Luke 18:35-24:53, Volume 35C (35) (Word Biblical Commentary) 9780310521952, 0310521955

Table of contents :
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Contents
Editor’s Note
Editorial Preface
Author’s Preface
Abbreviations
Commentary Bibliography
General Bibliography
Reaching the City of Destiny (18:35–19:46)
“Jesus, Son of David Have Mercy On Me!” (18:35–43)
“The Son of Man Came to Seek and to Save the Lost” (19:1–10)
Going to a Distant Land to Receive Kingly Power (19:11–28)
Making a Royal Approach to Jerusalem (19:29–40)
Lamenting the Coming Fate of Jerusalem (19:41–44)
Symbolic Protest In the Temple (19:45–46)
Teaching Daily In the Temple (19:47–21:38)
Hostility from the Leaders, With Adulation from the People (19:47–48)
“By What Authority Do You Do These Things?” (20:1–8)
The Fate of the Wicked Tenant Farmers (20:9–19)
“Is It Lawful to Pay Tribute to Caesar?” (20:20–26)
“At the Resurrection, Whose Wife Will This Woman Be?” (20:27–40)
“How Is It That [People] Say That the Christ Is to Be a Son of David?” (20:41–44)
Criticism of Scribes (20:45–47)
The Giving of the Rich and the Poor (21:1–4)
The Coming Destruction of the Temple (21:5–6)
The Buildup to the Coming Devastation (21:7–11)
Persecution Comes First of All (21:12–19)
The Devastation of Jerusalem (21:20–24)
Judgment of the Nations, and the Coming of the Son of Man (21:25–28)
New Leaves Herald the Summer (21:29–33)
The Vigilant and Prayerful Will Stand Before the Son of Man (21:34–36)
Days In the Temple and Nights On the Mount of Olives (21:37–38)
The Passion Narrative (22:1–23:56)
Conspiracy to Arrest Jesus (22:1–2)
Betrayal By Judas (22:3–6)
Arrangements for the Passover Meal (22:7–13)
The Last Supper (22:14–20)
Jesus’ Awareness of His Betrayal (22:21–23)
The Great Are to Serve, While Those Who Haved Shared Jesus’ Trials Will Gain Royal Stature (22:24–30)
Satanic Sifting and Denial of Jesus (22:31–34)
New Rules for a Time of Crisis (22:35–38)
Praying to Be Spared Trial (22:39–46)
The Arrest of Jesus (22:47–54a)
The Denials of Peter (22:54b–62)
Jesus Mocked In Custody (22:63–65)
Jesus Brought Before the Sanhedrin (22:66–71)
Jesus Brought Before Pilate (23:1–5)
Jesus Sent to Appear Before Herod (23:6–12)
Pilate Declares Jesus Innocent (23:13–16)
Under Pressure, Pilate Capitulates to the Will of the Crowd (23:[17]18–25)
On the Way to Execution (23:26–32)
Jesus Crucified and Mocked (23:33–38)
Jesus and the Two Criminals (23:39–43)
The Death of Jesus (23:44–49)
The Burial of Jesus (23:50–56)
The Resurrection Narrative (24:1–53)
The Women and Peter Find an Empty Tomb (24:1–12)
Jesus Appears On the Road to Emmaus (24:13–35)
Jesus Appears to the Disciples In Jerusalem (24:36–43)
Jesus Instructs and Expounds Scripture (24:44–49)
Jesus Ascends to Heaven (24:50–53)
Bibliographical Addenda to Volume 35A
Indexes
Index of Authors
Index of Principal Topics
Index of Biblical and Other Ancient Sources

Citation preview

W ORD BIBLICAL COM M ENTARY

Editorial Board O ld Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaisse-Walford (2011 - ) New Testam ent Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013 - )

Past Editors General Editors Ralph P. Martin (2012 - 2013) Bruce M. Metzger (1997 - 2007)

David A. H ubbard (1977 - 1996) Glenn W. Barker (1977 - 1984)

Old Testament Editors: Jo h n D . W. Watts (1977 - 2011)

Jam es W. Watts (1997 - 2011)

New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin (1977 - 2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997 - 2013)

Volumes 1 2 3 4 5 6a

Genesis 1 - 15 Gordon J W enham Genesis 16 - 50 Gordon J W enham Exodus........................ Jo h n I Durham Leviticus Jo h n E. Hartley Num bers Philip J. B udd D euteronom y 1:1 - 21:9, 2nd ed D uane L Christensen 6b D euteronom y 21:10 - 3 4 :1 2 ........... D uane L. Christensen 7a Joshua 1-12, 2nd ed Trent C Butler 7b Joshua 13-24, 2nd ed. Trent C Butler 8 Judges Trent C Butler 9 Ruth - Esther Frederic W Bush 10 1 Samuel, 2nd ed Ralph W Klein 11 2 Samuel A A A nderson Simon J Devries 12 1 Kings, 2nd e d .......... 13 2 Kings........................ ..................T. R. Hobbs 14 1 Chronicles Roddy Braun 15 2 Chronicles Raymond B Dillard 16 Ezra, Nehem iah . .H . G. M . Williamson 17 Jo b 1 - 20 David J A Clines David J A Clines 18a Job 21 - 3 7 .................. 18b Job 38 - 42 .................. David J A Clines 19 Psalms 1 - 50, 2nd ed Peter C Craigie, Marvin E Tate Marvin E Tate 20 Psalms 51 - 1 0 0 ......... Leslie C Allen 21 Psalms 101 - 150, rev ed R oland E M urphy 22 Proverbs 23a Ecclesiastes R oland E M urphy 23b Song o f Songs/L am entations . . . .D uane H. Garrett, Paul R. House Jo h n D W Watts 24 Isaiah 1 - 33, rev. ed. . Jo h n D W Watts 25 Isaiah 34 - 66, rev. e d . Peter C Craigie, 26 Jerem iah 1 - 25 Page H. Kelley, Joel F. D rinkard J r Gerald L Keown, 27 Jerem iah 26 - 52 Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G Smothers *forthcoming as of 2014 **in revision as of 2014

