to teach Jacob the testimonies”]). On the basis of the remark about Jesus’s opponents in 19.47 the readers can easily see that those mentioned in v. 1c pose a sham question. They do not really want to know whether Jesus’s authority comes from God (in order to then be able to draw the necessary conclusions). Rather, their question is part of a strategy that aims at Jesus’s removal. His opponents want to induce Jesus to ascribe divine ἐξουσία to himself so that they can accuse him of blasphemy (cf. already 5.21 and Deuteronomy 18.20; Zechariah 13.3). It is less likely that Luke has them pose an open question that moves in the framework of the options mentioned in v. 4 (thus Grangaard 1999, 69–­70; see also Huber 1995a, 50–­51 with reference to Mark 11.28). The members of the Sanhedrin (cf. 4.5) will put a similar question to Peter and John in Acts 4.7. 3-­4 Jesus answers with a counterquestion. The readers can answer it too without difficulty. On ἐρωτᾶν λόγον (3b), cf. Testament of Job 36.5; 3 Baruch 5.1; Apocalypse of Sedrach 8.5; 13.6 (in Jeremiah 45.14LXX the expression has the meaning “I ask you for a word [sc. of God]”). In pagan Greek texts it means something like “to pose a riddle”; cf. Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes 1.33 (ὅταν τις ἡμᾶς ἐρωτήσῃ λόγον ὃν λῦσαι οὐ δυνάμεθα . . . [“when someone presents us with a



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 381

riddle that we cannot solve . . .”]); Diogenes Laertius 9.23 names Parmenides as the first person to ἐρωτῆσαι τὸν Ἀχιλλέα λόγον (sc. the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise); see also Aristotle, Sophistici elenchi 177a6; Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes 2.186; Lucian of Samosata, Demonax 26; Galen, De semine, ed. Kühn 1964, IV: 605.17; 608.1. For the opposition “from heaven”–“from humans,” cf. especially Acts 5.38-­39 (ἐξ ἀνθρώπων–ἐκ θεοῦ); Galatians 1.1; 1 Thessalonians 2.13.

The expression βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου (for this phrasing cf., in addition to the synoptic parallels, Luke 7.29; Acts 18.25; 19.3) is a synecdoche (Lausberg 1949, §9.9: “included replacement of an expression through another” as “a special sort of metonymy”; see also Davies/Allison 2001–­2004, III: 160) that stands for the entirety of the proclamation of the Baptist. Jesus’s counterquestion is not a quid pro quo, and he therefore does not merely establish a formal condition that has no thematic connection to the question of his opponents and could be exchanged in principle with another question. Rather, he uses a common rhetorical technique. When a question is answered with a counterquestion within a dialogue, the first questioners are meant to be brought to answer their own question, for always the correct answer to the counterquestion is (or implies) also the answer to the opening question. The sequence of question and counterquestion in 10.25-­ 26, 29-­37 (cf. also the rabbinic texts mentioned in Bill. I: 861–­62) already serves this same goal. Thus, in the present case Jesus’s counterquestion has no other function than to let his opponents themselves find the answer to their own question and move them to the admission that Jesus’s ἐξουσία comes from God. It is not recognizable how Luke imagined the interweaving of the two answers. In any case, the rhetoric of the counterquestion functions both on the surface of the text (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ would also be the correct answer to the question about the source of Jesus’s ἐξουσία) and on the level of a more complex nexus along the lines of 3.6; 7.22-­23, 28-­29, or the like. If the Baptist is credited with heavenly authority, this must apply all the more with reference to Jesus, for he was announced by John as the “stronger one” and has also surpassed John through his deeds of power. 5-­6 The thematic interweaving of the two questions also finds expression in the dialogue that Jesus’s conversation partners conduct with one another, for what they consider among themselves regarding the consequences of their answer to Jesus can also be applied to their own question about the source of the ἐξουσία of Jesus’s teaching—­especially since the people also regard Jesus as a prophet (7.16; 24.19); see also 20.19 with the explicit reference to the fact that their fear of the people caused the scribes and chief priests to shrink back from laying a hand on Jesus then and there. For the difference between the opponents of Jesus and the “people” with

382

The Gospel According to Luke

reference to their relation to John the Baptist, see also 7.29-­30. The New Testament hapax legomenon συλλογίζεσθαι is meant to express that they considered the consequences of their answer (cf. Mussies 1978; Spicq 1994, III: 317). What unmasks them is the content of their considerations, for it refers not to the topic that is up for debate but to their answers’ consequences for themselves. In this way the opponents of Jesus are presented as a group that is not concerned with God or the people of God but solely with their own interests. The parable of the tenants of the vineyard (vv. 9-­19) that immediately follows will work out precisely this accusation with even greater clarity. 7 After recognizing that they are in a double bind, Jesus’s opponents have no choice but to refuse to answer on the basis of Jesus’s conditions (“from heaven or from humans”). However, they succeed only apparently and solely within the narrated world. For the readers, by contrast, it is clearly recognizable that the opponents ironically formulate a completely accurate diagnosis with reference to themselves. They do not, in fact, know the “whence” of the baptism of John because they do not know that it is “from heaven.” In 22.68—­i.e., during the hearing before the Sanhedrin—­ the Lukan Jesus will refer to this (“If I ask you, you do not answer”). 8 Luke has taken Jesus’s answer word for word from Mark 11.33, and it also picks up the phrasing of the opening question (v. 2b). The opponents’ lack of knowledge with regard to the origin of the baptism of John has brought to light the fact that they have posed only a sham question in v. 2, and this is also why Jesus can refuse to give them an answer. In this way Luke has the opponents’ first attempt at obtaining a pretext for proceeding against Jesus fail. 20.9-­19: The Parable of the Tenants of the Vineyard 9

He began to tell the people this parable: “A person planted a vineyard, leased it to vine-­growers, and left the land for a long time. 10And at the agreed-­upon time he sent a slave to the vine-­growers so that they would give him (his share) of the yield of the vineyard. The vine-­ growers, however, beat him and sent him away with empty hands. 11 Thereupon he sent yet another slave. But they also beat and insulted this one and sent him away with empty hands. 12Thereupon he sent yet a third. But they also beat up this one and drove him out. 13But the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.’ 14But when the vine-­growers saw him they discussed with one another and said, ‘This is the heir. Let us kill him so that the inheritance falls to us!’ 15And they drove him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 383

do against them? 16He will come and have these vine-­growers killed and give the vineyard to others.” When they heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” 17He, however, looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written, ‘The stone that the builders rejected, it has become the cornerstone’? 18 Everyone who falls on this stone will be smashed, and on whomever it falls, him it will crush.” 19 And the scribes and chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour—­but they feared the people—­for they knew that he had told this parable with reference to them. The episode is framed by v. 9a and v. 19c. A shift takes place from the “people” as the addressee of the narrative (πρὸς τὸν λαόν; v. 1) to the “scribes and chief priests” as the topic of the narrative (πρὸς αὐτούς; v. 19c). The text is composed of two parts, the narrative (vv. 9b-­16) and the interpretation (vv. 17-­18); vv. 16d-­17 function as a transition. First, we can note that the narrative itself (vv. 9b-­15) consists of three parts: (a) vv. 9b-­d narrate the starting situation. (b) Verses  10-­12 portray three failed attempts by the owner to collect the rent. (c) The narrative of the sending and murder of the son forms the climax (vv. 13-­15a). This event, which is described using past forms, is interrupted by a rhetorical question of the narrated narrator; after this a fourth part (d) announces the reaction of the owner of the vineyard (vv. 16a-­c), for which the narrator uses the future tense (ἐλεύσεται, ἀπολέσει, δώσει). Within the chronological sequence of the narrative, the hearers are thus assigned a position from whose perspective the reaction of the owner of the vineyard still lies in the future. The allegorical building blocks used in the Lukan version of the narrative are clearly recognizable. The scribes and chief priests of the Lukan framing narrative establish for themselves the most important of these point by point correspondences between the source domain and target domain (v. 19). They are the ones who are meant by the tenants of the vineyard. The owner of the vineyard is likewise transparent for God, and none other than Jesus himself is meant to be seen, of course, in his “beloved son” (v. 13c), whom he sends out last and who is killed by the tenants. By contrast, Luke has concealed the allegorizing of the vineyard and the slaves sent before the son, which stand for Israel and the Old Testament prophets in Matthew and Mark. The plot of the source domain is determined by a constellation that is often attested in the environment of early Christianity (cf. Hengel 1968a and especially Kloppenborg 2006, 278ff [presentation], 355ff [sources]). The owner of the vineyard or of another agricultural area cannot or does

384

The Gospel According to Luke

not want to work it himself for whatever reason. He therefore leases it out and then has great problems actually obtaining the fixed rent; in the process violent attacks can occur from the side of the tenants against the agents of the owner who are sent to collect the rent. The parable is also handed down in Mark 12.1-­12 (par. Matthew 21.33-­46) and the number and quality of the agreements make it probable that this text was the Vorlage of the Lukan version. There are, however, a whole series of minor agreements; cf. especially παραβολήν (v. 9a par Matthew 21.33) instead of ἐν παραβολαῖς (Mark 12.1a); ἄνθρωπος ἐφύτευσεν ἀμπελῶνα (v. 9bpar. Matthew 21.33) instead of ἀμπελῶνα ἄνθρωπος ἐφύτευσεν (Mark 12.1b); the lack of παρὰ τῶν γεωργῶν (Mark 12.2) in v. 10par. Matthew 21.34; οἱ γεωργοί (v. 10cpar. Matthew 21.35; an equivalent is lacking in Mark 12.3), the lack of πρὸς αὐτούς (Mark 12.4a) in v. 11par. Matthew 21.36; ἰδόντες (v. 14apar. Matthew 21.38; an equivalent is lacking in Mark 12.7); the lack of the ὅτι-­recitativum (Mark 12.7a) in v. 14par. Matthew 21.38; the sequence “throw out –­kill” (v. 15apar. Matthew 21.39) instead of “kill –­throw out” (Mark 12.8a); αὐτοῖς or τοῖς γεωργοῖς ἐκείνοις (15bpar. Matthew 21.40b; a Markan equivalent is lacking); the double parabolic saying of falling on the stone and of the falling stone (v. 18par. Matthew 21.44; a Markan equivalent is lacking); οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς (v. 19apar. Matthew 21.45; an equivalent is lacking in Mark 12.12); cf. further Neiryrnck 1974b, 150ff; 1991, 66ff; Ennulat 1994, 263ff. A large portion of the Matthean–­Lukan agreements against Mark can be explained as redactional changes. This does not hold true, however, for the agreement between v. 18 and Matthew 21.44 (this verse is textually disputed in Matthew, but its absence is very poorly attested and can be explained by the effort to clarify the connection between v. 43 and v. 45 that is interrupted by it). For Ennulat 1994, 269, this agreement makes the assumption of a “pre-­MtLk altered Markan text as a basis text for Matthew and Luke” undeniable. The thesis that we have a Mark–­Q double tradition here (e.g., Snodgrass 1983, 56) has not been able to establish itself. The version of the parable handed down in Gospel of Thomas 65 is streamlined at a number of points. As in Luke, there is no description of how the vineyard is set up. Only two servants and then already the son are sent to collect the rent. The dialogue report in Luke 20.14parr. is shortened to a simple thought report (“. . . because they knew that he was the heir of the vineyard”; 65.7a). An addition is found only after the failure of the sending of the first servant (“The servant went and said it to his lord. Then his lord said, ‘Perhaps [they] did not recognize [him]’”; 65.4). The text in the Gospel of Thomas breaks off after the murder of the son (Luke 20.15aparr.). There follows only the well-­known call to pay attention (“Let the one who has ears to hear hear!”; 65.8). However, the saying about the stone that the builders rejected (Luke 20.17c-­dparr. as a quotation of Psalm 118.22) is then attached in Gospel of Thomas 66, though in the Lukan



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 385

short version, i.e., without Psalm 118.23, which is cited with it in Mark 12.11par. Matthew 21.42c-­d. The main difference from the synoptic versions lies in the fact that the parable does not use any allegorical building blocks. The owner of the vineyard is not transparent for God and the servants and the son are not transparent for the Old Testament prophets and Jesus. Moreover, every connection to Isaiah 5 is lacking. Despite this fact, one probably cannot regard Thomas as an older version of the parable. The combination with the quotation of Psalm 118.22 (see above) in logion 66 shows it to be secondary vis-­à-­vis the synoptic tradition.

9 Unlike in Mark 12.1, Jesus addresses not his opponents but rather the Jerusalem λαός (9a). Furthermore, in the exposition of the narrative (9b-­d) Luke has deleted the allusions to Isaiah 5.2 from Mark 12.1. Quite a bit speaks for the view that he wanted to distance the parable from an interpretation through Isaiah’s vineyard song because it places the narrative in a skewed light, since the concern there is with the incorrect behavior of the vineyard and not, as here, with the behavior of its tenants. Thus, in the Lukan version of the parable, the vineyard does not function as an allegorical symbol for Israel. In a small strand of the textual tradition ἄνθρωπος (9b) is followed, as in many Lukan parables, by a τις (A W Θ f 13 1241, 2542 al vgs sy), which is also added by f 13 2542 in Matthew 21.33 and by W Θ f 13 2542 in Mark 12.1. The pronoun is lacking in ‫ א‬B (C D) L Ψ f 1 33 𝔐 aur f vg. Nestle-­Aland27 places it in square brackets. The manuscript evidence speaks clearly for a later addition of the pronoun, and the internal evidence points in this same direction. It is more likely that it was added in order to adjust the phrasing to the typically Lukan beginnings of parables with ἀνθρωπός τις (see at 10.30) than that it was deleted subsequently because it was lacking in Matthew 21.33 and Mark 12.1

The setting up of a vineyard or another agricultural area for the purpose of leasing it out was an economic investment that was widespread in antiquity (for the different forms of leasing, cf. Klauck 1978, 297; W. Schottroff 1996, 29ff). This event also functions as the starting situation in numerous rabbinic parables (cf. Ziegler 1903, 255ff; Hengel 1968a, 17–­18; Thoma/ Lauer 1986, 237ff with the discussion of Pesiqta of Rab Kahana 16.9). The verb ἀποδημεῖν lets the owner of the vineyard return to—­or occupy for the first time—­his permanent place of residence, which is located elsewhere. For this reason, one should not translate it with “go on a journey” or the like, for this suggests that the owner lives at the location of the vineyard, but that is certainly not the case. The temporal specification χρόνους ἱκανούς does not intend to allude to the delay of the parousia (contra Grässer 1977, 113; Klauck 1978, 313–­14) but rather is meant to

386

The Gospel According to Luke

create the scenic presupposition for the continuation of the narrative. The duration of the absence of the owner makes it necessary to have the yearly rent collected by agents. Thus, the master of action of the parable is presented as a financial investor. φυτεύειν ἀμπελῶνα is not an “Old Testament expression” (thus Klein 625 n. 10); cf. Dionysius Thrax, Fragment, ed. Linke 1977, 36; Philo, De agricultura 148; De virtutibus 28; De praemiis et poenis 128; P. Cairo Zen. 59300.1; 59352.5–­6. ἐφύτευσεν can also be understood as a causative active verb (cf. Kühner/Gerth 1890–­1898, II/1: 99–­100; Moulton/Turner 1963, III: 52–­53; see also v. 16; 7.5; 9.9; 22.11; 24.20). For ἐκδιδόναι with the meaning “loan, lease” cf. W. Bauer 1988, 480; Moulton/Milligan 1963, 192. The phrasing χρόνους ἱκανούς etc. occurs in the New Testament only in Luke (see also Luke 8.27; 23.8; Acts 8.11; 14.3; 27.9); it is lacking in the Septuagint but not in Hellenistic literature (e.g., Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.6.13; Diodorus Siculus 1.59.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 10.15.1; Polybius 3.112.3; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 1.326; 7.22; Contra Apionem 1.100, 237; see also W. Bauer 1988, 760).

10-­12 The owner of the vineyard makes three attempts to have the agreed-­ upon rent be collected by his agents (on this cf. P. Warren 12 with the receipt for the obtained yearly rent [τὸν φόρον καρπῶν; lines 5–­6], which the owner of an olive plantation has written out by her son, who evidently was entrusted with collecting the sum; German in Hengstl 1978, No. 150); each time, however, he fails due to the resistance of the tenants. The narrator orients himself here toward the narrative law of three (cf. Olrik 1982, 60–­61; Bultmann 1995, 207, 342–­43 with additional examples; G. Delling, ThWNT 8: 223–­24; for the two instances of προσέθετο [11a, 12a] see at 19.11) in order to make clear that the sending of yet another slave would not change the situation. The dativus temporis καιρῷ in 10a (cf. BDR §200) designates the time for payment established in the lease agreement. That the tenants had been economically successful and therefore had become so arrogant that they no longer felt bound to the agreement (thus Fitzmyer 1284; see also Klein) does not emerge from the text. It is more conceivable that they had fallen into economic distress due to an unsuccessful harvest and could not produce the established rent of produce or money (cf. W. Schottroff 1996, 29–­30; for the thesis advanced by C. A. Evans 1996 that tenants did not always have to be exploited and powerless farmers cf. the critical remarks of Kloppenborg 2006). Nevertheless, it is unmistakable that the narrator stands on the side of the owner and does not call into question his right to collect the rent. In the papyri there are numerous testimonies for the fact that there were a wide variety of reasons tenants refused to hand over the agreed-­upon rent to the agents of the owner



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 387

and even became violent toward them, though there are thus far only a few attestations for the latter; cf. P. Cairo Zen. 59018.7–­8 (Kloppenborg 2006, 364ff: the agents were run out of the village [ἐγβαλεῖν ἐκ τῆς κώμης; cf. 12b]); see also 59368.30 (it says the following about someone who wanted to collect the rent: κενὸν ἀπῆλθεν [“He went away empty handed”]). Columella, De re rustica 1.1.20 describes this situation from the perspective of the owners: “For men who purchase lands at a distance, not to mention estates across the seas, are making over their inheritances to their slaves, as to their heirs and, worse yet, while they themselves are still alive, for it is certain that slaves are corrupted by reason of the great remoteness of their masters and, being once corrupted and in expectation of others to take their places after the shameful acts which they have committed, they are more intent on pillage than on farming” (trans. Ash 1977).

An increase of violent activity from the first to the last agent is unmistakable, but unlike in the synoptic parallels (Mark 12.2-­5par. Matthew 21.34-­36) none of them is killed. A reference to an unspecified number of additional slaves who the owner of the vineyard sends off is also completely lacking. From this, some have inferred that Luke speaks completely unallegorically at this point and does not want to point beyond the narrated world (e.g., Jeremias 1977, 69; Kloppenborg 2006, 208). By contrast, others regard it as entirely possible that Luke, like the synoptic counterparts, also wants to allude to the fate of the prophets (on this see at 6.23; cf. e.g., Klauck 1978, 314; Schneider; Nolland; Grangaard 1999, 83), and indeed, one cannot effectively contest that this part of the narrative is at least open to such an interpretation in Luke as well. For the readers, however, this allegorical reference is only recognizable in light of the continuation. 13 An interior monologue and the typically Lukan question τί ποιήσω; (cf. Luke 3.10, 12, 14; 12.17; 16.3; Acts 2.37; 4.16) mark the narrative nodal point that is decisive for the continuation of the narrative. For this reason, one should not connect this question with Isaiah 5.4 (τί ποιήσω ἔτι τῷ ἀμπελῶνι μου [“What should I do still for my vineyard?”]) (contra Brooke 1995, 283; Grangaard 1999, 85). ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος is in the first place simply “the owner of the vineyard”; thus this designation also makes good sense within the source domain (see further at 19.32-­ 35a). However, the fact that its allegorical extension is God becomes clear at the latest when the “lord of the vineyard” announces his intention to send his “beloved son” (υἱὸς ἀγαπητός), for this designation calls to mind again the identical predication of Jesus by the voice from heaven in 3.22 (see further there). According to the ancient law regarding messengers, the other agents were actually already authentic representatives of the owner

388

The Gospel According to Luke

of the vineyard. Therefore the son is not distinguished from them on the level of the law regarding messengers but solely with respect to the law regarding possessions. Accordingly, the interior monologue of the tenants in v. 14 begins at precisely this point with the identification of the son as “heir” (κληρονόμος). The hope (ἴσως; only here in the New Testament; cf. further W. Bauer 1988, 778) that the owner of the vineyard expresses in 13d is aimed at the possibility that the tenants will treat the son differently than the slaves (ἐντρέπεσθαι; on this see at 18.2) for his sake (i.e., for the sake of the owner or for God’s sake), for he defines the identity of the son through the son’s relation to himself. 14-­15a Precisely in this respect the tenants do not follow him, for they view the identity of the son as defined not by his relation to the father (“beloved son”; v. 13c) but by his relation to the vineyard (“heir”; 14b). Luke has the tenants devise a conspiracy to murder the son, which is guided by an intention based on an assumption that can be reconstructed only with great difficulty. Perhaps Luke has them speculate that with the murder of the sole heir (this nuance can certainly be implied by υἱὸς ἀγαπητός [v. 13c]; cf. Genesis 22.2, 12, 16: there it is the translation of ‫“[ ֵּבן יָ ִחיד‬only son”]), the owner of the vineyard will die without a physical heir in the future and that the vineyard, which will then be without an owner, will fall to them. One should not ask whether this expectation has a legal basis, for the dialogue of v. 14b-­d has no other function than to characterize the tenants. It suffices that they regard their assumption to be plausible. The tenants are presented to the readers as a group whose action is based on a massive loss of the sense of reality and that harbors great illusions about the consequences of their action. Every reader knows on the basis of the allegorical coding of the narrative (see the introductory comments on 20.9-­9) that the murder of the son will not, of course, bring the tenants into possession of the vineyard but can only have the result described in v. 16. It is therefore likely that this narrative move was designed from the beginning as a conscious allegorical encoding of the activity of the scribes and chief priests against Jesus, to whom neither the futility of their actions nor their consequences for them are clear. The reason why Luke reverses the sequence of Mark 12.8 in 15a and has the tenants first throw the son out of the vineyard and then kill him (see also Matthew 21.39) is probably the result of an endeavor to adjust it to the story of Jesus. It was probably less decisive that Jesus was crucified outside the city, however, for this fact does not play a role in Luke (see also 13.33; 24.18 as well as Giblin 1985, 69; Marshall; Kloppenborg 2006, 210; Grangaard 1999, 87–­88 overdraws the textual findings). Rather, the tradition of the burial of Jesus was probably more important, for it does not fit with this that the corpse of the son remains unburied (and is eaten



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 389

by animals outside the vineyard). Mark apparently regarded this action only as a detail in the source domain, to which he assigned no allegorical connection to the fate of Jesus. 15b-­16c The rhetorical question in 15b interrupts the narrative that is then continued in 16a-­c with future verb forms. This manner of narration corresponds to 11.8; 12.37d, 44; 14.24. Both here and there it has the function of letting the level of the source domain and the level of the target domain merge into each other, though without every detail of the narrated events being designed with a view to an allegorical decoding. Within the narrated world, the event takes its foreseeable course. The owner now comes himself to call the tenants to account (ἀπολέσαι is a causative active; see further at v. 9) and to lease the vineyard out to other vine-­growers. Whether 16a wants to allude to the prophetic announcements according to which God “comes” to hold judgment (cf. Isaiah 35.4; 66.16; Psalm 50.3; 1 Enoch 1.9) must remain open. Equally unanswerable is the question of whether Luke wanted the announcement of the transfer of the vineyard to “others” (sc. tenants; 16c) to be understood as an allusion to the apostles (Johnson; Grangaard 1999, 89; Green) or the Christian ‘people of God’ as a whole (thus, e.g., Marshall; Fitzmyer II: 1281; Nolland; Bock; Eckey II: 825: “the apostles and disciples of Jesus, also the people from many nations brought to the people of God gathered in Jesus’s name”). All this is probably an overinterpretation. For this reason, one can probably only say that for Luke and his readers the second part of the announcement (16b) had been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. 21.22). 16d The shocked exclamation of the listening “people” (cf. v. 9) is handed down only in Luke. μὴ γένοιτο is a typically Pauline phrasing (fourteen attestations in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians) that does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. As a two-­word sentence it is attested elsewhere only in non-­Jewish Hellenistic texts (e.g., Plutarch, Lycurgus 20.6; Moralia 282–­83; Epictetus, Dissertationes 1.1.13; 10.7; cf. further W. Bauer 1988, s.v. γίνομαι I.3.a). The hearers place themselves not “on the side of the vine-­growers” (thus Klein 627), for the exclamation does not make sense on the level of the source domain but only on the level of the target domain. It is difficult to decide whether Luke has the people become shocked by the punitive action ‘of God’ against the Jerusalem authorities described in 16b-­c (thus, e.g., Fitzmyer; C. F. Evans; Nolland; Eckey II: 825 with the restriction to 16c: “Evil vine-­growers may be punished, the Jerusalem leadership elite may be punished, but the vineyard should not be handed over to foreigners”; Grangaard 1999, 91: the interjectors assume that the “Romans” are meant by the “others”) or by the entire event, i.e., including the murder of the “beloved son” Jesus that is still outstanding in the fictional narrative situation (thus, e.g., Jülicher

390

The Gospel According to Luke

1976, II: 400; Klauck 1978, 313; Marshall; Bock). The continuation in vv. 17-­18, which ends with the rejection of Jesus, makes the former interpretation more likely. In that case the averting exclamation would not characterize the listening people but rather rhetorically prepare for the following threat of unsalvation. 17-­18 Jesus answers with two christological parabolic sayings in which he equates the “son” of the parable (and on the level of the target domain, of course, himself) with a “stone” (λίθος). Originally, this connection might have arisen through a wordplay, for the Hebrew words for “son” (‫)ּבן‬ ֵ and “stone” (‫)א ֶבן‬ ֶ are very similar (see also at 3.8 and Snodgrass 1983, 113ff). 17 The first parabolic saying is a quotation from PsalmLXX 117.22. With it Jesus answers the interjection of the listening people by explaining why the Jerusalem authorities (in the picture: the οἰκοδομοῦντες) bring such a massive fate of unsalvation upon themselves with their action against him—­because God (ἐγενήθη is passivum divinum) will raise him from the dead. Luke later takes up this opposition of the treatment that the “stone” receives, first from the people and then from God, in the so-­called ‘contrast scheme’ of the mission speeches and defense speeches of Acts (cf. especially the explanation of this schema through the same quotation in Acts 4.10-­11 and 2.23-­24; 3.13; 5.30; 10.39-­40; 13.28-­30). In 1 Peter 2.4, 7, PsalmLXX 117.22 is also related to the passion and resurrection of Jesus, and via ἀποδοκιμάζειν the psalm saying is also connected with the first announcement of suffering and resurrection (Mark 8.31par. Luke 9.22; see also Luke 17.25). With the exception of Hebrews 12.17, this verb is found in the New Testament only in these two textual nexuses. The expression κεφαλὴ γωνίας (lit. “the outermost of the corner”; cf. Galen, De usu partium, ed. Helmreich 1968, 3.63) designates “the foundation stone at the outermost (frontmost) corner, with which a building is begun, is fixed in its position, and is determined in its direction; as (hewn) square stone block it is of special quality” (H. Krämer, EWNT 1: 647). The thesis—­repeated many times since the essays of Jeremias (see Jeremias 1925; 1930; 1937)—­that the term could also designate the “concluding stone of the building” (J. Jeremias, ThWNT 1: 793) or the “‘keystone’ of the arch” (Eckey II: 825) is very unlikely, for it is based exclusively on attestations that postdate the New Testament, and moreover, the meaning of those attestations is contested (cf. the critical discussion of the texts in Merklein 1973, 144ff).

18 Probably due to the catchword connection “stone” (λίθος), a second parabolic saying was added (see also Matthew 21.24; beyond this cf. the



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 391

combination of PsalmLXX 117.22 with the saying of the “stone of stumbling” [Isaiah 8.14] in 1 Peter 2.7-­8 and Romans 9.32), which thematizes the eschatic effect of unsalvation that proceeds from Jesus. The talk is no longer of the cornerstone. One often sees an allusion to Isaiah 8.14-­15 and Daniel 2.34-­35, 44-­45 in this saying. For several reasons, however, this is unlikely. The terminological overlaps are much too unpronounced to offer a basis for identifying these texts as pretexts (see also Jülicher 1976, 401). Also, the antithetic reciprocity of the two halves of the sentence (‘whoever falls on the stone’–‘upon whomever the stone falls’) is so pointed that a reproduction of a proverbial saying is more likely. In this there may have been talk of an earthly pot or jar that was destroyed in one way or the other (see also Marshall). The parallel in Esther Rabbah 7.10 on Esther 3.6 also points in this direction: “In this world Israel is like the stone, as it says . . . [quotation of Numbers 23.9; Isaiah 51.1; Genesis 49.24; Psalm 118.22]. The other nations, by contrast, are like potsherds, as it says . . . [quotation of Isaiah 30.14]. If a stone falls on a pot, woe to the pot; if a pot falls on a stone, woe to the pot. In either case, woe to the pot! Thus whoever ventures to attack them receives his punishment through their hand.”

In any case, the parabolic saying describes a hopeless no-­win situation and wants to make clear at the level of the target domain that for Jesus’s opponents there is no possibility of escaping their fate of unsalvation. 19 The fiction transforms itself into reality, for the scribes and chief priests attempt to do exactly what was said about them in the parable (for the meaning of πρὸς αὐτούς [19c] in this sense cf. W. Bauer 1988, 1423; BDR §239.6). Correspondingly, Luke turns the imperfect ἐζήτουν of his Vorlage (Mark 12.12; see also Luke 19.47; 22.2) into the punctiliar aorist ἐζήτησαν, which he strengthens through the addition ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ (this temporal specification occurs only in Luke in the New Testament; see at 2.38). In this way Luke lets the melody that has quietly accompanied his narrative of Jesus’s teaching in the temple since 19.47 move loudly into the foreground for a moment. However, the reference to Jesus’s opponents’ fear of the Jerusalem λαός (diff. Mark 12.12: ὄχλος) in 19b immediately pushes it into the background again (καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν must be understood adversatively; cf. in addition to BDR §442.1 especially Blomqvist 1979). This part of the sentence functions as a parenthesis, because the grounding (ἔγνωσαν) γάρ in 19c can only refer to 19a. Luke has explained in 19.48 why the scribes and chief priests fear the people and therefore venture nothing against Jesus.

392

The Gospel According to Luke

20.20-­26: The Question about the Tax for Caesar 20

And they watched him furtively and sent out spies, who pretended that they were sincere in order that they might catch him in something he said, so that they could hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21And they asked him and said, “Rabbi, we know that you speak and teach in a proper way and do not show favoritism, but teach the way of God according to truth. 22Is it permitted for us to pay tribute to Caesar or not?” 23But he observed their craftiness and said to them, 24“Show me a denarius! Whose image and inscription does it have?” They answered, “Caesar’s.” 25Thereupon he said to them, “Then give back what is ‘Caesar’s’ to Caesar—­and what is God’s to God!” 26And they did not succeed in catching him in what he said before the people, and they marveled at his answer and became silent. The readers only have to cross a low threshold to get to the new section, for the grammatical subject of the exposition—­the scribes and chief priests—­are not renominalized but taken over from v. 19. Luke deletes the collaboration of the Pharisees from Mark 12.13, which may have its reason in the fact that Jesus’s accusers before Pilate refer to this episode in an untruthful way (23.2) and Luke did not want to incorporate the Pharisees in this proceeding against Jesus. Form-­critically it is a chreia expanded by the dialogue in v. 24. The commonalities with 20.1-­8 in particular are unmistakable. Both here and there Jesus is asked a sham question whose answer should give the opponents a pretext for proceeding against him. In both cases Jesus answers with a counterquestion that forces the questioners to answer their question themselves. Both texts could therefore be assigned to the subgenre “entrapment-­question dialogue.” The interest of the Lukan narrative is first recognizable in the exposition, more specifically in the telic clause ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται αὐτοῦ λόγου (v. 20b) and its consecutive continuation ὥστε παραδοῦναι αὐτόν etc. (v. 20c). The scribes and chief priests want to induce Jesus to make a statement that brings him into conflict with the political powers. In this way, Luke also identifies this narrative as another attempt of the ζητεῖν αὐτὸν ἀπολέσαι (19.47) of the opponents of Jesus. However, through the taking up of ἐπιλαβέσθαι in the narrator’s concluding remark and the new orientation of this verb to Jesus’s relation to the λαός (v. 26a), Luke also relates the dialogue to the other side of the introductory summary: Jesus’s positive resonance among the people (19.48). In this way he also ascribes to the entrapment question the intention of discrediting Jesus among the Jerusalem λαός. With this double orientation in v. 20b-­c and in v. 26a Luke makes the craftiness of the question formulated in v. 22 clear. A



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 393

negative answer will result in an accusation to the Roman governor; an affirmative answer will discredit him among the Jewish people. Everything supports the view that Luke knew the story from Mark 12.13-­17 (par. Matthew 22.15-­22). Only a few minor agreements are worthy of mention: λέγοντες (v. 21apar. Matthew 22.16) instead of λέγουσιν αὐτῷ (Mark 12.14); διδάσκεις (v. 21bpar. Matthew 22.16) is lacking in Mark 12.14; δείξατέ/ἐπιδείξατέ μοι (v. 24apar. Matthew 22.19) instead of φέρετέ μοι (Mark 12.15); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 153–­54; 1991, 68–­69; Ennulat 1994, 269ff. There is a parallel in Gospel of Thomas 100: “They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, ‘The ones who belong to Caesar demand taxes from us.’ He said to them, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Give to God what is God’s. And what is mine, give to me.’”

20 In 6.7; 14.1-­2 Luke had already used παρατηρεῖν to characterize the behavior of the scribes and Pharisees (see further at 6.7). In 6.7 it was motivated in a similar manner as here by the intention of being able to “accuse” Jesus. ἐγκάθετοι are not “watchdogs” (contra W. Bauer 1988, 433). Rather, the term designates people who act under false identities (cf. Plato, Axiochus 368e; see also Josephus, Bellum judaicum 2.27; 6.286; Demosthenes, Epistulae 3.34; Diodorus Siculus 16.68.6; Polybius 13.5.1). Precisely this aspect is expressed by the participle ὑποκρινόμενοι (on this see at 12.1d) and by the elaboration of its content through δίκαιοι εἶναι. The people whom the opponents send to Jesus are to act as if they had honest intentions (see also at v. 22). The telic clause makes clear what the scribes and chief priests have in mind. They want to induce Jesus to make a statement (ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι with a double genitive as in Jeremiah 38.32LXX) that brings him into conflict with the Roman governor. Luke also designates him as ἡγεμών in Acts 23.24, 26, 33; 24.1, 10; 26.30 (see also Luke 2.2; 3.1). The lexical pair ἀρχὴ καὶ ἐξουσία in the singular has a Hellenistic origin and describes in a comprehensive way the presence and exercise of political power (cf. Aristotle, Magna moralia 1199b2; Plutarch, Moralia 619c; Aelius Aristides, Ars rhetorica 312 [Lenz/Behr 1976, I: 239.3]). The opponents’ plan to be able to “hand over” (παραδοῦναι) Jesus to the governor picks up, on the one hand, the announcement of the passion in 18.32 (παραδοθήσεται . . . τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) and is taken up, on the other hand, in 23.1-­2. In the latter text Luke states that Jesus’s opponents put their intention into action with reference to the dialogue that follows in 20.21ff, although they have to use an obvious lie to do so. 21 For the address of Jesus as διδάσκαλος see at 7.40. Rhetorically this speech opening is a captatio benevolentiae (cf. Lausberg 1973, §277α). In it the dissembling of the “spies” takes place, which Luke had designated

394

The Gospel According to Luke

in v. 20a with ὑποκρινόμενοι ἑαυτοὶ δίκαιοι εἶναι. Luke combines here the ideal of “right” speech and teaching, which is found primarily in non-­ Jewish texts (cf. e.g., Plato, Gorgias 457d; Leges 899c; Alcibiades I 113e; Xenophon, Cyropaedia 3.3.53; Plutarch, Agesilaus 29.2; Moralia 414e; Diogenes Laertius 3.94; see also Deuteronomy 5.28: ὀρθῶς λαλεῖν), with two ideals that are found only in Jewish texts: “Not to show favoritism” (λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον or προσωπολη[μ]ψία; for this cf. comprehensively K. Berger, EWNT 3: 433–­35) is the characteristic feature of the righteous judge who privileges or disadvantages no one on the basis of his or her social and/or economic status but judges in a strictly impartial and incorruptible manner (cf. Leviticus 19.15); it therefore also characterizes the judgment of God (Testament of Job 43.13; Jubilees 5.15–­16; 21.4; 33.18; Psalms of Solomon 2.18; 1 Enoch 63.8; Romans 2.11; Ephesians 6.9; Colossians 3.25). Word-­field combinations with ἀλήθεια and cognates are found, e.g., in 1 Enoch 63.8 (“Our Lord is true in all his doing . . . , and his judgment does not show favoritism”); Testament of Job 43.13 (the Lord is righteous, ἀλήθεια are his judicial judgments [κρίματα], with him there is no προσωποληψία); as characteristics of teachers, e.g., in Malachi 2.9: “I have made you contemptible and low . . . because you (sc. the priests) have not observed my ways (LXX: ἀνθ’ ὧν ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἐφυλάξατε τὰς ὁδούς μου) but have shown favoritism in the instruction (MT: ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ ‫;ּב‬ ַ LXX: ἐν νόμῳ).” According to Psalm 25.8; Micah 4.2, it is God himself who “teaches his way”; but in Psalm 51.15 the repentant pious person also wants to do this (see also Proverbs 4.11LXX: to teach the way of wisdom). The “way of God” is the “way” commanded by God, i.e., the conduct of life commanded by God (see also Deuteronomy 8.6; 10.12-­13; 1QS III, 10–­11; CD XX, 18).

When one also takes into account the literary context of this verse, Sirach 4.27LXX is not far off: μὴ ὑποστρώσῃς ἀνθρώπῳ μωρῷ σεαυτὸν καὶ μὴ λάβης πρόσωπον δυνάστου (“Do not submit yourself to a foolish person and do not pay attention to the status of a powerful one”). Since the rhetoric of the captatio benevolentiae requires that it “be connected with the matter being negotiated” (Lausberg 1973, §277α), precisely this element makes their pragmatic clear. Jesus is exhorted to answer without political consideration and fear. 22 After this preparation the spies now actually present a halakhic problem; for the use of ἔξεστιν in this context, cf. especially the controversy dialogues on Sabbath observance (Luke 6.2, 4, 9; 14.3 and parallels; John 5.10) as well as Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 20.268 (κατ’ αὐτοὺς [sc. νόμους] τὰ μὲν ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν ποιεῖν, τὰ δὲ κεκώλυται [“According to them (sc. the laws) the one is permitted to us, but the other prohibited”]). Accordingly, with the “we” Luke has the questioner designate the



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 395

Jewish people, whom God has chosen and entrusted with the observance of instructions that distinguish it from the nations. He replaces the Markan Latinism κῆνσος with φόρος (Josephus, Bellum judaicum 1.154 uses the same term for the tribute that Pompey “imposed upon the land and the Jerusalemites” in 63 BCE; see also 2.118). Καίσαρι stands metonymically for the Roman Empire, and the system of the exploitation of the provinces by the Roman financial administration forms the background (cf. Stenger 1988, 13ff). In New Testament times head tax and land tax (tributum capitis and tributum soli) were required only from provincials; citizens of the Roman Empire were exempt from such fees. In Judea these taxes were collected on the basis of the census of 6/7 CE (see at 2.2). From then on, the tax collection by the Romans was perceived by the Jewish side not only as an economic burden but also as a symbol of the subjection of the people of God under a foreign power. Accordingly, the resistance led by Judas the Galilean and the Sicarii organized itself against the census and payment of taxes and was also directed against Jews who were prepared to cooperate (cf. Acts 5.37; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 20.102; Bellum judaicum 2.117–­118, 433; 7.253–­255; on this cf. Hengel 1976, 79ff). Their argument was that the participants in the census and those who paid taxes “would, in addition to God, accept mortal rulers” (Josephus, Bellum judaicum 2.118; see also 433; Antiquitates judaicae 18.3–­7, 23; see also at 2.1–­3). Since the question of the payment of taxes to a foreign power was not regulated in the written Torah, it made a halakhic decision necessary. Its politically explosive nature is obvious.

The dissembling (ὑποκρίνεσθαι; v. 20) of the questioners thus consists in the fact that they pretend to be interested in the issuing of a halakah on the question of taxes by Jesus because it is also in this matter important to them—­put in the words of v. 21d—­not to deviate from the “way of God.” 23 The note that Jesus saw through to the true intentions of the questioners has the function of highlighting his superiority. In this respect it is comparable to Luke 5.22parr.; 6.8; 9.47; 11.17par. Matthew 12.5, where it is stated that Jesus can read the thoughts of his dialogue partners. The accusation of πανουργία comes from the philosophical anti-­Sophist polemic (cf. H. D. Betz 1972, 104–­5; O. Bauernfeind, ThWNT 5: 719–­23). 24-­25 These two verses tell how Jesus eludes the trap set up for him by avoiding answering the question of the spies as prescribed with “yes” or “no” (v. 22) (cf. Grangaard 1999, 106–­7). Jesus’s dictum is, of course, no answer to the posed question. But that is exactly what the narrative is about. For if Jesus had accepted the terms of the question of the spies, he would have fallen into the snare of his opponents. Two consequences follow from this. First, one is not permitted to make the incoherence of

396

The Gospel According to Luke

question and answer the starting point for source-­critical operations (contra Weiss 1989, 203; Mell 1994, 205), for it is precisely this feature that drives the narrative. Second, this incoherency makes it recognizable that the whole episode does not provide a contribution to the topic of “Christians and the state” but rather wants to recount a story of Jesus (contra Derrett 1970, 313–­38 and many others; with Grangaard 1999, 105: “This episode is about cunning and wit”); more precisely, it wants to tell how Jesus proved once again to be too clever for his opponents and therefore caused their efforts to get rid of him to fail again. 24 The denarius was “the standard silver coin” of the Roman Empire (B. Schwank, EWNT 1: 711). From 44 BCE, it had the image of Caesar on the front and a corresponding legend. This expresses the notion that the issuing of silver coins was an exclusive prerogative of the emperor and that in this way he was regarded, so to speak, as the symbolic owner of every single coin. The denarius was initially distributed for the payment of soldiers and Roman administrative officials. Only through them did it then also come into the possession of provincials. It also should not remain unnoticed that the denarius was by no means the coin with which the tributary taxes were to be paid (contra Matthew 22.19; Klostermann; Marshall; Grangaard 1999, 106 and others). What connects the denarius with the question posed in v. 22 is therefore not the problem of taxes but the person of the emperor brought into play by the questioners as the recipient of taxes. In this way, Jesus has forced the questioners to shift the center of gravity of their question—­from the general question about the tax to this one denarius. 25 For the understanding of the exhortation of Jesus the recursive concatenation of the genitives is decisive. With τὰ Καίσαρος Jesus quotes the answer of the questioners from v. 24d (Καίσαρος), which refers back again, in turn, to the interrogative pronoun τίνος (v. 24b). τὰ Καίσαρος are thus, in the first place, the “image and inscription” of the denarius, which make it recognizable as the possession of the Caesar, and that means—­ this one as well as all other denarii. This demand circumvents the original question about the halakhic permissibility of paying taxes, for it turns the dichotomy into a both-­and, because it lets both the claim of Caesar and the claim of God be given their due. On the one hand, it is a demand against which the governor, whom Jesus’s opponents want to mobilize against him (v. 20), can raise no objection. On the other hand, it is a demand that takes account of the theocratic reservation with which the resistance against the payment of taxes is justified (see at v. 22). The demand, however, brings the questioners into a very awkward situation, for now they must actually deliver their denarii to the Roman tax office. For Jesus and the disciples this is not a problem, for after all, they have none. The semantic ambiguity



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 397

of the verb ἀποδιδόναι used in Jesus’s answer is probably part of this rhetorical strategy, for it can be used both for the payment of taxes (e.g., Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.146; 12.159; 14.203) and to accentuate very generally the obligatory character of giving (cf. in this sense especially the parallel in Plutarch, Moralia 736c: ἔδει γὰρ πάντα ταῖς Μούσαις ἀποδοῦναι τὰ τῶν Μουσῶν [“It was necessary to give over everything to the Muses that belongs to the Muses”]); see also Romans 13.7. Also, one may not ask what or which action ἀποδιδόναι . . . τὰ τοῦ τῷ θεῷ refers to, for this is a demand that no one can disagree with. It is even possible that the καί in 25b should be understood as epexegetical: ‘Give back to Caesar his denarius, for precisely through this (sc. in separating yourself from this symbol of foreign rule) you give God what is due to him’ (cf. also Xenophon, Cyropaedia 5.3.4: ἄγε δή . . . τὰ τῶν θεών ἀποδόντες τοῖς μάγοις [“Go now, we want to give to the soothsayers what is due to the gods”]). 26 Luke returns to the narrative level of vv. 19-­20 and with this to the scribes and chief priests. Their θαυμάζειν shows that they have not really understood the answer of Jesus (θαυμάζειν always bears this accent in Luke; see at 1.63). The fact that Luke—­in contrast to what he does elsewhere—­supplements a pronouncement story additionally with a concluding remark is due to the exposition. Through the purpose clause of v. 20b-­c he has built up a narrative tension that must be taken up again and resolved at the end of the episode. Luke takes account of this expectation by taking up ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι from v. 20b in 26a and noting that Jesus’s opponents have been unsuccessful (οὐκ ἴσχυσαν); for the changed orientation of the verb vis-­à-­vis v. 20 see the introductory comments on 20.20-­26. Via the ingressive aorist ἐσίγησαν (diff. Mark 12.17), Luke sets a compositional caesura. This was the last episode in which the initiative proceeded from Jesus’s opponents, and Luke signals in this way that they make no further attempt to get rid of Jesus on their own initiative. This, however, does not affect the fact that this continues to be their wish, so that in this respect nothing has changed vis-­à-­vis the status quo described in 19.47. In 22.2 Luke will therefore explicitly state this fact once more. 20.27-­40: The Question about the Resurrection of the Dead 27

Some of the Sadducees, who dispute that there is a resurrection, approached, and they asked him a question, 28“Rabbi, Moses wrote for us: if someone’s brother, who has a wife and no children, dies, then his brother shall take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother. 29Once there were seven brothers. The first took a wife and died without children. 30And the second also. 31Then the third took her and in the same way all seven. They left no children when they

398

The Gospel According to Luke

died. 32Finally the wife died also. 33The wife now—­whose wife will she become in the resurrection? For all seven had her, after all, as wife.” 34 And Jesus said to them, “The children of this world ‘marry’ and are ‘married.’ 35But those who are counted worthy of attaining to that world and to the resurrection of the dead do not ‘marry’ nor are they ‘married.’ 36For they can no longer die, for they are equal to the angels, and as children of the resurrection they are children of God. 37But that the dead rise also Moses showed at the (passage about the) bush where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. 38But God is not (God) of the dead but of the living. For all live to him.” 39 And some of the scribes said, “Rabbi, you have spoken well.” 40 Thereafter they no longer dared to ask him anything. After a halakhic teaching dialogue, a dialogue on a topic of the haggadah now follows. Form-­critically the episode can be assigned very generally to the genre of chreia. A more precise genre determination could be ‘reported teaching dialogue’ or ‘erotapokrisis’ (cf. K. Berger 1984b, 1303ff; Volgers/Zamagni 2004). The structure is not complicated: exposition (v. 27), question (vv.  28-­33), answer (vv. 34-­38), and concluding remark of the author (vv. 39-­40), which relates the answer to the frame narrative. Luke’s Vorlage was very likely a deutero-­Markan version of Mark 12.18-­27. The last two verses come from Mark 12.28 (v. 39) and Mark 12.34c (v. 40)—­i.e., from the text that follows in Mark and which was otherwise omitted by Luke or else found entrance in 10.25-­28. The most conspicuous minor agreements are as follows: προσελθόντες/προσῆλθον (v. 27apar. Matthew 22.23) instead of ἔρχονται . . . πρός (Mark 12.18); λέγοντες (v. 27bpar. Matthew 22.23) instead of οἵτινες λέγουσιν (Mark 12.18); ἐπηρώτησαν (v. 27cpar. Matthew 22.23) instead of ἐπηρώτων (Mark 12.18); the lack of ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἀπέθανεν μὴ καταλιπὼν σπέρμα (Mark 12.21) in v. 30par. Matthew 22.26; ὕστερον (v. 32apar. Matthew 22.27) instead of ἔσχατον (Mark 12.22); the lack of πολὺ πλανᾶσθε (Mark 12.27) in v. 39par. Matthew 22.23; see further Neirynck 1974b, 155ff; 1991, 69–­70; Ennulat 1994, 273ff. On account of the strong differences between vv. 34-­36 and the two synoptic parallels, it has sometimes been assumed that Luke has reworked another source here (e.g., Schramm 1971, 170–­71). There is no reason for this assumption, however, for these verses can be much more easily interpreted as theological and rhetorical revision of the Markan text.

27 With προσελθόντες . . . ἐπηρώτησαν Luke has the scene begin in a typical Hellenistic narrative style (see also Xenophon, Anabasis 2.4.15; Philogelos 140; 154; 155; 201; 203; Lucian of Samosata, Demonax 12;



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 399

13). The Sadducees, who formed, according to Josephus, Bellum judaicum 2.119; Antiquitates judaicae 13.171; 18.11; Vita 10, one of the three “philosophical schools of the Jews” (αἱρέσεις τῶν Ἰουδαίων; Antiquitates judaicae 13.171), make their only appearance in the Lukan story of Jesus here (for the Sadducees, cf. R. Meyer, ThWNT 7: 35–­54; Stemberger 1991; H.-­F. Weiss, TRE 29: 589–­94). Luke communicates to the readers about them what is absolutely necessary for the understanding of the following dialogue. That they did not share the expectation of a resurrection of the dead (see also Acts 4.2; 23.8) also occurs in a similar way—­namely formulated in adjustment to the cultural encyclopedia of non-­Jewish readers—­in Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 18.16. They are said to have the conviction that the soul perishes with the body (συναναφανίζει; see also Bellum judaicum 2.165: “They deny the perdurance [διαμονή] of the soul and the punishments and rewards of Hades”; Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 9.29.1: “They deny not only the resurrection of the flesh, but they are also of the opinion that the soul does not remain”). As the basis for this position, reference is usually made to the fact that the Sadducees exclusively recognized the written Torah as absolutely normative (cf. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 13.297; 18.16) and did not find the expectation of a resurrection of the dead grounded in it (e.g., Kilgallen 1986; Fitzmyer). That there could, in fact, be a connection here is shown by the structure of their argumentation in vv. 28-­33, where they want to reduce the expectation of a resurrection of the dead to absurdity with the help of a commandment of the written Torah. The reading ἀντιλέγοντες (ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι) is with A W f 13 𝔐 a syh much more poorly attested than λέγοντες (‫ א‬B C D L N Θ f 1 33 and others), but due to the double negation it is probably the lectio difficilior. Nevertheless, this phrasing is not grammatically nonsensical (cf. BDR §429.2: “μή also sometimes occurs after verbs whose meaning is negative”).

28 For the address of Jesus as διδάσκαλος see at 7.40. The questioners refer to the institution of brother-­in-­law marriage, the so-­called levirate. The designation comes from Greek δάηρ (from δαιϝήρ; “husband’s brother, brother-­in-­law”; Heb.: ‫[ ָיָבם‬Deuteronomy 25.5, 7]), which became levir (cf. Modestinus, Digesta 38.10.4 §6: viri frater levir [“levir (means) brother of the man”]). The popular etymological derivation—­which was already common in antiquity—­from Latin laevus vir (“man on the left”) is incorrect. In the Torah this institution is regulated in Deuteronomy 25.5-­ 10; it constitutes the plot of the narrative in Genesis 38.8-­10 and in the book of Ruth.

400

The Gospel According to Luke

Luke largely takes over the phrasing of Mark 12.19; it is a free paraphrase of Deuteronomy 25.5-­6LXX: “But if brothers live together and one of them dies without having offspring, the wife of the one who has died should not belong to a foreign man who is not from the family, (but) the brother of the man should go to her and take her for himself as a wife and dwell with her (εἰσελεύσεται πρὸς αὐτὴν καὶ λήμψεται αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ γυναῖκα καὶ συνοικήσει αὐτῇ). And the child when it is born shall be established in the name of the deceased, and his name will not be blotted out from Israel.” In 28 Luke takes up phrasings from Genesis 38.8: “Judah said to Onan: Go into the wife of your brother and marry her as her brother-­in-­ law (‫אתּה‬ ָ ‫ ;וְ ֵיַּבם‬LXX: γάμβρευσαι αὐτήν) and raise up offspring for your brother (LXX: καὶ ἀνάστησον σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου).” If a son came forth from this marriage he was regarded as the son of the deceased. The original purpose of this regulation was to keep the possession of land of the deceased in the tribe’s possession and to give the widow a socially secure future. It emerges from Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.254–­256 (here with the use of the term ἄτεκνος which is otherwise used only by Luke in this context) that this practice had still not died out in New Testament times. In the Mishnah the levirate is regulated in the tractate Yevamot “sisters-­in-­law” (see also m. Eduyyot 5.5).

29-­32 The Sadducees construct a fictive case that could result in an application of the command of the levirate marriage. The fact that there are seven brothers points neither “decisively to the apocalyptic” (contra Schwankl 1987, 346) nor does it have something to do with the martyrdom of the seven brothers narrated in 2 Maccabees 7 (contra Schwankl 1987, 347ff). Rather, it must be interpreted as part of a rhetorical hyperbolism that serves the intensification of the argumentation. For the question posed in v. 33 two brothers would actually have been sufficient to illustrate the problem. Therefore, the fact that in the end there were seven adds nothing to the quality of the problem but functions as “a means of gradual amplificatio,” which is intended to increase the evidentia: “The credibility . . . is set aside for a moment in favor of a powerful evidentia” (all quotations from Lausberg 1973, §909). And why precisely “seven brothers”? Presumably because the number seven is an “expression of abundance as well as closedness” (H. Balz, EWNT 2: 118). The construction presupposes, by the way, that none of the six brothers who sequentially entered into marriage with their widowed sister-­in-­law was already married to another woman at this point (see also v. 33b). Contra Klostermann 1995, ἀπέθανεν ἄτεκνος (29b) is not an “official expression,” especially since the verb is lacking in the texts mentioned by him in P. Oxy.; cf., by contrast, Leviticus 20.20, 21; Sirach 16.3 (see also Genesis 15.2). 33 The question assumes hypothetically that there will be a resurrection of the dead in order to show this expectation to be absurd. It



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 401

presupposes a notion that is still widely disseminated today in Christian popular piety. This notion reckons that the reconstitution of individual relationships will accompany the resurrection. The denunciation of this conception as “typical male fantasy” (Luz 1985–­2002, III: 264) is therefore entirely inappropriate (cf., on the other side, the much fairer interpretation in Schwankl 1987, 354ff). The objection that according to Deuteronomy 25.5 the woman was “the wife only of the first (man)” and that even on the basis of this reason alone the example could not accomplish what was intended (Lührmann 1987, 204; see also Eckey) neither does justice to this text nor applies to the constructed case, for it is presupposed in it that the woman was the first and only wife of all seven brothers. 34-­38 Jesus’s answer is composed of two parts whose rhetorical functions supplement each other. Verses 34b-­36 is a refutatio, whose goal consists in refuting the argumentation of the opponents, and 37-­38 are a probatio, which has the task of presenting and grounding one’s own position. According to Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 3.9.1, both together constitute the argumentatio. 34–­35 The fact that these two verses belong together is marked by the antithetical parallelism of the terms (ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος / ὁ αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος; γαμοῦσιν καὶ γαμίσκονται / οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται). In the refutatio the Lukan Jesus first destroys the eschatological conception upon which the argumentation of the Sadducees is based (see at v. 33)—­the continuity between human life prior to death (as it plays out ‘in this world’ ever since Genesis 4.1) and life ‘in the coming world’ (for the notion of the dualism of the two “aeons” see at 18.30). Over against this assumption Jesus presupposes a sharp discontinuity between the life of the human being before death and the resurrection life, which does not permit post-­ resurrection life to be understood simply as a prolongation of earthly conditions. This understanding of resurrection lies completely along the lines of what Paul writes in his dispute with the deniers of the resurrection in Corinth (1 Corinthians 15.12)—­‘to marry’ and ‘to be married’ or, better, human sexuality belongs to what is “sown in corruption” (v. 42), to “flesh and blood,” which “cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (v. 50), and to “the mortal” (vv. 53, 54). All this will not be carried over into the resurrection life, for this is characterized by “incorruptibility” (vv. 42, 53, 54) and “immortality” (vv. 53, 54). Here the lexical pair γαμεῖν/γαμίσκεσθαι or γαμίζεσθαι probably designates not the contraction of marriages (“marry, be married”) but—­as in Luke 17.27; 1 Timothy 4.3 and perhaps also Luke 14.20—­sexual intercourse between man and woman (cf. van Tilborg 2002, 806; see further at 17.27).

402

The Gospel According to Luke

The expectation of resurrection expressed here differs from the one that Luke puts in Paul’s mouth in Acts 24.15. While Paul speaks of a “resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous,” i.e., of a resurrection of all people, according to 35a only those who “are considered worthy” (καταξιωθέντες) come into the joy of the resurrection, i.e., here there is—­in the terminology of Acts 24.15—­only a “resurrection of the righteous” (see also Luke 14.14).

36 First, 36a explains (γάρ) why in “that world” there will no longer be sexual intercourse between the men and women who will rise from the dead—­because they will arise to eternal life and because the need to preserve humanity through procreation thus falls away. Thus, after the resurrection no children need to be begotten any longer, and therefore the need to ‘marry’ and ‘be married’ also falls away. The immortality of the risen ones, which is asserted in this way, is furnished with the required explanation in 36b-­c (again γάρ). In 36c τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ ὄντες is the subject and υἱοί εἰσιν θεοῦ is the predicate noun. The Lukan text is characterized by a semantic field that is used in the description of postmortal conditions of salvation in early Judaism. Constitutive elements are ‘resurrection,’ ‘to be among the angels or like the angels,’ ‘children or sons of God,’ ‘immortality’: Wisdom of Solomon 5.5: “He (sc. the righteous person raised from the dead) was reckoned among the sons of God, and his lot is among the holy ones”; see also 2 Baruch 51.9–­10 in a very similar context about the risen ones: “And, further, time will no longer age them, for their dwelling will be in the heights of that world; they will be like angels and similar to the stars”; 1 Enoch 39.4–­5 (“And there I saw . . . the dwellings of the holy ones and the resting places of the righteous . . . their dwellings with his righteous angels and their resting places with the holy ones” [trans. Nickelsburg/Vanderkam 2004, 52]). Angels are also regarded as “sons of God” in other Jewish texts: Genesis 6.4; Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7 (in each case ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫“[ ְבנֵ י ֱא‬sons of God”]; LXX: ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ/μου); Psalm 89.7 (“Who is like the Lord among the sons of God?”); Daniel 3.5; 1 Enoch 6.2 (“the angels, the sons of heaven”). Not far from the argumentation that is placed in Jesus’s mouth here (see also v. 37c-­d) is Philo, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 5: “When Abraham left this mortal life, he too was added to the people of God, for he enjoyed imperishability, because he became like the angels (καρπούμενος ἀφθαρσίαν, ἴσος ἀγγέλοις γεγονώς).” 1 Enoch 15.6–­7 also indicates that the angels do not have sex on account of their immortality: “But you originally existed as spirits, living forever, and not dying for all the generations of eternity; therefore I did not make women among you” (trans. Nickelsburg/Vanderkam 2004, 36). For the expression “children of the resurrection” cf. W. Bauer 1988, 1664: “υἱός with genitive of thing to designate the one who shares in or is worthy of



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 403

this thing” with reference to Matthew 8.12; Luke 10.6; 16.8; Ephesians 2.2; 5.6; Colossians 3.6. It is most likely a Septuagintism; cf. 1 Samuel 26.16; 2 Kings 25.18; 1/3 Ezra 7.12; (2) Ezra (2 Esdras) 6.16, 19, 20; Psalms of Solomon 13.9. In more recent times, Seim 1994 and Fletcher-­Louis 1997 have revived the thesis that Luke has Jesus propagate the ideal of an “angelomorphic celibacy” (Fletcher-­Louis 1997, 86), so that what is spoken of is not the future resurrection from the dead but a “present (spiritual) resurrection of Christians from amongst a dead society” (88), which was meant to find its expression in the renunciation of marriage by the followers of Jesus. Alongside many other arguments, it speaks against this thesis that such a paraenetic interest (cf. Seim 1994, 217) fits neither the question of the Sadducees nor the continuation in vv. 37-­38, and its advocates are therefore forced to destroy the argumentative coherence of the text.

37-­38 The probatio (see above) is now concerned to demonstrate also positively the certainty of a resurrection of the dead, and precisely this is announced in 37a. Luke has Jesus carry out this demonstration with the help of a so-­called syllogism (cf. also K. Berger 1976, 386; Schwankl 1987, 403ff). Verses 37c and 38a function as the two premises from which a conclusion follows. One could indeed regard πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν (38b) as the conclusion, but in that case the conjunction γάρ would have to be interpreted not as explanatory but as inferential. While this is not impossible (cf. W. Bauer 1988, 305; K.-­H. Pridik, EWNT 1: 573), it would not be an entirely unforced exegetical interpretation. It is therefore simpler to regard 38b as an explanation of the second premise. This has the consequence that the conclusion that follows from the two premises is lacking here and has to be supplied by the hearers/readers. Thus, we are dealing with a so-­called ‘elliptical’ or ‘enthymematic’ syllogism. 37 The first premise (the ‘major premise’) of 37b-­c is—­like the example of the Sadducees—­obtained from the Torah, which is metonymically described here through “Moses” (see also 1QS I, 2–­3; VIII, 15–­16; 4Q504 III, 13; Luke 16.29, 31; 24.27; 2 Corinthians 3.15). Unlike Mark 12.26par. Matthew 22.31-­32, Jesus in Luke refers not to the narrated event behind the text but to its literary narration. Luke has Jesus quote the words with which ‫( יהוה‬in the LXX: κύριος) introduces himself in the narrative of the burning bush (ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου; for the metaplastic femininum cf. BDR §49.1) to Moses as “God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob” (Exodus 3.6), i.e., as God of three men who had already died long before the narrated event. The verb μηνύειν is also used outside the New Testament as a citation formula; cf. especially Philo, De Abrahamo 262 with reference to Genesis 15.6: “. . . through whom (sc. Moses) it is made known (δι’ οὗ μηνύεται): ‘He has trusted God’”; see

404

The Gospel According to Luke

also De opificio mundi 77 (God created the human last, ὥσπερ αἱ ἱεραὶ γραφαὶ μηνύουσιν [“as the Holy Scriptures make known”]); De congressu eruditionis gratia 34 (“These became men of multiple wives . . . ὡς αἱ ἱεραὶ μηνύουσι γραφαί”); De Abrahamo 262 and De fuga et inventione 137; De praemiis et poenis 53; with reference to a letter: Legatio ad Gaium 276 (γραφὴ δὲ μηνύσει μου τὴν δέησιν [“the writing will make known my request”]) as well as Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 6.97–­98 with reference to Homer, Odyssea 4.128 (ὡς Ὅμηρός τε μηνύει [“as Homer also makes known”]).

38 In 38a the second premise (the ‘minor premise’) then follows. It is a gnomic saying, i.e., a statement of general validity (for the tradition-­ historical background, cf. Schwankl 1987, 406ff.) Here the “middle term” required in syllogistic arguments, which must appear in both premises, is “God,” who is specified in both cases through a genitive attribute—­first as “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (v. 37c) and then as “God . . . of the living” (38a). These two genitive attributes are related to each other in the elliptical or enthymematic conclusion that the hearers/readers must draw. Since both premises are true, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” belong to the “living.” But this means that they, who have died long before the time at which the sentence was written in v. 37c, must have risen from the dead in the meantime. With this the argumentative goal formulated in v. 37a is reached. The notion that Abraham and the other patriarchs have already risen is also attested elsewhere: 4 Maccabees 7.19 (this verse is disputed textually); 16.25 (“The ones who die for God’s sake live to God [ζῶσιν τῷ θεῷ] like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the patriarchs”); 13.17 (“When we depart from life in this way, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us, and all our forefathers will praise us”); 18.23; Philo, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 5 (see at v. 36). The resurrection of Abraham is also presupposed in Luke 16.22ff).

The explanation πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν (38b) is part of the premise and certainly not an allusion to 4 Maccabees 7.19 and 16.25. In the background stands a general linguistic usage according to which ζῆν + dative functions as a designation of especially close attachment and, conversely, ἀποθνῇσκειν + dative as a designation for radical separation or separateness (cf. in the New Testament: Romans 6.10; 2 Corinthians 5.15; Galatians 2.19; 1 Peter 2.24 as well as Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 57, 111; De mutatione nominum 213; Alciphron, Epistulae 4.10.5). It is therefore most likely that πάντες refers to the ζῶντες of 38b and wants to explain in what respect God is a God of the living—­namely because there are no living ones who do not owe their life to God (see also Acts 17.28).



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 405

39 Luke has Jesus receive recognition from the side of individual scribes, whom he apparently envisages as constantly present in Jesus’s vicinity. In this way he connects the episode with the superordinated frame narrative (cf. 19.47; 20, 1, 19-­20). In Acts 23.6-­9 there is an analogous constellation when Paul is defended by the scribes against the Sadducees because he confesses the “hope in the resurrection of the dead” (v. 6). For the address of Jesus as διδάσκαλος see at 7.40. 40 The statement taken from Mark 12.34b is also meant to be read on the superordinated narrative level. It marks a break within the narrative collecting basin that began in 19.47 and reaches to 21.38 insofar as there are no further dialogue scenes in it in which the initiative proceeds from Jesus’s opponents. 20.41-­44: Is the Messiah David’s Son? And he said to them, “How can they say that the Messiah is David’s son? 42After all, David himself says in the book of Psalms: ‘The Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand 43until I place your enemies as a footstool under your feet.’ 44Thus, David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can it be that he is his son?” 41

The addressees of this quaestio are the τινες τῶν γραμματέων, who have just been mentioned, for only they can be meant with πρὸς αὐτούς. To be sure, it is noteworthy that Jesus’s question is not answered (so also Mark 12.35-­37a), nor does the narrator at least convey that no one was able to answer it (as Matthew 22.46 does). The origin and original intention of the saying are obscure (cf. the surveys of the opinions in Schneider 1972, 66ff; Marshall 744–­45; Fitzmyer II: 1312–­13). As a Vorlage Luke probably had Mark 12.35-­37b at his disposal. Through the reshaping of the narrative exposition and of the introduction to the opening question (v. 41 diff. Mark 12.35a-­b) Luke makes a saying about the scribes into a question directed toward the scribes (see above). Minor agreements that cannot be explained completely as independent redactions of the Markan Vorlage by Luke and Matthew are found only within the concluding question: οὖν (v. 44apar. Matthew 22.45a) has no equivalent in Mark 12.37b; καλεῖ (v. 44apar. Matthew 22.45a) instead of λέγει (Mark 12.37a); πῶς (v. 44bpar. Matthew 22.45b) instead of πόθεν (Mark 12.37b); end placement of ἐστίν (v. 44bpar. Matthew 22.45b) instead of υἱός (Mark 12.37b); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 159–­60; 1991, 71; Ennulat 1994, 287ff. This concentration is, of course, conspicuous. This is not to say that there is a single explanation for all of them.

406

The Gospel According to Luke

41 There are two possibilities for the understanding of πῶς λέγουσιν;. It could be a real question (such as 3 Baruch 10.8: “πῶς λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι that water comes from the sea, which rains down”; Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes 2.4; 3.125, 187), or it could be formulated as a rhetorical question that intends to express a rejection of the quoted opinion (as, e.g., 1 Corinthians 15.12: “πῶς λέγουσιν ἐν ὑμῖν τινες that there is no resurrection of the dead”; see also Judges 16.15LXX; Job 33.12LXX; John 8.33; 12.34; Aelius Aristides, Orationes 34.15). The same question arises analogously for πῶς αὐτοῦ υἱός ἐστιν; (v. 44b). In the latter case the propositional content of the question would reside in the fact that the assumption that the Messiah would have to be a descendant of David is incorrect. With regard to Jesus, such an understanding would make sense if his messiahship were called into question with the argument that he was not a descendant of David (thus, e.g., Bürger 1970, 56ff; Lührmann 1987, 208 on Mark 12.35). For Luke, however, the latter interpretation certainly does not come into consideration, for Jesus’s Davidic lineage was not in doubt for him (cf. 1.32, 69; 3.31; see also 18.38-­39). The early Jewish expectation of an endtime messianic king from the house of David who will liberate Israel from the rule of foreign nations is based especially on the Nathan promise in 2 Samuel 7.12-­16 and on the promises of Isaiah 9.5-­6 and 11.1-­10 (see also Jeremiah 30.9). The messianic king is explicitly called “Son of David” for the first time in Psalms of Solomon 17.21 (see at 18.38-­39), and, following Jeremiah 23.5; 33.15; Zechariah 3.8; 6.12, the Qumran texts repeatedly designate the expected messianic ruler figure as “shoot of David” (‫ ;צמח דויד‬cf. 4Q 174 I, 11; 4Q 252 1, V, 3-­4: “The Anointed of righteousness, the shoot of David”). For rabbinic texts cf. e.g., b. Sanhedrin 97b; 98a (see at 17.20a-­b); Genesis Rabbah 85 on Genesis 38.24; see also E. Lohse, ThWNT 8: 483ff.

42-­43 This question is grounded with the quotation of Psalm 110.1 in which David, who is regarded as the author of this psalm (v. 1a), speaks, though he speaks not about his “son” but about his “Lord” (Heb.: ‫;אדֹון‬ ָ LXX: κύριος). Psalm 110 (PsalmLXX 109) was originally an enthronement oracle. On the basis of v. 1b (“Utterance of YHWH for my Lord”; LXX: εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου [“The Lord said to my Lord”]), God was regarded as the ‘speaker,’ who through the mouth of a prophetic mediator installed the king as his coregent (for the motif of sitting at the right hand cf. Markschies 1993). Whether this psalm was already interpreted messianically in early Judaism is controversial in the literature. In favor of this assumption, especially 1 Enoch 51.3; 55.4; 61.8; 62.2 is adduced, according to which God sets “the chosen one” as judge “on the throne of the/



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 407

his glory” (cf., e.g., Hengel 1993, 161ff; Eckey II: 842), but the terminology that is specific to this psalm is lacking there (‘sit at the right hand of God,’ ‘enemies become footstool’). The psalm has not left clearly identifiable traces in early Judaism with the possible exception of Testament of Job 33.3 (see also Hay 1973, 22ff; Fitzmyer II: 1311). The allusions to it in Testament of Reuben 6.8, 12 are Christian interpolations. In early Christianity the categories with which Jesus’s exaltation and resurrection are explicated as installation into a heavenly position of majesty are then taken precisely from the first verse of this psalm quoted here (cf. the quotations in Acts 2.34-­35; 1 Corinthians 15.25; Hebrews 1.3, 13; 8.1 as well as Mark 14.62; 16.19; Luke 22.69; Romans 8.34; Ephesians 1.20; Colossians 3.1; Hebrews 10.12; 12.2; 1 Peter 3.22; Revelation 3.21; on this see Hengel 1993, 122ff; Karrer 1998, 58).

In 44 the opening question and Psalm 110.1 are brought together by the identification of the one whom David speaks of as “my Lord” here with the Messiah of v. 41b (αὐτόν [44a] refers to ὁ χριστός). Due to the culturally common allocations of social status, this gives rise to a tension that is formulated in 44b. The “lord” of a person cannot actually be at the same time his son and vice versa. This therefore gives rise to the following question: How can the Messiah simultaneously be David’s “Lord” and “son”? How can the Messiah be both “smaller” and “greater” than David (Kingsbury 1991, 58)? With this the scene ends. The only one through whom this antinomy can be resolved is, of course, Jesus, for what appears to be contradictory is applicable only to him, because he is both David’s “son” and his “Lord.” Burger 1970, 115–­ 16 (see also Fitzmyer II: 1313) has referred to the further quotation of Psalm 110.1 in Acts 2.34b-­35 within the Pentecost speech of Peter (2.29-­ 36). According to this speech, it is the resurrection of Jesus (v. 31) and his exaltation “to the right hand of God” (v. 33) that elevate the “descendant” of David (v. 30) above his “father” (Luke 1.32), a point that is explicitly stated in Acts 2.34a (“for David has not ascended into heaven”) and then explained through Psalm 110.1. This text, however, fits the question formulated in Luke 20.41, 44 only to a limited extent, for it grounds Jesus’s status as κύριος and not his Davidic sonship, which is at issue here (see also Marshall 745). Accordingly, the reference to Acts 2.36 (God has made Jesus κύριος and χριστός) contributes nothing to the resolution of the antinomy of Luke 20.41, 44, because here it is not the predicates κύριος and χριστός that “compete” with each other (thus Burger 1970, 116) but rather κύριος and υἱὸς Δαυίδ. Therefore, the answer to the two questions is more likely to be sought at the beginning of the Lukan story of Jesus, and for everyone who has read Luke 1.26-­38 it is also obvious. The “Messiah” and “Kyrios” Jesus is Son of David because God himself has made him

408

The Gospel According to Luke

David’s Son through the choice of the virgin Mary and through the Holy Spirit. It is therefore not suprising that none of the narrative figures can answer the two questions, for they have, after all, not read the Lukan story of Jesus and are not familiar with the events narrated in Luke 1–­2. Only the readers of the Gospel of Luke are in a position to resolve the antinomy. 20.45-­47: Warning against the Scribes 45

While the whole people listened, he said to his disciples, 46“Guard yourselves against the scribes, who like to go around in special garments and love greetings in public, the places of honor in the synagogues, and the best places at meals; 47who devour the houses of widows and make long prayers for show. These will receive an even greater punishment.” Form-­critically this is a warning against opponents (v. 46a), which is grounded with a classic judgment saying comprised of reproach (vv. 46b-­ 47b) and threat (v. 47c) (cf. the analogy in 2 Peter 2.1, 3). The intention of the form is not paraenetic, for the scribes function here not as apotreptic exempla for a certain way of life against which the disciples should be warned. Rather, the saying seeks to discredit an influential group that is respected in society (see also at 1.43). Luke’s Vorlage was probably Mark 12.37b-­40; Luke follows it quite closely in wording. In v. 46 (ἀσπασμοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς and πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς) there are overlaps with 11.43par. Matthew 23.6-­ 7, the second woe against the Pharisees that was probably taken from Q (see the introductory comments on 11.37-­54). Two minor agreements deserve to be mentioned: τοῖς μαθηταῖς (v. 45par. Matthew 23.1) is without a counterpart in Mark 12.37b; the same applies to φιλούντων (v. 46par. Matthew 23.6 [φιλοῦσιν]); on this cf. F. Keck 1976, 44–­45; Neirynck 1974b, 160; 1991, 71; Ennulat 1994, 291–­92.

45 The constellation corresponds to 12.1. In the midst of a public audience Jesus turns to his disciples. Furthermore, Luke has already formulated a similar speech introduction (genitivus absolutus with ἀκούειν + εἶπεν) in 19.11. With its help, he continues the distancing of the Jerusalem people of God from the Jerusalem leading stratum begun in 19.47 (see also 20.6, 19; 21.38; 22.2; for the Lukan use of λαός in this narrative collecting basin, see at 19.47 and the introductory comments on 20.1-­26). 46 The warning against the scribes pronounced in 46a has its closest parallel not in 12.1d, where the disciples are paraenetically warned against a specific way of behaving (ὑπόκρισις), but in the warning against specific



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 409

groups, as in Matthew 7.15 (“against the false prophets”) and 10.17 (“against the people”); see also Philippians 3.2; 2 Timothy 3.5. Therefore, the point is not that the disciples should not imitate the way of life of the scribes (contra Fitzmyer), but that they should not let themselves be impressed by their teaching. The scribes are characterized by two participia coniuncta (τῶν θελόντων . . . καὶ φιλούντων); for the two verbs cf. BDR §435.33. The first relates to the custom—­apparently practiced by the scribes—­of making their special status known through special clothing. This does not mean, however, that we have to think of “luxury garments” (Lührmann 1987, 210). Apparently, in the first century there was already something like a so-­called “honorary garment of the learned” (Bill. II: 32) that was worn as a “throw over” (Bill. II: 32); attestations for this are, admittedly, found only in later rabbinic texts. The thesis of Rengstorf 1963 that the concern is with Sabbath garments and that the scribes “wore the special Sabbath clothing publicly . . . in order to bring them into the consciousness of the people and at the same time to incite them to imitation” (43) is vivid fantasy. This thesis also does not fit the context, because it fails to recognize the social function of this clothing. Just like the three accusatives dependent upon τῶν . . . φιλούντων, it functions as an indicator of status, which allowed for the special societal prestige enjoyed by the scribes to be recognized (see also Fleddermann 1982, 56). For the “greetings in public” and the “places of honor in the synagogues,” see at 11.43, and for the “best places at the meals,” see at 14.7. The same thing applies here that was said about the accusations made against the Pharisees in 11.43. They are usually directed against groups who actually experience this kind of recognition, and they are not plucked completely out of thin air. Though these accusations are exaggerated insofar as they are certainly not accurate for all scribes, they do not intend to differentiate among them and only warn against scribes that behave in the way that is described but rather seek to depreciate the whole group in a sweeping manner (contra Nolland). 47 For the accusation that the scribes devour the houses of widows there is an approximate—­but textually very uncertain—­counterpart in Assumption of Moses 7.6, which speaks of people who not only “live to please themselves . . . and at every time of day are lovers of festive meals and insatiable gluttons” (7.4) but are also “devourers of the goods [of the p]oor ([paupero]rum bonorum comestores), though they say that they do this out of mercy.” “Houses” stands metonymically for “possessions” here, and “to devour a person’s house” is a metaphor that is already attested in Homer; cf. Plutarch, Moralia 22d–­e (οἶκον . . . καλοῦσιν . . . ποτὲ δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν [“They call . . . sometimes

410

The Gospel According to Luke

possessions . . . ‘house’”] with reference to Homer, Odyssea 4.318, where Telemachus says about the suitors in the house of Odysseus ἐσθίεταί μοι οἶκος [“My house is being consumed”]); see also Odyssea 2.237–­238 (κατέδουσι βιαίως οἶκον Ὀδυσσῆος [“Violently they consume the house of Odysseus”]); 22.36 (Odysseus to the suitors: ὅτι μοι κατεκείρετε οἶκον [“For that reason you have eaten up my house”]); see further Heraclitus Paradoxographus 8 (Festa 1902, 76.8–­9) on the harpies who repeatedly rob Phineus of food (Apollonius of Rhodos, Argonautica 2.185ff): . . . ταύτας ἑταίρας καταφαγούσας τὴν Φινέως οἰκίαν εἶναι (“These are companions who eat up the house of Phineus”).

What this metaphor meant concretely—­and above all what Luke had in mind—­cannot by any stretch of the imagination be determined. Fitzmyer II: 1318 mentions six different interpretations, of which none are more likely or unlikely than the others. The last element of the reproach accuses the scribes of only making a show of their piety outwardly. The meaning of προφάσει in this text corresponds to its use in Philippians 1.18 where its opposite is ἀληθείᾳ. Grammatically it is a dative of relation (like φύσει; cf. BDR §197). That this accusation stands in connection with what precedes and that the claim is made that the scribes employ their piety in order to get hold of the assets of the widows (thus, e.g., Fleddermann 1982, 61–­62) cannot, of course, be ruled out—­but one also cannot say more. In keeping with the genre (see above), the judgment saying ends with an announcement of unsalvation. 21.1-­4: The Gift of the Widow 1

And he looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasure chamber. 2And he also saw a poor widow who put in two lepta, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you: this poor widow has put in more than everyone (together). 4For these have all put in (something) from their abundance to the offerings, but from her poverty this one has put in all she had to live on.” Form-­critically this is a chreia. It belongs to the chreia type in which it is narrated how the protagonist comments on an event observed by him (cf., as here with the introduction “when he saw . . . he said” or the like, Appian, Syriaca 41; Plutarch, Moralia 218d; Diogenes Laertius, 6.61; Joannes Stobaeus, Anthologium II 46.17 [Wachsmuth/Hense 1958, II: 263.1–­2]; Gospel of Thomas 22). A similar narrative is handed down in the Buddhist Tripitaka canon from the first century BCE (Haas 1922, 7): “A widow comes into a religious gathering, begs



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 411

for some food there and says . . . : ‘While others give expensive things, I, a poor person, can give nothing.’ But then it occurs to her that she does possess something indeed, namely, two copper pieces that she previously found on a pile of dung. With joy she offers these as a gift for the priesthood. The lead priest, who as arbat sees the motives of the human heart, does not pay attention to the rich gifts of others but only to the believing disposition of the poor woman and sings a song in her honor. This does her good, and she now recognizes herself that her deed is just as significant as if a rich person had given away all his treasures. Then she sings as well and expresses the wish that her good deed may be rewarded. Her petition is heard, for already on the return journey the king of the land, who returns from the funeral of his wife, meets her and elevates her to his consort.” A literary dependence is unlikely (cf. Clemen 1973, 251–­53); see also at v. 4 below. Also elsewhere, many ancient texts emphasize that God estimates the small offering of a pious poor person more highly than the opulent offerings of rich people (cf. Euripides, Fragment 519: “Often already I have seen poor people . . . and have seen some who brought the gods small offerings but were more pious than proud slaughterers of fat oxen”; Theopompus, FGH 2b: 115, Fragment 344 [German translation in Herzog 1922, 150–­51]; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 6.149: when the pious poor offer, “even though the offering is modest, the honor from the side of the poor is more accepted than from the most rich”).

To be sure, the story narrated in Luke and Mark differs from the view of the text quoted last in the fact that it completely disregards the piety of the rich and the poor widow and addresses only the relationship between the respective gift and the possessions of the giver (v. 4). Luke continues to follow the presentation of the Gospel of Mark, where this episode is connected with what precedes by the widow theme. Therefore, it is very likely that he had Mark 12.41-­44 as Vorlage, though the linguistic agreements in the narrative part (Luke 21.1-­2par. Mark 12.41-­43a) are much smaller than in the reproduction of the saying of Jesus (Luke 21.3-­4par. Mark 12.43b-­44). This episode is lacking in the Gospel of Matthew.

1 The introduction of the scene with ἀναβλέψας . . . εἶδεν is a Septuagintism (cf. Genesis 18.2; 22.4, 13; 24.64; 32.2; 33.1, 5 and elsewhere). Concerning the concrete place Luke has no more precise conceptions beyond being able to presuppose that—­like every other temple—­the Jerusalem temple has a treasure chamber into which one delivered consecrated gifts and offerings. Luke changes the Markan description of the starting situation with its wide setting of the narrative angle (cf. Mark 12.41: Jesus sees “how the people” throw money in the offering box and “many rich people

412

The Gospel According to Luke

throw in much”) by focusing the narrative exclusively on the rich from the start. The word γαζοφυλάκιον is based on γάζα (Heb.: ‫ ;ּגָ ּזָ א‬cf. W. Bauer 1988, 299; it is a loanword derived from the Persian). It is also a designation for the treasure house located in the Jerusalem temple in 1/3 Ezra 5.44; Nehemiah 10.38-­39; 12.44; 13.5; 2 Maccabees 3.6, 24, 28, 40, 4.42; 5.18; 4 Maccabees 14.49; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 19.294; Bellum judaicum 5.200; 6.282. In Antiquitates judaicae 9.164 Josephus also uses this term for the offertory box invented by Johoiada according to 2 Kings 12.10. According to m. Sheqalim 6.5–­6, thirteen so-­called “trumpets” (‫)ׁשֹופרֹות‬ ָ stood in the treasure house of the Jerusalem temple with labels for different intended purposes of the gifts. According to Bill. II: 38, this designation went back to the fact that like trumpets, the containers for the money “were built narrow at the top a[nd] wide at the bottom; this was meant to guard against thievish intrusions”; for the specifics cf. Bill. II: 37–­45; H. Balz, EWNT 1: 556; Schürer 1973–­1987, II: 279ff.

2 When, with almost the same words (εἶδεν δέ), the narrative has a poor (πενιχρός appears in the New Testament only here; see also Exodus 22.24; Proverbs 28.15; 29.7 as well as F. Hauck, ThWNT 6: 40) widow appear and do—­from a purely external perspective—­the same as the rich (βάλλουσαν ἐκεί), the episode receives the character of a syncrisis (see at 18.9-­14). The λεπτόν (lit. “the thin thing, the small thing”) was not a minted coin but the colloquial designation for the smallest coin of a series (see at 12.59). Therefore, one must always supply νόμισμα (cf. W. Bauer 1988, 958). 3 Jesus’s commentary (for the introductory strengthening formula cf. 9.27; 12.44; see also 4.25) is not “sad” (Fitzmyer following Wright 1982), for the gift of the widow is not lamented but compared with those of the rich. As in 15.7 and 18.14a, here too Jesus makes a reversal. The two small coins of the widow were more than the gifts of the rich. It is possible that πλεῖον πάντων is meant to be understood not merely in a distributive manner (in the sense of ‘more than every single one of them’) but rather comprehensively (in the sense of ‘more than all of them together’). The hyperbolism of the reversal would be intensified even more in this way. In 4 Jesus mentions the principle that underlies his reversal of values. It is the amount of the gift in relation to the entire possessions of the giver, and in this respect the rich have spent a much smaller share of their assets than the widow (for the antithesis between περισσεῦον and ὑστέρημα see, in the New Testament, also 1 Corinthians 8.8; 2 Corinthians 8.14, 9.12; Philippians 4.12). On the side of the widow this comparison is further sharpened by the fact that with the two lepta she is said to have spent all her living.



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 413

A close parallel is found in Anthologia Graeca 6.25, where it says about the fisherman who consecrated his net to the nymphs: εἰ δ’ ὀλίγου δώρου τελέθει δόσις, οὐ τόδε, Νύμφαι, μέμψις, ἐπεὶ Κινύρου ταῦθ’ ὅλος ἔσκε βίος (“Though the gift is small, fault it not, you nymphs, for this was Kinyres’s whole livelihood”); cf. also Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.3.3 about Socrates: “Though his sacrifices were humble, according to his means, he thought himself not a whit inferior to those who made frequent and magnificent sacrifices out of great possessions” (trans. Marchant 2002); Leviticus Rabbah 3 (107a) in Bill. II: 46: “A woman once brought a handful of flour. The priest despised it and said, ‘Look what this one offers! What of this should one eat and what of it should one offer?’ Then the priest saw in a dream, ‘Despise her not, for she is as one who has offered her life.’”

The scenic context makes it unlikely that Luke wanted to let the behavior of the widow become a paraenetic model for his “community” (contra Melzer-­Keller 1997, 309; Eckey and others). Rather, the one who has read the Lukan story of Jesus to this point will register this saying under Jesus’s εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς (4.18c). 21.5-­36: Jesus’s Last Public Speech 5

And when some said regarding the temple that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive offerings, he said, 6“What you look at there—­days will come when there will not be left a stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 7And they asked him and said, “Rabbi, when will this happen? And what is the sign when these things are about to happen?” 8 And he said, “Watch out that you not be led astray! For many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and ‘The time has come near!’ Do not follow them! 9But when you hear of wars and unrests, do not be frightened, for this must happen first, but the end (will) not (come) so soon.” 10 Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. 11And there will be great earthquakes and famines and pestilences in every single place. There will be fearful things and great signs from heaven. 12 “But before all these (events) they will lay their hands on you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and prisons—­ before kings and rulers they will bring you for my name’s sake. 13It will turn out to be a testimony for you. 14Therefore, put it in your hearts that you not prepare your defense. 15For I will give to you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to withstand or contradict. 16And you will be handed over by parents and siblings and

414

The Gospel According to Luke

relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death. 17And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. 18And no hair from your head will be lost. 19Through your endurance gain your life! 20 “But when you see that Jerusalem is enclosed by armies, then know: its desolation has come near. 21Then those in Judea shall flee into the mountains and those in the midst of it shall depart, and those in the country shall not enter it, 22for these are days of vengeance to fulfill all that is written. 23Woe to those who are pregnant and breast-­ feeding in those days! For great distress will be upon the land and wrath against this people. 24And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and they will be taken away as prisoners among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled by the nations—­until the times of the nations are fulfilled. 25 “And there will be signs in the sun, moon, and stars, and on earth fear among the nations because of perplexity in light of the roaring and raging of the sea, 26when people faint from fear of what is coming on the world, for the powers of heaven will be shaken. 27And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with great power and glory. 28 When these events begin, straighten up and raise your heads, for your liberation is near!” 29 And he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30Already when you see them start to bud, you know from yourselves that summer is already near. 31So also you: when you see that these things are happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Amen, I say to you: this generation is not going to pass away until all has taken place. 33Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 34 “Guard yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down by dissipation, drunkenness, and daily anxieties and that day come suddenly upon you 35as a snare. For it will break in upon those dwelling on the surface of the whole earth. 36Rather, stay awake and pray at all times that you may be able to escape everything that will happen and to stand before the Son of Man.” Luke has Jesus deliver his last public speech. He does not, however, make it into a “farewell speech” (F. Keck 1976), for there is never a reference to the impending death or departure, which is obligatory for this genre. Nor are we dealing with an “apocalypse” (Aland 2001, 396 and others), for it lacks a reading instruction that identifies the following speech as a communication of esoteric revelation (cf. Wolter 2005a). Presupposed is the situation of 20.45, which has remained unchanged since then. The disciples are the characters being addressed and the people



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 415

listen. Within the speech, this constellation is expressed in the fact that in every place where the second person plural is used, the adherents of Jesus are meant (cf. especially vv. 8-­9, 12-­19, 20-­21, 28, 29-­32, 34-­36). For this Luke also changes the topographical localization of the speech vis-­à-­vis the Markan presentation. While Jesus, according to Mark 13.1, 3, leaves the temple and the city and moves on with the four disciples who had been called first to the Mount of Olives, which was located “opposite” the temple, Luke integrates the speech into the context of Jesus’s daily and public teaching in the temple (cf. 19.47; 20.37). Form-­critically the scene begins with a perfect chreia (vv. 5–­6). The questions in v. 7b, c about the point in time of and the signs for the destruction of the temple announced in v. 6 are answered through the speech that follows in vv. 8ff. To be sure, the temporal horizon of the speech reaches beyond the destruction of the temple (from v. 25 on), but it repeatedly returns to the questions of v. 7b, c; cf. especially the taking up again of ταῦτα γίνεσθαι in vv. 28a, 31b, 32, 36b, the fact that τότε (vv. 20a, b, 21a, 27) picks up πότε and ὅταν (v. 7b, c), and the answering of the question about the sign by v. 25a (σημεῖα) as well as by the parable of the budding of the trees (vv. 29-­31). The entire speech is framed in vv. 8-­9 and vv. 34-­36 by five fundamental paraenetic instructions, which refer to the entire period of time until the coming of the Son of Man. They apply to the disciples and aim to urge them to hold fast to their orientation of existence. Four of them are negated imperatives (βλέπετε μὴ πλανηθῆτε [v. 8b]; μὴ πορευθῆτε ὀπίσω αὐτῶν [v. 8c]; μὴ πτοηθῆτε [v. 9b]; προσέχετε . . . μήποτε βαρηθῶσιν ὑμῶν αἱ καρδίαι [v. 34a]), which exhort to an ethical turning away. To them corresponds the affirmatively formulated admonition ἀγρυπνεῖτε . . . δεόμενοι (v. 36a), to which Luke—­probably very consciously—­assigned the final position and which he furnished—­certainly not without reason—­with comprehensive specifications in v. 36a, b (ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ and ταῦτα πάντα τὰ μέλλοντα). It is particularly this framing that makes clear that this speech of Jesus is meant to assure the disciples and the Christian readers of their identity as community of salvation and in this way to stabilize them. The ‘information part’ of the speech (vv. 10-­33) is interrupted in v. 29a by an intervening remark of the narrator. It separates the parable of the budding of the trees (vv. 29-­31) from the preceding announcement part. The coherence of the remaining speech part (vv. 10-­28), which portrays the events until the coming of the Son of Man and the signs announcing it, is established above all by the fact that Luke has also provided it—­just like the speech as a whole—­with a frame. The level of the time and of the subject matter of vv. 10-­11 is taken up and continued in vv. 25-­ 28, for there is talk both here and there of events that concern not only

416

The Gospel According to Luke

all the nations on the earth but also heaven. Here the events that are most distant from the narrated point in time of the speech are described. They also lie in the future in relation to the viewpoint of Luke himself. The sections of vv. 12-­19 and vv. 20-­24, which are embedded in this frame literarily, must also be located chronologically in the period of time between the time of the speech and the events described in vv. 10-­11, 25-­ 28 (see also Dupont 1985, II: 1119). Verses 12-­19 address the fate of the disciples, which is future (from the viewpoint of the speaker within the story). Here a period of time is considered that encompasses the events narrated in vv. 20-­24. The persecution, etc., of the disciples begins before the enclosure of Jerusalem (v. 20a), and it continues also after its destruction (vv. 24a-­b) into the “time of the Gentiles” (v. 24c). Its end only arrives with the coming of the Son of Man (v. 28). Viewed from the Lukan viewpoint, Jesus describes here events of the past, present, and future. Verse 19 (κτήσασθε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν) coincides thematically and temporally with v. 36c (σταθῆναι ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀνθρώπου). By contrast, in the case of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem described in vv. 20-­24 we are dealing with an episode that is embedded into the two preceding periods of time. This episode not only lies in the future when viewed from the viewpoint of the narrated speaker, but it also begins later than the persecutions announced in vv. 12-­19 (see at v. 12). Luke looks back on it. Its temporal standpoint is located between the events portrayed in vv. 20-­24b and those depicted in v. 25ff. It is very likely that Luke composed the speech on the basis of Mark 13. This is supported by the following observations: (a) it stands in the same place in the story of Jesus both here and there—­namely between the narrative of the gift of the widow (Mark 12.41-­44par. Luke 21.1-­4) and the beginning of the passion narrative (Mark 14.1par. Luke 22.1); (b) there are unmistakable agreements in wording; and (c) the order of these agreements is identical. There has been intensive discussion about the question of whether the differences between the Markan and the Lukan wording of the speech (a) are exclusively due to Lukan redaction (majority position), (b) are based on an additional eschatological discourse that was available to Luke alongside Mark 13 (e.g., Schramm 1971, 171ff; Schweizer 208–­9), or (c) should be explained as a combination of Lukan redaction and sporadic adoption of individual traditions from the so-­called Lukan “Sondergut” (e.g., Kümmel 1973, 104; Marshall; Fitzmyer). Verheyden’s excellent presentation of the different opinions has shown the fruitlessness of such discussions with all due clarity. The number of noteworthy minor agreements is small in relation to the length of the text: καταλυθήσεται (v. 6bpar. Matthew 24.2e) instead of καταλυθῇ



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 417

(Mark 13.2d); λέγοντες (v. 7apar. Matthew 24.3a) is without a Markan counterpart; εἶπεν (v. 8apar. Matthew 24.4a) instead of ἤρξατο λέγειν (Mark 13.5a); γάρ (v. 8cpar. Matthew 24.5a) is without a Markan counterpart; βασιλεῖς and ἡγεμόνας (v. 12cpar. Matthew 24.18a) instead of ἡγεμόνων and βασιλείων (Mark 13.9c); ἔσται . . . μεγάλη (v. 23bpar. Matthew 24.21a) instead of ἔσονται . . . αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι (Mark 13.19a); τῶν οὐρανῶν (v. 26bpar. Matthew 24.29d) instead of ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Mark 13.25b); ἕως ἄν (v. 32par. Matthew 24.34b) instead of μέχρις οὗ (Mark 13.30b); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 160ff; 1991, 72ff; Ennulat 1994, 292ff.

5 Words of admiration regarding the splendor and adornment of the temple, which Luke places in the mouth of temple visitors who remain anonymous, function as the starting situation. In this way the narrative remains focused on Jesus (see also F. Keck 1976, 56). The beauty of the temple restored and expanded by Herod the Great is often praised (cf. above all Josephus, Bellum judaicum 5.222–­224; Antiquitates judaicae 15.391–­402; Tacitus, Historiae 5.8.1 on Jerusalem: Illic immensae opulentiae templum [“A temple of immeasurable riches stands there”]). There are many references to the “adorning” (κοσμεῖν) of the Jerusalem temple with “votive offerings” (ἀναθήματα) in the Legatio ad Gaium of Philo of Alexandria. In Legatio ad Gaium 157 it says of Augustus: “With costly votive offerings he let our sanctuary be adorned,” and he writes of his wife in 319: κατεκόσμησε τὸν νεὼν χρυσαῖς φιάλαις καὶ σπονδείοις καὶ ἄλλων ἀναθημάτων πολυτελεστάτων πλήθει (“She let the temple be adorned with golden bowls and vessels for offerings and a plethora of other valuable votive offerings”); see also 297; 2 Maccabees 9.16 (Antiochus IV promises to adorn (κοσμήσειν) the temple καλλίστοις ἀναθήμασιν [“with the most beautiful votive offerings”]); 3 Maccabees 3.17 (“to go in their temple and honor it through the most extraordinary and beautiful votive offerings”); Judith 16.19 (“Judith established as votive offerings [ἀνέθηκεν] all the equipment of Holofernes that the people had given over to her”); Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 17.162 (Herod the Great boasts that he has built the temple not only at his own expense but “also to have adorned it with magnificent votive offerings” [κοσμῆσαι δὲ καὶ ἀναθήμασιν ἀξιολόγοις]). The expression ἀναθήμασιν κοσμεῖν is Hellenistic in origin (cf. Isocrates, Antidosis 234; Diodorus Siculus 1.45.4; 1.50.7; 55.11; Strabo, Geographica 5.3.8; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.20; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.147 and elsewhere).

6 With recourse to the rhetorical figure of anastrophe (cf. Lausberg 1973, §462.3a; 713–­15; grammatically: casus pendens; cf. BDR §466.2), Luke has formulated Jesus’s dictum as an announcement of the complete

418

The Gospel According to Luke

destruction of the Jerusalem temple. In doing so, Luke has quite extensively taken over the wording of the so-­called “temple saying” from Mark 13.2, which had already entered in 19.44 (see there for Old Testament parallels). For ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι, see at 17.22. 7 The questioners are not—­as in Mark 13.3—­the four disciples who were called first but hearers of the announcement of unsalvation in v. 6 who remain unidentified. But perhaps Luke wants to reveal at least partially something of their identity through the address of Jesus as “Rabbi” (διδάσκαλε; 7b), which he places in the mouths of the questioners. In Luke it occurs elsewhere exclusively in the mouth of non-­disciples (see at 7.40) and this makes it likely that he uses it here to characterize the questioners consciously as non-­disciples in the framework of the scene constructed in 20.45. It stands, of course, in a certain tension with this interpretation that from v. 8 onward Jesus exclusively addresses the disciples. The two demonstrative pronouns ταῦτα refer to the events announced in v. 6. The question thus refers to the point in time of the destruction of the temple and to the signs that announce it as imminent. There are linguistic parallels in Aristotle, Historia animalium 518b1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 1.48.2 (ἀπὸ τῶν . . . σημείων τὸν μέλλοντα ὄλεθρον τῆς πόλεως συντεκμαίρεσθαι [“to infer the approaching destruction of the city . . . from the . . . signs”]); Polybius 4.42.3; Plutarch, Demosthenes 19.1 (πολλὰ σημεῖα τοῦ μέλλοντος [“many signs of the future event”]); Moralia 912d. The fact that Jesus does not answer the question until vv. 20ff and otherwise goes far beyond its thematic and temporal horizon must not mislead one into already imputing to the question a scope that reaches beyond the destruction of the temple (contra Zmijewski 1972, 93ff; Marshall). The view—­frequently advocated in the literature—­that Luke de-­eschatologizes the Markan version of the question (Mark 13.4) by detaching the destruction of the temple from the eschatic events (e.g., Conzelmann 1977, 117; Zmijewski 1972, 78–­79; F. Keck 1976 and many others) is based on an incorrect interpretation of Mark 13.4, for Peter, James, John, and Andrew clearly ask him about two different events, and in Mark 13 Jesus’s answer in vv. 5-­23 and vv. 24-­27 then corresponds to this distinction (cf. Lührmann 1987, 218). Thus, Luke adopts from Mark 13.4 only the first question, which is related to the destruction of the temple, and leaves it to Jesus to guide the view of his hearers/readers beyond this event. 8-­9 The speech begins with two negative specifications. Jesus establishes which events do not announce the imminent end (v. 9)—­the appearance of “many” who claim to be salvific mediator figures of the endtime (v. 8b-­e) and wars and unrests (v. 9a). The two events should not be made into one (contra Fitzmyer II: 1334).



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 419

8 The two exhortations in 8b (μὴ πλανηθῆτε) and 8e (μὴ πορευθῆτε ὀπίσω αὐτῶν), which frame the announcement in 8c-­d, are semantically isotopic (for the imperative βλέπετε see at 8.18). They warn against letting onself be impressed by the message of messianic prophets and attaching oneself to them. There is talk of such figures who were successful in making a greater number of people into their adherents at two places in Acts and multiple times in Josephus. Acts 5.36 and Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 20.97–­98 report about Theudas who passed himself off as a prophet (Antiquitates judaicae 20.97) and was able to gain many adherents whom he led to the Jordan (Antiquitates judaicae 20.97). The “Egyptian who before these days instigated a rebellion and led four thousand men of the Sicarii into the wilderness” is probably the same person whom Josephus calls an Αἰγύπτιος ψευδοπροφήτης, to whom thirty thousand people are said to have attached themselves, whom he is said to have led out of the wilderness to the Mount of Olives. In Antiquitates judaicae 20.170 it is also stated that he wanted to show his adherents “how at his command the walls of Jerusalem [would] collapse, through which he promised to make possible an entrance into the city.” In Bellum judaicum 2.258–­260 Josephus tells of πλάνοι ἄνθρωποι “who threw the crowd through their words into demonic enthusiasm” and “led the people out into the wilderness where God would show them signs of freedom (σημεῖα ἐλευθερίας).” Josephus also reports about similar events in Bellum judaicum 6.285, 288; 7.437–­440; Antiquitates judaicae 18.85–­87; 20.167–­168, 188. Cf. especially Riedo-­Emenegger 2005, 247ff; see also Gray 1993. Sweeping warnings against such figures, whose characteristic feature is “leading astray” (πλάνη and cognates) also occur in Mark 13.21 (omitted by Luke between v. 24 and v. 25); 1 John 2.26 in connection with 4.1 (see also Josephus, Bellum judaicum 2.258). In 2 Thessalonians 2.9-­11; 2 John 7; Revelation 13.14; Didache 16.4 (see also Sibylline Oracles 3.63–­70) this expectation of the eschatic leading astray of people develops into one endtime adversary—­the so-­ called “Antichrist,” who is designated as such for the first time in 1 John 2.18, 22; 4.3; 2 John 7.

Thematically the warning corresponds to the warning of 17.23, and it is therefore just as difficult to specify which groups Luke had in view here as it is there. And if Christian parousia alarmists were in view there along the lines of 2 Thessalonians 2.2; Hippolytus, Commentarium in Danielem 4.19, then they are also, of course, in view here. ἐγώ εἰμι would then have to be connected with ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου and would designate the self-­claim of the “many” to be authorized by Jesus to make known the imminence of his parousia. That ὁ καιρὸς ἤγγικεν designates the imminence but not yet the presence of the expected event emerges from the

420

The Gospel According to Luke

parallel phrasings in Ezekiel 7.4LXX; 1 Maccabees 9.10; Lamentations 4.18 (see also Deuteronomy 31.14; Ezekiel 9.1; 12.23; Matthew 21.34; 26.18; Revelation 1.3; 22.10 and, of course, Luke 21.20). However, a historicizing interpretation that does not extend into the Lukan present but considers a problem-­situation to which Luke looks back (see also Nolland) is probably even more likely. If “wars and unrests” in v. 9 referred to the Jewish war of 66–­73 CE, then it would fit well with this that all the Jewish prophets about which Josephus reports in the aforementioned texts appeared in the years before this war. ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου could also refer to them; that phrase would then characterize their respective claims to be the messianic prophet or possibly even the expected Messiah himself (“ἐγώ εἰμι”). This would result in a temporal slope from v. 8 to v. 9, and Luke would have Jesus warn the narrated hearers against attaching themselves to these movements. That Luke was indeed aware of them is clear from Acts 5.36; 21.38. 9 In the case of ἀκαταστασίαι it is not the resistance movements against Roman rule that are in view, for the use of this term elsewhere does not allow for such an assumption. Rather, it designates internal instability and unrest (cf. e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 6.31.1; Polybius 1.70.1; 14.9.6; 31.8.6; 32.5.5; Artemidorus, Onirocriticon 2.37, 91 [Pack 1963, 167.19; 170.25]). Luke has probably used this term with this meaning here, which does not, of course, rule out a reference to the situation of the Jewish war. That wars and the collapse of social order belong to the characteristic features of the end time is an integral part of eschatological knowledge in early Judaism (cf., on the one hand, Isaiah 9.2; 4 Ezra 13.31 [see at vv. 10-­11]; Apocalypse of Elijah 29.14–­15; Revelation 6.4, and on the other hand, 4 Ezra 5.9–­10; 6.24; 2 Baruch 27.11–­13; 70.3; 6 Ezra 15.16). Luke, however, has Jesus emphasize here that while both are ordered by God’s plan of history, they have nothing to do with the end events themselves. When the Lukan Jesus speaks of the disciples merely “hearing” of “wars and unrests,” it is implied that they are not involved in them. τὸ τέλος refers not to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which was spoken of in v. 6 (contra Fitzmyer; Nolland), but to the eschatic events that are not considered until vv. 10-­11 and then again from v. 25 onward. Here, too, a historicizing interpretation is suggested, for Luke no longer needs to say to his readers that after the destruction of the temple, the end is “not so soon” (οὐκ εὐθέως). They know that already. It is, however, also possible that he thinks of Christian parousia alarmists in his present (see at v. 8). 10-­11 Luke continues to follow the order of the speech of Mark 13, but he interrupts the cohesion of Mark 13.7-­8 through the insertion of an



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 421

intervening remark (10a). He evidently understood Mark 13.8 as an explanation (γάρ) for the reservation expressed in v. 7d, according to which “wars and rumors of wars” (v. 7a) are “not yet the end” (οὔπω τὸ τέλος), because this does not begin until the events described in Mark 13.8 and Luke 21.10b-­11. Thus, the intervening remark in 10a receives the function of marking the temporal jump between the events described in vv. 8-­9 and the events that immediately precede the “end” more clearly than this was the case in Mark 13.7-­8. Vis-­à-­vis vv. 8-­9 the perspective is now widened into the universal. In 10b this expansion is established with the help of a parallelismus membrorum, which takes up Old Testament usage with the pairings of the generic terms “nation” and “kingdom”; cf. with the same intention 1 Kings 18.10 (“if there is a nation or a kingdom [εἰ ἔστιν ἔθνος ἢ βασιλεία] where my Lord has not sent . . .”); 2 Chronicles 32.15; 1/3 Ezra 1.22; Jeremiah 18.7, 9; 27(LXX: 34).8; in the plural: Psalm 46.7; 79.6; Jeremiah 1.10; Nahum 3.5 (Heb.: ‫ ּגֹוי‬and ‫ ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה‬respectively). The events announced in these two verses are also attested elsewhere as eschatic signs that announce the nearness of the “end” or accompany it. For 10b cf. Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 3.13 (ὅταν ἔθνος πρὸς ἔθνος ἐπαναστῇ ἐν πολέμῳ, τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν τὸ τέλος [“When nation rises against nation, then you will know that the end is near”]); 4 Ezra 13.29–­31 (“. . . when the Most High will begin to redeem those who are on the earth. And dismay will come over the inhabitants of the earth. They will endeavor to make war against one another, city against city, place against place, nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom [civitas civitatem et locus locum et gens ad gentem et regnum adversus regnum]”); 6 Ezra 15.15 (“Nation will rise against nation for war [exsurget gens contra gentem ad pugnam]”); see also 2 Chronicles 15.6; Isaiah 19.2; 2 Enoch 70.5.23 (see further in Hartman 1966, 71ff). The alliteration (parechesis; cf. BDR §488.2) λιμοὶ καὶ λοιμοί is widely attested as a lexical pair in ancient Greek literature: for the first time in Hesiod, Opera et dies 243; then Herodotus 7.171; Plutarch, Moralia 322a; Appian, Bella civilia 4.8.61; Iberica (= Hispania) 417; Philo, De vita Mosis 1.110; De ebrietate 79; Josephus, Bellum judaicum, 4.361; Testament of Judah 23.3 and elsewhere; as here with σεισμοί: Sibylline Oracles 13.10; Philo, De somniis 2.125; De Providentia 2.41; Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata 11 (Spengel 1953–­1956, II: 118.18); Ptolemy, Apotelesmatica (= Tetra­biblos) 2.1.4. “Great signs from heaven” (11b) are described, e.g., in Sibylline Oracles 3.796ff (trans. J. J. Collins, OTP 1: 379): “I will tell you a very clear sign, so that you may know when the end of all things comes to pass on earth: When swords are seen at night in starry heaven toward evening and toward dawn, and again dust is brought forth from heaven upon the earth . . .”; see further in K. Berger 1980,

422

The Gospel According to Luke

1455ff. In v. 25 Luke will connect to this again with “signs in the sun and moon and stars.”

12-­19 Luke leaves it at this mention of the events that will directly precede the end and goes back once more into the time before. Here, too, it can be observed again that he continues to align himself with the course of Mark 13 but marks the chronological caesurae more clearly on the surface of the text. Thus, with the help of the insertion of πρὸ δὲ τούτων πάντων in v. 12a, he brings the events described in vv. 12-­19 and in vv. 10-­11—­whose temporal coordination had remained unclear in Mark—­into a clear sequence. 12 πρὸ δὲ τούτων πάντων (12a) refers to the events announced in vv. 10-­11. Luke first lets the announcement of 12a become a reality for Peter and John in Acts 4.3, where he uses the exact same words as here. The priests etc. (cf. v. 1) ἐπέβαλον αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας (see also 5.18; 12.1; 21.27). Likewise, Luke has the “persecution” (διωγμός/διώκειν) of the disciples already begin in Jerusalem (8.1; see also 9.4-­5; 13.50; 22.4, 7-­8; 26.11, 14-­15). Furthermore, in the narratives of Acts the announcements find their abutment—­namely in the fact that one places the disciples before tribunals and throws them into prisons (4.5ff; 5.18, 27ff; 6.9, 12ff; 8.3; 12.4; 16.23; 22.4; 26.10; for παραδιδόναι as a shared predicate cf. Spicq 1994, III: 23; see also at 12.58), that one brings them “before kings and rulers” (23.33; 24.1ff; 25.6ff, 23ff), and that they will suffer everything “for the sake of Jesus’s name” (cf. Acts 4.7, 17-­18; 5.28, 40, 41; see also 9.14, 16, 21; 21.13). This does not mean, of course, that Luke wanted these announcements to be related only to the time up to the destruction of Jerusalem (contra Fitzmyer II: 1338–­39; Bridge 2003, 124; Stegemann 1991b, 81–­82; see also at 12.11). Rather, the corresponding experiences could also still be perceived as present in his time, and it additionally emerges from v. 28 that he expected them to end only with the coming of the Son of Man. 13 For the history of interpretation of this sentence, cf. F. Keck 1976, 199–­200; Nellessen 1976, 100ff. There are parallels to ἀποβαίνειν + dativus commodi/incommodi + εἰς in Plutarch, Moralia 299F (ἀπέβη δ’ εἰς οὐδὲν χρηστὸν αὐτοῖς [“But this resulted in no benefit to them”]); Job 13.16 = Philippians 1.19 (τοῦτό μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν [“This will turn out to be salvation for me”]); Job 13.5 (ἀποβήσεται ὑμῖν εἰς σοφίαν [“It will result in wisdom for you”]); Job 22.11‫א‬A (τὸ φῶς σοι εἰς σκότος ἀπέβη [“The light turned out to be darkness for you”]) and Testament of Job 43.6 (“The light of his lamp will turn out to be condemnation for him [ἀποβήσεται αὐτῷ εἰς κρίμα], for he is a son of darkness and not of light”).



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 423

These parallels partly support the interpretation of Hartman 1963: μαρτύριον designates not the “testimony” that the disciples give but the “testimony” which their fate becomes for themselves. This will be achieved by the forensic situations mentioned in v. 12b, c (contra Hartman 1963, 63; this reference is likely because these situations are also still in view in vv. 14-­15). The fate of the disciples receives this “testimony character” through the fact that it proves their ὑπομονή (v. 19; see further there), for they—­in the words of 12.8-­9—­have not “denied” Jesus but rather have “confessed” him. Thus, for the disciples the experience of ‘unsalvation’ turns out to be a cause of ‘salvation,’ and this movement corresponds also to the predominant usage of the expression in most of the texts mentioned above, where it is used to designate the change of a certain matter into its opposite (cf. especially Job 13.16; 22.11‫א‬A; Testament of Job 43.6; Philippians 1.19). 14 The forensic situations that were spoken of in v. 12b (“synagogues”) and v. 12c (“kings and rulers”) remain in view. On the Septuagintism τιθέναι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, see at 1.66 (cf. also 9.44). The content of the exhortation corresponds to 12.11b. For προμελετᾶν ἀπολογηθῆναι in the sense of ‘to prepare a defense speech,’ cf. Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae 116–­117: “For this very reason we have gathered here ὅπως προμελετήσωμεν ἁκεῖ δεῖ λέγειν (so that we may study how to speak there).” But this is also the only attestation, and it should therefore not be overestimated. 15 In 15a the same thing that was attributed to the Holy Spirit in 12.12 and Mark 13.11 is said of Jesus. A theological distinction cannot be constructed from this. As in 19.22, here “mouth” (στόμα) stands metonymically for the speech that comes from it (see at 19.22-­23); see also Exodus 4.10-­12 with the promise: “And now go! I will be your mouth (LXX: ἐγὼ ἀνοίξω τὸ στόμα σου [“I will open your mouth”]) and teach you what you should say.” στόμα καὶ σοφία means, in this sense, a mouth that speaks wisdom (see also BDR §442.9b). Luke has the announcement of 15b (the relative pronoun refers to σοφία), which is configured as an artful paronomasia (ἀντιστῆναι, ἀντειπεῖν, ἀντικείμενοι), become a reality for the first time with Stephen. People from different synagogues “disputed with Stephen, and they could not withstand (οὐκ ἴσχυον ἀντιστῆναι) the wisdom (σοφία) and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (Acts 6.9-­10; cf. also 4.13-­14; 13.8-­11). This promise is not, of course, exhausted with this, for according to Luke’s understanding it also applies to all forensic situations in which Christians since then have found themselves, find themselves, and will find themselves. 16-­17 Luke relates the Markan announcement of the general collapse of intra-­family relations as a sign of the end time (Mark 13.12; for the

424

The Gospel According to Luke

tradition-­historical background, see at 12.52-­53) to the disciples and integrates it into a three-­part announcement of the suffering that is coming upon them (παραδοθήσεσθε . . . θανατώσουσιν . . . ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι). In 16 παραδοθήσεσθε takes up the predicate of v. 12b and defines the experience announced there from the other side—­i.e., not from the goal but from the doer (16a). Denunciations are probably in view. The sequence “parents and siblings (for this meaning of ἀδελφοί see at 18.29) and relatives and friends” describes the immediate social environment of a person from the inner circles to the outer circles (for similar series see at 14.12; 18.29); the pair συγγενεῖς καὶ φίλοι is widely attested in ancient Greek (e.g., Plato, Phaedrus 239e; Diodorus Siculus 13.3.1; 28.5; 111.3; Philo, De vita Mosis 1.39, 303, 307, 322; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 7.43, 164; Bellum judaicum 1.556, 620). Luke will already be able to report in Acts (Stephen: 7.57-­58; James the son of Zebedee: 12.2) that for some the suffering extends to death (16b). For the use of the partitive ἐξ ὑμῶν as an object in the case of the omission of a pronoun see at 11.49. In 17, a verse that Luke took over word for word from Mark 13.13, the prepositional string ὑπὸ γονέων etc. (v. 16a) is extended in an amplifying manner by ὑπὸ πάντων. Also those who do not belong to the family and the circle of friends will reject the adherents of Jesus. For the content of the announcement, see at 6.22. 18 The promise of salvation is set over against the announcements of suffering of vv. 12-­17. It is formulated as a hyperbolic parabolic saying that was apparently a common idiom (cf. Acts 27.34; see also 1 Samuel 14.45; 2 Samuel 14.11; 1 Kings 1.52; DanielTheodotion 3.94). The parabolic saying reaches back to the same imagery as 12.7 and also pursues the same intention. The promise of salvation applies without the slightest imaginable qualification, which for humans would be the loss of such an easily lost and unimportant part of their body as a hair. The ontology of the promise of salvation corresponds to those of 9.24b and 17.33b, for in light of the announcements of suffering of vv. 12-­17 the absolute certainty of the promise of salvation only exists as part of the understanding of reality of cognitive outsiders, who by preservation and intactness understand something completely different than the majority society. However, since the terms of the cognitive majority have to be used, they can speak of it only metaphorically. 19 ψυχή stands for “life” (Heb.: ‫ ;נֶ ֶפׁש‬see also 6.9 [see further there]; 9.24). As in 9.24 the concern here is with the “life” that even physical death cannot harm. Thus, the promise implicit in the exhortation is oriented precisely not to a preservation of the earthly life (contra Kühschelm 1983, 212; Nolland and others). In this vein, “gaining your life” is both a metaphorical paraphrase for the obtaining of eschatic salvation and an



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 425

appropriate paraphrase of “being saved” (Mark 13.13b). Luke has deleted the Markan (ὑπομένειν) εἰς τέλος, because the τέλος for him begins only with the events depicted in vv. 25ff (see also v. 9) and none of the narrated hearers had the chance of even coming close to enduring until it (see also Dupont 1985, II: 1125). The imperative aorist κτήσασθε is found only in part of the textual tradition (‫ א‬D L W Ψ f 1 𝔐 i); other manuscripts have the future indicative κτήσεσθε (A B Θ f 13 33 pc lat sa bopt). The quality of the exterior evidence is roughly equal. It supports the originality of the first-­mentioned variant that the indicative-­future phrasing can be explained quite well as an adjustment to the corresponding verb forms in the context (Metzger 1971, 173), while the opposite change (i.e., indicative future to imperative aorist) is less plausible. The difference in substance is marginal, for the implicit pragmatics of the indicative reading are identical with what the imperative demands, and the propositional content of the imperative consists in precisely what the indicative promises.

ὑπομονή is also the virtue that is expected from believers in suffering in other New Testament texts (e.g., Romans 5.3-­4; 12.12; 2 Corinthians 1.6; 6.4; 2 Thessalonians 1.4; Revelation 1.9; 2.3; 13.10). According to 12.8, it is made visible by holding fast to the confession of Christ. This usage has its roots in the Septuagint (e.g., PsalmLXX 9.19; 24.21; 32.19-­20; 38.8; 61.6; 70.5; Lamentations 3.19-­21; Jeremiah 14.8; 17.13; 4 Maccabees 1.11), where the term designates the unshakeable trust in God’s salvation from suffering (for the broader environment in early Judaism and in non-­ Jewish Greek cf. Spicq 1994, III: 414ff; see also at 8.15). 20-­24 With the description of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, Luke continues to follow the outline of his Markan Vorlage (Mark 13.14-­ 19), even though the agreements in wording are only very punctiliar and superficial. Here, too, it is characteristic of his presentation that he marks the demarcations between the individual thematic complexes more clearly than Mark where the events tend to merge into one another. In terms of chronology, Luke places the events depicted here within the period of time described in vv. 12-­19. Contra Fitzmyer II: 1342 and others, here he does not yet have Jesus speak about the “end” spoken of in v. 9c. Rather, the narrated narrator and his hearers as well as the readers of the Gospel of Luke are still found in the period of time characterized by πρὸ δὲ τούτων πάντων (v. 12a). 20 Eschatic signs are also identified with very similar words (ὅταν ἴδητε . . . τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν . . . [“When you see . . . then you will know that near is . . .”]) in Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 3.12-­13. Luke thus signalizes that here the question about the signs that make the

426

The Gospel According to Luke

imminence of the destruction of Jerusalem recognizable (v.  7c) is answered. In doing so he has Jesus describe the same situation as in 19.43b-­c (see further there). 21 There follows a series of three instructions for how one should behave in this situation—­i.e., between the encirclement of Jerusalem and its “desolation.” 21a has been taken over from Mark 13.14c, and 21b-­c formulates complementary exhortations: ‘Whoever is inside should go outside; whoever is outside should not go inside.’ The pronouns αὐτῆς (21b) and (εἰς) αὐτήν (21c) refer to Jerusalem. The exhortation to flee into the mountains is not a reminiscence of the flight of the primitive community to Pella east of the Jordan but more likely calls to mind the actions of the Maccabees at the beginning of their resistance against the Hellenistic foreign rule (1 Maccabees 2.28). The exhortation may even have belonged originally in this ideological context. Exhortations to flee are also attested as an element of prophetic threat sayings, however (Jeremiah 4.6; 6.1; 49.8). In such cases, they are intended to intensify the announcement of unsalvation, and all three imperatives should probably also be understood in this sense here. This is supported especially by the fact that their addressees are fictive (the same also applies to the woes in v. 23; see further at 6.26). The use of the third person plural distances the narrated hearers of the speech of Jesus from the addressees of the three instructions. Moreover, neither can any of the intended readers of the Gospel of Luke feel addressed by them, for the destruction of Jerusalem is long past for them. The literary function of the last two exhortations in particular can therefore only lie in rhetorically radicalizing the magnitude of the destruction that threatens Jerusalem. 22 Luke interprets the destruction of Jerusalem as a punitive retributive action of God. He does not need to provide a justification here, for the readers still know this from 19.44c—­namely, because the city did not recognize the kairos of its “visitation” (see further there). The expression ἡμέραι ἐκδικήσεως has a close parallel in Hosea 9.7 (“Days of retribution have come [αἱ ἡμέραι τῆς ἐκδικήσεως], days of your recompense have come [αἱ ἡμέραι τῆς ἀνταποδόσεώς σου], and Israel will be treated badly”); see also Deuteronomy 32.35; JeremiahLXX 26.10, 21; 27.27, 31; 28.6; Ezekiel 9.1 (ἤγγικεν ἡ ἐκδίκησις τῆς πόλεως [“The retribution of the city has come near”]). This is more likely at any rate than the thesis of Baarlink 1982, 213ff, who thinks that the “day of recompense” (ἡμέρα ἀνταποδόσεως) from Isaiah 61.2—­before which the quotation in Luke 4.18-­19 breaks off—­is alluded to here. It speaks against this assumption that ἐκδίκησις does not occur in Isaiah 61.2, and that text—­unlike Hosea 9.7—­is not a judgment saying against Israel. The infinitive τοῦ πλησθῆναι πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα (on this see BDR §400.5) interprets the destruction



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 427

of Jerusalem with the help of a nexus of conduct and consequences that is typical for the Old Testament (therefore πάντα)—­that Israel is punished with unsalvation when it disobeys God’s word of salvation (in addition to the aforementioned texts see e.g., Leviticus 26.14-­17; Deuteronomy 28.15-­68; 30.17-­18; 1 Kings 9.6-­9; Jeremiah 26.1-­6; see also Flückiger 1972, 289–­90). The passive πλησθῆναι is therefore a passivum divinum. 23 Likewise, in the two woes in 23a (for the tradition-­historical background as anticipated lament see at 6.24-­26), the narrated hearers are distinguished from the fictive addressees (as in v. 21; see further at 6.26). Thus, these words also receive through this the function of rhetorically radicalizing the magnitude of the coming unsalvation. Not even people who are as defenseless as pregnant and nursing women are spared by it. The closest parallel is Sibylline Oracles 2.190–­192: “Alas, for as many as are found bearing in the womb on that day, for as many as suckle infant children” (trans. J. J. Collins, OTP 1: 350); see also 2 Enoch 99.5 (“In that time . . . the pregnant will have miscariages, and those nursing will throw their children from them”); Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 55.4, 6. ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχειν is just as little a Septuagintism as θηλάζειν (contra Fitzmyer; cf. already Herodotus 3.32; 4.30; Hippocrates, De mulierum affectibus, ed. Littré 1853, 169, 215, 216 as well as Plato, Respublica 460d; LSJ 797). ἀνάγκη μεγάλη is apparently an already fixed stereotypical word combination; cf. Sibylline Oracles 3.101; Josephus, Vita 162; Apocalypse of Moses 25.2; 2 Enoch 103.8, 9.

ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις refers back to the ἡμέραι ἐκδικήσεως of v. 22. In 23b the earth is not meant with ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Rather, the expression corresponds to λαὸς οὗτος (= “Israel”) and designates the promised land in the sense of e.g., Deuteronomy 1.8, 21; Zechariah 12.12. 24 As in 1.21, in 24 Luke continues after λαός with a plural as constructio ad sensum (cf. BDR §134.1); thus, the subject of πεσοῦνται . . . καὶ αἰχμαλωτισθήσονται is the members of the λαός. The concretizations of unsalvation in 24a-­b are not based on historical reminiscences of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 CE, nor do they reach back to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE. Rather, common terminology for siege and destruction is taken up. For (πεσοῦνται) στόματι μαχαίρης, cf. Genesis 34.26; Joshua 19.48; 2 Samuel 15.14; Sirach 28.18; Jeremiah 21.7; Testament of Judah 5.5. For αἰχμαλωτισθήσονται εἰς τὰ ἔθνη πάντα, cf. Joel 4.8; Ezekiel 32.9; Jubilees 1.13 (“I . . . will hand them over into the hand of the nations into captivity”); see also Tobit 14.5. For Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν, cf. Zechariah 12.3LXX (“And it will be on that day that I will make Jerusalem a trampled stone for all

428

The Gospel According to Luke

nations [λίθον καταπατούμενον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν]”); Psalms of Solomon 2.19 on the conquering of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 CE (“The nations reproached Jerusalem through trampling [ἐν καταπατήσει]”); 8.12; 17.22 regarding the messianic king (“. . . to purify Jerusalem from the nations, who trample [it] in destruction [ἀπὸ ἐθνῶν καταπατούντων ἐν ἀπωλείᾳ]”); 1 Maccabees 3.45, 51; 4.60; Isaiah 63.18; Daniel 11.8; 2 Baruch 67.2; Revelation 11.2.

Verse 24c is a temporal limitation that is based again on the notion of the measure of time fixed by God’s prior plan (see at 9.51). It has its closest linguistic and thematic counterpart in Tobit 14.5AB. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersal of Israel (‫א‬: taking away into captivity) had been announced, it says in Tobit 14.5AB: “And God will have mercy on them again and will bring them back into the land, and they will build the house—­not as the earlier one—­until the times of the world are fulfilled (ἕως πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος). And after this they will return from captivities and will build up Jerusalem preciously, and the house of God will be built in it until all generations of eternity with a glorious building as the prophets have said about it (sc. Jerusalem)”; cf. also Luke 2.6, 22 (ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ καταρισμοῦ αὐτῶν; Leviticus 12.4, 6). The suggestion of Nolland III: 1002 that Luke thinks here along the lines of 1.57 (“For Elisabeth ἐπλήσθη ὁ χρόνος τοῦ τεκεῖν αὐτήν”) of “the time for the judgment upon the Gentile nations” is unlikely, for in this case he would have used the singular καιρός and would have had to mark the connection to judgment more clearly.

In this way, Luke limits the time of the trampling of Jerusalem by the Gentiles by limiting the “time of the Gentiles” itself. Viewed from his own viewpoint Luke turns the view from the past into the future in 24c. He will describe the end of the καιροὶ ἐθνῶν in vv. 25ff. But by concluding the announcement of unsalvation in vv. 20-­24b with the outlook of 24c, Luke makes unmistakably clear that the redemption that the Son of Man will bring at his parousia (vv. 27-­28) will also include the reestablishment of Jerusalem (see also Chance 1988, 138; Wainwright 1977/1978). The announcement regarding this, which he at least implicitly placed in the mouth of Anna in 2.38, is to this extent actualized on the literary level and for the readers of the Gospel of Luke. At the same time, however, there should also be no doubt that in Jerusalem nothing will be like it was at the time when Jesus was in this city (on this cf. Wolter 1997b). 25-­28 There is no temporal distance between v. 24 and v. 25, for ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ ἐθνῶν (v. 24c) reaches chronologically at least to v. 25. Luke takes up again the thread that he had left lying at the end of



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 429

v. 11 by having Jesus describe what will take place at the “end.” Thus, the perspective widens into the universal. To the description of the heavenly signs taken over from Mark 13.24-­ 25 Luke has added vv. 25b-­26, which consider the reaction of the people on earth. A chiastic structure thereby emerges: (a) v. 25a: heaven / (b) v. 25b: earth // (b’) v. 26a: earth / (a’) v. 26b: heaven. This dimensioning of the signs (in 25b the sea is added to this as a force of chaos) and their perception announces an event that encompasses the whole of creation. 25a, 26b In 25a Luke summarizes Mark 13.24-­25a by generalizing into σημεῖα the detailed description—­constructed together there from Isaiah 13.10; 34.4—­of how sun, moon, and stars will lose their function as ‘lights of heaven’ (cf. Genesis 1.14-­18; Jeremiah 31.35). In this way, an increase in indeterminateness is achieved, probably due to the variety of the expectations regarding this event (cf. e.g., Joel 2.10; 3.4; 4.15; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 19.13: “And when the time draws near to visit the world, I will command the years and order the times and they will be shortened, and the stars will hurry to fall and the light of the moon will not remain” [trans. D. J. Harrington, OTP 2: 328]; Revelation 6.12-­13; see also Aune 1997–­1998, II: 413–­14). Beyond this, however, this term also establishes a connection to v. 11b and orients these events at the same time toward a main event ‘designated’ by them—­the coming of the Son of Man (v. 27). Luke has taken over 26b from Mark 13.25b, and there the announcement may be based on Isaiah 34.4MT: “And the heaven will be rolled up like a scroll. And their whole host (‫)ּכל־ ְצֺ ָב ָאם‬ ָ withers like the leaves on the vine wither . . .” (LXX, Cod. B: τακήσονται πᾶσαι αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν [“All powers of the heaven will melt away”]); cf. also Haggai 2.6, 20. In 2 Kings 17.16; 21.3, 5; 23.4, 5; 2 Chronicles 18.18; Sirach 17.32; DanielThe4.35; 8.10 the expression δύναμις τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is a translation of Hebrew ‫“ ִצ ָבא ַה ָּׁש ַמיִם‬host of heaven” and designates the stars understood as heavenly powers or angels (see also Prayer of Manasseh 15: σὲ ὑμνεῖ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις τῶν οὐρανῶν [“The whole host of heaven praises you”]). The plural is not attested in the Septuagint, but it is attested in 2 Enoch 18.14 where the place of punishment “for the stars and for the powers of heaven” (τοῖς ἄστροις καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσιν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) in the beyond is described; see also Jubilees 1.29 (“powers of heaven”) and Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 19.12 (“heavenly hosts”). Quite a bit speaks for the view that Luke also thinks of angelic powers here.

odotion

The Lukan insertion 25b-­26a portrays the reaction of the people to the happenings that take place in the spheres that cannot be controlled by them—­in the sea (25b) and in the sky (26a). It is common to both parts that

430

The Gospel According to Luke

humanity suspects that these occurrences announce huge events, but they do not know which ones. This is why they can only react to these happenings with fear of something even worse. ἀπὸ φόβου καὶ προσδοκίας in 26a form a hendiadys (cf. BDR §442.9b: two terms connected with each other by καί “that stand in a relation of dependence with each other according to their meaning”). The expectation of what comes causes the people to die from fear (for this understanding of ἀποψύχειν cf. 4 Maccabees 15.18; Philo, De aeternitate mundi 128; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 19.114); for οἰκουμένη see at 2.1. The reaction of the “nations” and the “humans” to the cosmic signs becomes a sign itself. 27 Luke portrays the coming of the Son of Man that follows these events with almost the same words as Mark 13.26; he merely replaces the plural νεφέλαις with the singular νεφέλῃ. The description is based on Daniel 7.13 (ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο [“On the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man”]); see also Acts 1.9, 11; Revelation 1.7. Luke is familiar with the clouds as an old theophany motif also independently of this text (see further at 9.34). The lexical pair δύναμις καὶ δόξα, which is attested in PsalmLXX 62.3 as an attribute of God, points in this same direction. Thus, the parousia of the Son of Man is furnished with features of a theophany. 28 The demonstrative pronoun in the genitivus absolutus points to the events described in vv. 25-­26. The two exhortations in 28a are intended to mark the contrast to the description of the “nations” and “humans” in vv. 25b, 26a. Because the disciples know on the basis of v. 27 that the cosmic events described in vv. 25-­26 announce the coming of the Son of Man, they can react in a completely different way to these happenings—­not with “fear,” “perplexity” (v. 25b), and “fear of what comes” (v. 26a), but in joyful expectation. This reaction is described in a metonymic way (concretum pro abstracto) with the help of the imperative pair ἀνακύψατε καὶ ἐπάρατε τὰς κεφαλὰς ὑμῶν (on this cf. especially 1 Enoch 62.15: “And the righteous and the chosen will have arisen from the earth, and have ceased to cast down their faces” [trans. Nickelsburg/Vanderkam 2004, 81]). Its function consists in informing the disciples that these events announce the end of their debasement and oppression. Accordingly, ἀπολύτρωσις (28b) designates the liberation from the experiences of suffering described in vv. 12-­13, 16-­17; cf. in this vein also Hebrews 11.35 with reference to the fate of the Maccabean martyrs (on this see Grässer 1997, 205–­6). 29-­31 The small parable takes up again the question of the “when” and the signs of v. 7. It relates them, however, not to the destruction of the temple but to the events described in vv. 25-­28, for it seeks to explain the nature of the connection between “signs” (vv. 25-­26) and the events announced by them (vv. 27-­28). It serves the cognitive reassurance (the



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 431

foreign is explained with the help of what is familiar), for with its imagery it invokes the cultural knowledge of the disciples. Every year they experience that certain occurrences (the budding of the trees) are reliable indicators for certain other happenings (the coming of summer). By way of the analogy the parable applies the certainty of this sequence to the sequence of the occurrences described in vv. 25-­26 and vv. 27-­28. The latter is expressed through the double taking up of ἐγγίζειν (v. 28b) through ἐγγύς (30b, 31c). 29-­30 The fact that the imagery in Luke draws not only on the fig tree but on “all the trees” as an example (29b) is not intended to widen the perspective of the subject matter already into the universal (contra Zmijewski 1972, 27; Klauck 1978, 324–­25; Nolland) but serves the rhetorical reinforcement. The connection described here is not merely a “law of fig trees” but a universally valid law of nature. I have not been able to find anywhere else the use of intransitive προβάλλειν (30a) with reference to the budding of trees or the like (transitive [in each case τὸν καρπόν]: Cyranides, ed. Kaimakis 1976, 5.17; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.226; Epictetus, Dissertationes 1.15.7; see also Spicq 1994, III: 177–­78). ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν, which Luke supplies—­in addition to βλέποντες—­as a specification of γινώσκετε in 30b, corresponds to 12.57 and is intended to make clear in both places that the addressees are able to form their own judgment and do not need anyone to explain to them the meaning of this process. The identification of summer (θέρος) with the harvest (θερισμός) does not fit the imagery (see also Klauck 1978, 321). Nevertheless, within the target domain the final judgment is, of course, present; however, it is inappropriate to construct an opposition between “time of judgment” and “time of joy” (contra Zmijewski 1972, 260). For the disciples the time of the judgment of their persecutors and oppressors is, of course, nothing but a “time of joy,” because it brings them “liberation” (v. 28; on this cf. Wolter 2002a, 367–­68 and elsewhere). 31 As in 12.21; 14.11, 33; 15.7, 10; 17.10, the application is introduced by οὕτως (see also at 14.11 and especially 17.1 where Luke uses the same elliptical introduction as here: οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς· ὅταν . . . ; cf. also Matthew 23.28; Romans 6.11; 1 Corinthians 14.9, 12; Colossians 3.13). Luke reproduces the structure of the source domain described in vv. 29-­ 30 (ἴδετε . . . ὅταν . . . γινώσκετε ὅτι . . . ἐγγὺς . . . ἐστίν) almost word for word. He merely replaces in the protasis the “budding” of the trees (v. 30a) with ταῦτα γινόμενα, which refers back via ἀρχωμένων δὲ τούτων γίνεσθαι (v. 28) to the events of vv. 25-­26, and in the apodosis “summer” (v. 30b) with ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (31c). Moreover, by changing the word placement vis-­à-­vis v. 30b, Luke assigns to it the emphatic final position in the parable. The semantic isotopy with vv. 27-­28 is comprised of two

432

The Gospel According to Luke

things. First, the parousia of the Son of Man will make the kingdom of God once more a reality that can be perceived on earth and by humans (this corresponds to the Lukan understanding of the kingdom of God; cf. Wolter 1995a, 549ff). For this reason, Luke can speak in the same way about the “coming” of the kingdom of God in 22.18 as he does in 21.27 about the “coming” of the Son of Man in 21.27 (see also at 11.2d-­e). Second, the kingdom of God also brings the “liberation” (ἀπολύτρωσις) of the adherents of Jesus from persecution and oppression. According to the Lukan understanding, the nearness of the kingdom of God can only be spoken of when the cosmic signs described in vv. 25-­26 can be observed. But Luke does not know how much time is still to pass until then. Thus, one cannot say that according to the Lukan understanding “the kingdom of God is ‘already now’ dawning and that there are signs for this in history itself” that would need to be interpreted as “signs of the present time . . . in the sense of the approaching kingdom of God” (thus Zmijewski 1972, 268). 32-­33 In dependence on Mark 13.30-­31 there follows a double saying whose coherence is established through the verb παρέρχεσθαι (32b, 33a, b). 32 appears to blatantly contradict the scheduling of the end time events presented in vv. 25-­28. While Luke moved them there into a future that cannot be temporally quantified from his own viewpoint, here he has Jesus present an expectation that moves within the scope of his own generation. However, Luke looks back to the temporal horizon that this considers as long past, without the events announced in vv. 25-­28 having occurred. The main problem is the interpretation of ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη (on this cf. the overview of Maddox 1982, 111ff; Bock II: 1688ff). Against the proposals that with this expression “humanity as such” (Conzelmann 1977, 122; see also Zmijewski 1972, 281–­82; Lövestam 1995, 81–­87; 1963, 122–­32; Schmithals and others) or “the humanity that is then present” (Schneider 1975; see also Fitzmyer; Bock and others) stands the triviality of such a statement. That there will still be people at the parousia is certainly not such a meaningful disclosure that Jesus would have to introduce it with such a solemn phrasing as “Amen, I say to you” (see also 4.24; 12.37; 18.17, 29). The explanation presented by Bock II: 1691 (“. . . the generation that sees the beginning of the end, also sees its end. When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations. It will happen within a generation”) is refuted by the demonstrative pronoun αὕτη. Outside of this text and its synoptic parallels the expression γενεὰ παρέρχεται or the like is not attested elsewhere. Also, the assumption that through the deletion of the demonstrative pronoun ταῦτα Luke wanted to restrict the perspective to the historical events announced in vv. 12-­24 (e.g., F. Keck 1976, 289–­90) certainly does not do justice to the issue. Even without ταῦτα, at this point in the speech



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 433

πάντα cannot be understood in any other way than comprehensively, i.e., including the events reported in vv. 25-­28.

An understanding of the statement that fits the context can only be obtained if γενεά is understood not as a direct or indirect temporal specification but as having the meaning of “family or race in the sense of those connected by common descent” (F. Büchsel, ThWNT 1: 660.41–­42; attestations, among others, in LSJ 342 s.v. γενεά I: “of the persons in a family”) and if, as an extension of this term, the disciples of Jesus in the widest sense are supplied (see also 9.41; also already mentioned as a possibility by Grundmann; Wiefel)—­namely, all those whose orientation of existence owes itself to Jesus; and these are both the companions of the earthly Jesus and those who believe in the risen one and have been baptized in his name. This connection would then be another example of early Christian family imagery (see at 8.21). In this view, Luke would have Jesus make a solemn guarantee of survival for his disciples—­the promise that they will continue to exist until the coming of the Son of Man and that their opponents will not manage to cause them to disappear (see also Acts 5.36-­37). It is obvious that the assurance communicated through this must have been extraordinarily important in the time of Luke, when the time “until all has taken place” (32c) had become unforseeable. 33 also fits this diachronic assurance. Jesus ascribes to his words a quality that goes far beyond what he had said in 16.17 about the validity of the law. The hyperbolism of this saying corresponds to what is said about God’s word in Isaiah 40.8: “The grass withers, the flowers fade. But the word of our God endures forever” (see also Psalm 102.26-­27; 119.89; Isaiah 51.6; Testament of Job 33.4–­5: “The whole world will pass away [ὁ κόσμος ὅλος παρελεύσεται] . . . , but my throne is in the holy land, and its glory is in the world of the unchanging”). With this, the whole speech arrives at a point that not only reaches beyond the point in time of the coming of the Son of Man or the kingdom of God, which is the focus in vv. 28b, 31c, but also marks an end beyond which no narration can be taken. This verse therefore marks a clear endpoint and climax. “These words” refer not only to Jesus’s words in general but precisely also to the words of this speech. The concluding sentence therefore receives the function of expressly reinforcing once more the absolute validity of the speech itself. 34-­36 What is still lacking is a concluding paraenesis that formulates the pragmatic consequences of the speech for the behavior of the narrated and literary addressees. In the present case, it is composed of the two usual ways of argumentation of the genus deliberativum (cf. Aristotle, Rhetorica 1.3.3)—­of an ἀποτροπή or “turning away,” which says what one should

434

The Gospel According to Luke

leave undone (vv. 34-­35), and a προτροπή or “turning to,” which says what one should do (v. 36). Form-­critically and thematically the admonition is not far from 12.35-­40, for in both places the concern is with the preservation of the Christian orientation of existence in a situation in which the parousia of the Son of Man and the coming of the kingdom of God have become unforeseeable. Both texts are intended to teach the disciples, i.e., the readers, with the help of a metaphorical admonition speech that their way of life must always be parousia-­proof. They are to shape their life conduct as though they were reckoning at every moment with the return of the exalted Lord (see also at 18.8c). Apart from the facts that the Markan speech in 13.33-­37 likewise ends with a paraenetic call to watchfulness and the imperative ἀγρυπνεῖτε is used in both texts (Mark 13.33apar. Luke 21.36a; cf. additionally αἰφνίδιος [Luke 21.34] with ἐξαίφνης [Mark 13.36]), the Lukan conclusion is without parallel in any of the synoptic counterparts. It is probably more likely that the agreements with 1 Thessalonians 5.1-­11 and Ephesians 6.18 go back to the reworking of common Christian or even common ancient paraenetic tradition than that they are based on literary dependence (contra Aejmelaeus 1985).

34 The paraenetic “turning away” (see above) is formulated with recourse to imagery that is usually regarded as a Septuagintism; reference can be made to the expression βαρεῖν or βαρύνειν [Heb.: ‫ ָּכ ֵבד‬in each case] τὴν καρδίαν, with which Pharaoh’s refusal to let Israel go is explained (cf. Exodus 7.14; 8.11, 28; 9.7, 34; 1 Samuel 6.6 [with transference to Israel]; but see also 2 Chronicles 25.19; Sirach 3.27). On the basis of the continuation, however, a Hellenistic background is also conceivable, for hearts being “weighed down” is closely connected there with a too excessive consumption of alcohol; cf. especially Plutarch, Moralia 173e: “Cyrus the younger . . . said that he has a ‘heavier’ heart than his brother (τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ καρδίαν ἔχειν βαρυτέραν) and drinks more unmixed wine than he and has a higher tolerance for it.” That wine makes “heavy” (βαρύς or βεβαρηώς) is not only known since Homer (Homer, Odyssea 3.139; 19.122; Plato, Symposium 203b; Aristotle, Problemata 953a12) but is compressed into words such as οἰνοβαρεῖν and οἰνοβαρής (e.g., Homer, Ilias 1.225; Odyssea 9.374; 10.555; 21.304; Theoginis, Elegiae 1.503; Plutarch, Moralia 678b; Anthologia Graeca 7.25; Philo, De ebrietate 104). This semantic field includes not only the warning against drunkenness (μέθη; see also Romans 13.13; Galatians 5.21 and the analogous warnings in 12.45; 1 Corinthians 5.11; 6.10; Ephesians 5.18; 1 Thessalonians 5.7), but also against “intoxication” (κραιπάλη; in connection with μεθύειν etc. also in Isaiah 24.20; Aristotle, Problemata 873b23; Plutarch, Moralia 13e;



19.47–­21.38: “And he was teaching daily in the temple” 435

Herodianus Historicus 1.3.1; 2.1.2; 2.6.6); for the difference between κραιπάλη and μέθη, cf. Ps.-­Ammonius, De adfinium vocabulorum differentia 284 (Nickau 1966, 74.4–­6): κραιπάλη καὶ μέθη διαφέρει. κραιπάλη μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ χθεσινὴ μέθη δὲ ἡ τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρας γινομένη οἴνωσις (“κραιπάλη and μέθη differ from each other. κραιπάλη is the μέθη of yesterday; but μέθη is the boozing that takes place on the same day”); the κραιπάλη is thus something like a “hangover,” while μέθη is the “intoxication” as such; Timaeus Grammaticus, ed. Hermann 1892, 259/403: κραιπαλῶντα ἔτι ἀπὸ τῆς μέθης βαρυνόμενον (“A hungover person [is] one who is still heavy from intoxication”).

Luke takes up here the devaluation—­which was widespread in the whole of antiquity—­of drunkenness and excessive consumption of wine as a cause and mark of a irrational and immoral life; cf. as an example Testament of Judah 14.1–­8 with the opening admonition: “. . . do not be drunk with wine, because wine perverts the mind from the truth, arouses the impulses of desire, and leads the eyes into the path of error” (trans. H. C. Kee, OTP 1: 799); Corpus Hermeticum 1.27: “You nations . . . who have given yourselves up to drunkenness (μέθη) and sleep and ignorance of God, sober up, stop being hungover (κραιπαλῶντες) and bewitched in unreasoning sleep!” The warning against the “cares of everyday life” sounds like a renewal of 8.14 (see further there). In Galen, De sanitate tuenda, ed. Kühn 1964, VI: 318.4 the μέριμνα βιωτική are mentioned among the causes for the drying out of the body. The καί before ἐπιστῇ in 34c should be understood as consecutive (with BDR §442.2) and “that day” means “the day (of the revelation) of the Son of Man” from 17.24, 30, i.e, the day spoken of in 21.27. With this the purpose of the warning also becomes clear. If the disciples do not guard themselves against the way of behaving described in 34a-­b, they will experience the same fate as the generation of the flood and the inhabitants of Sodom according to 17.26-­29. They will be surprised by the coming of the Son of Man, and because they are not prepared for it, this day will become a day of unsalvation for them (see also 1 Thessalonians 5.3). 35 As the parallels in 1 Thessalonians 5.3 show, the demarcation from the behavior and fate of the other people likewise belongs among the topics of such paraeneses. The announcement displays a certain closeness to Isaiah 24.17LXX (“Fear and pit and snare [παγίς] upon you who live on the earth!”). This correspondence may have been the cause for the fact that in the textual tradition the phrasing ὡς παγὶς ἐπεισελεύσεται γάρ (‫ *א‬B D 070 pc it co) became ὡς παγὶς γὰρ ἐπελεύσεται (A C W Θ Ψ f 1,13 33 [1241] 𝔐 lat sy [Irlat]). Not only is the reading mentioned first (which is the one that is translated above), in which ὡς παγίς still belongs to v. 34, better

436

The Gospel According to Luke

attested, but it is also much more difficult to explain its origin from the other variant than vice versa (see also Metzger 1971, 173). ἐπὶ πρόσωπον πάσης τῆς γῆς is a Septuagintism (cf. Genesis 2.6; 8.9; 11.8, 9; Deuteronomy 11.25; 2 Samuel 18.8 and elsewhere). 36 The paraenetic “turning to” (see above) is the complementary counterpart of the apotreptic instruction of v. 34. As he has done already in 12.35-­40 and 18.8c, here too the Lukan Jesus exhorts the disciples to “constant readiness” (Schneider 1975, 91). This is a demand that was born from the uncertainty with regard to the point in time of the parousia. As the ethical mode of this orientation of existence, Luke mentions here—­as also already in 18.1, 8c—­persistent prayer (ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ in 36a corresponds to πάντοτε . . . καὶ μὴ ἐγκακεῖν in 18.1b). The overlap with Ephesians 6.18 (“through every prayer and petition praying ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ in the Spirit καὶ εἰς αὐτὸ ἀγρυπνοῦντες”) shows that Luke reproduces here a prayer paraenesis that was widespread in early Christianity. Accordingly, ἵνα characterizes both the content of the prayer (see also 9.40; 22.32; Mark 13.18par.; 14.35, 38parr.; 1 Corinthians 14.13; Colossians 4.3; 2 Thessalonians 1.11) as well as its consequence. Whoever persistently prays for preservation in the eschatic tribulation (ταῦτα πάντα τὰ μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι probably refers to the events preceding the coming of the Son of Man) and therefore the ability to endure in the judgment of the Son of Man (on the forensic meaning of ἔμπροσθεν, cf. W. Bauer 1988, 519 and at 10.21) can—­Luke has made this clear in 18.1-­8—­be certain of the fulfillment of his prayer. σταθῆναι therefore means not “to step (before the judge)” as in Matthew 27.11 but must be understood as a salvific statement—­as in 1 Enoch 62.8: “And the community of the elect and holy ones will be planted, and all the elect will stand on that day before him (sc. the Son of Man)”; see also Jude 24; Revelation 7.9 and the reversed case in 1 Enoch 89.31 (“And they all feared and trembled before him, and they cried out . . . : ‘We cannot stand before our Lord and cannot look at him’”). Thus, the verb presupposes the successful outcome of the situation described in 12.8-­9. 21.37-­38: Concluding Frame 37

During the day he taught in the temple. But he spent the nights outside on the mount, which is called (Mount) of Olives. 38And early in the morning the whole people came out to him in the temple to hear him. The two verses correspond to 19.47-­48 and refer to the whole period of time narrated in between. Jesus’s opponents’ intention to get rid of him, which is explicitly emphasized there, is not repeated once more but presupposed as an ever present background (see also 20.19, 20).



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 437

37 As in 19.47 Luke uses the coniugatio periphrastica ἦν . . . διδάσκων in order to accentuate the temporal extension (cf. BDR §353; for its use in Luke see Verboomen 1992). As additional information he now also communicates that Jesus spent the nights on the Mount of Olives (for the phrasing τὸ ὄρος τὸ καλούμενον ἐλαιῶν see at 19.29). The verb αὐλίζεσθαι does not necessarily indicate that Luke wants to give his readers the impression that Jesus spent the night in the open (cf. Matthew 21.17; Didache 11.6; Joseph and Aseneth 9.4, 5), but the specification of the place could certainly suggest this impression. 38 ὀρθρίζειν πρός is a Septuagintism (cf. PsalmLXX 62.2; Job 8.5; Wisdom of Solomon 6.14; Sirach 4.13; 6.36; 39.5; Hosea 5.15; see also Testament of Joseph 3.6; according to TLG #E this expression appears nowhere in Greek literature). Here the expression has the function of emphasizing the extraordinary interest of the population of Jerusalem in Jesus’s teaching.

22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter With 22.1 begins the report of the fulfillment of Jesus’s repeatedly spoken announcement—­namely, that he will be “handed over” as the Son of Man, that he “must suffer much,” that he will be “killed,” and that he will “rise on the third day” (cf. 9.22, 44; 17.25; 18.32-­33). This is recognizable above all in the fact that in the very first scene (22.3-­6) the key word παραδιδόναι from 9.44 and 18.32 is taken up again, and it runs like a red thread through the whole concluding section of the Gospel (cf. 22.21, 22, 48; 23.25; 24.7, 20). That Luke wanted the ‘passion story’ and ‘resurrection story’ to be read as two parts of a single ‘fulfillment story’ is also recognizable in the fact that between 23.56 and 24.1 he makes only a very weak structuring break (see further ad loc.) and in the fact that these two stories are related to each other in the so-­called ‘contrast scheme’ of the mission and defense speeches of Acts (cf. e.g., 10.39-­40: “The one whom they hanged on wood and killed—­this one God raised on the third day and granted that he become visible”; see also Acts 2.23-­24; 3.13; 4.10-­11; 5.30; 10.39-­40; 13.28-­30 as well as Luke 24.26). To be sure, the announcements of the passion and the resurrection are not implemented in the same way in the narrative. In chapters 22–­23 Luke tells how Jesus is “handed over” (see above), how he “suffers much” (9.22; 17.25), how he is “rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes” (9.22; see also 17.25), how he is “mocked, mistreated, and spit on,” and how they “flog and kill” him (18.32-­33). But he cannot tell how Jesus rises on the third day after his death, because this event is just as unnarratable as was Jesus’s conception with the help of the Holy Spirit in a virgin.

438

The Gospel According to Luke

Luke relates only what one can actually recount, namely the consequences of the resurrection: the discovery of the empty tomb and especially the appearances that make the apostles into “witnesses” of Jesus’s resurrection (cf. Acts 1.22; 2.32; 3.15; 5.32; 10.41; 13.31). Within this level, Luke has structured the events with the help of a counting of the days. He has each of the days begin with the sunrise. After an opening in unspecified temporal distance before the Passover (22.1-­ 6), the event narrated in 22.7-­65 takes place on the “day of unleavened bread” (v. 7). The next day (22.66–­23.56a) begins with the interrogation by the Sanhedrin (22.66-­71) and ends with the women making preparations for anointing Jesus after their return from the tomb (23.56a). The third day is a Sabbath on which the narrative also comes to rest (23.56b). The events narrated in 24.1-­52 then take place on the following first day of the week. The episodic structure of the narrative corresponds in the main with the sequence of the scenes in the Markan Vorlage (with the exception of the appearance narratives in 24.13-­35, 36-­49, which are not handed down in Mark); but it is also tied to a narrative logic that is not variable but fixed by the plot of the macro-­narrative. In this vein, the interrogation of Jesus can only be recounted after his arrest and before the report of his execution. For this reason, the sequence of the following scenes is pre-­given: Jesus’s last meal –­prayer in Gethsemane/on the Mount of Olives –­arrest –­hearing by Jews –­trial before the holder of the Roman imperium –­execution and death –­burial –­discovery of the empty tomb or appearances of the risen one. All other episodes and scenes are variable in their placement within the superordinated sequence of events. Their position can therefore change without consequences for the narrative realization of the plot (see the examples mentioned at 1.d below) or even be completely absent (such as the mocking with the crown of thorns and purple mantle [Mark 15.16-­ 20a] that would have been located between Luke 23.25 and 26). With his interpretation of the death of Jesus Luke stands closer to the Greek tradition of the death of heroes (see Seeley 1990) than to the Pauline theology of the cross. He presents Jesus’s death neither as a mors turpissima (Origen, Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 27.22–­26 [GCS XXXVIII, Origenes Werke XI: 259.7]) or as a servile supplicium (Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia 2.7.12), nor does he have Jesus die “shamefully and dishonorably” (Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 90.1). It does not do justice to the issue at hand, however, when one wants to concretize the Lukan embedding of the death of Jesus in this general tradition-­historical background through ascriptions to individual traditions. This applies especially to the attempt to place the Lukan presentation of the suffering and dying



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 439

of Jesus in a direct continuity with the Jewish martyr traditions (cf. above all the criticism regarding this of older interpretations in van Henten 2005; see also Karris 1986, 68ff). The main difference vis-­à-­vis these presentations resides in the fact that Jesus, unlike the martyrs, is never offered the possibility of escaping death through a particular behavior (turning away from the Torah or—­as with the Christian martyrs—­from faith). Jesus does not die, like the martyrs do, as a “witness” to his faithfulness to the law or the like. But this also applies in the exact same way for interpretations that want to make the death of Socrates the paradigmatic model for the Lukan interpretation of the death of Jesus (e.g., Kloppenborg 1992; Sterling 2001; Scaer 2005, 55ff; cautiously also Kraus 2003, 36ff). Here appeal is made especially to the repeated establishment of the innocence of Jesus. This does not constitute a specific connection with Socrates, however, for it has instead the function of characterizing the opponents of Jesus and making their prejudice visible to the readers. With regard to the establishment of such or similar cross-­connections, it is absolutely necessary to maintain that Luke presents the death of Jesus as unique and incomparable in every respect insofar as he places it from the beginning in the light of the resurrection (cf. in this vein already the first announcement of the passion and the resurrection in 9.22). And for this reason, Jesus dies as he alone and no one else can die—­that is, as the obedient Son of God, whose fate was assigned to him by the Father. He therefore dies in the certainty that the way to the “throne of David” (1.32) or into his “glory” (24.26) leads through suffering and death. The question of the sources has been controversially discussed for a long time. One can merely say with some certainty that Mark 14.1–­16.8—­probably in a deutero-­Markan version—­has influenced the Lukan presentation. In the framework of the two-­source theory, a Q-­foundation is assumed only for 22.28, 30 (par. Matthew 19.28; cf. Hoffmann 1998c, 4ff; Hoffmann lists other views on pp. 32ff). Against this background, the Lukan narrative obtains its profile through the fact that it differs clearly from its Vorlage, namely much more clearly than in the preceding parts of the Gospel of Luke that were dependent on Mark. (1) Alongside a multiplicity of smaller shortenings, expansions, and changes of the Markan Vorlage, the following differences in particular have played a role for the question of sources (cf. here especially the presentation of Harrington 2000, which is unsurpassably rich in material; see also Brown 1994, I: 67ff): (a) Scenic surpluses in relation to the Markan presentation: –­The dialogue following the farewell meal with the apostles before the walk to the Mount of Olives (22.24-­38); it includes:

440

The Gospel According to Luke

–­The chreia on the topic “ruling and serving” (22.24-­27), which occurs in 10.41-­45 in Mark and is absent from Luke at the corresponding point (it would have had to stand between Luke 18.34 and 18.35) –­The saying about the reward of discipleship that partly comes from Q (22.28-­30) –­The saying about Peter (22.31-­32) –­The dialogue about the swords (22.35-38) –­The temporary handing over of the trial to Herod Antipas (23.6-­12) (b) Surpluses within shared episodes and scenes: –­ Within the Gethsemane scene the angel who strengthens Jesus and the sweat that falls to the ground like drops of blood (24.43-­44)—­if it belongs to the original text –­At the trial before Pilate: –­ The verbalized accusation of Jesus by the members of the Sanhedrin (23.2, 5) –­The threefold establishment of Jesus’s innocence by Pilate (23.4, 14, 22) –­In the crucifixion scene: –­The chreia on the lament of the women of Jerusalem (23.27-­31) –­The petition for forgiveness (23.34) –­The mocking by the soldiers (23.36-­37) –­The conversation with the two people crucified with him (23.39b-­43) (c) Gaps in relation to the Markan presentation: –­Between Luke 22.9 and 10 the anointing in Bethany is lacking (Mark 14.3-­9); cf. at 7.36-­50 –­At the arrest of Jesus, Luke lacks, after 22.53, the flight of the disciples and the flight of the naked youth (Mark 14.50-­52); correspondingly, the announcement of the flight of the disciples is also lacking (Mark 14.27-­28), and in its place Luke has Jesus’s words to Peter (22.31-­32) –­In the questioning of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, Luke lacks between 22.66 and 67 the appearance of the false witnesses with the temple saying and non-­ answer of Jesus (Mark 14.55-­61a) –­At the end of the hearing before the Sanhedrin, Jesus’s words are not designated as “blasphemy,” and Luke lacks the formal condemnation to death (Mark 14.64) –­At the proceedings before Pilate Luke lacks the silence of Jesus (Mark 15.45) –­Between Luke 23.25 and 26, Luke lacks the mocking of Jesus by the Roman soldiers with crown of thorns, purple mantle, and homage as king (Mark 15.16-­20a) –­In the crucifixion scene Luke lacks the following:



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 441

–­Between Luke 23.33a and 33b the attempt to give Jesus spiced wine (Mark 15.23) –­Between Luke 23.35a and 35b the mocking of Jesus by those passing by with the temple saying (Mark 15.29-­30) (d) Deviations in the order of the scenes: –­Jesus speaks the saying about the one who hands him over not before the last supper, as in Mark 14.17-­21, but after it (Luke 22.21-­23) –­Luke narrates the denial by Peter (22.56-­62) and the mocking of Jesus (22.63-­ 65) before the hearing by the Sanhedrin (22.66-­71), while Mark places Jesus before the Sanhedrin first and then narrates the two other episodes—­more specifically, in the opposite sequence (mocking: 14.65; denial: 14.66-­72) (e) Other deviations: –­Unlike in Mark and Matthew the hearing before the Sanhedrin takes place not on Thursday evening but only on Friday morning (cf. 22.66) –­It is not the high priest who conducts the hearing but the entire Sanhedrin –­Jesus’s last words are not from Psalm 22.2 but from Psalm 31.6 (f) The spectacular minor agreements against Mark in Luke 22.62, 64par. Matthew 26.75, 68 (see ad loc.) (g) The situation is further complicated by the fact that Luke and John are connected with each other through a whole series of commonalities against Mark and Matthew (this fact is wrongly contested by Reinbold 1994, 70–­71). The commonalities also extend to the story of the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen one. At this point the following examples may be mentioned (see further in H. Klein 1976; Brown 1994, I: 86ff; M. A. Matson 2001): –­In both Luke and John the “handing over” of Jesus by Judas is set in motion by the fact that “Satan enters into him” (Luke 22.3: εἰσῆλθεν δὲ σατανᾶς εἰς Ἰούδαν; John 13.27: εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκεῖνον ὁ σατανᾶς) –­Unlike in Mark and Matthew, the announcement of the handing over takes place not before but after the Last Supper (Luke 22.21-­23par. John 13.21-­30) –­Unlike in Mark and Matthew, the denial of Peter is announced immediately after the Last Supper—­i.e., still prior to the departure to the Mount of Olives (Luke 22.34par. John 13.38c-­d) –­Furthermore, the Lukan and Johannine phrasings agree with each other here (in each case—­though with different word order—­οὐ φωνήσῃ . . . ἀλέκτωρ ἕως . . .) against Mark 14.30par. Matthew 26.34 (in each case ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ πρὶν . . . ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι . . .); however, like Mark and Matthew, Luke uses the compositum ἀπαρνεῖσθαι, whereas John has the simple form;

442

The Gospel According to Luke

in 22.61 Peter then recalls, of course, the Markan–­Matthean version of the announcement –­In the handing over of Jesus, the right ear of a subordinate member of the arresting troop is cut off (Luke 22.50par. John 18.10 diff. Mark 14.47par. Matthew 26.51) –­In the same scene, the flight of the disciples (Mark 14.50par. Matthew 26.58b) is lacking in Luke and John –­The arrest of Jesus occurs not before the sword strike (Mark 14.46par. Matthew 26.50c-­d), but after it (Luke 22.54par. John 18.12) –­The verb used to designate the arrest of Jesus is not κρατεῖν (Mark 14.46bpar. Matthew 26.50d) but συλλαμβάνειν (Luke 22.54apar. John 18.12; cf., however, συλλαβεῖν in Mark 14.48par. Matthew 26.55) –­There is a denial with οὐκ εἰμί only in Luke (22.58d) and in John (18.17d, 25d) –­The Sanhedrin’s question about Jesus’s messiahship in 22.67 (εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, εἰπὸν ἡμῖν) corresponds almost verbatim to John 10.24 (εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, εἰπὲ ἡμῖν παρρησίᾳ); plus, the first part of Jesus’s answer in Luke (v. 67d: ἐὰν ὑμῖν εἴπω, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε) has points of contact with the continuation in John (10.25: εἶπον ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε) –­Only in Luke 23.4, 14, 22par. John 18.38; 19.4, 6 does Pilate establish three times that he regards Jesus as innocent—­more precisely, with variations of the same phrasing (cf. e.g., Luke 23.4: οὐδὲν εὑρίσκω αἴτιον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ; John 18.38: ἐγὼ οὐδεμίαν εὑρίσκω ἐν αὐτῷ αἰτίαν) –­Only in Luke 23.21par. John 19.6 does the crowd twice call out “crucify, crucify (him)!” (in Luke in the present, in John in the aorist) –­Luke 23.33par. John 19.17 lack the attempt to give Jesus spiced wine, which Jesus refuses (Mark 15.23par. Matthew 27.34) –­Only in Luke 23.49par. John 19.25 do women and others “stand” (εἱστήκεισαν) by the cross –­Only in Luke 23.53 (μνῆμα . . . οὗ οὐκ ἦν οὐδεὶς οὔπω κείμενος)par. John 19.25 (μνημεῖον . . . ἐν ᾧ οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς ἦν τεθειμένος) is it stressed that Jesus was placed in a tomb in which no one had previously been placed –­ The fact that Jesus was crucified on “the day of preparation,” i.e., on the day before the Sabbath, is communicated to the readers in 23.54 and John 19.42 at the end of the narrative about his placement in the tomb (cf., however, already John 19.31); in Mark this information stands at the beginning (15.42) –­In Luke 24.4par. John 20.12 two angels or men sit in the tomb –­Peter “runs” to the tomb of Jesus (24.12a; John 20.3-­4: here together with the Beloved Disciple), and when he arrives there “he looks in and sees only the linen clothes” (παρακύψας βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια μόνα; 24.12b); in John 20.5 the latter is narrated with reference to the Beloved Disciple with the words καὶ παρακύψας βλέπει κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 443

–­Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem and commissions them (24.36-­49; John 20.19-­23) –­The appearance of Jesus before the disciples in Jerusalem is described with almost the same wording in Luke 24.36 (ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· εἰρήνη ὑμῖν) and in John 20.19 (ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· εἰρήνη ὑμῖν) –­Only in Luke 24.40 (καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας) and in John 20.20 (καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἔδειξεν τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῖς) is it stated that the risen one shows the disciples his hands and feet or hands and side, and this is done with almost the same wording –­Only in Luke 24.41a (ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς) and in John 20.20b (ἐχάρησαν) do we read that the disciples rejoice, though admittedly with different dramaturgical functions. (2) There is no tradition-­historical model that can explain how these findings came about in such a way that no open questions remain. There is a consensus only with regard to the assumption that Luke had the Gospel of Mark (or a recension of it) as a Vorlage. In every positive thesis that reaches beyond this, more problems are created anew than solved. This is because no specific explanation manages without assuming unproven auxiliary hypotheses, and the more specific an explanation wants to be, the greater its number of auxiliary hypotheses becomes. This results in the fact that every proposed solution that wants to reach beyond the aforementioned consensus is always easier to criticize than to defend. After the debate that has been intensively carried out in the twentieth century, for which Harrington 2000 has established an impressive memorial with his dissertation (which is, of course, also not dissimilar to a tombstone), more recent discussions of the topic are characterized by an increasing fuzziness and diffuseness. This is probably also the only mode of presentation that does reasonable justice to the problem. The proposed attempts at solutions can be assigned to two basic types: (a) Luke did not have another written passion narrative at his disposal alongside Mark 14.1–­16.8. The additions and other deviations go back in some cases to knowledge of individual traditions handed down orally and in other cases to his redactional reworking of the Markan Vorlage (it remains disputed where the one or the other is the case). The agreements with the Johannine passion and Easter story are based either on chance or on the literary dependence of the Gospel of John on Luke or on the common dependence of both evangelists on the same traditions. This position is represented by Schneider 1973; C. F. Evans; Fitzmyer; Brown 1994; Büchele 1978; Matera 1989a; 1989b; Senior 1989; Reinboldt 1994; Soards 1987b; Harrington 2000. (b) In addition to Mark 14.1–­16.8, Luke had another written passion narrative at his disposal. The question of which one that was is answered differently: –­The Gospel of John (e.g., Shellard 1995; M. A. Matson 2001)

444

The Gospel According to Luke

–­ The same Vorlage that was also available to the Gospel of John (e.g., J. B. Green 1988; 1991) –­Another source, i.e., either the same source in which the Lukan “Sondergut” prior to the passion narrative was also contained or some form of a “Proto-­Luke” or a separate passion narrative source (e.g., Marshall; Ernst; Nolland; V. Taylor 1972; Bovon 2003); for the explanation of the Lukan–­ Johannine agreements one would have in this case again the three aforementioned options The complexity of this last type of explanation can be increased by building in intermediate stages, as, e.g., in H. Klein 1976, 186: In addition to being dependent on (α) Mark, Klein says that the Lukan presentation depends on (β) another source. This one is said to be based on a (γ) “basic stratum,” which is said to have underlain the (δ) Vorlage of the Johannine narrative (which must be distinguished from [β]) and been influenced by the (ε) Vorlage of the Markan passion narrative. Futhermore, the passion narrative of the Gospel of Mark is said to have reworked (ζ) a “Gentile Christian passion tradition.” (3) The commentary below will show that the scope and character of the Lukan deviations from the Markan passion and Easter narrative do not require at a single point the assumption that Luke used another written presentation of the passion narrative in addition to the Gospel of Mark. Where Luke brings in Markan material, the deviations can always be explained as redactional reworking of the Vorlage. For pragmatic reasons, however, one should not rule out the possibility that Luke also knew traditions alongside and after Mark and that the one cannot always be precisely distinguished from the other. Moreover, one must also reckon, of course, with new redactional creations. The latter certainly applies to the episode of the transfer of Jesus to Herod Antipas (23.6-­12). For the explanation of the Lukan–­Johannine agreements in wording, which are both numerous and extensive, it is probably not sufficient to reckon with an “oral variability” of the passion traditions (Becker 1981, 535) that solidified into certain side traditions. By all indications, the assumption cannot be avoided that the author of the present version of the Gospel of John knew the Gospel of Luke (see also at 24.39).

22.1-­6: The Prelude: The Agreement between Judas and Jesus’s Opponents One cannot miss the sequential set up of the first series of episodes that Luke, with the help of temporal specifications, intentionally leads to the beginning of the Passover meal, which Jesus celebrates with his disciples as the last meal before his suffering. From 22.1 (“But the festival



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 445

of unleavened bread approached [ἤγγιζεν]”) via 22.7 (“But there came [ἦλθεν] the day of unleavened bread”) to 22.14 (“And when the hour came” [καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο ἡ ὥρα]) the narrative tempo is increasingly slowed and the temporal specifications become increasingly precise, until Jesus and his disciples begin the celebration of the Passover. 1

Now the festival of unleavened (bread) approached, which is called ‘Passover.’ 2And the chief priests and scribes searched for a possibility to do away with him, but they feared the people. 3And Satan went into Judas, who was called Iscariot and who belonged to the twelve. 4And he went and discussed with the chief priests and officials how he could hand him over to them. 5And they rejoiced and promised to give him money. 6He consented and sought a good opportunity to hand him over to them without a crowd. Luke narrates not two scenes (thus Marshall; Fitzmyer; Klein and many others), but only a single scene—­the agreement between Judas and the chief priests. Verses 1-­2 is not a distinct scene but the background information (cf. the iterative imperfects ἤγγιζεν, ἐζήτουν, and ἐφοβοῦντο). Verse 2 even establishes the connection with 19.47–­21.38. The coherence of the section is established, on the one hand, by the verb ζητεῖν (vv. 2, 6) and, on the other hand, by the narrative progression from v. 2 (ἐφοβοῦντο . . . τὸν λαόν) to v. 6b (ἄτερ ὄχλου). With Judas’s help, the obstacle is to be circumvented that had previously made it impossible for the chief priests and scribes to get Jesus out of the way—­the positive attention that Jesus received among the Jerusalem population. It is also for this reason that the πῶς ἀνέλωσιν αὐτόν of the chief priests and scribes (v. 2a) changes to the εὐκαιρία τοῦ παραδοῦναι αὐτόν . . . αὐτοῖς of Judas (v. 6b). In this way the frame narrative is placed in a situation of tension that is not resolved until the arrest of Jesus (22.47-­53). The number of noteworthy minor agreements with Matthew 26.1-­ 5, 14-­ 16 against Mark 14.1-­ 2, 10-­ 11 is small: Ἰσκαριώτης (v. 3apar. Matthew 26.14) instead of Ἰσκαριώθ (Mark 14.10); εὐκαιρία (v. 6par. Matthew 26.16) instead of πῶς . . . εὐκαίρως (Mark 14.11); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 167, 169; 1991, 77; Ennulat 1994, 327–­28, 330ff.

1 Unlike in Mark 14.1, the exact temporal distance to the Passover festival remains open. The “festival of unleavened bread” (the so-­called Mazzot festival) and “Passover” were originally two different festivals, but they had long since grown together by the New Testament period; cf. also the designation corresponding to the Lukan phrasing in Josephus, Antiquitates

446

The Gospel According to Luke

judaicae 10.70 (τὴν ἀζύμων ἑορτὴν καὶ τὴν πάσχα λεγομένην ἤγαγεν [“He celebrated the festival of unleavened [bread], which is also called ‘Passover’”]); see also 14.21; 18.29; Bellum judaicum 2.10; 2 Chronicles 35.17; 1/3 Ezra 1.17. The Passover festival is actually celebrated only on Nisan 14/15 (cf. 22.15), while the Mazzot festival continues until Nisan 21 (cf. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 3.249). In remembrance of the exodus from Egypt, only unleavened bread was allowed to be eaten at this time (cf. Exodus 12.15; 13.6-­7; 23.15; 34.18; Leviticus 23.6; Numbers 28.17; Deuteronomy 16.3-­4). 2 Luke notes that there has been no change to the status quo that has been in place since 19.47-­49. The chief priests and scribes still intend to get Jesus out of the way (ἀναιρεῖν is a typically Lukan word in the New Testament; twenty-­one of twenty-­four New Testament attestations are found in Luke–­Acts). However, they cannot implement their intention because they know that the Jerusalem population is on the side of Jesus (cf. 20.19 [here too Luke has them “fear” the people]; 20.20; 21.38). Accordingly, the explanation in 2b refers to the “how” of the removal of Jesus (for the substantivizing of the indirect interrogative question with τό see at 1.62). The phrasing ἄτερ ὄχλου in v. 6b corresponds to this. The conjunction γάρ should be rendered adversatively here (as in John 20.9; Romans 1.18; 2.25; 4.9; 12.3 among others); cf. W. Bauer 1988, 305 (s.v. γάρ 4) and Trypho Grammaticus, ed. Velsen 1965, Fragment 54, who notes expressis verbis that γάρ can be used “instead of δέ (ἀντὶ τοῦ δέ).” 3 The events are set in motion by Luke having Satan seize the rule over Judas and determine his action. With εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Ἰούδαν Luke presents this event in the language of demonic indwelling (see also Mark 5.12-­ 13par. Luke 8.32-­33; Mark 9.25; Luke 8.30; 11.26par. Matthew 12.45). It was regarded as a consequence of this that the individuality and intentionality of the action of the ‘possessed persons’ was determined no longer by themselves but by the foreign power found in them. What Judas does is comparable in this respect to what, according to Mark 5.12-­13par. Luke 8.32-­33, the pigs did after the “unclean spirits” or “demons” entered into them. Corresponding to this understanding of reality is the fact that Satan functions also as the grammatical subject of v. 4. By ascribing the initiative to Satan, Luke wants to explain how it could happen that it was one of the “chosen twelve” (6.13)—­namely, chosen by Jesus himself—­who handed him over to his enemies (cf. here the reinterpretation of 2 Samuel 24.1 in 1 Chronicles 21.1). Judas is not exonerated in this way, however (see also at v. 22). For the cross-­connection between this verse and 4.13 postulated by Conzelmann 1977, 22, 73, see at 4.13.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 447

The occasionally encountered hypothesis that the phrasing ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν δώδεκα wants to reckon Judas only to the “number” and no longer to the “circle” of the twelve (e.g., Marshall; Klein) is not compelling; cf. also Numbers 31.36: “The share . . . in the number of the sheep (ἡ μερὶς . . . ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ) amounted to 337,500.” For the meaning of Judas’s byname “Iscariot,” see at 6.16.

4 The action now transitions to Judas, although Luke does not indicate the change of subject. He replaces the scribes of v. 2 with the “officers” (στρατηγοί) whom the readers then encounter again in the arrest scene (v. 52). In this way he wants to indicate to the readers that the agreement was concerned with the technical details (i.e., with the “how”) of the handing over of Jesus (τὸ πῶς is used, as in v. 2; see further at 1.62). The noun στρατηγός occurs in the New Testament only in Luke–­Acts. In Acts 16.20, 22, 35, 36, 38 Luke uses it to designate the duumviri of Philippi, i.e, the members of the city magistracy who exercised the function of the praetors in the Roman colonies (cf. Barrett 1994/1998, II: 789; C. Gizewski, DNP 3: 843–­45). In Acts 4.1; 5.24 (see also 5.26) Luke speaks of a στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ (see also Luke 22.52: in the plural). It is open whether by this he means the “superintendent of the priests” (‫)סגַ ן ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ם‬, ִ the highest priestly official after the high priest, or the “captain of the temple” (‫“[ ִאיׁש ַהר ַה ַּביִת‬man of the Temple Mount”]); the latter is a non-­priest who had the principal police power in the outer temple court (cf. Bill. II: 628ff; Schürer 1973–­1987, II: 277ff; Barrett 1994/1998, 218–­19; Brown 1994, II: 1430–­31). In 1 Maccabees 13.42; 14.42, 47 στρατηγός designates the rank of the military chief commander, which the Hasmonean Simon took over alongside the dignity of a high priest and ruler in 140 BCE. In Josephus, Bellum judaicum 6.294; Antiquitates judaicae 20.131 the στρατηγός is the “superintendent of the priests.”

Here and in v. 52 Luke probably does not want to make a specific assignment via the plural στρατηγοί but to designate the leading stratum of the Jewish executive. αὐτοῖς παραδῷ αὐτόν means nothing more than that Judas wants to help the Jewish authorities to bring Jesus into their power. 5 Here συνέθεντο designates not a bilateral agreement (thus W. Bauer 1988, 1581) but—­like the Markan ἐπαγγέλλομαι—­a one-­sided promise; see also 4 Maccabees 4.17 (“He pledged to pay 3,660 talents yearly [συνθέμενος δώσειν] if one transferred to him the office”). Although it does not emerge from the word placement whether αὐτῷ is dependent on συνέθεντο or on δοῦναι, it is clear, of course, that Judas is the recipient of both the promise and the money. 6 The aorist ἐξωμολόγησεν (6a), which is lacking in the synoptic counterparts, designates the reaction of Judas to the promise of Jesus’s opponents

448

The Gospel According to Luke

mentioned in v. 5b. Luke indicates very cautiously and yet unambiguously that in Judas’s συλλαλεῖν with the Jerusalem authorities (v. 4) a demand for money must have been in play (in the sense of ‘What will you give me if I hand over Jesus?’), for this information only makes sense under this presupposition (cf. also Lysias, Orationes 12.8–­9: “I asked Peison [on his character, see at 18.2] to set me free in exchange for money. But he said, ‘If it is a lot. . . .’ Then I said that I was prepared to give a silver talent. And he agreed to do these things [ὁ δ’ ὡμολόγησε ταῦτα ποιήσειν]”). The imperfect ἐζήτει (6b) leads the readers back again to the level of the frame narrative and communicates to them that the iterative ζητεῖν, which had characterized the priests and scribes since 19.47, has now been transferred to Judas. εὐκαιρία and ἄτερ ὄχλου mutually interpret each other. The “good opportunity” is characterized by the fact that it is possible to seize Jesus without a “crowd.” Here ὄχλος means something entirely different than λαός in v. 2b; on this cf. above all the lexical pair ὄχλος καὶ θόρυβος (Aristophanes, Lysistrata 328; Plutarch, Sertorius 11.5; Moralia 94b; Epictetus, Dissertationes 1.12.21; 4.4.25 [ὄχλον οὐ θέλω, θόρυβός ἐστιν (“I do not like an ὄχλος, for this is a tumult”)]; see also Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon 7.14.1; R. Meyer, ThWNT 5: 583; LSJ 1281). 22.7-­65: On the Day of Unleavened Bread The narrative makes a temporal jump that continues the temporal specification of v. 1 but now dates the events to a specific day. The day is Nisan 14, for this was the day on which the Passover lambs were slaughtered. From the counting of the weekdays in 23.56b and 24.1 it follows that this day was a Thursday. The Lukan narrative stays on this day through 22.65. John 19.14, 31 calls this day παρασκευή (τοῦ πάσχα) (“the day of preparation [for the Passover festival]”), and within the Johannine passion chronology this is also the day on which Jesus dies. This discrepancy in the dating of the death of Jesus (Synoptics: Nisan 15; John: Nisan 14; in both, however, Jesus dies on a Friday) cannot be harmonized.

22.7-­13: The Preparation for Passover 7

Then came the day of unleavened bread on which the Passover had to be slaughtered. 8And he sent Peter and John and said, “Go and prepare for us the Passover so that we can eat (it).” 9But they said to him, “Where do you want us to prepare it?” 10Thereupon he said to them, “Behold, when you come into the city, a person carrying a water jug will meet you. Follow him into the house into which he enters, 11and



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 449

say to the master of the house: ‘The Rabbi says to you: Where is the guest room in which I can eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12And he will show you a large upper room that is furnished with dining couches. Prepare (it) there!” 13And they went and found it as he had said to them, and they prepared the Passover. It is conspicuous that Jesus now becomes the acting subject again without a renominalization. In vv. 1-­6 he was spoken of only with the help of a pronominal object accusative (3x αὐτόν). It emerges from this that Luke presupposes a basic familiarity with the course of events among his readers. Thus, he configures his presentation precisely not as though he were making the readers familiar with the narrated events for the first time. Form-­critically this is a finding legend that is similar to the story told in 19.29-­35a (cf also the comparably high density of place words: ποῦ [vv. 9b, 11c], ὅπου [v. 11c], ἐκεῖ [12b]); see also 1 Samuel 10.1-­9. As the narrative of the acquiring of the riding animal for Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem, this story could not have existed separately, for it requires a continuation. This becomes especially clear in the fact that the commission (ἑτοιμάσατε ἡμῖν τὸ πάσχα; v. 8b) and its implementation (ἡτοίμασαν τὸ πάσχα; v. 13b) point beyond the end of the story—­namely, to the eating of the Passover (v. 8b, 11c). Luke’s Vorlage was Mark 14.12-­16, and even committed advocates of the existence of a Lukan special source in the passion narrative think that the Lukan presentation is based exclusively on the text of Mark here (cf. e.g., Schürmann 1953, 104; V. Taylor 1972, 46; contrast Bock); see also J. B. Green 1987. There is only one noteworthy minor agreement: ὁ δὲ εἶπεν (v. 10apar. Matthew 26.18) instead of καὶ λέγει (Mark 14.13); cf. further Neirynck 1974b; 1991, 77; Ennulat 1994, 333ff.

7 Luke apparently assumes that the festival of unleavened bread lasted for only one day (see also Josephus, Bellum judaicum 5.99; cf., on the other hand, at v. 1). This inexactness is corrected in the manuscript tradition by D it sys,c, which replace τῶν ἀζύμων with τοῦ πάσχα. The expression θύειν τὸ πάσχα (see also Mark 14.12) was common in Hellenistic Judaism (cf. Exodus 12.21; Deuteronomy 16.2, 5, 6; 1/3 Ezra 1.1, 6; 7.12; Ezekiel the Tragedian 157 in Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio evangelica 9.29.12; Philo, Legum allegoriae 3.94, 165; De migratione Abrahami 25; De decalogo 159; Josephus, Bellum judaicum 6.423; Antiquitates judaicae 3.294), with τὸ πάσχα being a metonymic designation for the Passover lamb in each case (abstractum pro concreto). Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 2.313 even writes: θύομεν τὴν ἑορτὴν πάσχα καλοῦντες (“We

450

The Gospel According to Luke

slaughter the festival that we call Passover”). Therefore, θύειν does not have a sacrificial connotation as an undertone in this context (contra Marshall; Fitzmyer), and this background certainly does not turn Jesus’s death for Luke into a salvific sacrificial death (contra J. P. Heil 1999, 167–­68). The slaughtering was carried out by the head of the household or a person authorized by him. It took place in the inner court of the temple on the afternoon of Nisan 14 (according to Josephus, Bellum judaicum 6.423 “from the ninth to the eleventh hour”; see further Bill. IV/1: 47ff). 8, 13 The commission in 8b and the implementation report in 13b place a frame around the entire episode. Unlike in Mark 14.13, the two disciples whom Jesus tasks with the preparation of the Passover meal are identified by name. Peter and John also turn up elsewhere as a pair in Luke (and only in Luke)—­namely, as representatives of the Jerusalem primitive community (Acts 3.1-­11; 4.13, 19; 8.14-­17). To this pair formation corresponds the striking fact that in Luke (and only in Luke) Peter and the two Zebedees are always named in the sequence “Peter, John, James” (Luke 8.51; 9.28; Acts 1.13), while Mark and Matthew always list them in the sequence “Peter, James, John” (Mark 5.27; 9.2par. Matthew 17.1; Mark 13.3; 14.33). This “happens because Peter and John were felt by Luke to belong together in some way” (Schürmann 1970, 275). That this is actually the case is also recognizable in the fact that Luke mentions the pair of brothers otherwise—­ that is, when Peter is not present—­always in the sequence “James, John” (Luke 5.10; 6.14; 9.54). Schürmann 1970, 276 traces back this phenomenon to the fact that Luke projects back into the early period the situation after the death of James, after which “in certain parts of the church John, alongside Peter, stood out from the number of the other apostles.”

Perhaps the mention of them at this point should therefore be interpreted in the light of Luke 22.26. Before they become “the ‘greatest’ and leaders” they must “serve” (Schürmann 1970, 276; Fitzmyer; Eckey); this is not certain, however. Here, τὸ πάσχα designates the Passover festival, and through the addition ἵνα φάγωμεν in 8b (and then especially in vv. 11c, 15) it designates in a metonymic manner the Passover lamb or all the food that was consumed. The semantic basis for this metonymy is the fact that the Passover festival was celebrated as a meal (for the expression τὸ πάσχα ἐσθίειν cf. Exodus 12.11, 43-­45; Numbers 9.11; 2 Chronicles 30.18; Ezra 6.21; Jubilees 49.1–­2, 6; Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 255 and Barrett 1958). 9-­13a Just as in 19.29-­35a, this finding legend has the function of shifting the narrated story to an extraordinary level of reality and of categorically distinguishing Jesus’s prognostic abilities from those of humans—­no mere



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 451

human would have been able to do this. Rationalistic explanations—­such as the suggestion that Jesus had arranged everything in advance (thus, e.g., Marshall; Nolland; Bock)—­miss the intention of the narrative by a long shot. The assumption that Jesus describes the way to the room in which the Passover meal should take place in such a mysterious way so that Judas does not learn where they want to meet and therefore cannot hand over Jesus before the time (e.g., Plummer; Marshall) is likewise vivid fantasy. 9 For the phrasing of the question see at 18.41. 10 One can only speculate about the context of this prediction. Was it really the case that men did not carry water, as women did, in clay jars, but carried them in leather skins and that a man that carried water like a woman would have to stand out (cf. e.g., Marshall; Fitzmyer; Eckey)? Or does the “peculiar character of this sign” consist precisely in its “everyday character” (Gnilka 1978/1979, II: 233)? It was presumably precisely this lack of clarity that caused Matthew to omit the announcement that he also found in Mark 14.13. 11 In a pleonastic way Luke adds τῆς οἰκίας to the οἰκοδεσπότης of Mark 14.14 and reveals thereby that he has “no longer discerned” “the individual components” of the compositum (BDR §4843 with reference to οἶκον οἰκοδομεῖν [Acts 7.47, 49]). The commission regarding what they should say corresponds to 19.31c-­d (both here and there with ἐρεῖτε), and the κύριος of 19.31d now becomes the διδάσκαλος (for the translation with “Rabbi” see at 7.40). λέγει in the messenger formula is a causative active (Kühner/Gerth 1890–­1898, II/1: 99–­100; Moulton/Turner 1963, III: 52–­53; see also 7.5; 9.9; 20.9, 16; 24.20). κατάλυμα has the same meaning here as in 2.7 (see further there). In this way, the room in which the Passover meal should be held is designated as a place where Jesus and his disciples want to stay for a time. 12 ἐστρωμένος is not meant to suggest that the room is paneled or furnished with floorboards but that it is equipped with dining couches; cf. Ezekiel 23.41 (ἐκάθου ἐπὶ κλίνης ἐστρωμένης καὶ τράπεζα κεκοσμημένη πρὸ προσώπου αὐτῆς [“You sat down on a covered dining couch, and a set table stands before him”]); Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 4.15 (138c) (“gold and silver divans spread with coverings [κλίνας . . . ἐστρωμένας] and silver tables and a magnificent outlay for the dinner” [trans. Gulick 1928, 131]). 13 See at v. 8. 22.14-­38: The Last Supper

Luke constructs a meal scene that differs from the scenes described in 7.36-­50; 11.52 and 14.1-­24 in the fact that the meal plays a greater role. It

452

The Gospel According to Luke

is only here that the meal itself is made a topic (vv. 15-­20). As in the three aforementioned texts, Luke also states here that Jesus gives a speech after the meal (vv. 21-­38). This time it is related to the farewell situation and this is also what distinguishes this speech from the speech recounted in 21.5-­ 36. Nevertheless, one cannot say that Luke has given this scene the form of a “farewell discourse,” which is known from the environment of early Christianity (cf. von Nordheim 1980/1985; Hellenistic-­Roman material in Hollaway 2005) and which found reception in the New Testament especially in John 14–­16, Acts 20.17-­35 and 2 Timothy (contra Léon-­Dufour 1983, 295–­314; Kurz 1985). It is true that reference is repeatedly made to the farewell situation, but what is lacking is especially the textual and thematic coherence of a self-­contained speech. Instead, the literary frame gives the text a form that corresponds more to that of 14.1-­24. We are dealing with a reproduction of symposial conversations after a meal. The overlap with elements of farewell speeches comes about only through two features: we are dealing with a meal of the ‘teacher’ with his ‘students,’ and this meal is the last shared event. 22.14-­20: Passover Meal, Breaking of Bread, and the New Covenant 14

And when the hour came, he reclined at the table and the apostles with him. 15And he said to them, “I have greatly longed to eat this Passover with you before my suffering. 16For I say to you: I will not eat it until it is completed in the kingdom of God.” 17And he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide (it) among one another, 18 for I say to you: from now on I will no longer drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19And he took bread, gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to them with the words, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20And in the same way also the cup after the meal, saying, “This cup is the new covenant through my blood, which is poured out for you.” In all three synoptic gospels Jesus’s last meal with his disciples is narrated as a Passover meal. Luke alone, however, also assigns to this a thematic significance for the plot of his story of Jesus. A link to the Passover festival of 2.41-­42, which had brought Jesus to Jerusalem as a twelve-­year-­old, is not recognizable (contra Theobald 2006, 136–­37). There the festival was only the external occasion for having Jesus travel to Jerusalem with his parents (just as the census in 2.1-­4 functioned as the occasion for Joseph and Mary’s journey to Bethlehem; see at 2.3). Correspondingly, the festival as such played no role in the narrative. Rather, what was decisive took place only



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 453

when the Passover festival was long past and Jesus’s parents were already on their return journey (cf. 2.43a). In contrast, here it is precisely the Passover festival itself that Luke intentionally places in at the center.

Stemberger 1987 has drawn attention to the fact that the course of the Passover meal, as it is described several centuries later in m. Pesahim 10, should not be projected back into the New Testament period and made a foundation for the interpretation of the Lukan Last Supper (let alone Jesus’s Last Supper). The corresponding attempts of Jeremias 1967, 78ff have misled New Testament scholarship in a very lasting way. The report of Jesus’s last meal contains a difficult textual-­critical problem. In Codex D and in several old Latin manuscripts the text breaks off after the bread saying in v. 19c and only proceeds further with v. 21. Thus, vv. 19d-­20 are missing (for other variants below this level cf. Metzger 1971, 174). By contrast, the so-­called ‘long text,’ which is reproduced in the translation, is attested by all the Greek uncial and minuscule manuscripts (among others 𝔓75 ‫ א‬A B C K L T W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 063 f 1,13). Thus, the external attestation clearly supports the longer text (cf. Schmid 1999). Nevertheless, in favor of the originality of the so-­called ‘short text’ it must be stressed that it is difficult to identify a reason for the secondary deletion of a text that is very well attested by parallels in Paul, Mark, and Matthew and also had long since found entrance into the liturgical practice (cf. the critical discussion of the arguments presented in favor of the long text in Rese 1975/1976, 27ff and M. A. Matson 2001, 180ff). But these considerations are not sufficient to compensate for the much weaker attestation of the short text (see also Schürmann 1968, 159–­92; Radl 1988a, 9–­11). Plus, the short text does not fit better at all in the context than the long text (contra Rese 1975/1976, 27ff; cf. in contrast K. Petzer 1991). But above all it is extremely unlikely that vv. 19d-­20—­if it were actually a secondary addition—­should have found entrance into all Greek manuscripts with the very same wording. Therefore, good reasons support the view that vv. 19d-­e was deleted because there were no parallels to it in the synoptic counterparts and v. 20 fell away because the second cup was felt to be redundant. The fact that the sequence “cup” (vv. 17-­18) –­“bread” (v. 19a-­c) results in the short text that thus emerges should not disturb us further, for this sequence is also attested in 1 Corinthians 10.16 and Didache 9.1–­4. With reference to Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 3 among others, Billings 2006, 136ff sees the deletion motivated by the intention to protect the liturgical meals of the Christians against the accusations that they organize Thyestean banquets with Oedipal sexual intercourse.