28 Ezekiel 1 - 1 9 ............................ Leslie C. Allen 29 Ezekiel 20 - 4 8 .......................... Leslie C. Allen 30 Daniel Jo h n E. Goldingay 31 H osea - J o n a h * * ....................Douglas Stuart 32 Micah - M alachi**..................Ralph L. Smith 33a Matthew 1 - 13..................Donald A. H agner 33b Matthew 14 - 28............... Donald A. H agner 34a Mark 1 - 8:26** R obert A Guelich 34b Mark 8:27 - 16:20 ................... Craig A. Evans 35a Luke 1 - 9 :2 0 .............................Jo h n Nolland 35b Luke 9:21 - 18:34......................Jo h n Nolland 35c Luke 18:35 - 24:53....................Jo h n Nolland 36 John, 2nd ed. . . . George R. Beasley-Murray 37a Acts 1 - 1 4 * .........................Stephen J. Walton 37b Acts 15 - 28* Stephen J Walton 38a Rom ans 1 - 8 Jam es D G D unn 38b Romans 9 - 1 6 ...................James D . G. D unn 39 1 Corinthians* Andrew D Clarke 40 2 Corinthians, rev e d Ralph P Martin 41 Galatians Richard N. Longenecker 42 Ephesians Andrew T Lincoln 43 Philippians, rev. ed. . . .Gerald F. Hawthorne, rev by Ralph P Martin 44 Colossians, Philemon** . . . Peter T. O'Brien 45 1 & 2 T hessalonians**..................F. F. Bruce 46 Pastoral Epistles William D M ounce 47a Hebrews 1 - 8 .......................... William L. Lane 47b Hebrews 9 - 13........................William L. Lane 48 Jam es Ralph P Martin 49 1 Peter J. Ramsey Michaels 50 Jude, 2 P e te r* * ........... Richard J. Bauckham 51 1, 2, 3, Jo h n , rev ed Stephen S Smalley 52a Revelation 1 - 5 David E Aune 52b Revelation 6 - 1 6 .......................David E. Aune 52c Revelation 17 - 2 2 ................... David E. Aune

WORD 5 3c BIBLICAL COMMENTARY Luke 18:35-24:53

JOHN NOLLAND General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie

ZONDERVAN®

ZONDERVAN Luke 18:35-24:53, Volume 35C Copyright © 1993 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Previously published as Luke 19-24. Formerly published by Thomas Nelson, now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollinsChristian Publishing. Requests for information should be addressed to: Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 This edition: ISBN 978-0-310-52195-2 The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows: Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211 The author’s own translation of the Scripture text appears in italic type under the heading Translation. 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, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

9780310521952_Luke_vol35C.indd 4

1/8/15 1:32 PM

To my mother and in memory of my father

Editor’s Note

For the convenience of the reader, page numbers for volumes one, two, and three of this commentary on Luke (35a , 35b , and 35c) are included in the Con tents. Page numbers for the volume in hand are printed in boldface type, while those for the other volumes are in lightface. In addition, all of the front matter from Vol. 35a but the Introduction has been repeated in Vol. 35c so that the reader may have abbreviations, bibliogra phy, and other pertinent information readily at hand.

Contents

Editorial Preface Author's Preface Abbreviations Commentary Bibliography General Bibliography T ext

and

C om m entary

Dedicatory Preface (1:1-4) The Infancy Prologue (1:5-2:52) J o h n ’s Birth A nnounced (1:5-25) Jesus’ Birth A nnounced (1:26-38) Mary Visits Elizabeth (1:39-56) Birth, Circumcision, and Naming of Jo h n (1:57-66) Zechariah’s Prophecy (1:67-80) The Birth of Jesus (2:1-21) Presentation and Recognition in the Tem ple (2:22-40) In the House of His Father (2:41-52) Preparation for the Ministry o f Jesus (3:1-4:13) Jo h n the Baptist (3:1-6) The Preaching of Jo h n (3:7-18) The Im prisonm ent of Jo h n (3:19-20) Jesus Endowed with the Spirit and Affirmed as Son (3:21-22) The Genealogy o f Jesus (3:23-38) Tem ptations of the Son in the W ilderness (4:1-13) Preaching in the Synagogues of the Jews (4:14-44) R eturn to Galilee (4:14-15) Preaching in N azareth (4:16-30) Preaching in C apernaum (4:31-37) H ealing Sim on’s Mother-in-Law (4:38-39) H ealing Mary at Sundown (4:40-41) Leaving C apernaum for a W ider Ju d ean Ministry (4:42-44) Making a Response to Jesus (5:1-6:16) Fishing Associates for Jesus (5:1-11) The Cleansing of a Leper (5:12-16) The Forgiveness of a Paralyzed Man (5:17-26) The New and the Old: The Call of Levi, Eating with Sinners, and the Q uestion of Fasting (5:27-39) Provision for the Sabbath by the Son of Man (6:1-5) Doing Good on the Sabbath (6:6-11)

xi xii xv xxxiv xxxvi 1

3 13 13 36 59 77 81 93 113 126 136 136 145 155 157 166 174 184 184 188 203 209 212 214 218 218 224 229 239 251 259

viii

Contents

The Call of the Twelve Apostles (6:12-16) A Serm on for the Disciples: The Status and D em ands of Being the Eschatological People of God (6:17-49) Disciples and People Come to H ear and Be H ealed (6:17-19) Beatitudes and Woes (6:20-26) The Call to Love of Enem ies and N onjudgm ental Generosity (6:27-38) T he Im portance of W hat Jesus Teaches and the N eed to Act upon It (6:39-49) Som ething G reater than Jo h n Is H ere (7:1-50) The Authority of Jesus over Life and Death (7:1-10) God Has Visited His People (7:11-17) Are You the Coming One? (7:18-23) W hat Was in the Wilderness? (7:24-28) Jo h n and Jesus, and This G eneration and the C hildren of Wisdom (7:29-35) The Pharisee and the Sinful W oman (7:36-50) Itinerant Preaching with the Twelve and the W om en (8:1-9:20) Itinerant Preaching with the Twelve and the W om en (8:1-3) P otent Seed and Varied Soils (8:4-8) Knowing the Secrets of the Kingdom of God (8:9-10) The Parable Explained (8:11-15) Take Care W hat You H ear (8:16-18) Jesus’ M other and Brothers (8:19-21) The Stilling of the Storm (8:22-25) The H ealing of the Gerasene Dem oniac (8:26-39) Jairus’ D aughter and the W oman with the Flow of Blood (8:40-56) Sharing in Jesus’ Ministry (9:1-6) Who T hen Is This? (9:7-9) Feeding the M ultitudes (9:10-17) “[We Say You Are] the Christ of G od” (9:18-20) Making Ready for the Trip to Jerusalem (9:21-50) Tell No O ne, Because the Son of Man Must Suffer (9:21-22) Excursus: Son of Man To Follow Me, You Must Give Away Your Life to Gain It (9:23-27) A Foretaste of Jesus’ Future Glory (9:28-36) Jesus Heals a Possessed Boy W hen the Disciples C annot (9:37-43a) The Son of Man Is to Be Delivered Up (9:43b-45) Who Is the Greatest? (9:46-48) The Exorcist Who Was N ot Part of the G roup (9:49-50) Excursus: TheJourney toJerusalem

262 273 273 277 291 304 312 312 319 325 333 339 349 363 363 368 377 381 388 392 395 402 415 424 429 433 447 457 457 468 474 487 505 511 516 522 525

Contents

Accompanying Jesus to Jerusalem (9:51-10:24) Rejection in a Village of the Samaritans (9:51-56) Following Jesus w ithout Qualification (9:57-62) Mission Charge for the Seventy Who Are Sent Ahead (10:1-16) The Return of the Seventy(-Two) (10:17-20) Jesus Rejoices at W hat God Has Now Been Pleased to Reveal ( 1 0 : 2 1 5 6 7 Love of God and Love of N eighbor (10:25-42) W hat Shall I Do to In h erit Eternal Life? (10:25-28) Who Is My Neighbor? (10:29-37) The O ne Necessary Thing (10:38-42) Confident Prayer to the Father (11:1-13) Praying like Jesus (11:1-4) H elp from a Friend (11:5-8) Asking as a Son of the Father (11:9-13) Conflict and C ontrast (11:14-54) Casting out Demons by the Finger of God (11:14-23) The False H ope of a Tem porary Benefit (11:24-26) Who Is Blessed? (11:27-28) No Sign but the “Sign” of Jo n ah (11:29-32) Making Good Use of the Lamps (11:33-36) Woes against Pharisees and Lawyers (11:37-54) Preparing for the Coming Ju d g m en t (12:1-13:9) The N eed for a Clear-cut Acknowledgment of Jesus (12:1-12) The Folly of Preoccupation with Possessions (12:13-21) The G enerous Provider Requires G enerous Disciples ( 1 2 : 2 2 6 8 9 Be Ready and Alert, and on the Job for the Master (12:35-48) The Prospect of Fire, Baptism, and Division (12:49-53) Interpreting the Present Time (12:54-56) U nder Accusation and on the Way to the C ourt of Justice! (12:57-59) The N eed for Timely R epentance (13:1-9) Reversals Now and to Come (13:10-14:35) Releasing on the Sabbath the O ne B ound by Satan (13:10-17) The Kingdom of God Is like M ustard Seed (13:18-19) The Kingdom of God Is like Leaven (13:20-21) “Is It T rue that Those Who Are Saved Will Be Few?” ( 1 3 : 2 2 7 3 1 Jesus’ Fate in, and the Fate of, Jerusalem (13:31-35) H ealing on the Sabbath the Man with Dropsy (14:1-6) “W hen You Are Invited to a B a n q u e t. . .” (14:7-11)

ix

532 532 538 545 560

578 578 586 598 607 607 621 627 633 633 644 647 649 655 659 673 673 682 (34‫־‬ 696 706 710 713 715 721 721 726 729

737 744 747

X

Contents

“W hen You Are Going to Give a L uncheon or a D inner . .." (14:12-14) Who “Shall Eat Bread in the Kingdom of G od”? (14:15-24) The Disciple’s Fate, and the Possibility of Failed Discipleship (14:25-35) T hat W hich Was Lost Is Found (15:1-32) The Joy of Finding the O ne Lost Sheep (15:1-7) The Joy of Finding the Lost Coin (15:8-10) T he Father and His Two Sons: “We H ad to Make M erry” (15:11-32) Use and Abuse of Riches (16:1-31) The Dishonest Steward: “W hat A m I Going to Do?” (16:1-8) Serving God and Using M amm on (16:9-13) Lovers of Money and Seekers of H o n o r (16:14-15) The Dem ands of the Law and the Prophets, and Those of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (16:16-18) The O utcom e of Life for the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31) Fitting Response to the D em and and W orking of the Kingdom of God (17:1-19) Dealing with Sin in the Disciple Comm unity (17:1-6) “We Are Slaves to W hom No Favor Is Owed” (17:7-10) The Response of Faith to the H ealing Mercy of God (17:11-19) Who Will Be Ready W hen the Son of Man Comes? (17:20-18:8) W hen Will the Kingdom of God Come? (17:20-21) The Days of the Son of Man (17:22-37) Speedy Vindication for Any Who Have Faith (18:1-8) E ntering the Kingdom like a Child (18:9-30) The Pharisee and the Tax Collector at Prayer (18:9-14) Entering the Kingdom of God like a Child (18:15-17) “W hat Must I Do to In h erit Eternal Life?” (18:18-23) “How H ard It Is for Those Who Have Money to Enter the Kingdom of God!” (18:24-30) “Everything W ritten about the Son of Man Will Be Carried O u t” (18:31-34) Reaching the City of Destiny (18:35-19:46) ‘Jesus, Son of David have Mercy on M e!” (18:35-43) “The Son of Man Came to Seek and to Save the Lost” (19:1-10) Going to a Distant Land to Receive Kingly Power (19:11-28) Making a Royal A pproach to Jerusalem (19:29-40) Lam enting the Coming Fate of Jerusalem (19:41-44) Symbolic Protest in the Tem ple (19:45-46) Teaching Daily in the Tem ple (19:47-21:38) Hostility from the Leaders, with A dulation from the People (19:47-48)

749 752 759 767 767 774 777 792 792 804 809 811 823 834 834 840 843 849 849 854 864 872 872 880 883 888 894 897 897 902 908 919 929 933 939