The Lukan portrayal differs from the presentations in Mark and Matthew especially in the fact that the two sayings over bread and cup (vv. 19-­ 20) are preceded in vv. 15-­18 by a pair of sayings of Jesus configured

454

The Gospel According to Luke

in parallel, with which Jesus not only discloses to his disciples that this Passover is their last shared meal but also announces that he will not eat the Passover and drink wine again until after the eschatic coming of the kingdom of God. In this way a carefully arranged sequence results (cf. J. H. Petzer 1984): (a) Saying over the Passover (vv. 15-­16) (b) Saying over the cup (vv. 17-­18) (a’) Saying over the bread (v. 19) (b’) Saying over the cup (v. 20) In structuring the text one must not make the error of wanting to distinguish vv. 15-­18 as “Passover report” from vv. 19-­20 as “Lord’s Supper report” (thus Eckey II: 880; see also Schürmann 1968, 159–­92; 1980, 19, 37; Schneider II: 444; Leppä 2005, 366, 368 and many others), since for Luke the bread of v. 19 and the second cup in v. 20 also belong to the Passover meal. On the other hand, Theobald 2006, 159ff has overtaxed the meaning of the frame with his attempt to place the individual elements of the scene in the light of the Passover motif thematically as well. However, the scenic embedding of these two pairs of sayings does not correspond to their literary pair formation but stands perpendicular to it. While Mark places the two words over the bread and over the cup ([a’] and [b’]) together under the ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν (Mark 14.22a), in Luke, as in Paul, they are interrupted by the shared meal (μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι; Luke 22.20a; 1 Corinthians 11.25a). For the Lukan presentation it follows from this that the meal in Luke takes place not between the two pairs of sayings but after the bread saying (v. 19) and before the second cup saying (v. 20). Luke thus constructs the following scenic sequence: Passover saying → first cup saying → bread saying → meal → second cup saying. However, for this reason one also cannot say that Luke has a “gap” here and “(leaves out) the actual meal—­the eating of the Passover lamb” (thus Theobald 2006, 142). The so-­called “Lord’s Supper report” (Eckey II: 880) is, rather, very consciously interrupted by the meal, and at the same time the bread saying of v. 19 is connected in this way with vv. 15-­18. It runs parallel to this separation that the so-­called ‘repetition command’ (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν [v. 19c]; the designation ‘remembrance command’ would, of course be better) is found only with the bread saying, and not, by contrast, with the second cup saying (v. 20b). Both elements—­the interruption of the sayings of Jesus by the meal precisely at this point and the linking of the remembrance command only to the bread saying—­are closely related to each other. With its “remembrance” function, this instruction to break the bread refers to the time of the absence of Jesus—­brought up in



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 455

vv. 15-­18—­between the current Passover meal and the eschatic Passover meal. He will celebrate the Passover meal again only when the kingdom of God “comes” (v. 18) again at his parousia. In the intervening time, the disciples are to break the bread in remembrance of him (Schröter 2006, 50–­51). See further at vv. 19-­20. In this way Luke neither replaces the ‘Jewish’ Passover meal with the ‘Christian’ breaking of bread nor does he make the breaking of bread into a ‘Christian Passover meal.’ The latter does not work already because the Passover meal was celebrated only once a year, whereas the breaking of bread was celebrated each Sunday (Acts 20.7)—­and perhaps even daily in the primitive community (Acts 2.46). But the breaking of the bread stands in for the Passover meal in the time of the absence of Jesus, and it is thus framed by two Passover celebrations—­by the last Passover of the earthly Kyrios described here and the eschatic Passover of the Kyrios who is coming again. Then there will again be a liberating action of God that corresponds to the saving event of the exodus. Cf. in this respect Jeremiah 38.8LXX (“Behold, I am bringing them from the North, and I will gather them from the ends of the earth on the Passover festival [ἐν ἑορτῇ φασεκ], and you will give birth to a numerous people and they will return here”) with Acts 3.21 (“Heaven must receive him until the time of the reestablishment of all [ἀποκατάστασις πάντων] that God has spoken through the mouth of his holy prophets from long ago”). According to the Lukan understanding, the breaking of bread is thus equally sustained by remembrance and promise. It keeps awake the remembrance that God has acted with Jesus toward Israel for salvation on a scale that corresponds to the scale of the liberation of his people from Egypt (on this, cf. also the recourse to the exodus motifs in 1.74 and 9.34), and it makes present the promise that God will definitively liberate his people—­whom he has chosen from Jews and Gentiles—­from all oppression and suffering at Jesus’s parousia. 14 The series of time indications from v. 1 and v. 7 is continued and now reaches its goal. This connection should warn against loading “the hour” theologically and interpreting it as “the time set by God for the action of Jesus” (G. Delling, ThWNT 9: 9678). From v. 8 (τὸ πάσχα ἵνα φάγωμεν) the readers know which “hour” is meant—­the hour in which the Passover meal begins. According to Jubilees 49.1 (on the basis of the Jewish division of days), this was “on the evening of the 15th (of Nisan), after sunset,” and, according to m. Pesahim 10.1, “not before it became night.” It is very unlikely that with ἀνέπεσεν Luke consciously “wanted to allude to the table conventions at the festival meal of Passover” (Theobald 2006, 160), for in 11.37; 14.10; 17.7 he also uses this verb to designate the reclining to eat on very different occasions. Thus, there is no specific reference to the Passover to be found in ἀνέπεσεν.

456

The Gospel According to Luke

15-­18 The coherence of these verses is established especially through the two sayings introduced with λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν (ὅτι) in vv. 16, 18. The sayings not only display the same structure (in each case οὐ μὴ . . . ἕως ὅτου/ οὗ + βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) but also complement each other thematically (they are concerned with “eating” and “drinking”). Formal equivalence and thematic complementarity let the two linguistically different references to the kingdom of God meet at the same point. The “fulfillment” (πληρωθῇ) of the Passover “in the kingdom of God” (v. 16b) takes place exactly when “the kingdom of God comes” (v. 18b). 15 The figura etymologica (cf. BDR §153; 198.6) ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα intensifies. It is also found in Genesis 31.30, without this already making it a Septuagintism (contra Fitzmyer). Here Jesus does not pronounce an “unfulfilled wish” (thus Jeremias 1967, 200; Klein and others). Rather, precisely this Passover meal is so important to him because it is—­as v. 16 makes clear—­his last one until the parousia. In the phrasing “to eat the Passover,” τὸ πάσχα is again a metonymic designation for the Passover lamb or the food consumed at the Passover meal (see at vv. 7,  8, 13b). It is unlikely that with the postposition of πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν Luke wanted to make a wordplay involving πάσχειν and πάσχα (as Theobald 2006, 161–­ 62 surmises), for in this case Luke would not have chosen the infinitive aorist but the present infinitive πάσχειν. 16 Jesus’s announcement does not mean that from now on no Passover will be celebrated but that he will take part in a Passover festival again only in the kingdom of God. A phrasing that is not far from ἕως ὅτου πληρωθῇ is ἕως ὅτου τελεσθῇ in 12.50 and the passive is a passivum divinum both here and there. πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ is interpreted by v. 18b. The coming of the kingdom of God at Jesus’s parousia brings the Passover to “fulfillment” in the sense that the eschatological hopes for a new act of liberation of God bound up with the Passover (cf. Jeremiah 38.8LXX [see my introductory comments on this section above]) will be realized. But “being completed” also means that the series of yearly Passover festivals will find an end, because the making present of God’s act of liberation, which is present only in the mode of recollection and hope until then, will no longer find its expression in the symbolism of the festival but will be transferred into a real event. 17 The Passover haggadah from m. Pesahim specifies that at the Passover meal four cups of wine were drunk. One must not, however, transfer this custom into the Lukan time, let alone the time of Jesus (see Stemberger 1987). Accordingly, the discussion about which of the four cups



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 457

is in view here comes to nothing. That wine was drunk at all at Passover is already attested in Jubilees 49.6. Wine was also drunk from the beginning at Hellenistic symposia (cf. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 2.51 [58b–­ c]; Plutarch, Moralia 734a), but there every participant in the meal had their own cup. The special feature of this narrative consists in the fact that all the participants in the meal drink from a single cup. The question of whether Jesus joined them in drinking was intensively discussed in the past (yes: Schürmann 1953, 63ff; Schweizer; Marshall and others; no: Jeremias 1967, 200–­201 among others). It is more likely, however, that Luke imagined Jesus as drinking with them. On the basis of the parallel complementarity of vv. 15-­16 and vv. 17-­18 (see above), the drinking from the same cup still stands in the light of the μεθ’ ὑμῶν of v. 15b. εὐχαριστῆσας designates the usual blessing (see further at 9.16). 18 is based on Mark 14.25. However, Luke adds the specification ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν (6 of 8 attestations are in Luke–­Acts) and replaces the Markan phrasing “until that day when I drink it (sc. the fruit of the vine) anew in the kingdom of God” with “until the kingdom of God comes.” Only the synoptic Jesus tradition speaks of the coming of the kingdom of God (see also Mark 9.1; Luke 11.2par. Matthew 6.10; Luke 17.20). In Jewish eschatology it was expected as the “coming” of God (texts at 11.2d-­e); here Luke connects it with the parousia of Jesus (see also Acts 1.11; 1 Corinthians 11.26). The fact that from the “coming” of Jesus he can expect that “coming” of the kingdom of God corresponds to his concept of the kingdom of God, according to which the kingdom of God is present wherever Jesus is active (see further at 11.20). The expression γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου appears only in Isaiah 32.12 as a rendering of Hebrew ‫( ּגֶ ֶפן ּפ ִֹרּיָ ה‬the same also in m. Berakhot 6.1); see also Deuteronomy 22.9 and Isaiah 65.21 (γένημα or γενήματα τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος). Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 42.3 replaces “wine and intoxicating drink” (Judges 13.4) with “fruit of the vine.”

19-­20 The sayings over bread and cup with their narrative introductions, which Luke hands down in vv. 19-­20, are also found at three other places in the New Testament—­namely, 1 Corinthians 11.23-­25; Mark 14.22-­24; Matthew 26.26-­28. While Matthew reproduces the Markan text almost without change, it emerges clearly from the shading in the following synopsis that the Lukan wording stands in a certain sense between the Pauline version and the Markan version.

458

The Gospel According to Luke

1 CORINTHIANS 11.23-­25

LUKE 22.19-­20

MARK 14.22-­24

22 1 καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν 23 19 2 . . . ἔλαβεν ἄρτον καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον λαβών ἄρτον 3 24καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν ἐυχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν 4 καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς 5 καὶ εἶπεν· λέγων· καὶ εἶπεν· 6 λάβετε, 7 τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. 8 τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον. 9 τοῦτο ποιεῖτε τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 23 10 25ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον 20καὶ τὸ ποτήριον καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, 11 εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες. 24 12 λέγων, λέγων, καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, 13 τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη τὸ αἷμά μου ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τῆς διαθήκης 14 τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ ἐκχυννόμενον. πολλῶν. 15 τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

Except for λέγων (line 5), διδόμενον (line 8), the lack of ἐστίν (line 13), and ὑμῶν (line 14), the Lukan version is not independent at a single point. In lines 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 it stands closer to the Pauline wording, while in lines 2, 4, 7, 14, and 15 it goes with the Markan version. From these findings one can draw the tradition-­historical conclusion that Luke has combined Mark 14.22-­24 with a pre-­literary version of the text handed down in 1 Corinthians 11.23-­25. A literary dependence on the Pauline text is unlikely. The project of reconstructing a shared original version, let alone the words that Jesus spoke at his farewell meal with the disciples, is entirely hopeless. Two minor agreements should not be passed over in silence: λέγων (lines 12par. Matthew 26.27) instead of καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς (Mark 14.24a) and the word placement τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν/πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον (line 14par. Matthew 26.28) instead of τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν (Mark 14.24).



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 459

With the help of the aforementioned interruption of the two subscenes by the meal (μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι; v. 20 [line 10]) and the restriction of the remembrance command (line 9) to the bread action (see my introductory comments on this section), Luke makes the breaking of the bread the action through which Jesus is made present among the disciples via remembrance in the time of his absence (see also Schröter 2006, 50–­51). It is also recognizable that for Luke it is, in fact, the breaking of bread that has this function of making-­present remembrance of Jesus in the fact that the Emmaus disciples recognize Jesus precisely in the bread action (cf. 24.30, 35) and in the fact that in Acts the meals in the context of the worship service are always called “breaking of the bread” (2.42, 46; 20.7). One should not, however, conclude from this that the Lukan community celebrated the Lord’s Supper so to speak sub una and came together only for the breaking of bread. Another indication that can be invoked in favor of this interpretation is the fact that Luke has taken over the words καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς from Mark 14.22b (line 4) in the bread action, while he has omitted the parallel note in relation to the cup action (εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες; Mark 14.23a-­b [line 11]) or indicated its first part only vaguely with ὡσαύτως (v. 20a [line 10]) (a very similar interpretation is also found in Lindemann 1999, 250ff). Luke, however, also sets clear coherence signals that make the parallelism of the two actions recognizable. Both the aforementioned ὡσαύτως (line 10) and especially the two appositions τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον (line 8) and τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον (line 14) function as such. The first characterizes “my body” (line 7) and the second “my blood” (line 13). The similarity of these two phrasings is carefully worked out. They are (a) grammatically parallel (in each case present passive participle; in both cases the present designates “a relatively future action” [BDR §339.2a]), and (b) Luke has added vis-­à-­vis the Pauline phrasing the participle διδόμενον in line 8 as well as (c) replaced the Markan πολλῶν with ὑμῶν in line 14, and (d) changed the word order so that both phrasings correspond to each other in this respect as well. All four elements refer to the death of Jesus, and thus it is in this reference that the interpretation of the bread and the interpretation of the cup meet. 19a Luke has Jesus continue to act as host, who speaks the usual blessing over the bread (εὐχαριστῆσας; see further at 9.16) and divides the bread among the other participants in the meal. 19b τοῦτο is the subject and τὸ σῶμά μου is the predicate noun. Against the widespread assumption that the neuter τοῦτο cannot refer to the masculine ὁ ἄρτος (19a) and therefore interprets the “process of the breaking and dividing of the bread” (Schröter 2006, 128 and others) the

460

The Gospel According to Luke

neuter gender of τοῦτο is to be explained as an adjustment to τὸ σῶμα (cf. BDR §132.1). This hypothesis is supported by the syntactic parallelism with the cup saying in which τὸ ποτήριον as the antecedent of τοῦτο is explicitly repeated again (v. 20b [line 13]). But this does not change much, for text-­semantically τοῦτο refers, even if it owes its gender to its assimilation to the predicate noun, not only to the bread as an “element” but also to the fact that Jesus “gives” it to the disciples. This connection is suggested by the fact that the characterizing specification of σῶμα as τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον (19b) corresponds to the ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς of the bread (19a). It therefore deserves attention that Luke (and only Luke!) uses the verb διδόναι twice here and in this way relates to each other the “giving” of the bread to the disciples (αὐτοῖς) and the “giving” of the body “for” the disciples. The body that is represented by the bread “given” to the disciples is for this reason always only the “given-­for-­you (sc. the disciples)” body. Expressed the other way around, the salvific effect of the body that “is given” for the disciples is present only in the bread that Jesus “has given” to the disciples. The fact that with τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον (19b) the Lukan Jesus uses the present participle is explained by the fact that in the narrative he still has his death ahead of him. The copula ἐστίν ensures that the bread is not merely a ‘substitution symbol,’ i.e., a ‘sign’ or ‘picture’ that is exchangeable in principle, but rather a ‘real symbol’ that makes present among them the “body” of Jesus—­namely, as ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον (i.e., in its salvific effect as body that “is given” into death for the disciples). In this context σῶμά μου designates—­as also often elsewhere in the New Testament and its Hellenistic environment—­the person or the self of Jesus as a whole (see also Fitzmyer II: 1399; Eckey II: 886; Schröter 2006, 128). Daniel 2.36Theodotion may help us to understand how τοῦτό ἐστιν could be meant. Daniel recounts Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (vv. 31-­35) and concludes with the words τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἐνύπνιον (“this is the dream”; LXX: τοῦτο τὸ ὅραμα). Daniel’s narrative is not, of course, the dream itself, but it is, in fact, the authentic making present of its content. Entirely analogously, the bread is not the body of Jesus given for the disciples itself; it is, however, the authentic making present of its salvific effect. In other words, as the narrative is a possibility to actualize the content of the dream ever anew, so the “breaking of bread” that takes place with reference to Jesus (according to 19c εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν) is also a possibility to stage ever anew the remembrance of Jesus for the participants in the meal. As the dream is present in Daniel’s narrative, without being identical with it, so too the body of Jesus that is “given for you” is present in the bread which is also “given for you” (and only as such!), without being identical with it. The explanation of σῶμα as a designation for the person (see above)



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 461

must not level out the semantic tension that the τοῦτό ἐστιν establishes. Something analogous also applies to the interpretation of the cup in v. 20b. Tradition-­historically Luke reaches back to the notion—­attested in all antiquity—­of the giving of life “for” others, from which a saving effect goes forth for those in whose place or for whose sake people “give” their life; cf. with this term, e.g., Thucydides 2.43.2 (concerning those who have fallen in war: κοινῇ . . . τὰ σώματα διδόντες [“Together . . . they gave up the bodies”]); Philo of Byblos, FGH 3c: 790, Fragment 3b (“Among the people of old it was customary in times of great endangerments that the rulers of a city or a people in exchange for the destruction of all handed over their most beloved child to the slaughter [εἰς σφαγὴν ἐπιδιδόναι] as ransom money to the vengeful demons”); Diodorus Siculus 8.12.8 (ἑαυτὸν ἐπέδωκεν ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος [“He gave himself for the fatherland”]); Plutarch, Otho 15.4–­6; Cassius Dio 64.13.3; 65.16.5; 1 Maccabees 6.44; Josephus, Bellum judaicum 2.201; 1 Clement 55.1 (see at v. 20b below) and Popkes 1967, 86–­87; Breytenbach 2003 and the articles by B. Janowski, J.W. van Henten, F. Avemarie, and H. S. Versnel in Frey/Schröter 2005. It was not out of the ordinary in antiquity that salvific effects for the group to whom the dead person belonged were ascribed to a voluntary giving of life, and there was an abundance of models to which early Christianity could build upon with its soteriological interpretation of the death of Jesus. To be sure, this interpretation is taken up in a more reserved manner by Luke than in other New Testament authors, but it is not entirely lacking (in addition to v. 20 cf. just Acts 20.28; on this cf. Böttrich 2005; van Zyl 2002). In any case, one should speak only in a very reserved manner of a “receding of the conception of atonement” in Luke (thus, e.g., Schnelle 2007, 286 for many others). It is true that Luke has not taken over Mark 10.45, but the interpretation of the death of Jesus as a salvific event is only unjustly missed in the mission speeches of Acts, for this motif is a theologoumenon of Christian insider-­speech (cf. Wolter 2005b, 304ff). Therefore, the absence of an interpretation of the death of Christ as salvific death in the mission speeches of Acts corresponds very precisely with its absence in the summary of the Pauline mission sermon of 1 Thessalonians 1.9-­10 (cf. Wolter 2005b, 309). To this corresponds the fact that in Acts it crops up of all places in the Pauline farewell speech before the Ephesian elders in Miletus (Acts 20.28)—­i.e., in the only speech with a Christian audience.

19c The demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο in the remembrance command refers not only to the taking, giving thanks, and breaking of the bread, but to the entire realization of the Lukan “breaking of the bread,” which also includes the eating. If one takes into account the fact that Luke presupposes an existing meal practice, from this perspective the exhortation is intended not merely to exhort to repetition, but seeks to explain wherein

462

The Gospel According to Luke

the regular meal celebration finds its meaning and purpose at all—­in the remembering making-­present of Jesus. There are analogies outside the New Testament above all in pagan memorial meals; cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 10.18: Epicurus leaves at his death a legacy so that, among other things, on the 20th of each month a “coming together of those who have philosophized with us take place in remembrance of us and Metrodorus (εἰς τὴν ἡμῶν τε καὶ Μητροδώρου μνήμην)”; see further in Klauck 1982, 83ff, 314ff. Of course, a connection to the memoria function of the Passover festival, which is designated as a μνημόσυνον (“means of recollection”; Heb.: ‫“[ ְלזִ ָּכרֹון‬for recollection”]) in Exodus 12.14, lies nearer at hand; cf. beyond this Exodus 13.3-­ 10; Deuteronomy 16.3 (“so that you remember [ἵνα μνησθῆτε] the day of your departure from the land of Egypt for all the days of your life”); Jubilees 49.6-­7; Philo, De specialibus legibus 2.146. Carpinelli’s suggestion (1999, 79) that Jesus should be understood as the subject of the remembering (“a permanent means of access to God’s regard which I set up for you”) misses the intention of the text by a large margin; cf., in addition to Hebrews 10.3, the inscription in Laum 1914, 141 n. 203, according to which money was left to a village ἐπὶ τῷ ποιεῖν αὐτοὺς ἀνάμνησίν μου (“so that they carry out the remembrance of me”).

The phrasing εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν ensures that the remembrance refers not simply to Jesus’s death but to the entirety of his presence among humans. It is thus the salvation of God present in Jesus that is made present in the breaking of bread in the Christian community in the mode of remembrance. 20a The verbs must be added from v. 19 (at least λαβών, but probably also εὐχαριστήσας and καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς). They are represented here by the modal adverb ὡσαύτως (line 10) (cf. the extensive justification in Theobald 2006, 140–­41; see also Wiefel 367: it “makes it possible to forgo mentioning everything that corresponds to what happens in the breaking of bread”). 20b The verb (ἐστίν) is also lacking in the saying over the cup. Grammatically τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον is the subject and ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη functions as predicate noun, which ascribes to the subject a specific meaning. God must be inserted as the logical subject of this διαθήκη, i.e., as the instance that issues it (for this understanding of διαθήκη or Hebrew ‫ ְּב ִרית‬and the questions connected with it, cf. Kutsch 1978). In semantic perspective, however, ποτήριον is not merely a metonym for the wine as the content of the cup but for the entire action that followed the saying over the cup, without it being narrated—­that the cup filled with wine is passed on to the disciples, that it circulates among them, and that they all drink from it. In this way, it is precisely this action—­and



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 463

not merely the cup or its content—­that is designated as “new covenant.” Despite this, however, it is not irrelevant which fluid the cup contains, for the connection to Jesus’s death can be established only by means of it (see below). In the literature it has become customary to see the phrase καινὴ διαθήκη as a recourse to Jeremiah 31(LXX: 38).31-­34. This is not so “clear,” however (Theobald 2006, 172) (cf. also the criticism in Grässer 1985, 119–­20; Vogel 1996). There is neither a mention of blood in Jeremiah, nor have specific elements from Jeremiah 31(38).31-­34 left traces in the cup saying. On the other hand, there is mention of a “covenant” made through “blood” in Exodus 24.8, to which text the Markan–­Matthean version of the cup saying unambiguously refer. One is therefore advised to give up the antithesis that is often constructed in the interpretation of the Pauline–­Lukan cup saying vis-­à-­vis this tradition in favor of a more flexible coordination. It is also found in Hebrews, where reference is made to both Old Testament texts (cf., on the one hand, 8.8-­10, 13; 10.16, and, on the other hand, 9.1, 15, 18, 20; on this see Grässer 1985, 99ff). Therefore, quite a bit speaks for the view that the Pauline–­Lukan cup saying also refers to Exodus 24.8 and is connected with Jeremiah 31(38).31 at most in the fact that it belongs with this text to a broad tradition reaching back into early Judaism that announces a new covenant of God without necessarily designating it expressis verbis as “new” (cf. Isaiah 55.3; 61.8; Jeremiah 32.40; Baruch 2.35; Ezekiel 16.60, 62; 37.26; 4Q385 Fragment 2; see also Vogel 1996, 84, 163ff). In the Jewish environment of early Christianity, the expression “new covenant” is attested elsewhere only in the Qumran texts. There it always occurs as a metonymic self-­designation for the group; cf. CD VI, 19; VIII, 21; XIX, 33–­34 (in each case “to come into the new covenant [‫הברית החדׁשה‬/‫ ;)”]בוא בברית‬XX, 12 (“the people of ridicule, who have spoken falsehood against the covenant and the pact that they established in the land of Damascus—­that is, against the new covenant [‫ ;)”]ּוהוא ברית החדׁשה‬1QpHab II, 3–­4 (“. . . traitors of the new covenant, for they have not been faithful in relation to the covenant of God”).

ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον is grammatically incongruent (if one is a stickler, it would need to say not τὸ . . . ἐκχυννόμενον but τῷ ἐκχυννομένῳ). Luke has probably taken over the nominative from Mark 14.24 and kept it for the sake of the parallelism with τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον (line 8). “To shed blood” (αἷμα ἐκχεῖν/ἐκχύννειν) is already a paraphrase for the violent death of a person in the Old Testament (cf. e.g., Genesis 9.6; 37.22; Proverbs 6.17; Ezekiel 18.10 [Heb.: ‫ ָׁש ַפְך ַּדם‬in each case]; Psalms of Solomon 8.20; Lives of the Prophets 23.1; in the New Testament: Luke 11.50par.; Acts 22.20; Revelation

464

The Gospel According to Luke

16.6). A sacrificial cultic secondary meaning does not resonate—­not even if a salvific meaning is assigned to the “blood”; cf. in addition to Romans 5.9-­10 (ἐν τῷ . . . αἵματι and διὰ τοῦ θανάτου are used in a semantically isotopic way) 4 Maccabees 17.22 (“Through the blood of those pious ones [διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἐκείνων] and their salvation-­ bringing death, divine providence has . . . saved Israel”); 1 Clement 55.1 (“Many kings and rulers have, when there was a time of unsalvation . . . given themselves into death, so that they might rescue the citizens through their blood [παρέδωκαν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς θάνατον, ἵνα ῥύσωνται διὰ τοῦ ἑαυτῶν αἵματος τοὺς πολίτας]”). Thus, “to shed his blood for” means nothing more than “die for” (John 11.50-­51; Romans 5.6-­8; 14.15; 2 Corinthians 5.14-­15; 1 Thessalonians 5.10).

To this observation corresponds the fact that—­as σῶμα can designate the person as a whole (see at v. 19b)—­“blood” can stand for “life”; cf. the parallelisms in Psalm 72.14 (“He will redeem their life from oppression and violence, for their blood is precious in his eyes”) and Proverbs 1.18 (“Those lie in wait for their blood, they stalk their life”); see further Genesis 9.4 (“You shall not eat flesh with its life, its blood [‫;)”]ּבנַ ְפׁשֹו ָדמֹו‬ ְ see also Leviticus 17.11, 14; Deuteronomy 12.23 (‫“[ ַה ָּדם הּוא ַהּגָ ֶפׁש‬the blood, which is the life”]); see also 11Q19 LIII, 6). For the overall understanding of the bread action and cup action it follows that the whole Jesus is present in each of these two actions—­in the bread action as “person” (σῶμα) and in the cup action with his “life” (αἷμα). The “blood” that is spoken of here is the semantic overlap that connects the “cup,” the “(new) covenant,” and the death of Jesus. With regard to the cup, the blood is represented by the wine, for what the two have in common is the red color. Correspondingly, wine is also regarded as the “blood of the grape” (cf. Genesis 49.11; Deuteronomy 32.14; 1 Maccabees 6.34; Sirach 39.26; 50.15). Thus, it is not arbitrary what the cup contains, and a completely decisive element would be missing if, in the interpretion of the cup, one overlooked its content and reduced it to a designation for “the table of drinking” (Vogel 1996, 83). Only the content of the cup lets the action become the “new covenant,” for it alone establishes the connection to the death of Jesus. Even though there is a much greater distance between wine and blood in the Pauline–­Lukan version of the words of interpretation than in the Markan–­Matthean tradition, it too remains dependent on a metaphorical correspondence of blood and wine. The reference of the action to Jesus’s death established through the wine is the necessary condition for the fact that it can become the “new covenant.” In this way, Luke gives the cup action and its interpretation a very specific profile. This is recognizable especially in the absence of the



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 465

‘remembrance command’ (vis-­à-­vis the bread saying [line 9] and 1 Corinthians 15.25 [line 15]) and in the replacement of the Markan ὑπὲρ πολλῶν (Mark 14.24) with ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (line 14). Through this, the salvific effect of the death of Jesus is related to the apostles who are present at the meal (v. 14). Luke makes clear in this way that it is this singular, non-­repeatable action with which the new covenant is established—­namely, analogously to the action described in Exodus 24.3-­8. This analogy also extends to the features of the historical singularity and non-­repeatability. Thus, the circle of the apostles stands at the same point as the Sinai generation of Israel in Exodus 24.3-­8, with whom God made a covenant that is in force for all later generations of the people of God. This understanding of the cup action finds its abutment in the word of promise of vv. 28-­30, where it is certainly no accident that with διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν the key word διαθήκη is picked up again (see also Theobald 2006, 176–­77) and its scope is taken into account with the reference to the “twelve tribes of Israel.” Thus, according to the Lukan understanding, here the apostles as the core and first generation of the new people of God are “given” (namely with the cup) a new covenant, in which all those who later join this covenant through them also have a share. The beginning is made by those of whom it is said in Acts 2.41 that they “were added” (προσετέθησαν; see then also 2.47; 5.14; 11.24). We find this same movement also in the talk of the “blood” through which the covenant is established also here. In the cup saying, it becomes the metonymic designation for the salvific effect of the death of Jesus “for you,” i.e., for the apostles. Luke reproduces this usage in Acts 20.28, according to which the ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ has been created by God διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου (regardless of how this phrasing is to be translated exactly; in any case, as in the cup saying, what is meant is ‘through the violent death of Jesus’). Thus, for Luke the “new covenant” is not the salvific death of Jesus but the cup action narrated and interpreted in v. 20. Conversely, it is also true that it could not be the “new covenant” without the salvific death of Jesus. 22.21-­23: The One Who Hands Over 21

“But behold, the hand of the one who hands me over is with me on the table. 22For the Son of Man goes, to be sure, as it has been determined, but woe to that person through whom he is handed over!” 23 And they began to discuss with one another who of them it might be who intended to do this.

466

The Gospel According to Luke

Luke connects the report of the Passover meal of Jesus, which ended with the establishment of the new covenant, with the narrative thread of vv. 1-­6. Unlike in Mark 14.18-­21 he introduces Jesus’s saying about the one who hands over not before but after the common meal. The saying about the participation in the meal of the one who hands him over makes clear that Judas also took part in the establishment of the new covenant—­and nevertheless became the betrayer. It is questionable whether one does justice to the Lukan narrative interest when one places this tension in the light of the problems with the Lord’s Supper treated in 1 Corinthians and interprets it as antisacramentalistic paraenesis (thus, e.g., Klauck 1987, 61: participation in the Lord’s Supper “provides . . . no guarantee of salvation” and “does not protect against apostasy”; every participant in the meal should “test himself . . . to see whether he preserves the fidelity”). Such associations could emerge only in readers who know 1 Corinthians 1.16-­22 and 11.17-­34. It is much more likely that Luke deferred the announcement merely for reasons of narrative economy, for after the preparation in vv. 7-­13 there was simply no place for it between v. 14 and v. 15. Luke’s Vorlage was Mark 14.18-­21. Luke has shortened and reshaped the Markan version, however, by pulling together the two announcements of Jesus into a single one and placing the intervening question of the disciples addressed to Jesus at the end (ἤρξαντο; v. 23apar. Mark 14.19a) and turning it into an internal discussion. A minor agreement is the mention of the “hand” (χείρ) in v. 21par. Matthew 26.23, which has no parallel in Mark 14.20; cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 171; 1991, 78; Ennulat 1994, 336ff.

21 “Hand” is, first, a metonymic paraphrase for the activity of a person (cf. in this sense e.g., Genesis 16.12; 31.29; Deuteronomy 2.7; 15.10; Proverbs 3.27; Isaiah 1.12; Acts 4.28; 13.11) and, second, a designation of the part of the body that one needs when eating (as in Matthew 26.23; see also Proverbs 19.24; 26.15). The juxtaposition of με and μετ’ ἐμοῦ focuses this double aspect on Jesus and thereby characterizes Judas’s deed indirectly as an act of personal unfaithfulness. Psalm 41.10 (“Even my friend, whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted the heel against me”) is quite close. This reference also makes an antisacramental interpretation (see above) unlikely, for in this case not the table fellowship with Jesus but the participation in the ‘elements’ interpreted in v. 19 would have to be placed in the foreground. The present participle παραδιδούς designates “a relatively future action” (BDR §339.2a). 22 ὅτι explains how it could come to the matter described in v. 21—­because God has fixed the course of Jesus’s way to death and because this also includes the fact that Judas still eats together with him



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 467

shortly before the handing over. With reference to God’s prior fixing of the course of history, Luke also uses the verb ὁρίζειν in Acts 2.23 (in relation to Jesus’s death as here); 10.42; 17.26, 31 (cf. further G. Schneider, EWNT 2: 1300–­1301). The adversatively attached woe (πλὴν οὐαί also in 6.24; 17.1par. Matthew 18.7) indicates that the one who hands over makes himself guilty and falls into unsalvation, though God has also fixed his action previously. Therefore, the passive παραδίδοται can indeed be meant as a passivum divinum and δι’ οὗ would then be an instrumentalis (see also Nolland; J. P. Heil 1999, 181). Judas’s tragedy lies in the fact that God has made him into an instrument of the handing over. Theologically Luke is here not far from Job 38–­41 and Romans 9.17-­21. Because God is God, he is not bound to cultural notions of individual responsibility and culpability of humans, which are indeed sensible and important in human life in community. 23 The subscene ends with a narrative note (substantivization of the indirect interrogative question as in 22.2, 4; see also at 1.62) that shifts the focus of the narrative to within the circle of the apostles. As in 10.1 μέλλειν designates here “an intended action” (W. Bauer 1988, 1015). With the narration of this reaction, Luke creates a transition to the next subscene, in which the discussion within the circle of the disciples functions as the starting situation for a saying of Jesus. 22.24-­30: On Serving and Ruling 24

And a dispute arose among them as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25Thereupon he said to them, “The kings of the nations rule over them, and those who have power over them are called benefactors. 26But not so you! Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest and the leader as one who serves. 27For who is greater: the one reclining at table or the one serving? (Is it) not the one reclining at table? But I am in your midst as the one who serves. 28 Now you are the ones who have remained with me in my tri29 als. And I bestow to you, as my father has bestowed to me, a kingly reign; 30. . . that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and will sit on thrones in order to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.” Form-­critically we are dealing with a chreia. After a short opening scene created by Luke himself, there follows, as often in Luke (cf. 11.14-­26, 37-­ 44; 13.23-­30; 15.1-­32; 16.14-­31), a speech of Jesus, which Luke has put together from two sayings of Jesus of differing provenance. Verses 25-­26 is probably based on Mark 10.42-­45 (whether Luke has also taken v. 27 from the tradition [thus Schlosser 1982 among others] or formulated it

468

The Gospel According to Luke

himself may be left open), while vv. 28, 30 has a parallel only in Matthew 19.28 and thus probably comes from Q. Luke initially establishes the coherence of the speech through the fact that there is no narrative interruption and the speech has a unified addressee, namely, the apostles. The latter becomes different in v. 31. But the coherence of the text is recognizable above all in the use of terms that come from the semantic field of “ruling”: βασιλεῖς/βασιλεία (vv. 25b, 29, 30a); κυριεύουσιν (v. 25b); ἐξουσιάζοντες (v. 25c); ἡγούμενος (v. 26c); καθήσεσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων (v. 30b); κρίνοντες (v. 30b). Furthermore, v. 27 (twice ἀνακείμενος) and v. 30a (“eating and drinking at my table”), for which there is no equivalent in the synoptic counterparts, are connected by the meal theme. For the literary unity of the entire text, cf. especially Nelson 1991; 1993; 1994a; 1994b. However, Nelson misses the intention of the text with his interpretation, which is formulated in dependence on Léon-­Dufour 1983, 295–­314 (vv. 24-­27 are based on Jesus’s death, vv. 28-­30 on his resurrection [Nelson 1994b, 617–­18]), for in v. 30 the concern is not with the resurrection but with the parousia of Jesus. The only noteworthy minor agreement is δὲ . . . εἶπεν (v. 25apar. Matthew 20.25a) instead of λέγει (Mark 10.42a).

24 Luke already had the disciples argue about this same question in 9.46, and as there, here too the comparative μείζων could be meant superlatively (cf. BDR §60, 244). The dispute is interpreted here as an expression of φιλονεικία. This term comes from Hellenistic popular philosophy and appears frequently in vice catalogues (e.g., 4 Maccabees 1.26 alongside “boasting, greed, thirst for glory, and jealousy”; Diogenes Laertius 7.113 alongside “wrath, hate, anger, desire, resentment, and fury”); it enters into word-­field connections especially with φθόνος (“envy”) and ἔρις (“strife”) (cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 11.18.3; Diodorus Siculus 13.48.2; Philo, De ebrietate 15.99; De mutatione nominum 95; Crates, Epistulae 7; Plutarch, Pompeius 67.5; Phocion 10.6; Moralia 84e; 91e; 321–­322; 431d; 713–­714); for the substantivizing of an interrogative sentence with τό, see at 1.62.

25-­26 Jesus’s speech begins with a paraenetic syncrisis, as this is often found in ancient literature. The following elements are specific to the genre. The texts consist (a) of two parts and describe (b) in the first (indicative) part the practice of certain people. The second part begins (c) with σὺ δέ or ὑμεῖς δέ; it contains (d) the imperative and exhorts (e) one to behave differently than the people mentioned in the first part.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 469

Cf. e.g., Epistulae Pythagoreae 7.2 (Städele 1980, 176.18): “Some women  .  .  .  keep their slaves with only what is necessary for life; but you should (σοὶ δὲ ἔστω) provide the appropriate rations of food”; Ps.-­Diogenes, Epistulae 12 (Malherbe 1977, 106.11): “Many are subject to every exterior circumstance; σὺ δέ remain in the practice, as you have begun”; Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 105: “Ten thousand deny the holy goods entrusted to them; σὺ δέ . . . attempt . . . to preserve what you have received”; Matthew 23.6-­8: the scribes and Pharisees “love the first place at the meals . . . and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by people; ὑμεῖς δέ should not be called ‘Rabbi’”; 1 Timothy 6.10-­11: “. . . greed after which certain people have striven; σὺ δέ avoid such things . . .”; 2 Timothy 3.13-­14: “Evil people and deceivers will advance to what is worse; σὺ δέ remain in that which you have learned.”

It is evident that the two verses belong to this genre. Their peculiarity consists in the fact that they strengthen the adversative δέ with οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλ.’ The syncritic function is also underlined by the fact that the two sides of the comparison are configured as a two-­lined parallelism and through the substantivizing of ὁ μείζων and ὁ ἡγούμενος (diff. Mark 10.43-­44) Luke makes the second part also linguistically recognizable as an antithetical opposition to the first. 25 The paraenetic negative foil is the normal form of political rule. μείζων takes up the dispute narrated in v. 24. The demarcation is expressed through the attribute τῶν ἐθνῶν (non-­Jews are in view). αὐτῶν is the object of both κυριεύειν and ἐξουσιάζειν; it refers in both cases to the “Gentiles.” εὐεργέτης is an honorific title that was attached to political rulers especially in Hellenistic-­Roman times and is attested not only in literature but also in many inscriptions, coins, and papyri (cf. B. Kötting, RAC 6: 848–­60; Danker 1982; Spicq 1994, II: 109ff). The Seleucid ruler Antiochus VII (ruled 138–­129 BCE) and the Pharaohs Ptolemaeus III (ruled 246–­221 BCE) and Ptolemaeus VIII (ruled 145–­116 BCE) had the designation “Euergetes” as a byname. Beginning with Gaius Julius himself (e.g., SEG 34.117; IG XII/2: 151), it is attested for the Roman Caesars (e.g., for Augustus in Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 149: πρῶτος καὶ μέγιστος καὶ κοινὸς εὐεργέτης [“first and greatest and general benefactor”] or for Nero in OGIS 668.5 [see at 2.1]). In 2 Maccabees 4.2 the high priest Onias III is called εὐεργέτης τῆς πόλεως (“benefactor of the city [sc. Jerusalem]”). The title was not reserved for the Caesars, for anyone could call anyone who had rendered outstanding services or who simply had power and influence εὐεργέτης. For εὐεργέται καλοῦνται (25c) cf. Philo, In Flaccum 126: here there is talk of court toadies, who “held a subordinate position” and called the Roman governor in Egypt “lord and benefactor and savior and the like (δεσπότην καὶ εὐεργέτην καὶ σωτῆρα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα).”

470

The Gospel According to Luke

Thus, to call a person “benefactor” or to be called “benefactor” is primarily a social interaction that stages the social μεῖζων-­ness of a person. On ὁ ἡγούμενος cf. Spicq 1994, II: 166ff. 26 The Lukan Jesus exhorts to a handling of rulership as it should be practiced within the counter-­world of the apostles (ἐν ὑμῖν in antithesis to the symbolic universe characterized by τῶν ἐθνῶν. The concern can be best explained with the help of the sociological distinction between ‘status’ and ‘role,’ in which the role can be regarded as “the dynamic aspect of the status” (König 1967, 142–­48, p. 144; see also Spitznagel 1977, 401–­9). In the text this difference is marked by ὡς, which appears twice. The one who is a μείζων (takes up v. 24b) or ἡγούμενος in terms of status should “among you”—­and at this level of the discourse this means: within the Christian community—­adopt the role of a νεώτερος or a διακονῶν, i.e., of such people whose status is low in the social fabric of the group. It can be left open whether μείζων and νεώτερος are to be understood here as superlatives (cf. BDR §60.244 as well as W. Bauer 1988, 1085 with reference to Genesis 42.20) and whether νεώτερος hangs together with διακονῶν in such a way that “t[he] youngest has to perform the lowest services” (again W. Bauer 1988, 1085 with reference to Acts 5.6). In this way, Luke has Jesus develop “a very demanding ethos of Christian leadership style” (Hoffmann/ Eid 1979, 227). He has nothing against the fact that there are μείζονες and ἡγούμενοι in a Christian community, but they are to deal with their status in such a way that they behave like νεώτεροι and διακονοῦντες in the social fabric of the community. That this inversion of status and role only applies top-­down and not also bottom-­up does not need to be specifically stated. 27 The two-­part structure of vv. 25-­26 is transferred to the relation between Jesus and the disciples and illustrated with the help of the narrated situation. The rhetorical question and its answering (27a-­b) correspond to vv. 25b-­c, and the statement about the role that Jesus has adopted in the circle of the apostles (27c) corresponds to v. 26. This is why the argumentative part ends in 27c with the same words as v. 26c (ὡς ὁ διακονῶν), and the adversative hinges between the two parts also correspond with each other. In place of ὑμεῖς δέ (v. 26a) there now stands ἐγὼ δέ (27c). Moreover, ἐν ὑμῖν (v. 26b) is taken up again with ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν (27c). In 27a-­b the Lukan Jesus invokes cultural everyday knowledge. The concern is with the conventional homology of status and role, which is illustrated with the example of a meal situation. μείζων stands here, as in v. 26b, for the status, whereas ὁ ἀνακείμενος and ὁ διακονῶν designate the different roles (cf. only Luke 12.37; 17.8). Everyone knows that this distribution of roles is a reliable indicator of status. Whoever reclines at the table and receives services is greater than the one who performs them for him. In 27c this constellation is transferred to Jesus’s relation to the disciples.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 471

From the side of the narrated addressees and readers, it is presupposed as christological knowledge that Jesus’s status as Kyrios, Son of God, and Messiah is known to them. Against the background of this knowledge, Jesus himself, namely through the adoption of the role of the διακονῶν within the circle of the disciples, becomes the ethical prefiguration of the top-­down-­inversion of status and role required by him. What διακονεῖν refers to emerges from the text only indirectly (cf. the overview of the hypotheses in Nelson 1994a, 161). When Jesus designates himself in his relation to the disciples as ὡς ὁ διακονῶν, the disciples receive the role of those reclining at table due to the constellation constructed in 27a-­b. This means that Luke interprets the actions of Jesus at the Last Supper described in vv. 19-­20 as διακονία, although Jesus had exercised the role of paterfamilias and host according to the conventional understanding (see also Hentschel 2007, 288–­89).

28-­30 The structure of this speech section is determined by the sequence of the tenses. It begins in v. 28 with a resultative perfect (διαμεμενηκότες), continues in v. 29 with a performative present (διατίθεμαι), and concludes in v. 30 with an eschatological future (καθήσεσθε). 28 The fact that Luke relates the loyal remaining of the apostles with Jesus to the time of Jesus’s “trials” is somewhat surprising. In the “trials” narrated in 4.1-­13 Jesus did not yet have any disciples and in the intervening time it was only the demand for a sign with which he was “put to the test” (11.16). πειρασμοί designates the diagnostic function of experiences, without them necessarily having to be experiences of suffering (see the introductory comments to 4.1-­13). It is meant to be established thereby whether someone is really what he is regarded as or what he wants to be regarded as. Therefore, precisely God himself can repeatedly make use of the means of the πειρασμός in order to put those chosen by him to the test (see above the introductory comments to 4.1-­13 and at 4.13). And because, furthermore, the “remaining” always matters only with regard to those who are themselves “tested” (cf. 8.13; James 1.12), it would be much easier for material reasons if one could understand μου as a genitivus subjectivus (thus underhandedly Hoffmann 1998a, 258–­59). The speech would then be about the tests with which Jesus had tested the loyalty of the disciples.

But in this case a different pronoun would probably be used there, and thus one probably cannot avoid letting the theological connotations recede into the background and postulating that here the Lukan Jesus speaks of his πειρασμοί similarly to how the Lukan Paul in Acts 20.19 speaks of “all abasement and tears and πειρασμοί that happened to me”: the term

472

The Gospel According to Luke

would then be reduced semantically to its referent, i.e., to the experiences of rejection and persecution, which Jesus experienced during his public activity and which nevertheless have not caused the apostles to be derailed from following Jesus. Here Luke has not produced a narrative masterpiece, for it remains completely unexplained what has happened with Judas in the meantime. In v. 21 he is still sitting at the table, whereas v. 28 cannot include him—­on the contrary, v. 28 could even be a saying to the remaining eleven, with whom Jesus reacts to the disappearance of Judas (cf. Bock). Either way, v. 21 and v. 28 have different scenic presuppositions, without Luke having marked the change narratively.

29-­30 Jesus says what the disciples will be rewarded with for their loyalty. The syntax of 29 is unclear (cf. the description in Nelson 1994a, 205–­6). Either βασιλείαν at the end of the sentence depends only on διέθετο (cf. Dawsey 1986, 51) or it is also the object of διατίθεμαι (thus the majority). The problem cannot be resolved grammatically. But considerations of content suggest a preferencing of the second possibility, for Jesus had already announced in 12.32 that βασιλεία will be transferred to the disciples, and as “judges over the twelve tribes of Israel” the disciples exercise ‘rulership’ also according to v. 30b (see further there). Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 13.407, where τὴν βασιλείαν διατιθέναι designates the transfer of rulership by testament to the descendents, is not entirely comparable (I have not found this syntagma anywhere else). The καθώς-­clause has the function of characterizing the origin and nature of the rulership that Jesus transfers to the apostles (see also Revelation 3.21). The concern is with participation in the rule of God (see also Guillet 1981 with reference to John 15.9; 17.18, 21, 22, 20, 21, though with untenable conclusions for the historicity of the saying); the discussion regarding a causal or comparative understanding of καθώς (cf. Nelson 1994a, 199–­200) therefore falls short. However, despite the performative present, the apostles are not placed in an ecclesiastical office with this (contra Roloff 1965, 184ff). Rather, the next verse makes clear that while the reward for their loyalty is bindingly promised to them in the present, it is realized only in the future (see also G. Lohfink 1975b, 81–­82; Nelson 1993, 199–­200). 30 The object clause is linked syntactically to διατίθεμαι. It unpacks wherein the bestowal of “rule” for the apostles is able to be experienced. 30a promises to the apostles not only merely participation in the eschatic meal of salvation in the sense of 13.29 (see further there) but that they will be given the distinction of eating at the table of the ruler. With this honor we are dealing with a status symbol that can be documented in all cultures of the world, which is always awarded to only the highest bearers of honor



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 473

or the most intimate associates of the ruler (cf. 2 Samuel 9.7, 10; 19.29; 1 Kings 2.7; 2 Kings 25.29; Jeremiah 52.33; Jubilees 31.16; Herodotus 3.132: ὁμοτράπεζος βασιλέϊ ἐγεγόνεε [“He became a table companion to the king”]; Xenophon, Anabasis 1.8.25; Cassius Dio 78.7.2). In 30b the apostles are promised not merely the function of judges in the end judgment but “a sharing . . . in Jesus’s messianic reign over Israel” (Hoffmann 1998a, 260; see also Nelson 1994a, 219). The conception taken up here can be documented in numerous Jewish texts; cf. e.g., 4Q521 Fragment 2, II, 7 (“He [sc. God] will honor the pious on the throne of everlasting rule”); Revelation 3.21; 4.4. In Psalms of Solomon 17.26 it is expected regarding the rule of the Messiah king: “He will gather a holy people, which he will rule in righteousness, and he will judge the tribes of the people (κρινεῖ φυλὰς λαοῦ), which was healed by God”; see also 17.29 and Wisdom of Solomon 3.8, where it says concerning the righteous: κρινοῦσιν ἔθνη καὶ κρατήσουσιν λαῶν (“They will judge nations and rule over peoples”). In the New Testament κρίνειν is never used elsewhere in the sense of “rule.” The use in this passage, however, is determined by the fact that Israel’s kings judged and its judges ruled (cf. Nelson 1994a, 220).

With the “twelve tribes of Israel” Luke does not, of course, mean a ‘non-­ Christian Israel’ (herein lies the misunderstanding of Hoffmann 1998a, 260–­61), but the people of God consisting of Jews and Gentiles, whose messianic king is Jesus, which stands in unbroken continuity to the twelve-­ tribe people elected in the fathers (Acts 13.17; 26.7 and elsewhere; see Wolter 2004b, cf. also at 20.20b). 22.31-­34: The Announcement of the Denial 31

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded you in order to sift you like wheat. 32But I have prayed for you that your faith does not come to an end. And you, when you have afterwards changed your mind, strengthen your brothers!” 33But he said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you even to prison and to death.” 34But he said, “I say to you, Peter, today the cock will not crow until you deny three times that you know me.” The focusing of the speech on Peter is not marked narratively (‫ א‬A D W Θ Ψ f 1,13 𝔐 rectify this later by adding εἶπεν δὲ ὁ κύριος). A certain analogy is found in 13.34 (“Jerusalem, Jerusalem”) after 13.31-­33. In terms of content the dialogue is connected with the topic of v. 38 (cf. especially μετ’ ἐμοῦ there and μετὰ σοῦ in v. 33; see also Dietrich 1972, 124).

474

The Gospel According to Luke

The introductory saying of Jesus in v. 31 has the function of tracing back Peter’s denial to the activity of the devil and of preparing for Peter’s literary reintegration into the discipleship circle in 24.12, 34; Acts 1.15. That Jesus says once “Simon” (v. 31) and once “Peter” (v. 34) should not be made into a starting point for source-­critical operations, for within the Lukan story of Jesus these are the only two places where Jesus addresses Simon Peter by name. In accordance with 6.14 (“Simon, whom he also named Peter”), the Lukan Jesus uses the two names that Luke himself also uses time and again (see also at 4.38). The synoptic situation is very diffuse. Verses 31-­32 has no parallel in any of the other three Gospels. For vv. 33-­34 the closeness to John 13.37-­38 is greater than to Mark 14.29-­30. Apart from the previously noted agreements of v. 34 with John 13.38c-­d (see category [g] in the introductory comments on 22.1–­24.52[53]), v. 33par. John 13.37 (diff. Mark 14.29par. 26.33) lack the fact that Peter demarcates himself from the others (“even if all . . . I not”). I do not have a proposal for explaining these findings.

In 31-­32 a heavenly scene is evidently presupposed, which resembles the scenes narrated in Job 1.6-­12 and 2.1-­6 (see also G. Stählin, ThWNT 1: 194; Dietrich 1972, 123) and in which Jesus stands together with Satan before God. God must therefore be supplied as the addressee of the demand of the devil (ἐξῃτήσατο) and the intercession of Jesus (ἐδεήθην). In 31 ὑμᾶς is the object of both predicates, namely of ἐξῃτήσατο and of σινιάσαι. For the use of ἐξαιτεῖσθαι with personal object in the sense of ‘demand the transfer or handing over of a person’ cf. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 13.107 and 16.277 (in each case “for punishment”); 18.369; Bellum judaicum 1.393, 505 and above all Testament of Benjamin 3.3: “If the spirits of Beliar demand you for every wickedness of tribulation (εἰς πᾶσαν πονηρίαν θλίψεως ἐξαιτήσωνται) . . .”; see further in W. Bauer 1988, 549. With σινιάσαι the shaking in a sieve (σίνιον) is probably in mind. The imagery would then refer to the process that takes place directly before the grinding. After the straw has been removed through threshing and winnowing, the wheat kernels still have to be separated from remaining impurities (earth, small stones) so that these do not get into the mill with them. This metaphor would be a plausible continuation of the imagery used by John the Baptist according to 3.17, but it is unlikely that Luke had this connection in view.

Within the target domain, what Dietrich 1972, 124 calls “peirasmos of the apostles” is probably in mind. The devil wants God to hand over the



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 475

apostles to him so that he might test—­by whatever means—­whether their faithfulness or faith are really able to endure under pressure (see further at the introductory comments on 4.1-­13 and 4.13). 32 The adversative δέ does not set Peter over against the other apostles (thus G. Klein 1969, 63); rather, with it Jesus positions himself before God against the devil. The same situation is view here as in v. 31. And therefore Jesus’s petition is not directed to the devil (this seems to be assumed by G. Klein 1969, 64) but likewise to God. Its content is oriented to a restriction of the “shaking” planned by Satan with regard to Peter. Its intention can be made intelligible from Job 1.12; 2.6c, where God sets a limit to the actions of the devil against Job—­he is not permitted to take his life. What Job’s life is to him is what Peter’s faith is to him, and Luke ascribes to Jesus the request that God should not allow the devil to lead Peter to the complete loss of his faith. Dietrich 1972, 133 has seen clearly that here, too, the denial is thus already in view. Verse 32c functions as an explanation for the fact that Peter exercises the leadership function in the Jerusalem community after Easter (for the first time in Acts 1.15). The imperative στήρισον τοὺς ἀδελφούς σου is a Lukanism; cf. (concerning the activity of Paul and his companions respectively and with ἐπιστηρίζειν) Acts 14.22 (the souls of the disciples); 15.41 (the communities); 15.32 and 18.23 (the/all brothers). The participle ἐπιστρέψας should be understood intransitively; it is usually interpreted with reference to Luke 17.4; Acts 3.19; 9.35; 11.21; 14.15; 15.19; 26.18, 20; 28.27 in the sense of “conversion.” However, such a translation overshoots the target, for since, due to the intercession of Jesus, Peter precisely does not lose his faith, one cannot speak meaningfully of his subsequent “conversion.” But a good sense results if one makes v. 34b the basis of interpretation. In that case, the participle speaks of a Peter who no longer denies that he knows Jesus. 33 Peter contests his endangerment by taking up a central topic of the ancient friendship ethic (cf. Stählin 1973, 508ff; Wolter 1990, 545–­ 46). According to this topic, it is a special characteristic of friendship that friends do not leave one another alone precisely in suffering and death (cf. as an example Seneca, Epistulae morales ad Lucilium 9.10: In quid amicum paras? Ut habeam pro quo mori possim, ut habeam quem in exilium sequar, cuius me morti et opponam et inpendam [“For what purpose do you obtain for yourself a friend? In order to have someone for whom I can die, in order to have someone whom I can follow into exile, against whose death I can set myself and take upon me”]). This principle also applies in hierarchical relationships, in which the absolute attachment and allegiance finds expression in the fact that the slave goes to death with his master or the soldier with his commander.

476

The Gospel According to Luke

Cf. e.g., 1 Samuel 31.5 (on Saul’s armor bearer: when he saw that Saul was dead “he also fell upon his sword and died with him [ἀπέθανεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ]”); Josephus, Bellum judaicum 3.390 (“They regarded death with Josephus [τὸν μετὰ τοῦ Ἰωσήπου θάνατον] as sweeter than life”); Strabo, Geographica 17.2.3 (on the bodyguards of the Ethiopian king: “They suffer the same [τὸ αὐτὸ πάσχουσιν], and they die with him [συναποθνῄσκουσιν]”); Tacitus, Historiae 2.49.4 (at the burning of Otho “they killed some soldiers next to the pyre . . . out of love for the princeps [caritate principis])”; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.54 (249a) (about the Arabians: “If a king . . . had suffered a wound, all subjected themselves in pretence to the same suffering, for they regarded it as irreconcilable to want to be buried with him, if he died, on the one hand, but if he had been wounded, to not encounter him with the same readiness for suffering”; 249b (on the bodyguards of a Celtic king: “. . . they died with him [συναποθνῄσκουσι], whether he lost his life through sickness or for another reason”); Lucian of Samosata, Toxaris 20 (“What can one produce as a stronger demonstration of devotion (εὐνοία) in relation to a befriended man [πρὸς ἄνδρα φίλον] . . . than to share in his death [κοινωνήσας τοῦ θανάτου]?”).

This tradition has left traces also in Mark 14.31 (“even if I have to die with you . . .”), and the Johannine Peter also makes recourse to it in John 13.37 when he promises to give up his life for Jesus (cf. G. Stählin, ThWNT 9: 151; Schröter 2000). 34 The Lukan version differs from the other three versions of the announcement of denial in the fact that, unlike in the other versions, ἀπαρνεῖσθαι is not construed with a personal object (με; on this see at 9.23) but with the expanded infinitive (με . . . εἰδέναι). This does not mark a difference in substance, however. After all, according to Wisdom of Solomon 16.16, it is the “godless” (ἀσεβεῖς) of whom it is said that they “deny knowing you (sc. God)” (ἀρνούμενοι . . . σε εἰδέναι); see also 12.27. Here the crowing of the cock has no other meaning than to indicate the end of the night and the dawning of the morning. 22.35-­38: Coats to Swords! 35

And he said to them, “When I sent you out without money bag and provision sack and shoes, did you lack anything then?” They answered, “Nothing!” 36Thereupon he said to them, “But now, whoever has a money bag, he should take (it), likewise also a provision sack—­and whoever does not have (this) should sell his coat—­and should buy a sword. 37For I say to you: what has been written must be fulfilled in me, namely: ‘And he was reckoned among the lawless.’ For with me it is done.” 38They said to this, “Lord, look, here (are) two swords.” But he said to them, “Enough already!”



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 477

At the end of his speech, Jesus turns again to all the apostles, and there is a short dialogue whose meaning—­at least with regard to vv. 36b-­38—­largely lies in darkness. The terminological interconnections between the rounds of dialogue let the coherence of the text emerge clearly—­from βαλλάντιον καὶ πήρα (v. 35b) via ὁ ἔχων . . . βαλλάντιον . . . καὶ πήραν (v. 36b) and further via ὁ μὴ ἔχων . . . μάχαιραν (v. 36c) to μάχαιραι (v. 38b). This does not, of course, rule out the possibility that Luke takes up an older tradition here. Since the text is handed down only in Luke, one cannot say anything about its origin. In the literature there is the usual speculation between “the proof of tradition cannot be successful” (Schmithals 212) and “there is no good reason for questioning its authenticity” (Marshall 824). 35-­36 The apostles are reminded of the equipment instruction of 10.4, which Jesus gave the seventy-­two at that time for the way. The introduction of the question with μή anticipates the apostles’ negative answer (cf. BDR §427.2a). It would be an error, however, if one extended the instruction, which applied to the commissioning at that time, to the existence as disciple during the “time of Jesus” as a whole and demarcated from this “the ‘now’ dawning” “epoch” reaching into the Lukan present for which that instruction is now nullified (thus Conzelmann 1977, 75, 74). There can be no talk of a “nullification” of an equipment rule from 10.4 that would have been valid until this point. This assumption is already refuted by ὁ ἔχων βαλλάντιον . . . καὶ πήραν, for this presupposes the possession of money bags and provision sacks among the disciples. Rather, in 35 the apostles are to be rhetorically prepared for the fact that also from now on they are again to forgo money bag and provision sack—­to be sure, with the difference that they are now to give up these things to obtain a sword (this is why Jesus says ἀλλὰ νῦν). ὁ ἔχων and ὁ μὴ ἔχων are complementary. One is either the one or the other. The meaning of this distinction, which is meant to embrace the entire circle of disciples, is that the disciples should in any case buy a sword and whoever cannot do so with the help of a money bag and provision sack should part with his coat for this purpose. But how did Luke understand the exhortation to buy a sword? Should the disciples merely be prepared for “an extremely hard and peaceless time for them” (Eckey II: 901 as a representative for the majority)? Or did he want to evoke the impression that Jesus exhorted the disciples to buy actual swords (thus, e.g., Bartsch 1974; Heiligenthal 1995, 54ff; Kruger 1997)? When we pose this question as part of the question of the image of Jesus that Luke wanted to convey to his readers at this point, we should free ourselves from the alternative ‘symbolic’ or ‘literal’ and see the propositional content of this exhortation in the announcement of what awaits Jesus and the group—­that it is now literally a matter of life and death.

478

The Gospel According to Luke

And vv. 38, 49-­50 show that the exhortation is certainly open to a realistic understanding from a pragmatic perspective. Furthermore, everything supports the view that the scope of this exhortation does not extend beyond the end of the life of Jesus and the conditions bound up with it (see also Marshall). In any case, it would not occur to anyone who reads the first chapters of Acts that the possession of swords would have been helpful for the cause of Jesus or that “the multitude of those who came to faith” (Acts 4.32) had to endure an “extremely hard and peaceless time” (see above). Irrespective of whether the exhortation is meant fictively or realistically—­the disciples could have purchased swords at the market for iron goods, the σιδηρός (so-­ called in Xenophon, Hellenica 3.3.7), where there are said to have been “many daggers, many swords, many skewers, many hatchets and axes, many sickles” (I thank Jörg-­Dieter Gauger, Bonn, for this reference).

37 The instruction to purchase a sword is given a rationale with Isaiah 53.12. The phrasing καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη is closer to the Hebrew text (‫ )וְ ֶאת־ּפ ְֹׁש ִעים נִ ְמנָ ה‬than to the Septuagint version (καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη); for the introduction of quotations with τό cf. BDR §267.1. Luke certainly did not imagine this connection in such a way that it would be the apostles who would become ἄνομοι through the purchase of swords and through this provide for the fulfillment of the saying of Scripture (contra Minear 1964/1965; Eckey). However, the saying is also not fulfilled in the first place through Jesus’s crucifixion with two “criminals” (κακοῦργοι; 23.32) but already through the manner of his arrest “as . . . a robber with swords and clubs” (22.52). In the New Testament this is the only place at which the quoted words are found; elsewhere Luke quotes from the fourth servant song only Isaiah 53.7-­8 in Acts 8.32-­33. A further justification is connected with the first one through a wordplay (τελεσθῆναι ἐν ἐμοί [37b] / τὸ περὶ ἐμοῦ τέλος [37d]), which cannot be reproduced in English. It does not elevate the fulfillment idea of the Isaiah text simply into the fundamental, however, but maintains that Jesus’s activity has now reached its completion; cf. the analogous use of τέλος ἔχει in Mark 3.26 and sentences formed with substantivized περί in Josephus, Vita 154 (καὶ τὰ μὲν περὶ ἐκείνους τοῦτ’ ἔσχε τὸ τέλος [“And this was the end of their story”]) and Plutarch, Moralia 615e (ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ περὶ τὸ δεῖπνον τέλος εἶχεν . . . [“when the meal was finished . . .”]). 38 The fact that the apostles thereupon present two swords (38a-­b) is usually interpreted as a misunderstanding—­they had taken Jesus’s exhortation to purchase a sword literally and not comprehended what Jesus actually wanted to communicate (see above). Since Luke also has the twelve react to earlier announcements of Jesus’s fate of suffering with a lack of



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 479

understanding (9.44-­45; 18.31-­34), this interpretation cannot be rejected out of hand. But perhaps this episode is only meant to create a narrative foundation for vv. 49-­50. Jesus’s concluding saying, however, is no less riddling. What is “enough” (ἱκανόν)—­two swords, the notorious obtuseness of the disciples, or Jesus’s entire activity? Or is the remark meant ironically (hence the translation)? It is not possible to nail down this exclamation to a certain meaning, and perhaps Luke intended it to be this way. What is reasonably certain is only that ἱκανόν is not a Semitism, for it is an expression that is attested many times in non-­Jewish Greek (cf. among others Plato, Leges 801c; Xenophon, Symposium 5.10; Isocrates, Archidamus 33; Antidosis 196; Plutarch, Moralia 69e; 86d; 655–­656; 678d; 948c). In any case, with this Luke sets a strong conclusion. He not only places an abrupt end to the dialogue about the swords and to the last shared meal but also to Jesus’s equally numerous and unsuccessful attempts to make comprehensible to the disciples what lies ahead of him. The time of the togetherness of Jesus and the disciples ends here, as does the time of his activity up to the beginning of his being handed over. From now on nothing will recur. 22.39-­53: At the Mount of Olives

The two scenes of the praying Jesus and the arrest of Jesus stand much closer together in Luke than in the two synoptic counterparts. Luke has omitted the extensive Markan staging of the transition by means of Mark 14.41c-­42 and in this way made the two scenes merge into each other. 22.39-­46: Jesus Prays and the Disciples Sleep 39

And he went out and travelled as was his custom to the Mount of Olives. And the disciples also followed him. 40And when he came to the place, he said to them, “Pray that you do not fall into temptation!” 41 And he distanced himself from them about a stone’s throw and knelt down and prayed: 42“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. Yet, let not my will but yours be done!” [[43And there appeared to him an angel from heaven who strengthened him. 44And when he fell into inner turmoil, he prayed even more urgently. And his sweat became like drops of blood falling to the earth.]] 45 And when he rose from prayer and came to the disciples, he found them sleeping from grief. 46So he said to them, “Why are you sleeping? Rise and pray that you not fall into temptation.”

480

The Gospel According to Luke

Luke narrates the story of Jesus’s last mountain prayer (after 6.12 and 9.28) much more compactly than Mark. He does not separate Peter, James, and John from the rest of the disciples (Mark 14.33), but brings them all into the scene. Furthermore, he restricts his narrative to the first round of prayer as well as the first return to the disciples (Mark 14.32-­38a) and omits the two repetitions (Mark 14.39-­41b) as well as the Markan transition to the arrest scene (see above). Furthermore, in Luke it is not only at the end—­as in Mark 14.38a—­but also at the beginning that Jesus enjoins the disciples to pray that they not fall into temptation (vv. 40b, 46c). In this way there arises an inclusio that frames the entire episode. Luke also sets the thematic accents differently than Mark (cf. Sterling 2001, 395–­96). In Luke, Jesus is not overwhelmed by fear and despair (Mark 14.33b, 34b are omitted), and he also does not throw himself upon the ground to pray (Mark 14.35b) but “kneels down” (v. 41b). It is not Jesus who is deeply grieved (“περίλυπος is my soul up to death”; Mark 14.34b) but his disciples (v. 45b: they were asleep ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης). It has sometimes been assumed that Luke has configured Jesus’s nightly walk to the Mount of Olives according to the pattern of the presentation of David’s flight from the revolt of Absalom in 2 Samuel 15.13-­37 (cf. Brown 1994, I: 125–­26, 135 with reference to 2 Samuel 15.20-­21, 30). However, the cross-­connections are much too vague to let such speculation appear justified. The following minor agreements are worth noting: ἵνα . . . (παρέλθῃ) ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα (Mark 14.35b) is lacking between v. 41 and v. 42par. Matthew 26.39; the address πάτερ (v. 42bpar. Matthew 26.39b) instead of αββα ὁ πατήρ (Mark 14.36b); πλήν (v. 42cpar. Matthew 26.39c) instead of ἀλλ’ (Mark 14.36d); πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς (v. 45apar. Matthew 26.40a) has no equivalent in Mark 14.37; εἰσέλθητε (v. 46dpar. Matthew 26.41b) instead of ἔλθητε (Mark 14.38b). In addition, the correspondence of v. 42c (πλὴν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γινέσθω) with Matthew 26.42c (γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου) is also conspicuous. Cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 173ff and 1991, 79–­80; Ennulat 1994, 346ff.

39 Luke has Jesus return to the Mount of Olives “as was his custom” (on the phrasing τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν see at 19.29). In this way, he reminds his readers of the time of Jesus’s teaching in Jerusalem (19.47–­21.38). In 21.37 it is said regarding this time that Jesus taught in the temple during the day and returned at night to the Mount of Olives. The point of contact with John 18.2 (Jesus “had often gathered there with his disciples”) is therefore no indication for the processing of the same tradition but coincidence—­if it is not based on the fact that the author of the Gospel of John knew the Gospel of Luke. In the New Testament the syntagma κατὰ τὸ ἔθος occurs elsewhere only in Luke 1.9; 2.42.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 481

40 The connection to 21.37 in v. 39 allows the readers, with γενόμενος . . . ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου, to think of that specific place on the Mount of Olives at which Jesus had spent his nights between 19.47 and 21.38. The content of the prayer that Jesus enjoins upon the disciples calls to mind the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (11.4c). According to this petition, they should pray that they be spared from crises that could lead to the loss of their faith. That God time and again leads precisely those who are chosen by him into such crises in order to put them to the test is contained in the meaning of πειρασμός (see at 11.4c, the introductory comments to 4.1-­13, and at 4.13). Mark 14.34, with the admission that Jesus was “deeply grieved . . . to death” (περίλυπος . . . ἕως θανάτου), is lacking in Luke. Neyrey hypothesizes that Luke deleted this passage because “grief” (λύπη) belonged to the passions in ancient moral philosophy and was regarded especially in Jewish texts as a sign of sin and unsalvation (cf. Neyrey 1985, 51–­52). But this is no more than a possibility, particularly as the thesis is based on an extremely one-­sided selection of texts (see also the criticism of J. B. Green 1986, 32–­33). 41 That Jesus distanced himself from other people to pray has already appeared frequently (cf. 5.16; 6.12). But he never separated himself from the disciples in these contexts; on the contrary, in 9.18, 28 it is expressly upheld that Jesus took the disciples with him when he withdrew to pray (for the distancing specification cf. Thucydides 5.65.2; Testament of Gad 1.3α). θεὶς τὰ γόνατα as a prayer gesture is typically Lukan (cf., in addition to Mark 15.19, in the New Testament only Acts 7.60; 9.40; 20.36; 21.5). Whether this expression is a Latinism (thus BDR §5.4: “= genua ponere”) is uncertain; cf. Euripides, Troades 1307 (γόνυ τίθημι γαίᾳ [“I place the knee on the earth”]) and Agatharchides Geographus, De mari Erythraeo 38 (C. F. T. Müller 1965, I: 133.21–­22: ἀπερεισάμενοι τὰς χεῖρας εἰς τὴν γῆν καὶ θέντες τὰ γόνατα [“They supported the hands on the earth and knelt down”]). We are probably dealing with an ellipsis, to which εἰς τὴν γῆν or the like must be supplemented. 42 Of all the prayers of Jesus, this is the only one whose wording the readers learn. At the beginning Luke replaces the Markan πάντα δυνατά σοι with εἰ βούλει and in this way shifts the content of the petition from the sphere of what is possible to the sphere of what God wants. We are dealing here with a conventional Hellenistic formula of politeness that is used time and again for the rhetorical transformation of demands into petitions (cf. Xenophon, Anabasis 3.4.41; Plutarch, Moralia 85e; 328b; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 5.61 [219c]; Lucian of Samosata, Demonax 23; Philo, Legum allegoriae 3.69; De Abrahamo 251; De decalogo 86). The content of the petition takes up Old Testament imagery: “cup” stands

482

The Gospel According to Luke

here as a metaphor for the fate of unsalvation allocated by God (cf. also John 18.11). Cf. above all Jeremiah 49.12 (“Those were not condemned to drink the cup, they must drink it. And shall you be the one who remains unpunished? You will not remain unpunished, but you shall drink it completely”) and Psalm 11.6 (“He lets snares, fire, and brimstone rain on the ungodly. Burning wind is the portion of their cup”); Habakkuk 2.16 (“The cup of the right hand of YHWH comes now to you, and humiliating disgrace comes over your glory”); see also Psalm 75.9; Jeremiah 25.17, 28; Lamentations 4.21; Ezekiel 23.31, 32, 33. Via “cup of the wine of wrath” (Jeremiah 25.15) there arises the “cup of wrath” (Isaiah 51.17, 22). Psalm 15.5, however, knows a “neutral” connotation of the cup metaphor (“YHWH is my portion and my cup; you are the one who has made my lot secure”); on the tradition-­historical background of the cup metaphor cf. G. Fuchs 2003.

Jesus’s subjection to the will of God has nothing to do with Luke wanting to credit the virtue of ἀνδρεία to him (contra Neyrey 1985, 54). Rather—­ and the address at the beginning of the prayer also already makes this clear—­Jesus approaches God as is appropriate for a son with respect to his father. It is conspicuous that with πλὴν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γινέσθω Luke changes the Markan “but not what I want but what you (want)” (Mark 14.36) into a phrasing that corresponds not only to Matthew 26.42c but also comes very close to the third petition of the Matthean version of the Lord’s Prayer (γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου; Matthew 6.10b); but see also Acts 21.14 and at 11.2c-­4 (on the Lukan use of πλήν in 22.42, cf. Thrall 1962, 67ff). 43-­44 In the New Testament textual tradition, the belonging of these two verses to the original version of the Gospel of Luke is controversial. The manuscript evidence is as follows (for a more comprehensive overview cf. GAStL II: 190): Witnesses for the reading without are 𝔓75 ‫א‬‎1 A B N R T W 579, 1071*, l 844 pc f sys sa bopt; Clement of Alexandria, Origenmss Jeromemss Athanasius, Ambrosius, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus (f 13 brings in the two verses after Matthew 26.39). Witness for the reading with are ‫*א‬,2 D K L X Δ* Θ Π* Ψ 0171 f 1 𝔐 lat syc,p,h pt bo ; Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Ps.-­Dionysus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus of Alexandria, Jeromemss. The assessment of 𝔓69 (P. Oxy. XXIV 2383), a papyrus from the third century that only contains Luke 22.41, 45b-­48, 58-­62, is uncertain (cf. Clivaz 2005, 425ff). Since the text continues without interruption between vv. 41 and v. 45b, one can discuss whether vv. 42-­45a (from λέγων πάτερ to ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς) were intentionally omitted (thus Aland 1987, 59; Clivaz 2005, 429ff) or whether



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 483

the omission is based on a scribal oversight (homoioteleuton of προσευχῆς after προσηύχετο). In the first case, the witness of 𝔓69 loses any meaning for the text-­ critical problem under debate here; in the latter case, one could possibly view this manuscript as an indirect witness for the reading without, since a homoioteleuton is likely only when the distance between the two ends of the lines in the Vorlage being copied was not too large (cf. in this vein Turner/Barns 1957, 3 n. 4). The opinions diverge from one another in the literature, and a consensus is not in sight. The following scholars support the reading without: Eckey; C. F. Evans; Fitzmyer; Nolland; Ehrman/Plunkett 1983. The following advocate the reading with: Bock; Ernst; Green; Johnson; Klein; Lagrange; Marshall (“but with considerable hesitation”; 832); Schmithals; Schneider; Wiefel; Zahn; Brown 1994, I: 110–­234; Brun 1933; Clivaz 2005; Duplacy 1987; Feldmeier 1987; J. B. Green 1986; Neyrey 1980; 1985; Schneider 1985; Tuckett 2002. The external evidence is about equal. The stronger weight that the combination of 𝔓75 and B places on the scale in favor of the reading without is balanced out by the fact that there are quotations from these two verses already in Justin (Dialogus cum Tryphone 103.8) and Irenaeus (Adversus haereses 3.22.2). Vocabulary and style advance us just as little (cf. Tuckett 2002, 133–­34) as textual-­ structural considerations (contra Ehrman/Plunkett 1983; see also Brown 1994, I: 182–­83; Tuckett 2002, 135–­36). The same also applies to the reference to later problem situations that are said to have motivated the secondary addition (e.g., the controversy with Docetism) or made responsible for a subsequent deletion (e.g., fending off anti-­Christian polemic based on the weakness of Jesus). Almost all the arguments can be reversed or balanced out by other considerations. Likewise, the cross-­connections to Acts 21.13-­14; 27.23-­24, to which Tuckett 2002, 141ff has drawn attention, remain behind what Luke elsewhere makes recognizable as a parallel between Jesus and Paul. Thus, we must remain for the time being with a non liquet.

43 ὤφθη is also common elsewhere with regard to appearances from heaven (see at 1.11 and, e.g., 24.34; Mark 9.4par.; 1 Corinthians 15.5-­8; Genesis 12.7; Exodus 3.2; Leviticus 9.23; Judges 6.12; 13.3). That the appearances “strengthen” the recipient of the appearance is also known from many other texts (e.g., Daniel 10.1Theodotion: δύναμις μεγάλη καὶ σύνεσις ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὀπτασίᾳ [“Great power and insight were given to him through the appearance”]; for additional attestations, see Wolter 1988b, 33). 2 Timothy 4.17 (“All have left me . . . ; but the Lord stood by me and strengthened me [ὁ δὲ κύριός μοι παρέστη καὶ ἐνεδυνάμωσέν με]”) also belongs in the narrower tradition-­historical environment of the event described here. Elsewhere God also always “strengthens” the mediators sent by him so that they can fulfill their task (cf. Isaiah 42.6; Micah 3.8; see further in Wolter 1988b, 31ff). Within this framework, there is an

484

The Gospel According to Luke

especially close relationship to the “strengthening” of Elijah by the angel in 1 Kings 19.5-­8 (cf. also Feldkämper 1978, 243–­44). 44 Therefore, the fact that Jesus nevertheless falls into ἀγωνία, i.e., into inner agitation, need not stand in contradiction to the strengthening by the angel. Many interpreters have not been able to reconcile the two with each other. In the wake of Paton 1913 they therefore do not think that ἀγωνία designates the inner agitation of Jesus but equate it with ἀγών. In this view, the concern is with a “contest” or “struggle” (cf. e.g., Neyrey 1980, 159ff [“victorious struggle”]; 1985, 58ff [“combat”]; Nolland III: 1084 [“the battle in prayer”]; Brown 1994, I: 189–­ 90; Tuckett 2002, 138–­39), which takes place in the “fervent” prayer of Jesus. In doing so, however, they make the error of arguing only with the lexical sense and not paying attention to the syntagmatic connection with γενόμενος; cf., e.g., Vita Aesopi 81 (“They fell into agitation [εἰς ἀγωνίαν γενάμενοι] . . . and regarded this great misfortune as an important sign”). Elsewhere, too, ἀγωνία designates inner agitation in the face of a coming unsalvation; cf. Philo, De decalogo 145 (“When the evil has not yet arrived . . . but is about to come and already announces itself, it sends unrest and agitation ahead of it as bringers of bad tidings [πτοίαν καὶ ἀγωνίαν, ἀποφράδας ἀγγέλους, προεκπέμπει]”) as well as De praemiis et poenis 148; Legatio ad Gaium 366 (see below); Diodorus Siculus 20.5.6 (“They thought that the deity announced vexation for them and fell even more ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ about the future [ὑπὲρ τοῦ μέλλοντος]”); Plutarch, Moralia 588a; 2 Maccabees 3.14.16; 15.19; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 10.22, 235; Bellum judaicum 3.238. Furthermore, the talk of Jesus as γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ must be placed in the nexus of all the texts in which there is talk of “coming” or “falling” ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ or εἰς ἀγωνίαν (e.g., Diodorus Siculus 14.35.2; 16.42.9; 20.51.1; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 6.107; 8.373; 11.326; 13.87 and especially P. Tebt II 423.13–­14: “I have commissioned you . . . ; you have not yet given me information about it, so that I have fallen at present into agitation [ὡς εἰς ἀγωνίαν με γενέσθαι ἐν τῷ παρόντι]”).

It would therefore be a truncation if one wanted to reduce Jesus’s ‘strengthening’ to the empowerment to “fervent” prayer. The aforementioned linguistic contexts do not make the ἐκτενέστερον προσεύχεσθαι of Jesus an expression of his ἀγωνία but rather let it become the reaction to it (cf. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 366: “We had the souls no longer in us but they had gone forth ὑπ’ ἀγωνίας in order to implore the true God . . .”). For ἐκτενῶς as a manner of praying cf. Judith 4.12; 3 Maccabees 5.9; Joel 1.14; Jonah 3.8; Acts 12.5. The comparative relates to the praying of Jesus recounted in vv. 41-­42 (see also the taking up again of προσηύχετο from v. 41b), without this communicating something about the content of this praying in relation to the prayer of v. 42.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 485

The intensifying fervency of the praying finds its expression in the fact that Jesus sweats so profusely that his sweat drops to the ground. This is not to say that Jesus sweats blood or that his sweat changed into blood. The tertium comparationis is therefore not the “consistency of his sweat” (thus Klostermann 217) but its quantity. There is so much of it that—­like when a person bleeds profusely—­drops form that fall to the ground. Thus, the thrust of the statement wants to illustrate the intensity of the praying of Jesus and—­at least indirectly—­the greatness of his ἀγωνία. Just as little as in the appearance of the angel are we dealing in the case of Luke’s description of Jesus’s “prayer struggle” with “typical experiences of a martyr” (thus Dibelius 1971, 202–­3; cf. also the criticism of the martyrological interpretation of the scene in J. B. Green 1986, 41). If the text should actually come from Luke he could have stylized this ‘transformation’ of Jesus as a pointed counterimage to his ‘transformation’ at the last mountain prayer. As Jesus had taken a heavenly appearance there when praying (see at 9.29), so he receives unmistakably human characteristics here (for precisely this reason, however, one should not speak of a “mutual adjustment” of the two scenes to each other; contra Feldmeier 1987, 37). Something analogous could already be observed at the beginning of the Lukan story of Jesus. Although Jesus had been conceived with the help of the Holy Spirit, he needed swaddling clothes at his birth (see further at 2.7). 45 ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς relates to v. 41b and says that Jesus got up again (cf. 1 Kings 8.54; 1/3 Ezra 9.1; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 7.362; 11.143); the causal interpretation of ἀπό by Neyrey 1985, 66–­67 is obviously erroneous. In any case, the sleeping of the disciples also calls to mind the last mountain prayer of Jesus (cf. 9.32a), and it extends the line of their previous behavior in relation to the suffering of Jesus (see most recently at v. 38). Whoever knows the Markan version of the episode will be able to identify the note that the disciples have fallen asleep “because of sorrow” as a transference of the self-­description of Jesus in Mark 14.34b to the disciples. One should not ask whether this is more likely intended to incriminate or excuse the disciples. They are simply what they have always been and will continue to be for still a long time—­“foolish and slow of understanding” (24.25). This is why they also do not comply with Jesus’s exhortation to prayer (v. 40). 46 For τί in the sense of “why” and as an introduction to a rhetorical question that implies an accusation, see at 2.48. ἀναστάντες προσεύχεσθε is intended just as little morally as physically (contra Neyrey 1985, 66). Rather, it is a Septuagintism that occurs in the New Testament almost exclusively in Luke (see at 1.39). As in Mark 13.18par.; 1 Corinthians 14.13; Philippians 1.9; Colossians 1.9; 4.3, 12; 2 Thessalonians 1.11; 3.1,

486

The Gospel According to Luke

here too the purpose clause designates the content of the prayer (on this cf. at v. 40). The scene ends with this repetition of the prayer paraenesis from v. 40b. It thus remains the last word that Jesus addresses to his disciples before his death and resurrection. This literary status makes Jesus’s exhortation suitable in the highest measure for having the intended readers of the Gospel of Luke read it into their own discipleship, in order to actually practice it in contrast to the narrated disciples. 22.47-­53: The Handing Over 47

While he was still speaking, behold, a crowd, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them. And he approached Jesus in order to kiss him. 48But Jesus said to him, “Judas, do you hand over the Son of Man with a kiss?” 49But when his companions saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with the sword?” 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51Jesus, however, answered, “Stop it! No more!” And he touched the ear and healed him. 52 And Jesus said to those who had come to him, the chief priests and the temple officers and elders, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? I was with you daily in the temple, and you did not reach out your hands toward me. But this is your hour and the power of darkness.” The scene is composed of two subscenes that each end with a saying or action of Jesus: (a) Judas’s appearance and his attempt to kiss Jesus (vv.  47-­48); (b) the attempted resistance by the circle of disciples (vv. 49-­ 51); (c) Jesus’s saying to the arresting forces (vv. 52-­53). This saying interprets the entire scene, and this is why Luke has placed it emphatically at the end. The distinctiveness of the Lukan narrative consists especially in the fact that Jesus is not immediately arrested after the kiss of Judas (as in Mark 14.46par. Matthew 26.50c-­d). Rather, Luke recounts the arrest only as an introduction to the following scene (for the points of contact with the Johannine version of this scene, see the introductory comments on 22.1–­ 24.52[53] under [g]). Moreover, the arresting squad in Luke is composed not merely of representatives of the opponents of Jesus, for they come themselves (v. 52). Only Mark 14.43-­52 can be identified as Luke’s Vorlage. There are some noteworthy minor agreements, however: the absence of εὐθύς (Mark 14.43a) in v. 47par. Matthew 26.47; ἰδού (v. 47apar. Matthew 26.47a) is without a Markan



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 487

equivalent; τῷ Ἰησοῦ (v. 47cpar. Matthew 26.49a) instead of αὐτῷ (Mark 14.45); in v. 48par. Matthew 26.50 Jesus addresses the saying to Judas (a Markan equivalent is lacking): the introductions are almost identical (v. 48a: Ἰησοῦς δὲ [Matthew 26.50a: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς] εἶπεν αὐτῷ), but the contents are different; καί (v. 50apar. Matthew 26.51a instead of δέ (Mark 14.47a); the verb πατάσσειν in the sword strike (v. 50par. Matthew 26.51b) is lacking in Mark 14.47; in v. 51par. Matthew 26.52 (and par. John 18.11 with a certain closeness to the Matthean phrasing) Jesus reacts to the sword strike (a Markan equivalent is lacking); the flight of the naked young man (Mark 14.51-­52) is lacking after v. 53par. Matthew 26.56; cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 175–­76; 1991, 80–­81; Ennulat 1994, 352ff.

47 Luke has furnished the transition to the new scene with a very low threshold. He uses the same genitivus absolutus in 22.60 within a scene (see also 8.49 and Matthew 12.46; 17.5). The main clause is elliptical in a Semitizing way (behind ἰδού [Heb.: ‫]הּנֵ ה‬ ִ also 1.36, 38; 5.12, 18; 6.23; 22.38 and elsewhere) and suddenly lets an ὄχλος, i.e., a larger group of people, come onto the scene. Unlike the other gospels in which the ὄχλος is immediately identified, Luke initially provides only this general information. Instead of identifying it, he places Judas at the center of the narrative and at the head of the ὄχλος; the plural αὐτούς is constructio ad sensum (cf. BDR §134.1; see also Luke 6.19; 9.12: in each case after ὄχλος and against Mark). προέρχεσθαι is also attested elsewhere with the accusative (Mark 6.33; Plutarch, Brutus 25.4); it is thus not certain that this is a Latinism (thus Rehkopf 1959, 39–­40). Astonishingly, with ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα Judas is introduced by Luke as if he were completely unknown to the readers. However, this manner of speech is not an indication for the use of another source but rather an attention-­ grabbing signal employed by the narrator (see also Nolland; Green). After the Last Supper, Luke neglected to distance Judas from the circle of the twelve narratively, and therefore he marks his unexpected appearance at the head of an ὄχλος as the introduction of a new narrative character. Luke does not communicate to the readers why Judas attempts to kiss Jesus, for he lets the analeptic explanation that Mark gives for this, which interrupts the narrative flow, be swept under the table. 48 Unlike Mark 14.45par. Matthew 26.49 Luke leaves open whether the kiss intended by Judas takes place. The emphatic placement of φιλήματι at the beginning is intended to make clear the monstrous character of the deed of Judas (the question of historicity is not at issue here; for the kiss as an expression of friendship and love cf. G. Stählin, ThWNT 9: 116.30ff). With the help of the rhetorical question of Jesus and its predicate (παραδίδως), Luke informs the readers that the deed announced in 22.4, 6 is taking place here and now—­Judas is handing over Jesus. Luke,

488

The Gospel According to Luke

however, makes an even longer arc, for the fact that Jesus is also designated as Son of Man connects the event recounted here with 9.44 and 18.31-­33, where Jesus announced his passion and resurrection as the fate of the Son of Man. 49 Like Mark, Luke also features a reaction of the entirety of the adherents of Jesus (οἱ περὶ αὐτόν; see also Mark 4.10; Acts 13.13; this is a Greek idiom: Polybius 5.85.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 6.11.2; Pausanias 4.16.12; Plutarch, Brutus 26.1). In Mark 14.50 it says that “all” “left” Jesus and “fled.” In Luke they want to prevent the arrest of Jesus via the force of weapons. Luke evokes this impression by recounting this reaction of the disciples and the sword strike that follows—­unlike Mark and Matthew—­before the arrest of Jesus. The substantived participle τὸ ἐσόμενον refers to his arrest (see also Ecclesiastes 8.7; 10.4; in the plural: Sirach 42.19; 48.25; Daniel 2.5). This reaction of the Lukan disciples shows once more that they have still not grasped the theological meaning of τὸ ἐσόμενον. The future πατάξομεν is deliberative (for εἰ as an interrogative particle with direct questions cf. BDR §440.3; see also Luke 13.23; 22.67; Acts 1.6; 7.1; 19.2; 21.37; 22.25; 26.23) and it formulates to this extent “less a question that asks Jesus for permission than a self-­encouragement, a sort of rhetorical question” (Rehkopf 1959, 60). Thus, the continuation also corresponds to this. 50 Without waiting for Jesus’s answer, one of the disciples strikes. That the right ear is cut off in 50c (unlike Mark 14.47par. Matthew 26.51, but as in John 18.10), calls to mind 6.6 where (unlike in Mark 3.1par. Matthew 12.9) the right hand was “withered.” In 6.6 the specification had the function of intensifying the situation of hardship, for the right hand was more important than the left hand for most people already in antiquity. Something comparable may be attested in relation to the right ear in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 53.6: “The right ear hears the Lord by night, but the left an angel” (trans. D. J. Harrington, OTP 2: 367). Furthermore, the right side was, of course, generally regarded as the more favorable side; cf. W. Grundmann, ThWNT 2: 37.21ff. The note “Hesiod . . . completely cut off the right ear of Dorion (τὸ Δωρίωνος δεξιὸν οὖς εἰς τέλος ἐξέτεμεν)” in P. Tebt. III 793.11.8–­9, which Rostovtzeff 1934 brought into play, does not yield what Rostovtzeff ascribes to it. The designation οὖς instead of the partitive diminutive ὠτίον, which is used elsewhere in the New Testament for the outer ear in the parallels to our text (Matthew 26.51par. John 18.26), or ὠτάριον (Mark 14.47par. John 18.10) is an atticizing slip, which Luke immediately corrects again in v. 51 (cf. Bork 1977, 144ff, 153ff). 51 Jesus intervenes with two exclamations for which there are numerous analogies in Greek texts; cf., on the one hand, Homer, Ilias 21.221; Aristophanes, Lysistrata 350; Plato, Symposium 222e; Euthydemus 297b



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 489

(in each case ἔασον without object in the sense of “Stop it!”) and, on the other hand, Ezekiel 20.27; Aristotle, Historia animalium 630b27; Polybius 2.61.5; 5.9.1; Diodorus Siculus 3.10.5 (in each case ἕως τούτου as designation of a point in time; W. Bauer 1988, 428: “not further”). The sense is clear: the disciples must immediately stop their resistance. Through the healing of the wounded person Luke also wants to show that Jesus “even heals his enemies” (Busse 1979, 336). In the first instance, however, it has the effect that the narrative returns to the status quo ante and the violent action is made undone. 52 Only now do the readers learn who belongs to the ὄχλος that had entered the scene in v. 47 with Judas at its head. They are Jesus’s opponents themselves and not merely—­as in the other portrayals—­their emissaries. Luke, however, does not want to evoke the impression that the ὄχλος consists exclusively of them and did not include others. He probably imagined these unnamed others as the subject of the actions narrated in v. 54 and v. 55. The readers already know “chief priests . . . and elders” as opponents of Jesus from 9.22 and 20.1. There “the scribes” are mentioned—­as in Mark 14.43, the Vorlage to the present text—­as a third group, which Luke replaces here with “officers” (στρατηγοί), who were already spoken of in v. 4 and are now specified by the attribute τοῦ ἱεροῦ (see also Acts 4.1; 5.24 [singular in each case]; for the position designated by this see at v. 4). The propositional content of Jesus’s rhetorical question consists in the accusation that the way in which his opponents proceed against him rests on a blatant false assessment of his person and activity. λῃστής was the designation for a “robber” with the semantically distinct characteristic of readiness for and practice of violence (cf. 10.30 and Spicq 1994, II: 389ff). At the same time, it was also used to describe groups who understood themselves as political freedom fighters, as by Josephus with regard to the Zealots (Bellum judaicum 2.253–­254 and elsewhere; cf. K. H. Rengstorf, ThWNT 4: 263–­64). 53 Luke has Jesus continue, initially, along the lines of the accusation that was just made. The phrasing καθ’ ἡμέραν . . . μεθ’ ὑμῶν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ refers back not only antithetically to ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθατε but also makes reference to the time of Jesus’s teaching in the temple narrated in 19.47–­21.38 and specifically alludes to 20.19 (αὕτη ἡ ὥρα, ἐκτείνειν/ ἐπιβάλλειν). The statement pronounced in 53a receives in this way the rhetorical function of unmasking the mendacity of the current action of Jesus’s opponents. After they have undertaken nothing against him for days, the manner of the present procedure makes clear that it is only a pretext. If αὕτη ἡ ὥρα takes up 20.19, one can ask whether 20.20 (Jesus’s opponents want “to hand him over to the ἐξουσία τοῦ ἡγεμόνος”) has not

490

The Gospel According to Luke

left traces in ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους (53b). Luke undoubtedly plays with the semantics of σκότος here. On the one hand he uses the word as a metaphorical designation for ‘unsalvation’ (cf. 11.34-­36; Acts 26.18; John 8.12; 12.35, 46; Colossians 1.13 [baptism as liberation from the ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους] and elsewhere; on this cf. H. Conzelmann, ThWNT 7: 424ff). On the other hand, however, he also places it in semantic opposition to ἡμέρα (53a). For what the opponents of Jesus did not dare to do by day, they have done by seeking out the clandestine protection of the darkness of night. John 13.30 makes a completely analogous wordplay with the “night” into which Judas goes after the Last Supper. At the same time, the further connection to 1.78-­79 is also unmistakable. Together with “the hour” of the opponents of Jesus, the “darkness” triumphs also over the ἀνατολή that has sought out Israel “from on high.” 22.54-­65: In the House of the High Priest

Luke has created the following double scene by two reorganizations of the sequence of events vis-­à-­vis his Markan Vorlage. He has moved the coming together of the Sanhedrin and Jesus’s hearing before it (Mark 14.53b, 55-­64) to the next day (22.66, 67-­71), and he has removed the mocking of Jesus from the context of the Sanhedrin hearing (Mark 14.65) and placed it after the denial (22.63-­65). Thus the sequence of the scenes is much clearer than in Mark, for denial and hearing before the Sanhedrin are untangled, and the two episodes are separated by the narrative of the mocking of Jesus by his guards. LUKE 22 MARK 14 Jesus in the house of 54a 53a Jesus to the high priest the high priest Peter follows into the 54b-­55 53b The Sanhedrin comes courtyard; fire together Denial by Peter 56–­62 54 Peter follows into the courtyard; fire Mocking of Jesus 63–­65 55–­64 Jesus’s hearing before the Sanhedrin The Sanhedrin comes 66 65 Mocking of Jesus together Jesus’s hearing before 67-­71 66-­72 Denial by Peter the Sanhedrin 15.1a The Sanhedrin consults Jesus is handed 23.1 15.1b Jesus is handed over to Pilate over to Pilate



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 491

The introduction, which stages the change of place (v. 54), and the sequence of the two scenes are chiastically ordered: (a) v. 54a: Jesus / (b) v. 54b: Peter // (b’) vv. 55-­62: Peter / (a’) vv. 63-­65: Jesus. The transition from v. 62 to v. 63 is somewhat unsuccessful, for someone who does not know the story of Jesus will relate the pronouns αὐτόν and αὐτῷ in v. 63 to Peter and not to Jesus (cf. Watt 1999, 224–­25 and others). The fact that the two subscenes belong together is also expressed in the fact that they occur in the exact same place and have the exact same theme. They show what Jesus experiences from the side of other people—­Peter denies him, and his guards mistreat him. 22.54-­62: The Denial 54

After they had arrested him, they led him away and brought him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed from a distance. 55After they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down in the midst of them. 56But when a servant woman saw him sitting at the light and examined him closely, she said, “This man also was was with him.” 57But he denied and said, “I do not know him, woman.” 58And shortly thereafter another saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” 59 And after about an hour had passed, another said with assurance, “Certainly, he was also with him, for he too is a Galilean.” 60But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, a cock crowed. 61And the Lord turned around and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.” 62And he went out and wept bitterly. Luke tells that and how Jesus’s announcement of v. 34 comes true. Accordingly, the three denials in vv. 56-­57, 58, 59-­60 stand in the center of the episode. Verse 54 makes the scenic transition and functions in this way as the introduction to the double scene (the Jesus part is continued in v. 63). In v. 55 the narrative focuses on Peter and has expositional character with regard to him. Verses 61-­63 constitute the finale. Luke’s Vorlage was probably Mark 14.66-­72 alone. There are some minor agreements, however, of which one stands out: οὐκ οἶδα (v. 57bpar. Matthew 26.70b) instead of οὔτε οἶδα οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι (Mark 14.68b). In the Lukan and Matthean versions of the episode the cock crows only once, whereas it crows twice in Mark (after the first and after the third denial, Mark 14.68, 72); τοῦ ῥήματος (v. 61bpar.