939

Contents

“By W hat Authority Do You Do These Things?” (20:1-8) The Fate of the Wicked T en an t Farmers (20:9-19) “Is It Lawful to Pay Tribute to Caesar?” (20:20-26) “At the Resurrection, Whose Wife Will This W oman Be?” (20:27-40) “How Is It T hat [People] Say T hat the Christ Is to Be a Son of David?” (20:41-44) Criticism of Scribes (20:45-47) The Giving of the Rich and the Poor (21:1-4) The Coming Destruction of the Tem ple (21:5-6) The Buildup to the Coming Devastation (21:7-11) Persecution Comes First of All (21:12-19) The Devastation of Jerusalem (21:20-24) Judgm ent of the Nations, and the Coming of the Son of Man (21:25-28) New Leaves H erald the Sum m er (21:29-33) The Vigilant and Prayerful Will Stand before the Son of Man (21:34-36) Days in the Tem ple and Nights on the M ount of Olives (21:37-38) The Passion Narrative (22:1-23:56) Conspiracy to Arrest Jesus (22:1-2) Betrayal by Judas (22:3-6) A rrangem ents for the Passover Meal (22:7-13) The Last Supper (22:14-20) Jesus’ Awareness of His Betrayal (22:21-23) The G reat Are to Serve, While Those Who Haved Shared Jesus’ Trials Will Gain Royal Stature (22:24-30) Satanic Sifting and Denial of Jesus (22:31-34) New Rules for a Time of Crisis (22:35-38) Praying to Be Spared Trial (22:39-46) The Arrest of Jesus (22:47-54a) The Denials of Peter (22:54b-62) Jesus M ocked in Custody (22:63-65) Jesus Brought before the Sanhedrin (22:66-71) Jesus Brought before Pilate (23:1-5) Jesus Sent to A ppear before H erod (23:6-12) Pilate Declares Jesus Innocent (23:13-16) U nder Pressure, Pilate Capitulates to the Will of the Crowd (23: [17] 18-25) O n the Way to Execution (23:26-32) Jesus Crucified and M ocked (23:33-38) Jesus and the Two Criminals (23:39-43) The D eath of Jesus (23:44-49)

xi

941 945 955 961 969 974 977 981 989 994 999 1004 1007 1011 1014 1016 1016 1028 1031 1035 1057 1061 1068 1074 1078 1085 1090 1097 1100 1113 1120 1125 1128 1134 1139 1149 1153

xii

Contents

The Burial of Jesus (23:50-56) The Resurrection Narrative (24:1-53) The Women and Peter Find an Empty Tomb (24:1-12) Jesus Appears on the Road to Emmaus (24:13-35) Jesus Appears to the Disciples in Jerusalem (24:36-43) Jesus Instructs and Expounds Scripture (24:44-49) Jesus Ascends to Heaven (24:50-53) Bibliographical Addenda to Volume 35a Indexes

1161 1168 1168 1194 1209 1216 1222 1231 1245

Editorial Preface

The launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell. First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel. Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our dis tinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to the theological understanding of Scripture understandable by—and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well. Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes. If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded. General Editors:

David A. Hubbard Glenn W. Barker Old Testament: John D. W. Watts New Testament: Ralph P. Martin

XIV

Author’s Preface

In 1966 W. C. van Unnik wrote an article under the title “Luke-Acts, A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship” (In Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn). It is probably fair to say that the intensity of the storm has since considerably abated, but there has continued to be an immense devotion of schol arly labor dedicated to the elucidation of the Lukan writings. And as some issues in dispute have clarified with the emergence of a good degree of scholarly con sensus, other issues have come forward to take their place as matters in hot dispute. A commentary such as the present one is partly a digest of the present state of this ongoing debate. In this guise it seeks to synthesize the insights that are scat tered through the specialist literature and to evaluate in connection with the development of a coherent understanding of the whole Lukan enterprise the competing suggestions that have been offered in the literature for the under standing of individual items. It has, however, also been my intention to offer a fresh reading of each passage of the Gospel. In this guise the perusal of the lit erature has been a kind of apprenticeship or an initiation, entitling me to move on beyond the place where the accumulated discussion has taken us. Here my ambition has been to improve the answers that have been given to the issues thrown up by the particular features of the individual passages and at points to add my own questions to the scholarly agenda. I have focused my engagement with the scholarly literature on the journal literature and the specialist monographs rather than upon the existing commen taries, largely because of the greater possibility there for exploring the detailed reasoning that stands behind the particular judgments which have been made. That said, I have learned much from the commentators. Schurmann and Fitzmyer have been constant companions. Marshall and Grundmann have also been of special use, as in different ways have the earlier works of Schlatter, Godet, and Loisy. Other commentators have periodically left their mark upon the present work. D. M. Goulder’s recent work (Luke: A New Paradigm [2 vols., JSNTSup 20; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989]) did not appear before the manuscript left my hands in January 1989. I have tried to keep an eye constantly upon Luke’s second volume, and the scholarship devoted to its elucidation, but here I have necessarily been much more selective. While I have attempted to take something like comprehensive responsibility for all the issues involved in attempting to provide a modern reading of the an cient Lukan text, inevitably my own sense of the relative importance of things, as well as of my own areas of greater strength, will be reflected in the allocation of space (and of effort). The central paradigm for my work has been provided by seeing the Gospel text as an exercise in communication, deliberately undertaken by the Gospel writer with at least some focused sense of the actual or potential needs of his audience. I use “communication” here in a broad sense to encom pass all the ways in which the Gospel may be intended to have an impact upon the reader.

Author's Preface

xv

To give one example that goes beyond what we might call the theological mes sage of the book, there is a considerable sense of literature about Luke’s work. Some of that will be due to Luke’s instincts as artist and in that sense will be an expression of his own person as artist; some of that will be due to the fact that Luke stands heir (from the Old Testament, but also from his Christian context) to a narrative method of doing theology, along with which comes an investment in the artistry of story-telling; but for part of the explanation of this literary phe nomenon we need to look in a totally nonliterary direction. Luke’s ambition was not to make a name for himself in the literary world of the day (his work prob ably does not come up to the level). His efforts were directed towards being taken with a certain kind of seriousness in this attempt that he has made to commend and elucidate the Christian faith: Luke seeks to write at a level that would com mend itself to the cultural level of his readers and implicitly make certain claims about how they as readers should orient themselves to his work. That is, Luke uses literary means to nonliterary ends. With an eye upon each of these roles for literary technique, I have sought to pay particular attention to the literary strate gies of Luke at both the micro-level and the macro-level. While the main paradigm for inquiry has been provided by a concern for the nexus of communication, the commentary also pays considerable attention to issues concerning the ultimate origin of the materials that Luke has used. Luke seems to have a concern to present his material as capable of standing up to “secular” scrutiny. He is the Gospel writer who is most clearly aware of a distance between his own reporting and the events that it is his concern to report (Luke 1:1-4), and he is the one Gospel writer who seems to work with a fairly clear conceptual distinction between the place for religious testimony and the role of “historical” evidence in commending the Christian faith. His own approach, therefore, invites our attention to the questions of origin. The commentary may be accessed at various levels. Most readers will find the Explanation for each passage the best point of entry. Here the major results of the detailed work of the earlier sections are outlined in nontechnical language. Also important for keeping in view the overall thrust of the Lukan text are the brief summaries which begin each major section of the commentary, and which at the next level down constitute the opening paragraphs for both the Form/Structure/ Setting and the Comment for each passage. Libraries are finally what make humanistic scholarship possible, and I am deeply grateful for the library resources that have been made available to me at Regent College, Vancouver; the University of British Columbia; Tyndale House Cambridge; the University of Cambridge; and Trinity College Bristol. I am par ticularly grateful for the inter-library loan services which have given me access to a great many items not held by the particular libraries where I have worked from time to time. I wish to pay a particular tribute to the series of teaching assistants who in the early years of this project gathered library resources for me and to Su Brown, assistant librarian at Trinity College Bristol, who was of such assistance in the final stages of readying the manuscript for the press. I owe a debt of gratitude to Regent College, for the year of sabbatical leave in which a considerable part of the manuscript was written. Finally I pay tribute to my wife Lisa and son David who have borne with my having this project on my mind for many a year, and particularly to my wife who

XVi

Author ’s Preface

"journeyed [with me to] a foreign land” far “away from [her] country and [her] kindred and [her] father’s house” in order that I might be able to stay in the kind of employment that would allow me to continue with this work. October 1989 Trinity College, Bristol

JO H N NOLLAND

Abbreviations

A. General Abbreviations

A ad Akkad. ‫א‬ Ap. Lit. Apoc. Aq. Arab. Aram. B C c. cent. cf. chap(s). cod., codd. contra CUP D DSS ed. e.g. et al. ET EV f., ff. fem. frag. FS ft. gen. Gr. hap. leg. Heb. Hitt. ibid.

Codex A lexandrinus com m ent on Akkadian Codex Sinaiticus Apocalyptic Literature A pocrypha A quila’s G reek Translation of the OT Arabic Aramaic Codex Vaticanus Codex E phraem i Syri circa, about century confer, com pare chapter (s) codex, codices in contrast to Cam bridge University Press Codex Bezae Dead Sea Scrolls edited by, editor (s) exempli gratia, for exam ple et alii, and others English translation English Versions of the Bible following (verse or verses, pages, etc.) fem inine fragm ents Festschrift, volume w ritten in h o n o r of foot, feet genitive Greek hapax legomenon, sole occurrence Hebrew H ittite ibidem, in the same place

id. i.e. impf. infra in loc. Jos. lat lit. loc. cit. LXX M masc. mg. MS(S) MT n. n.d. Nestle

no. n.s. NT obs. o.s. OT p., pp. pace / / , par(s). par. passim p l. Pseudep. Q q.v. rev. Rom. RVmg

idem, the same id est, th at is im perfect below in loco, in the place cited Josephus Latin literally the place cited Septuagint M ishna masculine m argin m anuscript(s) M asoretic text (of the Old Testament) note no date Nestle (ed.), Novum Testamentum Graece 26, rev. by K. and B. Aland n u m b er new series New Testam ent obsolete old series O ld T estam ent page, pages with due respect to, b ut differing from parallel (s) paragraph elsewhere plural P seudepigrapha Q uelle (“Sayings” source for the Gospels) quod vide, which see revised, reviser, revision Rom an Revised Version m argin

xviii

Sam. sc. Sem. sing. Sumer. s.v. sy Symm. Tg. T heod. TR tr.

A b b r e v ia t io n s

Sam aritan recension scilicet, that is to say Semitic singular Sum erian sub verbo, under the word Syriac Symmachus Targum T heodotion Textus Receptus translator, translated by

UBSGT

T he U nited Bible Societis G reek Text Ugaritic University Press ut supra, as above verse, verses videlicet, namely Vulgate ναriα lectio, alternative reading volume times (2x = two times,

Ugar. UP u.s. V, v

viz. vg v.l. vol. X

For abbreviations of G reek MSS used in Notes, see N estle26. B. Abbreviations for Translations and Paraphrases

AmT

AB ASV

AV GNB JB JPS KJV Knox

Smith and G oodspeed, The Complete Bible, A n American Translation A nchor Bible A m erican S tandard Version, A m erican Revised Version (1901) A uthorized Version = KJV G ood News Bible = Today’s English Version Jerusalem Bible Jewish Publication Society, The Holy Scriptures King Jam es Version (1611) = AV R. A. Knox, The Holy Bible: A Translation from the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Original

M offatt NAB NEB NIV NJB Phillips RSV

RV Wey Wms

J. Moffatt, A New Translation of the Bible (NT 1913) T he New A m erican Bible T he New English Bible T he New In tern atio n al Version (1978) New Jerusalem Bible (1985) J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English Revised Standard Version (NT 1946, OT 1952, Apoc. 1957) Revised Version, 1881-85 R. F. W eymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech C. B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People

C. Abbreviations of Commonly Used Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials

AARSR

AAS AASOR

AB ABR AbrN

A m erican Academy of Religion Studies in Religion Acta apostolicae sedis A nnual of the A m erican Schools of O riental Research A nchor Bible Australian Biblical Review Abr-Nahrain

ACNT AcOr ACW ADAJ AER A fJ T AFLN-WG

Augsburg C om m entary on the New T estam ent Acta orientalia A ncient Christian Writers Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan American Ecclesiastical Review African Journal of Theology A rbeitsgem einschaft fur Forschung des Landes