492

The Gospel According to Luke

Matthew 26.75a) instead of τὸ ῥῆμα (Mark 14.72b); καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἔξω ἔκλαυσεν πικρώς (v. 62par. Matthew 26.75c) instead of καὶ ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιεν (Mark 14.72d). It is very difficult to find an explanation for the last-­mentioned Lukan–­ Matthean agreement against Mark, for an independent redaction, which still lies in the realm of possibility for all other cases, is impossible here. In the framework of the two-­source theory, only the “assumption of a Markan text changed prior to Matthew and Luke” (Ennulat 1994, 378) comes into consideration as well as—­with less likelihood—­the influence of oral tradition (Brown 1994, I: 609). However, this verse is lacking in some manuscripts, especially in the Old Latin tradition (cf. GAStL, II: 198; Metzger 1971, 178). This fact would not be worthy of further attention if one could specify plausible reasons for a subsequent loss of the verse and if it were not possible, conversely, to explain a later addition very nicely as an adjustment to Matthew 26.75. For this reason, as a third option, one must not rule out the possibility that this Lukan–­Matthean agreement against Mark arose only in the course of the later tradition of the text.

54 This verse has the function of making a narrative change of place and bringing the protagonists of the next two scenes to the same place. συλλαμβάνειν is not only terminus technicus for the arrest (e.g., 1 Samuel 23.26; 1 Maccabees 12.40; Acts 1.16; 12.3; 23.27; 26.21) but, as here, there often follows a note—­attached with ἤγαγον/ἀπήγαγον—­that provides information about the subsequent fate of the arrestee: e.g., Plutarch, Artaxerxes 29.9 (συλλαβόντες αὐτὸν εἰς οἴκημα πλησίον ἀπήγαγον [“They took him captive and brought him into a nearby building”]); Moralia 259d; Diodorus Siculus 17.83.8; 2 Kings 25.6 = Jeremiah 52.9; Judith 6.11; 1 Maccabees 14.3 (in each case συλλαμβάνειν + ἤγαγον; therefore, the occurrence of this common word combination also in John 18.12-­13 is not necessarily an indication of a special closeness between the Lukan and the Johannine presentation; against H. Klein 1976, 162ff). The pleonastic doubling ἤγαγον καὶ εἰσήγαγον is probably a Semitism (see also Tobit 8.1‫א‬: ἀπήγαγον τὸν νεανίσκον καὶ εἰσήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ ταμίειον [“They led the young man away and brought him into the bedroom”]; cf. Luke 13.31; Rehkopf 1959, 41). When it says in 54b that Peter followed “from a distance” (μακρόθεν), it will not escape any attentive reader that Luke already does not let much remain now from Peter’s recently declared readiness to go with Jesus “even to prison and to death” (v. 33). 55 Luke continues, first, the narrative thread related to Peter. This verse has expositional character, for a new narrative constellation is built up around Peter. On the side of the readers, Luke thereby evokes the expectation that there will be an interaction between Peter and the people with whom he sits. Luke does not say who belonged to this group. Apparently



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 493

he imagined that they were subordinate members of the arresting ὄχλος (v. 47) and other service personnel. 56-­60 All four Gospels open the series of denials with the fact that Peter is recognized by a παιδίσκη. Apart from that, however, not even two of the denial narratives are identical. Only Luke has three different individual persons appear on stage (in Mark, Matthew, and John there is also always a subscene in which Peter is recognized at the same time by multiple people), and only in Luke is Peter not directly addressed in the first and third subscene, but his belonging to Jesus is formulated as a statement (see also Klostermann 219: “statement instead of address”). Unlike the respective second scenes in Mark and Matthew—­where this is also the case—­Luke does not specify any addressee for the words of the woman. Finally, only in Luke does Peter address the person whom he answers in each case in the vocative (v. 57b: γύναι; v. 58d, 60b: ἄνθρωπε). 56 The readers learn neither to whom the woman addressed her words nor whether anyone other than Peter paid attention to them. Therefore, one cannot say that the words of the servant woman were “delivered in the form of an accusation” (thus Dietrich 1972, 145; see also ibid.: “The servant woman denounces Peter before the forum of those sitting around”). Moreover, it emerges from Acts 4.13 that “to have been with Jesus” was not a punishable offense for the Sanhedrin according to the Lukan presentation. 57 The untenable character of Dietrich’s thesis (Dietrich 1972, 145) is also recognizable in the fact that Peter, for his part, does not answer the ones “sitting around” but only the woman. For the Lukan characterization of Peter’s answer as ἀρνεῖσθαι and the meaning of the term, see at 9.23. Strictly speaking, Jesus’s announcement in 22.34 that Peter would deny “knowing” Jesus three times is fulfilled only in this first denial (οὐκ οἶδα αὐτόν, γύναι). 58 In the statement that is formulated at the beginning of the second subscene (καὶ σὺ ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ), the reference of the personal pronoun αὐτῶν admittedly is left hanging, but the parallel in John 18.25 (μὴ καὶ σὺ ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ εἶ;) shows whom Luke also meant here—­the disciples. When Peter contests his belonging to the circle of disciples in 58d, he does not thereby deny himself (contra Dietrich 1972, 147) but precisely that circle of disciples and thereby his belonging to Jesus. 59 The fact that Luke places a larger temporal distance between the second and third subscene (“about an hour”) probably has narrative-­ pragmatic reasons. He wants to let a longer period of time elapse so that it is more plausible for the readers that immediately after the third denial the cock crows and in this way signals the end of the night (see also Schneider 1969, 86).

494

The Gospel According to Luke

The third declaration is formulated again as a statement about Peter and also with respect to content we are dealing with a repetition from the first subscene. The greater assertiveness with which Luke furnishes the repetition of the same declaration (διϊσχυρίζετο [see also Acts 12.15; 15.2D], ἐπ’ ἀληθείας) is due to an additional consideration—­namely, the recognition that (like Jesus) Peter also comes from Galilee. Luke does not say whence the ἄλλος τις knows this, and that one could recognize Peter’s origin from his dialect appears only in Matthew 26.73. 60 Luke, however, has Peter react to this allegation in an extremely relaxed manner, for in Luke Peter answers in a completely different way than in Mark 14.71a and Matthew 26.74. While he has to curse and swear there in order to defend himself against the statement, here he can pretend that he has understood nothing. The analogous phrasings in Plato, Gorgias 497b (οὐκ οἶδα ὅ τι λέγεις) and Lucian of Samosata, Soloecista 2 (οὐκ οἶδα ὅ τι λέγεις) show that Luke makes recourse to common dialogue-­rhetoric. His primary concern is certainly to exonerate Peter from the charge that he knowingly joined a hypothetical self-­curse with a false oath. Beyond this, however, it is the argumentative weakness of the justification that makes it easy for Peter simply to fob off the ἄλλος τις, for the notion that someone comes from Galilee and therefore is supposed to be an adherent of Jesus is obviously anything but ironclad. The cock interrupts Peter, so to speak (for παραχρῆμα as a typically Lukan word see at 1.64), and reminds also the readers “immediately” of Jesus’s announcement in 22.34. 61 Luke himself takes care that Peter too immediately recalls this announcement (for [ὑπο]μιμνῄσκεσθαι ὡς see at 24.6). He states that Jesus turns around and looks at Peter (στραφείς + verbum finitum is also used in relation to Jesus in 7.9, 44; 9.55; 10.23; 14.25; 23.28). If one wishes to imagine the scenic presupposition for this, one has to make recourse to numerous auxiliary hypotheses (Jesus must have been nearby; Peter must have noticed that Jesus looked at him; cf. Soards 1986, 518). In any case, in Luke (in Mark and Matthew an equivalent to 61a is lacking) Peter is reminded of this announcement not only by the cock but also by Jesus. That Luke himself speaks twice of Jesus as the κύριος here may be a reference back to the fact that Peter twice addresses Jesus with κύριε in 22.33 (cf. Rowe 2006, 178–­79). 62 For the text-­critical problem see the introductory comments on 22.54-­62. It is also stated elsewhere that people “weep bitterly” (πικρῶς κλαίειν); this is thus an established combination of words. Cf. IsaiahLXX 22.4 (“Leave me, I want to weep bitterly [ἄφετέ με πικρῶς κλαύσομαι]; do not strive to comfort me about the desolation of my people”); 33.7-­8 (“The messengers of peace weep bitterly [πικρῶς κλαίοντες]; desolate are



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 495

the streets . . .”); Joseph and Aseneth 10.14–­15 as part of a act of contrition (“They spread ashes on their head . . . and beat their breast . . . and wept bitterly [ἔκλαυσε πικρῶς] and threw themselves on the ashes . . .”); Testament of Abraham A 11.11 (when Adam, the first-­created, sees that many people go through the wide door into ruin, “he tears the hairs of his head, throws himself to the earth, weeping and lamenting bitterly [κλαίων καὶ ὀδυρόμενος πικρῶς]”); Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 5.8 for the same reason; Ascension of Isaiah 1.10 (after Hezekiah had heard Isaiah’s words, “he tore his clothing and wept bitterly [ἔκλαυσεν πικρῶς] and threw dust on his head and fell on his face”).

Against the background of these texts, it becomes clear that the narrative already has Peter begin hereby to repent of his behavior. 22.63-­65: Mocking 63

And the men who held him in custody were mocking him. They tortured him, 64and after they had bound (his eyes), they asked him, “Prophesy: Who is it who struck you?” 65And they were saying many other things reviling against him. The scene picks up v. 54a and thus places a frame around the denial episode (see the comments on 22.54-­65). It is not explicitly coordinated with the denial chronologically, but the constant use of the present and imperfect verb forms show that Luke wants to narrate an event here that lasts over a longer period of time. Luke’s Vorlage was probably Mark 14.65 alone. In addition to λέγοντες (v. 65apar. Matthew 26.68a) instead of λέγειν αὐτῷ (Mark 14.65), the Lukan–­ Matthean agreement in τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε; (v. 64cpar. Matthew 26.68c), for which there is no equivalent in Mark 14.65, must of course be mentioned in the first instance as a minor agreement. Neirynck 1982/1991/2001, II: 95–­138 provides the most extensive discussion of the different attempts at explanation (see also Ennulat 1994, 379–­80; Kiilunen 2002). An explanation that is more than merely conceivable is that this game actually existed (see at v. 64) and that the exhortation προφήτευσον· τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε; belonged to it. In that case, both Luke and Matthew would have supplemented the Markan text from the cultural encyclopedia that was common to them (see also van Unnik 1973–­1983, I: 4; Soards 1987b, 102–­3). The problem, of course, is that this wording is not attested anywhere else. Other possibilities are the assumption of a “change to the Markan text that is post-­Markan but still pre-­Matthean/Lukan” (Ennulat 1994, 381) or a textual-­historical growth in Matthew 26.68 (e.g., Neirynck 1982/1991/2001,137; Kiilunen 2002, 188).

496

The Gospel According to Luke

63 Jesus’s guards are introduced as a new narrative figure; cf. the parallel in Acts 9.7 (differently Acts 10.17, where the participle also occurs, though in the aorist). ἐνέπαιζον αὐτῷ designates the mocking of Jesus that is portrayed in what follows (through v. 64). The same verb is also used to describe the treatment of captured enemies in Judges 16.25, 27; 1 Maccabees 9.26; 2 Maccabees 7.10 (see further 1 Chronicles 10.4; 2 Maccabees 7.7; 3 Maccabees 5.22; Hebrews 11.36). In 2 Chronicles 36.16 (ἐμπαίζοντες ἐν τοῖς προφήταις αὐτοῦ [“They mocked his prophets”]) it characterizes Israel’s reaction to the proclamation of the prophets, and this nexus (cf. v. 64b and 13.34; Acts 7.52) may also be responsible for the fact that Luke brings this verb into the mocking scene. 64 For the sadistic “game”—­in German-­speaking countries a harmless variant is played even today as “Schinkenklopfen”—­only one ancient variant is known so far, which is described in Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 9.129, the so-­called κολλαβίζειν (cf. Miller 1971): τὸ δὲ κολλαβίζειν ἐστίν, ὅταν ὁ μὲν πλατείαις ταῖς χερσὶ τὰς ὄψεις ἐπιλάβῃ τὰς ἑαυτοῦ, ὁ δὲ παίσας ἐπερωτᾷ ποτέρᾳ τετύπτηκεν (“But the κολλαβίζειν takes place as follows: When the one holds his eyes with the flat hand, the other strikes and then asks with which (hand) he hit”).

The intention of the Lukan portrayal must be situated in the ironic tension between the perspective of the readers and the perspective of the narrative figures. While Jesus’s guards think they can unmask him as a false prophet (see also 7.39), Luke has once again impressively demonstrated his prophetic abilities with the help of the immediately preceding denial, which he had previously announced (22.34). 65 is a summary that characterizes the scene depicted in vv. 63-­64 as an excerpt from the mocking of Jesus. Linguistically this sentence has a parallel in 3.18 where an episode is concluded in the same way. βλασφημοῦντες is used here in the same sense as in Mark 15.29par.; Luke 23.39; Acts 13.45; 18.6. 22.66–­23.56: On the Next Day Luke has disentangled the denial scene (22.54b-­62) and Jesus’s interrogation by the council of elders (22.6-­71) so that the latter is pushed to the following day. This rearrangement also has the consequence that all the events that Luke summarizes in Acts 4.27-­28 (“There assembled . . . in this city against your holy servant, Jesus, whom you anointed, Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the tribes of Israel in order to carry out what your hand and your plan had previously determined should happen”)



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 497

take place on a single day. Therefore, it is certainly not without reason that both texts begin with the same verb (συνήχθη: Luke 22.66; συνήχθησαν: Acts 4.27 [here taking up the quotation of Psalm 2.2 in v. 26]). 22.66-­71: Jesus before the Sanhedrin 66

And when it had become day, the council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led him before their assembly. 67They said: “If you are the Messiah, tell us!” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe, 68and if I ask (you), you will not answer. 69But from now on the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of the power of God.” 70Thereupon they all said, “Then you are the Son of God?” And he said to them, “You say (it)—­I am (he).” 71 And they said, “What need do we have of another testimony? For we ourselves have heard (it) from his mouth.” The episode begins with an expositional introduction (v. 66) by means of which Luke not only sets a temporal division but also introduces new narrative characters and changes the location of the action. Then, there follow two ‘christological’ questions and answers (vv. 67-­69, 70). Finally, in v. 71 the Sanhedrin formulates something like a result of the hearing, but the significance becomes clear to the readers only in the next scene. Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke does not have the high priest lead the hearing as the speaker of the Sanhedrin (cf. Mark 14.60, 61, 63par. Matthew 26.62, 63, 65); rather, in Luke it is always the entire Sanhedrin that speaks. This extravagant narrative move can be traced back without difficulty to the intention of confronting Jesus with the entirety of the Sanhedrin. The main difference between Luke and the two synoptic counterparts resides in the fact that no false witnesses appear (Mark 14.56-­60par. Matthew 26.59-­62) and at the end no formal death sentence is formulated (Mark 14.64par. Matthew 26.66). Both are directly connected with each other, for unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke narrates the episode not as a formal trial but as an interrogation or hearing. In Luke the actual (and only) trial does not begin until 23.1. Luke presents it as a proceeding that is oriented toward the so-­called accusation form (as distinct from the ‘inquisition form,’ in which the authority acts on its own initiative; cf. Mommsen 1899, 346ff; Heusler 2000, 218ff). In it the Sanhedrin appears as the accuser (23.2), and correspondingly, the Sanhedrin scene in Luke serves merely as preparation for the later charge. The members of the Sanhedrin want to gather evidence that they can present before Pilate so that Pilate may initiate a trial against Jesus and condemn him (cf. also 20.20, 26).

498

The Gospel According to Luke

There is no indication that Luke had another Vorlage than Mark 14.53, 55-­64 or that he had other traditions at his disposal. There are no interesting minor agreements. Mention may be made only of the following: εἰ σὺ εἶ (v. 67bpar. Matthew 26.63d) instead of σὺ εἶ. . . ; (Mark 14.61c); ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν (v. 69) and ἀπ’ ἄρτι (Matthew 26.64d) are without Markan equivalent; υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 70bpar. Matthew 26.63d) instead of υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ (Mark 14.61c). See further Neirynck 1974b; 1991, 82; Ennulat 1994, 364ff.

66 In the entirety of ancient Greek sources, the word πρεσβυτέριον is attested only here, in Acts 22.5 (likewise for the Sanhedrin), and in 1 Timothy 4.14 (for the council of elders of a Christian community). In SusannaTheodotion 50 it is varia lectio and, moreover, means “the God-­given dignity of being a presbyter” (G. Bornkamm, ThWNT 6: 654.28). “Chief priests and scribes” (see also 20.19; 22.2) are in apposition to πρεσβυτέριον τοῦ λαοῦ. Thus, Luke envisages it as composed of them. As he spoke of the πρεσβύτεροι τῶν Ἰουδαίων in 7.3 and meant by this members of the ‘council of elders’ of the Jewish community of Capernaum, so he speaks here of the ‘council of elders’ of the Jerusalem Jews. The attribute αὐτῶν and the continuation with λέγοντες (v. 67a) suggest that συνέδριον designates not the building for assembly (contra Marshall) but the assembly as such. On the subject matter, cf. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 16.361: Herod did not want to lead his sons “before the judicial assembly” (παράγειν εἰς τὸ συνέδριον)”; Antiquitates judaicae 20.200: the high priest Ananus “organized an assembly of judges (συνέδριον κριτῶν) and brought before them (παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτό) the brother of Jesus . . . , who was named James.” 67-­70 Luke reports only the question about the christological identity of Jesus (Mark 14.61cpar. Matthew 26.63d). He separates it, however, into two separate questions that Jesus answers in different ways. It is also significant that he brings Jesus’s remark about the Son of Man (Mark 14.62cpar. Matthew 26.64d) forward and—­with a change in content—­coordinates it only to the question of the messiahship of Jesus. Luke uses the title of Messiah and the title of Son of God here because he found them in Mark 14.61 and not because there was already talk of them in the announcement of Gabriel (1.32). Much more important, however, is the fact that Luke distinguishes between the two titles (see also at 1.32). Jesus answers the question about his messiahship evasively (vv. 67c-­68), while he affirms the question about his divine sonship forthrightly (v. 70d). An analogous distinction could already be recognized in the Lukan reception of Mark 1.34 and 3.11-­12 in 4.41 (see further there), and this same differentiation determines Luke’s interaction with the Markan commands to be silent directed to the disciples. Luke takes over only the command to be silent that follows the confession of Jesus as the Messiah (Mark 8.30par. Luke 9.21), while he lets the command to be



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 499

silent that is related to Jesus’s status as Son of God (Mark 9.9) be swept under the table. This does not mean, however, that Luke “subordinates” the title of Messiah to the title of Son of God (thus, e.g., Creed 278; Schweizer 233; Fitzmyer II: 1467–­68). For him Jesus is just as much “Messiah” as “Son of God,” but his messianic enthronement does not take place until his exaltation (see also Strauss 1995, 321–­22). 67 For the conspicuous points of contact with John 10.24-­25, see section (g) in the introductory comments on 22.1–­24.52(53). The question of whether Jesus is “the Messiah”—­i.e., the messianic king, from whom one expected that he would liberate Israel from foreign rulers (see at 2.41)—­remains unanswered with regard to its actual content. This corresponds to the Lukan handling of this role attested elsewhere (cf. at 1.32, 33; 4.41; see also at 24.21, 26). To be sure, Jesus is indeed the Messiah, but not in the sense in which the Sanhedrin asks. Rather, his messiahship surpasses the conventional Jewish conceptions in a categorical manner, because Jesus will exercise his messianic reign as the risen one (cf. v. 69) and because this rule will have no end (cf. 1.33). Thus, Jesus refuses to answer because he wants to keep the nature of his messiahship free from political misunderstandings. The two parallel conditional sentences must also be understood along these lines (Jeremiah 38[45].15 provides a certain—­though only formal—­analogy). If Jesus were to answer the question, he could do so only in a similar manner to 24.26: ‘The Messiah must suffer much and enter into his glory.’ It is obvious that the members of the Sanhedrin would not believe this, for not even the disciples grasped this prior to Easter. The dialogue in 20.2-­4 can help us to understand 68. What is in view is a counterquestion, such as in 20.3-­4, whose rhetorical function consists in enabling the questioner (i.e., the counsel of elders) to answer their own question themselves (see further there). In 20.5-­7 the Lukan Jesus could already experience that his opponents do not answer such counterquestions. Furthermore, Luke has Jesus refuse to answer regarding his messiahship so that he can present the members of the Sanhedrin as liars in 23.2. Contrary to the truth, they will allege there that Jesus claims to be an anointed king. 69 Via this quotation from Psalm 110, Luke has Jesus give the reason why he does not answer the question about his messiahship—­because his messianic rule is entirely different from what the Sanhedrin expects (see above). As elsewhere in Luke, here ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν means not “starting immediately” but “in the future” (see also 1.48; 5.10; 12.52; 22.18; Acts 18.6). Luke detaches the Son of Man saying from its Markan connection to the parousia and makes it into a saying about Jesus’s exaltation and enthronement to the heavenly messianic king. To achieve this, he deletes the reference to Daniel 7.13 (Mark 14.62d) and takes over—­apart from the Markan

500

The Gospel According to Luke

talk of the “Son of Man” and the δύναμις—­only the elements that come from Psalm 110.1 (“sit,” “at the right hand”; cf. also Acts 2.32-­35 and at 20.42-­ 43). The sitting “at the right hand of the power of God” means that Jesus as exalted one is installed in the status of the messianic coregent of God (see also Acts 7.56: Stephen sees Jesus as the “Son of Man” “standing at the right hand of God”); for the “power of God” (δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ) see also Joshua 4.24LXX (MT: “hand of God”; on this see Ps.-­Aristobulus, Fragment 2 in Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio evangelica 8.10.8); 2 Maccabees 3.24, 38; 9.8; Wisdom of Solomon 7.25; Testament of Abraham A 17.11; Ps.-­Aristobulus, Fragment 4 in Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio evangelica 13.12.7. The coniugatio periphrastica ἔσται . . . καθήμενος emphasizes the temporal duration and corresponds to the announcement expressed in 1.33 that Jesus’s messianic rule will last forever. Luke cannot take over the Markan ὄψεσθε (Mark 14.62c), for the seeing of the risen and exalted one remains exclusively reserved for the apostolic “witnesses” (cf. Acts 2.32; 3.15; 4.20; 5.32; 9.27; 22.15; 26.16). 70 The inferential οὖν is meant to suggest that the members of the Sanhedrin have understood that Jesus has spoken of himself in v. 69 (see also Kilgallen 1999, 404–­5). Further, Luke has them ask about Jesus’s divine sonship because he found this in Mark 14.61. Whether this is also historically plausible (cf. Strauss 1995, 320–­21 with the detour from Psalm 110.1 via Psalm 2.7; see also Green) can remain open. Jesus’s answer in 70c-­d (cf. also the analogous phrasing in John 18.37) implies neither protest (Creed) nor distancing (Schneider 1985, 126: “conditional yes”; Marshall 851: “a grudging admission”; Fitzmyer II: 1468: “a half-­yes answer”). After not only the archangel Gabriel (1.32a 35) but also God himself (3.22; 9.35) have designated Jesus as Son of God on multiple occasions, such a reaction would be completely incomprehensible (see also Brown 1994, I: 493). The ὅτι should therefore be understood as a sort of ὅτι recitativum (see also John 18.37), and the front-­placement of ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι functions as a rhetorical amplificatio (“expression-­broadening”; Lausberg 1973, §1244 [p. 645]), which adds even more weight to the affirmative answer of Jesus (see also C. F. Evans 838: “strong affirmative”). But the irony that Luke has built into the exchange of words is also unmistakable (J. P. Heil 1989, 282–­83; Green), for the members of the Sanhedrin do not believe what they have conceived of on their own—­that Jesus is the Son of God. They thus react exactly as Jesus had announced in v. 67d. 71 As in 4.22 (see further there); 11.54; Acts 15.7, here ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ is the Hebraizing substitute for a simple preposition (cf. BDR §217.3b) in the sense of “from himself.” The implicit object of ἠκούσαμεν is Jesus’s affirmative answer to the question about his divine sonship in v. 70. For what it is that this answer is sufficient for—­so that



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 501

additional testimonies are superfluous—­becomes clear only in 23.2. The members of the Sanhedrin recognize that they now have enough inculpatory material in their hand to be able to accuse him before the Roman governor (Schneider 1973, 72; see also Heusler 2000, 35). To be sure, the two texts do not fit exactly with each other, for the Son of God title plays no role at all in the accusation as it is formulated in 23.2, 5. For the charges produced there, the Sanhedrin would not have needed a hearing. Rather, Luke presents the interrogation of Jesus as though the Sanhedrin wanted to obtain clarity for itself about the subsequent procedure in the matter of Jesus. It is therefore significant that it is nothing but the christological identity of Jesus as such that tips the scales in the procedure of the Sanhedrin against Jesus. The Sanhedrin sets in motion the proceedings that will lead Jesus to death solely because Jesus publicly confessed who he actually is and not because of offences against the halakhic or political order. 23.1-­25: Jesus before Pilate

The Lukan presentation of the trial before Pilate is composed of three scenes that Luke has designed as a dramatic unit—­the trial before Pilate (vv. 1-­5), the involvement of Herod Antipas (vv. 6-­12), and the controversy between Pilate and the accusers of Jesus over the judgment (vv. 13-­25). The coherence of this narrative collecting basin is especially recognizable in the fact that it is only at the very end (v. 24: ἐπέκρινεν) that Luke recounts the judgment that the putting forward of the initial accusation in v. 2 (ἤρξαντο . . . κατηγορεῖν; see also v. 10) had to imply. Then, the last ‘handing over’ of Jesus occurs—­namely, “to their (sc. the Jerusalem Jews’) will.” The narrative structure of all three scenes is determined by the same dramatic triangle—­Jesus as accused, his Jerusalem accusers, and Pilate or Herod Antipas as judge. Jesus is only active as a narrative character in the first and second scene (v. 3 and v. 9). In the third scene he participates only passively, for all Pilate does there is dispute with Jesus’s accusers about the verdict. The gliding transition from “Galilee” (v. 5) via “Galilean” (v. 6) to ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας Ἡρῴδου (v. 7) and the reference to the result of the trial before Herod in v. 15 show that the Herod scene is integrated into the complex of the trial carried out by Pilate. Thus, there is only a single trial—­the trial before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. For the function of the Herod scene, see at vv. 6-­12. 23.1-­5: Accusation and Trial 1 2

And the whole assembly rose, and they brought him before Pilate. They began to accuse him and said, “We found this man unsettling

502

The Gospel According to Luke

our nation. He is seeking to prevent (it/us) from paying taxes to Caesar and claims to be an anointed king.” 3And Pilate asked him, “You are the king of the Jews?” But he answered him, “You say this . . . ?!” 4 Pilate, however, said to the chief priests and to the crowd, “I find no guilt in this man.” 5But they insisted and said, “He stirs up the people by teaching in all Judea, beginning from Galilee even to this place.” Luke has configured the scene as a ring composition. After the introduction, which makes a change of scene (v. 1), he begins (a) with the accusation by the members of the Sanhedrin (v. 2). Following upon this (b) Pilate questions the accused (v. 3a-­b). In the center stands (c) the answer of Jesus (v. 3c-­d). In response to this (b’) Pilate reacts again with a declaration of innocence (v. 4), which, finally, (a’) the members of the Sanhedrin then answer with an intensification of their accusations (v. 5). Thus, the scene has an open ending. Apart from the introduction, there are only overlaps—­which are nevertheless almost word for word—­with the Markan narrative (Mark 15.1-­5) in v. 3par. Mark 15.2 (scenic elements [b] and [c]). Accordingly, the noteworthy minor agreements are limited to this verse: λέγων (v. 3apar. Matthew 27.11b) is without a Markan equivalent; ἔφη (v. 3par. Matthew 27.11d) instead of λέγει (Mark 15.2c); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 182ff; 1991, 84–­85; Ennulat 1994, 381.

1 As in 1.26-­27, 39-­40, the change of scene is not staged via a temporal and spatial jump (cf. Lämmert 1975, 83), but reproduced narratively. Luke does not mention the name of the person to whom they want to go until the end of the sentence both here (Pilate) and there (Mary and Elisabeth). The phrasing ἅπαν or πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος occurs only in Luke in the New Testament (see also 1.10; 8.37; 19.37; Acts 15.12 [without genitive attribute]; 25.24); πλῆθος is also used as a designation for the entirety of the Sanhedrin in Acts 23.7 (on this see G. Delling, ThWNT 6: 278–­79). For Pilate see at 3.1-­2a. 2 The accusation accuses Jesus of activities that are directed against the provincial imperium of Rome. The three accusations are not parallel, for the first is superordinated to the two others, which are each concretized by dependent infinitive constructions. Both the summons to refuse to pay taxes and the messianic claim are interpreted as a διαστρέφειν of the people. Correspondingly, in v. 5 (ἀνασείει τὸν λαόν) and in v. 14 (ἀποστρέφων τὸν λαόν) only the general accusation is then repeated. Similar accusations are brought against Paul and Silas by the Jews of Thessalonica in Acts 17.6-­7 and against Paul by Tertullus, the lawyer of the Sanhedrin, in Acts 24.5—­in both cases before representatives of the Roman imperium. Luke



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 503

thus places in the mouth of the Sanhedrin an accusation that presents Jesus as a political instigator who leads the Jewish people in a rebellion against Roman rule and in doing so wants to set himself up as its king. χριστός is an adjectival attribute to βασιλεύς in the phrasing χριστὸς βασιλεύς. With this, the offense of the seditio “rebellion, uprising” is fulfilled, which is a crimen laesae maiestatis “offence against Majesty,” which could be punished with death according to the lex Iulia de maiestate of 27 BCE (Sententiae Pauli 25.29.1 [Furlani 1968, 413]; see also Mommsen 1899, 590ff). Beneath the surface of the text, the narrative function of the accusation consists in characterizing the members of the Sanhedrin. Because Luke can reliably assume that the readers still remember with great exactness that Jesus precisely did not call for the refusal to pay taxes (cf. 20.22-­25; the same word stands here and there: φόρον) and that he precisely did not designate himself as the messianic king (cf. 22.67-­68), Luke presents the Sanhedrin members as liars, who slander Jesus with false accusations before the Roman governor. The present participle κωλύοντα must be understood as a conative present (cf. BDR §319). 3 Verse 14 will make clear that Luke records here the interrogation of the accused that is common in judicial proceedings (see also Acts 24.8 and Heusler 2000, 76–­77; it is not, however, a “defense” [Heusler 2000, 75]). Of the two concrete accusations, Pilate—­following Mark 15.2—­takes up only the claim to the status of king and asks Jesus whether the corresponding claim of the Sanhedrin is accurate (3b). Luke has him transform the word choice of the Sanhedrin (“anointed king”) into a phrasing that corresponds to his outsider perspective as a Roman governor (“king of the Jews”). The designation βασιλεὺς (τῶν) Ἰουδαίων is found in ancient Judaism only in Josephus (for all rulers from Saul to Herod: Antiquitates judaicae 6.98; 7.72; 14.9, 36; 15.373, 409; 16.291, 311; Bellum judaicum 6.103, 439; 7.171) and in Eupolemos (Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio evangelica 9.39.5 [= OTP 2: 871]: for Jonachim); but see also Diodorus Siculus 40.2.1; 4.1; Plutarch, Pompeius 45.4; Appian, De bello Mithridatico 573. It is a formation that is analogous to designations such as βασιλεὺς τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων (“king of the Spartans”; Thucydides 1.89.2; 114 and others) or βασιλεὺς τῶν Ῥωμαίων (“king of the Romans”; Diodorus Siculus 8.31.1 and others).

The content of Jesus’s answer is unclear (cf. Büchele 1978, 29 and Wiefel 388: “negation”; Klostermann 223: “no absolute affirmation”; Fitzmyer III: 1475: “the same sort of half–­yes answer as in 22.67c-­68, 70”; Klein 698: “half-­open”; Schweizer 233: “affirmation”; Brown 1994, I: “a qualified affirmative”; Heusler 2000, 79: “consciously . . . a polyvalent saying”). The interpretation of it as a question (see also Nolland) is most likely

504

The Gospel According to Luke

for three reasons: (a) because the emphatic front-­placement of σύ imitates the question of Pilate; (b) because it was not Pilate who said that but the Sanhedrin (cf. 1 Kings 3.23LXX); and (c) because Jesus’s answer causes Pilate to declare him innocent (v. 4). The answer continues the ambiguity of the messiahship of Jesus, which is typical for Luke (see at 22.67). The other possibility is that Jesus does answer affirmatively but Pilate regards him as a harmless crank in light of his “mocked and tortured, defenseless and forbearing” appearance (Schmithals 220; see also Zahn; Plummer). It is also conceivable, however, that the Lukan Jesus simply gives the question back to Pilate. 4 Pilate’s judgment is at any rate clear. He regards Jesus as innocent and the accusation advanced by the Sanhedrin to be unfounded. The beginning with οὐδὲν εὑρίσκω refers back antithetically to the εὕραμεν of the Sanhedrin (v. 2b). What is surprising, of course, is the fact that Luke very abruptly has ὄχλοι—­i.e., a relatively large crowd of the Jewish population of Jerusalem—­also be present on the scene. Primarily two things are new here. First, Luke now no longer calls the ‘normal’ population of Jerusalem λαός (as he still did in 19.48; 20.1, 6, 9, 19, 26, 45; 21.38; 22.2), but rather ὄχλοι (on this see the introductory comments at 20.1-­26). Second, now they no longer stand at the side of Jesus over against the chief priests and his other opponents (as it still did in 19.47-­48; 20.6, 19, 26; 22.2) but have joined their side and stand over against Jesus. Both, of course, are directly connected with each other. 5 Luke could now actually continue with v. 16. But because he wants to include Herod Antipas as well in the proceedings (v. 6-­12), he has to build in at this point a narrative turnout that enables this detour. He therefore has the opponents of Jesus persist in their accusation and, on the one hand, repeat (5b) the general accusation already advanced in v. 2, and, on the other hand, strengthen it (5c-­d). The latter takes place with the help of a geographical component that the Lukan Pilate will take up in v. 6. The subjective logic that Luke places in the mouth of the members of the Sanhedrin is clearly recognizable. They dramatize the dangerousness of Jesus by emphasizing that his activity has extended over the whole Jewish land. This calls into the memory of the readers the entire story of Jesus from 4.14 to 21.38, for the activity of Jesus took place in the geographical frame marked out by his opponents (cf. 4.14, 44; 9.51; 19.28; Luke also summarizes it with almost the same words in Acts 10.37-­39: καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας . . . καὶ ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ). All readers who have followed the Lukan narrative to this point know that Jesus has not “stirred up” the people with a single word. They can therefore identify the accusation of the Sanhedrin without difficulty as untenable



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 505

from start to finish. But it is above all the key word “Galilee” with which Jesus and Herod Antipas are brought together. 23.6-­12: The Transfer to Herod Antipas 6

When Pilate heard that, he asked whether the man was a Galilean, and when he learned that he came from Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also himself in Jerusalem in these days. 8When Herod saw Jesus, he rejoiced greatly; for he had wanted to see him already for a long time, because he had heard of him, and he hoped to see a sign done by him. 9He interrogated him with many words, but he gave him no answer. 10The chief priests and scribes stood by, accusing him vehemently. 11And after Herod with his soldiers had also treated him with contempt and mocked him by having him put on a splendid garment, he sent him back to Pilate. 12Herod and Pilate, however, became friends that very day; for previously they had been at enmity with each other.

7

The episode is extremely rich in narrative gaps and incoherencies. At the beginning Pilate’s intention in sending Jesus to Herod Antipas (vv. 6-­7) remains unnarrated. It is peculiar that Jesus’s interrogation by Herod (v. 9a) is narrated first and only thereafter the accusation of the members of the Sanhedrin (v. 10). In this, neither what Herod asks nor which accusation Jesus’s opponents bring against him is reported. Luke reports how Herod reacts to them in v. 11. Jesus is mocked by Herod putting him in a costly garment and sending him back to Pilate. With regard to the much discussed question of the intention of this episode (cf. the surveys in Soards 1985b, 360ff; Omerzu 2003, 128–­29), consideration of Acts 18.15; 25.19-­20, where Paul finds himself in the same situation as Jesus, can help (cf. Wolter 1998a, 288ff). Jews accuse Paul before the respective representative of the Roman Empire. The representatives declare themselves to be not responsible in both cases because in each case the concern is with an intra-­Jewish affair. Pilate acts in a completely analogous way. He regards the accusations made against Jesus as an ‘intra-­Galilean’ and with this also as an intra-­Jewish affair. Unlike in the case of Paul, the concern here is not yet with demonstrating Jewish-­ Christian continuity with the help of the verdict of neutral outsiders. Rather, with this action Luke has Pilate express that he regards the accusations made against Jesus in the sense of Acts 26.26c as a provincial and therefore harmless affair. Thus, with the transfer of Jesus to Herod, Luke wants to illustrate how the Roman governor assesses the causa Iesu.

506

The Gospel According to Luke

Heusler 2000, 97 assigns to the text a concentric structure, which she makes the starting point for her interpretation. Verse 9a functions as the center (“he interrogated him with many words”), and around it she places the following verses as rings from the outside toward the inside: v. 7 // vv. 11d–­12; v. 8a–­b // v. 11a–­c; v. 8d // v. 10; v 8e // v. 9b. This structure is, however, violently imposed upon the text and contributes nothing to its understanding. The episode is handed down only in Luke. The analogy to Acts 18.15; 25.29-­ 30 and numerous Lukanisms (cf. K. Müller 1979, 114ff; Soards 1985b, 347ff) support the view that it was created by Luke himself.

6-­7 After the preparation in v. 5 the connection to Herod is established via the key word “Galilee.” Luke presupposes that the readers know the information of 3.1, according to which Herod was “tetrarch of Galilee.” He therefore no longer needs to introduce him here (for ἐξουσία with genitive of person as designation of a ruler’s sphere of rule cf. 2 Kings 20.13; PsalmLXX 113.2; for the phrasing ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις see at 1.39). Concerning Herod, the readers also know that he was a villain who first threw John the Baptist in prison and then had him beheaded (3.19-­20; 9.9a-­b), that he wanted to meet Jesus (9.9d), and that the Pharisees had claimed that he wanted to kill Jesus (13.31). Since Luke specifies no other reason for Jesus’s transfer to Herod and since ἀναπέμπειν is nothing more than a “terminus technicus for the sending to the responsible person or official” (W. Bauer 1988, 117; see also Spicq 1994, I: 107ff), it is Jesus’s Galilean origin (6-­7a) that causes Pilate to assume that he is confronted with a Galilean affair. What specifically he expects from Herod remains open. Presumably Luke expects his readers to fill this gap themselves. On the basis of the narrated situation, they could, e.g., assume that Pilate regards it as possible that there is a charge against Jesus in Herod Antipas’s jurisdiction. It follows from v. 15 that Pilate does not merely want to use Herod as an expert for determining the truth in his own trial but “hands over” Jesus to him in the actual sense of the word and thus also transfers the potential—­i.e., if there is a charge against Jesus—­continuation of the trial to Herod (contra K. Müller 1979, 122ff; Heusler 2000, 93ff). 8 From the inventory of the literary ‘Herod-­memory’ of the readers (see v. 6-­7) Luke picks out 9.7a, 9d, as the linguistic borrowings from these two verses in 8b clearly show (in each case ἀκούειν and ἐζήτει/θέλων ἰδεῖν αὐτόν). With the help of the two durative imperfects ἦν . . . θέλων and ἤλπιζεν (8b-­c)—­which are dependent on ἐξ ἱκανῶν and expanded by ἰδεῖν in each case—­Luke explains why Herod rejoices when he is finally able to meet Jesus. Thus the hope for a sign is not triggered for the first time by the current encounter but had always motivated Herod’s wish to meet Jesus; it thus belongs to the narrative background information (contra



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 507

Brown 1994, I: 768, who does not pay sufficient attention to the tenses in the sentence). That Luke reaches back to 9.7-­9 here and precisely not to the intention to kill him circulated by the Pharisees according to 13.31 is extremely important within the narrated situation in which the meeting takes place. It leads the readers back not only into the time before Jesus’s ‘handing over’ but also answers with sufficient clarity the question that was implicitly connected with Jesus’s transfer to Herod. Jesus therefore has nothing to fear from Herod Antipas (contra Brown 1994, I: 770, according to whom this recourse wants to make the readers “uneasy”; if anything, the opposite is more likely the case). That the narrative has Herod “hope” for a sign (ἐλπίζειν) is possibly meant to distinguish him from “this generation,” which had “demanded” (ζητεῖν) a (legitimating) sign from Jesus in order to test him (11.16, 29). The readers are probably meant to think that Herod hopes to see a spectacular miracle (see also Nolland; K. Müller 1979, 122: “spectacle-­seeking”). For the phrasing σημεῖον . . . γινόμενον cf. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.236; 10.29; 19.9; Acts 2.43; 4.16, 22, 30; 5.12; 14.3. 9 Luke states only that the interrogation was intensive (ἐν λόγοις ἱκανοῖς). What it is that Herod asked about is obviously regarded as unimportant in Luke’s eyes (cf. Lucian of Samosata, Quomodo historia conscribenda sit 55). Although Luke probably took over the accusatory element from Mark 15.4-­5, one is not permitted to turn the accusations of the chief priests and scribes into the object of the interrogation (contra Nolland), for Luke has reversed the sequence, not without reason, and placed the accusations afterward (v. 10). Moreover, αὐτῷ as an object of οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο (9b) shows that here it is not the accusations that Jesus does not answer but the questions of Herod. An allusion to Isaiah 53.7 (thus Marshall; Nolland; Eckey; Soards 1985a and others) is certainly not present, for here Jesus is not yet presented “as a sheep that is led to the slaughter.” 10 As in 23.49; Matthew 12.46; John 18.18; 19.25; Acts 9.7; Revelation 7.11, the pluperfect εἱστήκεισαν stands for the imperfect here (cf. BDR §347.2). Luke narrates only the how of the accusing by the opponents of Jesus (εὐτόνως; in the New Testament it is only found elsewhere in Acts 18.28) and not the what of the accusation. That the readers are meant to insert the content of the accusations from v. 2, 5 (thus Schneider; Nolland; Brown 1994, I: 771 and others) is unlikely, for the concern there is with offenses that are specially adapted for the representative of the Roman Empire and therefore would be misplaced in relation to the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. Plus, Luke lets the efforts of the chief priests and scribes come to nothing. This gives the readers the impression that chief priests and scribes also endeavored before Herod to show that Jesus was guilty of a behavior that deserved punishment and that their efforts remained without effect because the accusations made against Jesus were unfounded.

508

The Gospel According to Luke

11 The grammatical relations are unclear. The sentence begins with three syntactically parallel participles; the predicate comes only at the very end. The question is what should περιβαλών be related to? Is it grammatically dependent on ἐμπαίξας (hence my translation, following Marshall; Wiefel; Johnson; Green), or does it modalize the verbum finitum ἀνέπεμψεν (majority view)? In terms of content the question runs as follows: Is the clothing of Jesus with a “costly garment” part of his mocking, or does it take place after the mocking and designate the mode of his sending back to Pilate? Part of the problem is the question of what the readers are meant to imagine by an ἐσθὴς λαμπρά (cf. especially Joüon 1936). In Philo, De Iosepho 105 (ἀντὶ ῥυπώσης λαμπρὰν ἐσθῆτα ἀντιδόντες) it is the garment that Joseph receives to put on instead of his dirty prison clothing when he is brought to Pharaoh. The same semantic juxtaposition is used in James 2.2-­3 in order to make a distinction between the “fine clothes” of a rich man and the “dirty clothes” (ῥυπαρὰ ἐσθής) of a poor person. Plutarch, Lucullus 27.6 (οὔτ’ ἐσθῆτα λαμπρὰν οἱ ἄνδρες λαμβάνουσιν ὁδοιποροῦντες [“Men who are on travels wear no festal garment”]) goes in this same direction. This connotation finds its counterpart, e.g., in Diodorus Siculus 1.70.4 (λουσάμενον καὶ . . . μετ’ ἐσθῆτος λαμπρᾶς κοσμήσαντα τὸ σῶμα θῦσαι τοῖς θεοῖς [“After he washed himself and . . . had adorned his body with a costly garment he sacrificed to the gods”]); 1.91.1 (on the mourning customs among the Egyptians: “They wash not, nor do they take wine or other noteworthy food to themselves οὔτε ἐσθῆτας λαμπρὰς περιβάλλονται”); 37.26 (the ruler is encountered by the population of a city that comes to meet him μετ’ ἐσθῆτος λαμπρᾶς); Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 4.56 (164a) concerning the Pythagoreans: λαμπρᾷ τε ἐσθῆτι ἀμφιεννύμενοι καὶ λουτροῖς καὶ ἀλείμμασι κουρᾷ τε τῇ συνήθει χρώμενοι (“They clothed themselves with an ἐσθὴς λαμπρά and made use of baths, anointings, and a fashionable haircut”). The connotation of preciousness in the sense of material value also stands in the foreground in Alciphron, Epistulae 3.5.3 (as payment ληψόμεθα χρυσοῦς . . . οὐκ ὀλίγους καὶ λαμπρὰν ἐσθῆτα [“we will receive not a few gold pieces and a precious garment”]) and Dictys, FGH 1a: 49, Fragment 6.5 (ἐσθὴς λαμπρά in a series with “gold and much silver and jewelry”). An ἐσθὴς λαμπρά is also worn in order to express joy (Diodorus Siculus 37.26; Plutarch, Moralia 847b). The color is only very rarely the decisive semantic characteristic. That it was apparently usually white is shown by a comparison of Plutarch, Moralia 144d (“When one approaches elephants one wears no ἐσθῆτα λαμπράν”) with 330b (“One takes care . . . not to be seen by elephants when one wears white garments [λευκοὺς χιτῶνας]”). In Polybius 105.1 the expression designates the toga candida, which was worn by candidates for city offices. As an attribute of ἐσθή, λαμπρά can be paralleled with βασιλική (Plutarch, Agis et Cleomenes 17.6) or ἱερά (Plutarch, Camillus 21.4). In Acts 10.30 a messenger of God is clothed with an ἐσθὴς λαμπρά.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 509

The semantic fuzziness of the expression does not permit one to see a specific quality or a specific status indicated by Herod’s clothing of Jesus with an ἐσθὴς λαμπρά. It therefore does not imply that Herod regards Jesus as innocent (contra K. Müller 1979, 135ff; Untergassmair 1996, 287–­88). Rather, this is already accomplished by the sending back of Jesus to Pilate as such (cf. v. 15a-­b). What Jesus was wearing then is entirely unimportant, and therefore Pilate also makes no reference to it in v. 15b. Thus, everything supports the view that the clothing of Jesus with an ἐσθὴς λαμπρά functions as part of his mocking (see also Darr 1998, 198–­99), though for this one must accept the linguistic deficiency that an aorist participle (περιβαλών) is dependent on another aorist participle (ἐμπαίξας). Luke leaves open what the clothing is meant to ironize. It is likely, however, that he has it concern Jesus’s messianic claim. The episode in Mark 15.16-­20a reworked by Luke in 23.36-­37 can be adduced in support of this interpretation. There Jesus is likewise mocked (ἐμπαίζειν; v. 20a)—­namely, by the soldiers putting a “purple coat” on him and paying him homage derisively as “king of the Jews” (vv. 17-­18). 12 Nothing is known from other sources of an enmity or subsequent friendship between Pilate and Herod Antipas. However, one must not say that with this information Luke goes beyond the plot of his story of Jesus, for by mentioning this event at this point he makes it an integral part of his story of Jesus. For precisely this reason Psalm 2.1-­2, which is quoted in Acts 4.25-­26 and is then applied in vv. 27-­28 to the common proceedings of Herod and Pilate against Jesus, does not come—­or at best comes only indirectly—­into consideration as an explanation (cf., on the one hand, K. Müller 1979, 138–­39 and, on the other hand, Radl 1988b, 137–­38). Since Luke does not communicate expressis verbis how Herod and Pilate became “friends,” it is once again left to the imagination of the reader to supply a plausible reason. They will presumably not have needed long to reach the conclusion that it is Herod’s and Pilate’s agreement in the judgment about Jesus that makes them into “friends.” Thus, the information that Herod and Pilate previously stood over against one another “in enmity” functions as a dark foil against which the extent of their agreement becomes even clearer. 23.13-­25: The Dispute over the Verdict 13

Then Pilate called together the chief priests and the leaders and the people 14and said to them, “You have brought this man before me as one who was inciting the people, and behold, when I examined him before you, I did not find in this man the guilt of which you accused him. 15And neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. And behold, there is nothing worthy of death that was done by him. 16After I have

510

The Gospel According to Luke

disciplined him, I will therefore release him.” 18But they all shouted together, “Away with this man, release Barabbas to us!” 19This one had been thrown into prison because of a sedition that had taken place in the city and because of murder. 20 Again Pilate addressed them, because he wanted to release Jesus. 21 But they did not stop shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” 22 But he said to them a third time, “What evil has this man done? I have found nothing worthy of death relating to him. After I have disciplined him, I will therefore release him.” 23But they pressured him with loud shouts and demanded that he be crucified. And their shouts became increasingly louder. 24 So Pilate decided that their demand should be met: 25he released the one who had been thrown into prison because of sedition and murder, whom they had demanded. But Jesus he handed over to their will. The scene begins with an expositional introduction (v. 13) and is then continued through a sequence of three rounds of speech and counterspeech, in which Pilate and the Jerusalem Jews wrestle for the verdict: (a) vv.  14-­16/ vv.  18-­19; (b) v. 20 as speech report/v. 21; (c) v. 22/v. 23 as speech report. Luke has Pilate announce three times that he intends to release Jesus, and three times he has the Jews of Jerusalem object with a dramatically increasingly sharpening intensity. The scene ends with the verdict of Pilate (vv.  24-­25). In some commentaries vv. 13-­16 are treated as a distinct scene (e.g., Fitzmyer; Nolland; Brown 1994, I: 787–­861). This destroys the structure of the episode, however. Above all, this view fails to recognize that Luke has the demand of the people follow each time in response to Pilate’s intention to release Jesus (three times ἀπολύειν). In this respect Luke takes over the Markan structure of the scene; cf. in Mark 15 (1) vv. 6-­8 as exposition, (2) the three rounds of speech and counterspeech: (a) vv. 9-­11/v. 11 as speech report; (b) v. 12/v. 13; (c) v.  14a-­b/v.  14c-­d, as well as (3) the verdict in v. 15. Despite this, there are only very selective Lukan–­ Markan agreements in wording: “Barabbas,” who is imprisoned because of στάσις and φόνος; πάλιν at the beginning of the second speech round; the exhortations σταύρου/σταύρωσον αὐτόν with the alternative ἀπολύειν; the question “What evil has (this one) done?” at the beginning of the third round of speech; in the phrasing of the verdict with the opposition of ἀπέλυσεν and παρέδωκεν. The number and weight of the noteworthy minor agreements are small: εἶπεν (v. 14apar. Matthew 27.17a) instead of ἀπεκρίθη (Mark 15.9a); λέγοντες/λέγουσιν (21apar. Matthew 27.22c) instead of ἔκραξαν (Mark 15.13a); δέ (v. 25bpar. Matthew 27.66b) instead of καί (Mark 15.15c); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 184ff; 1991, 85–­86; Ennulat 1994, 386ff.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 511

13 Luke has a scene emerge in which all Jerusalem comes together before Pilate. With the ἄρχοντες (see also 23.35; 24.20; Acts 3.17; 4.5, 8) he presumably means the same group as the so-­called πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ in 19.47 (see further there). That he now also has the ‘normal’ population of Jerusalem appear and unlike v. 4 calls them no longer οἱ ὄχλοι but rather ὁ λαός is intended to evoke the impression in the readers that now really all Jerusalem takes part in the following scene and not only a “crowd that happens to be present” (G. Lohfink 1975b, 37). At the very least, this extravagant narrative move is meant to suggest that those who are present stand before Pilate as representatives of the Jerusalem Jews. On account of the opposition between the Jerusalem leading stratum and the Jerusalem λαός, which Luke has repeated several times previously (cf. 19.47-­48; 20.6, 26; 21.38; 22.2), the appearance of the λαός before Pilate could additionally evoke the expectation in the readers that it will turn against the Jerusalem leading stratum in what follows and side with Jesus (see also Heusler 2000, 138–­ 39). After all, in the Lukan narrative, there is no indication that something has changed in the previous attitude of the Jerusalem λαός toward Jesus since 21.38. Despite this, one can precisely not say that the introduction of the λαός at this point has the consequence that the following events “took place . . . before the eyes of Israel” (G. Lohfink 1975b, 37). It should therefore be emphasized once more at this point that Luke makes the Jerusalem Jews responsible for Jesus’s death and does not postulate something like a Jewish ‘collective guilt’ (on this cf. at 13.33). 14-­15b Luke assigns Pilate the role of the presiding judge, who controls the conduct of the trial (cf. Nolland; Heusler 2000, 136). In this function he first summarizes the previous course of the proceedings. 14 deals with the trial before Pilate himself, which was reported in vv. 2-­4: presentation of the accused and accusation (14b/vv. 1-­2); questioning of the accused (ἀνακρίνειν; see also Acts 4.9; 12.19; 24.8; 25.26; 28.18) in the presence of the accusers (14c/v. 3); statement of the innocence of the accused with regard to the accusation (14d/v. 4). 15a-­b recapitulates the interrogation by Herod Antipas (v. 9). The main sentence ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ Ἡρῴδης (15a; for the use of ἀλλά to emphasize “additional points” cf. BDR §448.6) is elliptic; one must add Pilate’s own statement from v. 14d (i.e., ‘he found no guilt in this man . . .’ or the like). Pilate derives this conclusion from the fact that Herod did not keep Jesus with him but sent him back (15b). It is important that Pilate does not describe the sending back of Jesus by Herod in greater detail (for instance with the words ‘μεθ’ ἐσθῆτος λαμπρᾶς’ or the like). Thus, it is not the clothing that lets Pilate recognize that Jesus is innocent also according to Herod’s judgment but solely the fact of the sending back as such.

512

The Gospel According to Luke

15c-­16 In 15c Luke first has Pilate formulate an overall conclusion of both investigations and formulates a result with respect to the verdict (cf., in comparison, the orientation to the accusation in v. 14d). πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ is the only “actual” New Testament example for a dative with the passive for the designation of the originator (BDR §191: “= ὑπό τινος”). The qualification of Pilate’s statement of the innocence of Jesus by οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου gives Luke room for the intention to punish him signaled by παιδεύσας in 16. παιδεύειν is a metonymic euphemism for physical punishment. This verb and its cognates are often used with this meaning in early Jewish interpretation of suffering (cf. Leviticus 26.18; Deuteronomy 21.18; 1 Kings 12.11, 14; 2 Maccabees 6.12; Proverbs 3.12; see further O. Michel 1975, 439–­40). In the background of this designation stands the alleged “educational” purpose that was ascribed to such punishment. The Lukan Pilate speaks of the fustigatio, verberatio, or flagellatio, an independent punishment for offenses that were not worthy of death. It was carried out with a cane, switch, or whip. In 2 Corinthians 11.25 Paul writes that he had to endure it three times, and Acts 16.22 recounts that the duumviri of Philippi (see at 22.4) had it carried out on Paul and Silas.

On the side of the readers, there arises the impression that Pilate is, to be sure, of the opinion that Jesus has committed no capital offense, but nevertheless regards a punishment as appropriate—­whether this be understood as a punishment for the instigation of intra-­Jewish nuisances or “as a concession to the Jews and as a warning to Jesus” (Schneider 1973, 103); cf. also P. Flor. 61.59–­62 (see at vv. 18-­19). It is ruled out that the flogging has the function here of “forcing an acknowledgment of guilt from the wrongdoer” (thus Heusler 2000, 158), for this phase of the trial is long past (see also Acts 22.24). The position of the inferential οὖν before ἀπολύσω works out the logic in Pilate’s words very precisely. It picks up—­skipping over παιδεύσας—­οὑδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστίν (15c), so that a coherent context of justification emerges. Because Pilate has ascertained that Jesus has not committed an offence worthy of death, he can release him (cf. then also v. 22c-­d). 17 ἀνάγκην δὲ εἶχεν ἀπολύειν αὐτοῖς κατὰ ἑορτὴν ἕνα (“There was the necessity to release to them one at the festival”) is only handed down in part of the New Testament manuscripts (‫ א‬D W Θ Ψ f 1,13 𝔐 lat and others). The verse is lacking in 𝔓75 A B K L T and others. The attestation for the reading without is better; moreover, the reading with can be explained as a secondary addition. It aims to anchor the so-­called ‘Passover amnesty,’ which is mentioned at this point in all the other Gospels (Matthew 27.15; Mark 15.6; John 18.9) and in Luke as well. This



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 513

judgment is confirmed by the cross-­check, for under these conditions it is difficult to imagine a reason for a subsequent deletion of this sentence. The opposing view advocated by Victor 2009, ad loc., is based on several misjudgments. First, he confuses tradition-­historical and text-­critical aspects. Second, he does not consider that the copyist added, of course, according to memory and not according to the wording. Third, the postulate of a homoioarcton ΑΝΑΓΚΗΝ/ΑΝΕΚΡΑΓΟΝ is not very convincing.

18-­19 With the adverb παμπληθεί Luke wants to emphasize that now the Jerusalem λαός (v. 13) also turns against Jesus (see also Ascough 1993, 335–­56 and others). A similar crowd scene is also portrayed with extensive linguistic agreements in Vita Aesopi W 90. There the people of the Samians exhort the owner of Aesop to set free his slave: οἱ δὲ ὄχλοι παμπληθεὶ ἔκραζον· ἐλευθέρωσον Αἴσωπον (“The crowds, however, all cried out together, ‘Set Aesop free!’”).

After what is recounted in 19.47–­21.38 (see also 22.2), the turnaround in the attitude of the Jerusalem population toward Jesus is completely surprising. This impression is increased further by the fact that Luke lets Mark 15.11 (par. Matthew 27.20) be swept under the table and thus consciously refrains from explaining why the Jerusalem λαός suddenly appears on the side of Jesus’s opponents (this question remains unanswered also in Heusler’s interpretation of this exclamation as procedural acclamation [Heusler 2000, 167ff]). In Acts 21.36; 22.22 Luke likewise places the exclamation αἶρε αὐτόν/τὸν τοιοῦτον in the mouth of the Jerusalem population—­this time with regard to Paul. Luke brings Barabbas (from Aramaic ‫“[ ַבר ַא ָּבא‬son of the Abba”]; cf. Ilan 1992, 357–­58) into play with equal abruptness, presenting him as a dangerous criminal with the help of an authorial explanation (cf. Sheeley 1992, 107–­8) and in a clear intensification of Mark 15.7 (“He had been arrested with the rebels who had committed murder in the sedition”). Apart from what is found in Mark 15.7, 11, 15; Matthew 27.16, 17, 20, 21, 26; John 18.40, nothing is known of Barabbas. That he was named “Jehošua” (i.e., “Jesus”) can be suspected with all caution on the basis of the textual tradition of Matthew 27.16, 17. Although the number and weight of the manuscripts that ascribe this name to him are very small (Θ f 1 700 sys) their readings could be original. In favor of this assumption, one can adduce the fact that the reading with Ἰησοῦς was already known to Origen in the first half of the third century (Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 27.16–­18 [GCS XXXVIII, Origenes Werke XI: 255]) and that Origen also immediately mentions a reason for the subsequent

514

The Gospel According to Luke

deletion of the name: “Many copies do not include that Barabbas was also called ‘Jesus’ and this is probably correct, so that the name of Jesus does not come together with one of the sinners” (see also Metzger 1971, 67–­68). There was no law that made provisions for the possibility of forgoing punishment on account of an intervention of the population. However, it emerges, e.g., from P. Flor. 61.59–­62 (ἄξιος μὲν ἦς μαστιγωθῆναι . . . χαρίζομαι δέ σε τοῖς ὄχλοις [“You have deserved to be flogged . . . , but I will grant you to the crowd”]) that it was nevertheless de facto possible for the people to obtain the release of a prisoner. Suetonius, Tiberius 37.2 reports that the Emperor could be moved to rescind a punishment “by no petition of the people (nec . . . umquam ullis populi precibus).” The existence of such a practice is attested by its prohibition in Digestae 48.19.31 (Ad bestias damnatos fauore populi praeses dimittere non debet [“The governor may not release those condemned to fight animals for the sake of the favor of the people”]) and Codex Justinianus 9.47.12 (Vanae voces populi non sunt audiendae: nec enim vocibus eorum credi oportet, quando aut obnoxium crimine absolve aut innocentem condemnari desideraverint [“One must not listen to the empty voices of the people; for it is not proper for their voices to be believed when they demand either that a criminal be acquitted of a crime or that an innocent person be condemned”]); see also J. Merkel 1905, 309. The historical core of this event probably consisted only in the fact that a prisoner named Jehošua bar Abba was coincidentally released on the same day on which Jehošua bar Joseph from Nazareth was executed.

In Acts 3.13-­14 Luke refers to this event in an informative way when he has Peter interpret the behavior of the Jerusalem population as “handing over and denying”: “Jesus, whom you handed over and denied (παρεδώκατε καὶ ἠρνήσασθε) before Pilate, who had decided to release (ἀπολύειν) him; but you have denied (ἠρνήσασθε) the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer (ἀνὴρ φονεύς) be given to you.” Not only the term but also the threefold repetition calls to mind the denial scene (22.54-­62). And almost just as quickly as he does with Peter (cf. 22.62), Luke also lets the λαός regret what happened (cf. 23.35, 48; on this see Ascough 1993, 357–­ 58, 363ff). Moreover, it is common in particular to both ‘denials’ that the one is just as incomprehensible as the other, and Luke conveys precisely this impression to his readers through his manner of narration. 20-­21 The dramatic advance that the second round of speech and counterspeech brings is located solely on the side of the Jerusalemites. For this reason, Luke can have the Roman governor appear merely with a speech report, while he not only quotes the demand of the Jerusalemites word for word but also equips it with additional urgency by doubling it (21; see also John 19.6); on this cf. BDR §493.1 and Lausberg 1973, §616–­18: “geminatio.” The use of the imperfect on the side of the Jerusalemites



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 515

gives their intervention a significant range also with respect to time (cf. BDR §325, 327). 22-­23 The question—­adopted from Mark 15.14—­with which Pilate opens the third round (22b) is rhetorical. Its propositional content is: Jesus has done nothing evil. The rest of his position statement (22c-­d) is an almost word-­for-­word repetition from the first round of speech (vv. 15c-­ 16). Luke speaks of the ἐπικεῖσθαι of the Jerusalemites on Pilate just as he speaks of the effect of the storm upon the ship. In 23b Luke does not anticipate the result with the intransitive and imperfect κατίσχυον, but with the volume he intensifies the tension between Pilate and the Jerusalem population. This double crescendo drives Pilate increasingly onto the defensive and lets his role as sovereign leader of the trial slip more and more from his hand. 24-­25 Pilate’s decision lets the narrative come suddenly to rest. The readers gain the impression that Pilate yielded only to the pressure of the Jerusalem Jews. Accordingly, in both verses Luke speaks just as often of them (αἴτημα αὐτῶν, ᾖτοῦντο, τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν—­these are all terms of wanting and wishing) as of Pilate (ἐπέκρινεν, ἀπέλυσεν, παρέδωκεν), although Pilate should actually be the master of the trial. The asymmetry in the talk about the two prisoners serves the steering of the readers’ emotions. The fact that Barabbas is not mentioned by his name but designated by his deeds is meant to display before the readers’ eyes once more the monstrousness of Pilate’s decision. Conversely, Luke no longer needs to say what Jesus has done, for the readers know this anyway. The syntagma “to hand over to the will” (παραδιδόναι τῷ θελήματι) is not attested anywhere else. However, it is certainly no accident that Luke ends the scene by directing the attention of the readers to the Jerusalem Jews, to whom the decisive responsibility for the the execution of Jesus that follows is thereby pushed. In 24.20 Luke will let the Emmaus disciples refer to this παραδιδόναι that takes place through this—­though with an important differentiation here. According to 24.20, it is not the Jerusalem λαός who take Jesus to the cross but rather its chief priests and leaders. 23.26-­49: Crucifixion and Death 26

And as they led him away, they seized Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the field. They laid the cross on him to carry behind Jesus. 27 There followed him, however, a great multitude of the people and women, who were mourning and bewailing him. 28But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping over me! Weep rather for yourselves and for your children, 29for behold,

516

The Gospel According to Luke

days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed (are) the barren and the wombs that have not bore, and the breasts that have not nursed!’ 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’ 31For if they do this with the fresh wood, what will happen to the dry?” 32 And two criminals were also led with him to execution. 33And when they came to the place called ‘the skull’—­there they crucified him and the criminals, the one on the right side, the other on the left. 34 But Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And for the division of his clothing they cast lots. 35 And the people stood there and watched. But also the leaders mocked him and said, “He saved others. Let him save himself if this one is the Messiah of God, the Chosen One.” 36And the soldiers also mocked him: they approached, passed sour wine to him, 37and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.” 38There was also an inscription over him: “The king of the Jews (is) this one.” 39 And one of the criminals hanging there reviled him and said, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” 40But the other answered and rebuked him: “Do you not even fear God? Because you are under the same sentence; 41we, however, justly, for we are receiving what corresponds to our deeds. But this one has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom!” 43And he said to him, “Amen, I say to you: today you will be with me in paradise!” 44 And it was already about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole earth until the ninth hour, 45because an eclipse of the sun occurred. The curtain of the temple tore in two. 46And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And with these words he died. 47 After the centurion had seen what happened, he praised God by saying, “Truly this man was righteous.” 48And the crowds who had assembled for this spectacle—­when they saw what happened, they beat their breasts and returned home. 49But all his acquaintances stood far off; also the women who had accompanied him from Galilee—­they saw these things. Luke has created here a “narrative collecting basin” (cf. Lämmert 1975, 73), which is comprised of multiple subscenes. Verses 26-­32 portray events on the way to the place of crucifixion, while vv. 33-­46 make a bridge from the crucifixion to the death of Jesus. Verses 47-­49 function as an epilogue. Luke establishes the narrative coherence of the sequence of events by setting different people and groups in relation to Jesus and by narrating how



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 517

they behave in relation to Jesus and how they are involved with his crucifixion: Simon of Cyrene (v. 26); “a great multitude of the people and of women” (v. 27); two criminals (vv. 32, 33b, 39-­43); “the people” (v. 35a); the “leaders” (v. 35b); “the soldiers” (v. 36); “the centurion” (v. 47); all the spectators who are present (v. 48); Jesus’s acquaintances (v. 49). The protagonists of the action are the “they” who remain unspecified until v. 34. They bring Jesus and the two criminals to the place of execution (vv. 26a, 32); they put the cross on Simon of Cyrene (v. 26b-­c); they crucify Jesus and the two criminals (v. 33b); and they cast lots for Jesus’s clothing (v. 34b). The grammatical subject remains unspecified and if one is a stickler, one would have to supply the “chief priests and the leaders and the people” (v. 13) from vv. 13-­25. It would then look as though Luke wanted to hold the Jerusalem Jews responsible even for the carrying out of the execution of Jesus (cf. Carroll 1988, 109–­10). On the other hand, however, Luke could also reckon on the fact that crucifixion was known to his readers as a Roman punishment and that they naturally knew that it could only be carried out by Roman soldiers (cf. also Marshall; Nolland; Brown II: 912 as well as the tension between Acts 2.23, on the one side, and 5.30; 10.39, on the other side). Moreover, the renominalization of λαός in v. 35 speaks against the view that Luke made it an active participant in the carrying out of the execution. Plus, this is not the first time that Luke is guilty of such inexactness in the use of proforms (cf. e.g., 22.62-­63), and finally, it does not say in v. 25 that Pilate handed over Jesus ‘to them’ but “to their will” (τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν). This ambiguity is first removed in the Gospel of Peter (2)5–­(3)6, where the Jews are made responsible expressis verbis for the carrying out of the execution of Jesus: “And he (sc. Pilate) handed him over to the people . . . And they took the Lord and were pushing him.” At the same time, however, it is also clear that Luke differentiates again among the Jerusalem Jews. It is said only of the Jerusalem “leaders” (ἄρχοντες) that they “mock” Jesus (ἐκμυκτηρίζειν [v. 35b]; see also PsalmLXX 34.17 concerning the enemies of the righteous), while it says of the Jerusalem women that they “mourned und bewailed” him (v. 27b), and the “people” (λαός) are presented merely as wanting to see a spectacle (v. 35) and then as taken aback (v. 48). Jesus himself comes to speak only four times—­in his announcement of unsalvation to the women of Jerusalem (vv. 28-­31), in the petition for forgiveness (v. 34a), in the statement of salvation to one of the two criminals (v. 43), and in his last words (v. 46). The Lukan presentation is very likely based on Mark 15.20b-­41. At many points, however, Luke has supplemented (cf. in the adjacent table lines 3, 4, 10, 15, and

518

The Gospel According to Luke

22), shortened (cf. lines 6, 9, 17, and 18), and rearranged (in lines 8–­13 and 19–­ 20) his Vorlage. Furthermore, Luke has also strongly altered the wording of the Markan passages taken over by him. A parallel to v. 29b is handed down in Gospel of Thomas 79.3 (“There will be days when you will say, ‘Blessed is the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have given no milk’”). It therefore cannot be ruled out that the saying to the women of Jerusalem from v. 29 comes from the older Jesus tradition and was inserted by Luke at this point (see also Pitre 2001; Soards 1987c, 232ff). The minor agreements include the fact that the temporal specification in Mark 15.25 that is not taken over by Luke (line 9) is also lacking between Matthew 27.31 and 32. The reference to the fact that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15.21) is likewise lacking in Matthew and in Luke; it is very likely that both independently omit this information because the names of the two sons no longer mean anything to them. Apart from this, Matthew goes with the Markan version of the narrative in all the other aforementioned cases. The following are also noteworthy, though not especially exciting: ἀπήγαγον (v. 26apar. Matthew 27.31b) instead of ἐξάγουσιν (Mark 15.20b); ἦλθον/ἐλθόντες (v. 33apar. Matthew 27.33a) instead of φέρουσιν αὐτόν (Mark 15.22a); οὗτος in the titulus (v. 38bpar. Mark 27.37b) is without a Markan equivalent; the dative φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (v. 46apar. Matthew 27.50a) instead of accusative φωνὴν μεγάλην (Mark 15.37); ἑκατοντάρχης/ἑκατόνταρχος (v. 47apar. Matthew 27.54a) instead of κεντυρίων (Mark 15.39); τὸ γενόμενον or τὰ γενόμενα (v. 47apar. Matthew 27.54a) is without a Markan equivalent; ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας (v. 49bpar. Matthew 27.55b) instead of ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ (Mark 15.41a); cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 186ff; 1991, 86ff; Ennulat 1994, 390ff.

26 It belonged to the practice of crucifixions that the condemned had to carry the crossbeam (the patibulum; Greek also σταυρός) themselves to the place of execution. Cf. Dionyisus of Halicarnass, Antiquitates romanae 7.69.2 (“They led the slaves to punishment by pulling both hands to the outside and binding them on a wood that extended over the breast and the shoulders and to the wrists [τὰς χεῖρας ἀποτείναντες ἀμφοτέρας καὶ ξύλῳ προσδήσαντες παρὰ τὰ στέρνα τε καὶ τοὺς ὤμους καὶ μέχρι τῶν καρπῶν διήκοντι]; they accompanied [him] and struck the naked one with whips”); Plutarch, Moralia 554a–­b (ἔκαστος κακούργων ἐκφέρει τὸν αὑτοῦ σταυρόν [“Each of the criminals carried his own cross”]); Chariton of Aphrodisias 4.2.7 (“So they were thus led to the place of execution, chained



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 519

together on the feet and neck, and each one of them carried the cross [ἕκαστος αὐτῶν τὸν σταυρὸν ἔφερε]”); 4.3.10; Artemidorus, Onirocriticon 2.56 (Pack 1963, 185.6–­7: ὁ μέλλων αὐτῷ [sc. σταυρῷ] προσηλοῦσθαι πρότερον αὐτὸν βαστάζει [“The one who should be nailed to it (sc. the cross) carries it previously”]); Plautus, Miles gloriosus 359–­360 (Tibi esse pereundum extra portam, dispessis manibus patibulum quom habebis [“You must go out the gate with extended hands when you will have the patibulum”]); Genesis Rabbah 56 to Genesis 22.6; Pesiqta Rabbati 31 (143b).

Luke takes over this subscene from Mark 15.21 without specifying why Simon of Cyrene has the cross put on him (he says nothing about a sudden collapse due to weakness or the like). In all likelihood this was originally a historical reminiscence. It is rather unlikely that Simon is intended to be presented as the first disciple, for he carries not “his” cross (cf. 9.23; 14.27) but Jesus’s cross. From the fact that he was just coming from outside the city, the readers can infer that he was not a participant in the scene described in vv. 13-­25. Simon of Cyrene is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. One can infer from Mark 15.21, however, that his sons Alexander and Rufus played a certain role in the primitive community in Jerusalem and were not yet forgotten in the Markan time. According to the inscription on an ossuary discovered in the Kidron Valley, which was published by Avigad 1962, 9–­11 (front: Ἀλεξάνδρος // Σίμων [“Alexander // (son of) Simon”]; back: Σίμων Ἀλε // Ἀλεξάνδρος // Σίμωνος [“Simon Ale // Alexander // (son of) Simon”]; lid: Ἀλεξάνδρου // ‫אלכסנדרוס קרנית‬ [“of Alexander // Alexander qrnjt”]) it is not ruled out—­if the last word refers to Cyrene—­that this ossuary possibly contains the bones of Simon’s son Alexander (see also van der Horst 1991, 140–­41). Cyrene is the name of a city and the coastal land in North Africa named after it (in today’s Libya). A numerically strong Jewish minority lived in it (cf. Josephus, Bellum judaicum 7.437–­442; Antiquitates judaicae 14.114–­118; see also H. Volkmann, KP 3: 410–­11; Applebaum 1979). According to Acts 6.9 there was in Jerusalem a “synagogue . . . of the Cyrenians,” i.e., a community of Jews born in Cyrene who had returned to Jerusalem or only lived there temporarily (see also 210; 11.20; 13.1). Cf. also Buckhanon Crowder 2002.

520

The Gospel According to Luke



LUKE 23 MARK 15

1 Leading away of Jesus 26a 20b 2 Simon of Cyrene 26b 21 3 Jesus and the women 27-­31 of Jerusalem 4 Two criminals are led away 32 5 They reach the Kranion 33a 22a 6 23 7 Crucifixion 33b 24a 8 Crucifixion of the 33c-­d 24b-­c two criminals 9 25 34a 10 “Father forgive them . . .” 11 Lots are cast for 34b 26 Jesus’s clothing 12 The λαός watches 35-­37 The ἄρχοντες ridicule him The soldiers mock him (ἐμπαίζειν): they bring ὄξος 27 and say . . . σῶσον σεαυτόν 13 The titulus on the cross 38 29–­32b 14 One of the criminals 39 32c reviles Jesus 15 The other criminal and Jesus 40-­43 16 The darkness of the sun 44-­45a 33 17 34 18 35-­36 19 The temple curtain tears 45b 37 20 Jesus dies 46 38 21 The centurion 47 39 22 The spectacle-­seeking people 48 23 Jesus’s acquaintances, 49 40-­41 who had followed him from Galilee, stand ἀπὸ μακρόθεν

Leading away of Jesus Simon of Cyrene

They bring him to Golgatha Spiced wine Crucifixion Lots are cast for Jesus’s clothing “And it was the third hour” The titulus on the cross

Crucifixion of the two criminals Those passing by revile and say . . . σῶσον σεαυτόν The chief priests mock (ἐμπαίζειν) among one another with the scribes The criminals revile Jesus

The darkness of the sun Jesus calls out Psalm 22.2 The misunderstanding of those standing nearby and the ὄξος-­sponge Jesus dies The temple curtain tears The centurion

Women who had followed Jesus from Galilee look on ἀπὸ μακρόθεν



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 521

27-­31 Form-­critically we have before us a perfect chreia. First a starting situation is narrated (v. 27) and then a dictum of the protagonist that is related to it (vv. 28-­31), which is a prophetic announcement of unsalvation that Luke undoubtedly wanted to be understood in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Jesus formulates it at his departure from Jerusalem and in this respect it corresponds to the saying of unsalvation spoken at his entry in 19.41-­44. 27 This structure of the scene recalls Jesus’s journey through Galilee and Judea, when great crowds constantly accompanied him (cf. 7.9, 11; 9.11; 14.25; 18.36). But the fact that the presentation is also not implausible with regard to the narrated situation is shown by Lucian, De morte Peregrini 34: τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸν σταυρὸν ἀπαγομένοις . . . πολλῷ πλείους ἕπονται (“To those who are led away to the cross . . . even more follow”); see also Heliodorus 8.9.10 (“They were immediately seized by the servants of the executioner and led not far from the city walls . . . and a great . . . crowd from the city followed [πολλοῦ . . . πλήθους ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἐπακολουθήσαντος]”). The lamenting women function as cue-­ givers for the announcement of unsalvation that follows, which specifically applies to the women of Jerusalem. Discussions about whether the women were courageous because they lamented one who was condemned to death despite a prohibition (cf. Melzer-­Keller 1997, 299; Klein and others) are therefore—­apart from their doubtful historical plausibility—­ entirely out of place. κόπτεσθαι and θρηνεῖν are also combined elsewhere; cf. Micah 1.8; Joel 1.13; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 6.377 (as here with an accusative object with θρηνεῖν: κοπτόμενοι καὶ θρηνοῦντες τὸν βασιλέα . . . [“They lamented and bewailed the king . . .”]); Plutarch, Alicibiades 18.5; Alexander 21.1; Moralia 171e. 28 The fact that Jesus turns to the women is neither intended to be a “call to repentance” nor an “act of judgment” (contra Neyrey 1985, 111), for with στραφείς in 7.9; 14.25 Luke introduces words of Jesus to the people following him (see also John 1.38 and Luke 7.44; 9.55; 10.23), which are in this respect entirely unspecific. “Daughters of Jerusalem” is not meant pejoratively (contra Neyrey 1985, 111) but characterizes the lamenting women simply as female inhabitants of Jerusalem—­and it does not do more than this; see also Song of Songs 1.5; 2.7; 3.5, 10; 5.8, 16; 8.4 or the analogous phrasings “daughters of Judah” (Psalm 48.12; 97.8); “daughters of Israel” (Judges 11.40; 2 Samuel 1.24; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 40.8); “daughters of Zion” (Isaiah 3.16, 17; 4.4); “daughters of Moab” (Isaiah 16.2) or “daughters of Edom” (Ezekiel 16.57). As in 7.13, the present imperative μὴ κλαίετε is an exhortation to stop weeping (see further there; cf. also 8.52). The propositional content of the double exhortation consists in the announcement that a much worse fate than the fate

522

The Gospel According to Luke

of Jesus that they now mourn lies ahead for those who are now weeping and for their children. This focus limits the significance of the Hellenistic-­ Roman parallels mentioned in Wettstein 1962, I: 815 for the interpretation of the text. The parallels that come closest—­relatively speaking—­are Seneca, Agamemnon 659–­661 (Cohibete lacrimas omne quas tempus petet, Troades, et ipsae vestra lamentabili lugete gemitu funera [“Hold back the tears that every time will demand (separately), Trojan women, and mourn yourselves your graves with lamentation and weeping”]); Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Marcus Antonius Philosophus 28.4 (Quid de me fletis et non magis de pestilentia et communi morte cogitates? [“Why do you weep for me and do not think instead of the pestilence and common death?”]); see also Sophocles, Philoctetes 339–­340; Anthologia Graeca 7.540; Ovid, Metamorphoses 13.464; Cicero, In Catilinam 4.1.

29 The exhortation of v. 27b-­c is furnished with a concretizing justification. ἔρχονται ἡμέραι is a Septuagintism (Heb.: ‫)יָמים ָּב ִאים‬ ִ with which prophetic announcements of salvation and unsalvation are often introduced (1 Samuel 2.31; 2 Kings 20.17; Amos 4.2; 8.11; 9.31; Isaiah 39.6; Jeremiah 7.32; 9.24; Zechariah 14.1 and elsewhere; see also Mark 2.20parr.; Luke 17.22; 19.43; 21.6; Hebrews 8.8). The macarism of the childless women parodies the form of the macarism, which is connected with a content that does not fit it, for actually it was exactly the other way around. Women with children were praised, and childlessness was regarded as a fate that was worthy of lament (e.g., Genesis 30.1-­2; Exodus 23.26; Deuteronomy 7.14; Hosea 9.14; 1 Enoch 98.5). In terms of the subject matter, the announcement is the complementary counterpart to v. 27c. The childless women are spared having to mourn, as the mothers must, their children’s fate of unsalvation. The closest parallels are found in 2 Baruch 10.14 (“For the barren will rejoice more. And those who have no children will be glad, and those who have children will be sad” [trans. A. F. J. Klijn, OTP 1: 624]) and in Apocalypse of Elijah 2:37 (“The woman who has given birth will lift her eyes to heaven, saying, ‘Why did I sit upon the birthstool, to bring forth a son to the earth?’ The barren woman and the virgin will rejoice, saying, ‘It is our time to rejoice, because we have no child upon the earth . . .’” [trans. O. S. Wintermute, OTP 1: 742]); cf. further Euripides, Alcestis 881 (“I praise the mortal ones, who remain alone and childless”); Seneca the Elder, Controversiae 2.5.2 (Nullae feliciores tunc videbantur quam quae liberos non habebant [“At that time no (women) seemed to be more happy than those who had no children”]). For the parody of the macarism form see also 2 Baruch 10.6–­7: “Blessed is he who was not born, or he who was born and died.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 523

But we, the living, woe to us, because we have seen those afflictions of Zion and that which has befallen Jerusalem” (trans. A. F. J. Klijn, OTP 1: 624).

The connection to Isaiah 54.1 that is sometimes postulated (e.g., Käser 1963, 246ff; Fitzmyer; Rusam 2003, 234) misses the intention of the announcement, for there the (previously) barren one is praised because she now obtains children. 30 Luke has Jesus make recourse to the words of Hosea 10.8 (“And to the mountains they will say, ‘Cover us!’ and to the hills, ‘Fall on us!’”) in slightly altered form (see also Revelation 6.16 with the sequence “fall . . . cover” as in Luke). As in v. 29, here the coming unsalvation is not described as such; rather, the catastrophe comes into view only in the reflection of the reaction to it. 31 The announcement of unsalvation against the women of Jerusalem is grounded with a parabolic saying that is clothed in the form of a rhetorical question. The source domain is the different handling of fresh and dry wood. Dry wood is regarded as worthless because it can no longer bear any fruit and is therefore more likely to be thrown into fire than fresh wood, which also burns much more poorly. Here this practice is made into the basis of an a fortiori argument. ‘If they even burn fresh wood, it is all the more certain that the dry will be thrown into the fire.’ Here, ποιεῖν is used in a similar manner as in Matthew 20.15; for the meaning of γένηται ἐν there is a parallel in 1 Corinthians 9.15. Most assume (cf. the survey in Brown 1994, II: 926; Bock II: 1847) that the logical subject of ποιοῦσιν is God and that γένηται is a passivum divinum that likewise speaks of God’s action. In this view, the “fresh wood” points allegorically to Jesus, and ταῦτα stands for his fate of unsalvation, while by “dry (wood)” Jerusalem is meant. Accordingly, it is said that it becomes evident in Jesus’s fate of unsalvation that Jerusalem will all the more not escape the inevitable downfall. In an analogous sense Bill. II: 263 quotes a passage from a Midrash, but that did not arise before the ninth century. In Seder Elijahu Rabba 14 (65) on Numbers 20.12 the punishment of Moses and Aaron for Israel’s grumbling is commented on with the words, “The scholars have said: When fire seizes the fresh (the wet ‫)לחים‬, what should the dry do?”

It speaks against the aforementioned interpretation, however, that Luke certainly would not designate the crucifixion as a ποιεῖν of God (see also Brown 1994, II: 926). Therefore, more speaks for the view that the subjects in the first and second parts of the sentence are not identical and that ταῦτα ποιοῦσιν refers to the action against Jesus (the “fresh wood”). ποιοῦσιν

524

The Gospel According to Luke

does not have a specific subject and therefore should be translated impersonally, and it is anything but certain that γένηται is a passivum divinum. 32-­33 For the pleonasm ἕτεροι . . . δύο, cf. BDR 306.5. ἀναιρεῖσθαι is a typically Lukan word (of the twenty-­four New Testament attestations twenty-­one are found in Luke–­Acts). The mention of the two criminals is intended to prepare for 33c. Luke could indeed have understood the fact that Jesus is crucified in the middle between them in the light of Isaiah 53.12. Moreover, attentive readers will recall the announcement pronounced in 22.37. Luke probably omits the designation Γολγοθᾶ from Mark 15.22 (this is a Graecising of Aramaic ‫ּגּולגֻ ְל ָתא‬ ְ [“skull”]; cf. H. P. Rüger, TRE 3: 605.24ff) for the same reason for which in 22.39 he had also not taken over the foreign word “Gethsemane” (Mark 14.32). Κρανίον is the Greek translation of this name. The concern is possibly with a hill that had the form of a skull. It is not possible to identify the location of this place with certainty. On the basis of the geographical circumstances it could only have been located north of the Herodian Jerusalem, for the city was confined by deep valleys in the east, south, and west (on this cf. the map in J. K. Elliott, TRE 16: after p. 608). Since the time of Constantine it has been assumed that the place was located in immediate proximity to the tomb of Jesus (cf. the report of the pilgrim of Bordeaux: Itinerarium Burdigalense 594.1 [CChr.SL 175], 1965: “about a stone’s throw” away from it). The localization in Eusebius, Onomasticon, GCS XI/1, Eusebius Werke III/1: 74.19–­21 (δείκνυται . . . πρὸς τοῖς βορείοις τοῦ Σιὼν ὄρους [“It is shown . . . on the north side of Mount Zion”]) must be met with suspicion, for in III/1: 38.20–­21 the same words are used to specify the location of “Akeldama”—­i.e., the piece of land that, according to Matthew 27.7-­8, the chief priests bought with the thirty silver pieces that Judas had given back to them. Today the place of crucifixion is shown within the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and at present archaeologists tend to regard this tradition as trustworthy (cf. Bieberstein/Bloedhorn 1994, II: 194–­95; K. Bieberstein, RGG4 3: 1080; Küchler 2007, 425ff; contrast J. E. Taylor 1998).

34a-­b Jesus’s prayer comes into contact with the last words of Stephen in Acts 7.60 (see also Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica 2.23.16). He asks God to count the deed of those who brought him to the cross as a so-­called ‘sin of ignorance.’ Such sins are regarded as forgivable, because they were committed inadvertently, while sins that were committed “with a high hand,” i.e., intentionally, can find no forgiveness (cf. Number 15.22-­ 31; see also Carras 1997). The same topos is also found in 1 Timothy 1.13 (because Paul acted “out of ignorance” [ἀγνοῶν] before his conversion, he could be forgiven), and it is also attested elsewhere in Jewish and



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 525

non-­Jewish literature (e.g., Testament of Judah 19.3; Philo, De vita Mosis 1.273; Thucydides 3.40.1; Xenophon, Cyropaedia 3.1.38; Epictetus, Dissertationes 2.22.36). It is controversial to whom Jesus’s prayer refers—­to the Jerusalem Jews or their leaders (Fitzmyer and others), or to the Roman soldiers who hang him on the cross (among others Flusser 1981, 394; J. H. Petzer 1992; Blum 2004, 28ff), or to both groups (Brown 1994, II: 973; see also Marshall; Eckey). The question is already part of a text-­critical problem, for the prayer of Jesus is only preserved in a part of the textual tradition (‫*א‬,2 [A] D2 L Ψ 0250 f 1,[13] 33 𝔐 lat syc,p,h [bopt] Marcion Justin Irenlat); cf. also the detailed listing of the witnesses in Delobel 1997, 27 and in Blum 2004, 17ff. The external evidence does not allow a certain judgment one way or the other. According to Metzger 1971, 180, the prayer probably does not belong to the original material of the Gospel of Luke but goes back to Jesus and was placed at this point by unknown scribes. Considerations of internal textual criticism favor the originality of the reading with and the subsequent omission of the prayer by Christian scribes. The prayer contradicts the announcements of unsalvation of vv. 27-­33 and 13.34-­35; 19.41-­44; 20.16; 21.20-­24, which announce retribution for the behavior of the Jerusalem Jews toward Jesus; thus, in this respect it would have to be regarded as lectio difficilior. Furthermore, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the impression could have arisen that God did not hear Jesus’s prayer. This makes its secondary addition very unlikely, whereas it makes a subsequent deletion quite plausible. Moreover, one can point to the fact that in Acts Luke then places the explanation in the mouth of Peter and Paul, according to which it is “out of ignorance” (κατὰ ἄγνοιαν/ἀγνοήσαντες; 3.17; 13.27) that the Jerusalem Jews rejected Jesus and brought him to death (in addition, these two texts make it likely Luke wanted the prayer for forgiveness to be related to the Jerusalem Jews and not to the Roman soldiers). Finally, the anti-­Judaism that soon arose in the ancient church, which viewed all Jews as murderers of Christ and God (cf., e.g., Melito of Sardis, Peri Pascha 72ff), makes a secondary deletion of this petition much more likely than a secondary addition. J. H. Petzer 1992, 202–­3 argues in precisely the opposite way—­in his view, Jesus’s prayer wanted to exculpate the soldiers (see above) and stress in this way the decisive responsibility of the Jews for his death. Isaiah 53.12 can be brought into connection with the prayer only in a very limited way, for in the Septuagint we find something completely different (διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη [“For the sake of their sins he was handed over”]) than in the Hebrew text (“He will intercede for the criminals”).

34c Luke formulates the allusion to PsalmLXX 21.19 on the basis of Mark 15.24, though he makes not the division of the clothing but the casting of lots for them into the predicate of the sentence.

526

The Gospel According to Luke

35-­38 In these verses Luke places in relation the (groups of) people present at the scene—­the people (v. 35a), the leaders (v. 35b), the soldiers (v. 36), and the two criminals (vv. 39-­43). The distribution of roles is conspicuous. The Jerusalem λαός is merely assigned the role of spectator (v. 35a), while in vv. 35b-­39 the ἄρχοντες, the soldiers, and one of the two criminals “ridicule” (ἐκμυκτηρίζειν), “mock” (ἐμπαίζειν), and “revile” (βλασφημεῖν) Jesus. The coherence of these verses is established by the thrice repeated call to save himself (v. 35; σωσάτω ἑαυτόν; v. 37: σῶσων σεαυτόν; v. 39b: σῶσον σεαυτὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς), which is grounded in each case with a reference to the christological dignity of Jesus (v. 35d: “the Messiah of God, the Chosen One”; v. 37b: “the king of the Jews”; v. 39b: “the Messiah”). The reviling by one of the criminals (v. 39) then becomes the starting situation for a chreia (vv. 39-­43; see further there). 35 Luke separates the Jerusalem λαός from its leaders and makes it a mere spectator of what follows (θεωρῶν may owe itself to the mention of θεωροῦντες in PsalmLXX 21.8). In this way his presentation gains an independent profile vis-­à-­vis Mark 15.29par. Matthew 27.39. The ‘normal’ Jerusalem population is assigned the same role that Luke ascribes to Jesus’s “acquaintances” and the Galilean women in v. 49. The readers can infer from this that the λαός did not contribute in the mocking of Jesus by the ἄρχοντες. This distinction is not refuted by the seemingly coordinating δὲ καί, for v. 38a shows immediately afterwards that Luke can also use it without an anaphoric reference. In 35b/c Luke writes PsalmLXX 21.8-­9 and Mark 15.31 into each other. ἐκμυκτηρίζειν (on this see at 16.14) and σωσάτω (see also λαός in v. 7) come from PsalmLXX 21.8-­9, while ἄρχοντες for the “chief priests with the scribes” and ἄλλους ἔσωσεν vs. ἑαυτόν comes from Mark 15.31. The propositional content of σωσάτω ἑαυτόν corresponds to the Markan statement ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται σῶσαι. It is a variation of the motif of the physician who cannot heal himself (see at 4.23). ἄλλους ἔσωσεν refers to Jesus’s healings and exorcisms (cf. 8.36, 50; 17.19; 18.42; see also 7.50; 19.9-­10). The conditional sentence in 35d—­into which Mark 15.32 has entered—­has its closest counterpart in 4.3 and in the parallels mentioned there. The ἄρχοντες exhort Jesus to prove his messiahship by liberating himself from his present situation. Because he does not do so, they regard his messianic claim as refuted. However, their false conceptions of the Messiah are expressed in precisely this fact, for it applies to the Messiah of God that he must suffer and rise from the dead (24.26, 46; Acts 3.18; 17.3). ὁ ἐκλεκτός is not attested elsewhere as a Messianic title in the New Testament (cf. only 9.35), but it is attested many times in 1 Enoch (39.6; 40.5; 45.3; 49.2; 51.3, 5; 52.6, 9; 53.6; 55.4; 61.5, 8, 10; 62.1); see also Apocalypse of Abraham 31.1



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 527

(“. . . and I will send my chosen one, having in him one measure of my power, and he will summon my people, humiliated by the heathen” [trans. R. Rubinkiewicz, OTP 1: 704–­5]); Numbers 11.28LXX (Joshua); Psalm 89.20 (David); 106.23 and Lives of the Prophets 2.11 (Moses); Isaiah 42.1 (the servant of God).

36-­37 Jesus’s mocking by the soldiers has at this point no equivalent in the other Gospels. Luke has, however, constructed it from elements of the Markan presentation: cf. ἐμπαίζειν in Mark 15.31; ὄξος in Mark 15.36; σῶσον σεαυτόν in Mark 15.30 and above all the omitted scene of Jesus’s mocking by the soldiers in Mark 15.16-­20 (ἐμπαίζειν [v. 20a]; στρατιῶται [v. 16]), who call him “king of the Jews” (v. 18). The sequence of the designations “Messiah” (v. 35) and “king of the Jews” (37b) corresponds to the sequence of the same titles in v. 2 (through the accusors) and v. 3 (through Pilate). Luke also expresses the complementarity of the two designations—­first from the Jewish insider perspective and then from the Roman outsider perspective—­through the identical configuration of the sentence structure: front-­placement of the predicate + δὲ καί + subject + participium coniunctum + exhortation of Jesus to save himself with reference to his identity, with the title being embedded in a conditional clause (in each case εἰ + indicative third/second person singular of εἶναι). See further at v. 3, also for the designation βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. ὄξος should not be translated with “vinegar,” because today this designation makes one think of seasoning vinegar and thus evokes false associations. It refers either to sour wine, “the cheap drink of the people of the hot lands” (H. W. Heidland, ThWNT 5: 288.3–­4), or to “wine vinegar thinned with water, the usual refreshing drink of the agricultural workers and soldiers” (Blinzler 1969, 369–­70; see also Moulton/Milligan 1963, 452–­53; Horsley 1981, 85). Thus, it is the social connotation of this drink that lets it become an instrument of the mocking of Jesus: “Sour wine is offered to the king of the Jews” (H. W. Heiland, ThWNT 5: 289.6–­7; see also Brown 1994, II: 997). Whether Luke viewed this action as an allusion to Psalm 69.22 must remain open, for unlike in John 19.28-­29 there is no mention of the fact that Jesus is thirsty.