Abbreviations

AfO AGJU

AGSU

AH AH R AHW AION AJA AJAS AJBA AJBI AJP AJSL AJ T ALBO ALGHJ

ALUOS AmCl AnBib AnBoll ANEP ANESTP

ANET ANF Ang AnnPhil

Nordrhein-W estfalen, Geistgewissenschaften Archiv fu r Orientforschung A rbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentum s u nd des U rchristentum s A rbeiten zur Geschichte des Spatjudentum s u n d U rchristentum s F. Resenthal, An Aramaic Handbook American Historical Review W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch Annali dell'istituto orientali di Napoli American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Arabic Studies Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology Annual of theJapanese Biblical Institute American Journal of Philology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature American Journal of Theology A nalecta lovaniensia biblica et orientalia A rbeiten zur L iteratur u nd Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentum s A nnual of Leeds University O riental Society Ami du clerge A nalecta biblica A nalecta B ollandiana J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East in Pictures J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East Supplementary Texts and Pictures J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts The Ante-Nicene Fathers Anglicum Annales de Philosophie (Beirut)

AnnTheol A nO r ANQ ANRW

ANT

ANTJ

Anton AOAT AOS AP APOT

ArchLing ARG ARM ArOr ARSHLL

ARW ASB AshTB AshTJ ASNU ASS AsSeign ASSR A STI ATAbh ATANT

ATD

XiX

L 'A nnee thiologique A nalecta orientalia Andover Newton Quarterly Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, ed. H. Tem porini an d W. Haase, Berlin A rbeiten zur N eutestam entlichen Textforschung A rbeiten zum N euen Testam ent u n d zum Ju d e n tu m Antonianum Alter o rien t u n d Altes T estam ent A m erican O riental Series J. M arouzeau (ed.), L ’annee philologique R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament Archivum linguisticum Archiv fu r Reformationsgeschichte Archives royales de Mari Archiv orientalni Acta Reg. Societatis H u m aniorum Litterarum Lundensis Archiv fu r Religionswissenschaft Austin Seminary Bulletin Ashland Theological Bulletin Ashland TheologicalJournal Acta sem inarii neotestam entici upsaliensis Acta sanctae sedis Assemblees du Seigneur Archives des sciences sociales des religions Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute A lttestam entliche A bhandlungen A bhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten u n d N euen Testam ents Das Alte Testam ent Deutsch

XX

ATDan A T] ATR AuCoeurAfr AugR AUSS AzNTT

Abbreviations Acta T heologica Danica African TheologicalJournal Anglican Theological Review A u Coeur de l'Afirique: Revue interdiocesaine (B urundi) Augustinianum Andrews University Seminary Studies A rbeiten zur neutestam entlichen Textforschung

BeO BenM BerlinTZ BET BETL

BEvT BA BAC BAGD

BAH BangTF BAR BASOR BASP BBB BBude BCSR BDB

BDF

BDR

Biblical Archaeologist Biblioteca de autores cristianos W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ET, ed. W. F. A rndt and F. W. Gingrich; 2d ed. rev. F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker (University of Chicago, 1979) Bibliotheque archeologique et historique Bangalore Theological Forum Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists B onner biblische Beitrage Bulletin de l'Association G. Bude (Rome) Bulletin of the Council on the Study of Religion F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: C larendon, 1907) F. Blass, A Debrunner, and R .W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (University of Chicago/U niversity of Cam bridge, 1961) F. Blass, A. D ebrunner, and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen

BFCT BGBE BH H BH K BHS BHT Bib BibB BibLeb BibLit BiblScRel BibNot BibOr BibS(F) BibS(N) BIES BIFAO BILL

Bi Tod BJRL

BJS BK BKAT

Griechisch Bibbia e oriente Benediktinische Monatschrift Berliner Theologische Zeitschrif t (Berlin) Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese u n d T heologie Bibliotheca ep h em erid u m theologicarum lovaniensium Beitrage zur evangelischen T heologie Beitrage zur F o rderung christlicher T heologie Beitrage zur G eschichte der biblischen Exegese Biblisch-Histonsches Handworterbu ch R. Kittel, Biblia hebraica Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Beitrage zur historischen T heologie Biblica Biblische Beitrage Bibel und Leben Bibel und Liturgie Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose Biblische Notizen Biblica et orientalia Biblische Studien (Freiburg, 1895-) Biblische Studien (N eukirchen, 1951-) Bulletin of the Israel Explora tion Society ( = Yediot) Bulletin de l'institut fra n cais d’archeologie onentale B ibliotheque des cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain The Bible Today Bulletin of theJohn Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Bibel und Kirche Biblischer Kom m entar: Altes Testam ent

Abbreviations

Book List Bulletin de litterature ecclesiastique Bibel und Liturgie BLit Bible and L iterature Series BLS Brethren of Life and Thought BLT Black’s New T estam ent BNTC Com m entaries Bibliotheca orientalis BO Bibliotheca Pontificii BPAA A thenaei A ntoniani Biblical Research BR Bible Review BRev Biblische Studien BS Bibliotheca Sacra BSac Bulletin of the School of Oriental BSO(A) S (and African) Studies Bibliotheque de sciences BSR religieuses The Bible Translator BT Biblical Theology Bulletin BTB Bible et Terre Saint BTS Biblische U ntersuchungen BU Bulletin for Biblical Research BulBR Bulletin du Centre Protestant BulCPE d ’Etudes (Geneva) BulCRIMGU Bulletin of the Christian Research Institute Meiji Gakuin University (Tokyo) Bulletin de Saint Sulpice (Paris) BulSSul Bible et vie chretienne BVC Biblical World BW Beitrage zur W issenschaft BWANT vom Alten u n d N euen T estam ent BZ Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZAW BZAW BZET Beihefte zur Evangelische T heologie Beihefte zur ZAW BZNW Beihefte zur ZRGG BZRGG

BE BLE

CAD

CAH CAT

The AssyHan Dictionary of the OHental Institute of the University of Chicago Cambridge Ancient History C om m entaire de l’A ncien T estam ent

CB CBFV CBG CBQ CBQMS CBVE CCath CCER CChr CGTC CGTSC CH ChicStud CHR ChrTod CHSP

CIG CII CIL CIS CJT ClerMon ClerRev CLit ClQ ClW CM CnS CNT CollMech CollTheol ComLit Communio

XXi

Cultura biblica Cahiers biblique de Foi et Vie Collationes Brugenses et Gandavenses Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQ M onograph Series Comenius Blatter fu r Volkserziehung Corpus C atholicorum Cahiers du cercle Ernest Renan Corpus C hrisdanorum Cam bridge G reek Testam ent Com m entary Cam bridge G reek Testam ent for Schools and Colleges Church History Chicago Studies Catholic Historical Review Christianity Today Centre for Hermeneutical Study in Hellenistic and Modern Culture Protocol of the Colloquy Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum Corpus inscriptionum latinarum Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum Canadian Journal of Theology Clergy Monthly Clergy Review Christianity and Literature The Classical Quarterly Classical Weekly Cahiers marials Cristianesimo nella Storia C om m entaire du Nouveau T estam ent Collectanea Mechliniensia Collectanea Theologica Communautes et liturgies Communio: International Catholic Review (Notre Dame)

XXii

ConB Concil ConeJ CongQ ConNT CQ CQR CRAIBL

CRev CrisTR CrQ CSCO

CSEL CTA

CTJ CTM CTMonth CTQ CurTM CuW CV CW DA CL DBSup Diak DISO

DJD DL DO TT

DR

Abbreviations C oniectanea biblica Concilium Concordia Journal The Congregational Quarterly Coniectanea neotestamentica Church (Quarterly Church (Quarterly Review Comptes rendus de l'Academie des inscriptions et belleslettres Classical Review Criswell Theological Review Crozier Quarterly Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum A. H erdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques Calvin TheologicalJournal Calwer Theologische M onographien Concordia Theological Monthly Concordia Theological Quarterly Currents in Theology and Mission Christentum und Wissenschaft Communio viatorum Die chnstliche Welt Dictionnaire d ’archeologie chretienne et de liturgie Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement Diakonia C.-F. Jean a n d j. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de l'ouest Discoveries in the Ju d ean D esert Doctrine and Life D. W. Thom as (ed.), Documents from Old Testament Times Downside Review

DS DT DTC DTT DunRev EBib EBT EcR ED EE EglT EHAT EKKNT

EKE EL Emman EnchBib EncJ ud EphMar EpR ER Erjb EstBib EstTeol ETL ETR ETS EuA EV EvErz EvJ EvK EvQ E vT EW

D enzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum Deutsche Theologie Dictionnaire de theologie catholique Dansk teologisk tidssknft Dunwoodie Review Etudes bibliques Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology Ecclesiastical Review Euntes Docete (Rome) Estudios Eclesiasticos Eglise et theologie Exegetisches H an d b u ch zum Alten Testam ent Evangelisch-katholischer K om m entar zum N euen Testam ent Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon Ephemerides Liturgicae Emmanuel Enchiridion biblicum Encyclopedia judaica (1971) Ephemerides mariologique (M adrid) Epworth Review Ecumenical Review Eranos Jahrbuch Estudios biblicos Estudios teologicos (Guatemala) Ephemendes theologicae lovanienses Etudes theologiques et religieuses E rfu rter Theologische Studien Erbe und Auftrag Esprit et Vie Das evangelische Erzieher EvangelicalJournal Evangelische K om m entar Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (EWNT), ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider, 3 vols.

Abbreviations

ExAuditu

Exp ExpTim FB FBBS FC FilolNT FM FoiTemps FriedIsr

FRLANT

FTS FV FZPT GAG GBZKA

GCS GJ GKB

GKC

GNT GOTR GR GRBS Greg

(Stuttgart: Kohlham mer, 1980-83) Ex A uditu: A n International Journal of Theological Interpretation of Scripture Expositor The Expository Times Forschung zur Bibel Facet Books, Biblical Series Fathers of the C hurch Filologia Neotestamentaria (Cordoba, Spain) Faith and Mission L a Foi et le temps (Tournai) Friede uber Israel: Zeitschnft fu r Kirche und Judentum (Nu rnberg) Forschungen zur Religion u n d L iteratur des Alten u n d N euen Testaments Frankfurter Theologische Studien Foi et Vie Freiburg Zeitschnft fu r Philosophie und Theologie W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik Grazer Beitrage: Zeitschnft fu r die klassischen Altertumwissenschaft Griechische christliche Schriftsteller GraceJournal Gesenius-KautzschBergstrasser, Hebraische Grammatik Gesenius’Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley G rundrisse zum N euen T estam ent Greek Orthodox Theological Review Greece and Rome Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Gregorianum

GTA GThT GTJ GuL H ALAT

HAT HB HBT HD HDR HerKor HeyJ HibJ HKAT HKNT HL HNT HNTC HR HSM HTKNT

H TR HTS H TS HUCA H U TH

IB IBD

IBS

xxiii G ottinger T heologische A rbeiten Geformelet Theologisch Tijdschnft Grace TheologicalJournal Geist und Leben W. B aum gartner et al., Hebraisches und aramaisches Lexikon zum A lten Testament H andbuch zum Alten T estam ent Homiletica en Biblica Honzons of Biblical Theology Heiliger Dienst (Salzburg) H arvard Dissertations in Religion Herder Korrespondenz Heythrop Journal Hibbert Journal H andkom m entar zum Alten T estam ent H andkom m entar zum N euen T estam ent Das heilige Land H and b u ch zum N euen Testam ent H a rp e r’s NT Com m entaries History of Religions H arvard Semitic Monographs H erders theologischer K om m entar zum N euen T estam ent Harvard Theological Review H arvard Theological Studies Hervormde Teologiese Studies (Pretoria) Hebrew Union College Annual H erm eneutische U ntersuchungen zur Theologie Interpreter’s Bible Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas and N. Hillyer Irish Biblical Studies

xxiv ICC IDB IDBSup IEJ IER IES IKZ IKZCom

ILS

Int ISBE

ITQ ITS JA JAAR JAC JAMA JANESCU JAOS JAS JBC JBL JBR JB T JCS JDS JEA JEH JerPersp JES JETS

Abbreviations International Critical C om m entary G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary volume to IDB Israel Exploration Journal Insh Ecclesiastical Record Indian Ecclesiastical Studies Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschnft Internationale Katholische Zeitschnft “Communion ” (R odenkirchen) H. Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin, 1892) Interpretation International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G. W. Bromiley Irish Theological Quarterly Indian Theological Studies Journal asiatique Journal of the American Academy of Religion Jahrbuch fu r Antike und Christentum Journal of the American Medical Association Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Asian Studies R. E. Brown et al. (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Bible and Religion Jahrbuch fu r biblische Theologie (N eukirchen) Journal of Cuneiform Studies Ju d e an D esert Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Ecclesiastical History Jerusalem Perspectives Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of the Evangelical