38 The mention of the titulus is meant to explain how the soldiers came to designate Jesus as “king of the Jews.” The word placement in the quotation makes it likely that Luke understood ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων as subject (or as topic) and οὗτος as predicate noun (or as comment), which functions as an arrow pointing to Jesus. This shows that Luke understood the titulus not as a specification of the causa poenae (see Suetonius, Caligula 32.2; Domitian 10.1, 3; Cassius Dio 54.3, 7; Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 5.1.44) but as a mockery of the man hanging naked

528

The Gospel According to Luke

on the cross (see also Schneider; Brown 1994, II: 998). After 23.3-­4 such an explanation for the execution of Jesus would also be entirely incomprehensible. 39-­43 Luke turns the insult of one of the two criminals (v. 39) into the starting situation for a chreia (v. 39/v. 43). It first becomes the occasion for an intervention of the other criminal (v. 40/v. 42), to whom Jesus then reacts with a concluding dictum (v. 43). The decisive difference from the first criminal consists in the fact that in v. 42 the second pronounces the petition that really leads to salvation. In this way the effect of Jesus announced by Simeon in 2.34 is once again illustrated with the example of the two criminals crucified with Jesus. The same rift that goes through all Israel and lets some fall and others rise also separates the two criminals who are crucified with Jesus (see also Crowe 1977, 95; Méndez-­Moratalla 2004, 181ff). The scene displays the same syncritic substructure as the story of Martha and Mary in Luke 10.38-­42 (see also 7.36-­50). It consists of a dramatic triangle that is comprised of Jesus as the master of action and a pair of narrative twins, of whom the one behaves correctly and the other incorrectly. Nevertheless, the differences are, of course, also unmistakable. The most important one consists in the fact that in contrast to 10.41-­42, Jesus addresses the twin who behaves correctly in v. 43. 39 Through the use of the title of Messiah the first criminal establishes the same connection between Jesus’s identity and the exhortation to save himself as the Jewish ἄρχοντες and the Romans soldiers had done previously (vv. 35, 36). The exhortation, grounded with a negated rhetorical question, is a “reviling” (βλασφημεῖν), for the fact that he is not saved lets the question become a contestation of Jesus’s messiahship (‘If you do not save yourself and us, you are not the Messiah’). In this way, Luke associates the criminal with the Jerusalem ἄρχοντες. Both have the same false conception of the Messiah (see at v. 35). 40-­41 The other criminal likewise begins his answer with a negated rhetorical question that contains a statement. He accuses his co-­crucified associate of lacking fear of God and in this way interprets the reviling directed against Jesus as an offense against God (see also Psalm 55.20; Ecclesiastes 8.13; 2 Enoch 34.1). The ὅτι in 40c is elliptical (see also 11.18; both here and there one would have to place before it a sentence such as ‘I say that . . .’). To ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίματι one must add ‘as Jesus,’ and what is meant is the condemnation to crucifixion. 41a places a counterpoint to ἐν τῷ κρίματι εἶ in 40c by pointing out what distinguishes Jesus from the two criminals. For the phrasing οὐδὲν ἄτοπον πράσσειν (41c) as a characteristic of the σπουδαῖος, the “morally good person,” cf. 2 Maccabees



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 529

14.23; Proverbs 30.20; Aristotle, Magna moralia 2.6.14; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 11.65; Diogenes Laertius 2.93. This communicates nothing new to the readers, of course, and therefore this saying has only the narrative function of characterizing the second criminal (sermocinatio; cf. Lausberg 1973, §820–­25). Verse 41c initially shows nothing more than that the second criminal sees through what has taken place in Jerusalem and more specifically in vv. 2-­15. How it is that he came to this knowledge is left to the imagination of the readers. 42 In this verse the picture of the second criminal receives much clearer contours. Luke presents him not as “penitent” (thus Klein 710) or the like, but he portrays him as a person who knows that Jesus is innocent, and moreover he places him alongside the many people who have turned to Jesus with a petition for salvation and healing. The readers can recognize this in the content of the petition of 42b. Time and again, pious petitioners in the Septuagint use the words μνήσθητί μου (Heb.: ‫ )זָ ְכ ֵרנִ י‬to petition God to help them (e.g., Judges 16.28; 2 Esdras 15.19; 23.14, 22, 31; Jeremiah 15.15; PsalmLXX 24.7). These words express the certainty that Jesus mediates God’s salvation. Insofar as the Lukan Jesus had repeatedly designated such certainty as “faith” (cf. 5.20; 7.50; 8.48; 18.42), one can indeed say that Luke presents the second criminal as a believer, even though this term does not occur here. Confirmation for this interpretation is provided by 42c. It emerges from ὅταν ἔλθῃς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου that the second criminal already knows now that God will raise Jesus from the dead and install him in his heavenly kingdom. He is thus far ahead of the disciples, for Jesus will explain his fate to them only after his resurrection (cf. 24.26-­27, 44-­46). Here, ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν designates the same event as εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὴν δόξαν in 24.26. With 𝔓75 B L samss bopt one should read εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν in 42c, for the variant ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου (‫ א‬A C W Θ Ψ [070] f 1,13 33 𝔐 lat sy [samss bopt]) probably entered in from Matthew 16.28. The difference between the two readings lies in the fact that ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου speaks of the coming of Jesus at the parousia, while εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου refers to Jesus’s resurrection and exaltation (see also 24.26). For ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν in the sense of “to accede to the kingdom” cf. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 7.262; 9.260; 12.389.

43 The emphatically front-­positioned temporal specification σήμερον takes up the temporal conjunction ὅταν. However, it does not mean ‘now’—­i.e., “in the moment at which Jesus speaks” (thus Schreiber 2002, 287)—­but rather takes the postmortal fate into view. Jesus promises the criminal that he will be translated immediately after his death into the paradise located in heaven and into fellowship with him.

530

The Gospel According to Luke

παράδεισος is a loanword from Persian, which means something like “garden” or “park” (cf. Genesis 2.8, 10 and Aune 1997–­1998, I: 154). It functions here as a designation for the heavenly place of salvation and rest into which the righteous are translated after their death. The word also occurs with this sense in Testament of Abraham A 11.10 (“. . . the gates that lead to life; those who enter through it come into Paradise”); 14.8; 1 Enoch 32.3 (“garden of righteousness”); 60.8 (the “garden in which the elect and righteous live, whereto my grandfather was received”); 60.23 (“garden of the righteous”); Apocalypse of Moses 37.5; 2 Enoch 8.1–­8; 42.3 (“And I ascended to the east, into the paradise of Edem, where rest is prepared for the righteous. And it is open as far as the 3rd heaven; but it is closed off from this world” [trans. F. I. Andersen, OTP 1: 168]); cf. also 2 Corinthians 12.4; Revelation 2.7.

Thus, the postmortal fate of a righteous person is bestowed upon the criminal because he recognized that Jesus is the one who decides about the allocation of salvation and unsalvation. The confrontation of the different symbolic worlds that are in force among humans and with God probably could scarcely be expressed more strikingly. Among humans, a criminal—­ with God, a righteous person. In this way Luke makes clear that for God, completely different conceptions of righteousness are in force than for humans. Paul formulates the same idea in 1 Corinthians 7.22 with recourse to the opposition of ἐλεύθερος and δοῦλος. 44-­45a The setting of the narrative angle changes abruptly from the focusing on the crucifixion scene to the cosmic. At noon, when the sun is at its highest point and the day is the brightest, the narrative, following Mark 15.33, has it become dark for three hours. In 45a Luke explains this event as an eclipse of the sun (ἔκλειψις ἡλίου), i.e., as a generally known phenomenon. Luke need have known just as little as some of his present-­ day commentators that eclipses cannot take place for astronomical reasons at the Passover festival, i.e., around the full moon, and that they cannot last for three hours (eclipses can only be around the new moon [cf. already Empedocles, SVF I, Fragment B 42 and Zeno, SVF I, Fragment 119 with the correct astronomical explanation], and they never last longer than a few minutes). Luke, however, by no means demythologizes the three-­hour darkness with this explanation, for he interprets the eclipse here as a mythical event, which was also often mentioned elsewhere in the same breath with other catastrophes (cf. e.g., Thucydides 1.23.3 [earthquakes, eclipses, heat waves, famine, and pestilences as accompanying manifestations of the Peloponnesian war]) and which was repeatedly brought into connection with the death of famous men—­Romulus: Plutarch, Romulus 27.7 (“The light of the sun failed [τοῦ . . . ἡλίου τὸ φῶς ἐκλιπεῖν], night



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 531

broke in . . . thunder sounded . . . hail storms”); Camillus 33.10; Moralia 320c; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 2.56.6; Cicero, De republica 6.22—­Caesar: Plutarch, Caesar 69.3 (“darkening of the sun’s light; the whole year through its orb rose pale and without radiance . . .”); Diogenes Laertius 4.64; Virgil, Georgica 1.464ff; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 2.98.30; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 14.309—­ Augustus: Cassius Dio 56.29.3—­ Pelopidas: Diodorus Siculus 15.80.3—­see also Bill. I: 1041–­42 and Philo of Alexandria, De providentia Fragment in Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio evangelica 8.14.50: “eclipse and signs for the death of kings and for the downfall of cities” (see also Usener 1900, 286ff). With ἐφ’ ὅλην τὴν γῆν Luke meant not simply Judea or the like but the whole earth (see also 4.25; 12.49, 51; 18.8; 21.25, 35; Acts 1.8; 4.26 and elsewhere); elsewhere the word γῆ has a territorially specified sense only when an attribute is added (cf. Acts 7.3, 4, 6, 29, 36, 40). That there cannot be a globally visible eclipse is not a counterargument against this interpretation, for if Luke can have an eclipse take place at full moon and for three hours, he can also extend it to the whole earth.

With the help of the description of these circumstances and their dimensioning, Luke presents the death of Jesus as an event that is significant for the whole world. 45b Luke narrates the tearing of the curtain of the temple before the death of Jesus and thus reverses the sequence of Mark 15.37-­38. Presumably he viewed this event as a heavenly sign that was comparable to the eclipse. ἐσχίσθη is a passivum divinum; on σχίζειν μέσον see also Susanna 55Theodotion (of the execution of a person with a sword); Ezekiel the Tragedian 227 in Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio evangelica 9.29.39 (of the dividing of the Red Sea by Moses); Herodotus 2.17 (of the Nile delta that is divided by a third river branch); 4.49 (of a mountain range that is cut through by a river).

It is disputed which curtain of the Temple Luke meant—­the so-­called outer curtain, which hung before the golden wing doors at the entrance of the temple building (Josephus, Bellum judaicum 5.212), or the so-­called inner curtain, which divided the ‘holy place’ (the ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫)ה‬ ֵ from the ‘holy of holies’ (the ‫ ְ)ד ִביר‬within the temple building (Josephus, Bellum judaicum 5.219; see also Hebrews 9.3: “the second curtain”). It is doubtful, however, whether these details play a role. The phrasing τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ speaks more against this and allows for the speculation that Luke did not know where this curtain was located. The connection with the eclipse and the obvious damaging of a part of the temple furnishings make it likely

532

The Gospel According to Luke

that Luke wanted the tearing of the curtain to be understood as a threatening sign for the temple (see also Brown 1994, II: 1106), which from his perspective was certainly open for an interpretation as a real-­symbolic beginning of the destruction of the temple (see also Marshall). Therefore, one can only say with certainty that Luke definitely did not understand the tearing of the curtain as an “opening” that opens the view to a theater stage (contra Klumbies 2003, 196–­97). 46 Jesus dies in Luke with the words of PsalmLXX 30.6. Vis-­à-­vis the pretext, Luke has added the address “Father” and made the future παραθήσομαι into the present παρατίθεμαι. Another difference is that the expression of trust in PsalmLXX 30.6 is part of the petition for preservation from death, while in Luke it expresses the certainty of still living in God’s hand even after death. “My spirit” therefore stands metonymically for the living “I” of the one praying (cf. 1.47; in the Old Testament: Job 6.4; Psalm 77.4; 14.3, 4, 7; Isaiah 38.16; see also 2 Baruch 3.2). The use of τοῦτο εἴπων in Luke 24.39-­40 allows Jesus’s calling out to be interpreted as an explicit performative statement. Jesus does not first speak and then die thereafter but with the speaking what is spoken takes place. Jesus dies by commiting his spirit into the hands of the Father. 47-­49 The scene is closed by a kind of epilogue in which Luke takes eyewitnesses of the event into view. The coherence of these verses is correspondingly established through terms of seeing; cf. ἰδών (v. 47); θεωρία and θεωρήσαντες (v. 48); ὁρῶσαι (v. 49). 47 The reaction of the centurion, whom Luke introduces as if he were an already known narrative character, calls to mind the doxology reports in some miracle stories (cf. 5.25, 26; 7.16; 13.13; 17.15; 18.43). Luke always speaks of a δοξάζειν τὸν θεόν when he wants to make clear that in the action of Jesus the activity of God is recognized. Here Luke ascribes such an interpretation also to the centurion. In Jesus’s dying and its accompanying circumstances, he sees God at work. At the same time, the level of meaning of the understanding of δίκαιος (47b) is also established in this way. In 47b the centurion does not simply state Jesus’s legal innocence but thematizes Jesus’s relation to God (see also Matera 1985, 481; Karris 1986; Doble 1996, 70ff). Just as in 7.16, where the doxology report likewise merges into direct speech (cf. also the parallel of the respective connection through λέγων or λέγοντες), here too Luke has the praise of God come to expression in a statement about Jesus (see also Schneider II: 487). A special relation may exist to the first doxology report in 2.20. There Luke likewise ascribes a δοξάζειν . . . τὸν θεόν to the shepherds returning from Bethlehem. In this way the praise of God stands at the beginning and at the end of the life of Jesus. δίκαιος is here neither a messianic title (as in Acts 3.14; 7.52; 22.14) nor a messianic attribute (as in Jeremiah 23.5LXX;



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 533

Zechariah 9.9; Psalms of Solomon 17.32) but more likely stands in the tradition of the suffering righteous (cf. e.g., Psalm 31.19; 34.20; 37.32; 94.21; Isaiah 53.11; Wisdom of Solomon 2.18). There is a cross-­connection to Testament of Asher 6.4–­6: “The ends of life of people show their righteousness (τὰ τέλη τῶν ἀνθρώπων δείκνυσι τὴν δικαιοσύην αὐτῶν). . . . For when the soul departs perturbed, it is tormented by the evil spirit whose slave they were in desires and evil works; but when tranquilly with joy, it comes to know the angel of peace; he will comfort him in life (παραμυθεῖται αὐτὸν ἐν ζωῇ).” This connection can also explain why the centurion can praise God about the death of a righteous person—­because God already made Jesus’s righteousness manifest through the circumstances of his dying.

48 Luke directs the view to the Jerusalem population. He had first let them go along to the place of execution (v. 27a) and then made them into spectacle-­seekers there (v. 35a), as they apparently regularly gathered at such events; cf. especially with this term 3 Maccabees 5.24 with reference to the planned massacre of the Alexandrian Jews: “The city population gathered to the most pitiable spectacle (πρὸς τὴν οἰκτροτάτην θεωρίαν) . . .”; see also 2 Maccabees 5.26 and the texts mentioned in v. 27. The Jerusalemites react to the events with the same gestures with which the tax collector in 18.13 had come before God and which had accompanied his petition, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” The beating of the breasts is a symbolic self-­punishment and is regarded as an expression of remorse, grief, and pain (Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.320; 7.252; Life of Adam and Eve 42.8; Joseph and Aseneth 10.1,15; Philo, In Flaccum 157; Menander, Dyscolos 647; Arrian, Anabasis 7.24.3; Apuleius, Metamorphoses 7.27.2; 9.31.1). In this way, Luke indeed ascribes to the Jerusalemites something like a sense of guilt. However, there can be no talk of a ‘repentance’ in the sense of Acts 2.37-­38. 49 Luke presumably obtained the designation of the third group as οἱ γνωστοὶ αὐτῷ (49a) from the Markan phrasing “many other (women), who had come up with him to Jerusalem” and extended it to male companions of Jesus (he found ἀπὸ μακρόθεν in Mark 15.40a). But allusions to PsalmLXX 37.12 (οἱ ἔγγιστά μου ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἔστησαν [“My nearest of kin stand at a distance”]) and/or PsalmLXX 87.9 (ἐμάκρυνας τοὺς γνωστούς μου ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ [“My acquaintances you have removed to a distance from me”]) may also be intended; both are songs of lament of the individual. That the readers are intended to imagine that the apostles also belonged to this group is not unthinkable—­after all, Luke speaks of “all” the acquaintances of Jesus. In that case he would have let the closest companions of Jesus be concealed in this larger group and in this way provided information about

534

The Gospel According to Luke

their location between 22.54 and 24.9. The women taken over from Mark 15.40 were already encountered by the readers in 8.2-­3. Therefore, Luke no longer needs to introduce them by name now. The quite violently attached participle ὁρῶσαι presumably takes the place of θεωροῦσαι (Mark 15.40a) in order to distinguish the manner of the watching of these women from the spectacle-­seeking curiosity of the Jerusalemites (cf. vv. 35, 48). 23.50-­56: Burial and Preparation for the Anointing of the Dead 50

And behold, there was a man named Joseph, a member of the council and a good and righteous man—­51he had not agreed with their decision and action—­from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God. 52He went to Pilate and asked him for the body of Jesus. 53And he took him down, wrapped him in a cloth and placed him in a tomb hewn into the rock, where no one had ever lain. 54 And it was the day of preparation, and the Sabbath was about to dawn. 55And the women who had come with him from Galilee followed behind. They saw the tomb and how his body was laid. 56Thereafter they returned and prepared spices and perfumed oils. They rested on the Sabbath, however, according to the commandment. In vv. 50-­56 Luke narrates two stories with two different protagonists. Joseph of Arimathea stands at the center in vv. 50-­53, and the Galilean women, whom the readers already know from v. 49b, stand at the center in vv. 55-­56. The two stories are separated on the level of the characters through the temporal specification in v. 54, while they overlap on the level of the narrated time. In v. 55 the readers learn that the women have participated in the background in the story of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea. In v. 56 the narrative goes beyond the point in time reached in v. 53. With regard to the location of the two stories, Luke first leads the readers with Joseph from the place of crucifixion to the tomb of Jesus, and from there they follow the women to where they sojourned. Where this is remains unmentioned, but it must be a place at which one can prepare spices and perfumed oils and spend the Sabbath. The episode has no conclusion, for v. 56 triggers the expectation that it will still be stated for what purpose the women have prepared ointments and perfumed oils and what they will do after the end of the Sabbath. This expectation is then immediately fulfilled in 24.1. As a source, only Mark 15.42-­47 comes into consideration. The following conspicuous minor agreements should be registered: the temporal specification of Mark 15.42b (“for it was the preparation day, i.e., the day before the Sabbath”)



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 535

is lacking in v. 50par. Matthew 27.57, or else it is partially added later in v. 54 or in Matthew 27.62; οὗτος προσελθὼν τῷ Πιλάτῳ (v. 52apar. Matthew 27.58a) instead of τολμήσας εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πιλᾶτον καί (Mark 15.43c); Mark 15.44-­ 45a is lacking between vv. 52, 53par. Matthew 27.58a, b; ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ [ἐν] σινδόνι (v. 53apar. Matthew 27.59; the same verb also occurs in 20.7) instead of ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι (Mark 15.46a); the information that no one had lain in Jesus’s tomb (v. 53cpar. John 19.41c) has a certain correspondence in Matthew 27.60a (the tomb is “new”); ἐπιφώσκειν in 54b (with reference to the Sabbath) and Matthew 28.1 (with reference to the first day of the week) is without a Markan equivalent—­which would not be worthy of further note if this verb were not lacking in the whole of Greek literature with the single exception of a poet fragment from the third century CE (Anonymus de viribus herbarum [Heitsch 1964, 25] 64.24; cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 191–­92; 1991, 89; Ennulat 1994, 402ff).

50-­51 The introduction of Joseph of Arimathea (καὶ ἰδού + nominal sentence; cf. BDR §127) resembles the introduction of new narrative figures in Matthew 12.10; Luke 5.12, 18; 7.37; 13.11; 19.2; Acts 8.27. Especially through the apologetic parenthesis 51a, it has become completely derailed syntactically. Luke supplements information that he took over from Mark 15.43a-­b (50a, 51b, c) through his own evaluations and explanations (50b-­ 51a, b). Joseph of Arimathea appears nowhere else in the New Testament. It is this insignificance that makes it probable that the tradition of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a historical core. Ἀριμαθαία (51b) is usually identified with the place called Ramathaim-­zophim (LXX: Αρμαθαιμ Σιφα) in 1 Samuel 1.1, which is also mentioned in 1 Maccabees 11.34 (Ῥαθαμιν) and in Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 13.127 (Ῥαμαθαίν); see also Eusebius, Onomasticon, GCS XI/1, Eusebius Werke III/1: 32.21–­23 (but cf. III/1: 144.27–­29 where Arimathea is identified with the Arumah [LXX: Αρημα B, Αριμα A] mentioned in Judges 9.41). The place is located about fifteen kilometers north of Lod/Lydda or in the same distance southeast of Afek/Antipatris. The phrasing πόλις (τῶν) Ἰουδαίων (51b) is also found in Josephus, Vita 349, who uses it to mark the difference from cities such as Tiberias, Hippos, Gadara, and Scythopolis. Thus, it indicates that it is a city with a majority of Jewish inhabitants in which Jewish everyday culture was predominant.

The identification by καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι + personal name (50a) has its closest parallel in the introduction of Zacchaeus in 19.1 (see further there; for naming see at 1.27). Luke undoubtedly understood the designation βουλευτής taken over from Mark 14.3 in the sense of a belonging to the Sanhedrin. This emerges with sufficient clarity from the intervening remark in 51a, which absolves Joseph from any involvement in the actions

536

The Gospel According to Luke

of the high counsel against Jesus (cf. the paronomasia βουλευτής/βουλή as well as Josephus, Bellum judaicum 2.405 [ἄρχοντες καὶ βουλευταί]; 6.354 [βουλευτήριον]; for the lexical pair βουλὴ καὶ πρᾶξις see also Josephus, Bellum judaicum 4.214); for the use of συγκατατίθεμαι cf. Exodus 23.1, 32. With Joseph’s characterization as ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος Luke makes recourse to an established lexical pair that had been used for a long time to describe ethical virtue in a political context; cf. already Plato, Respublica 544e: to the “good and righteous” person corresponds the aristocratic constitution of the polis; 588a; Gorgias 519d; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 8.6.2; Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses 14.2; Plutarch, Theseus 10.2; in Hellenistic-­Jewish texts: Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.134; 6.21, 153; 7.369; 9.100, 132, 216; 10.246; 14.106; Sibylline Oracles 3.312.

With the characterization προσεδέχετο τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ taken over from Mark 15.43, Luke places Joseph alongside the pious Simeon, who “awaited the consolation of Israel” (2.25) and alongside the persons mentioned at 2.38, who “awaited the liberation of Jerusalem,” for this was precisely what pious Jews hoped for from the earthly establishment of the kingdom of God (see also 24.21; on this cf. Wolter 1995a, 545–­46). Luke presents Joseph of Arimathea as a pious Jew in the truest sense of the word. 52 Luke mentions no motive whatsoever for Joseph’s action. The provision for the burial of the dead belonged to the most important expressions of Jewish piety; cf. especially Tobit 1.17-­18; 2.3-­8 (at the risk of his life Tobit provides for the burial of executed people); Josephus, Bellum judaicum 4.317 (“The Jews have such great care for burial that they even take down and bury people condemned to death on a cross before sunset”). According to Deuteronomy 21.22-­23, a criminal who was hanged on a stake after his death would have to be taken off again before sunset so that the land would not be defiled. If this should be associatively present, Joseph acts here not for Jesus’s sake but for the sake of his Jewish piety. 53 Jesus’s σῶμα (“αὐτό”) is ‘taken down’ and ‘wrapped,’ while at the burial there is talk again of Jesus as a person (“αὐτόν” with 𝔓75 A L W Θ Ψ 070, 33 𝔐 c; the variant attested by ‫ א‬B C D pc lat is lectio facilior). That Jesus is placed in a still unused tomb reflects the same motif as his entry into Jerusalem on a still unridden donkey (19.30; see further there). This circumstance will be relevant also for the interpretation of 24.12 (see further there). The narrative sketches a picture of a tomb complex hewn into the rock with several tunnels or niches (a good impression of one such complex is provided, e.g., by the photographs and floor plans in Avni 1994). Thus, the place at which Jesus’s corpse was laid is a place within such a tomb complex, where the body of the dead remained until the decay



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 537

of the flesh. Afterwards the bones were gathered in an ossuary and buried again. In 1968 one such ossuary with the bones of a crucified person was discovered in the vicinity of Jerusalem (on this, see H.-­W. Kuhn 1976). Whether the tomb shown today in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was the place of the burial of Jesus must remain open (the tradition can be traced back into the fourth century; cf. Bieberstein/Bloedhorn 1994, II: 183ff; Küchler 2007, 425ff); the so-­called “garden tomb” on Conrad Schick Street certainly does not come into consideration. 54 Luke ends the day that he had begun in 22.66. Only now do the readers learn that Jesus was crucified on the day before the Sabbath (for the phrasing cf. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 16.163: ἐν σάββασιν ἢ τῇ πρὸ αὐτῆς παρασκευῇ [“on the Sabbath or on the (day of) preparation before it”]). Since the Sabbath always begins at sunset, ἐπέφωσκεν is either meant metaphorically, or the expression is intended to designate “the flashing of the first star at the start of the Sabbath” (E. Lohse, ThWNT 7: 20 n. 159). Matthew 28.1 uses the same verb to designate the morning when the women go to the tomb. The temporal specification marks a narrative break, for on the one hand, the time narrated in vv. 55-­56a lies before the point in time that is reached in 54b, but on the other hand, it evokes the expectation that the narrative will continue further. 55 Luke directs the view of the readers back again and lets them take once more the route that he has implicitly co-­narrated beneath the surface of the text in v. 53—­namely the way from the cross to the place where Jesus’s corpse was laid. At the beginning he repeats the identification of the women from v. 49b and in this way leads the readers back to the cross first in order to let them then accompany the women to the tomb. Of course, Luke needs to have the women know the location of the tomb so that they can find it again on the day after next. Unlike in Mark 15.47, what matters in Luke is not that the women see “where” (ποῦ) Jesus “lay” within the tomb complex (τέθειται; stative perfect) but “how” (ὡς) his body “was laid” (ἐτέθη; punctiliar aorist). With this “how,” Luke apparently wants to suggest that the burial of Jesus had remained incomplete in the eyes of the women in order to provide a motive for their renewed visit to the tomb in 24.1 (see also Fitzmyer). 56a With the activity of the women described here, the narrated time is still located at the same point in time that Luke had already reached in v. 54. Here, however, he already prepares for the women’s visit to the tomb in 24.1. What Luke understood by ἀρώματα probably cannot be specified more exactly than that the concern is with aromatic substances that—­unlike the fluid μύρον

538

The Gospel According to Luke

(on this see at 7.37)—­were apparently dry and were added to oil at the anointing. Whenever the Septuagint uses ἄρωμα, it translates the Hebrew ‫ּב ֶֹׂשם‬ (2 Kings 20.13; 1 Chronicles 9.29, 30; 2 Chronicles 9.1, 9; 16.14; 32.27; Esther 2.12; Song of Songs 1.3; 4.10, 16; 5.1, 13; 6.2; 8.14). According to Diodorus Siculus 18.26.3 the coffin of Alexander the Great was filled with ἀρώματα that “are able to give to the body both a good scent and preservability” (τῶν ἅμα δυναμένων τὴν εὐωδίαν καὶ τὴν διαμονὴν παρέχεσθαι τῷ σώματι). Chariton of Aphrodisias 1.8.3 also states similarly that in a tomb πολλὴ . . . ἀρωμάτων ὀσμή (“a strong smell of spices”) could be perceived. Cf. also the description of the anointing of Jesus at the burial according to John 19.40: “They took the body of Jesus and bound him in cloths with the spices . . .” (“myrrh and aloes” according to v. 39). For the lexical pair ἀρώματα καὶ μύρα see also Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 6.2.1; Plutarch, Alexander 20.13; Artemidorus, Onirocriticon 2.49 (Pack 1963, 181.16).

56b The narrated time pauses for the day of the Sabbath rest, which the readers spend with the women. In this way, Luke wants not so much to emphasize the Torah piety of the women (according to m. Shabbat 8.1 it was prohibited to carry out even as little oil as one required “to anoint a body part”) as to mark a narrative break, which clearly demarcates the events that follow in 24.1ff from what has been narrated thus far. 24.1-­52(53): On the First Day of the New Week All the events that Luke narrates in this chapter take place on a single day—­“on the first day of the week” (v. 1) after the Sabbath, which followed the day of Jesus’s death (see also vv. 13, 33). A rough narrative rhythmizing of this narrative collecting basin is marked by the places to which Luke has assigned the individual scenes—­vv. 1-­12: the tomb; vv. 13-­29: on the way to Emmaus; vv. 30-­32: in Emmaus; vv. 33-­49: Jerusalem; vv. 50-­53: Bethany. In actuality, however, the narrative is much more unsettled than this structure lets it appear (see also Mainville 2005). The narrative figures are constantly on the move (three times Luke has them “return” [ὑποστρέφειν]: vv. 9, 33, 52; see also already 23.48, 56): (a) the women go to the tomb (v. 1); (b) they return from the tomb and go to the disciples (v. 9); (c) Peter runs to the tomb and goes away from it again (v. 12); (d) two disciples go from Jerusalem to Emmaus (vv. 13-­29); (e) they return to Jerusalem (v. 52); (f) Jesus leads out the disciples to Bethany (v. 50); (g) Jesus is translated into heaven (v. 51); (h) the disciples return to Jerusalem (v. 52). Only with v. 53 (“They were continually in the temple praising God”) does the narrative come to rest.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 539

The constellations of figures that result from the eventful sequence of scenes are also varied: (a) the women and two men (vv. 1-­8); (b) the women and the other disciples (vv. 9-­11); (c) Peter alone (v. 12); (d) the Emmaus disciples and Jesus (vv. 13-­32); (e) the Emmaus disciples and the other disciples (vv. 33-­35); (f) Jesus and the disciples (vv. 36-­52), until (g) the disciples are alone with themselves (v. 53). The relatively high number of retrospectives (analepses) is also conspicuous. In vv. 6b-­8, 9, 19-­24, 35, 44 reference is made narrative-­ internally to events that the readers know through their previous reading, while v. 34 refers, with the appearance before Peter, to a narrative-­external event, i.e., to an event that has not previously been recounted. Likewise, the multiple references to the resurrection of Jesus (6a, 26, 34, 46) are narrative-­external retrospectives. Because it is unnarratable for Luke (contrast Gospel of Peter 9–­10 [35–­42]), he can depict it only in the narrative form of such analepses, through which the events that are actually recounted are interpreted. 24.1-­12: The Empty Tomb

On the first day of the week they came at daybreak to the tomb in order to bring the spices that they had prepared. 2But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3and when they went in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4And it happened that, when they fell into confusion over this—­behold, two men approached them in shining clothing. 5But as they took fright and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living one among the dead? 6He is not here, but he has been raised! Remember how he spoke to you when he was still in Galilee 7and said of the Son of Man that he must be handed over into the hands of sinful people and be crucified and rise on the third day!” 8And they remembered his words. 9 And after they returned from the tomb, they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10Now it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary, the (mother) of James, and the remaining (women) with them. They told these things to the apostles, 11but these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they did not believe the women. 12But Peter got up and ran to the tomb. He looked in carefully and saw merely the bandages. Thereupon he went home—­full of amazement at what had happened. 1

The episode attaches directly to 23.56, for the women of v. 55 are not renominalized again. Rather, they remain in the focus of the narrative

540

The Gospel According to Luke

that consists of three subscenes: the women in the tomb (vv. 1-­8); the women report their experiences to the disciples, who do not believe them (vv. 9-­11); Peter’s visit to the tomb (v. 12). In vv. 1-­8 building blocks are intergrated that belong to the form-­specific elements of appearance stories (see ad loc. and at 1.8-­25 and 2.8-­14): (a) ἐφίστημι + dative of person (v. 4b); (b) the recipient of the appearance becomes afraid (v. 5a); (c) the speech of the one who appears (vv. 5c-­7). The narrative is based on Mark 16.1-­8. Traditions alongside Mark cannot be discerned. Rather, the expansions in vv. 9-­11 and v. 12 probably go back to Luke (cf. Neirynck 1982/1991/2001, I: 297–­312). The agreement of v. 12b with John 20.5 presents a special tradition-­historical problem (see the introductory comments on 22.1–­24.52[53] under [g]; for the text-­critical problem see at v. 12b). I do not have a solution that would be more than a possible explanation. I continue to regard the suggestion that the author of the final redaction of the Gospel of John knew the Gospel of Luke to be better than all other explanations (see also Neirynck 1982/1991/2001, I: 297–­312, 313–­28, 329–­34, 401–­40, 441–­55; III: 549–­ 571, 572–­578; Neirynck 2002). The following minor agreements should be mentioned. The interior monologue of the women in Mark 16.3 is lacking between v. 1, 2par. Matthew 28.1, 2; ἐμφόβων or ἀπὸ . . . τοῦ φόβου (v. 5apar. Matthew 28.4a) as reaction to the appearance of the angel(s) instead of ἐξεθαμβήθησαν (Mark 16.5c); the sequence of words οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε . . . ἠγέρθη (v. 6apar. Matthew 28.6a) instead of ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε (Mark 16.6d); the reminder of the announcement (of the suffering and) resurrection (ὡς ἐλάλησεν) in 6b has a counterpart in καθὼς εἶπεν (Matthew 28.6) and is without a Markan equivalent; in v. 9par. Matthew 28.8 the women tell the disciples about the empty tomb (in each case with the verb ἀπαγγέλλειν), while they “said nothing to anybody” according to Mark 16.8; cf. further Neirynck 1974b, 193ff; 1991, 90–­91; Ennulat 1994, 409ff.

1 The readers could already expect on the basis of the note about the resting in 23.56b that the narrative would continue on the first day of the new week (ἡμέρᾳ must be supplemented to τῇ . . . μιᾷ). With ἡτοίμασαν ἀρώματα Luke additionally takes up the identical phrasing in 23.56a. The expression ὄρθρου βαθέως (genitive of time; cf. BDR §186.2) is a Greek idiom (cf. Aristophanes, Vespae 216; Plato, Crito 43a; Phlegon of Tralles, De mirabilibus 1.14; Galen, De methodo medendi, ed. Kühn 1964, X: 614.11; De praenotione ad Epiginem, XIV: 654.14; see also Wallace 1989). 2-­3 The entrance to tomb complexes, which was driven more or less horizontally into a rock, was usually closed with a great disc-­shaped stone, which moved within a duct and could be rolled to the side. On the surface of the text, Luke lets the readers share in the experience of the women. His



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 541

manner of narration produces a narrative node that can have multiple solutions, for the fact that Jesus’s corpse is no longer in the tomb is only one of multiple possible explanations. With the continuation of the narrative Luke will make clear, further, that there could be multiple causes even for the disappearance of Jesus’s corpse from the tomb, of which “resurrection” is anything but the closest at hand (cf. vv. 11, 23-­24). In this way, Luke expresses that the empty tomb, on account of its ambiguity (cf. Matthew 28.13; John 20.2), is fundamentally not able to ground the Christian Easter message—­and historically it also did not ground it. The empty tomb is not a sufficient condition for the certainty of the Easter faith. Luke is the only evangelist who speaks at this point of the fact that the women “did not find” (οὐχ εὗρον) Jesus’s corpse. This note has a tradition-­historical substructure in which the fate of Jesus is already recognizable. In multiple texts it always comes to the “non-­finding” of a corpse when a person is translated; cf. Genesis 5.24 of Enoch: “And because he walked with God, God took him (MT: ‫;ל ַקח‬ ָ LXX: μετατίθημι), and he was no longer found (οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο)”; 2 Kings 2.17 of Elijah: “And they sent fifty men, and they searched for Elijah for three days, and they did not find him (καὶ οὐχ εὗρον αὐτόν)”; Testament of Job 39.12 about the children of Job: “You will not find my children (οὐ γὰρ εὑρήσετε), for they were taken up into heaven (ἀνελήμφθησαν)”; for the non-­Jewish sphere cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 1.64.4: as after a battle the body (σῶμα) of Aeneas disappeared (φανερὸν οὐδαμῇ γενόμενον), “they assumed that he had been transposed to the gods (εἰς θεοὺς μεταστῆναι)”; Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses 25.4 (after two virgins had voluntarily let themselves be killed to end a pestilence, it says): “But Persephone and Hades had mercy and made the bodies of the virgins invisible. Instead of them they carried up stars from the earth. They seemed, however, to have been carried up to heaven (τὰ μὲν σώματα τῶν παρθένων ἠφάνισαν, ἀντὶ δ’ ἐκείνων ἀστέρας ἀνήνεγκαν ἐκ τῆς γῆς οἱ δὲ φανέντες ἀνηνέχθησαν εἰς οὐρανόν)”; Diogenes Laertius 8.68–­69 with the report on the death of Empedocles (in the background stands the connection between apotheosis and translation; on this see at v. 52): “He threw himself in the fiery crater (of Mount Etna) and disappeared, because he wanted to confirm the rumor about him that he had become a god (ὅτι γεγόνοι θεός)”; Diodorus Siculus 4.38.5 of Heracles: they “came to search for the bones, and when they did not find a single bone (μηδὲν ὅλως ὀστοῦν εὐρόντες) they assumed that Heracles . . . had been transposed from the people to the gods (ἐξ ἀνθρώπων εἰς θεοὺς μεθεστάσθαι)”; Arrian, Anabasis 7.27.3 about Alexander the Great: he wanted to throw himself into the Euphrates so that his disappearance would be interpreted as “translation to the gods (παρὰ θεοὺς ἡ ἀποχώρησις)”; see also Bickermann 1988; K. Berger 1976, 117ff.

542

The Gospel According to Luke

4 For the Septuagintal style of the introduction (καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ + infinitive with subject), see at 5.12; both here and there the narrative continues with a καὶ-­ἰδού sentence. The perplexity of the women over their not-­ finding of the corpse makes clear that Luke ascribes no meaning at all to the emptiness of the tomb as such for the emergence of the news of the resurrection (see also Burchard 1998, 339: “The empty tomb lets nothing tremendous be suspected, but creates confusion”); cf. also Chariton of Aphrodisias 3.3.1–­2: ἀπορία as reaction to the fact that the stones were removed from the entrance of a tomb and the entrance lies open. With ἐφίστημι + dative Luke had already had a heavenly messenger appear in 2.9 (see also Acts 12.7; 23.11; for parallels outside the New Testament see at 2.9). While he does not identify the two men here as angels expressis verbis, he does identify them as such through their clothing, and in v. 23 he then also calls them angels (the singular ἐν ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ is meant distributively; cf. BDR §140). They appear on the scene in an equally abrupt way as do the angels of 2.9 and Acts 1.10 (cf. in this text the closeness to v. 4: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο παρειστήκεισαν αὐτοῖς ἐν ἐσθήσεσι λευκαῖς; see also Acts 10.30). I do not know why Luke doubles the number of the angels in the tomb vis-­à-­vis Mark 16.5. One should not appeal to the rule of the two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19.5), for the women are located in a tomb and not before a court (contra Marshall; Nolland; Bock; Eckey); perhaps C. F. Evans 894 has struck upon the correct answer: “a conventional trait to heighten the effect.” 5 The women react to this encounter in accordance with the genre. They take fright (in 24.37 and Acts 10.4 Luke also describes the reaction to appearances with ἔμφοβος γενόμενος; see also Acts 24.25; Revelation 11.13; for general comments on fright as a reaction to appearances, see at 1.12). The readers are meant to interpret the bowing of their faces to the ground as a gesture of humility; cf. 1 Enoch 14.24–­25 (“The Lord called me with his mouth and said to me, ‘Come here, Enoch . . . !’ And he raised me up and brought me to the door, but I lowered my gaze”) as well as Daniel 10.15 likewise within an appearance story (“When he spoke with me in this way, I directed my face to the earth and became silent”). Elsewhere, too, the speech of the one who appears is often opened with a rhetorical “why” question, the intention of which consists in reproaching the behavior of the respective addressees (see at 2.48). The examples range from Numbers 22.32 (the angel to Balaam: “Why have you struck your donkey three times already?”) via Jubilees 17.11; 2 Baruch 22.1–­2; 55.3–­4; Luke 24.38; Acts 1.10-­11 through to Acts 9.4; 22.7; 26.14 (Jesus to Paul: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”) and Revelation 17.7 (“And the angel said to me, ‘Why do you marvel?’”); see also K. Berger 1976, 557–­58. Thematically the reproach refers to the fact that the women



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 543

seek Jesus in a tomb. Accordingly, its propositional content lies in the information that Jesus is found no longer among the dead but among the living. The rhetorical question may have already been proverbial in New Testament times (cf. Exodus Rabbah 5 [71c] on Exodus 5.1 in Bill. II: 269). 6-­7 It is first explained to the women why they have not found Jesus (v. 3) or why he is no longer “among the dead” (v. 5). Thus, the resurrection is not inferred from the emptiness of the tomb, but it is exactly the other way around—­the emptiness of the tomb is explained via the resurrection. Narratologically it is a “resolving retrospective”; cf. Lämmert 1975, 108: “Through the unveiling of previously unknown events or connections or through the clarification of an event that previously remained mysterious in the narrative, it resolves the knots of the action, smooths out the conflicts, or makes them comprehensible.”

ἠγέρθη is a passivum divinum that paraphrases God’s action. The angels’ pointer reminds not only the women but also the readers of the announcement of the passion and the resurrection of 9.22 in particular (δεῖ; υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ; ἐγερθῆναι) as well as of the pure passion announcement of 9.44 (ἀνθρώπου; παραδίδοσθαι εἰς χεῖρας ἀνθρώπων), which Jesus had made still during his Galilean time, before the beginning of the peregrination to Jerusalem. Moreover, there are terminological points of contact with Mark 14.41 (handing over of the Son of Man “into the hands of sinners”). The angels do not quote the wording of the announcements but give a free paraphrase of their content. For the leftward shift (prolepsis) of τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου see also Acts 13.32-­33; BDR §476.2; Lausberg 1949, §64. 8 The seemingly redundant information (but see also 22.61; Acts 11.16) is meant to point the readers indirectly to the fact that the aforementioned announcements actually took place. Therefore, the much-­discussed question of whether through this Luke credits the women with belief in the resurrection (cf. Dillon 1978, 51; Plevnik 1987, 93; Melzer-­Keller 1997, 269–­70; Nolland; Bock; Klein) misses the mark. By the way, Luke does not do so. The certainty of the resurrection of Jesus comes solely from the direct encounter with the risen one (cf. vv. 31, 34, 36ff), which creates witnesses, and then later from the proclamation of this eyewitness. 9 The narrative makes a temporal and spatial jump. Luke leaves open how the women leave the tomb. Cf., by contrast, Mark 16.8 (driven by “fear and trembling”) or Matthew 28.8 (running “with fear and great joy”). The “eleven” are the twelve apostles without Judas Iscariot, and “all the rest” (πάντες οἱ λοιποί) are the same as οἱ σὺν αὐτοῖς, whom Luke associated with the eleven in v. 33 and to whom he also assigns the Emmaus

544

The Gospel According to Luke

disciples (cf. vv. 22-­23). ταῦτα πάντα designates everything that Luke has narrated in vv. 1-­8. 10a Only now do the readers learn the names of the women. Of these names, only Mary Magdalene and Mary “of James” (Mark 15.40 calls her James’s mother) agree with the names mentioned in Mark 16.1. In place of Salome we find Joanna, whom Luke evidently wanted to be identified with the identically named wife of the Herodian administrative official Chuza, who was mentioned in 8.2. This switch has above all the function of strengthening the recollection of Jesus’s time in Galilee in v. 6 (but see also 23.49, 55). The syntax of the sentence is not as unclear as is often claimed (cf. Marshall 887; in text-­critical respect one must assume the reconstruction in Nestle/Aland27). The front-­placed ἦσαν δέ is an independent predicate (see also Matthew 27.55; Mark 2.6; 6.31; 8.9; Acts 2.42; 11.20; 20.8 and elsewhere), and the names of the three women function as predicate nominatives. καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ σὺν αὐταῖς must be syntactically coordinated with them, for this phrasing is evidently intended to refer to the ἕτεραι πολλαί (γυναῖκες), whom Luke had mentioned in 8.2-­3 as accompanying and supporting Jesus alongside the three women identified by name. Thus, through them he strengthens once more the connection to Galilee. 10b-­11 The three women and the αἱ λοιπαὶ σὺν αὐταῖς are also the subject of ἔλεγον (10b). The imperfect makes the repetition of the content of v. 9 into the background information of vv. 11-­12. The reaction of the apostles makes clear once more what little value Luke assigns to the empty tomb for the certainty of the resurrection of Jesus, especially when one sets over against it the context of recognition between resurrection and appearance expressed in v. 34 with ὄντως ἠγέρθη ὁ κύριος καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι. That Luke regarded the emptiness of the tomb as meaningless for the certainty of the resurrection of Jesus also emerges from Acts 2.25-­28 (cf. Lindemann 2002, 446–­47). For λῆρος cf. Spicq 1994, II: 387–­88 with the pointer to the fact that this word is also used as a medical professional term to designate the confused speech of delirious people ill with fever. Luke certainly does not want to trace the reaction of the apostles back to the fact that they give no credence to the report of the women because they regarded women in general as untrustworthy. Rather, they only do not believe them because they could not imagine that Jesus has risen from the dead (cf. also Vahrenhorst 1998, 286ff). 12 The pleonastic ἀναστὰς ἔδραμεν is a Septuagintism that almost exclusively occurs in Luke in the New Testament (see at 1.39). For the overlap of this verse with parts of John 20.3-­5, 10 and for the explanation of this phenomenon, see the introductory comments to 24.1-­12.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 545

That this verse belongs to the original text of Luke, which had long been disputed for text-­critical reasons (it is lacking in D it), is regarded today as secure on the basis of its attestation by 𝔓75 and all the other manuscripts (see also Muddiman 1972; Neirynck 1982/1991/2001, I: 313–­28; Ross 1987). Plus, in v. 24 Luke probably refers to this visit to the tomb, even though the weight of this argument is contested by Dauer 1990. To date, to be sure, a convincing reason neither for the secondary deletion of this verse nor for its secondary addition has been found.

Luke has Peter react differently from the other apostles. What he sees is of great significance for the reality of the resurrection of Jesus, and it goes in this respect beyond the mythical experience of the women. The adjective μόνα with ὀθόνια means very pointedly—­‘without the body of Jesus wrapped in them.’ Above all, this phenomenon appears to rule out the possibility that Jesus’s corpse was stolen (cf. Matthew 28.13-­15), for in this case he would have been taken away—­not least because one could carry him better—­in a wrapped condition, i.e., with the bandages. The possibility that only the soul left the body is also ruled out by what Peter sees. Furthermore, the information from 23.53, according to which Jesus was placed in a still unused tomb, receives new significance. It rules out the possibility that they are the bandages of another corpse. ὀθόνια designates the bandages with which the dead are wrapped (cf. Blinzler 1954/1955; Spicq 1994, II: 564ff with reference to John 11.44 and P. Hibeh 794.5). It emerges from παρακύψας that in the narrative Peter does not enter the tomb complex but looks in from outside. Whether one can translate it with “bend forward, stoop” (thus most translations and commentaries) must remain open. There are too many texts in which the verb is used without this meaning; cf. e.g., as here with a following verb of seeing, Genesis 26.8 (παρακύψας δὲ Ἀβιμέλεχ . . . εἶδεν [“A. looked . . . and saw”]); Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae 799 (αὖθις τὸ κακὸν παρακύψαν ἰδεῖν [“Time and again they gawked in order to see the evil thing”]); Plutarch, Moralia 766d (a woman who was called παρακύπτουσα [“gawkeress”] because she παρακύψασα τὸν ἐραστὴν ἰδεῖν ἐκκομιζόμενον [“gawked in order to see how her beloved was carried out”]); see also Proverbs 7.6; Sirach 23.8; 2 Enoch 9.1; James 2.25 as well as Neirynck 1982/1991/2001, I: 401–­40. The thing to which πρὸς ἑαυτόν refers is not clear, because a parallel can be produced both for a connection with ἀπῆλθεν and for a connection with θαυμάζων (the Vulgate translates in this sense: abiit secum mirans quod factum fuerat; see also Muddiman 1972, 543–­44 and others); cf., on the one side, Numbers 24.25 (“Balaam rose and went away . . . and also Balak ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς ἑαυτόν”; see also the material compiled in support of this interpretation by Neirynck 1982/1991/2001, I: 441–­45) and, on the other side, 2 Maccabees 11.13 (πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀντιβάλλων τὸ γεγονός [“pondering with himself what had happened”]).

546

The Gospel According to Luke

I could not find a parallel for the precise wording θαυμάζειν πρὸς ἑαυτόν, however, and therefore I have connected πρὸς ἑαυτόν with ἀπῆλθεν in the translation.

Luke has Peter “marvel” (θαυμάζων) and thereby places him in a series with the relatives of Elisabeth (1.63), the shepherds (2.18), Jesus’s parents (2.33), the inhabitants of Nazareth (4.22), and the disciples saved from the danger at sea (8.25; see also the attestations mentioned at 1.63). With this term, he ascribes to all of them a highly ambivalent reaction. The event certainly makes an impression on them, but they are all—­including Peter—­far from grasping its real significance. 24.13-­35: The Emmaus Disciples Encounter the Risen One 13

And behold, on the same day two of them were going to a village that was sixty stadia away from Jerusalem; it was named Emmaus. 14 And they were talking about all these events with each other. 15And it happened, as they were talking and discussing, that Jesus himself approached and went with them. 16But their eyes were hindered from recognizing him. 17And he said to them, “What are these words that you are exchanging with each other while walking?” Thereupon they stopped, looking sad, 18and the one named Cleopas answered and said to him, “Are you the only visitor of Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened in the city in these days?” 19And he said to them, “What things?” They responded, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who proved to be a prophet, powerful in deed and word before God and the whole people: 20how the chief priests and our leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one who would redeem Israel. And what is more, this is (already) the third day since these things happened. 22And also some women among us have confounded us. After they had come in the early morning to the tomb 23and had not found his body, they came and said that they had also seen an appearance of angels who said that he was alive. 24And some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as also the women had said. But him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “You (are really) foolish and slow of understanding to believe all that the prophets have said. 26Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?” 27 Then he began with Moses and all the prophets and explained to them what (stands written) about him in all the Scriptures. 28 And they came into the vicinity of the village to which they were going, and he acted as though he wanted to go further. 29But they



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 547

pressed him and said, “Remain with us, for it is toward evening, and the day has declined.” And he went in to stay with them. 30And it happened, after he had reclined with them at table, he took the bread, spoke the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him. And he disappeared from them. 32 And they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us as he spoke to us on the way, as he opened the Scriptures to us?” 33 And they set out in that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven gathered and those who were with them. 34 They said, “The Lord has indeed been raised, and he has appeared to Simon.” 35Then they too recounted the things on the way and how he had become known to them in the breaking of the bread. The Lukan narrative makes a jump. The beginning of a new episode is signaled in v. 13 by the fact that the scene and narrative characters change. However, the proform αὐτῶν, which takes up πᾶσιν τοῖς λοιποῖς (v. 9), also establishes the connection to the preceding episode as does the dating “on the same day,” which refers back to “on the first day of the week” of v. 1. Moreover, the comprehensive back reference περὶ πάντων τῶν συμβεβηκότων τούτων (v. 14) and the analeptic new narration in vv. 22-­24 of the events reported in vv. 1-­12 also presuppose that the readers are familiar with these events. With the help of the scenic specifications in v. 35, the story can be roughly structured into three parts: (a) on the way to Emmaus or τὰ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (vv.  13-­27); (b) in Emmaus or ὡς ἐγνώσθη αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου (vv.  28-­32); (c) back in Jerusalem or epilogue (vv. 33-­ 35). A clear inclusio that encloses the first two parts is established by the phrasings “but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him” (v. 16) and “then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him” (v. 31). The narrative slope of the Emmaus episode has its mirror image in the sequence of the narratives of the feeding of the five thousand, the messianic insight of the disciples, and the first announcement of the passion and the resurrection in 9.12-­22 (see in detail at 9.1-­36). 13 On the back references to vv. 1, 9, see above. Of the two disciples only one is identified by name later (cf. v. 18), while the other remains anonymous. Some interpreters have understood this as an invitation to speculate over his identity (cf. recently Riesner 2003, 169ff), but such speculation must remain entirely fruitless. This imbalance is possibly an indication that the tradition originally knew of only a single disciple—­ namely Cleopas—­and that the introduction of a second disciple by Luke is due to the principle of two witnesses, which are required in order to secure the truth of the matter (cf. Jeremias 1966, 132ff). Furthermore, Luke also needs two disciples, of course, so that they could talk with one another

548

The Gospel According to Luke

(v. 14) and in this way prepare a point of contact for the conversation with Jesus (v. 17). The form of the identification by name of the place (ὄνομα + name) is attested in the New Testament only in Luke (see in addition 1.26, 27; 2.25; 8.41; Acts 13.6); see further at 1.26. To this day we do not know what place is in view, for nothing is known of an “Emmaus” that is “sixty stadia” from Jerusalem. A stadion is equivalent to ca. 185 meters (the 192 meters in W. Bauer 1988, s.v. are related to the length of the stadion of Olympia), so that 60 stadia would be ca. 11 kilometers. The distance of 160 stadia handed down in some manuscripts (‫ א‬K* N Θ 079vid lect. 844, lect. 211 pc vgmss Eusebius of Caesarea, Hieronymus) is not only more poorly attested than “60 stadia” (thus, among others, 𝔓75 A B D f 1,13), but it can also be explained as a secondary adjustment to the location of the only place that is known by the name Emmaus since pre-­Christian times and is about 30 kilometers (ca. 162 stadia) from Jerusalem (see below at [a]). Etymologically the name should probably be derived from Hebrew ‫“( חמם‬to become warm”), which could point to the presence of warm springs. Six of the places that are found in the discussion may be mentioned here (cf. further V. Michel 2003, 124–­41; Riesner 2003, 177ff; Schmitt 1995, 52ff). (a) The place located ca. thirty kilometers northwest of Jerusalem on the road to Tel Aviv that was already mentioned with the name Ἐμμαοῦς/Ἀμμαοῦς/ Emmaus (Arabic Amwas; cf. Möller/Schmitt 1995, 15–­16; Tsafrir 1994, 119–­20) in 1 Maccabees 3.40, 57; 4.3; 9.50 and then in Josephus, Bellum judaicum 1.222, 319; 2.63, 71, 568; 3.55; 4.444, 449; 5.42, 67; Antiquitates judaicae 12.298; 13.15; 14.276, 436; 17.282, 291; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 5.70. This identification was already made in ancient church times. In the third century the place was renamed Nicopolis (cf. Eusebius, Onomasticon, GCS XI/1, Eusebius Werke III/1: 90.15–­17: “Emmaus, whence Cleopas came. . . . It is now called Nicopolis, which was previously called Emmaus”); for the excavations cf. M. Gichon, Emmaus, NEAEHL 2: 385–­89; see also Kopp 1964, 445ff. Against this identification, it has been objected that Emmaus/Nicopolis is not 60 but 160 stadia from Jerusalem. This contradiction has also left traces in the New Testament textual tradition (see above). (b) The Ἀμμαοῦς that is located thirty stadia west-­northwest of Jerusalem according to Josephus, Bellum judaicum 7.217 (the place name is, to be sure, not handed down uniformly in the manuscripts; cf. Schmitt 1995, 53–­54; Riesner 2003, 181ff), where Vespasian had eight hundred Roman soldiers settle (cf. Möller/Schmitt 1976, 16–­17; Tsafrir 1994, 105 [s.v. colonia]; Thiede 2004). What is in view is probably today’s Kalōnije (from Latin colonia), which is located ca. seven kilometers from Jerusalem. In the vicinity is the location of the Ham-­moza (‫;הּמ ָֹצה‬ ַ m. Sukkah 4.5: ‫)מֹוצא‬ ָ mentioned in Joshua 18.26, which does sound similar to “Emmaus” phonetically.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 549

(c) el-­Qubēbe, located ca. twelve kilometers (ca. sixty-­five stadia) northwest of Jerusalem. Its identification with the Lukan Emmaus is attested for the first time in the Middle Ages, which makes it quite unlikely that we have the historical Emmaus before us here. This also applies for the same reasons to the location mentioned in d. (d) Abu Goš, located ca. thirteen kilometers (ca. seventy stadia) west of Jerusalem (the Old Testament Kirjath-­Jearim), which was identified with the Lukan Emmaus for the first time during the Crusades. (e) Bīr el-­Hammām (cf. Zwickel 1994), located ca. eleven kilometers (ca. sixty stadia) north of Jerusalem. The distance and the similarity of name can be invoked in support of this proposal. What speaks against it, however, is the fact that there is no tradition at all for this identification. (f) Codex D 05 hands down not Ἐμμαοῦς but Οὐλαμμαοῦς, which Read-­ Heimerdinger/Rius-­Camps 2002 identify with the Οὐλαμλοῦς (Heb.: ‫)אּולם‬ ָ mentioned in Genesis 28.19LXX, the later Bethel, and regard as the original reading. A decision is not possible. The name “Emmaus,” like “Cleopas” (v. 18), probably belonged to a tradition of the encounter with the risen one that Luke took up without knowing where this place was located. Further, quite a bit speaks for the view that this tradition did not originally speak of Easter Sunday but that this temporal specification was first made by Luke. Finally, one should also take into account the fact that sixty stadia is evidently a round standard distance that stands for two hours of travel (cf. Möller/Schmitt 1976, 16). Accordingly, when one compares the frequency of the specifications of distance in Josephus with one another, a revealing finding emerges. As distance between two places he mentions thirty stadia (thus one journey hour): thirteen times; forty stadia: never; fifty stadia: three times; sixty stadia (thus two journey hours): nine times; seventy stadia: one time; eighty stadia: two times; ninety stadia: three times. Therefore, it is very likely that it was Luke himself who came up with the standard distance of sixty stadia. Thus, this specification becomes worthless for the determination of the location of Emmaus (see also Möller/Schmitt 1976, 16).

14 This information presupposes a comprehensive macro-­narrative, for only in this way can the readers be able to make something of the phrasing πάντα τὰ συμβεβηκότα ταῦτα, namely with the help of their reading recollection. Moreover, this phrasing is a Greek idiom, which sometimes occurs in the Septuagint, though without a Hebrew equivalent (cf. Joshua 2.23; 1 Maccabees 4.26; Job 1.22; 2.10; 42.11 as well as Philo, De specialibus legibus 4.25; Testament of Job 9.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Demosthene 50.2; Plutarch, Moralia 117a; Cassius Dio 43.17.4; down to Job 2.10, yet always without a demonstrative pronoun). 15-­16 For the Septuagintal style of the introduction in 15a (καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ + infinitive with subject), see at 5.12. Luke apparently wishes to

550

The Gospel According to Luke

create the impression that Jesus goes in the same direction as the two disciples and catches up with them. The reason for the non-­recognition lies not on the side of Jesus—­for example, because he would have appeared to the disciples in a form that was foreign to them (Mark 16.12 gives this explanation: Jesus appeared . . . ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ)—­but on the side of the disciples: because their eyes were incapable of recognizing him. In this respect, the narrative differs from the many stories in which gods or their messengers come upon the earth in human form and for precisely this reason remain unrecognized (e.g., Genesis 18; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 1.196; Homer, Odyssea 1.105; 17.485–­487; Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.626ff; Plutarch, Moralia 307e–­f; see also Bultmann 1995, 310; Flückiger-­Guggenheim 1984). Nevertheless, the narrative does not remain completely without points of contact with this motif (see esp. at v. 29). The expression οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ . . . ἐκρατοῦντο is unclear. An explanation of it as a Hebraism is possible, for the equivalent ‫ אחז ֵעינַ יִם‬is attested in rabbinic literature (m. Sanhedrin 7.11 and elsewhere; cf. Bill. II: 271–­72), and the verb ‫ אחז‬is translated on multiple occasions with κρατεῖν (e.g., Judges 16.21B; 20.6; Ruth 3.15; 2 Samuel 6.6; 20.9; Ecclesiastes 2.3). Psalm 77.5 (‫משרֹות ֵעינָ י‬ ֻ ‫“[ ָא ַחזְ ָּת ְׁש‬You held the lids of my eyes”]) only seems to be a parallel at first glance, for there the concern is not that the eyes be “held closed” or “closed” but that the one praying is plagued by sleeplessness. Thus, Schwarz 1990 has misunderstood this text. Another possibility is that κρατεῖν should be interpreted not from the connection with ὀφθαλμοί, but from the connection with τοῦ μή (see also W. Bauer 1988, 911). Texts such as Testament of Solomon C 10.43 (δύναται κρατεῖν τὸν ἥλιον τοῦ μὴ φαίνεσθαι [“He can prevent the sun from shining”]); Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon 2.1.1 (οὐ . . . ἐδυνάμην ἐμαυτοῦ κἂν ἐπ’ ὀλίγον κρατεῖν τοῦ μὴ ὁρᾶν τῆν κόρην [“I could not prevent myself even only briefly from looking at the girl”]) or Bel and the DragonTheodotion 19 (Then Daniel laughed καὶ ἐκράτησεν τὸν βασιλέα τοῦ μὴ εἰσελθεῖν αὐτὸν ἔσω [“and prevented the king from entering”]) show that κρατεῖν τοῦ μή + infinitive basically means “to prevent someone from doing something” (see also Revelation 7.1: κρατεῖν . . . ἵνα μή). It cannot be ruled out that the passive form is meant to be a passivum divinum. In any case, the imperfect expresses the continuing nature of the ignorance.

With this the readers know more than the two disciples until v. 31. Luke had used a similar narrative technique already in 1.26-­38, where the readers learn straight away in the first verse that Gabriel is sent to Mary and she is never even aware of whom she has before her. 17-­18 The initial question of Jesus in v. 17 opens the conversation, which then ends in vv. 19b-­27 with the presentations of the two Jesus images. On the question τίνες οἱ λόγοι οὗτοι, cf. the singular equivalent in



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 551

2 Samuel 1.4; 2 Esdras 23.17; Susanna 47Theodotion; Luke 4.36; John 7.36. The adjective σκυθρωπός is used here in a predicate manner (cf. BDR §270.3); for its semantic profile, which reaches from grief to displeasure, cf. (respectively of “faces” [πρόσωπα]) Matthew 6.16; Genesis 40.7; Sirach 35.23; 3 Maccabees 5.34; Daniel 1.10Theodotion; see also PsalmLXX 34.14; 37.7; 41.10; 42.2; Proverbs 15.13; Philo, De mutatione nominum 169. In vv. 20-­21 Luke will show that the sorrow of the disciples relates to the death of Jesus and their disappointed hopes for the liberation of Israel. Victor 2009, ad loc., advocates the originality of the reading καί ἐστε σκυθρωποί, which is attested by Ac W Θ Ψ f 1,13 33. However, not only can the considerations to which he appeals be reversed in every case, but they make the originality of the reading attested by 𝔓75 ‫ א‬A* B and others even more likely. The intransitive use of the passive ἐστάθησαν in the sense of “they stopped” corresponds to Luke 18.40 (σταθεὶς δὲ Ἰησοῦς). The name Cleopas (18a) is a short form of Κλεόπατρος (like Antipas is of Antipatros), which is attested in Plutarch, Aratus 40.5; Herodianus Grammaticus, Partitiones 64 and elsewhere. Whether it is the Graecised version of “Clopas” (John 19.25; Aramaic ‫ )קלופא‬must remain open. If this were the case, the same would apply of course to the next question of whether the two New Testament bearers of this name are identical (on this see Frenschkowski 1997, 236). According to Hegesippus in Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica 3.11.2, Clopas “whom the text of the gospel also mentions” (οὗ καὶ ἡ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου μνημονεύει γραφή) was the brother of Joseph, i.e, Jesus’s uncle. The Clopas of John 19.25 is undoubtedly meant. The lack of any reference to the Emmaus story in Hegesippus makes it rather unlikely that the two persons are identified with each other here (see Ilan 2002, 291–­92).

παροικεῖς Ἰερουσαλήμ means that Jesus had stayed in Jerusalem as a visitor (cf. 1 Peter 1.17; 2.11; Genesis 12.10; 2 Kings 4.3 and elsewhere; Feldmeier 1992, 12ff). The rhetorical question is based on the experience that visitors are usually more poorly informed about events in a city than their inhabitants (cf. the use of this phenomenon within an analogous rhetorical question in Cicero, Pro Milone 12.33: An vero, iudices, vos soli ignoratis, vos hospites in hac urbe versamini, vestrae peregrinantur aures. . . ? [“Do you really not know, you judges, as the only ones, do you stay in the city as visitors, are your ears out travelling . . . ?”]). The question implies that Jesus is even more poorly informed than those who are poorly informed in any case, and between the lines it explains the events that are under consideration here as so sensational that it is extremely extraordinary that there is even a single visitor who would not have learned about them; cf. the similar phrasings in Aelius Aristides, Ars rhetorica, Spengel

552

The Gospel According to Luke

1953–­1956, II: 3.1.5.61 (σὺ μόνος οὐ γινώσκεις ὅτι οὕτω χρὴ ἀδελφοῖς προσφέρεσθαι; [“Do you alone not know that one must treat brothers in this way?”]); Apuleius, Metamorphoses 1.22 (An tu solus ignoras praeter aurum argentumque nullum nos pignus admittere? [“Or are you the only one who does not know that we accept nothing as security except for gold and silver?”]; the one who is addressed in this way then turns out to be a visitor to the city); 4.9 (Tune solus ignoras longe faciliores ad expugnandum domus esse maiores? [“Are you the only one who does not know that bigger houses are easier to rob?”]). The narrative irony of this question consists in the fact that, first, Jesus of all people is assumed to know nothing of the events at the center of which he himself stood, and that it will then turn out in vv. 19-­26 that the exact opposite is the case. It is the two disciples who have no clue of the actual character of the events and who must be enlightened by an unknown wayfarer (see also Löning 1997/2006, I: 36). 19a-­b ποῖα refers back to the unspecified τὰ γενόμενα and is then taken up by τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ (the phrasing τὰ περί τινος is a typically Lukan expression in the New Testament; see also 24.27; Acts 1.3; 13.29; 18.25; 19.8; 23.11, 15; 24.10, 22; 28.15, 31 and 22.37; elsewhere only Ephesians 6.22; Philippians 1.27; 2.19, 20, 23; Colossians 4.8). In this way the two disciples characterize Jesus by his place of origin (cf. 4.16, 34). The relative clause has a double function. As part of the narrative it is intended to explain to the “unknown wayfarer” who Jesus is, and on the literary level, this explanation is intended to mediate to the readers what sort of image of Jesus the two disciples have. The latter function undoubtedly stands in the foreground. 19c-­21a The two disciples describe Jesus, first, as a prophet who had distinguished himself in a special way in everything that he did and said. They thus remain, of course, far behind what Jesus really is and also far behind the christological knowledge of the readers. But Luke does not want to merely demonstrate here that the disciples have still not grasped the nature of the activity of Jesus in Israel. Rather, beyond this, he wants to show what remains of the activity of Jesus after his violent death (v. 20) if the political liberation of Israel was expected from him (v. 21)—­ the memory of a prophet who had gained quite an impressive record of achievements during his life—­but nothing more. Luke demonstrates with the example of the Emmaus disciples that a Christology that projects the messianic hopes of Israel simply on the earthly mission of Jesus is uncompromisingly disproven by his passion and his death. In contrast, Jesus will make clear to them in v. 26 that there is no fulfillment of the messianic hopes of Israel without suffering, death, and resurrection. So long as this connection is not understood, Jesus can now—­i.e., after his death—­indeed



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 553

be nothing more than “a prophet . . . powerful in deed and word before God and the whole people.” Thus, the relative clause in v. 19c describes for the two disciples the result of the story of Jesus, as it presents itself to them in retrospect. In this way Luke produces again a hysteron proteron, which makes the literary sequence of v. 19c to v. 21a into a reversal of the historical sequence. The hope of the disciples (v. 21a) preceded the death of Jesus (v. 20), and at the end stands the overall assessment expressed in v. 19c. Thus, what is confronted with each other is not the memory “of the powerful prophetic activity of Jesus” and his “death on the cross brought about by the Jewish leadership” (thus Löning 1997/2006, I: 37) but the (deficient) messianic hope of the disciples and Jesus’s death on the cross. 19c Jesus’s characterization as a “prophet” corresponds to 7.16 (see also 7.39; 9.18, 16). The designation ἀνὴρ προφήτης also occurs in Judges 6.8 (Heb.: ‫איׁש נָ ִביא‬‎ ִ ); 1 Kings 18.4 (‫ ;)נָ ִביַ א‬Joseph and Aseneth 23.8 (cf. also e.g., ἀνὴρ φιλόσοφος in Aeschines, In Ctesiphonem 257; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Epistula ad Pompeium Geminum 4.1; Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.183; Plutarch, Themistocles 13.5; Pericles 26.2; Strabo, Geographica 16.4.21 and elsewhere). It is concretized with the help of an apposition that emphasizes his special qualities. In a manner that is clearly recognizable for the readers, the lexical pair ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ refers in a comprehensive way to Jesus’s deeds of power and to his teaching. δυνατὸς ἔν τινι indicates through what or within which sphere a person is distinguished; cf. Judges 11.1A (Jephtha was δυνατὸς ἐν ἰσχύϊ); PsalmLXX 23.8; Sirach 47.5 (God is and Goliath is regarded as δυνατὸς ἐν πολέμῳ); Sirach 21.7 (the eloquent person is δυνατὸς ἐν γλώσσῃ); Judith 11.8 (Judith designates Holofernes as δυνατὸς ἐν ἐπιστήμῃ); Joseph and Aseneth 4.7 (Joseph is δυνατὸς ἐν σοφίᾳ καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ); Acts 7.22 (see below); 18.24 (Apollo was δυνατὸς ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς). The lexical pair ἔργον καὶ λόγος forms a complementary dualism that comes from the Hellenistic environment of early Christianity and designates the “entirety of human activity that has outward expression” (Heiligenthal 1983a, 20). It is therefore often used in comprehensive biographical characterizations. According to Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 3.7.15, facta and dicta form the operum . . . contextus (“context of the achievements”) of a person, and in Plutarch, Moralia 92c βίος καὶ ἦθος (“life and character”) are expressed in λόγοι καὶ ἔργα (see also Plato, Respublica 498e; Theophrastus, Characteres 1.1; 6.1; 8.1 and elsewhere; Plutarch, Moralia 14a; Diogenes Laertius 1.50; in the Old Testament: Psalm 145.13; Sirach 3.8; 4 Maccabees 16.14; in the New Testament: Acts 7.22 [Moses was δυνατὸς ἐν λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις αὐτοῦ]; Romans 15.18; 2 Corinthians 10.11; Colossians 3.17; 2 Thessalonians 2.17).

554

The Gospel According to Luke

“Before God and the whole people” varies the lexical pair “before God and humans,” which is likewise encountered in biographical contexts (cf. 2.52 and the parallels mentioned there; the preposition ἐναντίον always designates the judgment of the one whom it precedes [see further at 1.6]). The reason that Luke has the λαός take the place of “humans” (for the use of this term as a designation for the chosen people of God, which is characteristic of Luke, see at 1.10) is that he wanted to have the Israel-­related nature of the mission of Jesus also confirmed from the side of Israel. 20 ὅπως takes up τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ from v. 19b and recounts what is paraphrased in v. 18c with τὰ γενόμενα (for ὅπως as a substitute for πῶς cf. BDR §300.1; 436.2). τε coordinates 20a with καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν (20b; cf. BDR §4432). Luke summarizes here the events of the passion narrative. He hides Pilate behind παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν εἰς κρίμα θανάτου (cf. Daniel 21.22; Sirach 41.3) and has, on the surface of the text, only the Jewish elite be active (the pair ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ ἄρχοντες also occurs in 23.13, though together with the λαός). In this way, the decisive responsibility for the death of Jesus is assigned to them (cf. also the fuzziness of the Lukan presentation in this regard in 23.26, 33). Here ἐσταύρωσαν is probably meant to be read as a causative active (cf. Kühner/Gerth 1890–­1898, II/1: 99–­100; Moulton/Turner 1963, III: 52–­53; see also 7.5; 9.9; 20.9, 16; 22.11). 21a This sentence interrupts the narrative of “what took place in it (sc. in the city Jerusalem) in these days” (v. 18). The fact that the interruption takes place precisely at this point—­i.e., after the report of Jesus’s crucifixion—­is of decisive significance. Luke lets the two disciples describe here their messianic hopes that they had possessed with respect to Jesus before his death and that they now regard as being destroyed by Jesus’s fate of suffering and death. It has its counterpart in 2.38 and comes to expression in the behavior of the disciples when Jesus enters Jerusalem (19.35-­38). With 21b Luke makes a temporal and substantial break in the report of the disciples. He has them transition from τὰ γενόμενα (v.  18c)—­i.e., the events which were narrated in v. 20 and to which reference is made with ταῦτα ἐγένετο—­to the events of the current day. σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις (for the phrasing cf. Judges 20.44A; 3 Maccabees 1.22) means the same thing as ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις (Luke 16.26). (ταύτην ἡμέραν) ἄγει should probably be interpreted impersonally, although such a usage is not attested; for ἡμέραν ἄγειν in the sense of “to celebrate a day,” see also Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7.2 (276b: “He asked the man who was carrying the olive-­branches, τίνα νῦν ἡμέραν ἄγει καὶ τίς ἐστὶν ἑορτή [what day he (or “one”?) was celebrating today and what festival it was]”); 1 Maccabees 13.52; 3 Maccabees 7.19; Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon 5.3.2; OGIS 90.47; Barnabas 15.9.



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 555

22-­24 Luke has the two disciples reproduce the events from their own perspective that he himself had recounted in vv. 1-­2. In Acts 11.4-­17, he proceeds in a similar manner with regard to the events narrated in 10.1-­ 48, though in Luke 24.22-­24 the disciples exclusively reproduce not what they experienced themselves but (like Peter in Acts 11.13-­14) what they heard—­namely ταῦτα πάντα that the women had experienced in vv. 1-­8. In such cases, the differences between the original authorial narrative and the narrated narrative are, of course, of particular interest. What is omitted? What is added? What is stated differently? 22 First, in 22a the events originally narrated in vv. 9b, 11 are reproduced in such a way that the reaction to the report of the women stands in the foreground. In the process, a different accent is set insofar as according to v. 11 they responded to the report of the women with ἀπιστεῖν, while the echo is described here with a term (ἐξίστημι) that Luke uses elsewhere in reports of wonder to characterize the reaction to extraordinary events (Luke 2.47; 8.56; Acts 2.7, 12; 9.9, 11,13; 9.21; 10.45; 12.16). Though ἐξίστημι always designates amazement without understanding, Luke has the disciples present themselves somewhat differently in their self-­ presentation from how he himself had portrayed them. 22b summarizes the events of vv. 1-­3, with the note of the rolling away of the stone remaining unmentioned. 23 reproduces the event of vv. 4-­8. However, all comments about the inner experience of the women are passed over—­their ἀπορεῖσθαι (v. 4a), their fright (v. 5a), and their recollection (v. 8). The extensive speech of the two angels (vv. 5b-­7) is reduced to the information that Jesus “lives.” In it one can recognize v. 5c (“Why do you seek the living one [τὸν ζῶντα] among the dead?”). That the angels had also said to the women that Jesus was raised (ἠγέρθη; v. 6a) is regarded as of just as little significance and thus worthy of reporting as the reminder of Jesus’s announcements of suffering and resurrection (vv. 6b-­7). Thus, Luke has the two disciples make a very concise selection from ταῦτα πάντα that the women had experienced and narrated (v. 9). The possibility of a resurrection of the dead as an interpretation of the events is far from their thoughts. To be sure, Luke does not want to accuse them of having not understood the women correctly; rather, he demonstrates with the help of their reproduction of the report of the women that even in conjunction with the interpretation by the angels, the empty tomb cannot mediate the certainty that Jesus is risen. To this corresponds the fact that what Jesus reinterprets in vv. 25-­27 is not the report of the women but rather his own fate. 24 With the report of the visit to the tomb narrated in v. 12 (24a-­b) the historical insignificance of the empty tomb for the emergence of the resurrection message is further cemented. Beyond what is narrated in v. 12,

556

The Gospel According to Luke

Luke presupposes in addition that Peter had reported his visit to the tomb to the other disciples and that others had also gone to the tomb after him. Through their witness, the two Emmaus disciples see the report of the women—­which had not met with belief among the apostles—­confirmed and an error ruled out. Nevertheless, the visits to the tomb could not mediate the certainty of the resurrection to any of those involved. Luke specifies the reason for this with the help of the negative statement of 24c, to which he probably very consciously assigned the emphatic final position for precisely this reason—­αὐτὸν δὲ οὐκ εἶδον. Only the appearance of Jesus before Peter (v. 34) and before all the apostles (vv. 36-­49) will make his resurrection certain among the circle of disciples (v. 34). 25 Jesus reacts with an invective, as is typical for the opening of accusation speeches (cf. Galatians 3.1; Philo, De specialibus legibus 4.200; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 8.7.12). He accuses the two disciples that their false estimation of his fate rests on an ignorance of the prophetic Scriptures. Here πιστεύειν ἐπί (πᾶσιν οἷς ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται) should probably be translated with believe (everything that the prophets believed” against BDR §1872: “believe ‘on the basis of’”). The phrasing seeks to say the same thing as Luke 1.45 (“to believe ὅτι ἔσται τελείωσις τοῖς λελαλημένοις αὐτῇ παρὰ κυρίου”) and Acts 27.25 (“I believe God, ὅτι οὕτως ἔσται καθ’ ὃν τρόπον λελάληταί μοι”). In terms of content the Lukan Jesus formulates here the same idea as the Lukan Paul with his question to Agrippa II in Acts 26.27 (πιστεύεις . . . τοῖς προφήταις; οἶδα ὅτι πιστεύεις; see also 24.14), which Agrippa answers as famously as mysteriously with ἐν ὀλίγῳ πείθεις Χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι (26.28). Thus, the propositional content of the accusation speech is clear. The fact that the hope the disciple had originally had with respect to Jesus (v. 21) has been disappointed and that on account of his death (v. 20) Jesus has been disempowered for them to a ἀνὴρ προφήτης must be traced back solely to the fact that they have not believed the prophets. Thus, the reference to the words of the prophets seeks to reconcile the original hope of the disciples (v. 21) and the fate of Jesus (v. 20). The one who believes them can do nothing other than recognize in Jesus’s fate the fate of the messianic redeemer of Israel, for—­in the words of Acts 26.22—­it belongs to what they (and Moses) “have said that it will happen” (ὧν . . . ἐλάλησαν μελλόντων γίνεσθαι); cf. also Luke 24.44. 26 In the form of a rhetorical question, what the prophets have said is developed thematically. Jesus does not reject at all the content of the hope of the disciples that is aimed at the liberation of Israel (contra Schwemer 2001, 106). Thus, in this respect the same applies here as with regard to the expectations formulated in Luke 19.11 and Acts 1.6 (see the introductory comments on Luke 19.11-­28; Wolter 1997b, 409, 413ff). Nor are the



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 557

disciples criticized for the fact that they have regarded Jesus as the messianic redeemer of Israel. On the contrary, this role is explicitly accepted by him, for ὁ χριστός takes up ὁ μέλλων λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ (v. 21), and in every respect the two terms are semantically isotopic—­both extensionally (Jesus himself is referred to both here and there) and intensionally (the messianic redeemer of Israel is in view both here and there). Rather, what Jesus faults about the ‘Christology’ of the disciples is the fact that their expectation is directed solely to his ‘earthly’ activity and ignores the fact that the Messiah must first “suffer” (ταῦτα refers to v. 20) and then “enter into his glory”—­i.e., rise and be exalted. In this way, it is said that the disciples have not yet understood what the readers of the Gospel of Luke have already known since 1.32-­33—­that Jesus’s messianic reign is a reign that endures εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, into which he is installed in the first place through resurrection and exaltation, and that in this respect it goes beyond the conventional Jewish messianic expectations (see also at 4.41 on the Lukan messianic secret). With a view to vv. 19-­21, Jesus’s christological self-­interpretation makes clear that a projection of the messianic hopes only on his earthly activity has the consequence that these hopes will be refuted by his death and that then nothing more is left of him than the memory of an impressive prophet. Thus, ὁ χριστός marks the emphatic antithesis to ἀνὴρ προφήτης (v. 19). Luke also makes explicit the same christological concept of the connection of the Messiah-­title with “suffering” (παθεῖν) and resurrection/exaltation elsewhere; cf. 24.46; Acts 3.18-­ 21; 26.23 (in each case with reference to Scripture) as well as Acts 17.3 (as here with ἔδει). Therefore, the concept may not be reduced solely to the necessity of suffering (as in Fitzmyer; Stegemann 1993, 31), for the suffering alone does not yet turn the prophet into the messiah who sits on the throne of David and will reign over the house of Jacob forever (1.32–­ 33). Only the risen and exalted one can do that. The imperfect ἔδει expresses “that something that has happened absolutely had to happen” (W. Bauer 1988, 344 with the proposed translation “had to”; BDR §3582: “the past necessity”; see also 13.16; 15.32). It thus becomes clear that according to the Lukan understanding, Jesus has already entered into his δόξα (or—­according to 23.42—­into his βασιλεία, a term that in 𝔓75 is then found in 24.26 instead of δόξα). Luke thereby also criticizes the interpretation that the disciples assign to the death of Jesus. In this way, Jesus does not become an ἀνὴρ προφήτης (v.  19c)—­although one could indeed have this impression, since with this the typical fate of the prophet would be assigned to him (see at 6.23c and 13.33)—­but his passion must be placed in the light of the resurrection and thereby becomes recognizable, on the basis of the witness of Scripture, as an integral part of his messiahship (v. 26).

558

The Gospel According to Luke

27 “Moses and all the prophets” (27a) refers to the whole of the Holy Scriptures of Israel (for additional attestations for the phrasing see at 16.16)—­namely πᾶσαι αἱ γραφαί (27b; see also v. 32d). Here, specific individual texts are obviously not in mind, for what especially matters for Luke is the fact that it is the whole witness of the Scriptures that “have spoken” (v. 25) τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ. Thus, what is significant is only the intension (the content of the phrase) of “Moses and all the prophets” and not its extension (the reference of the phrase). The phrasing in 27b is elliptical; it lacks a participle such as γεγραμμένα, which occurs in the parallel note (v. 44), or the like. One can infer also from the parallel note what Luke envisaged as Jesus’s διερμηνεύειν (for this term cf. Spicq 1994, I: 312ff) of what is written about him in the Scriptures—­the demonstration that in the fate of Jesus the announcements of the Scriptures have been “fulfilled.” In 32c Luke will designate precisely this explaining of Scripture by Jesus as διήνοιγεν τὰς γραφάς (see also v. 45: “to open the understanding [διανοίγειν] in order to understand the Scriptures”; Acts 17.2-­3). τὰ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ at the end of v. 27 concludes the dialogue and places, together with τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ (v. 19b), a nice frame around this subscene. The whole verse is typically Lukan in language and substance (in addition to Luke 24.44 cf. especially Acts 18.28; 26.22; 28.23 and 17.2-­3, 11). The use of the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτός is situated on the level of the narrator-­readers-­discourse. Luke thereby plays off the knowledge of the readers against the ignorance of the Emmaus disciples, for it is known only to the readers that Jesus speaks about himself here. The two disciples have no clue, and the unknown interpreter of Scripture also keeps this hidden from them. 28 With the phrasing “he acted as if he wanted to go further” Luke permits the readers to cast a glance into the consciousness of Jesus that is hidden to the outside. The narrator allows the readers to have a share in his omniscience, while the two Emmaus disciples remain excluded from this fellowship of knowledge. προσποιεῖσθαι + infinitive means that the action designated in this way is only pretended (cf. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 1.162; 5.45; 7.166 and elsewhere). Thus there arises a narrative junction from which the narrative could continue in different ways. However, Luke is probably less concerned to test the hospitality of the Emmaus disciples (contra Fitzmyer; Löning 1997/2006, I: 40 and others). Rather, the really interesting question is whether the two disciples are still going to learn who the unknown companion is or whether the episode is going to end tragically. 29 The suspense is immediately removed. παραβιάζεσθαι is used here with the same meaning as in Acts 16.15 (cf. also 1 Samuel 28.23; 2 Kings



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 559

2.17; 5.16 [LXX in each case]; for the simplex see at 16.16). For the phrasing κέκλικεν ἡ ἡμέρα, see at 9.12. πρὸς ἐσπέραν is not a Septuagintism (contra Fitzmyer), for this expression is also widely attested in non-­Jewish Greek (e.g., Aristophanes, Vespae 1085; Xenophon, Hellenica 1.1.30; 4.3.22; Thucydides 6.2.3; Diodorus Siculus 2.8.4; Plutarch, Theseus 25.4; Solon 10.4, 5; Moralia 338d). At this point, the narrative displays the closest points of contact with the narrative motif of the unknown divine guest (see at vv. 15-­16). 30 For the Septuagintal style of the introduction (καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ + infinitive with subject), see at 5.12. Luke has Jesus adopt the role of a paterfamilias, for he does the same thing as in 9.16 (see further there) and 22.19. An explicit connection to the Last Supper is not established, for the words of interpretation of 22.19b are lacking. Rather, Jesus practices only what is common at every meal. The continuation, however, ensures that the readers are indeed reminded of the Last Supper. 31 It emerges from v. 35b that the breaking of the bread and the recognition of Jesus not only coincide in time but also have a substantial connection (with Just 1993, 223; against Frenschkowski 1997, 240). This comes into contact with 22.19c insofar as in Luke it is precisely the breaking of the bread through which the earthly Jesus is to be made present later by his disciples by way of remembrance (see at 22.19-­20). And just as the disciples in Luke recognize Jesus’s identity (9.18-­20; see the introductory comments on 9.1-­36) “about the bread” (Mark 6.52)—­i.e., on the basis of the feeding of the five thousand (Luke 9.12-­17)—­so it is also Jesus’s breaking of bread here that leads the disciples to insight. 31a with all its parts takes up v. 16a and announces the nullification of the condition described there. In light of Genesis 3.5, 7; Life of Adam and Eve 18.3; 20.1; 21.5; 2 Enoch 89.44, it is not as certain as is often assumed that διηνοίχθησαν describes God’s action (passivum divinum). In the New Testament διανοίγω is a typically Lukan word (seven of eight attestations are found in Luke–­Acts). The sudden disappearance of Jesus in 31b is the typical end of an epiphany, for no human being leaves in this way. The readers can infer from this that Jesus has appeared to the Emmaus disciples already from heaven; cf. 2 Maccabees 3.34 about two messengers of God: ταῦτα δὲ εἰπόντες ἀφανεῖς ἐγένοντο (“After they had said these things, they disappeared”); Euripides, Helena 605–­606; Virgil, Aeneid 9.657 about Apollo (“Then, after a short conversation, he withdrew himself from human sight”); additional examples in Frenschkowski 1997, 86ff. 32 The “burning heart” (καρδία καιομένη) does not bring the Holy Spirit into play (contra Schwemer 2001, 115). Rather, it is an old metaphor for being seized by excitement.

560

The Gospel According to Luke

Philo, De Iosepho 168 makes recourse to it in order to describe the effect of the πάθος: τούτοις ὑποτυφομένῳ (“Through these [sc. speeches] he was inwardly greatly inflamed and kindled”). However, it is also already found in Aeschylus, Agamemnon 479–­481 (“Who of us is so childish or so reft of wit / that by the beacon’s messages / his heart flamed must despond again [φλογὸς παραγγέλμασιν / νέοις πυρωθέντα καρδίαν]” [trans. R. Lattimore in Green/Lattimore 1960, 19]), and a person in love sighs: συνοδηγὸν ἔχω τὸ πολὺ πῦρ τοὺν τῇ ψυψῇ μου καιόμενον (“As co-­guide I have the great fire that now burns in my soul”; Collectania Alexandrina, ed. J. U. Powell, 1925, 177–­78); the same in Anthologia Graeca 5.57: “Eros, too often you burn my heart, the flame flutters through . . .”; Cicero, In Verrem 2.159 about the effect of speeches (ad inflammandos vestros animos eloquentia [“eloquence to inflame your hearts”]); Brutus 278 (Ubi ardor animi . . . ? Nulla perturbatio animi, nulla corporis . . . ; itaque tantum afuit ut inflammares nostros animos: somnum isto loco vix tenebamus [“Where is the burning of the heart . . . ? There is no excitement—­neither of the heart nor of the body . . . you were so far from setting our hearts on fire that we could scarcely keep ourselves from falling asleep on the spot”]); Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 8.1 (after the conversation that leads to conversion: ἐμοὶ δὲ παραχρῆμα πῦρ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ἀνήφθη [“But immediately for me a fire was kindled in the soul”]); cf. beyond this Psalm 39.4; Jeremiah 20.9; Testament of Naphtali 7.4.

With “opening the Scriptures” Luke refers back to v. 27 (for the terminology see also v. 45 and Acts 17.2-­3. 33 The participle ἀναστάντες could be a pleophoric Septuagintism (see at 1.39), but it could also be a correlative term to κατακλιθῆναι (v. 30), i.e., ‘they stood up from the table.’ For the temporal specification αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ, which occurs only in Luke in the New Testament, see at 2.38. Luke has the two disciples return to Jerusalem mainly because he himself wants to continue and end the narrative there. In order to avoid having his narrative—­against which Lucian of Samosata warns—­“fall apart, being hacked up into many juxtaposed individual narratives” (Quomodo historia conscribenda sit 55), Luke does not simply change the scene abruptly but rather has the protagonists of the Emmaus episode return to Jerusalem, so that the readers follow them there. Thus, the return has the narrative function of joining the two episodes with each other. 34 Before the Emmaus disciples can report that they have encountered the risen one, Luke interrupts the narrative oriented toward them by having them be received with the news of the resurrection of Jesus and his appearance before Peter. The reason for this manner of narration is obvious. In the Lukan narrative, it is the Emmaus disciples to whom the risen one appears first. By contrast, the primitive Christian tradition knows that it was Peter who was granted the protophany (1 Corinthians



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 561

15.5). This is evidently also known to Luke, and therefore he introduces at this point a reference to the appearance of the risen one before Peter, of which there is no narrated tradition. This reference is unspecific enough to enable the readers to imagine that Jesus appeared to Peter even before the Emmaus disciples. The non-­narrated time between v. 12 and v. 13 is also long enough for this. That Peter is called “Simon” here cannot be taken as an indication for the presence of an older tradition, for Luke also calls him this in 5.3-­5, 10; 6.14; 22.31. ὤφθη + dative is also used in 1 Corinthians 15.5-­8 and 1 Timothy 3.16 for the Easter visions. The usage of the Septuagint makes clear that this is a theophany term that designates appearances from heaven (Genesis 12.7; 17.1; Exodus 3.2; Leviticus 9.23; 16.19; Judges 6.12 and elsewhere; see further in Eckstein 2002, 15–­16). For this reason, it is likely that the Easter appearances were perceived as appearances from heaven and that the persons mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15.5-­8 saw Jesus, in contrast to the Emmaus disciples, not in earthly but in heavenly form. Moreover, the connection of the two parts of the news with which the Emmaus disciples are received in Jerusalem makes clear that Jesus’s resurrection (ἠγέρθη nevertheless wants to be a passivum divinum that describes God’s action) can be inferred with necessary and sufficient certainty from his appearance. In this lies the decisive difference from the discovery of the empty tomb in both historical perspective and according to the Lukan understanding. Luke marks this difference in 34b through ὄντως. It corrects the unbelieving reaction of the eleven and of “the others with them” to the women’s report about the events at Jesus’s tomb (vv. 9-­11). 35 After Luke has narratively caught up with the lead of the tradition of the protophany of Peter in v. 34, he can let the Emmaus disciples take the floor. By placing their report later in time, Luke ensures that it was the appearance of the risen one before Peter that grounded the Christian Easter faith and not the risen one’s encounter with the Emmaus disciples. After v. 34 the narrative of the Emmaus disciples has a quite anticlimactic effect, for Luke communicates only what is absolutely necessary. The small status of this episode can be illustrated by a comparison with the extensive detail that Luke gives to Peter’s report of the conversion of the first Gentiles (Acts 11.4-­17), although the readers also already know the course of the reported events in that case. Moreover, in addition to this, he also narrates a reaction to this report in Acts 11.18. In order to distinguish the encounter of Jesus with the Emmaus disciples from the appearance before Peter, Luke denies it the theophany expression ὤφθη + dative and says merely that he “had become known to them” (ἐγνώσθη + dative actually in the sense of “something becomes known to someone” as in Acts 9.24; Exodus 2.25; Deuteronomy 9.24; 2 Esdras 14[= Nehemiah 4].9; 1 Maccabees 6.3;

562

The Gospel According to Luke

7.3, 30; 8.10). In this terse end, it becomes clear that the Emmaus episode has no significance for the plot of the superordinate narrative. 24.36-­52(53): Jesus Appears to All the Disciples in Jerusalem 36

While they were still speaking about this, he himself came into their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you!” 37But they took fright and became terrified, for they thought they were seeing a spirit. 38Then he said to them, “Why are you disturbed, and why does doubt rise in your heart? 39See my hands and my feet: it is I myself! Touch me and see: a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And with these words he showed them his hands and feet. 41But since they were still disbelieving because of joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything to eat here?” 42So they gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took (it) and ate (it) in their presence. 44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you when I was still with you: that everything that stands written in the law of Moses and the prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45And then he opened their minds so that they understood the Scriptures. 46 And he said to them, “Thus it is written that the Messiah suffers and rises from the dead on the third day 47and that in his name among all nations repentance for forgiveness of sins is proclaimed. Beginning with Jerusalem 48you are witnesses of these things. 49And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But you—­remain in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” 50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany. And he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51And it happened, while he was blessing them, that he began to leave them and was taken up into heaven. 52 And after they had fallen down before him, they returned with great joy to Jerusalem. 53 And they were continually in the temple praising God. The last episode of the Gospel of Luke is comprised of three scenes. The first two occur in the same place in Jerusalem, while Luke locates the third in Bethany. In the first scene, Jesus reveals himself as one who has really risen from the dead (vv. 36-­43), and in the second scene he then also (after the two Emmaus disciples) unveils to the other disciples the meaning of his fate from the Scriptures. He also announces to them that they are to become proclaimers of this fate and that God will equip them for the exercise of their witnessing (vv. 44-­49). In the third scene, which probably originates from Luke in toto, Luke narrates the translation of Jesus and the



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 563

return of the disciples to Jerusalem (vv. 50-­53). With this, he ends not only the appearance narrative but also his entire story of Jesus. 36-­49 Form-­critically this is an appearance narrative. As genre-­specific elements one can identify (for documentation see ad loc. respectively): (a) the sudden presence of the appearing one among the recipients of the appearance (intransitive ἔστη [v. 36a]); (b) the recipients of the appearance take fright and/or become terrified (v. 37); (c) with a rhetorical “why” question the appearing one reproaches the behavior of the recipients of the appearance (v. 38); (d) the appearing one identifies himself with the words ἐγώ εἰμι (v. 39); (e) the appearing one speaks (vv. 44-­49). The sequence of identification and sending has a clear parallel in John 20.19-­ 23. This applies not only to the narrative plot but also extends to the wording of entire sentences (cf. vv. 36, 40 with John 20.19, 20; see the introductory comments on 22.1–­24.52[53] under [g]). Quite a bit speaks for the view that these agreements are a result of the literary dependence of the Gospel of John on the Gospel of Luke. Unlike in Luke 24.47-­50, in John 20.21 the commissioning of the disciples is not merely announced but already implemented. For this reason, the Spirit is also already transferred to them now (v. 22). The Lukan report stands in opposition to Matthew 28.16-­20 insofar as Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee there (see also Mark 14.28; 16.7). That there was an appearance of the risen one before the circle of the twelve is likely on the basis of 1 Corinthians 15.5. It therefore cannot be ruled out that Luke developed the first two scenes on the basis of this tradition but has otherwise configured it himself (see also Neirynck 1982/1991/2001, II: 205–­26). The corresponding report in the so-­called secondary ending of Mark (Mark 16.14: “Later he revealed himself to the eleven who reclined at table and scolded their unbelief and their hardheartedness because they had not believed the ones who had seen him as the risen one”; C D W Θ f 13 33 𝔐 lat syc,p,h bo; cf. Aland 1979) is not an independent tradition, for this note is an integral element of Mark 16.9-­11, 12-­13 (see also Kelhoffer 2000, 92ff).

36 One must credit Luke with being skilled at employing dramatic surprises. Jesus’s appearance in the midst of his disciples is as sudden as his disappearance in v. 31b was. It is recognizable in this that he does not simply continue his earthly existence but rather comes from heaven. The sudden appearance of the angel to the shepherds in 2.9 is comparable (ἐπέστη αὐτοῖς; see further there; see also Acts 10.30; 12.7; 23.11; as well as Genesis 18.2; 1 Chronicles 21.15-­16; Daniel 8.15; 12.5). The historical present λέγει, which Luke otherwise uses very rarely (in the Lukan Jesus narrative it occurs elsewhere only in 11.45; see also BDR §321: “in vividly present-­making narrative”; BDR §321 n. 2: “Luke avoids 92 historical

564

The Gospel According to Luke

presents in Mark and adopts only Luke 8.49 from Mark 5.35”—­namely, after the same genitive absolute as here!), is probably also due to this rapid acceleration of the narration. The joining with the preceding scene has a very low threshold (see also the analogous transitions in Matthew 12.46; 17.5; 8.49; 22.47, 60). For the Old Testament background of the greeting of peace, see at 10.5. 37 On the typical fright of the recipient of the appearance, see at 1.12. In the New Testament, πτοεῖσθαι appears elsewhere only in Luke 21.9, and the combination of this verb with a derivative of φόβος is typically Septuagintal (Deuteronomy 31.6; 1 Chronicles 22.13; 28.20; 2 Chronicles 20.15, 17; Judges 16.11; 1 Maccabees 3.25; Proverbs 3.25; Jeremiah 1.17; 23.4; 26.27; Ezekiel 3.9; it occurs only very rarely outside the LXX). A misinterpretation of the appearance of the risen one is likewise recounted in John 20.15, and there is also a form-­critical analogy in Mark 6.49par. Matthew 14.26 (the disciples regard Jesus as a φάντασμα; so also the variant of D on v. 37). The confusion with a πνεῦμα scarcely intends to impute to the disciples that they think they are seeing “the spirit of the departed still walking around on the earth” (Eckey II: 989), for in that case Luke would probably have spoken of ‘his’ “spirit” (like 1 Enoch 22.5: “There I saw the spirit of a dead man making suit, and his lamentation went up to heaven and cried and made suit” [trans. Nickelsburg/Vanderkam 2004, 42]). Luke also speaks of spiritual beings, like what the disciples think they see, in Acts 23.8-­9, and this species also includes the πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας of Ephesians 6.12 or, according to 1 Enoch 15.8–­12, the “giants” that have come forth from the union of the angels with the daughters of humans (cf. Genesis 6.1-­4). As their distinguishing mark, it is repeatedly emphasized that they are “without body” or “without flesh”; cf. Numbers 16.12LXX (with the complementary dualism θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ πάσης σαρκός [“God of the spirits and of all flesh”]); Testament of Job 27.2 (Satan says to Job: ὑποχωρῶ σοι σαρκίνῳ ὄντι, ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι πνεῦμα [“I withdraw from you, even though you are flesh and I a spirit” (trans. R. P. Spittler, OTP 1: 851)]); accordingly, ἀσώματος is also attested as a metonym for angels; cf., e.g., 1 Enoch 15.16; 2 Enoch 20.1; Revelation 19.6; Testament of Abraham A 3.6; 4.9; 9.2; 14.4; 15.4, 6 and, furthermore, with additional examples W. Bauer 1988, s.v. πνεῦμα 4 (sp. 1357–­58); J. Michl, RAC 5: 68.

38 The one who appears also opens his speech with a rhetorical question that reproaches the behavior of the recipients of the appearance in other narratives (see further at 24.5). With the διαλογισμοί reference is made to the ἐδόκουν πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν (v. 37). Thus, like the earthly one, the risen one also knows the “thoughts of the heart” (cf. 5.22; 9.47; see also 2.35; 3.15). The talk of thoughts “rising” (ἀναβαίνειν) “in your heart” (for the



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 565

distributive singular, cf. BDR §140; the correction to καρδίαις in ‫ א‬Ac L W Θ Ψ f 1,13 33 𝔐 and others has made the reading easier linguistically) has its closest correspondence in the Old Testament conception of the “rising into the heart” (ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ καρδίαν; Heb.: ‫ל־לב‬ ֵ ‫ ;)עלה ַע‬cf. 2 Kings 12.5; Isaiah 65.16; Jeremiah 3.16; 28(51), 50; 39(32), 35; 51(44), 21; Ezekiel 38.10; see also Acts 7.23; 1 Corinthians 2.9. 39-­40 The double ἴδετε . . . ὅτι (39a, b) makes clear that the appearing one wants to demonstrate two things. First, by displaying his hands and feet (see also John 20.20: the hands and the side) he proves his identity in 39a-­b, 40 (ἐγώ εἰμι); for the use of this expression in other appearance reports see at 1.19. In this, it becomes clear that the appearing one is identifiable as Jesus only by the fact that he reveals himself as the crucified one. Here it is implicitly—­contrast John 20.25: τύπος τῶν ἥλων on the hands—­presupposed that there were wounds on Jesus’s hands and feet, which originated from the fact that he was not simply bound to the cross in his execution but fixed to it with the help of nails that were driven through the bones of the hands and feet (like, among others, the crucified man from Giv‘at ha-­Mivtar; see H.-­W. Kuhn 1976; for the practice of nailing on in crucifixions see idem, 329). Justin, Apologia i 35.5–­7; Dialogus cum Tryphone 97.3–­4 first speaks expressis verbis of the nailing of the hands and the feet of Jesus and sees PsalmLXX 21.17 fulfilled therein (“They have dug through my hands and feet [ὤρυξαν]”). For the notion that people who have violently lost their life keep the wounds that brought death to them, cf., with examples, Hilhorst 1983. Secondly, the reality of the resurrection of Jesus is demonstrated in 39c-­d. The disciples’ initial impression that a “spirit” has appeared to them (v. 37 with the taking up again of πνεῦμα in 39d) is corrected here. For the notion of the “fleshlessness” of spirits, see at v. 37; cf. also the description of the underworld in Ovid, Metamorphoses 4.443: Errant exsangues sine corpore et ossibus umbrae (“The bloodless shades wander around without bodies and bones”). There are no anti-­docetic undertones in the narrative. Rather, the touching of Jesus’s “flesh and bones” should make clear that the disciples are really dealing with one who has risen from the dead and not with a bodiless spirit. Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 3.2: λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον (“Take hold, touch me and see that I am no bodiless demon”) has a clear anti-­docetic thrust due to the context. It also cannot be ruled out that the exhortation of 39c has left traces in 1 John 1.1 (“. . . what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have touched [ἐψηλάφησαν]”). 41-­42 Luke has Jesus provide yet another proof for the actual corporeality of his resurrection from the dead; see also Acts 10.41; Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 3.3 (though also with anti-­docetic intensification): “After the

566

The Gospel According to Luke

resurrection he ate and drank with them ὡς σαρκικός (as a fleshly one).” As transindividual cultural knowledge, there stands in the background the notion that spirits and angels neither eat nor drink (cf. Judges 13.15-­16; Tobit 12.19: “I [sc. Raphael] did not eat and drink but you beheld a vision [ἀλλὰ ὅρασιν ὑμεῖς ἐθεωρεῖτε]”; Apocalypse of Abraham 13.3; see Goodman 1986, 160–­75, esp. 166ff; Fletcher-­Louis 1997, 63ff). The combination of ἀπιστεῖν and θαυμάζειν into a lexical pair designating doubt and skepticism (41a) is typically Hellenistic. Moreover, as here, in some other texts it describes precisely the reaction to positive news; cf. Plato, Cratylus 428d (θαυμάζω καὶ αὐτὸς πάλαι τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ σοφίαν καὶ ἀπιστῶ [“I marvel myself at my wisdom for a long time already, and I can scarcely believe it”]); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 3.15.3 (“They received the word with incredible and wondrous readiness [ἀπίστῳ . . . καὶ θαυμαστῇ προθυμίᾳ]”); Josephus, Bellum judaicum 1.628 (ἀπιστία με τοῦ ζῆν εἰσέρχεται καὶ θαυμάζω, πῶς βαρὺν . . . διέφυγον [“I cannot believe that I am still living and I marvel that I so narrowly . . . escaped”]); see also Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 19.186; Plutarch, Moralia 160d; 432a (as here with reference to what one sees: οὐ δεῖ δὲ θαυμάζειν οὐδ’ ἀπιστεῖν ὁρῶντας [“Those seeing may neither marvel nor be unbelieving”]); 589d; 664c; 935a, Lucian of Samosata, Dialogi marini 4.1 and elsewhere. Against this background, ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς is not a clumsy excuse for the remaining skepticism of the disciples—­like ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης in 22.45 for their sleeping—­but a semantically idiomatic explanation (see also Matthew 13.44; Acts 12.14). For the subject matter of Jesus’s question in 41b, cf. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 4.32.21 (οὐδὲ . . . ἔξωθεν προσφέρειν τι βρώσιμον ἔξεστι [“It is not permitted to bring in something edible from outside”]). 43 Luke emphasizes that Jesus ate “in the presence of” (ἐνώπιον) the disciples and in this way makes them into “witnesses” of his resurrection, first in Luke 24.48 and then in Acts 1.22; 2.32; 3.15; 4.33; 5.31-­32 and above all 10.41, where he has Peter explicitly emphasize that Jesus, “after he was raised from the dead, ate and drank” with the “witnesses.” There is no indication that Luke has furnished the scene with eucharistic-­ theological undertones let alone main tones (contra Nolland and others). 44-­49 It remains unstated how the disciples react to Jesus’s demonstration. Rather, the narrative makes a small jump, and Luke has Jesus begin with his departure speech to the disciples. In it vv. 44-­48 have a counterpart in Acts 26.22-­23, where the Lukan Paul comprehensively characterizes himself and his activity before Agrippa II and Festus: “I have received help from God to this very day and I stand (here) as one who bears witness before small and great (μαρτυρόμενος), saying nothing other than what the prophets and Moses said (ἐκτὸς . . . ὧν τε οἱ προφῆται ἐλάλησαν . . . καὶ



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 567

Μωϋσῆς) would happen—­that the Messiah must suffer, that he as the first from the resurrection of the dead will proclaim light to the people and to the Gentiles (εἰ παθητὸς ὁ χριστός, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν).” The following elements are parallel: the terminology of witness, the reference to the Scriptures, the series of three ‘suffer, rise, proclaim,’ and the universal horizon. Thus, these two texts form a ring with whose help Luke frames the time of the witnesses’ proclamation of the resurrection and in this way marks it as an epoch sui generis. The framing function of the two texts is further strengthened by the fact that the witness of the post-­Easter proclaimers is thematized in Luke 24.48 (μάρτυρες) for the first time and in Acts 26.22 (μαρτυρόμενος) for the last time within Luke–­Acts (see also at vv. 47b-­ 48). The epoch, which Luke in this way demarcates in both directions, is thereby made recognizable by him as the ‘epoch of the witnesses’ (see also Wolter 2004b, 268ff). 44 The citation introduction οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι with the cataphoric orientation of the demonstrative pronoun is a Septuagintism (cf. Exodus 35.1; Deuteronomy 1.1; 28.69; 2 Samuel 23.1; Jeremiah 36.1; 37.4; Zechariah 8.16; Baruch 1.1; see also 4 Baruch 6.20; Heb.: ‫)א ֶּלה ַה ְּד ָב ִרים‬. ֶ As in 24.6-­7 (see further there), here too we are dealing with a “resolving retrospective” (Lämmert 1975, 108), which is meant to explain to the disciples how it has happened that Jesus, about whom they knew that he had been crucified and buried, now stands before them. Jesus provides then not a word-­for-­word quotation but a quotation according to sense, although the echoes of 18.31 (and 22.37) in particular cannot be missed. The intention is a comprehensive interpretation of the entirety of his fate, which he then unpacks concretely in vv. 46-47. Unlike in 24.16 (see also Acts 1.16; 17.3), we find not the backward looking ἔδει (see further at 24.26) but the present δεῖ. The reason for this conspicuous fact is that here—­unlike in the aforementioned three texts—­πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα . . . περὶ ἐμοῦ does not refer exclusively to past events but also includes the κήρυχθῆναι (v. 47), which still lies in the future. In the New Testament the phrasing πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα is typically Lukan (cf. in addition 18.31; 21.22; Acts 13.29; 24.14; elsewhere only in Galatians 3.10 as a quotation of Deuteronomy 28.28). It is conspicuous that the complementary dualism “the Law of Moses and the Prophets” (see at 16.16) is expanded here by “Psalms” (without the definite article). There is a certain analogy in 4Q397, Fragments 14–­21.10 = 4QMMT C 10: “. . . so that you gain insight into the book of Moses [and] in the book[s of the Pro]phets and in Davi[d . . .].” With high probability “Psalms” stands here not for the “Writings” (‫תּובים‬ ִ ‫)כ‬ ְ as the third part of the Hebrew Bible alongside “Torah” and “Prophets,” but actually only for the Psalms (see also Rusam 2003, 260ff). It also speaks for this

568

The Gospel According to Luke

assumption that ψαλμοῖς has no article and thus is not characterized as a distinct part of the Holy Scriptures. Furthermore, in Acts 1.16 Luke can even speak explicitly of the “fulfilling” (πληρωθῆναι) of a saying from the Psalms (Psalm 41.10), and he repeatedly draws on quotations from the Psalms to interpret events elsewhere as well (cf. Acts 1.20; 2.25-­28, 34-­35; 4.25-­26; 13.33, 34-­35). 45 Jesus does the same as in v. 27 (see also v. 32c; Acts 16.14; 17.3). The substantival infinitive τοῦ συνιέναι does not simply have a telic sense here but a consecutive sense. The disciples’ lack of understanding, which had previously hindered them from understanding Jesus’s statements about his fate (cf. 9.44-­45; 18.31, 34: also with συνιέναι [v. 34]), is nullified only now and finally. As in v. 27, here too it is significant that it is the “Scriptures” that are the object of understanding (see also at 24.25). In this way it is not only indirectly stated that the previous lack of understanding of the disciples was based on a lack of knowledge of the Holy Scriptures of Israel, but also that the rejection of the proclamation of Christ by the overwhelming majority of Judaism has its ground solely in the fact that they have not rightly understood their own Scriptures (see also John 5.45-­47). 46-­47a οὕτως γέγραπται is common in pagan literature—­with or without a specification of where it is written—­as a quotation introduction; cf. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.26 (234e); Plutarch, Sulla 34.2; Alexander 76.1; 77.1; Moralia 318d; Galen, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, ed Kühn 1964, XIII: 650.14 (Christian and Jewish: only 1 Corinthians 15.45 [without an attribute] as well as Matthew 2.5 and Josephus, Vita 342 [in each case with attribute]). With γέγραπται Luke takes up πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα (v. 44c) and τὰς γραφάς (v. 46b). He has Jesus summarize the content of the Scriptures in the form of an indirect discourse with accusative and infinitive (“this form of speech developed so strongly in Classical Greek” can be “found almost exclusively in Luke” in the New Testament; BDR §396.3). Two parallel accusative-­with-­infinitive constructions are dependent on γέγραπται: first παθεῖν τὸν χριστὸν καὶ ἀναστῆναι (46c) and then κηρυχθῆναι . . . μετάνοιαν (47a). While the first is known already from 18.31-­33 and 24.26, the second is new. It is also responsible for the fact that δεῖ in v. 44c is in the present tense, for this announcement of the Scripture is not only not yet completed but has not even begun. The prepositional phrase ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ (sc. of the Messiah) in 47a is also frequently related to a verb of speaking in the Septuagint (with λαλεῖν: Exodus 5.23; Deuteronomy 18.18, 20, 22; 1 Samuel 25.9; 2 Chronicles 33.18; Zechariah 13.3; Jeremiah 20.9; 33.16; Daniel 9.6; with προφητεύειν: Jeremiah 11.21; 14.15; 23.25; Heb.: ‫)ּב ֵׁשם‬. ְ Jesus makes



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 569

the disciples his delegates. In this way he obligates and authorizes them to κηρύσσειν. They will take up this activity after Pentecost, and consequently the Sanhedrin will forbid them thereafter to “speak” (λαλεῖν; Acts 4.17; 5.40) or “teach” (διδάσκειν; 4.18; 5.28) ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι of Jesus. In 9.27, 28 there is correspondingly talk of the Pauline παρρησιάζεσθαι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ/κυρίου. The most extensive word-­field overlaps with this commissioning are found in the speeches that are directed to the Jerusalem Jews: Acts 2.38 (“μετανοήσατε, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν”), as well as 3.18-­19 and 5.31. The wording of these last two texts is complementary with regard to Luke 24.46-­47 insofar as there is talk once of Jesus’s suffering and once of his resurrection (Acts 3.18-­19: “. . . παθεῖν τὸν χριστὸν αὐτοῦ . . . μετανοήσατε . . . and repent εἰς τὸ ἐξαλειφθῆναι ὑμῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας”; 5.31: “God has exalted this one through his right hand to Leader and Savior in order to give Israel μετάνοια and ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν”). The connection between “repentance” and “forgiveness” of sins already characterized the proclamation of John the Baptist (cf. Luke 3.3; see also 1.77), but it reaches also beyond this (cf. Prayer of Manasseh 7 [see at 1.78a]; Luke 17.3-­4; Acts 8.22). However, the proclamation of Christ to non-­Jewish nations is also then conceived as an exhortation to “repentance” (μετάνοια); cf. Acts 11.18; 17.30 (Paul on the Areopagus): “God . . . παραγγέλλει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πάντας πανταχοῦ μετανοεῖν”; 20.21; 26.20. This universal horizon is taken into view in v. 47a through εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (see also Acts 15.17 as well as Mark 13.10; 14.9). With this phrasing, which finds its spatial equivalent in ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς in Acts 1.8, the Lukan Jesus already points the disciples here beyond the boundaries of Israel. 47b κηρυχθῆναι from v. 47 now becomes a keyword, and Jesus’s speech goes on to develop the question of the mode and subject of the κηρύσσειν. The first word and with it the syntactic structure of the sentence is disputed. A number of manuscripts have the accusativus absolutus ἀρξάμενον (𝔓75 A C3 W f 1,13 𝔐 syh); cf. BDR §4243, which would connect 47b with v. 47a (on this, cf. the punctuation variants in the apparatus of Nestle/Aland27 ad loc.). Another strand of the textual tradition reads ἀρξάμενοι (‫ א‬B C* L N 33, lect. 844, 2211 pc), which would make the participle into a nominativus pendens (cf. BDR §466.2). The external attestation is about equal (other variants can be ignored), and one can explain the one reading just as well as the other as lectio difficilior. In the translation, I have decided—­with Nestle/Aland27—­for the nominativus pendens, but that does not mean that the other reading could not be original.

570

The Gospel According to Luke

In any case, the κηρύσσειν of the μετάνοια . . . εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη should begin in Jerusalem. But the expression ἀρξάμενοι/-­ον ἀπό implies that while the proclamation is to begin in Jerusalem, it is then also meant to go beyond the city (cf. the corresponding linguistic usage in Matthew 20.8; Luke 23.5; 24.27; John 8.9; Acts 1.22; 8.35; 10.37; 1 Peter 4.17). In Acts 1.8 this geographical expansion is then made explicit with the series “in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.” In 48 the disciples are designated as “witnesses” also for the first time. This is not an exhortation but rather a statement with performative meaning. Through Jesus’s statement the disciples are made into witnesses. τούτων is an objective genitive of the thing that is testified to, as, outside Luke–­Acts, e.g., in Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 4.40; Contra Apionem 1.4; 1 Peter 5.1. In the case of Luke himself, this linguistic use has its counterpart in Acts 1.22 (μ. τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ); 3.15; 5.31-­32 (“God has exalted this one through his right hand to Leader and Savior in order to give Israel μετάνοιαν and ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, and we are witnesses τούτων”); 10.39. In Acts μάρτυς and its cognates become key terms that Luke uses to describe a function that the twelve and Paul exercise exclusively. “Witnesses” must fulfill two conditions. They must have seen the risen one and have been “chosen” by Jesus Christ—­either by the earthly Jesus (Luke 6.13) or by the exalted Jesus (Matthias: Acts 1.24; Paul: 9.15). This is why Stephen can also be counted as a “witness” (22.20), for he also saw the risen and exalted one and bore witness to this before the Sanhedrin (7.55-­56). Using this metaphor, Luke wants to express that the proclamation of Christ of the “witnesses” rests on empirically observed facts that could even stand up in court (on this cf. Burchard 1970, 130–­35; Spicq 1994, II: 447ff; Korn 1993, 193ff). It is presumably this semantic component that guides the Lukan use of the metaphor. In this vein, τούτων in Luke 24.48 probably refers to the events narrated in vv. 36-­43, which have demonstrated the facticity of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (see also Acts 2.32; 3.15; 5.31-­32; 10.41). According to 1.22, Matthias becomes a “witness of his [sc. Jesus’s] resurrection” only through the election into the circle of apostles. Thus, “witnesses” (μάρτυρες) in Luke are more than only “eyewitnesses” (αὐτόπται; cf. Luke 1.2). Later, Paul also enters into the circle of the witnesses of the resurrection on the basis of the appearances granted to him (cf. 22.15; 26.16). In 10.39 the apostles’ testimony refers to Jesus’s entire activity “in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem” (see also 1.21), and accordingly, in a metonymic way Jesus himself can become the object of the testimony in 1.8 (ἔσεσθέ μου μάρτυρες) and 13.1 (μάρτυρες αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν λαόν).



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 571

49 While vv. 47b-­48—­like the mission command in Matthew 28.18-­20—­ make a bridge to an undefined future and require no narrative fulfillment, 49a announces an event that cannot remain untold. The Lukan story of Jesus is thereby opened for a narrative continuation. Correspondingly, Luke also takes up this verse in Acts 1.4. Here, as in Acts 1.4, “ἐπαγγελία of my/the Father” stands metonymically for what is promised, namely, the Spirit (like ἐλπίς in Colossians 1.5 for the hoped-­for salvation good). This announcement is realized at Pentecost (Acts 2.1-­5; see also v. 33). Luke can speak of a “promise” of the Spirit on the basis of Joel 3.1-­2 (cf. Acts 2.16-­18); τοῦ πατρός μου is accordingly a subjective genitive. That Luke designates the Holy Spirit metonymically as δύναμις in 49 stands in the context of a conception of emissaries originating from Old Testament-­ Jewish tradition, according to which God equips those sent by him with δύναμις and in this way authorizes and enables them to carry out their commission (e.g., Judges 6.34B; Isaiah 42.1/6; Micah 3.8; for the joining of πνεῦμα and δύναμις cf. the expressions δύναμις τοῦ πνεύματος or πνεῦμα δυνάμεως in Wisdom of Solomon 5.23; 11.20; Philo, De opificio mundi 131; Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 8.408; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 27.10; Luke 4.14; Romans 15.13, 19; Shepherd of Hermas, Mandates 11.2 as well as Luke 1.35; Acts 1.8; 10.38; Romans 1.4; 1 Corinthians 2.4; 1 Thessalonians 1.5; see further Wolter 1988b, 35–­36). 50-­52(53) With the events of the first day of the new week Luke not only ends the narrative collecting basin of chapter 24, but he also concludes his entire story of Jesus with a departure narrative (v. 50), which merges into a translation scene (vv. 51-­52a; cf. G. Lohfink 1971, 41ff, 163ff). The summary in v. 53 goes beyond the timeframe marked out in 24.1 and has the function of concluding the entire first part of Luke–­Acts. That Luke used Sirach 50.20-­22LXX “directly . . . as a model” (G. Lohfink 1971, 169; Ganser-­Kerperin 2000, 206–­7; see also Zwiep 1997, 87–­88 and others) is entirely improbable. A correspondence can be constructed only if one detaches the order of the individual actions (ἐπαίρειν [τὰς] χεῖρας αὐτοῦ –­ εὐλογεῖν/δοῦναι εὐλογίαν –­ προσκυνεῖν/προσκύνησις –­ εὐλογεῖν τὸν θεόν) from their respective narrative and form-­critical embeddings. 50 ἐξάγειν is a typically Lukan word in the New Testament (nine of twelve occurrences are in Luke–­Acts). The assumption of an influence by the use of the verb within the Old Testament exodus narrative (thus G. Lohfink 1971, 164) is an overinterpretation. When Luke names Bethany here as the place of the ascension and the Mount of Olives in Acts 1.12, this is not a contradiction, for it emerges from 19.29 that Bethany belonged for him to the Mount of Olives (for the topography see there). The same

572

The Gospel According to Luke

inference can be drawn from the replacement of Bethany as a place where Jesus spent the night (Mark 11.11; 14.3) with the Mount of Olives in Luke 21.37 (see also G. Lohfink 1971, 165). But it is also possible that Luke names Bethany here in order to make a bridge to 19.28-­29, for Bethany was the last place mentioned before Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem. With respect to ἔξω, the more weakly attested reading with (A C3 D W Θ f 13 syh) should be regarded as original rather than the reading without (𝔓75 ‫ א‬B C* L and others), for one can more easily imagine that the series ἔξω ἕως πρός was shortened in the course of the textual tradition than vice versa. ἕως πρός is a common Greek idiom and designates the extension and end of a way (cf. Xenophon, Hellenica 4.7.3; 5.3.2; Diodorus Siculus 2.43.2; Polybius 3.39.3; 82.6; 112.4; 5.44.11; 12.17.4; Callisthenes, FGH 2b: 124, Fragment 35.12; Lucian of Samosata, Necromantia 11; Genesis 38.1).

The raising of the hands belongs to the gesture of blessing; cf. Leviticus 19.22 (“And Aaron ἐξάρας . . . τὰς χεῖρας over the people εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς”); PsalmLXX 133.2 (“In the nights ἐπάρατε τὰς χεῖρας ὑμῶν to the sanctuary καὶ εὐλογεῖτε τὸν κύριον”); Sirach 50.20 (“ἐπῆρεν χεῖρας αὐτοῦ over the entire assembly of Israel δοῦναι εὐλογίαν κυρίου”). Luke stages the situation of the departure by assigning Jesus the role of the one taking leave, who blesses those who remain behind (cf. Genesis 32.1; 47.10; 49.28; Deuteronomy 33.1; 1 Maccabees 2.69; 2 Enoch 56.1; 57.2; 64.4). Since the situation alone is important to him, he can leave the wording of the blessing unstated. 51 For the Septuagintal style of the introduction (καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ + infinitive with subject), see at 5.12. Luke obviously envisions that Jesus is translated during the blessing. The lack of καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν in ‫ *א‬D it sys can be regarded as a secondary omission (see also Zwiep 1996). It is prompted by the intention of removing the competition to the translation narrated in Acts 1.9. The disappearance of Jesus narrated in 51a would then not be a translation but a simple disappearing as in v. 31c (see further there). According to the Lukan understanding, the translation of Jesus narrated here is different from the “entrance into glory” spoken of in 24.26 (contra G. Lohfink 1971, 272ff and elsewhere). 24.26 is clearly based on a tradition that spoke, instead of death and resurrection, of ‘death and exaltation’ (Philippians 2.9; 1 Timothy 3.16; Hebrews 12.2) and thus applied the Jewish conception of the resurrection and exaltation of martyrs into heaven (attestations and literature at 16.22) with recourse to Psalm 110.1 to Jesus (attestations and literature at 20.42-­43). From there Luke lets Jesus temporarily come down to the earth once more in order to



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 573

appear to both the Emmaus disciples in 24.13-­31 and to the other disciples in 24.36-­49 (see also Zwiep 1997, 145ff). By contrast, he expects that after the translation narrated here Jesus will not return to the earth again until his parousia (cf. Acts 1.11). Until then he lets himself be seen—­the appearances before Stephen (7.55-­56) and Paul (9.3-­6) make this clear—­‘only’ in his heavenly glory.

In comparison with the vanishing in v. 31c, Luke narrates Jesus’s translation virtually in slow motion. The duration of the process is marked especially by the iterative imperfect ἀνεφέρετο. With ἀπ’ αὐτῶν and εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν the starting point and goal of the “ascension to heaven” are specified. For the use of ἀναφέρομαι with reference to translations, cf. Plutarch, Numa 2.3 (of Romulus and his weapons into heaven); Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses 25.4 (see at v. 3); Cassius Dio 56.42.3 (of the soul into heaven); Testament of Abraham A 14.8 (of the soul into paradise). With Jesus’s translation into heaven a circle that had its starting point in the first saying that Jesus spoke in the Gospel of Luke—­namely the saying directed to his parents of the twelve-­year-­old Jesus in the Jerusalem temple (2.49): ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με—­closes. In the place of Jesus’s parents stand now his disciples (see at 8.21) and as τὰ τοῦ πατρός μου was the temple there, so it is heaven here (see also Acts 3.20-­21 and at Luke 2.49). 52 In critical dispute with the arguments advanced by Parsons 1987, 29ff and others, Zwiep 1996 has shown that προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν—­ against D it sys and with all the other manuscripts—­belongs to the original text of the Gospel of Luke. The cultic worship of the translated one that follows belongs to the motif repertoire of ancient translation narratives; cf. Herodotus 7.167; Dionysius of Halicarnasus, Antiquitates romanae 1.64.4–­5; Diodorus Siculus 4.39.1; Pausanias 6.9.7–­8; Diogenes Laertius 8.68; Livy 1.16.1–­8 and elsewhere; with προσκυνεῖν: Plutarch, Romulus 27.8–­9; Lucian of Samosata, De morte Peregrini 39 (see further G. Lohfink 1971, 48–­49). The foundation was the notion that a translation into heaven either grounded the elevation of a human being into the circle of the gods—­as e.g., in the apotheosis of the Roman emperor (see Bickerman 1985; Kierdorf 1986)—­or revealed that the translated one had been not a human being but rather a god all along (cf. Plutarch, Romulus 28.2; see also at v. 3 and G. Lohfink 1971, 46ff; Dormeyer 2004); Chariton of Aphrodisias 3.3.5 also plays with this notion.

The theological significance of this statement within the Lukan story of Jesus can be made clear by a comparison with 4.8. There Luke had placed into the mouth of Jesus a variation of DeuteronomyLXX 6.13; 10.20 as a

574

The Gospel According to Luke

quotation from Scripture: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις . . . (“You shall worship the Lord, your God . . . !”; sc. ‘and nobody else!’). After Jesus has been taken up into heaven and his eternal rule “over the house of Israel” has commenced (see at 1.33), the προσκυνεῖν of the disciples is now also directed toward him. People had repeatedly fallen on their face or upon the ground before the earthly Jesus (cf. 5.12; 8.28, 41, 47), but in Luke—­unlike in Matthew 2.11; 8.2; 9.18; 14.33; 15.25; 20.20—­the προσκυνεῖν applies exclusively to the Exalted Lord (see also Acts 7.43; 8.27; 10.25-­26; 24.11 as well as Ostmeyer 2006, 271ff). In the Gospel of Mark, the earthly Jesus experiences it only from a demoniac (5.6) and from Roman soldiers who wanted to mock him in this way (15.19). Thus a christological theme that Luke had repeatedly sounded in his story of Jesus reaches its climax and conclusion—­that God is authentically represented through Jesus. All this, of course, is already known to the reader from the beginning, and therefore this narrative move has the primary function of characterizing the disciples—­their προσκυνεῖν of the Exalted Lord makes clear that they have now finally broken through to the correct christological insight. The return of the disciples to Jerusalem takes up v. 47b (“beginning with Jerusalem”) and v. 49b (“remain in the city until . . .”); on ὑποστρέφειν in chapter 24, see the introductory comments on 24.1-­52(53). Thus, the story of Jesus is opened up to the story of the disciples, and the readers wait together with the disciples for them to be “clothed” with ἐξ ὕψους δύναμις (v. 49c). In view of the intensive references to Luke 1–­2 in v. 53, it cannot be ruled out that with the χαρὰ μεγάλη of the disciples Luke makes a bridge to the birth announcement by the angel in 2.10, especially since there was no “great joy” in between (see also G. Lohfink 1971, 175; the cross-­connections that G. Lohfink produces to narratives of translation outside the New Testament, are not convincing, however). 53 The first part of Luke–­Acts concludes with a summary, which takes a longer period of time into view and thereby reaches beyond the chronological frame that Luke marked out in 24.1 with τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων. Luke had already proceeded on the same narrative level in 1.80 with regard to John the Baptist and in 2.40, 52 with regard to Jesus. At the end of Acts, a comparable summary about Paul is added (Acts 28.30-­31), but it differs in a quite significant detail from the three that have been mentioned. It does not remain temporally unspecified, and it is thus also not ended by the resumption of the narrative as in the other cases. Rather, Luke integrates a temporal limitation into the summary itself. He limits the time narrated in it to two years (διετία ὅλη; v. 30a). The end of Paul is thereby taken into consideration, for Luke



22.1–­24.52(53): Passion and Easter 575

of course knows that this period of time was delimited by the death of Paul, and he also knows that his readers know this. With the help of the text-­external knowledge of his readers, Luke places a very faint and yet unmistakable full stop. The fact that Luke does not report the death of Paul as well has form-­critical reasons, for he is not writing a biography of Paul.

Here the summary has the function of presenting the disciples as a new narrative main character in a situation that is typical for them and thereby characterizing of them. In the last sentence of the first part of his two-­ part διήγησις, Luke emphasizes that the disciples are fully and completely integrated into the Jewish temple piety. The place specification ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ makes a bridge to the beginning of the overall presentation, for Luke had also let the first scene take place in the temple (cf. 1.8-­22). Furthermore, the εὐλογεῖν τὸν θεόν of the disciples also points back to the beginning of the Lukan narrative, for Luke previously said such a thing only of Zechariah (1.64) and Simeon (2.28). When one places the literary situation constructed by Luke in the light of 2.49 (see at 24.51), one can say that both Jesus and the disciples are now “in that which is Jesus’s Father’s”—­he is in heaven and they are in the temple. This coda, which is theo-­logical in the strict sense, at the end of the Lukan story of Jesus also finds expression in the fact that it not only ends with a summarizing statement about the disciples’ praise of God but also has “God” as its last word. With regard to the plot of Luke–­Acts as a whole, however, two more things are important. At the end of the first part—­i.e., at the transition from the story of Jesus to the story of the witnesses—­the narrative is still located at the center of the Jewish worship of God (see also Acts 2.46; 5.12, 42), and the story of Israel is still identical with the story of Judaism. At the end of the second part both of these situations will have changed dramatically.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

Finding a Work in the Bibliography In the English translation, works have been referenced in three different ways. First, a small number of works have been referenced using abbreviations, which are explained below. Second, select commentaries on Luke, which are listed below, have been referenced by last name alone. Third, most literature has been referenced by author date in the main text, e.g., Schröter 2014. If necessary, works from the same year have been distinguished through the addition of a letter, e.g., Wolter 2005a and 2005b. While the bibliography sometimes includes earlier publication dates in square brackets, e.g., R. Bultmann, 1995 [1921], this information is not included in the body of the translation, e.g., Bultmann 1995. For the most part, standard works such as ThWNT have been referenced by abbreviations in the main text and not included in the bibliography. (1) Abbreviations The abbreviations used in this work are primarily based on the list of abbreviations in the second edition of the Theologische Realenzyklopädie, compiled by S. M. Schwertner (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994). For abbreviations not found there, Michael Wolter also refers the readers of the German version to Abkürzungen Theologie und Religionswissenschaften nach RGG4 (edited by the editorial team of RGG4; Tübingen: Mohr, 2007). For the English version we have also consulted the IATG3—­ Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete, compiled by S. M. Schwertner (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014) and the second edition of the SBL Handbook of Style (Atlanta: SBL, 2014). 577

578

Bibliography

For the main text and bibliography, special note should be made of the following abbreviations, some of which differ from the conventions adopted in the aforementioned works. ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity AJEC ARB.CL Académie Royale de Belgique. Classe des Lettres. BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BBTS Bulletin of the General Theological Seminary of Bangor Theological Seminary BDR F. Blass, A. Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Bearbeitet von F. Rehkopf. 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Berliner Ägyptische Urkunden. Griechische Urkunden. BGU BiAth Biblioteca di Athenaeum BibPat Biblia Patristica. Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique. Edited by Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristiques. Vol. I: Des origines à Clément d’Alexandrie et Tertullien. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1975 Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Paul Bill. Billerbeck Biblical Tools and Studies BiTS BoC The Beginnings of Christianity. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake. London: Macmillan, 1920–­1933. BVBi Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel CChr.SL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina CEQ The Critical Edition of Q. Edited by J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. (see also IQP). CIC.Dig Corpus Iuris Civilis. Digestae CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Edited by A. Boeckh. 4 vols. Berlin, 1828–­1877. CIJ Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. Edited by Jean-Baptiste Frey. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1936–­1952. CSEL Corpus Scriptorium Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum CuBR Currents in Biblical Research DNP Der neue Pauly. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Schneider, and M. Landfester. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996ff. Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by H. J. Klauck, D. EBR Allison et al. Walter de Gruyter, 2009ff. EKL Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon. 2nd edition (1962). Edited by H. Brunotte and O. Weber. 3rd edition (1986–­1997). Edited by E. Fahlbusch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by H. R. Balz and EWNT G. Schneider. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980–­1983. FGH Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Edited by F. Jacoby.



FilNeo GAStL

Bibliography 579

Filología Theologica The Gospel According to St. Luke. Edited by The American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983–­1987. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte GCS HBiSt Herders Biblische Studien IG Inscriptiones Graecae. Editio Minor. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1924–­. International Q Project (see also CEQ) IQP JPeTh.S Journal of Pentecostal Theology. Supplement Series JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-r­ömischer Zeit KP Der Kleine Pauly KTU Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Vol. 1. Edited by M. Dietrich and J. Sanmartin. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1976. LAW Lexikon der Alten Welt LCL Loeb Classical Library Library of New Testament Studies LNTS LPTB Linzer Philosophisch-Theologische Beiträge LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek English Lexicon. 9th edition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. NHC Nag Hammadi Codices NBL Neues Bibel-Lexikon NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993–­2008. NTMon New Testament Monographs NTR New Theological Review OGIS Orientalis Graeci inscriptiones selectae OPIAC Occasional Papers of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity OTP The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983–­1985. PEMBS Proceedings. Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J. P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris: Migne, 1857– PG ­1886. PGM Papyri Graecae Magicae PL Patrologiae cursus completus. Accurante J. P. Migne. Series Latina PRE Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft P.S.I. Papiri greci e latini. Pubblicazioni della Società italiana per la ricerca dei papiri greci e latini in Egitto. Firenze: Ariani, 1912. ProBi Protokolle zur Bibel Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum RAC RGG4 Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 4th edition. Edited by H. D. Betz et al. Tübingen: Mohr, 1998–­2007. rell. reliqui, i.e., the remaining manuscripts SacPag Sacra Pagina SBG Studies in Biblical Greek SGUÄ Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten SEG Supplementum epigraphicum graecum

580

Bibliography

SIG

Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Edited by Wilhelm Dittenberger. 4 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1915–­1924. Studies in Biblical Literature StBL SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta Transactions of the American Philological Association TAPA ThBNT Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament ThWNT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932–­1979. ThGespr Theologisches Gespräch TLG #E Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, edition E TPINTC Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie TrinJ Trinity Journal VEccl Verbum et Ecclesia W&W Word & World ZBK.WK Zürcher Werkkommentare zur Bibel

(2) Commentaries on Luke Bock, D. L. 1994–­1996. Luke. 2 vols. BECNT 3. Grand Rapids: Baker. Bossuyt, P., and J. Radermakers. 1999. Jésus, parole de la grâce selon Saint Luc. 2 vols. 3rd edition. Brussels: Institut d’Etudes Theologiques. Bovon, F. 1989–­2009. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Neukirchen­-Vluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 2002–­2013. Luke. 3 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Caird, G. B. 1977. The Gospel of St. Luke. PNTC. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Creed, J. M. 1960 [1930]. The Gospel according to St. Luke. London: Macmillan. Danker, F. W. 1988. Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Fortress. Eckey, W. 2004. Das Lukas-Evangelium­. 2 vols. Neukirchen­-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Ellis, E. E. 1987. The Gospel of Luke. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ernst, J. 1993. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 6th edition. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet. Evans, C. A. 1995. Luke. NIBC 3. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. Evans, C. F. 1990. Saint Luke. TPINTC. London: SCM Press. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1981/1985. The Gospel according to Luke. 2 vols. AncB 28–­28a. New York: Doubleday. Geldenhuys, N. 1950. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. Green, J. B. 1997. The Gospel of Luke. NIC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Grundmann, W. 1984. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 10th edition. ThHK 3. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Johnson, L. T. 1991. The Gospel of Luke. SacPag 3. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical. Just, A. A. 1996/1997. Luke. 2 vols. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia. Klein, H. 2006. Das Lukasevangelium. KEK I/3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Klostermann, E. 1975 [21929]. Das Lukasevangelium. 3rd edition. HNT 5. Tübingen: Mohr. Kremer, J. 2000. Lukasevangelium. 3rd edition. NEB.NT 3. Würzburg: Echter.



Bibliography 581

Lagrange, M.­J. 1948. Évangile selon Saint Luc. 7th edition. EtB. Paris: Gabalda. LaVerdiere, E. 1984. Luke. NTMES. Dublin: Veritas. Marshall, I. H. 1978. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Meynet, R. 2005. L’évangile de Luc. Paris: Gabalda. Nolland, J. 1989–­1993. Luke. 3 vols. WBC 35A–­C. Dallas: Word Books. Petzke, G. 1990. Das Sondergut des Evangeliums nach Lukas. ZBK.WK. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Plummer, A. 1953 [51922]. The Gospel according to S. Luke. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Radl, W. 2003. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Vol. 1. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Sabourin, L. 1992. L’évangile de Luc. 2nd edition. Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana. Schlatter, A. 1960. Das Evangelium des Lukas. 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Calver. Schmid, J. 1960. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 4th edition. RNT 3. Regensburg: Pustet. Schmithals, W. 1980. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. ZBK.NT 3/1. Zürich: Theologischer. Schneider, G. 1984. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 2 vols. 2nd edition. ÖTK 3/1–­2. Gütersloh: Mohn. Schürmann, H. 19904/1994. Das Lukasevangelium. Vol. I and II/I. HThK 3/1–­2. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Schweizer, E. 1982. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. NTD 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stein, R. H. 1992. Luke. NAC 24. Nashville: Broadman. Talbert, C. H. 2002. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary. 2nd edition. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys. Tannehill, R. C. 1996. Luke. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon. Tiede, D. L. 1988. Luke. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Tresmontant, C. 1987. L’évangile de Luc. Paris: O.E.I.L. Weiss, B. 1901 [71885]. Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. 9th edition. KEK I/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weiss, J. 1892. “Evangelium des Lukas.” Pages 271–­666 in Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. 8th edition. Edited by B. Weiss and J. Weiss. KEK I/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wellhausen, J. 1904. Das Evangelium Lucae übersetzt und erklärt. Berlin: Reimer. Wiefel, W. 1988. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. ThHK 3. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Zahn, T. 1988 [3/41920]. Das Evangelium des Lucas. KNT 3. Wuppertal Brockhaus.

(3) Literature Aalen, S. 1966–­1967. “St. Luke’s Gospel and the Last Chapters of I Enoch.” NTS 13: 1–­13. Abadie, P. 1999. “Les généalogies de Jésus en Matthieu et Luc.” LV(L) 48: 47–­60. Abel, E. L. 1974. “The Genealogies of Jesus Ο ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ.” NTS 20: 203–­10. Adams, B. 1964. Paramoné und verwandte Texte: Studien zum Dienstvertrag im Rechte der Papyri. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

582

Bibliography

Aejmelaeus, L. 1985. Wachen vor dem Ende: Die traditionsgeschichtlichen Wurzeln von 1 Thess. 5:1-11 und Luk 21:34­-36­. SESJ 44. Helsinki: Kirjapaino Raamattutalo. Ahn, Y.­-S. 2006. The Reign of God and Rome in Luke’s Passion Narrative. Bib.Int.S 80. Leiden: Brill. Aicher, G. 1908. Kamel und Nadelöhr. Münster: Aschendorff. Aichinger, H. 1978. “Zur Traditionsgeschichte der Epileptiker-Perikope.” Pages 114–­ 43 in Probleme der Forschung. SNTU.A 3. Vienna: Herold. Akaabiam, T. H. 1999. The Proclamation of the Good News: A Study of Luke 24 in Tiv Context. EHS.T 673. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Aland, K. 1967. “Die Bedeutung des 𝔓75 für den Text des Neuen Testaments.” Pages 155–­72 in Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes. ANTF 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 1979. “Der Schluß des Markusevangeliums.” Pages 246–­83 in Neutestament­ liche Entwürfe. TB 63. Munich: Kaiser. ———. 1987. “Alter und Entstehung des D-Textes im Neuen Testament.” Pages 37–­ 61 in Miscellània papirològica Ramón Roca-Puig en el seu­vuitantè aniversari. Edited by S. Janeras. Barcelona: Fundació Salvador Vives Casajuana. ———. 2001. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. 15th edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Albertz, R. 1983. “Die ‘Antrittspredigt’ Jesu im Lukasevangelium auf ihrem alttestamentlichen Hintergrund.” ZNW 74: 182–­206. Aletti, J.­N. 1983. “Jésus à Nazareth (Lc 4,16­-30).” Pages 431–­51 in À cause de l’évangile: Festschrift Jacques Dupont. Paris: Cerf. ———. 1989a. L’art de raconter Jésus Christ. L’écriture narrative de l’évangile de Luc. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. ———. 1989b. “Parabole des mines et/ou parabole du roi.” Pages 309–­32 in Les Paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles. XIIe congrès de l’ACFEB, Lyon (1987). Edited by J. Delorme. LeDiv 135. Paris: Cerf. Alexander, L. 1993. The Preface to Luke’s Gospel. MSSNTS 78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alliata, E. 1984. “La krypte di Lc 11,33 e le grotte ripostiglio della antiche case palestinesi.” SBF/LA 34: 53–­66. Allison, D. C. 1983. “Matthew 23:39 = Luke 13:35b as a Conditional Prophecy.” JSNT 18: 75–­84. ———. 1987. “The Eye Is the Lamp of the Body.” NTS 33: 61–­83. ———. 1988. “Was There a ‘Lukan Community’?” IBSt 10: 62–­70. ———. 1989/1990. “‘The hairs on your head are all numbered.’” ExpT 101: 334–­36. ———. 1999. “Q 12:51-53 and Mark 9:11-13 and the Messianic Woes.” Pages 289– 310 in Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Edited by B. Chilton and C. A. Evans. NTTS 28/1. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2002. “Rejecting Violent Judgment: Luke 9:52 and Its Relatives.” JBL 121: 459–­78. Amon, J. E. 1997. “Settling out of Court.” Pages 269–­413 in Q 12:49–59­. Edited by S. Carruth. Leuven: Peeters. Amphoux, C.­-B. 1991–­1992. “Les premières éditions de Luc.” EthL 67/68: 312–­27, 38–­48.



Bibliography 583

Anderson, R. H. 1997. “Theophilus: A Proposal.” EvQ 69: 195–­215. Annas, J., ed., and R. Woolf, trans. 2001. Cicero, On Moral Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Annen, F. 1976. Heil für die Heiden. FTS 20. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht. Applebaum, S. 1979. Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene. Leiden: Brill. Arav, R., and R. A. Freund, eds. 1995/1999. Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Kirksville, Mo.: Thomas Jefferson State University Press. Arbesmann, R. 1929. Das Fasten bei den Griechen und Römern. Giessen: Töpelmann. Arens, E. 1976. The ΗΛΘΟΝ­-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition. OBO 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ascough, R. S. 1993. “Rejection and Repentance: Peter and the People in Luke’s Passion Narrative.” Bib. 74: 349–­65. Ash, H. B. 1977. Res Rustica. Vol. 1. LCL 361. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Attridge, H. W. 2000. “‘Seeking’ and ‘Asking’ in Q, Thomas, and John.” Pages 295–­ 302 in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson. Edited by J. M. Asgeirsson, K. de Troyer, and M. M. Meyer. BEThL 146. Leuven: Peeters. Auffret, P. 1978. “Note sur la structure littéraire de Lc I. 67-79.” NTS 24: 248–­58. Aune, D. E. 1996. “Luke 20:34-36: A ‘Gnosticized’ Logion of Jesus?” Pages 187–­202 in Geschichte–­Tradition–­Reflexion: Festschrift Martin Hengel. Vol. 3. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1997–­1998. Revelation 1–­5 / 6–­16 / 17–­22. WBC 52A–­C. Nashville: T. Nelson. ———. 2002. “Luke 1.1­-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?” Pages 138–­48 in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Festschrift Alexander J.M. Wedderburn­. Edited by A. J. M. Wedderburn and A. Christophersen. JSNT.S 217. London: Sheffield Academic. Aus, R. D. 1985. “Luke 15:1-32 and R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus’s Rise to Fame.” JBL 104: 443–­69. ———. 1994. Samuel, Saul and Jesus: Three Early Palestinian Jewish Christian Gospel Haggadoth. SFSHJ 105. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 2000. The Stilling of the Storm. Binghampton, N.Y.: Global Publications. ———. 2003. My Name Is “Legion.” Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. Ausbüttel, A. 1998. Die Verwaltung des römischen Kaiserreiches. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Avigad, N. 1962. “A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley.” IEJ 12: 1–­12. Avni, G. 1994. “Three New Burial Caves of the Second Temple Period in Aceldama.” Pages 206–­18 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Edited by H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Baarda, T. 1969. “Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Gergesenes and the ‘Diatessaron’ Traditions.” Pages 181–­97 in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Festschrift Matthew Black. Edited by E. E. Ellis. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 1975. “Luke 12,13-­14: Text and Transmission from Marcion to Augustine.” Pages 107–­62 in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Festschrift Morton Smith­. Vol. 1. Edited by J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1988. “Luke 22:42­-47a: The Emperor Julian as a Witness to the Text of Luke.” NT 30: 289–­96.

584

Bibliography

Baarlink, H. 1982. “Ein gnädiges Jahr des Herrn- ­und Tage der Vergeltung.” ZNW 73: 204–­20. Backhaus, K. 1991. Die “Jüngerkreise” des Täufers Johannes. PaThSt 19. Paderborn: Schöningh. ———. 2007. “Lukas der Maler: Die Apostelgeschichte als intentionale Geschichte der christlichen Erstepoche.” Pages 30–­66 in Historiographie und fiktionales Erzählen. Edited by K. Backhaus and G. Häfner. BThSt 86. Neukirchen­-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Baergen, R. A. 2006. “Servant, Manager or Slave? Reading the Parable of the Rich Man and His Steward (Luke 16:1-­8a) through the Lens of Ancient Slavery.” StudRel/SciRel 35: 25–­38. Bagatti, B. 1969/2002. Excavations in Nazareth. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Bagnall, R. G. 2000. “Jesus Reads a Book.” JThS 51: 577–­88. Bagnall, R. S., and K. A. Worp. 2001. “Household Accounts: SB I 5224 Revised.” BASPap 38: 7–­20. Bailey, K. E. 1976. Poet and Peasant: A Literary-cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke­. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 1992. Finding the Lost. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia. ———. 2003. Jacob and the Prodigal. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity. Ballard, P. H. 1972. “Reasons for Refusing the Great Supper.” JThS NS 23: 341–­50. Baltensweiler, H. 1984. “‘Wer nicht gegen uns (euch) ist, ist für uns (euch)!’” ThZ 40: 130–­36. Bammel, E. 1986. “The Cambridge Pericope: The Addition to Luke 6.4 in Codex Bezae.” NTS 32: 404–­26. Barigazzi, A., ed. 1966. Favorinus, Opere. Florence: Le Monnier. Barr, J. 1988. “Abba Isn’t Daddy.” JThS 39: 28–­47. Barrett, C. K. 1958. “Luke XXII.15: To Eat the Passover.” JThS 9: 305–­7. ———. 1992. “The Third Gospel as a Preface to Acts? Some Reflections.” Pages 1451–­66 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1994/1998. The Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. ICC. London: T&T Clark. Barrett, C. K., and C.-J. Thornton. 1991. Texte zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edition. Tübingen: Mohr. Bartsch, H.-W. 1974. “Jesu Schwertwort, Lukas xxii.35-38.” NTS 20: 190–­203. ———. 1984. Codex Bezae versus Codex Sinaiticus im Lukasevangelium. Hildesheim: Olms. Batten, A. 1998. “Patience Breeds Wisdom: Q 6:40 in Context.” CBQ 60: 641–­56. Bauckham, R. 1977. “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse.” NTS 23: 162–­76. ———. 1990. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 1991a. “More on Kainam: The Son of Arpachshad in Luke’s Genealogy.” EThL 67: 95–­103. ———. 1991b. “The Rich Man and Lazarus.” NTS 37: 225–­46. ———. 1997. “Anna of the Tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36-38).” RB 104: 161–­91.



Bibliography 585

———. 1998. “For Whom Were Gospels Written?” Pages 9–­48 in The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by R. Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bauer, J. B. 1960. “ΠΟΛΛΟΙ Luk 1,1.” NT 4: 263–­66. ———. 1972. “‘Wer sein Leben retten will’ Mark 8,35parr.” Pages 43–­46 in Scholia biblica et patristica. Graz: Akademische Druck­& Verlagsanstalt. Bauer, U. 1998. “Der Anfang der Endzeitrede in der Logienquelle (Q 17).” Pages 79–­ 101 in Wenn drei das Gleiche sagen. Edited by S. H. Brandenburger and T. Hieke. Münster: Lit. Bauer, W. 1988. Griechisch-deutsches W­örterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. 6th edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Baum, A. D. 1993. Lukas als Historiker der letzten Jesusreise. Wuppertal: Brockhaus. Beardslee, W. A. 1979. “Saving One’s Life by Losing It.” JAAR 47: 57–­72. Beavis, M. A. 1992. “Ancient Slavery as an Interpretive Context for the New Testament Servant Parables.” JBL 111: 37–­54. Beck, B. E. 1981. “‘Imitatio Christi’ and the Lukan Passion Narrative.” Pages 28–­47 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar. Edited by W. Horbury and B. McNeil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Becker, J. 1981. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Vol. 2. Gütersloh: Mohn. ———. 1996. Jesus von Nazaret. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bellinzoni, A. J. 1998. “The Gospel of Luke in the Second Century CE.” Pages 59–­76 in Literary Studies in Luke–­Acts: Festschrift Joseph B. Tyson. Edited by R. P. Thompson and T. E. Phillips. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press. ———. 2005. “The Gospel of Luke in the Apostolic Fathers: An Overview.” Pages 45–­68 in The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 2, Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. Edited by A. Gregory and C. Tuckett. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ben-David, A. 1974. Talmudische Ökonomie I. Hildesheim: Olms. Bendemann, R. von. 2000. “Liebe und Sündenvergebung.” BZ NF 44: 161–­82. ———. 2001. Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ und ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ. Eine exegetische Untersuchung der Texte des sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium. BZNW. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bengel, J. A. 1855. Gnomon Novi Testamenti. 3rd edition. Tübingen: Fues. Benko, S. 1967. “The Magnificat: A History of the Controversy.” JBL 86: 263–­75. Benoit, P. 1956–­1957. “L’Enfance de Jean-Baptiste selon Luc 1.” NTS 3: 169–­94. Bergemann, T. 1993. Q auf dem Prüfstand. FRLANT 158. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Berger, K. 1972. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. WMANT 40. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 1973a. “‘Gnade’ im frühen Christentum.” NedThT 27: 1–­25. ———. 1973b. “Materialien zu Form und Überlieferungsgeschichte neutestament­ licher Gleichnisse.” NT 15: 1–­37. ———. 1976. Die Auferstehung des Propheten und die Erhöhung des Menschensohnes. StUNT 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

586

Bibliography

———. 1977a. “Almosen fur Israel: Zum historischen Kontext der Paulinischen Kollekte.” NTS 23: 180–­204. ———. 1977b. “Gleichnisse als Texte. Zum lukanischen Gleichnis vom ‘verlorenen Sohn’ (Lk 15,11-­32).” Pages 61–­74 in Imago Linguae: Festschrift for Fritz Paepcke. Edited by K.-­H. Bender, K. Berger, and M. Wandruszka. Munich: Fink. ———. 1980. “Hellenistisch-heidnische Prodigien und die Vorzeichen in der jüdischen und christlichen Apokalyptik.” Pages 1428–­69 in ANRW II: 23/2. ———. 1984a. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. ———. 1984b. “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament.” Pages 1031–­432 and 1831–­85 in ANRW II: 25/2. ———. 1985. “Das Canticum Simeonis (Lk 2:29-­32).” NT 27: 27–­39. ———. 1988. “Jesus als Pharisäer und frühe Christen als Pharisäer.” NT 30: 231–­62. ———. 1996. “Jesus als Nasoräer/Nasiräer.” NT 41: 322–­35. ———. 2005. Formen und Gattungen im Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Francke. Berger, K., and C. Colpe. 1987. Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Neuen Testament. NTD.T 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Berger, P. L. 1991. Auf den Spuren der Engel. 3rd edition. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday. Berger, P.-­R. 1983. “Luke 2,14: ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας. Die auf Gottes Weisung mit Wohlgefallen beschenkten Menschen.” ZNW 74: 129–­44. Bergier, J.­F. 1989. Die Geschichte vom Salz. Frankfurt: Campus. Bergson, L. 1965. Der griechische Alexanderroman. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Bernabé Ubieta, C. 2000. “Mary Magdalene and the Seven Demons in Social-­ Scientific Perspective.” Pages 203–­23 in Transformative Encounters: Jesus and Women Re-Viewed­. Edited by I. R. Kitzberger. Bib.Int.S 43. Leiden: Brill. Berthelot, M., and C.­-E. Ruelle. 1887–­1888. Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs. Paris: Steinheil. Betz, H. D. 1972. Der Apostel Paulus und die Sokratische Tradition. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1978. “De Tranquillitate animi [Moralia 464e–­477f].” Pages 198–­230 in Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1992. “The Sermon on the Mount and Q.” Pages 249–­69 in Synoptische Studien. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1995. The Sermon on the Mount. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Betz, O. 1964. “The Dichotomized Servant and the End of Judas Iscariot.” RdQ 5: 43–­58. Beutler, J. 1991. “Punkt oder Komma?” BZ NF 35: 231–­33. Beyer, K. 1962. Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament. StUNT 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bickermann, E. 1937. “ΑΝΑΔΕΙΞΙΣ.” Pages 117–­24 in Mélanges Émile Boisacq. Brussels: Secrétariat des éd. de l’Institut. ———. 1985. “Die römische Kaiserapotheose [1929].” Pages 1–­34 in Religions and Politics in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. BiAth 5. Como: Edizioni New Press. ———. 1988. “Das leere Grab.” Pages 271–­84 in Zur neutestamentlichen Überlieferung von der Auferstehung Jesu. Edited by P. Hoffmann. WdF 522. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.



Bibliography 587

Bieberstein, K., and H. Bloedhorn. 1994. Jerusalem: Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft. 3 vols. BTAVO.B 100. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Bieberstein, S. 1998. Verschwiegene Jüngerinnen—­vergessene Zeuginnen. NTOA 38. Freiburg: Göttingen. Bielinski, K. 2003. Jesus vor Herodes in Lk 23,6-12. SBB 50. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Bietenhard, H. 1951. Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum. WUNT 2. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1977. “Die syrische Dekapolis von Pompejus bis Trajan.” Pages 220–­61 in ANRW II: 8. Billings, B. S. 2006. Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Disputed Words in the Lukan Institution Narrative (Luke 22.19b-20). LNTS 314. London: T&T Clark. Bindemann, W. 1995. “Ungerechte als Vorbilder?” ThLZ 120: 955–­70. Binder, D. D. 1999. Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Binder, H. 1988. Das Gleichnis von dem Richter und der Witwe Lk 18,1-8. Neukirchen­ Vluyn: Neukirchener. Bivin, B. 1992. “The Miraculous Catch.” Jerusalem Perspectives 5: 7–­10. Blaschke, A. 1998. Beschneidung. Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter Texte. TANZ 28. Tübingen: Francke. Blau, L. 1898. Das altjüdische Zauberwesen. Strassburg: Teubner. Blinzler, J. 1953. “Die literarische Eigenart des sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium.” Pages 20–­52 in Synoptische Studien: Festschrift Alfred Wikenhauser. Munich: Zink. ———. 1954–­1955. “  Ὀθόνια und andere Stoffbezeichnungen im ‘Wäschekatalog’ des Ägypters Theophanes und im Neuen Testament.” Ph. 99: 158–­66. ———. 1957/1958. “Die Niedermetzelung von Galiläern durch Pilatus.” NT 2: 24–­49. Blomberg, C. L. 1983. “Midrash, Chiasmus, and the Outline of Luke’s Central Section.” Pages 217–­61 in Gospel Perspectives. Vol. 3. Edited by R. T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT. Blomqvist, J. 1979. Das sogenannte καί adversativum: Zur Semantik einer griechi­ schen Partikel. AUU. SGU 13. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Blum, M. 2004. “. . . denn sie wissen nicht, was sie tun.” NTA NF 46. Münster: Aschendorff. Blumenthal, C. 2005. “Zur ‘Zinne des Tempels.’” ZNW 96: 274–­83. Böcher, O. 1970. Dämonenfurcht und Dämonenabwehr. BWANT 90. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ———. 1971/1972. “Aß Johannes der Täufer kein Brot (Luk. VII.33)?” NTS 18: 90–­92. Bock, D. L. 1987. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern. JSNT.S 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Bockmuehl, M. 1998. “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Dead.’” JThS 49: 553–­81. ———. 2003. “‘Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead.’” JSNT 26: 241–­42. Böhl, F. 1987. “Das Fasten an Montagen und Donnerstagen.” BZ NF 31: 247–­50. Böhlemann, P. 1997. Jesus und der Täufer. Schlüssel zur Theologie und Ethik des Lukas. MSSNTS 99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

588

Bibliography

Böhler, D. 1998. “Jesus als Davidssohn bei Lukas und Micha.” Bib. 79: 532–­38. Böhm, M. 1999. Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas. WUNT 2/111. Tübingen: Mohr. Boismard, M. É. 1997. En quête du proto-Luc. Paris: Gabalda. ———. 2002. “La parabole de l’intendant infidèle en Lc 16,1-9.” Pages 451–­54 in San Luca Evangelista. Testimone della fede che unisce. I. L’unità letteraria e teologica dell’opera di Luca. Edited by G. Leonarde. Padova: Istituto per la storia ecclesiastica padovana. Bolkestein, H. 1967 [1939]. Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum. Groningen: Bouma. Bonnard, P. 1980. “Approche historico­critique de Luc 15.” Pages 93–­103 in Anamnesis: Recherches sur le Nouveau Testament. Edited by P. Bonnard. Geneva: Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie. Bons, E. 1994. “Das Sterbewort Jesu nach Lk 23,46 und sein alttestamentlicher Hintergrund.” BZ NF 38: 93–­101. Booth, R. P. 1986. Jesus and the Laws of Purity. Sheffield: JSOT. Borg, M. J. 1992. “Luke 19,42-44 and Jesus as Prophet?” Forum 8: 99–­112. Bork, H. D. 1977. “Lateinisch-romanisch auris/auricula/auditus und die partitiven Diminutiva.” Glotta 55: 120–­56. Bormann, L. 2001. Recht, Gerechtigkeit und Religion im Lukasevangelium. StUNT 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bornhäuser, K. 1934. Studien zum Sondergut des Lukas. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Borse, U. 1997. “Der lukanische Verzicht auf Betanien.” SNTU.A 22: 5­24. Bösen, W. 1980. Jesusmahl, Eucharistisches Mahl, Endzeitmahl. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Lukas. SBS 97. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Bosold, I. 1978. Pazifismus und prophetische Provokation: Das Grußverbot Lk 10,4b und sein historischer Kontext. SBS 90. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Bottini, G. C. 2001. “Luca 18,31-33. Il mistero del Figlio dell’uomo.” Pages 705–­14 in Mysterium Regni. Ministerium Verbi. Scritti in onore di Mons. Vittorio Fusco. Edited by E. Franco. SRivBib 38. Bologna: EDB. Böttrich, C. 2001. Petrus: Fischer, Fels und Funktionär. BG 2. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. ———. 2003. “Ideal oder Zeichen? Besitzverzicht bei Lukas am Beispiel der ‘Ausrüstungsregel.’” NTS 49: 372–­92. ———. 2005. “Proexistenz im Leben und Sterben: Jesu Tod bei Lukas.” Pages 413–­ 36 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu. Edited by J. Frey and J. Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr. Bovon, F. 1993. “Wetterkundliches bei den Synoptikern (Lk 12,54-56par.).” BThZ 10: 175–­86. ———. 2000. “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 back to Q.” Pages 285–­94 in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson. Edited by J. M. Asgeirsson, K. de Troyer, and M. M. Meyer. BEThL 146. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2003. “The Lukan Story of the Passion of Jesus (Luke 22-­23).” Pages 74–­105 in Studies in Early Christianity. WUNT 161. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2005. “The Reception and Use of the Gospel of Luke in the Second Century CE.” Pages 379–­400 in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation.



Bibliography 589

Edited by C. G. Bartholomew, J. B. Green, and A. C. Thiselton. Milton Keynes: Paternoster. ———. 2006. Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950–­2005). 2nd edition. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press. Brandenburger, E. 1973. Frieden im Neuen Testament. Gütersloh: Mohn. Brandt, W. 1891. “ΟΝΟΜΑ en de Doopsformule in het Nieuwe Testament.” ThT 25: 565–­610. Braude, W. G., trans. 1959. The Midrash on Psalms. Vol. 1. New Haven: Yale University Press. Braumann, G. 1963/1864. “Die Schuldner und die Sünderin.” NTS 10: 487­–93. ———. 1980. “Tot–­lebendig–­verloren–­gefunden (Lk 15,24 and 32).” Pages 156–­ 64 in Wort in der Zeit. Neutestamentliche Studien: Festschrift Karl Heinrich Rengstorf. Edited by W. Haubeck and M. Bachmann. Leiden: Brill. Braun, W. 1992. “Symposium or Anti-­Symposium? Reflections on Luke 14:1-­24.” TJT 8: 70–­84. ———. 1995. Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14. MSSNTS 85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braunert, H. 1980. “Der römischen Provinzialzensus und der Schätzungsbericht des Lukas­-Evangeliums.” Pages 213–­37 in Politik, Recht und Gesellschaft in der griechisch-r­ömischen Antike. Edited by K. Telschow and M. Zahrnt. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Brawley, R. L. 1987. Luke–­Acts and the Jews. SBLMS 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 1992. “Canon and Community.” SBL.SP 31: 419–­34. ———. 1995. Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke–­Acts. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. Breytenbach, C. 1985. “Das Markusevangelium als episodische Erzählung. Mit Überlegungen zum Aufbau des zweiten Evangeliums.” Pages 137–­69 in Der Erzähler des Evangeliums. Methodische Neuansätze in der Markusforschung. Edited by F. Hahn. SBS 118/119. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1999. “Gnädigstimmen und opferkultische Sühne im Urchristentum und seiner Umwelt.” Pages 419–­42 in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte: Festschrift Jürgen Becker. Edited by U. Mell and U. B. Müller. BZNW 100. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bridge, S. L. 2003. “Where the Eagles Are Gathered”: The Deliverance of the Elect in Lukan Eschatology. JSNT.S 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Brock, S. P. 1963. “A Note on Luke IX.16 (D).” JThS 14: 391–­92. Brodie, T. L. 1986. “Towards Unravelling Luke’s Use of the Old Testament: Luke 7.11-­17 as an Imitatio of 1 Kings 17.17-24.” NTS 32: 247–­67. ———. 1989a. “The Departure for Jerusalem (Luke 9,51­-56) as a Rhetorical Imitation of Elijah’s Departure for the Jordan.” Bib. 70: 96–­109. ———. 1989b. “Luke 9:57­-62: A Systematic Adaption of the Divine Challenge to Elijah (1 Kings 19).” SBLSP 28: 237–­45. ———. 1992. “Not Q but Elijah: The Saving of the Centurion’s Servant (Luke 7:110) as an Internalization of the Saving of the Widow and Her Child (1 Kings 17:1-16).” IBSt 14: 54–­71. Broer, I. 1986. Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt. BBB 61. Königstein: Hanstein.

590

Bibliography

———. 1998/2001. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 2 vols. NEB.E 2/1–­2. Würzburg: Echter. Brooke, G. J. 1995. “4Q500 1 and the Use of Scripture in the Parable of the Vineyard.” DSD 2: 268–­94. Brown, R. E. 1978. “Luke’s Method in the Annunciation Narrative of Chapter One.” Pages 126–­38 in Perspectives in Luke–­Acts. Edited by C. H. Talbert. Edinburgh: Clark. ———. 1993. The Birth of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday. ———. 1994. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday. ———. 1997. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday. Brown, S. 1969. Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke. AnBib 36. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Brox, N. 1969. “Zu den persönlichen Notizen der Pastoralbriefe.” BZ NF 13: 76–­94. Bruhn, W., and M. Tilke. 1955. Kostümgeschichte in Bildern. Tübingen: Wasmuth. Brun, L. 1932. “Die Berufung der ersten Jünger in der evangelischen Tradition.” SO 11: 35–­54. ———. 1933. “Engel und Blutschweiß Lc 22.43-­44.” ZNW 32: 265–­76. Bruners, W. 1977. Die Reinigung der zehn Aussätzigen und die Heilung des Samari­ ters Lk 17,11-19. FzB 23. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Brunner, H. 1988. Altägyptische Weisheit. Lehren für das Leben. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Brunt, P. A. 1981. “The Revenues of Rome.” JRS 71: 163–­72. Büchele, A. 1978. Der Tod Jesu im Lukasevangelium. FTS 26. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht. Buckhanon Crowder, S. 2002. Simon of Cyrene: A Case of Roman Conscription. StBL 46. New York: Lang. Buckwalter, H. D. 1996. The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology. MSSNTS 89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buffière, F. 1962. Allégories d’Homère. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Bühner, J.­A. 1977. Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium. WUNT 2/2. Tübingen: Mohr. Buitenwerf, R. 2003. Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting: With an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Leiden: Brill. Bultmann, R. 1995 [1921]. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 10th edition. FRLANT 29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Burchard, C. 1970. Der dreizehnte Zeuge: Traditions– und kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Lukas’ Darstellung der Frühzeit des Paulus. FRLANT 103. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1985. “A Note on Ῥῆμα in JosAs 17:1-2; Luke 2:15, 17; Acts 10:37.” NT 27: 281–­95. ———. 1998. Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. WUNT 107. Tübingen: Mohr. Burger, C. 1970. Jesus als Davidssohn. FRLANT 98. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Burnett, A. 1998. Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. I/1–­2. 2nd edition. London: British Museum Press.



Bibliography 591

———. 1999. Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. II/1–­2. London: British Museum Press. Burridge, R. A. 1998. “About People, by People, for People: Gospel Genre and Audiences.” Pages 113–­45 in The Gospel for All Christians. Edited by R. Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Busch, P. 1966. Der gefallene Drache: Mythenexegese am Beispiel von Apokalypse 12. Tübingen: Francke. Busse, U. 1978. Das Nazareth-Manifest Jesu­ . SBS 91. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1979. Die Wunder des Propheten Jesus. 2nd edition. FzB 24. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1991. “Das ‘Evangelium’ des Lukas: Die Funktion der Vorgeschichte im lukanischen Doppelwerk.” Pages 161–­77 in Der Treue Gottes trauen. Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas: Festschrift Gerhard Schneider. Edited by C. Bussmann and W. Radl. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1994. “Die Engelrede Lk 1,13-17 und ihre Vorgeschichte.” Pages 163–­77 in Nach den Anfängen fragen: Festschrift Gerhard Dautzenberg. Edited by C. P. Mayer. Giessen: Selbstverlag des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie und Katholische Theologie und deren Didaktik. ———. 1998. “Dechiffrierung eines lukanischen Schlüsseltextes (Lk 19,11­-27).” Pages 423–­41 in Von Jesus zum Christus. Christologische Studien: Festschrift Paul Hoffmann. Edited by R. Hoppe and U. Busse. BZNW 93. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 2005. “Begegnung mit dem Wort nach Lk 5,1-11.” Pages 113–­29 in Luke and His Readers: Festschrift Adelbert Denaux. Edited by R. Bieringer, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 182. Leuven: Peeters. Buth, R. 1984. “Hebrew Tenses and the Magnificat.” JSNT 21: 67–­83. Cadbury, H. J. 1925. “Lexical Notes on Luke–­Acts I.” JBL 44: 214–­27. ———. 1926. “Lexical Notes on Luke–­Acts II. Recent Arguments for Medical Language.” JBL 45: 190–­206. ———. 1933. “Lexical Notes on Luke–­Acts V: Luke and the Horse-Doctors.” JBL 52: 55–­65. ———. 1969 [1920]. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. HThS 6. New York: Kraus. Cairns, D. L. 1993. Aidōs: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford: Clarendon. Callan, T. 1985. “The Preface of Luke–­Acts and Historiography.” NTS 31: 576–­81. Cameron, R. 1990. “What Have You Come Out to See?” Semeia 49: 35–­69. ———. 1996. “The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus.” HThR 89: 351–­54. Cancik, H. 1982. “Die Berufung des Johannes.” Der altsprachl. Unterricht 25: 45–­62. ———. 1997. “The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient Historiography: Philological Observations Concerning Luke’s History.” JBL 116: 673–­95. Caragounis, C. C. 1974. “ Ὀψώνιον: A Reconsideration of Its Meaning.” NT 16: 35–­57. Carlston, C. E. 1975. “Reminiscence and Redaction in Luke 15:11-32.” JBL 95: 368–­90.

592

Bibliography

Carmignac, J. 1969. Recherches sur le “Notre Père.” Paris: Letouzey & Ané. Carpinelli, F. G. 1999. “Do This as My Memorial (Luke 22:19): Lucan Soteriology of Atonement.” CBQ 61: 74–­91. Carras, G. P. 1997. “A Pentateuchal Echo in Jesus’ Prayer on the Cross: Intertextuality between Numbers 15,22-31 and Luke 23,34a.” Pages 605–­16 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BEThL 131. Leuven: Peeters. Carroll, J. T. 1988. “Luke’s Portrayal of the Pharisees.” CBQ 50: 604–­21. ———. 1990. “Luke’s Crucifixion Scene.” Pages 108–­24, 194–­203 in Reimagining the Death of the Lukan Jesus. Edited by D. D. Sylva. BBB 73. Frankfurt am Main: Hain. Carruth, S., and A. Garsky. 1996. Q 11:2b–4­. Edited by S. D. Anderson. Leuven: Peeters. Carruth, S., and J. M. Robinson. 1996. Q 4:113,16: The Temptations of Jesus, Nazara­. Edited by C. Heil. Leuven: Peeters. Casey, M. 1985. “The Jackals and the Son of Man.” JSNT 23: 3–­22. Catchpole, D. R. 1977. “The Son of Man’s Search for Faith (Luke XVIII 8b).” NT 19: 81–­104. ———. 1981. “On Doing Violence to the Kingdom.” IrBSt 3: 77–­92. ———. 1983. “Q and ‘The Friend at Midnight.’” JBL 34: 407–­24. ———. 1984. “The ‘Triumphal Entry.’” Pages 319–­34 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1989. “Q, Prayer, and the Kingdom.” JThS 40: 377–­88. ———. 1991. “The Mission Charge in Q.” Semeia 55: 147–­74. ———. 1992. “The Centurion’s Faith and Its Function in Q.” Pages 517–­40 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1993a. “The Annointed One in Nazareth.” Pages 231–­51 in From Jesus to John: Festschrift Marinus de Jonge. Edited by M. C. De Boer. Sheffield: JSOT. ———. 1993b. “The Beginning of Q: A Proposal.” Pages 60–­78 in The Quest for Q. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Cavallin, C. 1985. “‘Bienheureux seras-­tu . . . à la résurrection des justes.’ Le macarisme de Lc 14,14.” Pages 531–­46 in À cause de l’évangile: Festschrift Jacques Dupont. LeDiv 123. Paris: Cerf. Cerfaux, L. 1985. “À propos de Lc., VIII,15.” Pages 111–­22 in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux III. 2nd edition. BEThL 71. Leuven: Peeters. Chance, J. B. 1988. Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke–­Acts. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. 1983–­1985. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday. Charlesworth, J. H., H. Lichtenberger, and G. Oegema, eds. 1998. Qumran Messianism. Tübingen: Mohr. Chen, D. G. 2006. God as Father in Luke–­Acts. StBL 92. New York: Lang. Chenu, B. 2003. Disciples d’Emmaüs. Paris: Bayard. Cheong, C.-S. A. 2001. A Dialogic Reading of the Steward Parable (Luke 16:19)­. StBL 28. New York: Lang. Chilton, B. 1979. God in Strength. SNTU.B 1. Freistadt: Plöchl.



Bibliography 593

Cho, Y. 2003. “Spirit and Kingdom in Luke–­Acts.” AJPS 6: 173–­97. Chow, S. 1995. The Sign of Jonah Reconsidered. CB.NT 27. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Christ, F. 1970. Jesus Sophia. AThANT 57. Zürich: Fischer. Clemen, C. 1973 [1924]. Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Clivaz, C. 2002. “Douze noms pour une main: nouveaux regards sur Judas à partir de Lc 22.21-­2.” NTS 48: 400–­416. ———. 2003. “Quand le récit fait parler le discours (Luc 22,28-30).” Pages 368–­85 in La Bible en récits: L’exégèse biblique à l’heure du lecteur. Edited by D. Marguerat. MoBi 48. Geneva: Labor et Fides. ———. 2005. “The Angel and the Sweat Like ‘Drops of Blood’ (Lk 22:43­-44): 𝔓69 and f 13.” HThR 98: 419–­40. Cohn­-Sherbok, D. M. 1979. “An Analysis of Jesus’ Arguments concerning the Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath.” JSNT 2: 31–­41. Coleridge, M. 1993. The Birth of the Lucan Narrative: Narrative as Christology in Luke 1–­2. JSNT.S 88. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 1997. “‘You Are Witnesses’ (Luke 24:48): Who Sees What in Luke.” ABR 45: 1–­19. Collins, J. N. 1990. Diakonia: Re-Interpreting the Ancient Sources. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, R. F. 1976. “Luke 3:21-22, Baptism or Anointing?” BiTod 84: 821–­32. Conzelmann, H. 1977. Die Mitte der Zeit. 6th edition. BHTh 17. Tübingen: Mohr. Correns, D. 1963. “Die Verzehntung der Raute, Lk 11,42 und MSchebi 9,1.” NT 6: 110–­12. ———. 2005. Die Mischnah. Wiesbaden: Marix. Cortés, J. B. 1984. “The Greek Text of Luke 18:14a.” CBQ 46: 255–­73. Cortés, J. B., and F. M. Gatti. 1987. “On the Meaning of Luke 16:16.” JBL 106: 247–­49. Cosgrove, C. H. 1984. “The Divine δεῖ in Luke–­Acts.” NT 26: 168–­90. ———. 2005. “A Woman’s Unbound Hair in the Greco-­Roman World, with Special Reference to the Story of the ‘Sinful Woman’ in Luke 7:36­-50.” JBL: 675–­92. Cotter, W. J. 1987. “The Parable of the Children in the Marketplace, Q (Lk) 7:31-35.” NT 29: 289–­304. ———. 1989. “Children Sitting in the Agora.” Forum 5: 63–­82. ———. 2005. “The Parable of the Feisty Widow and the Threatened Judge (Luke 18.1-8).” NTS 51: 328–­43. Coulot, C. 1982. “La structuration de la péricope de l’homme riche et ses différentes lectures.” RSR 56: 240–­52. Craghan, J. F. 1967. “A Redactional Study of Lk 7,21 in the Light of Dt 19,15.” CBQ 29: 47–­61 (353–­67). Creech, R. R. 1990. “The Most Excellent Narratee: The Significance of Theophilus in Luke–­Acts.” Pages 107–­26 in With Steadfast Purpose: Festschrift Henry Jackson Flanders. Edited by N. H. Keathley. Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press. Croatto, J. S. 2005. “Jesus, Prophet Like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher Like Moses in Luke–­Acts.” JBL 124: 451–­65.

594

Bibliography

Crook, Z. A. 2000. “The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: A Test-Case for the Two-Document, Two-Gospel, and Farrer-Goulder Hypotheses.” JSNT 78: 23–­48. Crossan, J. D. 1992. “Jesus and the Leper.” Forum 8: 177–­90. Crowe, J. 1977. “The Laos at the Cross: Luke’s Crucifixion Scene.” Pages 75–­101 in The Language of the Cross. Edited by A. Lacomara. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. Crump, D. M. 1992a. Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke–­Acts. WUNT 2/49. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1992b. “Jesus, the Victorious Scribal-­Intercessor in Luke’s Gospel.” NTS 38: 51–­65. Crusius, O., and C. F. T. Müller, eds. 1897. Babrii Fabulae Aesopeae. Leipzig: Teubner. Cukrowski, K. L. 1997. “‘Blessed Is the King’: Roman Triumph and Jesus’ Triumphal Entry in Luke 19:37-40.” BBTS 87: 3–­14. Culpepper, R. A. 1999. “Parable as Commentary: The Twice-Given Vineyard.” PRSt 26: 147–­68. Cunningham, S. 1997. “Through Many Tribulations”: The Theology of Persecution in Luke–­Acts. JSNT.S 142. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Curkpatrick, S. 2002. “Dissonance in Luke 18:1-­8.” JBL 121: 107–­21. ———. 2003. “A Parable Frame­-up and Its Audacious Reframing.” NTS 49: 22–­38. d’Angelo, M. R. 1990. “Women in Luke–­Acts: A Redactional View.” JBL 109: 441–­61. d’Arms, J. H. 1990. “The Roman Convivium and the Idea of Equality.” Pages 308–­20 in Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Edited by O. Murray. Oxford: Clarendon. Dalman, G. 1921. Orte und Wege Jesu. 2nd edition. BFChTh.M 1. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. ———. 1926. “Viererlei Acker.” PJ 22: 120–­32. ———. 1930. Die Worte Jesu. Vol. 1. 2nd edition. Leipzig: Hinrichs. ———. 1964 [1928–­1942]. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. 7 vols. BFChTh.M 14. Hildesheim: Olms. ———. 1989 [21905]. Grammatik des jüdisch-pal­ästinischen Aramäisch nach den Idiomen des palästinischen Talmud, des Onkelostargum und Prophetentargum und der jerusalemischen Targume. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Danker, F. W. 1960–­1961. “The huios Phrases in the New Testament.” NTS 7: 94. Darr, J. A. 1993. “Narrator as Character: Mapping a Reader-Oriented Approach to Narration in Luke–­Acts.” Semeia 63: 43–­60. ———. 1998. Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization. JSNT.S 163. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Dauer, A. 1984. Johannes und Lukas. FzB 50. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1990. Beobachtungen zur literarischen Arbeitstechnik des Lukas. BBB 79. Frankfurt am Main: Hain. ———. 1992. “Luke 24,12—­Ein Produkt lukanischer Redaktion?” Pages 1697–­1716 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1994. “Zur Authenzizität von Lk 24,12.” EThL 70: 294–­318. Dautzenberg, G. 1966. Sein Leben bewahren. StANT 14. Munich: Kösel.



Bibliography 595

Davies, W. D., and D. C. Allison. 2001–­2004. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Matthew. 3 vols. ICC. London: A&C Black. Dawsey, J. M. 1984. “Confrontation in the Temple: Luke 19:45–­20:47.” PRSt 11: 153–­56. ———. 1986. The Lukan Voice: Confusion and Irony in Luke’s Gospel. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press. ———. 1991. “The Origin of Luke’s Positive Perception of the Temple.” PRSt 18: 5–­22. Deatrick, E. P. 1962. “Salt, Soil, Savior.” BA 25: 41–­48. Decock, P. B. 2002. “The Breaking of Bread in Luke 24.” Neotest. 36: 39–­56. Degenhardt, H.­ -J. 1965. Lukas—­Evangelist der Armen. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Deichgräber, R. 1967. Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit. StUNT 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Deines, R. 1993. Jüdische Steingefäße und pharisäische Frömmigkeit. WUNT 2/52. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1997. Die Pharisäer. WUNT 101. Tübingen: Mohr. Deissmann, A. 1923. Licht vom Osten. 4th edition. Tübingen: Mohr. Delatte, A. 1939. Anecdota Atheniensia et alia. Vol. 2. Liége: Faculté de Philosophie. Delebecque, É. 1976. Études grecques sur l’évangile de Luc. CEA. Paris: Belles Lettres. ———. 1982. “‘Secouez la poussière de vos pieds . . .’” RB 89: 177–­84. Delling, G. 1962. “Das Gleichnis vom gottlosen Richter.” ZNW 53: 1–­25. ———. 1963. “Partizipiale Gottesprädikationen in den Briefen des Neuen Testaments.” StTh 17: 1–­59. ———. 1972/1973. “Die Jesusgeschichte in der Verkündigung nach Acta.” NTS 19: 373–­89. Delobel, J. 1966. “L’onction par la pécheresse.” EThL 42: 415–­75. ———. 1985. “Luke 6,5 in Codex Bezae.” Pages 453–­77 in À cause de l’évangile: Festschrift Jacques Dupont. LeDiv 123. Paris: Cerf. ———. 1989. “La rédaction de Lc., IV,14-16a et le ‘Bericht vom Anfang.’” Pages 113–­33, 306–­12 in The Gospel of Luke. 2nd edition. Edited by F. Neirynck. BEThL 32. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1992. “Lk 7,47 in Its Context.” Pages 1581–­90 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1997. “Luke 23:34a: A Perpetual Text­-Critical Crux?” Pages 25–­36 in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical: Festschrift Tjitze Baarda. Edited by W. L. Petersen, J. S. Vos, and H. J. de Jonge. NT.S 89. Leiden: Brill. Deltombe, F. 1982. “Désormais tu rendras la vie à des hommes (Luc V,10).” RB 89: 492–­97. Demel, S. 1991. “Jesu Umgang mit Frauen nach dem Lukasevangelium.” BN 57: 41–­45. Denaux, A. 1989. “L’hypocrise des Pharisiens et le dessein de Dieu: Analyse de Lc., XIII,31-33.” Pages 155–­95, 316–­23 in L’évangile de Luc–­The Gospel of Luke. 2nd edition. Edited by F. Neirynck. BEThL 32. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

596

Bibliography

———. 1993. “The Delineation of the Lukan Travel Narrative within the Overall Structure of the Gospel of Luke.” Pages 357–­92 in The Synoptic Gospels. Edited by C. Focant. BEThL 110. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1997. “Old Testament Models for the Lukan Travel Narrative.” Pages 271–­ 305 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BEThL 131. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2001. “The Parable of the Talents/Pounds (Q 19,2-­27): A Reconstruction of the Q Text.” Pages 429–­60 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by A. Lindemann. BEThL 158. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2002. “The Parable of the King­-Judge (Lk 19,12-28) and Its Relation to the Entry Story (Lk 19,29-44).” ZNW 93: 35–­57. Denis, A.-­M., ed. 1970. Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graeca. Leiden: Brill. Denk, J. 1904. “Camelus: 1. Kamel, 2. Schiffstau.” ZNW 5: 256–­57. Derrett, J. D. M. 1970. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. ———. 1971. “Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt.” NT 13: 241–­58. ———. 1972a. “‘Eating up the Houses of Widows.’” NT 14: 1–­9. ———. 1972b. “‘Take Thy Bond . . . and Write Fifty’ (Luke XVI.6): The Nature of the Bond.” JThS 23: 438–­40. ———. 1982. “The Friend at Midnight.” Pages 31–­41 in Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 3. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1993. “Getting on Top of a Demon (Luke 4:39).” EvQ 65: 99–­109. ———. 1995. “Luke 6:5D Reexamined.” NT 37: 232–­48. ———. 2002. “Choosing the Lowest Seat: Lk 14,7­-11.” EstB 60: 147–­68. Despotis, A. 2009. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: A Comparative Study on Patristic and Modern Interpretation (in Greek). Bibliotheca Biblica 43. Thessaloniki: Pournaras Press. Dexinger, F. 1992. “Der Ursprung der Samaritaner im Spiegel der frühen Quellen.” Pages 67–­140 in Die Samaritaner. Edited by F. Dexinger and R. Pummer. WdF 604. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Dibelius, M. 1911. Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer. FRLANT 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1953 [1932]. “Jungfrauensohn und Krippenkind.” Pages 1–­78 in Botschaft und Geschichte. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1968. Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte. 5th edition. Edited by H. Greeven. FRLANT 60. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1971. Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. 6th edition. Tübingen: Mohr. Dieckmann, H. 1925. “Das fünfzehnte Jahr des Caesar Tiberius.” Bib. 6: 63–­67. Diefenbach, M. 1993. Die Komposition des Lukasevangeliums unter Berücksichtigung antiker Rhetorikelemente. FThSt 43. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht. Diehl, E. 1948–­1952. Anthologia Lyrica Graeca. 2 vols. 3rd edition. Leipzig: Teubner. Diels, H. 1879. Doxographi Graeci. Berlin: Reimer. Dietrich, W. 1972. Das Petrusbild der lukanischen Schriften. BWANT 94. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Dihle, A. 1962. Die Goldene Regel. SAW 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1968. Der Kanon der zwei Tugenden. Cologne: Westdeutscher.



Bibliography 597

Dillmann, R. 1994. “Das Lukasevangelium als Tendenzschrift. Leserlenkung und Leseintention in Lk 1,1-4.” BZ NF 38: 86–­93. ———. 2000. “Die lukanische Kindheitsgeschichte als Aktualisierung frühjüdischer Armenfrömmigkeit.” SNTU.A 25: 76–­97. Dillon, R. J. 1978. From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24­. AnBib 82. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. ———. 1991. “Ravens, Lilies, and the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:25­-33/Luke 12:22-31).” CBQ 55: 605–­27. ———. 2007. “Simeon as a Lucan Spokesman (Lk 2,29-35).” Pages 189–­217 in “Il verbo di Dio è vivo”: Festschrift Albert Vanhoye. AnBib 165. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Dindorf, W., ed. 1964. Aristides. Vol. 1. Hildesheim: Olms. ———. 1969. Harpocrationis Lexicon in decem oratores Atticos. Groningen: Bouma. Doble, P. 1996. The Paradox of Salvation. MSSNTS 87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dobson, B. 1974. “The Significance of the Centurion and ‘Primipilaris’ in the Roman Army and Administration.” Pages 392–434 in ANRW II: 2/1. Doering, L. 1999. Schabbat. TSAJ 78. Tübingen: Mohr. Dölger, F. J. 1925. Sol Salutis: Gebet und Gesang im christlichen Altertum, mit besonder Rücksicht auf die Ostung in Gebet und Liturgie. 2nd edition. LF 4/5. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1934. “Der Einfluss des Origenes auf die Beurteilung der Epilepsie und Mondsucht im christlichen Altertum.” Antike und Christentum 4: 95–­109. Dömer, M. 1978. Das Heil Gottes: Studien zur Theologie des lukanischen Doppel­ werks. BBB 51. Cologne: Hanstein. Donahue, J. 1971. “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification.” CBQ 33: 39–­61. Dormeyer, D. 1974. “Literarische und theologische Analyse der Parabel Lukas 14,1524.” BiLe 15: 206–­19. ———. 1989. Evangelium als literarische und theologische Gattung. EdF 263. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. 2004. “Die Apotheose in Seneca ‘Apocolocyntosis’ und die Himmelfahrt Lk 24,50-53; Acts 1,9­-11.” Pages 125–­42 in Testimony and Interpretation: Festschrift Petr Pokorný. Edited by J. Mrázek and J. Roskovec. JSNT.S 272. London: T&T Clark. Dörrfuss, E. M. 1991. “‘Wie eine Taube.’” BN 57: 7–­13. Downing, F. G. 1992. “The Ambiguity of the ‘Pharisee and the Toll-Collector’: Luke (18:9­-14) in the Greco-Roman World of Late Antiquity.” CBQ 54: 80–­99. Dreizehnter, A. 1978. Die rhetorische Zahl: Quellenkritische Untersuchungen anhand der Zahlen 70 und 700. Munich: Beck. Drexler, H. 1967. “Zu Lukas 16,1-7.” ZNW 58: 286–­88. ———. 1968. “Die große Sünderin Lucas 7,36-50.” ZNW 59: 159–­73. Drury, J. 1976. Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Duff, P. B. 1992. “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco­ Roman King.” JBL 111: 55–­71.

598

Bibliography

Dumoulin, P. 1999. “La parabole de la veuve, de Ben Sira 35,11-24 à Luc 18,1-8.” Pages 169–­79 in Treasures of Wisdom: Festschrift Maurice Gilbert. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen. BEThL 143. Leuven: Peeters. Dunn, J. D. G. 1988. Romans 9–­16. WBC 38. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books. ———. 2003. “Altering the Default Setting: Re­-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition.” NTS 49: 139–­75. Duplacy, J. 1981. “Le véritable disciple: Un essai d’analyse sémantique de Luc 6,43­ 49.” RSR 69: 71–­86. ———. 1987. “L’histoire la plus ancienne et la forme originale du texte en Luc 22,43­ 44.” Pages 349–­85 in Études de critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament. Edited by J. Duplacy. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1989. “P75 (Pap. Bodmer XIV–­XV) et les formes les plus anciennes du texte de Luc.” Pages 21–­38 in L’évangile de Luc–­The Gospel of Luke. Edited by F. Neirynck. BEThL 2. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Dupont, J. 1957–­1973. Les Béatitudes. 3 vols. 2nd edition. Paris: Gabalda. ———. 1967. “‘Beaucoup viendront du levant et du couchant . . .’ (Matthieu 8,11-­12; Luc 13,28-­29).” ScEc 19: 153–­67. ———. 1969. Die Versuchung Jesu in der Wüste. SBS 37. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1975. “Le couple parabolique du sénevé et du levain.” Pages 331–­45 in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Festschrift Hans Conzelmann. Edited by G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1984. “Le maître et son serviteur (Luc 17,7-­10).” EThL 60: 233–­51. ———. 1985. Études sur les évangiles synoptiques. 2 vols. BEThL 70A–­B. Leuve: Peeters. ———. 1991. “Le riche publicain Zachée est aussi un fils d’Abraham (Luc 19,1­ 10).” Pages 265–­76 in Der Treue Gottes trauen: Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas: Festschrift Gerhard Schneider. Edited by C. Bussmann and W. Radl. Freiburg: Herder. Dussaut, L. 1987. “Le triptyque des apparitions en Luc 24.” RB 94: 161–­213. Ebener, D. 1981. Die Griechische Anthologie. Berlin: Aufbau. Ebner, M. 1998. Jesus—­ein Weisheitslehrer? HBS 15. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Eckstein, H.-J. 2002. “Die Wirklichkeit der Auferstehung Jesu. Lukas 24.34 als Beispiel früher formelhafter Zeugnisse.” Pages 1–­30 in Die Wirklichkeit der Auferstehung. Edited by H.-J. Eckstein and M. Welker. Neukirchen­ -Vluyn: Neukirchener. Eco, U. 1987. Lector in fabula: Die Mitarbeit der Interpretation in erzählenden Texten. Munich: Hanser. Edelstein, E. J., and L. Edelstein. 1945. Asclepius. Vol. 1. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Edwards, J. R. 2002. “The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke.” NTS 48: 568–­86. Edwards, R. A. 1969. “The Eschatological Correlative as a Gattung in the New Testament.” ZNW 60: 9–­20. ———. 1971. The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q. SBT. 2nd Ser. 18. London: SCM Press.



Bibliography 599

Egelkraut, H. L. 1976. Jesus’ Mission to Jerusalem: A Redaction Critical Study of the Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke. EHS.T 80. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Ehrhardt, A. 1958. “Parakatatheke.” ZSRG.R 75: 32–­90. Ehrman, B. D., and M. A. Plunkett. 1983. “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43-44.” CBQ 45: 401–­16. Ehrman, B. D., and Z. Pleše. 2011. The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elbert, P. 2004. “An Observation on Luke’s Composition and Narrative Style of Questions.” CBQ 66: 98–­109. Elliott, J. H. 1994. “The Evil Eye and the Sermon on the Mount.” Bib.Int. 2:51–­84. Elliott, J. K. 1971/1972. “Does Luke 2.41­-52 Anticipate the Resurrection?” ET 83: 87–­89. ———. 1973. “Did the Lord’s Prayer Originate with John the Baptist?” ThZ 29: 215. ———. 1988. “Anna’s Age (Luke 2:36­-37).” NT 30: 100–­102. Ellis, E. E. 1975. “The Composition of Luke 9 and the Source of Its Christology.” Pages 120–­27 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Festschrift Merrill C. Tenney. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Emmrich, M. 2000. “The Lucan Account of the Beelzebul Controversy.” WThJ 62: 267–­79. Engelbrecht, J. 1989. “The Empty Tomb (Lk 24:1­-12) in Historical Perspective.” Neotest. 23: 235–­49. Ennulat, A. 1994. Die “Minor Agreements.” WUNT 2/62. Tübingen: Mohr. Erdmann, G. 1932. Die Vorgeschichten des Lukas und Matth­äusevangeliums und Vergils vierte Ekloge. FRLANT NF 30. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Erickson, R. J. 1993. “The Jailing of John and the Baptism of Jesus: Luke 3.19-21.” JETS 36: 455–­66. Erlemann, K. 1988. Das Bild Gottes in den synoptischen Gleichnissen. BWANT 126. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ———. 1995. Naherwartung und Parusieverzögerung im Neuen Testament. TANZ 17. Tübingen: Francke. Ernst, J. 1978. “Gastmahlgespräche: Luk. 14,1-24.” Pages 57–­78 in Die Kirche des Anfangs: Festschrift Heinz Schürmann. Edited by R. Schnackenburg, J. Ernst, and J. Wanke. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1989. Johannes der Täufer. BZNW 53. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 1991a. Lukas. Ein theologisches Portrait. 2nd edition. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1991b. “Der Spruch von den ‘frommen’ Sündern und den ‘unfrommen’ Gerechten (Lk 7,29f).” Pages 197–­213 in Der Treue Gottes trauen. Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas: Festschrift Gerhard Schneider. Edited by C. Bussmann and W. Radl. Freiburg: Herder. Esler, P. F. 1987. Community and Gospel in Luke–­Acts. MSSNTS 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, C. A. 1989. To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation. Sheffield: JSOT Press. ———. 1992. “Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple in the Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Scrolls, and Related Texts.” JSPE 10: 89–­147.

600

Bibliography

———. 1993a. “‘He set his face’: On the Meaning of Luk 9:51.” Pages 92–­105 in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke–­Acts. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1993b. “The Twelve Thrones of Israel: Scripture and Politics in Luke 22:2430.” Pages 154–­70 in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke–­Acts. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1994. “The Pharisee and the Publican: Luke 18,9-14 and Deuteronomy 26.” Pages 342–­55 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner. JSNT.S 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 1996. “Jesus’ Parable of the Tenant Farmers in Light of Lease Agreements in Antiquity.” JSPE 14: 65–­83. Evans, C. F. 1955. “The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel.” Pages 37–­53 in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot. Edited by D. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell. Eynde, S. van den. 2005. “Come and Hate? On the Interpretation of Luk 14,26.” Pages 283–­97 in Luke and His Readers: Festschrift Adelbert Denaux. Edited by R. Bieringer, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 182. Leuven: Peeters. Fabricius, C. 1985. “Zu παραχρῆμα bei Lukas.” Eranos 83: 62–­66. Falcetta, A. 2003. The Call of Nazareth. CRB 53. Paris: Gabalda. Falco, V. de. 1922. Theologoumena arithmeticae. Leipzig: Teubner. Fanning, B. M. 1990. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. OTM. Oxford: Clarendon. Farmer, W. R. 1961/1962. “Notes on a Literary and Form­-critical Analysis of Some of the Synoptic Material Peculiar to Luke.” NTS 8: 301–­16. ———. 1976 [1964]. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. Dillsboro: Western North Carolina Press. ———. 1990. “The Passion Prediction Passages and the Synoptic Problem.” NTS 36: 558–­70. ———. 1998. “The Present State of the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 11–­36 in Literary Studies in Luke–­Acts: Festschrift J.B. Tyson. Edited by R. P. Thompson and T. E. Phillips. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press. Farris, M. 1999. “A Tale of Two Taxations (Luke 18:10-14).” Pages 23–­33 in Jesus and His Parables. Edited by V. G. Shillington. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Farris, S. C. 1981. “On Discerning Semitic Sources in Luke 1–2.” Pages 201–­37 in Gospel Perspectives. Vol. 2. Edited by R. T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT. ———. 1985. The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives. JSNT.S 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Fassl, P. 1981. “‘Und er lobte den ungerechten Verwalter’ (Lk 16,8a).” Pages 109–­43 in Eschatologie: Festschrift Engelbert Neuhäusler. Edited by R. Kilian, K. Funk, and P. Fassl. St. Ottilien: EOS. Feine, P. 1891. Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte. Gotha: Perthes. Feldkämper, L. 1978. Der betende Jesus als Heilsmittler nach Lukas. Vol. 29. VMStA. St. Augustin: Steyler. Feldmeier, R. 1987. Die Krisis des Gottessohnes. WUNT 2/21. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1992. Die Christen als Fremde. WUNT 64. Tübingen: Mohr.



Bibliography 601

Fernández Marcos, N. 1987. “La unción de Salomón y la entrada de Jesús en Jerusalén: 1 Re 1,33-40/Lc 19,35-40.” Bib. 68: 89–­97. Festa, N., ed. 1902. Mythographi Graeci. Vol. 3/2. Leipzig: Teubner. Feuillet, A. 1959. “Le récit lucanien de la tentation (Lc 4,1-13).” Bib. 40: 613–­31. ———. 1981. “La double venue du règne de Dieu et du fils de l’homme en Luc XVII,20—­XVIII,8.” RThom 81: 5–­33. Fischbach, S. M. 1992. Totenerweckungen. FzB 69. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Fischer, M. 2001. “Kapharnaum: Eine Retrospektive.” JAC 44: 142–­67. Fischer, U. 1978. Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum. BZNW 44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1962. “Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Some Features of Our Oldest Text of Luke.” CBQ 24: 170–­79. ———. 1964. “The Story of the Dishonest Manager (Lk 16:1­-13).” TS 25: 23–­42. ———. 1978. “The Composition of Luke, Chapter 9.” Pages 139–­52 in Perspectives in Luke–­Acts. Edited by C. H. Talbert. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 1981. “The Virginal Conception of Jesus in the New Testament.” Pages 41–78 in To Advance the Gospel. New York: Crossroad. ———. 1989. Luke the Theologian. New York: Paulist Press. ———. 2003. “And Lead Us Not into Temptation.” Bib. 84: 259–­73. Flebbe, J. 2005. “Alter und neuer Wein bei Lukas.” ZNW 96: 171–­87. Fleckenstein, K.-H., ed. 2003. Emmaus in Judäa: Geschichte–­Exegese–­Archäologie. BAZ 11. Gießen: Brunnen. Fleddermann, H. T. 1982. “A Warning about the Scribes.” CBQ 44: 52–­67. ———. 1989. “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas.” SBLSP 28: 216–­36. ———. 1995. Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. BEThL 122. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2003. “Mid-­level Techniques in Luke’s Redaction of Q.” EThL 79: 53–­71. ———. 2005a. Q. A Reconstruction and Commentary. BiTS 1. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2005b. “Three Friends at Midnight (Luke 11.5-­8).” Pages 265–­82 in Luke and His Readers: Festschrift Adelbert Denaux. Edited by R. Bieringer, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 182. Leuven: Peeters. -Louis, C. H. T. 1997. Luke–­ Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. Fletcher­ WUNT 2/94. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2000. “Jesus Inspects His Priestly War Party (Luke 14.25-35).” Pages 126–­43 in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lionel North. Edited by S. Moyise. JSNT.S 189. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2003. “‘Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead.’” JSNT 26: 39–­68. Flückiger, F. 1972. “Luk. 21,20-­24 und die Zerstörung Jerusalems.” ThZ 28: 385–­90. Flückiger-Guggenheim, D. 1984. Göttliche Gäste: Die Einkehr von Göttern und Heroen in der griechischen Mythologie. Bern: Lang. Flusser, D. 1981. “‘Sie wissen nicht, was sie tun.’” Pages 393–­410 in Kontinuität und Einheit: Festschrift Franz Mussner. Edited by P.-G. Müller and W. Stencer. Freiburg: Herder. Focke, F. 1923. “Synkrisis.” Hermes 58: 327–­68. Forbes, G. W. 2000. The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel. JSNT.S 198. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

602

Bibliography

Ford, R. C. 1920–­1921. “St. Luke and Lucius of Cyrene.” ET 32: 219–­20. Forestell, J. T. 1961. “The Old Testament Background of the Magnificat.” MarSt 12: 205–­44. Foster, R. A., and W. D. Shiell. 1997. “The Parable of the Sower and the Seed in Luke 8:1­-10: Jesus’ Parable of Parables.” RExp 94: 259–­67. Fowl, S. E. 1993. “Receiving the Kingdom of God as a Child: Children and Riches in Luke 18.15ff.” NTS 39: 153–­58. Fraenkel, E. 1960. “Eine Anfangsformel attischer Reden.” Glotta 39: 1–­5. Frankemölle, H. 1983. “Die Offenbarung an die Unmündigen.” Pages 80–­108 in Biblische Handlungsanweisungen. Mainz: Grünewald. Franz, G. 1995. “The Parable of the Two Builders.” ABW 3: 6–­11. Freed, E. D. 1987. “The Parable of the Judge and the Widow (Luke 18.1-8).” NTS 33: 38–­60. Frenschkowski, M. 1997. Offenbarung und Epiphanie. Vol. 2. WUNT 2/80. Tübingen: Mohr. Freudenberger, R. 1968–­1969. “Zum Text der zweiten Vaterunserbitte.” NTS 15: 419–­32. Fridrichsen, A. 1928. “Randbemerkungen zur Kindheitsgeschichte bei Lukas.” SO 6: 33–­38. ———. 1994. Exegetical Writings: A Selection. Trans. C. C. Caragounis and T. Fornberg. WUNT 76. Tübingen: Mohr. Friedl, A. 1996. Das eschatologische Gericht in Bildern aus dem Alltag. ÖBS 14. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Friedrich, G. 1973. “Lk 9,51 und die Entrückungschristologie des Lukas.” Pages 48–­ 77 in Orientierung an Jesus: Festschrift Josef Schmid. Edited by P. Hoffmann, N. Brox, and W. Pesch. Freiburg: Herder. Friedrichsen, T. A. 1989. “The Matthew-Luke Agreements against Mark: A Survey of Recent Studies.” Pages 335–­92 in L’évangile de Luc–­The Gospel of Luke. Edited by F. Neirynck. BEThL 2. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1992. “‘Minor’ and ‘Major’ Matthew-Luke Agreements against Mark 4,30­ 32.” Pages 649–­76 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1996. “Luke 9,22—­A Matthean Foreign Body?” EThL 72: 398–­407. ———. 2001a. “A Note on καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτόν (Luke 12:46 and the Parallel in Matthew 24:51).” CBQ 63: 258–­64. ———. 2001b. “The Parable of the Mustard Seed Mark 4,30­-32 and Q 13,18-­19.” EThL 57: 297–­317. ———. 2003. “A Note on the Lamp Saying, Mark 4,21 and Q 11,33.” EThL 79: 423–­30. ———. 2005. “The Temple, a Pharisee, a Tax Collector, and the Kingdom of God.” JBL 124: 89–­119. Fuchs, A. 1980a. Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern. SNTU.B 5. Linz: SNTU. ———. 1980b. “Die Überschneidungen von Mk und ‘Q’ nach B. H. Streeter und E. P. Sanders und ihre wahre Bedeutung (Mk 1,1-8par.).” Pages 28–­81 in Wort in der



Bibliography 603

Zeit. Neutestamentliche Studien: Festschrift Karl Heinrich Rengstorf. Edited by W. Haubeck and M. Bachmann. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1992a. “Schrittweises Wachstum: Zur Entwicklung der Perikope Mk 5,21-43 par Mt 9,18-26 par Lk 8,40-56.” SNTU 17: 5–­53. ———. 1992b. “Die synoptische Aussendungsrede in quellenkritischer und traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht.” SNTU.A 17: 77–­168. ———. 1994. “Das Zeichen des Jona: Vom Rückfall.” SNTU.A 19: 131–­60. ———. 1997. “Die Agreement­-Redaktion von Mk 6,32-44 par Mt 14,13-21 par Lk 9,10b-­17.” SNTU.A 22: 181–­203. ———. 1998. “Die agreements der Einzugsperikope.” SNTU.A 13: 215–­27. ———. 2001a. “Die Frage nach der Vollmacht Jesu.” SNTU.A 26: 27–­58. ———. 2001b. “Mehr als Davids Sohn.” SNTU.A 26: 111–­28. ———. 2001c. “Die Pharisäerfrage nach der Kaisersteuer Mk 12,13-17 par Mt 22,15­ 22 par Lk 20,20­26.” SNTU.A 26: 59–­110. ———. 2001d. “Die Sadduzäerfrage Mk 12,18-27 par Mt 22,23-33 par Lk 20,27-40.” SNTU.A 26: 83–­110. ———. 2002. “Das Verhältnis der synoptischen agreements zur johanneischen Tradition, untersucht anhand der messianischen Perikope Mk 6,32-44 par Mt 14,13-21 par Lk 9,10b-17; John 6,1-5.” SNTU.A 27: 85–­115. ———. 2004–­2007. Spuren von Deuteromarkus. 5 vols. SNTU [N.F.] 1–­5. Münster: Lit. ———. 2006. “Zum Stand der Synoptischen Frage—­H. Klein. Fortschritt in kleinen Schritten.” SNTU 31: 203–­41. ———. 2009. “Plädoyer für das Gestrige?—­Anfragen an Michael Wolter.” SNTU 34: 207–­46. Fuchs, G. 2003. Der Becher des Sonnengottes: zur Entwicklung des Motivs “Becher des Zorns.” BVBi 4. Münster: Lit. Fuller, M. E. 2006. The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Regathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke–­Acts­. BZNW 138. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Funk, R. W. 1973. “The Looking-Glass Tree Is for the Birds.” Int. 27: 3–­9. ———. 1974. “The Good Samaritan as Metaphor.” Semeia 2: 74–­81. Furlani, J., ed. 1968. Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani. Florence: G. Barberà. Fusco, V. 1982. “L’accord mineur Mt 13,11a/Lc 8,10a contre Mc 4,11a.” Pages 355–­ 61 in Logia. Mémorial Joseph Coppens. Edited by J. Delobel and T. Baarda. BEThL 59. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1992. “‘Point of View’ and ‘Implicit Reader’ in Two Eschatological Texts: Luke 19,11­-28; Acts 1,6­8.” Pages 1677–­96 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1993a. “Le discours eschatologique lucanien: ‘Rédaction’ et ‘composition.’” Pages 311–­55 in The Synoptic Gospels. Edited by C. Focant. BEThL 110. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1993b. “Problems of Structure in Luke’s Eschatological Discourse (Lk 21:7­ 36).” Pages 72–­92, 225–­32 in Luke and Acts: Festschrift Emilio Raco. Edited by G. Marconi and G. O’Collins. New York: Paulist Press.

604

Bibliography

Gagnon, R. A. J. 1993. “Statistical Analysis and the Case of the Double Delegation in Luke 7:3­-7.” CBQ 55: 709–­31. ———. 1994. “Luke’s Motives for Redaction in the Account of the Double Delegation in Luke 7:1-­10.” NT 36: 122–­45. Gaiser, F. J. 1996. “‘Your Faith Has Made You Well’: Healing and Salvation in Luke 17:12­-19.” W&W 16: 291–­301. Ganser­-Kerperin, H. 2000. Das Zeugnis des Tempels. Studien zur Bedeutung des Tempelmotivs im lukanischen Doppelwerk. NTA NF 36. Münster: Aschendorff. Garland, D. E. 1979. The Intention of Matthew 23. Leiden: Brill. Garrett, S. R. 1989. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1991. “‘Lest the Light in You Be Darkness.’” JBL 110: 93–­105. Gathercole, S. 2003a. “Jesus’ Eschatological Vision of the Fall of Satan.” ZNW 94: 143–­63. ———. 2003b. “The Justification of Wisdom.” NTS 49: 476–­88. ———. 2005. “The Heavenly ἀνατολή (Luke 1:78­-9).” JThS 56: 471–­88. Gauger, J. D., ed. 2002. Sibyllinische Weissagungen: Griechisch-­Deutsch. 2nd edition. Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler. Gault, J. A. 1990. “The Discourse Function of ΚΑΙ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ in Luke and Acts.” OPTAT 4: 388–­99. Geffcken, J. 1967. Die Oracula Sibyllina. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Geiger, R. 1973. Die Lukanischen Endzeitreden. EHS.T 16. Bern: Peter Lang. Gemünden, P. von. 1993. Vegetationsmetaphorik im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. NTOA 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. George, A. 1970. “Le parallèle entre Jean-Baptiste et Jésus en Lc 1–2.” Pages 147–­71 in Mélanges bibliques en hommage au R.P. Béda Rigaux. Gembloux: Duculot. ———. 1978. Études sur l’oeuvre de Luc. Paris: Gabalda. Gérard, J.-­P. 1995. “Les riches dans la communauté lucanienne.” EThL 71: 71–­106. Gerber, D. 2003a. “( . . . ) comme il leur avait été dit. À propos des derniers mots de Luc 2,8­-20.” Pages 151–­59 in Raconter, interpréter, annoncer: Festschrift Daniel Marguerat. Edited by E. Steffek and Y. Bourquin. MoBi 47. Geneva: Labor et Fides. ———. 2003b. “Le Magnificat, le Benedictus, le Gloria et le Nunc Dimittis: Quatre Hymnes en réseau pour une introduction en surplomb à Luc–­Actes.” Pages 353–­ 67 in La Bible en récits. L’exégèse biblique à l’heure du lecteur. Edited by D. Marguerat. MoBi 48. Paris. ———. 2004. “Luc 19,41-­44: La mise en perspective d’un oracle de jugement.” Pages 219–­36 in Le jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament. II. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Schlosser. Edited by C. Coulot, D. Fricker, and J. Doré. LeDiv 198. Paris: Cerf. Gerhardsson, B. 1966. The Testing of God’s Son. CB.NT 2/1. Lund: Gleerup. Gerits, H. 1981. “Le message pascal au tombeau (Lc 24,1-12).” EstTeol 8: 3–­63. Gero, S. 1976. “The Spirit as a Dove at the Baptism of Jesus.” NT 18: 17–­35. Gerstenberger, E. 1962. “The Woe Oracles of the Prophets.” JBL 81: 249–­63. Giblin, C. H. 1971. “‘The Things of God’ in the Question Concerning Tribute to Caesar.” CBQ 33: 510–­27.



Bibliography 605

———. 1985. The Destruction of Jerusalem according to Luke’s Gospel. AnBib 107. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Gibson, J. B. 1995. The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity. JSNT.S 112. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Gibson, M. 1911. The Commentaries of Ishoʻdad of Merv, Bishop of Ḥadatha (c. 850 A.D.). Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gielen, M. 1998. “‘Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung.’” ZNW 89: 201–­16. Giesen, H. 1988. “Verantwortung des Christen in der Gegenwart und Heilsvollendung. Ethik und Eschatologie nach Lk 13,24 und 16,16.” ThG(M) 31: 218–­28. ———. 2005. “‘Noch heute wirst du mit mir im Paradies sein’ (Lk 23,43).” Pages 151–­57 in “Licht zur Erleuchtung der Heiden und Herrlichkeit für dein Volk Israel”: Festschrift Josef Zmijewski. Edited by C. G. Müller. BBB 151. Hamburg: Philo. Gigon, O. 1953. Kommentar zum ersten Buch von Xenophons Memorabilien. Basel: Reinhardt. Gill, D. 1991. “Socrates and Jesus on Non-Retaliation and Love of Enemies.” HBT 18: 246–­62. Gillman, J. 1991. Possessions and the Life of Faith: A Reading of Luke–­Acts. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical. ———. 2002. “The Emmaus Story in Luke–­Acts Revisited.” Pages 165–­88 in Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift Jan Lambrecht. Edited by R. Bieringer, V. Koperski, and B. Lataire. BEThL 165. Leuven: Peeters. Glombitza, O. 1962. “Der zwölfjährige Jesus. Luk. ii 40-­52: Ein Beitrag zur Exegese der lukanischen Vorgeschichte.” NT 5: 1–­4. ———. 1971. “Die christologische Aussage des Lukas in seiner Gestaltung der drei Nachfolgeworte Lukas IX 57­-62.” NovT: 14­23. Gnilka, J. 1962. “Der Hymnus des Zacharias.” BZ NF 6: 215–­38. ———. 1978/1979. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols. EKK 2. Zürich: Benziger. Göbl, R. 1978. Antike Numismatik. 2 vols. Munich: Battenberg. Goldenberg, R. 1979. “The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine the Great.” Pages 414–­47 in ANRW II: 19/1. Good, R. S. 1983. “Jesus, Protagonist of the Old, in Lk 5:33-39.” NT 25: 19–­36. Goodspeed, E. J. 1954. “Was Theophilus Luke’s Publisher?” JBL 73: 84. Goor, A. 1965. “The History of the Fig in the Holy Land from Ancient Times to the Present Day.” EcBot 19: 124–­35. Gordon, C. H. 1977. “Paternity at Two Levels.” JBL 96: 101. Goulder, M. D. 1989. Luke: A New Paradigm. 2 vols. JSNT.S 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2003. “Two Significant Minor Agreements.” NT 45: 365–­73. Gourgues, M. 1985. “Deux miracles de foi.” Pages 229–­49 in À cause de l’évangile: Festschrift Jacques Dupont. LeDiv 123. Paris: Cerf. ———. 1992. “Regroupement littéraire et équilibrage théologique. Le cas de Lc 13,1­ 9.” Pages 1591–­1602 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters.

606

Bibliography

———. 2002. “Du centurion de Capharnaüm au centurion de Césarée.” Pages 259–­ 70 in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift Albert Fuchs. Edited by C. Niemand. LPTB 7. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Gowler, D. B. 1991. Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts. New York: Lang. ———. 1993. “Hospitality and Characterization in Luke 11:37-54.” Semeia 64: 213–­51. ———. 2003. “Text, Culture, and Ideology in Luke 7:1-­10.” Pages 89–­125 in Fabrics of Discourse: Festschrift Vernon K. Robbins. Edited by D. B. Gowler, L. G. Bloomquist, and D. F. Watson. Harrisburg: Trinity International. ———. 2005. “‘At His Gate Lay a Poor Man’: A Dialogic Reading of Luke 16:16.” JBL 106: 247–­49. Gradl, H.-­G. 2005a. “Von den Kosten des Reichtums: Die Beispielerzählung vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus (Lk 16,19-­31) textpragmatisch gelesen.” MThZ 56: 305–­17. ———. 2005b. Zwischen Arm und Reich: Das lukanische Doppelwerk in leserorientierter und textpragmatischer Perspektive. Würzburg: Echter. Grangaard, B. R. 1999. Conflict and Authority in Luke 19:47 to 21:4. StBL 8. New York: Peter Lang. Grässer, E. 1977. Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte. 3rd edition. BZNW 22. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 1985. Der Alte Bund im Neuen. WUNT 35. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1997. An die Hebräer. Vol. 3. EKK XVII/3. Neukirchen­-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Gray, R. 1993. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus. New York: Oxford University Press. Green, D., and R. Lattimore, eds. 1960. Greek Tragdies. Vol. 1. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Green, J. B. 1986. “Jesus on the Mount of Olives (Luke 22.39-46).” JSNT 26: 29–­48. ———. 1987. “Preparation for Passover (Luke 22:7-13).” NT 29: 305–­19. ———. 1988. The Death of Jesus. WUNT 2/33. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1989. “Jesus and a Daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:10-17).” CBQ 51: 643–­54. ———. 1992. “The Social Status of Mary in Luke 1,5–2,52.” Bib. 73: 457–­72. ———. 1994. “The Demise of the Temple as ‘Culture Center’ in Luke–­Acts.” RB 101: 495–­515. ———. 1995. The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, M. P. 1983. “The Meaning of Cross­-Bearing.” BS 140: 117–­33. Greeven, H. 1982. “‘Wer unter euch . . . ?’” Pages 238–­55 in Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by W. Harnisch. WdF 366. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Gregory, A. 2003. The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus. WUNT 2/169. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2005a. “Looking for Luke in the Second Century.” Pages 401–­15 in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation. Edited by C. G. Bartholomew, J. B. Green, and A. C. Thiselton. Milton Keynes: Paternoster. ———. 2005b. “Prior or Posterior? The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke.” NTS 51: 344–­60.



Bibliography 607

Grelot, P. 1981. “Étude critique de Luc 10,19.” RSR 69: 87–­100. ———. 1984. “L’arrière-­plan araméen du ‘Pater.’” RB 91: 531–­56. ———. 1986. “Le cantique de Siméon (Luc II,29-32).” RB 93: 481–­509. Gressmann, H. 1911. “Salzdüngung in den Evangelien.” ThLZ 32: 156–­57. ———. 1918. Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus. APAW.PH 118/7. Berlin: Reimer. Grimm, J., and W. Grimm. 1854. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Hirzel. Grimm, W. 1972. “Zum Hintergrund von Mt 8,11f/Lk 13,28f.” BZ NF 16: 255–­56. ———. 1973. “Der Dank für die empfangene Offenbarung bei Jesus und Josephus. Parallelen zu Mt 11,25-27.” BZ NF 17: 249–­56. ———. 1984. Jesus und das Danielbuch. I. Jesu Einspruch gegen das Offenbarungssystem Daniels. ANTJ 6. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Grindlay, B. W. 1987. “Zacchaeus and David.” ExpT 99: 46–­47. Gruenewald, M. 1961. “A Rabbinic Parallel to Luke 14,12.” Pages 47–­48 in Der Friede: Idee und Verwirklichung—­ The Search for Peace: Festschrift Adolf Leschnitzer. Edited by E. Fromm and H. Herzfeld. Heidelberg: Schneider. Guenther, H. O. 1989. “When ‘Eagles’ Draw Together.” Forum 5: 140–­50. Gueuret, A. 1989. “Le pharisien et le publicain (Lc 18,9-­14).” Pages 289–­308 in Les paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles. XIIe congrès de l’ACFEB, Lyon (1987). Edited by J. Delorme. Paris: Cerf. Guillaume, J. M. 1979. Luc interprète des anciennes traditions sur la résurrection de Jésus. EtB. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre. Guillet, J. 1981. “Luc 22,29. Une formule johannique dans l’évangile de Luc?” RSR 69: 113–­22. Gulick, C. B. 1928. Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists. Vol. 2. LCL. London: Heinemann. Gundry, R. H. 1995. “A Rejoinder on Matthean Foreign Bodies in Luke 10,25-28.” EThL 71: 139–­50. ———. 1999. “The Refusal of Matthean Foreign Bodies to be Exorcised from Luke 9,22; 10,25-28.” EThL 75: 104–­22. Gunkel, H. 1921. “Die Lieder in der Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu bei Lukas.” Pages 43–­ 60 in Festgabe von Fachgenossen und Freunden A. von Harnack zum siebzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht. Tübingen: Mohr. Gunter, J. J. 1980. “The Meaning and Origin of the Name ‘Judas Thomas.’” Muséon 93: 113–­48. Güttgemanns, E. 1977. “Narrative Analyse des Streitgesprächs über den ‘Zinsgroschen.’” Ling-Bibl 41/42: 88–­105. Guy, L. 1997. “The Interplay of the Present and Future in the Kingdom of God (Luke 19:11-14).” TynB 48: 119–­37. Haacker, K. 1986. “Mut zum Bitten: Eine Auslegung von Lukas 11,5-8.” ThBeitr 17: 1–­6. ———. 1987. “Erst unter Quirinius?” BN 38/39: 39–­43. ———. 1988. “Verwendung und Vermeidung des Apostelbegriffs im lukanischen Werk.” NT 30: 9–­38. ———. 1994. “Das Gleichnis von der bittenden Witwe (Lk 18,1-­8).” ThBeitr 25: 277–­84.

608

Bibliography

Haapa, E. 1983. “Zur Selbsteinschätzung des Hauptmanns von Kapharnaum im Lukas­evangelium.” Pages 69–­76 in Glaube und Gerechtigkeit. In memoriam Rafael Gyllenberg. Edited by J. Kiilunen. Helsinki: Suomen eksegeettinen seura. Haas, H. 1922. “Das Scherflein der Witwe” und seine Entsprechung in Tripitaka. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Habbe, J. 1996. Palästina zur Zeit Jesu. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Habicht, C. 1970. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. 2nd edition. Zet. 14. Munich: Beck. Hagene, S. 2003. Zeiten der Wiederherstellung. NTA NF 42. Münster: Aschendorff. Hahn, F. 1964. Christologische Hoheitstitel. 2nd edition. FRLANT 83. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1970. “Das Gleichnis von der Einladung zum Festmahl.” Pages 51–­82 in Verborum Veritas: Festschrift Gustav Stählin. Edited by O. Böcher and K. Haacker. Wuppertal: Brockhaus. ———. 1971. “Die Bildworte vom neuen Flicken und vom jungen Wein (Mk. 2,21f parr).” EvTh 31: 357–­75. ———. 1973. “Die Worte vom Licht Lk 11,33-36.” Pages 107–­38 in Orientierung an Jesus: Festschrift Josef Schmid. Edited by P. Hoffmann, N. Brox, and W. Pesch. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1985. “Jesu Wort vom bergeversetzenden Glauben.” ZNW 76: 149–­69. Hahneman, G. M. 1992. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford: Clarendon. Halleux, R., and J. Schramp. 1985. Les lapidaires grecs. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Hamel, E. 1979. “Le Magnificat et le renversement des situations.” Gr. 60: 55–­84. Hamm, D. 1988. “Luke 19:8 Once Again.” JBL 107: 431–­37. ———. 1991. “Zachaeus Revisited Once More.” Bib. 72: 249–­52. ———. 1994. “What the Samaritan Leper Sees: The Narrative Christology of Luke 17:11­-19.” CBQ 56: 273–­87. ———. 2003. “The Tamid Service in Luke–­Acts.” CBQ 65: 215–­31. Hamm, M. D. 1987. “The Freeing of the Bent Woman and the Restoration of Israel.” JSNT 31: 23–­44. Hampel, V. 1990. Menschensohn und historischer Jesus. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Hands, A. R. 1968. Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome. London: Thames & Hudson. Hann, R. R. 1985. “Christos Kyrios in PsSol. 17.32.” NTS 31: 620–­27. Harmansa, H.­K. 1995. Die Zeit der Entscheidung: Lk 13,1-9 als Beispiel f­ür das lukanische Verständnis der Gerichtspredigt Jesu an Israel. ETS 69. Leipzig: Benno. Harmon, S. R. 2001. “Zechariah’s Unbelief and Early Jewish-Christian Relations.” BTB 31: 10–­16. Harnack, A. von. 1904. “Über einige Worte Jesu, die nicht in den kanonischen Evangelien stehen, nebst einem Anhang über die ursprüngliche Gestalt des Vaterunsers.” Pages 170–­208 in SPAW.PH 1904/1. Heidelberg: Winter. ———. 1906. Lukas der Arzt: Der Verfasser des dritten Evangeliums und der Apostelgeschichte. Leipzig: Hinrichs.



Bibliography 609

———. 1931. “Das Magnificat der Elisabet (Luk. 1,46­-55) nebst einigen Bemerkungen zu Luk. 1 und 2.” Pages 62–­85 in Studie zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der Alten Kirche I. AKG 19. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 1980. Kleine Schriften zur Alten Kirche. Vol. 1, Berliner Akademieschriften 1890–­1907. Edited by J. Dummer. Opuscula IX/1. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. ———. 1990. Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God. Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth Press. ———. 1996 [1921/1924]. Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine Mono­ graphie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche. 2nd edition. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Harnisch, W. 1973. Eschatologische Existenz. FRLANT 110. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. ———. 1985. Die Gleichniserzählungen Jesu. UTB 1343. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Harrill, J. A. 1996. “The Indentured Labor of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15,15).” JBL 115: 714–­17. Harrington, J. M. 2000. The Lukan Passion Narrative: The Markan Material in Luke 22.54–­23.25. A Historical Survey: 1891–­1997. NTTS 30. Leiden: Brill. Harris, R. 1927. The Twelve Apostles. Cambridge: Heffer. Harrison, J. R. 2003. “Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context.” WUNT 2/172. Tübingen: Mohr. Hart, H. S. 1984. “The Coin of ‘Render unto Caesar . . .’” Pages 241–­48 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hartman, L. 1963. “A Linguistic Examination of Luke 21,13.” Pages 57–­75 in Testimonium linguae. Lund: Gleerup. ———. 1966. Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13par. CB.NT 1. Lund: Gleerup. ———. 1992a. “Auf den Namen des Herrn Jesus”: Die Taufe in den neutestamentlichen Schriften. SBS 148. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1992b. “Reading Luke 17,20­-37.” Pages 1663–­75 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. Harvey, A. E. 1982. “‘The Workman Is Worthy of His Hire’: Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church.” NT 24: 209–­21. Hatch, E., and H. A. Redpath. 1975 [1897]. A Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Graz: Akademische Druck­ und Verlagsanstalt. Haubeck, W. 1985. Loskauf durch Christus. Giessen: Brunnen. ———. 2004. “Das Gleichnis vom ungerechten Richter und der Witwe (Lukas 18,1­ 8).” ThGespr 28: 157–­68. Hausrath, A., and H. Hunger. 1970. Corpus fabularum Aesopicarum. Leipzig: Teubner. Hay, D. M. 1973. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBL.MS 18. Nashville: Abingdon. Head, P. M. 2004. “Papyrological Perspectives on Luke’s Predecessors (Luke 1:1).” Pages 30–­45 in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Festschrift B[ruce] W. Winter. Edited by P. J. Williams. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

610

Bibliography

Heater, H. 1986. “A Textual Note on Luke 3.33.” JSNT 28: 25–­29. Hedrick, C. W. 1994. Parables as Poetic Fictions. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. ———. 1999. “An Unfinished Story about a Fig Tree in a Vineyard (Luke 13:6-9).” PRSt 26: 169–­92. Heil, C., ed. 1997. Q 12:8–12. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1998. “‘Πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας’ Revisited.” Pages 261–­76 in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien: Festschrift Paul Hoffmann. Edited by R. Hoppe and U. Busse. BZNW 93. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 2001. “Die Q-Rekonstruktion des Internationalen Q-Projekts.” NT 43: 128–­43. ———. 2002. “Einleitung.” Pages 11–­28 in Die Spruchquelle Q: Studienausgabe Griechisch und Deutsch. Edited by P. Hoffman and C. Heil. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. 2003. Lukas und Q. BZNW 111. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Heil, C., and T. Klampfl. 2005. “Theophilus (Luke 1.3; Acts 1.1).” Pages 7–­28 in “Licht zur Erleuchtung der Heiden und Herrlichkeit für dein Volk Israel”: Festschrift Josef Zmijewski. Edited by C. G. Müller. BBB 151. Hamburg: Philo. Heil, J. P. 1989. “Reader-Response and the Irony of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in Luke 22:66-71.” CBQ 51: 271–­84. ———. 1991. “Reader­-Response and the Irony of the Trial of Jesus in Luke 23:1-25.” ScEs 43: 175–­86. ———. 1999. The Meal Scenes in Luke–­Acts. SBL.MS 52. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL. ———. 2000. The Transfiguration of Jesus. AnBib 144. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Heiligenthal, R. 1983a. Werke als Zeichen. WUNT 2/9. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1983b. “Werke der Barmherzigkeit oder Almosen?” NT 25: 289–­301. ———. 1995. “Wehrlosigkeit oder Selbstschutz? Aspekte zum Verständnis des lukanischen Schwertwortes.” NTS 41: 39–­58. Heininger, B. 1991. Metaphorik, Erzählstruktur und szenisch-dramatische Gestaltung in den Sondergutgleichnissen bei Lukas.­NTA NF 24. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 2005. “Familienkonflikte: Der zwölfjährige Jesus im Tempel (Lk 2,41-52).” Pages 49–­72 in “Licht zur Erleuchtung der Heiden und Herrlichkeit für dein Volk Israel”: Festschrift Josef Zmijewski. Edited by C. G. Müller. BBB 151. Hamburg: Philo. Heitsch, E. 1964. Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit. Vol. 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Helmreich, G. 1968. Galeni De usu partium libri XVII. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Hemer, C. J. 1984. “ἐπιούσιος.” JSNT 22: 81–­94. ———. 1990. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Hengel, M. 1963. “Maria Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen.” Pages 243–­56 in Abraham unser Vater: Festschrift Otto Michel. Edited by O. Betz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1968a. “Das Gleichnis von den Weingärtnern Mc 12,1-12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse.” ZNW 59: 1–­39. ———. 1968b. Nachfolge und Charisma. BZNW 34. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 1973. Judentum und Hellenismus. 2nd edition. WUNT 10. Tübingen: Mohr.



Bibliography 611

———. 1977. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1984. Evangelienüberschriften. SHAW.PH 3. Heidelberg: C. Winter. ———. 1993. “‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110,1.” Pages 108–­94 in Le Trône de Dieu. Edited by M. Philonenko. WUNT 69. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1997. “Der Finger und die Herrschaft Gottes in Lk 11,20.” Pages 87–­106 in La main de Dieu. Die Hand Gottes. Edited by R. Kieffer and J. Bergman. WUNT 94. Tübingen: Mohr. Hengstl, J. 1972. Private Arbeitsverhältnisse freier Personen in den hellenistischen Papyri bis Diokletian. Bonn: Habelt. ———. 1978. Griechische Papyri aus Ägypten als Zeugnisse des öffentlichen und privaten Lebens: Griechisch-deutsch­. Munich: Heimeran. ———. 2004. “Griechische Papyri und Ostraka.” Pages 119–­24 in Neues Testament und Antike Kultur. Vol. 1. Edited by K. Erlemann, K.-O. Noethlichs, K. Scherberich, and J. Zangenberg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Henten, J. W. van. 2005. “Jewish Martyrs and the Lukan Passion Narrative Revisited.” Pages 325–­44 in Luke and His Readers: Festschrift Adelbert Denaux. Edited by R. Bieringer, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 182. Leuven: Peeters. Hentschel, A. 2007. Diakonia im Neuen Testament. WUNT 2/226. Tübingen: Mohr. Herford, R. T. 1971. Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers. New York: Schocken. Herkommer, E. 1968. “Die Topoi in den Proömien der römischen Geschichtswerke.” Ph.D. diss., University of Tübingen. Hermanson, E. A. 1999. “Kings Are Lions, but Herod Is a Fox.” BiTr 50: 235–­40. Herrenbrück, F. 1981. “Wer waren die ‘Zöllner’?” ZNW 72: 178–­94. ———. 1987. “Zum Vorwurf der Kollaboration des Zöllners mit Rom.” ZNW 78: 186–­99. ———. 1990. Jesus und die Zöllner. WUNT 2/41. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1996. “Steuerpacht und Moral.” Pages 2221–­97 in ANRW II: 26/3. Herrmann, W. 1999. “Baal Zebub.” Pages 154–­56 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd edition. Edited by K. van der Toorn. New York: Brill. Herzog, R. 1922. “Das delphische Orakel als ethischer Preisrichter.” Pages 149–­58 in Der junge Platon. Edited by E. Hornseffer. Gießen: Töpelmann. ———. 1931. Die Wunderheilungen von Epidauros. Ph.S 22/3. Leipzig: Dieterich. Heusler, E. 2000. Kapitalprozesse im lukanischen Doppelwerk. NTA NF 38. Münster: Aschendorff. Heutger, N. 1983. “Münzen im Lukasevangelium.” BZ NF 27: 97–­101. Hezser, C. 1996. “Die Verwendung der hellenistischen Gattung Chrie im frühen Christentum und Judentum.” JSJ 27: 371–­439. Hicks, J. M. 1991. “The Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-­8).” RestQ 33: 209–­23. Hieke, T. 1997. “Judging the Time.” Pages 159–­268 in Q 12:49–59. Edited by S. Carruth. Leuven: Peeters. ———, ed. 2001. Q 6:20–12: The Beatitudes for the Poor, Hungry, and Mourning­. Leuven: Peeters. Hilhorst, A. 1983. “The Wounds of the Risen Jesus.” EstB 41: 165–­67.

612

Bibliography

Hill, D. 1971. “The Rejection of Jesus in Nazareth (Lk iv 16-30).” NT 13: 161–­80. Hills, J. V. 1992. “Luke 10.18—­Who Saw Satan Fall?” JSNT 46: 25–­40. Hiltbrunner, O. 2005. Gastfreundschaft in der Antike und im frühen Christentum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Hintzen, J. 1991. Verkündigung und Wahrnehmung: Über das Verhältnis von Evangelium und Leser am Beispiel Lk 16,19-31 im Rahmen des lukanischen Doppel­ werkes. BBB 81. Frankfurt am Main: Hain. Hirschmüller, M. 1994. “Der Zensus des Quirinius nach der Darstellung des Josephus.” JETh 8: 33–­68. Hobart, W. K. 2004 [1882]. The Medical Language of St. Luke. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias. Hock, R. F. 1987. “Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19­ 31.” JBL 106: 447–­63. ———. 2002. “Romancing the Parables of Jesus.” PRS 29: 11–­37. ———. 2003. “The Parable of the Foolish Rich Man (Luke 12:16-20) and Graeco­ Roman Conventions of Thought and Behavior.” Pages 181–­96 in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Festschrift Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by J. T. Fitzgerald. NT.S 110. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Hock, R. F., and E. N. O’Neil. 1986. The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric. Vol. 1, The Progymnasmata. SBL.TT 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Hoehner, H. W. 1972. Herod Antipas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoeren, T. 1995. “Das Gleichnis vom ungerechten Verwalter (Lukas 16.1-­8a).” NTS 41: 620–­29. Hoffmann, A., and S. Kerner, eds. 2002. Gadara, Gerasa und die Dekapolis. Mainz: Zabern. Hoffmann, P. 1972. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. NTA NF 8. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1978. Die Toten in Christus. 3rd edition. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1995. Tradition und Situation: Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung in der Logienquelle und den synoptischen Evangelien. NTA NF 28. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1998a. “Herrscher in oder Richter über Israel? Mt 19,28 / Lk 22,28-30 in der synoptischen Überlieferung.” Pages 253–­64 in Ja und Nein: Festschrift Wolfgang Schrage. Edited by K. Wengst, G. Sass, K. Kriener, and R. Stuhlmann. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 1998b. “Der Menschensohn in Lukas 12.8.” NTS 44: 357–­79. ———. 1998c. Q 22:28, 30: You Will Judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Edited by C. Heil. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2001. “Mutmaßungen über Q.” Pages 255–­88 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by A. Lindemann. BEThL 158. Leuven: Peeters. Hoffmann, P., and V. Eid. 1979. Jesus von Nazareth und eine christliche Moral. 3rd edition. QD 66. Freiburg: Herder. Hofius, O. 1977/1978. “Alttestamentliche Motive im Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn.” NTS 24: 240–­48. ———. 1990. “Fußwaschung als Erweis der Liebe.” ZNW 81: 170–­77. Hofrichter, P. 1993. “Parallelen zum 24: Gesang der Ilias in den Engelerscheinungen des lukanischen Doppelwerkes.” ProBi 2: 60–­76.



Bibliography 613

Holgate, D. A. 1999. Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness: The Prodigal Son in Greco-Roman Perspective­. JSNT.S 187. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Holloway, P. A. 2005. “Left Behind: Jesus’ Consolation of His Disciples in John 13.31–17.26.” ZNW 96: 1–­34. Holmén, T. 1996. “The Alternatives of the Kingdom: Encountering the Semantic Restrictions of Luke 17,20-21 (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν).” ZNW 87: 204–­29. Holst, R. 1976. “The One Anointing of Jesus.” JBL 95: 435–­46. Holtz, T. 1964. “Die Standespredigt Johannes des Täufers.” Pages 461–­74 in Ruf und Antwort: Festschrift Emil Fuchs. Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang. ———. 1968. Untersuchung über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas. Vol. 104. TU. Berlin: Akademie. Hombert, M., and C. Préaux. 1952. Recherches sur le recensement dans l’Égypte romaine. Leiden: Brill. Hommel, H. 1983/1984. Sebasmata. 2 vols. WUNT 31–­32. Tübingen: Mohr. Hood, R. T. 1961. “The Genealogies of Jesus.” Pages 1–­15 in Early Christian Origins: Festschrift Harold R. Willoughby. Edited by A. P. Wikgren. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Hoover, R. W. 1998. “Selected Special Lukan Material in the Passion Narrative: Luke 23:33-43, 47b-49.” Forum NS 1: 119–­27. Hoppe, R. 1998. “Das Gastmahlgleichnis Jesu (Mt 22,1-10/Lk 14,16-24) und seine vorevangelische Traditionsgeschichte.” Pages 277–­93 in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien: Festschrift Paul Hoffmann. Edited by R. Hoppe and U. Busse. BZNW 93. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 2005. “Tischgespräche und Nachfolgebedingungen.” Pages 115–­30 in Licht zur Erleuchtung der Heiden und Herrlichkeit für dein Volk Israel: Festschrift Josef Zmijewski. Edited by C. G. Müller. BBB 151. Hamburg: Philo. Horbury, W. 1998. Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Horman, J. 1979. “The Source of the Version of the Parable of the Sower in the Gospel of Thomas.” NT 21: 326–­43. Horn, F. W. 1986. Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas. 2nd edition. GTA 26. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1992. Das Angeld des Geistes. FRLANT 154. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2002. “Die politische Umkehr in der Verkündigung Jesu.” Pages 53–­70 in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift Albert Fuchs. Edited by C. Niemand. LPTB 7. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Horsley, G. H. R. 1981. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1976. Vol. 1. North Ryde: Macquaire University. Horst, P. W. van der. 1977. “Peter’s Shadow: The Religio-Historical Background to Acts 5:15.” NTS 23: 204–­12. ———. 1991. Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. Kampen: Kok ———. 1997. “‘The Finger of God.’” Pages 89–­103 in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical: Festschrift Tjitze Baarda. Edited by W. L. Petersen, J. S. Vos, and H. J. de Jonge. NT.S 89. Leiden: Brill.

614

Bibliography

———. 2006. “Abraham’s Bosom, the Place Where He Belonged: A Short Note on ἀπενεχθῆναι in Luke 16.22.” NTS 52: 142–­44. Hospodar, B. 1956. “Meta Spoudes in Lk 1,39.” CBQ 18: 14–­18. Hossfeld, F.­-L., and E. Zenger. 2000. Psalmen 51–­100. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 2005. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–­100. Trans. L. M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress. Houzet, P. 1992. “Les serviteurs de l’évangile (Luc 17,5­-10) sont­-ils inutiles?” RB 99: 335–­72. Huber, K. 1995a. Jesus in Auseinandersetzung. FzB 75. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1995b. “ὩΣ ΠΕΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ.” ProBi 4: 87–­101. ———. 1998. “‘Zeichen des Jona’ und ‘mehr als Jona.’” ProBi 7: 77–­94. Hude, K. 1958. Aretaeus. Berlin: Akademie. Hughes, F. W. 1993. “The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16.19-31) and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric.” Pages 29–­41 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht. JSNT.S 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Hultgren, A. J. 1991. “Jesus and Gnosis: The Saying on Hindering Others in Luke 11:52 and Its Parallels.” Forum 7: 165–­82. ———. 2000. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hultgren, S. 2002. Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative. BZNW 113. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hundeshagen, F. 2002. Wenn doch auch du erkannt hättest, was dir zum Frieden dient. ETS 85. Leipzig: Benno. Hunzinger, C.-­H. 1960. “Unbekannte Gleichnisse Jesu aus dem Thomas-Evangelium.” Pages 209–­20 in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift Joachim Jeremias. Edited by E. Eltester. BZNW 26. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Huuhtanen, P. 1977. “Die Perikope vom ‘reichen Jüngling’ unter Berücksichtigung der Akzentuierung des Lukas.” SNTU.A 2: 79–­98. Hyldahl, N. 1961. “Die Versuchung auf der Zinne des Tempels.” StTh 15: 113–­27. Ideler, J. L. 1841–­1842. Physici et medici Graeci minores. Berlin: Reimer. Iersel, B. van. 1960. “The Finding of Jesus in the Temple.” NT 4: 161–­73. ———. 1964. “Der Sohn” in den synoptischen Jesusworten. 2nd edition. NT.S 3. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1964/1965. “Die wunderbare Speisung und das Abendmahl in der synoptischen Tradition.” NT 7: 167–­94. Ilan, T. 2002. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Vol. 1. TSAJ 91. Tübingen: Mohr. Ireland, D. J. 1989. “A History of Recent Interpretation of the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13).” WThJ 51: 293–­318. ———. 1992. Stewardship and the Kingdom of God. NT.S. 70. Leiden: Brill. Itgenshorst, T. 2005. Tota illa pompa: der Triumph in der römischen Republik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Jacobson, A. D. 1995. “Divided Families and Christian Origins.” Pages 361–­80 in The Gospel behind the Gospels. Edited by R. A. Piper. NT.S. 75. Leiden: Brill. Jacoby, A. 1921. “ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗ ΕΞ ΥΨΟΥΣ.” ZNW 20: 205–­14.



Bibliography 615

Janse, M. 1996. “L’importance de la position d’un mot ‘accessoire’ (à propos de Luc 1.3).” Bib. 77: 93–­97. Jarvis, P. G. 1965/1966. “Expounding the Parables V: The Tower-­builder and the King Going to War (Luke 14,25-33).” ExpT 77: 196–­98. Jellicoe, S. 1959/1960. “St. Luke and the ‘Seventy(two).’” NTS 6: 319–­21. Jenni, E. 1992. “Kausativ und Funktionsverbgefüge: Sprachliche Bemerkungen zur Bitte: ‘Führe uns nicht in Versuchung.’” ThZ 48: 77–­88. Jeremias, J. 1925. “Der Eckstein.” Angelos 1: 65–­70. ———. 1930. “Κεφαλὴ γωνίας—­ Ἀκρογωνιαῖος.” ZNW 29: 264–­80. ———. 1936. “Die Zinne des Tempels (Mt 4,5: Lk 4,9).” ZDPV 59: 195–­208. ———. 1937. “Eckstein–­Schlußstein.” ZNW 36: 154–­57. ———. 1939. “Beobachtungen zu neutestamentlichen Stellen an Hand des neugefundenen griechischen Henoch-Textes.” ZNW 38: 115–­24. ———. 1958. Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Mt. 23, 29; Lk. 11, 47): Eine Untersuchung zur Volksreligion der Zeit Jesu. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1960. “Lukas 7,45: ΕΙΣΗΔΘΟΝ.” ZNT 51: 131. ———. 1961. “Drei weitere jüdische Heiligengräber.” ZNW 52: 95–­101. ———. 1965. Unbekannte Jesusworte. 4th edition. Gütersloh: Mohn. ———. 1966. Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1966­/1967. “Palästinakundliches zum Gleichnis vom Säemann (Mark iv.3­-8par.).” NTS 13: 48­-53. ———. 1967. Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu. 4th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1969. Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu. 3rd edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1977. Die Gleichnisse Jesu. 9th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1980. Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums. KEK.S. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Jervell, J. 1998. Die Apostelgeschichte. KEK 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Johnson, A. F. 1979. “Assurance for Man: The Fallacy of Translating ANAIDEIA by ‘Persistence’ in Luke 11:5­-8.” JETS 22: 123–­31. Johnson, L. T. 1977. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke–­Acts. SBL.DS 39. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. ———. 1982. “The Lukan Kingship Parable (Lk. 19:11-27).” NT 24: 139–­59. Johnson, M. D. 1969. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies. MSSNTS 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, S. E. 1935. “A Note on Luke 13:1-­5.” AThR 17: 91–­95. Johnson, S. R., ed. 2002. Q 7:1–10: The Centurion’s Faith in Jesus’ Word. Leuven: Peeters. Jonge, H. J. de. 1978. “Sonship, Wisdom, Infancy: Luke II.41-­51a.” NTS 24: 317–­54. ———. 1997. “The Sayings on Confessing and Denying Jesus in Q 12:8-­9 and Mark 8:38.” Pages 105–­21 in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical: Festschrift Tjitze Baarda. Edited by W. L. Petersen, J. S. Vos, and H. J. de Jonge. Leiden: Brill. Joosten, J. 2003. “‘Père, j’ai péché envers le ciel et devant toi’: Remarques exégétiques et textuelles sur Luc 15.18, 21.” RHPhR 83: 145–­56.

616

Bibliography

Joüon, P. 1936. “Luc 23,11: ἐσθῆτα λαμπράν.” RSR 26: 80–­85. Judge, P. J. 1989. “Luke 7.1­-10: Sources and Redaction.” Pages 473–­90 in L’évangile de Luc–­The Gospel of Luke. Edited by F. Neirynck. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Jülicher, A. 1976 [21910]. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, zwei Teile in einem Band. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftiche Buchgesellschaft. Jung, C.­-W. 2004. The Original Language of the Lukan Infancy Narrative. JSNT.S 267. London: T&T Clark. Jung, F. 2002. ΣΩΤΗΡ: Studien zur Rezeption eines hellenistischen Ehrentitels im Neuen Testament. NTA.NF 39. Münster: Aschendorff. Just, A. A. 1993. The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical. Kaestli, J.-D. 1969. L’eschatologie dans l’oeuvre de Luc. NSTh 22. Geneva: Labor et Fides. Kähler, C. 1995. Jesu Gleichnisse als Poesie und Therapie. WUNT 78. Tübingen: Mohr. Kaibel, G. 1965 [1878]. Epigrammata graeca: ex lapidibus conlecta. Hildesheim: Olms. Kaimakis, D. 1976. Die Kyraniden. Meisenheim am Glan: Hein. Kany, R. 1986. “Der lukanische Bericht von Tod und Auferstehung Jesu aus der Sicht eines hellenistischen Romanlesers.” NT 28: 75–­90. Kariamadam, P. 1985. The Zacchaeus Story. Kerala: Pontifical Institute of Theology and Philosophy. ———. 1987. “The Composition and Meaning of the Lucan Travel Narrative (Lk. 9,51–­19,46).” BiBh 13: 179–­98. ———. 1997. “Transfiguration and Jesus’ Ascended Glory: An Explanation of Lk. 9:28­-36.” BiBh 23: 1–­13. Karrer, M. 1991. Der Gesalbte: Die Grundlagen des Christustitels. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1998. Jesus Christus im Neuen Testament. NTD.E 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2002. “Jesus der Retter (Sôtêr). Zur Aufnahme eines hellenistischen Prädikats im Neuen Testament.” ZNW 93: 153–­76. Karris, R. J. 1985. Luke, Artist and Theologian: Luke’s Passion Account as Literature. New York: Paulist Press. ———. 1986. “Luke 23:47 and the Lucan View of Jesus’ Death.” JBL 105: 65–­74. ———. 1991. “Luke 8:26-39: Jesus, the Pigs, and Human Transformation.” NTR 4: 39–­51. ———. 1995. “Luke 13:10­-17 and God’s Promises to Israel.” Pages 98–­115 in Divine Promises to the Fathers in the Three Monotheistic Religions. Edited by A. Niccacci. SBF 40. Jerusalem: Franciscan. Käsemann, E. 1970. Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen. 6th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Käser, W. 1963. “Exegetische und theologische Erwägungen zur Seligpreisung der Kinderlosen Lc 23,29b.” ZNW 54: 240–­54. Kato, T. 1997. La pensée sociale de Luc–Actes­. EHPhR 76. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.



Bibliography 617

Kaut, T. 1990. Befreier und befreites Volk. Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Magnifikat und Benediktus im Kontext der lukanischen Kindheitsgeschichte­. BBB 77. Frankfurt am Main: Hain. Keck, F. 1976. Die öffentliche Abschiedsrede Jesu in Lk 20,45–­21,36. FzB 25. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Keck, L. E. 1970/1971. “The Spirit and the Dove.” NTS 17: 41–­67. Kee, H. C. 1967/1968. “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories.” NTS 14: 232–­46. Kelhoffer, J. 2000. Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark. WUNT 2/112. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2004. “‘How Soon a Book’ Revisited: ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ as a Reference to ‘Gospel’ Materials in the First Half of the Second Century.” ZNW 95: 1–­34. Kellermann, U. 2007. Das Achtzehn-Bitten-Gebet. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Kelly, J. F. 1974. “The Patristic Biography of Luke.” BiTod 74: 113–­19. Kennel, G. 1995. Frühchristliche Hymnen? Gattungskritische Studien zur Frage nach den Liedern der frühen Christenheit. WMANT 71. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener. Kenyon, F. G. 1935. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri. Vol. 5. London: Walker. Kenyon, K. M., and T. A. Holland. 1960–­1982. Excavations at Jericho. Vols. 1–­4. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kertelge, K. 1970. Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium. StANT 23. München: Kösel. Kezbere, I. 2007. Umstrittener Monotheismus: Wahre und falsche Apotheose im lukanischen Doppelwerk. NTOA/StUNT 60. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kienast, D. 1982. Augustus: Prinzeps und Monarch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Kierdorf, W. 1986. “‘Funus’ und ‘consecratio.’ Zu Terminologie und Ablauf der römischen Kaiserapotheose.” Chiron 16: 43–­69. Kiilunen, J. 1989. Das Doppelgebot der Liebe in synoptischer Sicht. STAT 250. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. ———. 2002. “‘Minor Agreements’ und die Hypothese von Lukas’ Kenntnis des Matthäusevangeliums.” Pages 165–­202 in Fair Play: Festschrift Heikki Räisänen. Leiden: Brill. Kilgallen, J. J. 1982. “What Kind of Servants Are We? (Luke 17,10).” Bib. 63: 549–­51. ———. 1986. “The Sadducees and Resurrection from the Dead: Luke 20,27-40.” Bib. 67: 478–­95. ———. 1991. “A Proposal for Interpreting Luke 7.36­-50.” Bib. 72: 305–­30. ———. 1993. “The Return of the Unclean Spirit.” Bib. 74: 45–­59. ———. 1998a. “Forgiveness of Sins (Luke 7:36-50).” NT 40: 105–­16. ———. 1998b. “The Importance of the Redactor in Luke 18,9-14.” Bib. 79: 69–­75. ———. 1999. “Jesus’ First Trial: Messiah and Son of God (Luke 22,66-71).” Bib. 80: 401–­14. ———. 2001a. “A Comment on Luke 1:31-35.” ExpT 112: 413–­14. ———. 2001b. “Faith and Forgiveness: Luke 7,36-50.” RB 108: 214–­27. ———. 2001c. “The Obligation to Heal (Luke 13,10-17).” Bib. 82: 402–­9.

618

Bibliography

———. 2002. “The Parable of the Fig Tree (Luke 13,6­-9).” Pages 439–­49 in San Luca Evangelista. Testimone della fede che unisce. Vol. 1, L’unità letteraria e teologica dell’opera di Luca. Edited by G. Leonarde. Padova: Istituto per la storia ecclesiastica padovana. ———. 2003a. “The Unity of Luke 17,1­-10.” EThL 79: 157–­65. ———. 2003b. “What Does It Mean to Say: ‘Wisdom Is Justified by Her Children’?” ChiSt 42: 205–­11. ———. 2005a. “Faith and Forgiveness: Luke 7,36-50.” RB 112: 372–­84. ———. 2005b. “What Does It Mean to Say That There Are Additions in Luke 7,36­ 50.” Bib. 86: 529–­35. ———. 2006. “Luke 18,11—­Pharisees and Lucan Irony.” RB 113: 53–­64. Kilpatrick, G. D. 1965. “ΛΑΟΙ at Luke 11.31 and Acts IV.25, 27.” JThS NS 16: 127. ———. 1979. “Three Problems of New Testament Text.” NT 21: 289­–92. Kim, H.­-S. 1993. Die Geisttaufe des Messias: Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu einem Leitmotiv des lukanischen Doppelwerks. SKP 81. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Kim, K.-­J. 1998. Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke’s Theology. JSNT.S 155. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Kimball, C. A. 1993. “Jesus’ Exposition of Scripture in Luke 20:9-19.” BBR 3: 77–­92. ———. 1994. Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel. JSNT.S 94. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Kingsbury, J. D. 1991. Conflict in Luke. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kinman, B. 1993. “Luke’s Exoneration of John the Baptist.” JThS 44: 595–­98. ———. 1994. “‘The Stones Will Cry Out’ (Luke 19,40)—­Joy or Judgment?” Bib. 75: 232–­35. ———. 1995. Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem. AGJU 28. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1999a. “Debtor’s Prison and the Future of Israel (Luke 12:57-59).” JETS 42: 411–­25. ———. 1999b. “Parousia, Jesus’ ‘atriumphal’ Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19:28­-44).” JBL 118: 279–­94. Kirchschläger, W. 1981. Jesu exorzistisches Wirken aus der Sicht des Lukas. ÖBS 3. Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk. Kirk, A. 1998a. The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom Redaction in Q. NT.S 91. Leiden: Brill ———. 1998b. “Upbraiding Wisdom: John’s Speech and the Beginning of Q (Q 3:7– 9, 16–17).” NT 40: 1–­16. ———. 2003. “‘Love Your Enemies,’ the Golden Rule, and Ancient Reciprocity (Luke 6:27-35).” JBL 122: 667–­86. Klassen, W. 1980/1981. “‘A Child of Peace’ (Luke 10.6) in First Century Context.” NTS 27: 488–­506. ———. 1996. Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? Minneapolis: Fortress. Klauck, H.­-J. 1978. Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten. NTA NF 13. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1981. “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten (Mk 2,1-12 parr).” BZ NF 25: 223–­48. ———. 1982. Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1986. “Die Armut der Jünger in der Sicht des Lukas.” Clar. 26: 5–­47.



Bibliography 619

———. 1987. Judas—­ein Jünger des Herrn. QD 111. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1997. “Gottesfürchtige im Magnifikat?” NTS 43: 134–­39. Klauser, T. 1958. “Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der christlichen Kunst I.” JAC 1: 20–­51. Klausner, J. 1952. Jesus von Nazareth. 3rd edition. Jerusalem: Jewish Publishing House. Klawans, J. 2000. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klein, G. 1961. Die zwölf Apostel. Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1964. “Die Prüfung der Zeit (Lukas 12.54-56).” ZThK 61: 373–­90. ———. 1969. Rekonstruktion und Interpretation. BEvTh 50. Munich: Kaiser. ———. 1972. “Die Verfolgung der Apostel, Luk 11,49.” Pages 113–­24 in Neues Testament und Geschichte: Festschrift Oscar Cullmann. Edited by H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1997. “Eschatologie und Schöpfung bei Lukas: Eine kosmische Liturgie im dritten Evangelium.” Pages 145–­54 in Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Festschrift Erich Grässer. Edited by M. Evang, H. Merklein, and M. Wolter. BZNW 89. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Klein, H. 1972. “Zur Frage nach dem Abfassungsort der Lukasschriften.” EvTh 32: 467–­77. ———. 1976. “Die lukanisch-johanneische Passionstradition.” ZNW 67: 155–­86. ———. 1987. Barmherzigkeit gegenüber den Elenden und Geächteten: Studien zur Botschaft des lukanischen Sondergutes. BThSt 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 1996a. “Am ersten Sabbat: Eine Konjektur zu Lk 6,1.” ZNW 87: 290–­93. ———. 1996b. “Gerichtsankündigung und Liebesforderung: Lk 6.24­-6 and 27 innerhalb der Botschaft des frühen Christentums.” NTS 42: 421–­33. ———. 2005. Lukasstudien. FRLANT 209. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Klein, P. 1980. “Die lukanischen Weherufe Lk 6.24-26.” ZNW 71: 150–­59. Klemm, H. G. 1969–­1970. “Das Wort von der Selbstbestattung der Toten: Beobachtungen zur Auslegungsgeschichte von Mt. VIII. 22par.” NTS 16: 60–­75. ———. 1982. “De Censu Caesaris.” NT 24: 234–­54. Klijn, A. F. J. 1966. “The Question of the Rich Young Man in a Jewish-Christian Gospel.” NT 8: 149–­55. ———. 1970. “John XIV 22 and the Name Judas Thomas.” Pages 88–­96 in Studies in John: Festschrift J.N. Sevenster. NT.S 24. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2002. “Matthew 11:25 // Luke 10:21.” Pages 3–­14 in New Testament Textual Criticism: Festschrift Bruce M. Metzger. Edited by E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee. Oxford: Clarendon. Klingbeil, G. A. 2000. “The Finger of God in the Old Testament.” ZAW 112: 409–­15. Klinghardt, M. 1988. Gesetz und Volk Gottes: Das lukanische Verständnis des Gesetzes nach Herkunft, Funktion und seinem Ort in der Geschichte des Urchristentums. WUNT 2/32. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2006. “Markion vs. Lukas: Plädoyer für die Wiederaufnahme eines alten Falles.” NTS 52: 484–­513.

620

Bibliography

Klink, E. W. 2004. “The Gospel Community Debate: State of the Question.” CuBR 3: 60–­85. Kloft, H. 1988. “Gedanken zum Ptochòs.” Pages 81–­106 in Soziale Randgruppen und Außenseiter im Altertum. Edited by I. Weiler and H. Grassl. Graz: Leykam. Kloppenborg, J. S. 1989. “The Dishonoured Master (Luke 16,1­-8a).” Bib. 70: 474–­95. ———. 1992. “Exitus clari viri. The Death of Jesus in Luke.” TJT 8: 106–­20. ———. 2006. The Tenants in the Vineyard. WUNT 195. Tübingen: Mohr. Klostermann, E. 1971. Das Markusevangelium. 4th–­5th edition. HNT 3. Tübingen: Mohr. Klumbies, P.­-J. 1989. “Die Sabbatheilungen Jesu nach Markus und Lukas.” Pages 165–­78 in Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im frühen Christentum: Festschrift Willi Marxen. Edited by D.­-A. Koch, G. Sellin, and A. Lindemann. Gütersloh: Mohn. ———. 2003. “Das Sterben Jesu als Schauspiel nach Lk 23,44-49.” BZ NF 47: 186–­205. ———. 2007. “Himmelfahrt und Apotheose Jesu in Luke 24,50-53.” Klio 89: 147–­60. Klutz, T. 2004. The Exorcism Stories in Luke–­Acts. MSSNTS 129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knowles, M. P. 2003. “Reciprocity and ‘Favour’ in the Parable of the Undeserving Servant (Luke 17.7-10).” NTS 49: 256–­60. Knox, J. 1942. Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kobert, R. 1972. “Kamel und Schiffstau: zu Markus 10,25 (Par.) und Koran 7,40/38.” Bib. 53: 229–­33. Koch, D.-A. 1989. “Jesu Tischgemeinschaft mit Zöllnern und Sündern.” Pages 57–­ 73 in Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im frühen Christentum: Festschrift Willi Marxsen. Edited by D.-A. Koch, G. Sellin, and A. Lindemann. Gütersloh: Mohn. Koch, K. 1979. “Offenbaren wird sich das Reich Gottes: Die Malkuta Jahwäs im Profeten-Targum.” NTS 25: 158–­65. Kock, T. 1880–­1888. Comicorum atticorum fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner. Kodell, J. 1969. “Luke’s Use of Laos, ‘People,’ Especially in the Jerusalem Narrative (Lk 19,28–­24,53).” CBQ 31: 327–­43. Koenen, K. 1995. Jahwe wird kommen, zu herrschen iiber die Erde: Ps 90–­110 als Komposition. BBB 101. Weinheim: Beltz Athenaum. Koep, L. 1952. Das himmlische Buch in Antike und Christentum. Bonn: Hanstein. Koester, H. 1990. Ancient Christian Gospels. London: SCM Press. Koet, B. J. 1989. “‘Today This Scripture Has Been Fulfilled in Your Ears.’” Pages 24–­ 55 in Five Studies on Interpretation of Scripture in Luke–­Acts. SNTA 14. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1992. “Simeons Worte (Lk 2,29-32, 34c-35) und Israels Geschick.” Pages 1549–­69 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1998. “Holy Place and Hannah’s Prayer: A Comparison of LAB 50-51 and Luke 22:22-39 à propos 1 Samuel 1–­2.” Pages 45–­72 in Sanctity of Time and



Bibliography 621

Space in Tradition and Modernity. Edited by A. Houtman, M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, and J. Schwartz. Leiden: Brill. Kogler, F. 1988. Das Doppelgleichnis vom Senfkorn und vom Sauerteig in seiner traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung. FzB 59. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Köhler, L., and W. Baumgartner. 2004 [31967–­1995]. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. 3rd edition. Leiden: Brill. Kollmann, B. 1990. “Lk 12,35­ -38—­ ein Gleichnis der Logienquelle.” ZNW 81: 254–­61. ———. 1996. Jesus und die Christen als Wundertäter. FRLANT 170. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1997. “Jesu Verbot des Richtens und die Gemeindedisziplin.” ZNW 88: 170–­86. König, R. 1967. “Institution.” Pages 142–­ 48 in Soziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Konradt, M. 2003. Gericht und Gemeinde: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik im 1 Thess und 1 Kor. BZNW 117. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 2006. “Gott oder Mammon: Besitzethos und Diakonie im frühen Christentum.” Pages 107–­54 in Diakonie und Ökonomie. Orientierungen im Europa des Wandels. Edited by C. Sigrist. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Kopp, C. 1964. Die Heiligen Stätten der Evangelien. 2nd edition. Regensburg: Pustet. Korn, J. H. 1937. ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΣ. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Korn, M. 1993. Die Geschichte Jesu in veränderter Zeit. WUNT 2/51. Tübingen: Mohr. Korting, G. 2004. Das Vaterunser und die Unheilabwehr: Ein Beitrag zur ἐπιoύσιoν­ Debatte (Mt 6,11/Lk 11,3). NTA.NF 48. Münster: Aschendorff. Körtner, U. H. J. 1984. “Das Fischmotiv im Speisungswunder.” ZNW 75: 24–­35. ———. 1998. “Papiasfragmente.” Pages 3–­103 in Papiasfragmente: Hirt des Hermas. Edited by U. H. J. Körtner and M. Leutzsch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftiche Buchgesellschaft. Kosch, D. 1989. Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes. NTOA 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kowalski, B. 2002/2003. “Forschungsgeschichtlicher Überblick: Sprache und Stil des Lukasevangeliums.” SNTU 27/28: 41–­83, 27–­64. Kozar, J. V. 1990. “The Function of the Character of Elizabeth as the Omniscent Narrator’s Reliable Vehicle in the First Chapter of the Gospel of Luke.” PEMBS 10: 214–­22. Kraeling, C. H. 1935. A Greek Fragment of Tatian’s Diatessaron, from Dura. London: Christophers. Krämer, M. 1972. Das Rätsel der Parabel vom ungerechten Verwalter Lk 16,1-13­. BSRel 5. Zürich: PAS. Kratz, R. 1979. Rettungswunder. EHS.T 123. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Kraus, W. 2003. “Das jüdische Evangelium und seine griechischen Leser. Zum lukanischen Verständnis der Passion Jesu.” Pages 29–­43 in Die bleibende Gegen­ wart des Evangeliums: Festschrift Otto Merk. Edited by R. Gebauer and M. Meiser. MThSt 76. Marburg: Elwert. Krauss, S. 1899. “Die Zahl der biblischen Völkerschaften.” ZAW 19: 1–­14.

622

Bibliography

———. 1900. “Zur Zahl der biblischen Völkerschaften.” ZAW 20: 38–­43. ———. 1925. “Die Instruktion Jesu an die Apostel.” Angelos 1: 96–­102. ———. 1966 [1910–­1912]. Talmudische Archäologie. Hildesheim: Olms. Kreuzer, S. 1985. “Der Zwang des Boten—­Beobachtungen zu Lk 14,23 und 1 Kor 9,16.” ZNW 76: 123–­28. Krieger, K. S. 1997. “Die Historizität des Census des Quirinius.” BN 87: 17–­23. Kroll, W., ed. 1958 [1926]. Historia Alexandri Magni. Berlin: Weidemann. ———, ed. 1973. Vettii Valentis Anthologiarum libri. Dublin: Weidmann. Krückemeier, N. 2004. “Der zwölfjährige Jesus im Tempel (Lk 2.40-52) und die biografische Literatur der hellenistischen Antike.” NTS 50: 307–­19. Kruger, H. A. J. 1997. “A Sword over His Head or in His Hand? Luke 22,35-38.” Pages 597–­604 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BEThL 131. Leuven: Peeters. Küchler, M. 1979. Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. ———. 2007. Jerusalem. Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer zur Heiligen Stadt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kügler, J. 1995. “Die Windeln Jesu als Zeichen.” BN 77: 20–­28. ———. 1997. Pharao und Christus? Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Frage einer Verbindung zwischen altägyptischer Königstheologie und neutestamentlicher Christologie im Lukasevangelium. BBB 113. Bodenheim: Philo. Kühlewein, J. 1976. “Nächster.” Pages 786–­91 in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament 2. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Munich: Kaiser. Kuhn, G. 1923. “The Geschlechtsregister Jesu bei Lukas und Matthäus, nach ihrer Herkunft untersucht.” ZNW 22: 206–­28. Kuhn, H.-­W. 1959. “Das Reittier Jesu in der Einzugsgeschichte des Markusevangeliums.” ZNW 50: 82–­91. ———. 1976. “Der Gekreuzigte von Givcat ha-Mivtar.” Pages 303–­34 in Theologia Crucis–­Signum Crucis: Festschrift Erich Dinkler. Edited by C. Andresen and G. Klein. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1980. “Nachfolge nach Ostern.” Pages 105–­32 in Kirche: Festschrift Günter Bornkamm. Edited by D. Lührmann and G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1982. “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit.” Pages 648–­793 in ANRW II: 25/1. ———. 1995. “Bethsaida in the Gospels: The Feeding Story in Luke 9 and the Q Saying in Luke 10.” Pages 243–­56 in Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by R. Arav and R. A. Freund. Kirksville, Mo.: Thomas Jefferson University Press. Kuhn, H.­-W., and R. R. Arav. 1991. “The Bethsaida Excavations: Historical and Archaeological Approaches.” Pages 77–­106 in The Future of Early Christianity: Festschrift Helmut Koester. Edited by B. A. Pearson, A. T. Kraabel, G. W. E. Nickelsburg. and N. R. Petersen. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kuhn, K. A. 2003. “Beginning the Witness: The αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται of Luke’s Infancy Narrative.” NTS 49: 237–­55. Kühn, K. G., ed. 1964 [1921]. Claudii Galeni Opera omnia. Hildesheim: Olms.



Bibliography 623

Kühner, R., and B. Gerth. 1890–­1898. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Vol. I/1–­II/2. 3rd edition. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Kühschelm, R. 1983. Jüngerverfolgung und Geschick Jesu. ÖBS 5. Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk. Kümmel, W. G. 1956 [1945]. Verheißung und Erfüllung. 3rd edition. AThANT 6. Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag. ———. 1973. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 17th edition. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. ———. 1974. “‘Das Gesetz und die Propheten gehen bis Johannes’—­Lukas 16,16 im Zusammenhang der heilsgeschichtlichen Theologie der Lukasschriften.” Pages 398–­415 in Das Lukas-Evangelium­. Edited by G. Braumann. WdF 280. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. 1978. “Jesu Antwort an Johannes den Täufer.” Pages 177–­200 in Heilsge­ schehen und Geschichte. Vol. 2. Marburg: Elwert. Künzl, E. 1988. Der römische Triumph: Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom. Munich: Beck. Kurth, C. 2000. “Die Stimmen der Propheten erfüllt.” Jesu Geschick und “die” Juden nach der Darstellung des Lukas. BWANT 148. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Kurz, W. S. 1980. “Luke–­Acts and Historiography in the Greek Bible.” SBLSP 19: 283–­300. ———. 1984. “Luke 3:23-38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Genealogies.” Pages 169–­87 in Luke–­Acts. Edited by C. H. Talbert. New York: Crossroad. ———. 1985. “Luke 22:14-38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses.” JBL 104: 251–­68. ———. 1987. “Narrative Approaches to Luke–­Acts.” Bib. 62: 195–­220. ———. 1993. Reading Luke–­Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox. Kusch, E. 1978. Neues Testament–­Neuer Bund? Eine Fehlübersetzung wird korrigiert. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Kvalbein, H. 1997. “Die Wunder der Endzeit.” ZNW 88: 111–­25. Kwong, I. S. C. 2005. The Word Order of the Gospel of Luke. London: T&T Clark. Lacy, P. H. de, ed. 1978–­1984. Galeni de placitis Hippocratis et Platonis. Berlin: Akademie. Lagrange, M.­-J. 1895. “Origène, la critique textuelle et la tradition topographique.” RB 4: 501–­24. ———. 1912. “Le sens du Luc, I,1, d’après les papyrus.” BALAC 2: 96–­100. Lambrecht, J. 1967. Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse. Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut. ———. 1981. Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus. New York: Crossroad. ———. 1985. “Reading and Rereading Lk 18,31–­22,6.” Pages 585–­612 in À cause de l’évangile: Festschrift Jacques Dupont. LeDiv 123. Paris: Cerf. ———. 1992. “John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark 1.1-15: Markan Redaction of Q?” NTS 38: 357–­84. ———. 2003. Understanding What One Reads: New Testament Essays. Edited by V. Koperski. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2005a. “‘But you too.’ A Note on Luke 1,76.” EThL 81: 487–­90.

624

Bibliography

———. 2005b. “A Note on Luke 15,1-32.” Pages 299–­306 in Luke and His Readers: Festschrift Adelbert Denaux. Edited by R. Bieringer, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 182. Leuven: Peeters. Lämmert, E. 1975. Bauformen des Erzählens. 6th edition. Stuttgart: Metzler. Lampe, G. W. H. 1984. “The Two Swords (Luke 22:35-38).” Pages 335–­51 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Landes, G. M. 1996. “Jonah in Luke.” Pages 133–­63 in A Gift of God in Due Season: Festschrift James A. Sanders. Edited by D. M. Carr and R. D. Weis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Landis, S. 1994. Das Verhältnis des Johannesevangeliums zu den Synoptikern: Am Beispiel von Mt 8,5-13; Lk 7,1-10; Joh 4,46-54. BZNW 74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Landmesser, C. 2002. “Die Rückkehr ins Leben nach dem Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn.” ZThK 99: 239–­61. Landry, D. T. 1995. “Narrative Logic in the Annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:26-28).” JBL 114: 65–­79. Landry, D. T., and B. May. 2000. “Honor Restored: New Light on the Parable of the Prudent Steward (Luke 16:1-8a).” JBL 119: 287–­309. Lang, B. 1982. “Grußverbot oder Besuchsverbot?” BZ NF 26: 75–­79. Laufen, R. 1980. Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums. BBB 54. Königstein: Hanstein. Laum, B. 1914. Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Antike. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Teubner. Laurentin, R. 1966. Jésus au temple: Mystère de Pâques et foi de Marie en Luc 2,4850. EtB. Paris: Gabalda. ———. 1967. Struktur und Theologie der lukanischen Kindheitsgeschichte. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Lausberg, H. 1949. Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. Munich: Hueber. ———. 1973. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. 2 vols. 2nd edition. Munich: Hueber. ———. 1998. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study. Edited by D. E. Orton and R. D. Anderson. Trans. M. T. Bliss, A. Jansen, and D. E. Orton. Leiden: Brill. Leaney, A. R. C. 1956. “The Lucan Text of the Lord’s Prayer (Lk XI 2­-4).” NT 1: 103–­11. Lebourlier, J. 1992. “Entos hymnōn: Le sens ‘au milieu de vous’ est­-il possible?” Bib. 73: 259–­62. Lee, B. T. 2005. Apuleius’ Florida: A Commentary. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Lee, J. A. L. 1991. “A Non-Aramaism in Luke 6:7.” NT 33: 28–­34. Lefebvre, P. 1998. “Anne de la tribu d’Asher: Le bonheur d’une femme (Lc 2,36-38).” SémBib 91: 3–­32. Lefort, L. T. 1938. “Le nom du mauvais riche (Luc 16.19) et la tradition copte.” ZNW 37: 65–­72. Legare, C. 1983. “Jésus et la pécheresse.” SémBib 29: 19–­45. Légasse, S. 1976. “Le logion sur le fils révélateur.” Pages 245–­74 in La notion biblique de Dieu. Edited by J. Coppens. BEThL 41. Leuven: Peeters.



Bibliography 625

Legrand, L. 1982. “On l’appela du nom de Jésus (Luc, II,21).” RB 89: 481–­91. Lehnardt, A. 2002. Qaddish. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Rezeption eines rabbinischen Gebetes. TSAJ 87. Tübingen: Mohr. Lehtipuu, O. 1999. “Characterization and Persuasion: The Rich Man and the Poor Man in Luke 16.19-31.” Pages 73–­105 in Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism. Edited by D. M. Rhoads and K. Syreeni. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2007. The Afterlife Imagery in Luke’s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. NT.S 123. Leiden: Brill. Leinhäupl-Wilke, A. 2007. “Zu Gast bei Lukas. Einblicke in die lukanische Mahlkonzeption am Beispiel von Lk 7,36-50.” Pages 91–­120 in Herrenmahl und Gruppenidentität. Edited by M. Ebner. QD 221. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Lémonon, J. P. 1981. Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judée. Paris: Gabalda. Lentz, A., and A. Ludwich, eds. 1965. Herodiani technici Reliquae. Hildesheim: Olms. Lentzen-­Deis, F. 1969. “Das Motive der ‘Himmelsöffnung’ in verschiedenen Gattungen der Umweltliteratur des Neuen Testaments.” Bib. 50: 301–­27. ———. 1970. Die Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern. FTS 4. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht. Lenz, F. W., and C. A. Behr, eds. 1976. Aelius Aristides, Opera quae exstant omnia. Lugduni Batavorum: Brill. Léon­-Dufour, X. 1983. Abendmahl und Abschiedsrede im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Leonhard, C. 2002. “Vaterunser II.” TRE 34: 512–­15. Leslie, S. 1929. The Greek Anthology. London: Ernest Benn. Leppä, H. 2005. “Luke’s Account of the Lord’s Supper.” Pages 364–­73 in Lux Humana, Lux Aeterna: Festschrift Lars Aejmelaeus. Edited by A. Mustakallio, H. Leppä, and H. Räisänen. SESJ 89. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society. Leutsch, E. van, and F. W. Schneidewin. 1958 [1839–­1851]. Corpus paroemiographorum Graecorum. Hildesheim: Olms. LaVerdiere, E. 1985. “No Room for Them in the Inn.” Emmanuel 91: 552–­57. Lewis, N., Y. Yadin, and J. C. Greenfield. 1989. “The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters.” Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Lichtenberger, A. 2003. Kulte und Kultur der Dekapolis. ADPV 29. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Liebenberg, J. 1993. “The Function of the Standespredigt in Luke 3:1-20.” Neotest. 27: 55–­67. Lifshitz, B. 1967. Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives. Paris: Gabalda. Lignée, H. 1974. “La mission des Soixante­-douze.” ASeign 45: 64–­74. Lindemann, A. 1983. “Die Kinder und die Gottesherrschaft.” WuD 17: 77–­104. ———. 1992. Die Clemensbriefe. HNT 17. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1993. “Samaria und Samaritaner im Neuen Testament.” WuD 22: 51–­76. ———. 1994. “Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1984–­1991.” ThR 59: 41–­ 100, 113–­85, 252–­84 (on Luke in particular, see 252–­81). ———. 1999. “Einheit und Vielfalt im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Beobachtungen zu Reden, Wundererzählungen und Mahlberichten.” Pages 225–­53 in The Unity of Luke–­Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. BEThL 142. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

626

Bibliography

———. 2002. “Jesus als der Christus bei Paulus und Lukas.” Pages 429–­61 in Der historische Jesus. Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung. Edited by J. Schröter and R. Brucker. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 2004/2005. “Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1992–­2000.” ThR 69/70: 182–­227, 241–­72, 44–­80 (“Das Lukasevangelium”). Lindhagen, C. 1950. “Die Wurzel ΣΑΠ—­im NT und AT.” UUA 40: 26–­69. Linke, K. 1977. Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Dionysios Thrax. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Linnemann, E. 1960. “Überlegungen zur Parabel vom großen Abendmahl.” ZNW 51: 246–­55. Linton, O. 1975/1976. “The Parable of the Children’s Game.” NTS 22: 159–­79. Lipsius, R. A. 1884. “Die Acten des Lukas.” Pages 354–­71 in Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden. Vol. II/2. Braunschweig: Schwetschke. Lipsius, R. A., and M. Bonnet, eds. 1959 [1891–­1903]. Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Littré, E., ed. 1853. “Hippocrates, De mulierum affectibus I–­III.” Pages 10–­462 in Oeuvres completes d’Hippocrate. Vol. 8. Paris: Baillière. Litwak, K. D. 2005. Echoes of Scripture in Luke–­Acts. JSNT.S 282. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2006. “Περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων. Concerning the Things Fulfilled or Accomplished.” RB 113: 37–­52. Lohfink, G. 1971. Die Himmelfahrt Jesu. StANT 26. Munich: Kösel. ———. 1975a. “‘Ich habe gesündigt gegen den Himmel und gegen dich’: Eine Exegese von Lk 15.18, 21.” ThQ 155: 51–­52. ———. 1975b. Die Sammlung Israels. StANT 39. Munich: Kösel. ———. 1985. “Die Metaphorik der Aussat im Gleichnis vom Sämann (Mk 4,3-9).” Pages 211–­28 in À cause de l’évangile: Festschrift Jacques Dupont. LeDiv 123. Paris: Cerf. Lohfink, N. 1994. “Psalmen im Neuen Testament: Die Lieder in der Kindheitsge­ schichte bei Lukas.” Pages 105–­25 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: Festschrift Walter Beyerlin. HBiSt 1. Freiburg: Herder. Lohmeyer, M. 1995. Der Apostelbegriff im Neuen Testament. SBB 29. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Lohse, E. 1961. Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi im Zeugnis des Lukasevangelium. BSt 31. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Löning, K. 1997/2006. Das Geschichtswerk des Lukas. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ———. 2000. “Gottes Barmherzigkeit und die pharisäische Sabbat-Observanz. Zu den Sabbat-Therapien im lukanischen Reisebericht.” Pages 218–­40 in Das Drama der Barmherzigkeit Gottes. Edited by R. Scoralick. SBS 183. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 2004. “Die Auseinandersetzung mit dem Pharisäismus in den Weherufen bei Matthäus (Mt 23) und Lukas (Lk 11,37-53).” Pages 217–­34 in “Dies ist das Buch . . .”: Festschrift Hubert Frankemölle. Edited by R. Kampling. Paderborn: Schöningh. Loos, H. van der. 1965. The Miracles of Jesus. NT.S 9. Leiden: Brill. Lövestam, E. 1963. Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. AUL.T 53/3. Lund: Gleerup.



Bibliography 627

———. 1968. Spiritus Blasphemia. Lund: Gleerup. ———. 1995. Jesus and ‘This Generation.’ Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Löw, I. 1928. Die Flora der Juden. Vol. 1. Vienna: Löwit. Lührmann, D. 1969. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. WMANT 33. Neukirchen­ Vluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 1971. “Epiphaneia: Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte eines griechischen Wortes.” Pages 185–­99 in Tradition und Glaube: Festschrift Karl Georg Kuhn. Edited by G. Jeremias, H.-W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1972a. “Liebet eure Feinde.” ZThK 69: 412–­38. ———. 1972b. “Noah and Lot (Lk 17,26-29)—­ein Nachtrag.” ZNW 63: 130–­32. ———. 1987. Das Markusevangelium. HNT 3. Tübingen: Mohr. Lull, D. J. 1986. “The Servant­-Benefactor as a Model of Greatness.” NT 28: 289–­305. Luz, U. 1985–­2002. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 4 vols. EKK 1. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener. Lyonnet, S. 1939. “Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη.” Bib. 20: 131–­41. ———. 1964. “Der Verkündigungsbericht und die Gottesmutterschaft Marias.” ORPB 65: 129–­38, 164–­70, 193–­99. Mach, M. 1992. Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit. Tübingen: Mohr. MacLaurin, E. C. B. 1978. “Beelzeboul.” NT 20: 156–­60. Macoby, H. 1982. “The Washing of Cups.” JSNT 14: 3–­15. Maddox, R. 1982. The Purpose of Luke–­Acts. FRLANT 126. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Mahnke, H. 1978. Die Versuchungsgeschichte im Rahmen der synoptischen Evangelien. BET 9. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Mahoney, M. 1980. “Luke 21,14­-15: Editorial Rewriting or Authenticity.” IThQ 47: 220–­38. Maier, J. 1995–­ 1996. Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte von Toten Meer­ . 3 vols. München: Reinhardt. Main, E. 1996. “Les Sadducéens et la résurrection des morts: Comparaison entre Mc 12,18-27 et Lc 20,27-38.” RB 103: 411–­40. Mainville, O. 1991. L’esprit dans l’oeuvre de Luc. CTHP 45. Quebec: Fides. ———. 1999. “Le péché contre l’esprit annoncé en Lc 12.10, commis en Ac 4.16-18.” NTS 45: 38–­50. ———. 2003. “De Jésus prophète au Christ glorieux: Le récit d’Emmaüs comme lieu de passage identitaire et fonctionnel.” Pages 160–­68 in Raconter, interpréter, annoncer: Festschrift Daniel Marguerat. Edited by E. Steffek and Y. Bourquin. MoBi 47. Geneva: Labor et Fides. ———. 2005. “De Jésus à l’Église: Étude rédactionelle de Luc 24.” NTS 51: 192–­211. Maisch, I. 1971. Die Heilung des Gelähmten. SBS 52. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Malherbe, A. J. 1977. The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. ———. 1996. “The Christianization of a Topos (Luke 12:13-34).” NT 38: 123–­35.

628

Bibliography

Malina, B. J., and J. H. Neyrey. 1991. “Honor and Shame in Luke–­Acts.” Pages 25–­ 65 in The Social World of Luke–­Acts: Models for Interpretation. Edited by J. H. Neyrey. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. Manitius, K. 1894. In Arati et Eudoxi Phaenomena commentariorum libri tres. Leipzig: Teubner. Manns, F. 1996. “Un document judéo­-chrétien: La source propre à Luc.” BeO 38: 43–­62. Mansion, J. 1930. “Sur le sens d’un mot grec: ἀνατάσσω.” BFPUL 44: 261–­67. Manson, T. W. 1949. The Sayings of Jesus as Recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke. London: SCM Press. Marchant, E. C. 2002. Memorabilia and Oeconomicus. LCL 168. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Marcus, J. 1988. “Entering into the Kingly Power of God.” JBL 107: 663–­75. ———. 1995. “Jesus’ Baptismal Vision.” NTS 41: 512–­21. Marcus, R. 1961. Philo. Supplement I: Questions and Answers on Genesis. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Marguerat, D. 1999. La première histoire du Christianisme. LeDiv 180. Paris: Cerf. ———, ed. 2009. Reception of Paulinism in Acts: Reception du Paulinisme dans le Actes de Apôtres. BEThL 229. Leuven: Peeters. Markschies, C. 1993. “Sessio ad Dexteram.” Pages 252–­317 in Le Trône de Dieu. Edited by M. Philonenko. WUNT 69. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2015. Christian Theology and Its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire: Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology. Trans. W. Coppins. BMSEC. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press. Marquardt, J. 1957 [21884]. Römische Staatsverwaltung. Vol. 2. 3rd edition. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Marshall, I. H. 1968. “Luke XVI—­Who Commended the Unjust Steward?” JThS NS 19: 617–­19. ———. 1969. “Tradition and Theology in Luke (Luke 8:5-15).” TynB 20: 56–­75. ———. 1983. “Luke and His ‘Gospel.’” Pages 289–­308 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Edited by P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1991. “The Interpretation of the Magnifikat: Luke 1:46-­55.” Pages 181–­96 in Der Treue Gottes trauen: Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas: Festschrift Gerhard Schneider. Edited by C. Bussmann and W. Radl. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1993. “Acts and the ‘Former Treatise.’” Pages 163–­82 in The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting. Vol. 1, Ancient Literary Setting. Edited by B. Winter and A. D. Clark. Grand Rapids: Carlisle. Martin, J. 1931. Symposion: Die Geschichte einer literarischen Form. Stud. zu Gesch. u. Kultur des Altertums 17/1–­2. Paderborn: Schöningh. Martin, R. P. 1978. “The Pericope of the Healing of the ‘Centurion’s’ Servant/Son (Matt 8:5-13par. Luke 7:1-10).” Pages 14–­22 in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Festschrift George E. Ladd. Edited by R. A. Guelich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Martin, V., and G. de Budé, eds. 1962. Eschine. Discours. 2 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Martin, V., and R. Kasser. 1961. Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Évangile de Luc chap. 3–­24. Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana.



Bibliography 629

Martínez, F. G., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. 1998. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. März, C.­-P. 1974. Das Wort Gottes bei Lukas. Leipzig: Benno. ———. 1990. “Zur Vorgeschichte von Lk 12,35-48.” Pages 166–­78 in Christus bezeugen: Festschrift Wolfgang Trilling. Edited by K. Kertelge, T. Holtz, and C.-P. März. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1992. “Das Gleichnis vom Dieb.” Pages 633–­48 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2005. “Zur lukanischen Rezeption der Gerichtspredigt Jesu in Q.” Pages 1–­24 in Luke and His Readers: Festschrift Adelbert Denaux. Edited by R. Bieringer, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 182. Leuven: Peeters. Matera, F. J. 1985. “The Death of Jesus according to Luke.” CBQ 47: 469–­85. ———. 1989a. “Jesus before the ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΙΟΝ.” Pages 517–­33 in L’évangile de Luc–­The Gospel of Luke. 2nd edition. Edited by F. Neirynck. BEThL 32. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1989b. “Luke 23,1-25: Jesus before Pilate, Herod, and Israel.” Pages 535–­51 in L’évangile de Luc–­The Gospel of Luke. 2nd edition. Edited by F. Neirynck. BEThL 32. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1993. “Jesus’ Journey to Jerusalem.” JSNT 51: 57–­77. Mathieu, Y. 2004. La figure de Pierre dans l’oeuvre de Luc. EtB.NS 52. Paris: Gabalda. Matson, D. L. 1996. Household Conversion Narratives in Acts. JSNT.S 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Matson, M. A. 2001. In Dialogue with Another Gospel? The Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Luke. SBL.DS 178. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Mattill, A. J. 1979. Luke and the Last Things. Dillsboro: Western North Carolina Press. Mayer, E. 1996. Die Reiseerzählung des Lukas (Lk 9,51–­9,10). EHS.T 554. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Mayer-Haas, A. J. 2003. “Geschenk aus Gottes Schatzkammer” (bSchab 10b). Jesus und der Sabbat im Spiegel der neutestamentlichen Schriften. NTA NF 43. Münster: Aschendorff. Mayordomo-Marín, M. 1998. Den Anfang hören. Leserorientierte Evangelienexegese am Beispiel von Matthäus 1–­2. FRLANT 180. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Mayser, E. 1926/1934. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. Vol. II/1–­3. Berlin: Teubner. ———. 21970/21938/21936. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. Vol. I/1–­3. Berlin: Teubner. McCane, B. R. 1990. “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Own Dead.’” HThR 83: 31–­43. McCown, C. C. 1939. “Luke’s Translation of Semitic into Hellenistic Custom.” JBL 58: 213–­20. McDermott, J. M. 1977. “Luke, XII, 8­9: Stone of Scandal.” RB 84: 523–­37. McGaughy, L. C. 1999. “Infancy Narratives and Hellenistic Lives: Luke 1–­2.” Forum NF 2: 25–­39. McIver, R. K. 1994. “One Hundred­-fold Yield—­Miraculous or Mundane?” NTS 40: 606–­8.

630

Bibliography

McKnight, S. 1999. “Public Declaration or Final Judgment? Matthew 10:26-27 = Luke 12:2-3 as a Case of Creative Redaction.” Pages 363–­83 in Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Edited by B. Chilton and C. A. Evans. NTTS 28/1. Leiden: Brill. McNamara, M. 1966. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. AnBib 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. McNicol, A. J., D. L. Dungen, and D. Barrett, eds. 1996. Beyond the Q Impasse—­ Luke’s Use of Matthew: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity International. Mees, M. 1972. “Das Paradigma vom reichen Mann und seiner Berufung nach den Synoptikern und dem Nazaräerevangelium.” VetChr 9: 245–­65. Meeûs, X. de. 1961. “Composition de Lc., XIV et genre symposiaque.” EThL 37: 847–­70. Meinertz, M. 1957. “Dieses Geschlecht im Neuen Testament.” BZ NF 1: 283–­89. Meiser, M. 1998. Die Reaktion des Volkes auf Jesus. BZNW 96. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 2001. “Das Alte Testament im lukanischen Doppelwerk.” Pages 167–­95 in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel. Edited by H.-J. Fabry and U. Offerhaus. BWANT 153. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Mekkattukunnel, A. G. 2001. The Priestly Blessing of the Risen Christ: An ExegeticoTheological Analysis of Luke 24,50-53. EHS.T 714. Bern: Peter Lang. Mell, U. 1994. Die “anderen” Winzer. WUNT 77. Tübingen: Mohr. Melzer­-Keller, H. 1997. Jesus und die Frauen. HBSt 14. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Méndez-­Moratalla, F. 2004. The Paradigm of Conversion in Luke. JSNT.S 252. London: T&T Clark. Menoud, P. H. 1975. “Le sens du verbe ΒΙΑΖΕΤΑΙ dans Luc 16.16.” Pages 125–­30 in Jésus-Christ et la foi­. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé. Merkel, H. 1994. “Israel im lukanischen Werk.” NTS 40: 371–­98. Merkel, J. 1905. “Die Begnadigung am Passahfeste.” ZNW 6: 293–­316. Merklein, H. 1977. “‘Dieser ging als Gerechter nach Hause . . .’ Das Gottesbild Jesu und die Haltung der Menschen nach Lk 18,9-14.” BiKi 32: 34–­42. ———. 1984. Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip: Untersuchung zur Ethik Jesu. 3rd edition. FzB 34. Würzburg: Echter. ———. 1992. “Die Heilung des Besessenen von Gerasa.” Pages 1017–­37 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1998. “Ägyptische Einflüsse auf die messianische Sohn­-Gottes-Aussage des Neuen Testaments.” In Zwischen Jesus und Paulus II. WUNT 105. Tübingen: Mohr. Metzger, B. M. 1958/1959. “Seventy or Seventy-two Disciples?” NTS 5: 299–­306. ———. 1971. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies. Meynet, R. 1981. “Au coeur du texte: Analyse rhétorique de l’aveugle de Jéricho selon saint Luc.” NRTh 103: 696–­710. ———. 1985. “Dieu donne son nom à Jésus. Analyse rhétorique de Lc 1,26-56 et de 1 Sam 2,1-10.” Bib. 66: 39–­72.



Bibliography 631

———. 2005. “Le vin de la nouvelle alliance. La parabole du vieux et du neuf (Lc 5,36-37) dans son contexte.” Gr. 86: 5–­27. Mézange, C. 2000. “Simon le Zélote était­-il un révolutionnaire?” Bib. 81: 489–­506. Michaelis, W. 1964. “Lukas und die Anfänge der Kindertaufe.” Pages 187–­93 in Apophoreta: Festschrift Ernst Haenchen. Edited by W. Eltester. BZNW 30. Berlin: Töpelmann. Michel, O. 1959–­1960. “Eine philologische Frage zur Einzugsgeschichte.” NTS 6: 81–­82. ———. 1975. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 7th edition. KEK 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Michel, V. 2003. “Emmaus in Lukas 24,13: Textkritik und Lokalisierungsversuche.” Pages 124–­41 in Emmaus in Judäa: Geschichte, Exegese, Archäologie. Edited by K.­-H. Fleckenstein, M. Louhivuori, and R. Riesner. Giessen: Brunnen. Miller, R. J. 1988. “Elijah, John, and Jesus in the Gospel of Luke.” NTS 34: 611–­22. ———. 1998. “Source Criticism and the Limits of Certainty: The Lukan Transfiguration Story as a Test Case.” EThL 74: 127–­44. Mills, W. E. 1994. Bibliographies for Biblical Research: New Testament Series. Vol. 3, The Gospel of Luke. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen. Milot, L. 1985. “Guérison d’une femme infirme un jour de sabbat (Luc 13,10-17).” SémBib 39: 23–­33. Minear, P. S. 1964/1965. “A Note on Luke xxii 36.” NT 7: 128–­34. ———. 1974. “A Note on Luke 17:7-10.” JBL 93: 82–­87. Mineshige, K. 2003. Besitzverzicht und Almosen bei Lukas. WUNT 2/163. Tübingen: Mohr. Minnen, P. van. 2001. “Luke 4,17­-20 and the Handling of Ancient Books.” JThS 52: 689–­90. Mitchell, A. C. 1990. “Zachaeus Revisited.” Bib. 71: 153–­76. ———. 1991. “The Use of συκοφαντεῖν in Luke 19,8.” Bib. 72: 546–­47. Mitchell, M. 2005. “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim That ‘The Gospels Were Written for All Christians.’” NTS 51: 36–­79. Mitchell, S. 1998. “Wer waren die Gottesfürchtigen?” Chiron 28: 55–­64. ———. 1999. The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Pages 81–­148 in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Edited by P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede. Oxford: Clarendon. Mittelstaedt, A. 2006. Lukas als Historiker. Zur Datierung des lukanischen Doppel­ werkes. TANZ 43. Tübingen: Francke. Mittmann-­Richert, U. 1996. Magnifikat und Benedictus. WUNT 2/90. Tübingen: Mohr. Mitton, C. L. 1972/1973. “New Wine in Old Wine Skins. IV. Leaven.” ExpT 84: 339–­43. Miyoshi, M. 1974. Der Anfang des Reiseberichts. AnBib 60. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. ———. 1978. “Jesu Darstellung oder Reinigung im Tempel unter Berücksichtigung von ‘Nunc Dimittis’ Lk II 22-38.” AJBI 4: 85–­115. Moessner, D. P. 1986. “‘The Christ Must Suffer’: New Light on the Jesus—­Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke–­Acts.” NT 28: 220–­56.

632

Bibliography

———. 1989. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1992. “The Meaning of ΚΑΘΕΞΗΣ in the Lukan Prologue as a Key to the Distinctive Contribution of Luke’s Narrative among the ‘Many.’” Pages 1513–­28 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1996. “‘Eyewitnesses,’ ‘Informed Contemporaries,’ and ‘Unknowing Inquirers’: Josephus’ Criteria for Authentic Historiography and the Meaning of ΠΑΡΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΕΩ.” NT 38: 105–­22. ———. 1999. “The Appeal and Power of Poetics (Luke 1:1-4).” Pages 84–­123 in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy. Edited by D. P. Moessner. Harrisburg: Trinity International. Möller, C., and G. Schmitt. 1976. Siedlungen Palästinas nach Flavius Josephus. BTAVO.B 19. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Mommsen, T. 1899. Römisches Strafrecht. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Moo, D. J. 1983. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond Press. Moore, T. S. 1997. “The Lucan Great Commission and the Isaianic Servant.” BS 154: 47–­60. Mora, V. 1983. Le signe de Jonas. Paris: Cerf. Moretti, L., ed. 1967/1976. Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche. 2 vols. Florence: La Nuova Italia. Morgan, R. 1994. “Flesh Is Precious: The Significance of Luke 24.36-43.” Pages 8–­20 in Resurrection: Festschrift Leslie Houlden. Edited by Stephen C. Barton and Graham Stanton. London: SPCK. Morgen, M. 1997. “Lc 17,20-37 et Lc 21,8-11.20-24. Arrière­fond scripturaire.” Pages 307–­26 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BEThL 131. Leuven: Peeters. Morgenthaler, R. 1948. Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis. 2 vols. AThANT 14–­15. Zürich: Zwingli­-Verlag. ———. 1993. Lukas und Quintilian. Zürich: Gotthelf. Mott, S. C. 1975. “The Power of Giving and Receiving.” Pages 60–­72 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Festschrift Merrill C. Tenney. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Moule, C. F. D. 1959 [1953]. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moulton, J. H., and G. Milligan. 1963. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Moulton, J. H., and N. Turner. 1963. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 3, Syntax. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Moxnes, H. 1988. The Economy of the Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress. Muddiman, J. 1972. “A Note on Reading Luke XXIV.12.” EThL 48: 542–­58. Mullach, F. W. A. 1860–­1881. Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum. Paris: Didot. Müller, C. F. T. 1965. Geographi Graeci Minores. Hildesheim: Olms.



Bibliography 633

Müller, C. G. 2001. Mehr als ein Prophet: Die Charakterzeichnung Johannes des Täufers im lukanischen Erzählwerk. HBiSt 31. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 2003. “‘Ungefähr 30’: Anmerkungen zur Altersangabe Jesu im Lukasevangelium (Lk 3.23).” NTS 49: 489–­504. ———. 2005. “Josef von Arimathäa und die Grablegung Jesu (Lk 23,50-56).” Pages 179–­98 in “Licht zur Erleuchtung der Heiden und Herrlichkeit für dein Volk Israel”: Festschrift Josef Zmijewski. Edited by C. G. Müller. BBB 151. Hamburg: Philo. Müller, I. 1993. Humoralmedizin. Heidelberg: Haug. Müller, K. 1969. Anstoss und Gericht; eine Studie zum jüdischen Hintergrund des paulinischen Skandalon-Begriffs­. Munich: Kösel. ———. 1979. “Jesus vor Herodes.” Pages 111–­41 in Zur Geschichte des Urchristentums. Edited by G. Dautzenberg. QD 87. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1994. “Gott als Richter und die Erscheinungsweisen seiner Gerichte in den Schriften des Frühjudentums.” Pages 23–­53 in Weltgericht und Weltvollendung: Zukunftsbilder im Neuen Testament. Edited by H.-J. Klauck. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 2003. “Das Vaterunser als jüdisches Gebet.” Pages 159–­204 in Identität durch Gebet. Edited by A. Gerhards. Paderborn: Schöningh. Müller, P. 1992. In der Mitte der Gemeinde: Kinder im Neuen Testament. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener. Müller, U. B. 1974. “Vision und Botschaft. Erwägung zur prophetischen Struktur der Verkündigung Jesu.” ZThK 71: 416–­48. ———. 1996. “‘Sohn Gottes’—­ein messianischer Hoheitstitel Jesu.” ZNW 87: 1–­32. ———. 1998. Die Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu. SBS 172. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Müller, V. 1994. “The Prehistory of the ‘Good Shepherd.’” JNES 3: 87–­90. Muñoz Iglesias, S. 1984. “El procedimiento literario del anuncio previo en la Biblia.” EstB 42: 21–­70. Mussies, G. 1978. “The Sense of συλλογίζεσθαι at Luke XX 5.” Pages 59–­76 in Miscellanea Neotestamentica. Vol. 2. Edited by T. Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn, and W. C. van Unnik. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1988. “Vernoemen in de antieke wereld. De historische achergrond van Luk. 1,59­-63.” NedThT 42: 114–­25. Mussner, F. 1967. “Das ‘Gleichnis’ vom gestrengen Mahlherrn (Lk 13,22-30).” Pages 113–­24 in Praesentia salutis: Gesammelte Studien zu Fragen und Themen des Neuen Testamentes. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 2002. “Die Skepsis des Menschensohnes. Zu Lk 18,8b.” Pages 271–­75 in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift Albert Fuchs. Edited by C. Niemand. LPTB 7. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Myllykoski, M. 1991. “The Material Common to Luke and John.” Pages 115–­56 in Luke–­Acts: Scandanavian Perspectives. Edited by P. Luomanen. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society. ———. 2005. “On the Way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13­-35): Narrative and Ideological Aspects of Fiction.” Pages 92–­115 in Lux Humana, Lux Aeterna. Festschrift Lars Aejmelaeus. Edited by A. Mustakallio, H. Leppä, and H. Räisänen. SESJ 89. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society.

634

Bibliography

Nauck, A. 1963. Aristophanis Byzantii Grammatici Alexandrini Fragmenta. Hilde­ sheim: Olms. Nauck, W. 1955. “Freude im Leiden.” ZNW 46: 68–­80. ———. 1958. “Das οὖν paräneticum.” ZNW 49: 134–­35. Nave, G. D. 2002. The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke–­Acts. SBL.AB 4. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Neale, D. A. 1991. None but the Sinners. JSNT.S 58. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Nebe, G. 1989. Prophetische Züge im Bilde Jesu bei Lukas. BWANT 127. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ———. 1992. “Das ἔσται in Luke 11,36—­ein neuer Deutungsvorschlag.” ZNW 83: 108–­14. Negoiţā, A., and C. Daniel. 1967. “L’énigme du levain.” NT 9: 306–­14. Neirynck, F. 1974a. “Les accords mineurs et la rédaction des évangiles: L’épisode du paralytique (Mt., IX, 18/Lc., V,17-26,par. Mc., II,1-12).” EThL 50: 215–­30. ———. 1974b. The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark with a Cumulative List. BEThL 37. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1982/1991/2001. Evangelica. 3 vols. BEThL 60/99/150. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1991. The Minor Agreements in a Horizontal-Line Synopsis­. SNTA 15. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 2001. Q-Parallels. Q-Synopsis and IQP/Crit-Ed Parallels. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 2002. “Luke 24.12: An Anti­docetic Interpretation?” Pages 145–­58 in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift Joël Delobel. Edited by A. Denaux. BEThL 161. Leuven: Peeters. Nellessen, E. 1976. Zeugnis für Jesus und das Wort: Exegetische Untersuchungen zum lukanischen Zeugnisbegriff. BBB 43. Cologne: Hanstein. Nelson, P. K. 1991. “The Flow of Thought in Luke 22.24-27.” JSNT 43: 113–­23. ———. 1993. “Luke 22:29-30 and the Time Frame for Dining and Ruling.” TynB 44: 351–­61. ———. 1994a. Leadership and Discipleship: A Study of Luke 22:24-30. SBL.DS 138. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 1994b. “The Unitary Character of Luke 22.24-30.” NTS 40: 609–­19. Nestle, E. 1903. “Ein Andreasbrief im Neuen Testament?” ZNW 4: 270–­72. ———. 1913. “Otterngezüchte.” ZNW 14: 267–­68. Netzer, E. 1991. Masada III: The Yigael Yadin Excavations, 1963–­1965: Final Reports III. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Neumann, P. K. D. 1973. “Das Wort, das geschehen ist . . . Zum Problem der Wort­ empfangsterminologie in Jer. IXXV.” VT 23: 171–­217. Neusner, J. 1988. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Neyrey, J. H. 1980. “The Absence of Jesus’ Emotions—­the Lucan Redaction of Lk 22,39-46.” Bib. 61: 153–­71. ———. 1983. “Jesus’ Address to the Women of Jerusalem (Lk. 23.27-31).” NTS 29: 74–­86. ———. 1985. The Passion according to Luke. New York: Paulist Press. Nickau, K. 1966a. Ammonii qui dicitur liber de adfinium vocabulorum differentia. Leipzig: Teubner.



Bibliography 635

———. 1966b. Ammonius—­De adfinium vocabulorum–­differentia. Leipzig: Teubner. Nicklas, T. 2002. “Das Agraphon vom ‘Sabbatarbeiter’ und sein Kontext. Lk. 6:1-11 in der Textform des Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D).” NovT 44: 160–­75. Niebuhr, K.-­W. 1997. “Die Werke des eschatologischen Freudenboten.” Pages 637–­46 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BEThL 131. Leuven: Peeters. Nielsen, A. E. 2000. Until It Is Fulfilled: Lukan Eschatology according to Luke 22 and Acts 20. WUNT 2/126. Tübingen: Mohr. Niemand, C. 1989. Studien zu den Minor Agreements der synoptischen Verklärungsperikopen. EHS.T 352. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Niese, B. 1892. Flavii Iosephi opera. Vol. 3. Berlin: Weidmann. Nijman, M., and K. W. Worp. 1999. “Ἐπιούσιος in a Documentary Papyrus?” NT 41: 231–­34. Nilsson, M. P. 1950. Geschichte der Griechischen Religion. Vol. 2. Munich: Beck. Nissen, A. 1974. Gott und der Nächste im antiken Judentum. WUNT 15. Tübingen: Mohr. Noack, B. 1948. Das Gottesreich bei Lukas. Eine Studie zu Luk. 17,20-24. SyBU 10. Uppsala: Gleerup. Noël, F. 1997. “The Double Commandment of Love in Lk 10,27.” Pages 559–­70 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BEThL 131. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2004. The Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke. CBRA 5. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten van België. Noël, T. 1989. “The Parable of the Wedding Guests.” PRSt 16: 17–­27. Nolland, J. 1979a. “Classical and Rabbinic Parallels to ‘Physician, Heal Yourself’ (Lk IV 23).” NT 21: 193–­209. ———. 1979b. “Impressed Unbelievers as Witnesses to Christ (Luke 4:22a).” JBL 98: 219–­29. ———. 1984. “Words of Grace (Luke 4,22).” Bib. 65: 44–­60. Noorda, S. J. 1982. “‘Cure Yourself, Doctor!’ (Luke 4,23). Classical Parallels to an Alleged Saying of Jesus.” Pages 459–­67 in Logia: Mémorial Joseph Coppens. Edited by J. Delobel and T. Baarda. BEThL 59. Leuven: Peeters. Norden, E. 1913. Agnostos Theos. Leipzig: Teubner. ———. 1958 [1924]. Die Geburt des Kindes. Geschichte einer religiösen Idee. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Nordheim, E. von. 1980/1985. Die Lehre der Alten. 2 vols. ALGHJ 13/18. Leiden: Brill. North, J. L. 2005. “Praying for a Good Spirit: Text, Context and Meaning of Luke 11.13.” JSNT 28: 167–­88. Novenson, M. 2012. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nützel, J. M. 1976. “Zum Schicksal der eschatologischen Propheten.” BZ NF 20: 59–­94. ———. 1980. Jesus als Offenbarer Gottes nach den lukanischen Schriften. FzB 39. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Ó Fearghail, F. 1984. “Rejection in Nazareth: Lk 4,22.” ZNW 75: 60–­72.

636

Bibliography

———. 1989. “The Imitation of the Septuagint in Luke’s Infancy Narrative.” PIBA 12: 58–­78. ———. 1991. The Introduction to Luke–­Acts. AnBib 126. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. ———. 1993. “Announcement or Call? Literary Form and Purpose in Luke 1:26-38.” PIBA 16: 20–­35. Oakman, D. E. 1987. “The Buying Power of Two Denarii: A Comment on Luke 10:35.” Forum 3: 33–­38. Oberlinner, L. 1975. Historische Überlieferung und christologische Aussage. Zur Frage der “Brüder” Jesu in der Synopse. FzB 19. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 2003. “Begegnungen mit Jesus: Der Pharisäer und die Sünderin nach Lk 7,36-50.” Pages 253–­78 in Liebe, Macht und Religion. Gedenkschrift für Helmut Merklein. Edited by M. Gielen and J. Kügler. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. O’Day, G. R. 2004. “‘There the ? Will Gather Together,’ (Luke 17:37).” Pages 288–­ 303 in Literary Encounters with the Reign of God. Edited by S. H. Ringe and H. C. P. Kim. New York: T&T Clark. Oegema, G. 1998. The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. O’Hanlon, J. 1981. “The Story of Zachaeus and the Lukan Ethic.” JSNT 12: 2–­26. Öhler, M. 1997. Elia im Neuen Testament. BZNW 88. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Ollrog, W.­-H. 1979. Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener. Olrik, A. 1982. “Epische Gesetze der Volksdichtung.” Pages 58–­69 in Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by W. Harnisch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Olsson, B. 2004. “The Canticle of the Heavenly Host (Luke 2.14) in History and Culture.” NTS 50: 146–­66. Olsthoorn, M. F. 1975. The Jewish Background and the Synoptic Setting of Mt 6,25-33 and Lk 12,22-31. SBFA 10. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Omerzu, H. 2003. “Das traditionsgeschichtliche Verhältnis der Begegnungen von Jesus mit Herodes Antipas und Paulus mit Agrippa II.” SNTU.A 28: 121–­45. Onuki, T. 2000. “Tollwut in Q? Ein Versuch über Mt 12.43-­5 / Lk 11.24-­6.” NTS 46: 358–­74. Orelli, J. K. 1816. Memnonis Historiarum Heracleae Ponti. Leipzig: Weidemann. Osten­-Sacken, P. von der. 1973. “Zur Christologie des lukanischen Reiseberichts.” EvTh 33: 476–­96. Ostmeyer, K.­-H. 2006. Kommunikation mit Gott und Christus. WUNT 197. Tübingen: Mohr. O’Toole, R. F. 1983. “Luke’s Position on Politics and Society in Luke–­Acts.” Pages 1–­17 in Political Issues in Luke–­Acts. Edited by R. J. Cassidy and P. J. Scharper. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis. ———. 1987. “Luke’s Message in Luke 9:1-50.” CBQ 49: 74–­89. ———. 1991. “The Literary Form of Luke 19:1-10.” JBL 110: 107–­16. ———. 1992. “Some Exegetical Reflections on Luke 13,10-17.” Bib. 73: 84–­107. ———. 1995. “Does Luke Also Portray Jesus as the Christ in Luke 4.16-30?” Bib. 76: 498–­522. ———. 2004. Luke’s Presentation of Jesus: A Christology. SubBi 25. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.



Bibliography 637

Pack, R. A. 1963. Onirocriticon libri V. Leipzig: Teubner. Paffenroth, K. 1997. The Story of Jesus according to L. JSNT.S 147. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Palme, B. 1993. “Die ägyptische κατ’ οἰκίαν ἀπογραφή und Lk 2,1-5.” ProBi 2: 1–­24. ———. 1994. “Neues zum ägyptischen Provinzialzensus.” ProBi 3: 1–­7. Palmer, H. 1976. “Just Married, Cannot Come.” NT 18: 241–­57. Panier, L. 1984. Récit et commentaires de la tentation de Jésus au désert. Paris: Cerf. ———. 1989. “La parabole des mines. Lecture sémiotique.” Pages 333–­47 in Les Paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles. XIIe congrès de l’ACFEB, Lyon (1987). Edited by J. Delorme. LeDiv 135. Paris: Cerf. ———. 2005. “Récit et figure dans la parabole des mines.” SémBib 117: 30–­45. Parente, M. I., ed. 1980. Speusippus Frammenti. Naples: Bibliopolis. Parker, S. B. 1988. “The Birth Announcement.” Pages 133–­49 in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie. Edited by L. M. Eslinger and G. Taylor. Sheffield: JSOT. Parrot, A. 1939. “Le ‘Bon Pasteur.’” Pages 171–­82 in Mélanges syriens offerts á M. Réne Dussaud. Vol. 1. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Parsons, M. C. 1986. “Narrative Closure and Openness in the Plot of the Third Gospel: The Sense of an Ending in Luke 24:50-­53.” SBLSP 25: 201–­23. ———. 1987. The Departure of Jesus in Luke–­Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context. JSNT.S 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2001. “‘Short in Stature’: Luke’s Physical Description of Zachaeus.” NTS 47: 50–­57. Parsons, M. C., and R. I. Pervo. 1993. Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts. Minneapolis: Fortress. Patella, M. 1999. The Death of Jesus: The Diabolic Force and the Ministering Angel. CRB 43. Paris: Gabalda. Paton, W. R. 1913. “Ἀγωνία (Agony).” CIR 27: 194. Patte, D. 1997. “Whither Critical New Testament Studies for a New Day: Some Reflections on Luke 17:11­-19.” Pages 277–­93 in Putting Body and Soul Together: Festschrift Robin Scroggs. Edited by V. Wiles, A. R. Brown, and G. F. Snyder. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity International. Paulsen, H. 1997. “Die Witwe und der Richter (Lk 18,1-8).” Pages 113–­38 in Zur Literatur und Geschichte des frühen Christentums. WUNT 99. Tübingen: Mohr. Payne, P. B. 1979. “The Order of Sowing and Ploughing in the Parable of the Sower.” NTS 25: 123–­29. Pearson, B. A. 1999. “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited.” CBQ 61: 262–­82. Peels, H. G. L. 2001. “The Blood ‘from Abel to Zechariah’ [Matthew 23.35; Luke 11.50f.] and the Canon of the Old Testament.” ZAW 113: 583–­601. Pellegrini, S. 2004. “Ein ‘ungetreuer’ οἰκονόμος (Luke 16.1-13).” BZ NF 48: 161–­78. Peppink, S. P. 1937–­1939. Athenæi Dipnosophistarum epitome. Leiden: Brill. Peres, I. 2003. Griechische Grabinschriften und neutestamentliche Eschatologie. WUNT 157. Tübingen: Mohr. Perrot, C. 1988. “The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue.” Pages 137–­59 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in

638

Bibliography

Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling. Assen: Van Gorcum. Pesch, R. 1968. “‘Kind, warum hast du so an uns getan?’ [Luke 2.48].” BZ NF 12: 245–­48. ———. 1969. Der reiche Fischfang. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1970a. “Jairus (Mark 5,22/Lk 8,41).” BZ NF 14: 252–­56. ———. 1970b. Jesu ureigene Taten? QD 52. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1972. Der Besessene von Gerasa. SBS 56. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1973. “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Iesu.” ThQ 153: 201–­28. ———. 1980. Das Markusevangelium. 2 vols. HThK 2. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———, ed. 1981. Zur Theologie der Kindheitsgeschichten. Munich: Schnell & Steiner. ———. 1989. “La rédaction lucanienne du logion des pêcheurs d’hommes (Lc., V,10c).” Pages 135–­54, 313–­15 in L’évangile de Luc–­The Gospel of Luke. 2nd edition. Edited by F. Neirynck. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Pesonen, A. 2000. “The Weeping Sinner: A Short Story by Luke?” Neotest. 34: 87–­102. Petersen, S. 2006. “Die Evangelienüberschriften und die Entstehung des neutestament­ lichen Kanons.” ZNW 97: 250–­74. Peterson, E. 1929/1930. “Die Einholung des Kyrios.” ZSTh 7: 682–­702. Petracca, V. 2003. Gott oder das Geld. Die Besitzethik des Lukas. TANZ 39. Tübingen: Francke. Petzer, J. H. 1984. “Luke 22:19b-20 and the Structure of the Passage.” NT 26: 249–­52. ———. 1992. “Anti­-Judaism and the Textual Problem of Luke 23:34.” FilNeo 5: 199–­203. Petzer, K. 1991. “Style and Text in the Lucan Narrative of the Institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22.19b-20).” NTS 37: 113–­29. Philippidis, L. J. 1929. Die “Goldene Regel.” Leipzig: Klein. Philonenko, M. 1988. “La parabole sur la lampe (Luc 11,33-36) et les horoscopes qoumrâniens.” ZNW 79: 145–­51. ———. 2002. Das Vaterunser. UTB 2312. Tübingen: Mohr. Pietersma, A. 1994. The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres, the Magicians: P. Chester Beatty XVI (with new editions of Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek inv. 29456 + 29828 verso and British Library Cotton Tiberius B. v f. 87). Leiden: Brill. Pilhofer, P. 1995. Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas. Vol. 1. WUNT 87. Tübingen: Mohr. Piper, J. 1979. “Love Your Enemies.” MSSNTS 38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piper, R. 1982. “Matthew 7,7-11par. Luke 11,9-13.” Pages 411–­18 in Logia. Mémorial Joseph Coppens. Edited by J. Delobel and T. Baarda. BEThL 59. Leuven: Peeters. Pitre, B. J. 2001. “Blessing the Barren and Warning the Fecund.” JSNT 81: 59–­80. Pittner, B. 1991. Studien zum lukanischen Sondergut. Vol. 18. ETS. Leipzig: Benno. Plessis, I. J. de. 1974. “Once More: The Purpose of Luke’s Prologue.” NT 16: 259–­71. ———. 1994. “The Saving Significance of Jesus and His Death on the Cross in Luke’s Gospel—­Focussing on Luke 22:19-20.” Neotest. 28: 523–­40. ———. 2000. “The Lukan Audience–­Rediscovered?” Neotest. 34: 243–­61.



Bibliography 639

Plevnik, J. 1987. “The Eyewitnesses of the Risen Jesus in Luke 24.” CBQ 49: 90–­103. ———. 1991. “Son of Man Seated at the Right Hand of God: Luke 22.69 in Lucan Soteriology.” Bib. 72: 331–­47. Plisch, U.­K. 2002. “Was ist ‘das Zeichen des Jona’?” Pages 399–­409 in For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Festschrift Hans-Martin Schenke. Edited by H.-G. Bethge. NHS 54. Leiden: Brill. Plümacher, E. 1983. “Acta-­­Forschung 1974–­1982.” ThR NF 48: 1–­56. ———. 1984. “Acta­-­Forschung 1974–­1982.” ThR NF 49: 105­–69. ———. 2004. Geschichte und Geschichten. Studien zur Apostelgeschichte und zu den Johannesakten. Edited by J. Schröter and R. Brucker. WUNT 170. Tübingen: Mohr. Pöhlmann, W. 1979. “Die Abschichtung des Verlorenen Sohnes (Lk 15,12f.) und die erzählte Welt der Parabel.” ZNW 70: 194–­213. ———. 1993. Der Verlorene Sohn und das Haus. WUNT 68. Tübingen: Mohr. Pokorný, P. 1973/1974. “The Temptation Stories and Their Intention.” NTS 20: 115–­27. ———. 1990. “Luke 15,11­-32 und die lukanische Soteriologie.” Pages 179–­92 in Christus bezeugen: Festschrift Wolfgang Trilling. Edited by K. Kertelge, T. Holtz, and C.-P. März. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1998. Theologie der lukanischen Schriften. FRLANT 174. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pomeroy, A. J., ed. 1999. Arius, Didymus: Epitome of Stoic Ethics. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Poon, W. C. K. 2003. “Superabundant Table Fellowship in the Kingdom: The Feeding of the Five Thousand and the Meal Motif in Luke.” ExpT 114: 224–­30. Porter, S. E. 1987. “The Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16.1-13).” Pages 127–­53 in The Bible in Three Dimensions. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. JSOT.S 87. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 1989. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. SBG 1. New York: Lang. ———. 1992. “‘In the Vicinity of Jericho’: Luke 18:35 in the Light of Its Synoptic Parallels.” BBR 2: 91–­104. ———. 1999. The Paul of Acts: Essays in Literary Criticism, Rhetoric, and Theology. WUNT 115. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2002. “The Reasons for the Lukan Census.” Pages 165–­88 in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Festschrift Alexander J.M. Wedderburn­. Edited by A. J. M. Wedderburn and A. Christophersen. JSNT.S 217. London: T&T Clark. Potterie, I. de la. 1970. “Le titre KYRIOS appliqué à Jésus dans l’évangile de Luc.” Pages 117–­46 in Mélanges bibliques en hommage au R.P. Béda Rigaux. Edited by A. L. Descamps and A. de Halleaux. Gembloux: Duculot. ———. 1985. “La parabole du prétendant à la royauté (Lc 19,11-28).” Pages 613–­41 in À cause de l’évangile: Festschrift Jacques Dupont. LeDiv 123. Paris: Cerf. ———. 1987. “Κεχαριτωμένη en Lc 1.28.” Bib. 68: 357–­82. Powell, J. U. 1925. Collectanea Alexandrina: Reliquiae minores Poetarum Graecorum Aetatis Ptolemaicae 323–­146 A.C. Oxford: Clarendon.

640

Bibliography

Powell, M. A. 2004. “The Forgotten Famine: Personal Responsibility in Luke’s Parable of ‘the Prodigal Son.’” Pages 265–­87 in Literary Encounters with the Reign of God. Edited by S. H. Ringe and H. C. P. Kim. New York: T&T Clark. Preisigke, F. 1915. Fachwörter des öffentlichen Verwaltungsdienstes Ägyptens in den griechischen Papyrusurkunden der ptolemäisch-r­ömischen Zeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1925–­1931. Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden 3. Berlin: Selbstverlag der Erben. Preisigke, F., E. Kiessling, and W. J. R. Rübsam, eds. 1969–­1971. Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden: Supplementum I. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Prell, M. 1997. Sozialökonomische Untersuchungen zur Armut im antiken Rom: von den Gracchen bis Kaiser Diokletian. Stuttgart. Steiner. Prieur, A. 1996. Die Verkündigung der Gottesherrschaft. WUNT 2/89. Tübingen: Mohr. Puig I Tàrrech, A. 2001. “Une parabole à l’image antithétique.” Pages 681–­93 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by A. Lindemann. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Quarles, C. L. 1999. “The Authenticity of the Parable of the Warring King: A Response to the Jesus Seminar.” Pages 409–­29 in Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Edited by B. Chilton and C. A. Evans. NTTS 28/2. Leiden: Brill. Rackham, R. 2006. Natural History. Books 8–­11. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Radermacher, L. 1967. Demetrii Phalerei Qui Dicitur de Elocutione Libellus. Leipzig: Teubner. Radl, W. 1986. “Ein ‘doppeltes Leiden’ in Lk 13,11? Zu einer Notiz von Günther Schwarz.” BN 31: 35–­36. ———. 1988a. Das Lukas-Evangelium­ . EdF 261. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. 1988b. “Sonderüberlieferungen bei Lukas? Traditionsgeschichtliche Fragen zu Lk 22,67f; 23,2 und 23,6-12.” Pages 131–­47 in Der Prozeß gegen Jesus. Edited by K. Kertelge. QD 112. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1996. Der Ursprung Jesu. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Lukas 1–­2. HBSt 7. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. ———. 1999. “Die Beziehungen der Vorgeschichte zur Apostelgeschichte. Dar­ gestellt an Lk 2,22-39.” Pages 297–­312 in The Unity of Luke–­Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. BEThL 142. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2005. “Von der Habsucht und dem törichten Reichen (Lk 12,13-21).” Pages 103–­14 in “Licht der Erleuchtung der Heiden und Herrlichkeit für dein Volk Israel”: Festschrift Josef Zmijewski. Edited by C. G. Müller. BBB 151. Hamburg: Philo. Räisänen, H. 1989. Die Mutter Jesu im Neuen Testament. 2nd edition. STAT.B 247. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. ———. 1991. “The Redemption of Israel.” Pages 94–­114 in Luke–­Acts: Scandinavian Perspectives. Edited by P. Luomanen. SESJ 54. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society. ———. 1992. “The Prodigal Gentile and His Jewish Christian Brother Lk 15,11­ 32.” Pages 1617–­36 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol.



Bibliography 641

2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. Rakocy, W. 2005. “The Sense of the Logion about the Sign of Jonah in the Gospel According to St Luke (11:29b-30).” RTK 52: 81–­94. Ramlot, M.-­L. 1964. “Les généalogies bibliques: Un genre littéraire oriental.” BVC 60: 53–­70. Ramsey, G. W. 1990. “Plots, Gaps, Repetitions, and Ambiguity in Luke 15.” PRS 17: 33–­42. Randellini, L. 1974. “I’inno di giubilo: Mt 11,25-30; Lc. 10,20-24.” RivBib 22: 183–­235. Rau, E. 1990. Reden in Vollmacht: Hintergrund, Form und Anliegen der Gleichnisse Jesu. FRLANT 149. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Rauscher, J. 1990. Vom Messiasgeheimnis zur Lehre der Kirche. Desselbrunn: Rauscher. Ravens, D. A. S. 1988. “The Setting of Luke’s Account of the Anointing: Luke 7.2–­ 8.3.” NTS 34: 282–­92. ———. 1990. “Luke 9.7-62 and the Prophetic Role of Jesus.” NTS 36: 119–­29. ———. 1991. “Zacchaeus: The Final Part of a Lucan Triptych?” JSNT 41: 19–­32. Razzano, M. 2003. “Le discours de Jésus à Nazareth et la question du Jubilé (Lc 4,16­ 30).” Hokhma 82: 25–­55. Read­ -Heimerdinger, J., and J. Rius­ -Camps. 2002. “Emmaous or Oulammaous? Luke’s Use of the Jewish Scriptures in the Text of Luke in Codex Bezae.” RCatT 27: 23–­42. Reece, S. 2002. “Seven Stades to Emmaus.” NTS 48: 262–­66. Reeg, G. 1989. Die Ortsnamen Israels nach der rabbinischen Literatur. BTAVO.B 51. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Regul, J. 1969. Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe. VL 6. Freiburg: Herder. Rehkopf, F. 1959. Die lukanische Sonderquelle. WUNT 5. Tübingen: Mohr. Reicke, B. 1974. “Die Fastenfrage nach Luk. 5,33­-39.” ThZ 30: 321–­28. Reid, B. E. 1993. The Transfiguration: A Source and Redaction­-Critical Study of Luke 9:28-­36­. CRB 32. Paris: Gabalda. ———. 1996. Choosing the Better Part? Women in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical. Reinbold, W. 1994. Der älteste Bericht über den Tod Jesu. BZNW 69. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Reinmuth, E. 1994. Pseudo-Philo und Lukas. WUNT 74. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2005. “Alles muss raus: Die Parabel Lk 16,1-8 ist moralischer als ihre Auslegungen.” Pages 223–­31 in Kontexte der Schrift: Festschrift Ekkehard W. und Wolfgang Stegemann. Vol. 2. Edited by G. Gelardini and C. Strecker. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Reiser, M. 1990. Die Gerichtspredigt Jesu. NTA NF 23. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 2000. “Numismatik und Neues Testament.” Bib. 81: 457–­88. Rengstorf, K. H. 1963. “Die στολαί der Schriftgelehrten.” Pages 383–­404 in Abraham unser Vater: Festschrift Otto Michel. Edited by O. Betz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1967. Die Re-Investitur des Verlorenen Sohnes in der Gleichniserzählung Jesu Luk. 15,11-32. VAFLNW.G 137. Cologne: Westdeutscher.

642

Bibliography

Rese, M. 1969. Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas. StNT 1. Gütersloh: Mohn. ———. 1975/1976. “Zur Problematik von Kurz-­und Langtext in Luk. XII.17ff.” NTS 22: 15–­31. ———. 1985. “Das Lukasevangelium: Ein Forschungsbericht.” Pages 2258–­2328 in ANRW II: 25/3. ———. 1989. “Einige Überlegungen zu Lukas XIII, 31-33.” Pages 201–­25, 421–­22 in Jésus aux origines de la christologie. 2nd edition. Edited by J. Dupont. BEThL 40. Leuven: Peeters. Reymond, S. 2003. “Une histoire sans fin: les pèlerins d’Emmaüs.” Pages 123–­41 in Quand la Bible se raconte. Edited by D. Marguerat. Paris: Cerf. Reynolds, J., and R. Tannenbaum. 1987. Jews and God-fearers at Aphrodisias­. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Riches, J. 1987. “Die Synoptiker und ihre Gemeinden.” Pages 160–­84 in Die Anfänge des Christentums: Alte Welt und neue Hoffnung. Edited by J. Becker. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Riedo­-Emenegger, C. 2005. Prophetisch-messianische Provokateure der Pax Romana: Jesus von Nazaret und andere­Störenfriede im Konflikt mit dem Römischen Reich. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Riesenfeld, H. 1963. “Zu μακροθυμεῖν (Lk 18,7).” Pages 214–­17 in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze: Festschrift Josef Schmid. Edited by J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mussner. Regensburg: Pustet. ———. 1991. “Le règne de Dieu, parmi vous ou en vous? (Luc 17,20-21).” RB 98: 190–­98. Riesner, R. 1993. “Prägung und Herkunft der lukanischen Sondergutüberlieferung.” ThBeitr 24: 228–­48. ———. 1999. “Das Lokalkolorit des Lukas­-Sonderguts: Italisch oder palästinisch­ juden-­christlich?” SBFLA 49: 51–­64. ———. 2003. “Die Emmaus-Erzählung (Lk 24,13-35): Lukanische Theologie, judenchristliche Tradition und palästinische Topographie.” Pages 150–­208 in Emmaus in Judäa: Geschichte, Exegese, Archäologie. Edited by K.-­H. Fleckenstein, M. Louhivuori, and R. Riesner. Giessen: Brunnen. Rigaux, B. 1970. “La petite apocalypse de Luc (XVII,2-­37).” Pages 407–­38 in Ecclesia a Spiritu Sancto edocta: Festschrift Gérard Philips. BEThL 27. Gembloux: Duculot. Riley, G. J. 1995. “Influence of Thomas Christianity on Luke 12,14 and 5,39.” HThR 88: 229–­35. Rist, J. M. 2005. “Luke 2:2: Making Sense of the Date of Jesus’ Birth.” JThS NS 56: 489–­91. Ritschl, A. 1846. Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lucas. Tübingen: Ostander. Robbins, V. K. 1978. “By Land and by Sea: The We-Passages of Acts and Ancient Sea Voyages.” Pages 215–­42 in Perspectives on Luke–­Acts. Edited by C. H. Talbert. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 1983. “Pronouncement Stories and Jesus’ Blessing of the Children.” Semeia 29: 43–­74. ———. 1987. “The Woman Who Touched Jesus’ Garment.” NTS 33: 502–­15.



Bibliography 643

———. 1991a. “Beelzebul Controversy in Mark and Luke.” Forum 7: 261–­77. ———. 1991b. “The Social Location of the Implied Author of Luke–­Acts.” Pages 305–­32 in The Social World of Luke–­Acts: Models for Interpretation. Edited by J. H. Neyrey. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. ———. 1994. “Introduction: Using Rhetorical Discussions of the Chreia to Interpret Pronouncement Stories.” Semeia 64: vii–­xvii. ———. 1998. “From Enthymeme to Theology in Luke 11:1­-13.” Pages 191–­214 in Literary Studies in Luke–­Acts: Festschrift Joseph B. Tyson. Edited by R. P. Thompson and T. E. Phillips. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press. Roberts, C. H. 1948. “The Kingdom of Heaven (Lk. XVII.21).” HThR 41: 1–­8. Robinson, B. P. 1984. “The Place of the Emmaus Story in Luke–­Acts.” NTS 30: 481–­97. Robinson, J. M. 1964. “Die Hodajot-Formel in Gebet und Hymnus des Frühchristentums.” Pages 194–­235 in Apophoreta: Festschrift Ernst Haenchen. Edited by W. Eltester. BZNW 30. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 1998. “The Sequence of Q: The Lament over Jerusalem.” Pages 225–­69 in Von Jesus zum Christus. Christologische Studien: Festschrift Paul Hoffmann. Edited by R. Hoppe and U. Busse. BZNW 93. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Robinson, J. M., P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg, eds. 2000. The Critical Edition of Q. Minneapolis: Fortress. Robinson, W. C. 1980. “On Preaching the Word of God (Luke 8:4-21).” Pages 131–­ 38 in Studies in Luke–­Acts. Edited by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. Minneapolis: Fortress. Rochais, G. 1981. Les récits de résurrection des morts dans le Nouveau Testament. SNTSMS 40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodríguez, A. A. 1993. “La vocación de Maria a la maternidad (Lc 1,26-38).” Eph. Mar. 43: 153–­73. Rohrbaugh, R. L. 1991. “The Pre-­industrial City in Luke–­Acts.” Pages 125–­49 in The Social World of Luke–­Acts. Edited by J. H. Neyrey. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. Rolland, P. 1993. “Lecture par couches rédactionnelles de l’épisode de l’épileptique.” Pages 451–­58 in The Synoptic Gospels. Edited by C. Focant. BEThL 110. Leuven: Peeters. Roloff, J. 1965. Apostolat—­Verkündigung—­Kirche. Gütersloh: Mohn. ———. 1989. “Beobachtungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Offb 3,20.” Pages 452–­66 in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus: Festschrift Joachim Gnilka. Edited by H. Frankemölle and K. Kertelge. Freiburg: Herder. Rose, V. 1967. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta: Aristoteles pseudepigraphus. Stuttgart: Teubner. Rosen, K. 1995. “Jesu Geburtsdatum, der Census des Quirinius und eine jüdische Steuererklärung aus dem Jahre 127nC.” JAC 38: 5–­15. Ross, J. M. 1987. “The Genuineness of Luke 24:12.” ExpT 98: 107–­08. Rostovtzeff, M. 1910. Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonats. Leipzig: Teubner. ———. 1934. “Οὐς δεξιὸν ἀποτέμνειν.” ZNW 33: 196–­99. Roth, D. T. 2015. The Text of Marcion’s Gospel. Leiden: Brill. Rothschild, C. K. 2004. Luke–­Acts and the Rhetoric of History. WUNT 2/175. Tübingen: Mohr.

644

Bibliography

Rottloff, A., and F. Schipper. 2002. “Das hellenistisch-frührömische Bethsaida.” ProBi 11: 127–­47. Rousseau, F. 1986. “Les structures du Benedictus (Luc 1,68­-79).” NTS 32: 268–­82. Rowe, C. K. 2006. Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke. BZNW 139. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Royse, R. 1981. “A Philonic Use of ΠΑΝΔΟΧΕΙΟΝ (Luke X 34).” NT 23: 193–­94. Ruck­-Schröder, A. 1999. Der Name Gottes und der Name Jesu. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Rudman, D. 2004. “Authority and Right of Disposal in Luke 4.6.” NTS 50: 778–­86. Ruelle, C.-­É. 1898. Les Lapidaires de l’antiquité et du moyen âge. Paris: Leroux. Rüger, H. P. 1969. “‘Mit welchem Maß ihr meßt, wird euch gemessen werden.’” ZNW 60: 174–­82. ———. 1973. “Μαμωνᾶς.” ZNW 64: 127–­31. ———. 1981. “ΝΑΖΑΡΕΘ / ΝΑΖΑΡΑ ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΟΣ / ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ.” ZNW 72: 257–­63. Ruis-­Camps, J. 1999. “Simón (Pedro) se autoexcluye de la llamada de Jesús al seguimiento.” EstB 57: 565–­87. Ruiz, G. 1984. “El clamor de las piedras (Lc 19,40–­Hab 2,11).” EE 59: 297–­312. Ruppert, L. 1973. Der leidende Gerechte und seine Feinde: Eine Wortfelduntersuchung. Würzberg: Echter. Rusam, D. 2003. Das Alte Testament bei Lukas. BZNW 112. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 2004. “Sah Jesus wirklich den Satan vom Himmel fallen (Lk 10,18)? Auf der Suche nach einem neuen Differenzkriterium.” NTS 50: 87–­105. Rüstow, A. 1960. “ΕΝΤΟΣ ΥΜΩΝ ΕΣΤΙΝ.” ZNW 51: 197–­224. Rydbeck, L. 1967. Fachprosa, vermeintliche Volkssprache und Neues Testament. AUU 5. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell. Safrai, S. 1981. Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 1990. “Sabbath Breakers?” Jerusalem Perspectives 3: 3–­5. Salo, K. 1991. Luke’s Treatment of the Law. AASF.DHL 57. Helsinki Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Sanday, W. 1911. “The Conditions under Which the Gospels Were Written in Their Bearing upon Some Difficulties of the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 1–­26 in Studies in the Synoptic Gospels. Oxford: Clarendon. Sandback, F. H. ed. 1969. Moralia, Vol. XV: Fragments. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Sanders, J. A. 1974. “The Ethic of Election in Luke’s Great Banquet Parable.” Pages 241–­57 in Essays in Old Testament Ethics. J. Philip Hyatt, In Memoriam. Edited by J. L. Crenshaw and J. T. Willis. New York: KTAV. ———. 1993. “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4.” Pages 46–­69 in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke–­Acts. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress. Sanders, J. T. 1987. The Jews in Luke–­Acts. London: SCM Press. Sandiyagu, V. R. 2006. “ἕτερος and ἄλλος in Luke.” NT 48: 105–­30. Sandnes, K. O. 1994. A New Family: Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church with Cross-Cultural Comparisons­. New York: Lang. Satake, A. 1976. “Das Leiden der Jünger ‘um meinetwillen.’” ZNW 67: 4–­19.



Bibliography 645

Sato, M. 1988. Q und Prophetie. WUNT 2/29. Tübingen: Mohr. Sauer, J. 1985. “Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu den synoptischen und paulinischen Aussagen über Feindesliebe und Wiedervergeltungsverzicht.” ZNW 76: 1–­28. Scaer, P. J. 2005. The Lukan Passion and the Praiseworthy Death. NTMon 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Scheffler, E. H. 1990. “The Social Ethics of the Lucan Baptist (Lk 3:10-14).” Neotest. 24: 21–­36. Schelbert, G. 1981. “Sprachgeschichtliches zu ‘Abba.’” Pages 395–­447 in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy. Edited by P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1993. “Abba, Vater! Stand der Frage.” FZPhTh 40: 259–­81. Schiffer, B. 2001. Fliessende Identität: Körper und Geschlechter im Wandel. Symbole von Krankheit und Heilung feministisch-theologisch gedeutet im Kontext postmoderner K­örper- und Geschlechterkonstruktionen­. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Schinkel, D. 1999. “Das Magnifikat Lk 1,46-55—­ein Hymnus in Harlekinsjacke?” ZNW 90: 273–­79. Schleiermacher, F. D. E. 1999. Die christliche Sitte nach den Grundsätzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhang dargestellt. Edited by W. E. Müller. Part 1. Waltrop: Spenner. ———. 2001. “Ueber die Schriften des Lukas ein kritischer Versuch.” Pages 1–­180 in Kritische Gesamtausgabe. I/8: Exegetische Schriften. Edited by H. Patsch and D. Schmid. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Schlosser, J. 1973. “Les jours de Noé et de Lot.” RB 80: 13–­36. ———. 1980. Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus. 2 vols. Paris: Gabalda. ———. 1982. “La genèse de Luc, XXII,25-­27.” RB 89: 52–­70. ———. 1983. “Lk 17,2 und die Logienquelle.” SNTU.A 8: 70–­78. ———. 1989. “Le pharisien et le publicain (Lc 18,9-14).” Pages 271–­88 in Les paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles. XIIe congrès de l’ACFEB, Lyon (1987). Edited by J. Delorme. Paris: Cerf. ———. 1998. “Q 11,23 et la christologie.” Pages 217–­24 in Von Jesus zum Christus. Christologische Studien: Festschrift Paul Hoffmann. Edited by R. Hoppe and U. Busse. BZNW 93. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 2002. “Les tentations de Jésus et la cause de Dieu.” RSR 76: 403–­25. Schmahl, G. 1974. “Lk 2,41-52 und die Kindheitserzählung des Thomas 19,1-5.” BiLe 15: 249–­58. Schmeller, T. 1999. “Die Radikalität der Logienquelle: Raben, Lilien und die Freiheit vom Sorgen (Q 12,22-32).” BiKi 54: 85–­88. Schmid, U. 1999. “Eklektische Textkonstitution als theologische Rekonstruktion: Zur Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu bei Lukas.” Pages 577–­84 in The Unity of Luke–­ Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. BEThL 142. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2002. “Marcions Evangelium und die neutestamentlichen Evangelien.” Pages 66–­77 in Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung. Edited by G. May, K. Greschat, and M. Meiser. TU 150. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Schmidt, D. 1977. “The LXX Gattung ‘Prophetie Correlative.’” JBL 96: 517–­22. ———. 1983. “Luke’s ‘Innocent’ Jesus.” Pages 111–­21 in Political Issues in Luke–­ Acts. Edited by R. J. Cassidy and P. J. Scharper. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis.

646

Bibliography

Schmidt, K. L. 1964 [1919]. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Schmidt, W., L. Nix, H. Schöne, and J. L. Heiberg, eds. 1976. Heronis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt omnia. Stuttgart: Teubner. Schmithals, W. 1973. “Die Weihnachtsgeschichte Lukas 2,1-20.” Pages 281–­97 in Festschrift Ernst Fuchs. Edited by G. Ebeling, E. Jüngel, and G. Schunack. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1985. Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Schmitt, G. 1978. “Das Zeichen des Jona.” ZNW 69: 123–­29. ———. 1995. Siedlungen Palästinas in griechisch-r­ömischer Zeit. BTAVO.B 93. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schnackenburg, R. 1970. “Der eschatologische Abschnitt Lk 17,20-37.” Pages 213–­ 34 in Mélanges bibliques en hommage au R.P. Béda Rigaux. Edited by A. L. Descamps and A. de Halleux. Gembloux: Duculot. ———. 1991. “Lk 13,31-33. Eine Studie zur lukanischen Redaktion und Theologie.” Pages 229–­41 in Der Treue Gottes trauen. Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas: Festschrift Gerhard Schneider. Edited by C. Bussmann and W. Radl. Freiburg: Herder. Schneemelcher, W., ed. 1963. New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 1. English Translation edited by R. McL. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster. ———. 1990. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen. Vol. 1, Evangelien. 6th edition. Tübingen: Mohr. Schneider, G. 1969. Verleugnung, Verspottung und Verhör Jesu nach Lukas 22.54-71­. StANT 22. Munich: Kösel. ———. 1970. “Das Bildwort von der Lampe.” ZNW 61: 183–­209. ———. 1972. “Die Davidssohnfrage.” Bib. 53: 65–­90. ———. 1973. Die Passion Jesu nach den drei älteren Evangelien. BiH 11. München: Kösel. ———. 1975. Parusiegleichnisse im Lukasevangelium. SBS 74. Stuttgart: Kathol­ isches Bibelwerk. ———. 1985. Lukas, Theologe der Heilsgeschichte. BBB 59. Königstein: Hanstein. ———. 1988. “Das Verfahren gegen Jesus in der Sicht des dritten Evangeliums (Lk 22,54–­23,25).” Pages 111–­30 in Der Prozeß gegen Jesus. Edited by K. Kertelge. QD 112. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1992. “Imitatio Dei als Motiv der ‘Ethik Jesu.’” Pages 155–­67 in Jesusüberlieferung und Christologie. NT.S 67. Leiden: Brill. Schnelle, U. 2007. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 6th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schnider, F. 1980. “Ausschließen und ausgeschlossen werden. Beobachtungenen zur Struktur des Gleichnisses vom Pharisäer und Zöllner Lk 18,10-14a.” BZ NF 24: 42–­56. ———. 1981. “Die Himmelfahrt Jesu—­Ende oder Anfang?” Pages 158–­72 in Kontinuität und Einheit: Festschrift Franz Mussner. Edited by P. G. Müller and W. Stencer. Freiburg: Herder. Schnider, F., and W. Stenger. 1971. Johannes und die Synoptiker. Munich: Katholisches Bibelwerk.



Bibliography 647

———. 1972. “Beobachtungen zur Struktur der Emmausperikope.” BZ NF 16: 94–­114. ———. 1979. “Die offene Tür und die unüberschreitbare Kluft: Strukturanalytische Überlegungen zum Gleichnis vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus (Lk 16,19­ 31).” NTS 25: 273–­83. Scholtissek, K. 1992. Die Vollmacht Jesu: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen zu einem Leitmotiv markinischer Christologie­. NTA 25. Münster: Aschendorff. Schöner, E. 1964. Das Viererschema in der antiken Humoralpathologie. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Schottroff, L. 1971. “Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn.” ZThK 68: 27–­52. ———. 1973. “Die Erzählung vom Pharisäer und Zöllner als Beispiel für die theologische Kunst des Überredens.” Pages 439–­61 in Neues Testament und christliche Existenz: Festschrift Herbert Braun. Edited by H. D. Betz and L. Schottroff. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1975. “Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in der urchristlichen Jesustradition.” Pages 197–­221 in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Festschrift Hans Conzelmann. Edited by G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1978. “Das Magnifikat und die älteste Tradition über Jesus von Nazaret.” EvTh 38: 293–­312. ———. 1987. “Das Gleichnis vom großen Gastmahl in der Logienquelle.” EvTh 47: 192–­211. Schottroff, L., and W. Stegemann. 1978. Jesus von Nazareth—­Hoffnung der Armen. UB 639. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schottroff, W. 1982. “Die Ituräer.” ZDPV 98: 125–­52. ———. 1996. “Das Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern (Mk 12,1-9parr.). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Bodenpacht in Palästina.” ZDPV 112: 18–­48. Schrage, W. 1964. Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen. BZNW 29. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Schramm, T. 1971. Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas. SNTSMS 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schreck, C. J. 1989. “The Nazareth Pericope. Luke 4,16­-30 in Recent Study.” Pages 399–­471 in L’évangile de Luc–­The Gospel of Luke. 2nd edition. Edited by F. Neirynck. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Schreiber, S. 2002. “‘Ars moriendi’ in Lk 23,39-43.” Pages 277–­97 in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift Albert Fuchs. Edited by C. Niemand. LPTB 7. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Schroer, S. 1986. “Der Geist, die Weisheit und die Taube.” FZPhTh 33: 197–­225. Schröter, J. 1997a. Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. WMANT 76. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 1997b. “Erwägungen zum Gesetzesverständnis in Q anhand von Q 16,1618.” Pages 441–­58 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BEThL 131. Leuven: Peeters.

648

Bibliography

———. 2000. “Sterben für die Freunde.” Pages 263–­87 in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift Klaus Berger. Edited by A. van Dobbeler, K. Erlemann, and R. Heiligenthal. Tübingen: Francke. ———. 2003. “Die Bedeutung der Q-Überlieferung für die Interpretation der frühen Jesustradition.” ZNW 94: 38–­67. ———. 2006. Das Abendmahl: Frühchristliche Deutungen und Impulse für die Gegen­wart. SBS 210. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 2007. Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament. Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons. WUNT 204. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2013. From Jesus to the New Testament. Trans. W. Coppins. BMSEC. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press. ———. 2014. Jesus of Nazareth: Jew from Galilee, Savior of the World. Trans. W. Coppins and S. B. Pounds. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press. Schubert, P. 1988. “Struktur und Bedeutung von Lukas 24.” Pages 331–­59 in Zur neutestamentlichen Überlieferung von der Auferstehung Jesu. Edited by P. Hoffmann. WdF 522. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Schult, H. 1971. “Amos 7,15a und die Legitimation des Außenseiters.” Pages 462–­78 in Probleme Biblischer Theologie: Festschrift Gerhard von Rad. Edited by H. W. Wolff. Munich: Kaiser. Schürer, E. 1973–­1987. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–­AD 135): A New English Version Revised and Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Schürmann, H. 1953. Der Paschamahlbericht Lk 22,(7-14.)15-18­. NTA 19/5. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1957. Jesu Abschiedsrede Lk 22,21-38. NTA 20/5. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1968. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1970. Ursprung und Gestalt. Düsseldorf: Patmos. Schwankl, O. 1987. Die Sadduzäerfrage (Mk 12,18-27 parr). BBB 66. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum. Schwarz, G. 1981. “τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει.” ZNW 72: 264–­71. ———. 1990. “ΟΙ ΔΕ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΕΚΡΑΤΟΥΝΤΟ?” BN 55: 16–­17. ———. 1991. “FILLIPPON KAI BARUOLOMAION?” BN 56: 26–­30. ———. 1992. “ΤΟ ΠΤΕΡΥΓΙΟ ΤΟΥ ΙΕΡΟ.” BN 61: 33–­35. ———. 1996. “‘Ein Rohr, vom Wind bewegt’?” BN 83: 19–­21. ———. 1997. “‘Wie eine Taube’?” BN 89: 27–­29. Schweizer, E. 1963. “‘Er wird Nazoräer heissen.’” Pages 51–­55 in Neotestamentica: deutsche und englische Aufsätze 1951–­1963. Zürich: Zwingli. ———. 1981. “Zum Aufbau von Lukas 1 und 2.” Pages 309–­35 in Intergerini Parietis Septum: Festschrift Markus Barth. Edited by D. Y. Hadidian. Pittsburgh: Pickwick. Schwemer, A. M. 1994. “Elija als Araber.” Pages 108–­57 in Die Heiden. Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden. Edited by R. Feldmeier and U. Heckel. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1996. Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden. Vol. 2. TSAJ 50. Tübingen: Mohr.



Bibliography 649

———. 2001. “Der Auferstandene und die Emmausjünger.” Pages 95–­ 117 in Auferstehung–­Resurrection. Edited by F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr. Seccombe, D. P. 1982. Possessions and the Poor in Luke–­Acts. SNTU.B 6. Linz: SNTU. Seeley, D. 1990. The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation. Sheffield: JSOT. Segbroeck, F. van. 1989. The Gospel of Luke: A Cumulative Bibliography 1973–­1988. BEThL 88. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Seim, T. K. 1994. The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke–­Acts. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 2002. “Conflicting Voices, Irony and Reiteration: An Exploration of the Narrational Structure of Luke 24:1-35 and Its Theological Implications.” Pages 151–­ 64 in Fair Play: Festschrift Heikki Räisänen. Edited by I. Dunderberg, C. M. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni. NT.S 103. Leiden: Brill. Sellew, P. 1987. “The Last Supper Discourse in Luke 22:21-38.” Forum 3: 70–­95. ———. 1992. “Interior Monologue as a Narrative Device in the Parables of Luke.” JBL 111: 239–­53. Sellin, G. 1974/1975. “Lukas als Gleichniserzähler.” ZNW 65/66: 166–­89, 19–­60. ———. 1978. “Komposition, Quellen und Funktion des lukanischen Reiseberichtes.” NT 20: 100–­35. Semanet, G. 1993. “Le fils de la veuve: Deux récits de résurrection.” Pages 247–­66 in Le temps de la lecture: Festschrift Jean Delorme. Edited by L. Panier. LeDiv 155. Paris: Cerf. Seng, E. W. 1978. “Der reiche Tor.” NT 20: 136–­55. Senior, D. 1989. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. Wilmington, Del.: M. Glazier. Sevenich­-Bax, E. 1993. Israels Konfrontation mit den letzten Boten der Weisheit. MThA 21. Altenberge: Orlos. Seybold, K. 1996. Die Psalmen. Tübingen: Mohr. Seybold, K., and U. Müller. 1978. Krankheit und Heilung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Shantz, C. 2001. “Wisdom Is as Wisdom Does: The Use of Folk Proverbs in Q 7:31­ 35.” TJT 17: 249–­62. Shauf, S. 2005. Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19. BZNW 133. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Sheeley, S. M. 1992. Narrative Asides in Luke–­Acts. JSNT.S 72. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Shellard, B. 1995. “The Relationship of Luke and John.” JThS 46: 71–­98. ———. 2002. “New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context.” JSNT.S 215. London: Sheffield Academic. Shepherd, W. H. 1994. The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke–­Acts. SBL.DS 147. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Sherwin­-White, A. N. 1963. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon. Shirock, R. 1992. “Whose Exorcists Are They? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12.27/Luke 11.19.” JSNT 46: 41–­51. Sibinga, J. S. 1997. “The Making of Luke 23:26-56.” RB 104: 378–­404.

650

Bibliography

Siegert, F. 1973. “Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten.” JSJ 4: 109–­64. Siffer­-Wiederhold, N. 2005. “Le projet littéraire de Luc d’après le prologue de l’évangile (Lc 1.1-4).” RSR 79: 39–­54. Siker, J. S. 1992. “‘First to the Gentiles.’ A Literary Analysis of Luke 4:16-30.” JBL 111: 73–­90. Sim, D. C. 1989. “The Women Followers of Jesus: The Implications of Luke 8:1-3.” HeyJ 30: 51–­62. ———. 2001. “The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham.” JSNT 84: 3–­27. Singer, C. 1998. “La difficulté d’être disciple. Luc 14/25-35.” ETR 73: 21–­36. Sloan, I. 1993. “The Greatest and the Youngest: Greco­-Roman Reciprocity in the Farewell Address, Luke 22:24-30.” SR 22: 63–­73. Smith, D. E. 1987. “Table Fellowship as a Literary Motiv in the Gospel of Luke.” JBL 106: 613–­38. ———. 1991. “The Messianic Banquet Reconsidered.” Pages 64–­73 in The Future of Early Christianity: Festschrift Helmut Koester. Edited by B. A. Pearson, A. T. Kraabel, G. W. E. Nickelsburg, and N. R. Petersen. Minneapolis: Fortress. Smith, M. D. 2000. “Of Jesus and Quirinius.” CBQ 62: 278–­93. Smyth, K. 1987. “‘Peace on Earth to Men . . .’ (Lk 2.14).” IrBSt 9: 27–­34. Snodgrass, K. 1983. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. WUNT 27. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1997. “Anaideia and the Friend at Midnight.” JBL 116: 505–­13. ———. 1998. “Common Life with Jesus: The Parable of the Banquet in Luke 14:16­ 24.” Pages 186–­201 in Common Life in the Early Church: Festschrift Graydon F. Snyder. Edited by J. V. Hills and R. B. Gardner. Harrisburg: Trinity International. Soards, M. L. 1985a. “The Silence of Jesus before Herod: An Interpretative Suggestion.” ABR 33: 41–­45. ———. 1985b. “Tradition, Composition, and Theology in Luke’s Account of Jesus before Herod Antipas.” Bib. 66: 344–­64. ———. 1986. “‘And the Lord Turned and Looked Straight at Peter’: Understanding Luke 22,61.” Bib. 67: 518–­19. ———. 1987a. “A Literary Analysis of the Origin and Purpose of Luke’s Account of the Mockery of Jesus.” BZ NF 31: 110–­16. ———. 1987b. The Passion according to Luke: The Special Material of Luke 22. JSNT.S 14. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 1987c. “Tradition, Composition, and Theology in Jesus’ Speech to the ‘Daughters of Jerusalem’ (Luke 23,26-32).” Bib. 68: 221–­44. Söding, T. 1992. “Die Tempelaktion Jesu.” TThZ 101: 36–­64. Spengel, L. von, ed. 1953–­1956. Rhetores Graeci. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Spicq, C. 1961. “La parabole de la veuve obstiné et du juge inerte, aux décisions impromptues (Lc. xviii,1-8).” RB 68: 68–­90. ———. 1994. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. Spitta, F. 1906. “Die chronologischen Notizen und die Hymnen in Lc 1 u. 2.” ZNW 7: 281–­317. Spitznagel, A. 1977. “Rolle und Status.” Pages 401–­9 in Handbuch psychologischer Grundbegriffe. Edited by T. Hermann, P. R. Hofstätter, and H. P. Huber. Munich: Kösel.



Bibliography 651

Squires, J. T. 1993. The Plan of God in Luke–­Acts. MSSNTS 76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Städele, A. 1980. Die Briefe des Pythagoras und der Pythagoreer. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain. Stählin, G. 1930. Skandalon: Untersuchung zur Geschichte eines biblischen Begriffs. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. ———. 1973. “Um mitzusterben und mitzuleben.” Pages 503–­21 in Neues Testament und christliche Existenz: Festschrift Herbert Braun. Edited by H. D. Betz and L. Schottroff. Tübingen: Mohr. Steck, O. H. 1967. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. WMANT 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Steele, E. S. 1984. “Luke 11:37-54—­A Modified Hellenistic Symposium?” JBL 103: 379–­94. Stegemann, W. 1991a. “‘Licht der Völker’ bei Lukas.” Pages 81–­97 in Der Treue Gottes trauen: Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas: Festschrift Gerhard Schneider. Edited by C. Bussmann and W. Radl. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1991b. Zwischen Synagoge und Obrigkeit. FRLANT 152. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1993. “Jesus als Messias in der Theologie des Lukas.” Pages 21–­40 in Messias-Vorstellungen bei Juden und Christen­. Edited by E. Stegemann. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Stegner, W. R. 1976. “Lucan Priority in the Feeding of the Five Thousand.” BR 21: 19–­28. Stein, R. H. 1989. “Luke 14:26 and the Question of Authenticity.” Forum 5: 187–­92. Steinhauser, M. G. 1981. Doppelbildworte in den synoptischen Evangelien. FzB 44. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Stemberger, G. 1987. “Pesachhaggada und Abendmahlsberichte des Neuen Testaments.” Kairos 29: 147–­58. ———. 1991. Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener. SBS 144. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Stemm, S. von. 1997. “Der betende Sünder vor Gott: Lk 18,9-14.” Pages 579–­89 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BEThL 131. Leuven: Peeters. Stenger, W. 1986. “Die Seligpreisung der Geschmähten.” Kairos 28: 33–­60. ———. 1988. “Gebt dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist . . . !” BBB 68. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum. Sterling, G. 1992. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke–­Acts and Apologetic Historiography. NT.S 64. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1993. “Jesus as Exorcist: An Analysis of Matthew 17:14-20; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43a.” CBQ 55: 467–­93. ———. 2001. “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” HThR 94: 383–­402. Stettberger, H. 2005a. Mahlmetaphorik im Evangelium des Lukas. Münster: Lit. ———. 2005b. Nichts haben—­alles geben? Eine kognitiv-linguistisch orientierte Studie zur Besitzethik im lukanischen Doppelwerk­. HBiSt 45. Freiburg: Herder. Steyn, G. J. 1989. “The Occurrence of ‘Kainam’ in Luke’s Genealogy: Evidence of Septuagint Influence?” EThL 65: 409–­11.

652

Bibliography

———. 1990. “Intertexual Similarities between Septuagint Pretexts and Luke’s Gospel.” Neotest. 24: 229–­46. ———. 1991. “A Short Reply.” EthL 65: 103–­4. Stock, A. 1978. Textentfaltungen. Semiotische Experimente mit einer biblischen Geschichte. Düsseldorf: Patmos. Stock, K. 1980. “Die Berufung Marias (Lk 1,26-38).” Bib. 61: 457–­91. Storme, A. 1992. Béthanie. 3rd edition. Jerusalem: Franciscan. Strauss, M. L. 1995. The Davidic Messiah in Luke–­Acts. JSNTSup 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Strecker, C. 1999. Die liminale Theologie des Paulus. Zugänge zur paulinischen Theologie aus kulturanthropologischer Perspektive. FRLANT 185. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Strecker, G. 1984. Die Bergpredigt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———, ed. 1993. Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991. GTA 50. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Strecker, G., and U. Schnelle. 2001/1996. Neuer Wettstein. Vol. I and II/1–­2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Streeter, B. H. 1924. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan. Strelan, R. 2000. “A Greater Than Caesar: Storm Stories in Lucan and Mark.” ZNW 91: 166–­79. ———. 2003. “Elizabeth, Are You Hiding? (Luke 1:24).” Neotest. 37: 87–­95. Strobel, A. 1958. “Lukas der Antiochener (Bemerkungen zu Act 11,28D).” ZNW 49: 131–­34. ———. 1961a. “In dieser Nacht (Luk 17,34).” ZThK 58: 16–­29. ———. 1961b. Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem. NT.S 2. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1962. “Der Gruß an Maria (Lc 1,28): Eine philologische Betrachtung zu seinem Sinngehalt.” ZNW 53: 86–­110. ———. 1964. “Maße und Gewichte.” Page 1163 in Biblisch-historisches Hand­ wörterbuch. Edited by B. Reicke and L. Rost. Vol. 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1995. “Plädoyer für Lukas: Zur Stimmigkeit des chronistischen Rahmens von Lk 3,1.” NTS 41: 466–­69. Strotmann, A. 1991. Mein Vater bist du! (Sir 51,10): Zur Bedeutung der Vaterschaft Gottes in kanonischen und nichtkanonischen Schriften. FTS 39. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht. Stubbs, J. 2002. “A Certain Woman Raised Her Voice: The Use of Grammatical Structure and the Origins of Texts.” Neotest. 36: 21–­37. Stuhlmacher, P. 1992/1999. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stuhlmann, R. 1983. Das eschatologische Maß im Neuen Testament. FRLANT 132. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sussman, L. A. 1987. The Major Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian: A Translation. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. ———. 1994. The Declamations of Calpurnius Flaccus: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Leiden: Brill.



Bibliography 653

Sweetland, D. M. 1984. “Discipleship and Persecution: A Study of Luke 12,1-12.” Bib. 65: 61–­80. Sylva, D. D. 1986. “The Temple Curtain and Jesus’ Death in the Gospel of Luke.” JBL 105: 239–­50. ———. 1987. “The Cryptic Clause en tois tou patros mou dei einai me in Luke 2,49b.” ZNW 78: 132–­40. Taeger, J.­-W. 1986. Der Mensch und sein Heil: Studien zum Bild des Menschen und zur Sicht der Bekehrung bei Lukas. Gütersloh: Mohn. Talbert, C. H., and J. H. Hayes. 1995. “A Theology of Sea Storms in Luke–­Acts.” SBL. SP 131: 321–­36. Tanghe, V. 1984. “Abraham, son fils et son envoyé (Luc 16,19-31).” RB 91: 557–­77. Tannehill, R. C. 1972. “The Mission of Jesus according to Luke IV 16-30.” Pages 51–­75 in Jesus in Nazareth. Edited by E. Gräßer. BZNW 40. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 1974. “The Magnifikat as Poem.” JBL 93: 263–­75. ———. 1986. The Narrative Unity of Luke–­Acts. Vol. 1, The Gospel of Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1992. “The Lukan Discourse on Invitations (Luke 14,7-24).” Pages 1603–­16 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1993. “The Story of Zacchaeus as Rhetoric.” Semeia 64: 201–­11. Taylor, J. E. 1998. “Golgotha.” NTS 44: 180–­203. Taylor, N. H. 2001. “The Temptation of Jesus on the Mountain: A Palestinian Christian Polemic against Agrippa I.” JSNT 83: 27–­49. Taylor, V. 1972. The Passion Narrative of St Luke. SNTSMS 19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terry, M. 1899. The Sibylline Oracles: Translated from the Greek into English Blank Verse. New York: Eaton & Mains. Theissen, G. 1979. Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1983. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Trans. F. McDonagh. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1987. Urchristliche Wundergeschichten. 5th edition. StNT 8. Gütersloh: Mohn. ———. 1992. Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien. 2nd edition. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg. ———. 2003. “Das Zeichen des Jona.” Pages 181–­93 in Der Freund des Menschen: Festschrift Georg Christian Macholz. Edited by A. Meinhold and A. Berlejung. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener. Theobald, M. 1984. “Die Anfänge der Kirche. Zur Struktur von Lk. 5.1–­6.19.” NTS 30: 91–­108. ———. 2005. “‘Ich sah den Satan aus dem Himmel stürzen . . .’: Überlieferungs­ kritische Beobachtungen zu Lk 10.18-20.” BZ NF 49: 174–­90. ———. 2006. “Paschamahl und Eucharistiefeier: Zur heilsgeschichtlichen Relevanz der Abendmahlsszenerie bei Lukas (Lk 22,14­-38).” Pages 133–­80 in “Für alle Zeiten zur Erinnerung” (Jos 4,7): Beiträge zu einer biblischen Gedächtniskultur:

654

Bibliography

Festschrift Franz Mußner. Edited by M. Theobald, R. Hoppe, and Pope Benedict. SBS 209. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Thiede, C.­-P. 2004. “Die Wiederentdeckung von Emmaus bei Jerusalem.” ZAC 8: 593–­99. Thoma, C., and S. Lauer. 1986. Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. Vol. 1. Bern: Lang. Thomas, J. C. 1991. Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community. JSNT.S 61. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Thompson, G. P. 1960. “Called–­Proved–­Obedient.” JThS 11: 1–­12. Thompson, R. C. 1903. The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia. Vol. 1. London: Luzac. Thornton, C.­-J. 1991. Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen. WUNT 56. Tübingen: Mohr. Thraede, K. 2004. “Noch einmal: Plinius d. J. und die Christen.” ZNW 95: 102–­28. Thrall, M. E. 2004. 2 Corinthians 8–­13. ICC. London: T&T Clark. ———. 1962. Greek Particles in the New Testament. NTTS 3. Leiden: Brill. Thurston, B. 2001. “Who Was Anna? Luke 2:36-38.” PRS 28: 47–­55. Tiede, D. L. 1980. Prophecy and History in Luke–­Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress. Tilborg, S. van. 2002. “The Meaning of the Word γαμῶ in Lk 14:20; 17:27; Mk 12:25 and in a Number of Early Jewish and Christian Authors.” HTS 58: 802–­10. Tilborg, S. van, and P. Chatelion Counet. 2000. Jesus’ Appearances and Disappearances in Luke 24. Bib.Int.S 45. Leiden: Brill. Tilly, M. 1991. “Kanaanäer, Händler und der Tempel in Jerusalem.” BN 57: 30–­36. Topel, L. J. 1998. “The Tarnished Golden Rule (Luke 6:31).” TS 59: 475–­85. ———. 2001. Children of a Compassionate God: A Theological Exegesis of Luke 6:20-49­. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical. ———. 2003. “What Kind of a Sign Are Vultures? Luke 17,37b.” Bib. 84: 403–­11. Trites, A. A. 1987. “The Transfiguration in the Theology of Luke.” Pages 71–­81 in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird. Edited by L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon. Trummer, P. 1991. Die blutende Frau. Freiburg: Herder. Tsafrir, Y., L. di Segni, J. Green, I. Roll, and T. Tsuk. 1994. Tabula Imperii Romani: Iudaea. Palaestina. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Tuckett, C. M. 1982. “Luke 14,16-30, Isaiah and Q.” Pages 343–­54 in Logia. Mémorial Joseph Coppens. Edited by J. Delobel and T. Baarda. BEThL 59. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1983. The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis. MSSNTS 44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1984. “On the Relationship between Matthew and Luke.” NTS 30: 130–­42. ———. 1989. “Q, Prayer, and the Kingdom.” JThS 40: 367–­76. ———. 1992. “The Temptation Narrative in Q.” Pages 479–­507 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BEThL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1995. “The Lukan Son of Man.” Pages 198–­217 in Luke’s Literary Achievement. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. JSNT.S 116. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 1996. Q and the History of Early Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.



Bibliography 655

———. 2000. “Q 12,8 Once Again.” Pages 171–­88 in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson. Edited by J. M. Asgeirsson, K. de Troyer, and M. M. Meyer. BEThL 146. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2002. “Luke 22,43-44: The ‘Agony’ in the Garden and Luke’s Gospel.” Pages 131–­44 in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift Joël Delobel. Edited by A. Denaux. BEThL 161. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2004. Luke. London: T&T Clark. Turner, E. G., and J. W. B. Barns, eds. 1957. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri XXIV. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Tyson, J. B. 1978. “Source Criticism of the Gospel of Luke.” Pages 24–­39 in Perspectives on Luke–­Acts. Edited by C. H. Talbert. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 1986. The Death of Jesus in Luke–­Acts. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. ———. 1990. “The Birth Narratives and the Beginning of Luke’s Gospel.” Semeia 52: 103–­20. ———. 2006. Marcion and Luke–­Acts: A Defining Struggle. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Tzaferis, V., ed. 1989. Excavations at Capernaum. Vol. 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Ulrichs, K. F. 1999. “Some Notes on Ears in Luke–­Acts, especially in Lk 4:21.” BN 98: 28–­31. Unnik, W. C. van. 1966. “Die Motivierung der Feindesliebe in Lukas VI 32-35.” NT 8: 284–­300. ———. 1973. “Once More: St. Luke’s Prologue.” Neotest. 7: 7–­26. ———. 1973–­1983. Sparsa Collecta. 3 vols. NT.S 29–­31. Leiden: Brill. Untergassmair, F. G. 1980. Kreuzweg und Kreuzigung Jesu. PT 10. Paderborn: Schöningh. ———. 1991. “Der Spruch vom ‘grünen und dürren Holz’ (Lk 23,31).” SNTU.A 16: 55–­87. ———. 1996. “Zur Problematik der lukanischen Passionsgeschichte. Jesus vor Herodes (Lk 23,6­-12).” Pages 273–­92 in Schrift und Tradition: Festschrift Josef Ernst. Edited by K. Backhaus and F. G. Untergassmair. Paderborn: Schöningh. Uro, R. 1987. Sheep among the Wolves. AASF 47. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. ———. 1990. Neither Here nor There: Luke 17:20-21 and Related Sayings in Thomas, Mark and Q. OPIAC 20. Claremont, Calif.: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. ———. 2000. “‘Washing the outside of the Cup.’” Pages 303–­22 in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson. Edited by J. M. Asgeirsson, K. de Troyer, and M. M. Meyer. BEThL 146. Leuven: Peeters. Usener, H. 1900. “Beiläufige Bemerkungen.” RhMus 55: 286–­87. Usener, H., and L. Radermacher. 1965. Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant opuscula. Stuttgart: Teubner. Vaganay, L. 1954. “Les accords négatifs de Matthieu-­Luc contre Marc: L’épisode de l’enfant épileptique.” Pages 405–­25 in Le problème synoptique: une hypothèse de travail. Tournai: Desclée.

656

Bibliography

Vahrenhorst, M. 1998. “‘Se non è vero, è ben trovato’: Die Frauen und das leere Grab.” ZNW 89: 282–­88. Vanhoye, A. 1965–­1966. “Structure du ‘Benedictus.’” NTS 12: 382–­89. Velsen, A. de. 1965 [1853]. Tryphonis Grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Verboomen, A. 1992. L’imparfait périphrastique dans l’évangile de Luc et dans la Septante. ARB.CL 10. Leuven: Peeters. Verheyden, J. 1989. “The Source(s) of Luke 21.” Pages 491–­516 in L’évangile de Luc–­The Gospel of Luke. 2nd edition. Edited by F. Neirynck. BEThL 32. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1999. “The Unity of Luke–­Acts: What Are We Up To?” Pages 3–­56 in The Unity of Luke–­Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. BEThL 142. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 2003. “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute.” Pages 487–­556 in The Biblical Canons (Fiftieth Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense). Edited by J.-M. Auwers. BEThL 163. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Versnel, H. S. 1970. Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2005. “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death. The Pagan Contribution.” Pages 215–­ 94 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu. Edited by J. Frey and J. Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr. Veyries, A. 1884. Les figures criophores dans l’art grec, l’art gréco-romain et l’art chrétien­. Paris: Thorin. Via, D. O. 1967. The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1970. Die Gleichnisse Jesu. Trans. E. Güttgemanns. BEvTh 57. München: Kaiser. Victor, U. 2009. “Textkritischer Kommentar zu ausgewählten Stellen des Lukas­- und des Johannesevangeliums.” NT 51: 30–­77. Vielhauer, P. 1965. Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. TB 31. Munich: Kaiser. Vinzent, M. 2002. “Der Schluß des Lukasevangelium bei Marcion.” Pages 79–­94 in Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung. Edited by G. May, K. Greschat, and M. Meiser. TU 150. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Viviano, B. T. 2000. “The Least in the Kingdom.” CBQ 62: 41–­54. Vogel, M. 1996. Das Heil des Bundes. TANZ 18. Tübingen: Francke. Vogels, W. 1983. “A Semiotic Study of Luke 7.11-17.” EeT(O) 14: 273–­92. Vogt, J. 1990. Aspekte erzählender Prosa. 7th edition. Opladen: Westdeutscher. Vögtle, A. 1971. Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. KBANT. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1977. Was Weihnachten bedeutet. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1989. “Ein ‘unablässiger Stachel’ (Mt 5,3[9]b­-42par. Lk 6.29-30).” Pages 53–­70 in Neues Testament und Ethik: Festschrift Rudolf Schnackenburg. Edited by H. Merklein. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1994. Die “Gretchenfrage” des Menschensohnproblems: Bilanz und Per­ spektive. QD 152. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1996. Gott und seine Gäste. BThSt 29. Neukirchen­-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Volgers, A., and C. Zamagni, eds. 2004. Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Questionand­-Answer Literature in Context­. Leuven: Peeters.



Bibliography 657

Völkel, M. 1973a. “Der Anfang in Galiläa.” ZNW 64: 222–­32. ———. 1973b. “Anmerkungen zur lukanischen Fassung der Täuferanfrage Luk 7.18­ 23.” Pages 166–­73 in Festgabe für Karl Heinrich Rengstorf zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by W. Dietrich. Theokr. 2. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1974. “Exegetische Erwägungen zum Verständnis des Begriffs καθεξῆς im lukanischen Prolog.” NTS 20: 289–­99. ———. 1978. “‘Freund der Zöllner und Sünder.’” ZNW 69: 1–­10. Vollenweider, S. 1988. “‘Ich sah den Satan wie einen Blitz vom Himmel fallen’ (Lk 10,18).” ZNW 79: 187–­203. ———. 1994. “Die Waagschalen von Leben und Tod: Zum antiken Hintergrund von Phil 1,21–­26.” ZNW 85: 93–­115. Volz, P. 1934. Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter. 2nd edition. Tübingen: Mohr. Wachsmann, S., ed. 1990. The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee [Lake Kinneret]. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Wachsmuth, C., and O. Hense, eds. 1958 [1884–­1912]. Joannis Stobaei Anthologium. Berlin: Weidmann. Waetjen, H. C. 2001. “The Subversion of ‘World’ by the Parable of the Friend at Midnight.” JBL 120: 703–­21. Wagner, J. R. 1997. “Psalm 118 in Luke–­Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread.” Pages 154–­78 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. JSNT.S 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Wagner, V. 2001. “Mit der Herkunft Jesu aus Nazaret gegen die Geltung des Gesetzes?” ZNW 92: 273–­82. Wainwright, A. W. 1977/1978. “Luke and the Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel.” ET 89: 76–­79. Walaskay, P. W. 1975. “The Trial and Death of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke.” JBL 94: 81–­93. Waldmann, W. 1902. Die Feindesliebe in der antiken Welt und im Christenthum. Vienna: Mayer. Wall, R. W. 1987. “‘The Finger of God’: Deuteronomy 9.10 and Luke 11.20.” NTS 33: 144–­50. ———. 1989. “ὌΡΘΡΟΣ.” TAPA 119: 201–­7. Walz, C. 1968 [1832–­1836]. Rhetores Graeci. Osnabruck: Zeller. Wander, B. 1998. Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten. Tübingen: Mohr. Wanke, J. 1973a. Beobachtungen zum Eucharistieverständnis des Lukas auf Grund der lukanischen Mahlberichte. ETS 8. Leipzig: Benno. ———. 1973b. Die Emmauserzählung. ETS 31. Leipzig: Benno. ———. 1974. “‘. . . wie sie ihn beim Brotbrechen erkannten’: Zur Auslegung der Emmauserzählung Lk 24,13-35.” BZ NF 18: 180–­92. ———. 1981. “Bezugs- und Kommentarworte” in den synoptischen Evangelien­. ETS 44. Leipzig: Benno. Wargnies, P. 2003. “Théophile ouvre l’évangile (Luc 1–­4).” NRTh 125: 77–­88. Wasserberg, G. 1998. Aus Israels Mitte—­Heil für die Welt: Eine narrativ-exegetische Studie zur Theologie des Lukas­. BZNW 92. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

658

Bibliography

Watt, J. M. 1999. “Pronouns of Shame and Disgrace in Luke 22.63-64.” Pages 223–­ 34 in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament. Edited by S. E. Porter and J. T. Reed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Wattles, J. 1996. The Golden Rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weatherly, J. A. 1994. Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke–­Acts. JSNT.S 106. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Webb, R. L. 1991a. “The Activity of John the Baptist’s Expected Figure at the Threshing Floor (Matthew 3.12 = Luke 3.17).” JSNT 43: 103–­11. ———. 1991b. John the Baptizer and Prophet. JSNT.S 62. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Weber, K. 1993. “Is There a Qumran Parallel to Matthew 24,51 // Luke 12,46?” RdQ 16: 657–­63. Weber, T. 2002. Gadara Decapolitana. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wedderburn, A. J. M. 2002. “The ‘We’-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma.” ZNW 93: 78–­98. Weder, H. 1984. Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern. 3rd edition. FRLANT 120. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wegener, E. P. 1942. Some Oxford Papyri [P. Oxford]. Leiden: Brill. Wegner, U. 1985. Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum. WUNT 2/14. Tübingen: Mohr. Wehnert, J. 1989. Die Wir-Passagen der Apostelgeschichte: Ein lukanisches Stilmittel aus jüdischer Tradition. GTA 40. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wehr, L. 1998. “Die Rettung der ‘Kleinen.’ Der Auftrag der Jüngergemeinde nach Lc 17,1­-10.” Pages 65–­83 in Für euch Bischof–­mit euch Christ: Festschrift Friedrich Kardinal Wetter. Edited by M. Weitlauff and P. Neuner. St. Ottilien: EOS. Weiher, E. von. 1983. Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Vol. 2. Berlin: Mann. Weihs, A. 2003. Jesus und das Schicksal der Propheten. BThSt 61. Neukirchen-­ Vluyn: Neukirchener. Weinert, F. D. 1977. “The Parable of the Throne Claimant (Luke 19:12, 14-15a, 27) Reconsidered.” CBQ 39: 505–­14. ———. 1982. “Luke, the Temple and Jesus’ Saying about Jerusalem’s Abandoned House (Luke 13:34-35).” CBQ 44: 68–­76. ———. 1983. “The Multiple Meanings of Luke 2:49 and Their Significance.” BTB 13: 19–­22. Weinreich, O. 1969 [1909]. Antike Heilungswunder. RVV 8/1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Weiser, A. 1971. Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien. StANT 29. Munich: Kösel. ———. 1996. “Zuvorkommendes Erbarmen (Lk 15,20).” Pages 259–­71 in Schrift und Tradition: Festschrift Josef Ernst. Edited by K. Backhaus and F. G. Untergassmair. Paderborn: Schöningh. Weiss, B. 1889 [11886]. Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 2nd edition. Berlin: Hertz. ———. 1907. Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums. Stuttgart: Cotta. Weiss, W. 1989. “Eine neue Lehre in Vollmacht”: Die Streit- und Schulgespr­äche des Markusevangeliums. BZNW 52. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.



Bibliography 659

Weissenrieder, A. 2002. “Die Plage der Unreinheit? Das antike Krankheitskonstrukt ‘Blufluss’ in Lk 8,43-48.” Pages 75–­85 in Jesus in neuen Kontexten. Edited by W. Stegemann. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ———. 2003. Images of Illness in the Gospel of Luke. WUNT 2/164. Tübingen: Mohr. Weizsäcker, C. 1901 [1864]. Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung. 2nd edition. Tübingen: Mohr. Welker, M., and M. Wolter. 1999. “Die Unscheinbarkeit des Reiches Gottes.” Pages 103–­16 in Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie. Vol. 11, Reich Gottes. Edited by W. Härle and R. Preul. Marburg: Elwert Verlag. Wells, L. 1998. The Greek Language of Healing from Homer to New Testament Times. BZNW 83. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Welzen, H. 1989. “Loosening and Binding: Luke 13.10-21 as Programme and Anti­ programme of the Gospel of Luke.” Pages 175–­87 in Intertexuality in Biblical Writings: Festschrift Bas van Iersel. Edited by S. Draisma. Kampen: Kok. Wendland, E. R. 1996. “Finding Some Lost Aspects of Meaning in Christ’s Parables of the Lost and Found (Luke 15).” TrinJ 17: 19–­65. ———. 1997. “‘Blessed Is the Man Who Will Eat at the Feast in the Kingdom of God’ (Lk 14:15).” Neotest. 31: 159–­94. Wenk, M. 2000. Community-Forming Power: The Socio­-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke–­Acts. JPeTh.S 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Weren, W. 1981. “The Lord’s Supper: An Inquiry into the Coherence in Lk 22,14-38.” Pages 9–­26 in Fides sacramenti, sacramentum fidei. Studies in honor of Pieter Smulders. Edited by Hans Jörg auf der Mauer. Assen: Van Gorcum. West, M. L. 1994. Greek Lyric Poetry: The Poems and Fragments of the Greek Iambic, Elegiac, and Melic Poets (Excluding Pindar and Bacchylides) down to 450 BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Westermann, C. 1971. Grundformen prophetischer Rede. 4th edition. BEvTh 31. Munich: Kaiser. Wettstein, J. J. 1962 [1751/1752]. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editionis Receptae. 2 vols. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. White, K. D. 1964. “The Parable of the Sower.” JThS NS 13: 300–­307. Whitlark, J. A., and M. C. Parsons. 2006. “The ‘Seven’ Last Words: A Numerical Motivation for the Insertion of Luke 23.34a.” NTS 52: 188–­204. Wifstrand, A. 1964/1965. “Lukas XVIII.7.” NTS 11: 72–­74. Wilcken, U. 1957. Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit. Vol. 2, Papyri aus Oberägypten. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Wilckens, U. 1973. “Vergebung für die Sünderin (Lk 7,36-50).” Pages 394–­424 in Orientierung an Jesus: Festschrift Josef Schmid. Edited by P. Hoffmann, N. Brox, and W. Pesch. Freiburg: Herder. ———. 1998. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. NTD 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wilkens, W. 1974. “Die Versuchungsgeschichte Luk. 4.1-13 und die Komposition des Evangeliums.” ThZ 30: 262–­72. ———. 1976. “Die Auslassung von Mark. 6.45–­8.26 bei Lukas im Licht der Komposition Luk. 9,1-50.” ThZ 32: 193–­200. Wilkinson, J. 1980. “The Case of the Bent Woman.” Pages 70–­80 in Health and Healing: Studies in New Testament Principles and Practice. Edinburgh: Handsel.

660

Bibliography

Williams, D. S. 1989. “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel.” JBL 108: 477–­96. Wilson, S. G. 1973. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke–­Acts. MSSNTS 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1983. Luke and the Law. MSSNTS 50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Winandy, J. 1998. “Du kataluma à la crèche.” NTS 44: 618–­22. Wink, W. 1989. “Jesus’ Reply to John.” Forum 5: 121–­28. Winter, P. 1954/1955a. “The Cultural Background of the Narrative in Luke I and II.” JQR 45/46: 159–­67. ———. 1954/1955b. “Magnificat and Benedictus—­Maccabaean Psalms?” BJRL 37: 328–­47. Witherington III, B. 1979. “On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other Disciples—­Luke 8.1-3.” ZNW 70: 243–­48. ———. 1984. Women in the Ministry of Jesus. MSSNTS 51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wohlers, M. 1999a. “‘Aussätzige reinigt’ (Mt 10,8). Aussatz in antiker Medizin, Judentum und frühem Christentum.” Pages 294–­304 in Text und Geschichte: Festschrift Dieter Lührmann. Edited by S. Maser and E. Schlarb. MThSt 50. Marburg: Elwert. ———. 1999b. Heilige Krankheit: Epilepsie in antiker Medizin, Astrologie und Religion. Marburg: Elwert. Wohlstein, J. 1894. “Über einige aramäische Inschriften auf Thongefässen des Königlichen Museums zu Berlin.” ZA 9: 11–­41. Wolter, M. 1978. Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu Röm 5,1–­ 11. BZNW 43. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 1988a. “Die anonymen Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Annäherungsversuch an ein literarisches Phänomen.” ZNW 79: 1–­16. ———. 1988b. Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition. FRLANT 146. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1989. “Paulus, der bekehrte Gottesfeind. Zum Verständnis von 1.Tim 1:13.” NT 31: 48–­66. ———. 1990. “Der Apostel und seine Gemeinden als Teilhaber am Leidensgeschick Jesu Christi: Beobachtungen zur paulinischen Theologie.” NTS 36: 535–­57. ———. 1992. “Inschriftliche Heilungsberichte und neutestamentliche Wundererzählungen.” Pages 135–­75 in Studien und Texte zur Formgeschichte. Edited by K. Berger. TANZ 7. Tübingen: Francke. ———. 1995a. “‘Reich Gottes’ bei Lukas.” NTS 41: 451–­563. ———. 1995b. “‘Was heisset nu Gottes reich?’” ZNW 86: 5–­19. ———. 1997a. “Ethos und Identität in paulinischen Gemeinden.” NTS 43: 430–­44. ———. 1997b. “Israels Zukunft und die Parusieverzögerung bei Lukas.” Pages 405–­26 in Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Festschrift Erich Gräßer. Edited by M. Evang, H. Merklein, and M. Wolter. BZNW. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 1998a. “Die Juden und die Obrigkeit bei Lukas.” Pages 277–­90 in Ja und Nein: Festschrift Wolfgang Schrage. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 1998b. “Wann wurde Maria schwanger?” Pages 405–­22 in Von Jesus zum Christus. Christologische Studien: Festschrift Paul Hoffmann. Edited by R. Hoppe and U. Busse. BZNW 93. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.



Bibliography 661

———. 2000a. “Erstmals unter Quirinius! Zum Verständnis von Lk 2,2.” BN 102: 35–­41. ———. 2000b. “Die Hirten in der Weihnachtsgeschichte (Lk 2,8-20).” Pages 501–­17 in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift Klaus Berger. Edited by A. von Dobbeler, K. Erlemann, and R. Heiligenthal. Tübingen: Francke. ———. 2002a. “‘Gericht’ und ‘Heil’ bei Jesus von Nazareth und Johannes dem Täufer.” Pages 355–­92 in Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung. Edited by J. Schröter and R. Brucker. BZNW 114. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 2002b. “Lk 15 als Streitgespräch.” EThL 78: 25–­56. ———. 2003/2004. “Reconstructing Q?” ET 115: 115–­19. ———. 2004a. “‘Ihr sollt aber wissen . . .’ Das Anakoluth nach ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε in Mark 2.10­-11parr.” ZNW 95: 269–­75. ———. 2004b. “Das lukanische Doppelwerk als Epochengeschichte.” Pages 185–­ 207 in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung: Festschrift Eckhard Plümacher. Edited by C. Breytenbach and J. Schröter. AJEC 57. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2005a. “Apokalyptik als Redeform im Neuen Testament.” NTS 51: 171–­91. ———. 2005b. “Der Heilstod Jesu als theologisches Argument.” Pages 297–­313 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu. Edited by J. Frey and J. Schröter. 181 WUNT. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2011. “Bed. II. New Testament.” Pages 730–­31 in EBR 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Woods, E. J. 2001. The “Finger of God” and Pneumatology in Luke–­Acts. JSNT.S 205. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Wrege, H. T. 1968. Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt. WUNT 9. Tübingen: Mohr. Wright, A. G. 1982. “The Widow’s Mites: Praise or Lament?” CBQ 44: 256–­65. Wuellner, W. H. 1967. The Meaning of “Fishers of Men.” Philadelphia: Westminster. ———. 1991. “The Rhetorical Genre of Jesus’ Sermon.” Pages 93–­118 in Persuasive Artistry: Festschrift George A. Kennedy. Edited by D. Watson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Yamasaki, G. 2006. “Point of View in a Gospel Story: What Difference Does It Make? Luke 19:1­10 as a Test Case.” JBL 125: 89–­105. York, J. O. 1991. The Last Shall Be First: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke. JSNT.S 46. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Youtie, H. C. 1977. “P. Mich. Inv. 855: Letter from Herakleides to Nemesion.” ZPE 27: 147–­50. Ytterbrink, M. 2004. The Third Gospel for the First Time: Luke within the Context of Ancient Biography. Lund: Lund University. Zahn, T. 1902. “Das Land der Gadarener, Gerasener oder Gergesener.” NKZ 13: 923–­45. ———. 1904. Grundriss der Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons. 2nd edition. Leipzig: Deichert. Zedda, S. 1974. “Πορευόμενοι συμπνίγονται (Lc 8,14).” ED 27: 92–­108. Zeller, D. 1969. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. WMANT 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.

662

Bibliography

———. 1971/1972. “Das Logion Mt 8,11f / Lk 13,28 und das Motiv der ‘Völkerwallfahrt.’” BZ NF 15/16: 222–­37, 84–­93. ———. 1977a. “Die Bildlogik des Gleichnisses Mt 11,16f/Lk 7,31f.” ZNW 68: 252–­57. ———. 1977b. Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern. FzB 17. Würzburg: Echter. ———. 1985. “Entrückung zur Ankunft als Menschensohn (Lk 13,34f.; 11,29f).” Pages 513–­30 in À cause de l’évangile: Festschrift Jacques Dupont. LeDiv 123. Paris: Cerf. ———. 1992. “Geburtsankündigung und Geburtsverkündigung.” Pages 59–­134 in Studien und Texte zur Formgeschichte. Edited by K. Berger. TANZ 7. Tübingen: Francke. ———. 1999. “Bedeutung und religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund der Verwandlung Jesu.” Pages 303–­21 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by B. D. Chilton and C. A. Evans. NTTS 28/2. Leiden: Brill. Zerwick, M. 1959. “Die Parabel vom Thronanwärter.” Bib. 40: 654–­74. ———. 1966. Graecitas Biblica. 5th edition. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Ziegler, I. 1903. Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch, beleuchtet durch die römische Kaiserzeit. Breslau: Schottlaender. Ziesler, J. A. 1978/1979. “Luke and the Pharisees.” NTS 25: 146–­57. Zimmermann, C. 2007. Die Namen des Vaters: Studien zu ausgewählten neutestament­ lichen Gottesbezeichnungen vor ihrem frühjüdischen und paganen Sprachhorizont. AJEC 69. Leiden: Brill. Zimmermann, H., and K. Kliesch. 1982. Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre. 7th edition. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Zimmermann, J. 1998. “Observations on 4Q246—­The ‘Son of God.’” Pages 175–­90 in Qumran-Messianism. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr. Zimmermann, R. 2001. Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhältnis: Traditionsge­ schichte und Theologie eines Bildfeldes in Urchristentum und antiker Umwelt. WUNT 2/122. Tübingen: Mohr. Zmijewski, J. 1972. Die Eschatologiereden des Lukas-Evangeliums. BBB 40. Bonn: Hanstein. Zohary, M. 1995. Pflanzen der Bibel. 3rd edition. Stuttgart: Calwer. Zuckschwerdt, E. 1975. “Nazōraios in Matth. 2,23.” ThZ 31: 65–­77. Zwickel, W. 1994. “Emmaus: Ein neuer Versuch.” BN 74: 33–­36. Zwiep, A. W. 1996. “The Text of the Ascension Narratives.” NTS 42: 219–­44. ———. 1997. The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology. NT.S 87. Leiden: Brill. Zyl, H. C. van. 2002. “The Soteriological Meaning of Jesus’ Death in Luke–­Acts. A Survey of Possibilities.” VEccl 23: 533–­57.