JH S JIBS JIPh JJS JL H JLitTheol JMES JM S JNES JPOS JQ JQR JQRMS JR JRAS JRE JRelS JR H JRomH JRS JR T JSJ JSN T JSNTSup JSO T JSO TSup JSS JSSR JTC JTS JTSA Jud ΚΑΙ

Theological Society Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Journal of Indian Philosophy Journal of Jewish Studies Jahrbuch fu r Liturgie und Hymnologie Journal of Literature and Theology Journal of Middle Eastern Studies Journal of Mithraic Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Palestine Chiental Society Jewish Quarterly (London) Jewish Quarterly Review Jewish Q uarterly Review M onograph Series Journal of Religion Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal of Religious Ethics Journal of Religious Studies Journal of Religious History Journal of Roman History Journal of Roman Studies Journal of Religious Thought Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNT S upplem ent Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSO T S upplem ent Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Journal for Theology and the Church Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Theology for South Africa Judaica H. D on n er and W. Rollig, Kanaanaische und aramaische Inschriften

Abbreviations

KAT KatBl KB

KD KEK

KeTh KF KIT KM KRS KTR KuBANT

LCC LCL LD LebSeel Les LexTQ LingBib LitMonch LitTheol LLAVT LM LouvStud LPGL LQ LR LS LSJ LTK LTP LTSB LUA LumVie

E. Sellin (ed.), Kommentar zum Alten Testament Katechetische Blatter L. K oehler and W. Baum gartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros Kerygma und Dogma Kritisch-exegetischer K om m entar u ber das N eue Testam ent Kerken en Theologie Der Kirchenfreund Kleine Texte Katholischen Missionen Kirchenblatt fu r die reformierte Schweiz King’s Theological Review (London) K om m entare u n d Beitrage zum Alten u n d N euen Testam ent Library of Christian Classics Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Lebendige Seelsorge Lesonenu Lexington Theological Quarterly Linguistica Biblica Liturgie et Monchtum Literature and Theology (Oxford) E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae Veteris Testamenti Luthensche Monatshefte Louvain Studies G. W. H. Lam pe, Patristic Greek Lexicon Lutheran (Quarterly Luthensche Rundschau Louvain Studies Liddell-Scott-Jones, GreekEnglish Lexicon Lexikon fu r Theologie und Kirche Laval theologique et philosophique Lutheran Theological Seminary Bulletin Lunds universitets arsskrift Lumiere et Vie

LumVieSup LVit LW

XXV

Supplement to LumVie Lumen Vitae Lutheran World

The Manking Quarterly Μαriαη Studies Modern Churchman McCormick Quarterly M itteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Melita Theologica MelT H. A. W. Meyer, KritischMeyerK exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament Monatschnft fu r Geschichte und MGWJ Wissenschaft des Judentums MilltownStud Milltown Studies (Dublin) J. H. M oulton and G. MM Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: H odder, 1930) M offatt NT Com m entary MNTC Monatschrif t fu r MonPast Pastoraltheologie Memoires presentes a l'Academie MPAIBL des inscriptions et belles-lettres Patrologia Graeca, ed. J. P. MPG Migne, 1844 ff. Melanges de science religieuse MScRel M arburger theologische MTS Studien Munchener theologische M TZ Zeitschnft Melanges de l'universite SaintMUSJ Joseph M itteilungen d er vorderMVAG asiatisch-agyptischen Gesellschaft

M anQ MarStud MC McCQ MDOG

NABPR NAG

NB NCB NCCHS

National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen New Blackfriars New Century Bible (new ed.) R. C. Fuller et al. (eds.), New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture

χχνi NCE

NC1B NedTTs Neot NESTR NewDocs

NFT NGS NHS NICNT NieuTS NiewTT NIGTC NJDT NKZ NorTT NovT NovTSup NovVet NPNF NRF NRT NSK NTA NTAbh NTD NTF NTL N TR N TS NTSR NTTS

Abbreviations M. R. P. McGuire et al. (eds.), New Catholic Encyclopedia New C larendon Bible Nederlands theologisch tijdschnft Neotestamentica Near East School of Theology Review New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, A Review of Greek Inscriptions, etc., ed. G. H. R. Horsley, N orth Ryde, NSW, Australia New Frontiers in Theology New Gospel Studies Nag H am m adi Studies New International C om m entary on the New Testament Nieuwe theologische studien Niew theologisch tijdschnft New International G reek T estam ent C om m entary Neue Jahrbucher fu r deutsche Theologie Neue kirchliche Zeitschnft Norsk Teologisk Tijdsskrift Novum Testamentum Supplem ent to NovT Nova et vetera Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Nouvelle revue frangaise La nouvelle revue theologique Neues Sachsisches Kirchenblatt New Testament Abstracts N eutestam entliche A bhandlungen Das N eue Testam ent Deutsch N eutestam entliche Forschungen New T estam ent Library New Theology Review New Testament Studies T he New Testam ent for Spiritual Reading New T estam ent Tools and Studies

Numen NZM NZSTR

Numen: International Review for the History of Religions Neue Zeitschnft fu r Missionswissenschaft Neue Zeitschnft fu r systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie

OAK

Osterreichisches Archiv fu r Kirchenrecht OberrheinPast Oberrheinisches Pastoralblatt OBL Onentalia et Biblica Lovaniensia OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OBS O sterreichische Biblische Studien OCD Oxford Classical Dictionary OOP Onentalia christiana periodica OGI W. D ittenberger (ed.), Orientis graeci insaiptiones selectae (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903-5)

OIP OLP OLZ OPTAT

Or OrAnt OrChr OrSyr OTKNT OTM OTS PAAJR Parlit PastB PC PCB

O riental Institute Publications O rientalia lovaniensia periodica Onentalische Literaturzeitung Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics (Dallas) Onentalia (Rome) Onens antiquus Onens chnstianus L ’onent syrien O kum enischer TaschenbuchK om m entar zum NT O xford Theological M onographs O udtestam entische Studien Proceedings of the Amencan Academy of Jewish Research Paroisse et liturgie Pastoralblatter Proclam ation C om m entaries M. Black an d Η. H. Rowley (eds.), Peake's Commentary on the Bible

Abbreviations

PEFQS PenHom PEQ PerTeo PFay PG PGM PhEW PhRev PJ PLL PM PNTC PO POxy ProcCTSA

ProcGLBS ProcIBA PRS PRU PSTJ PTMS PTR PVTG PW

PWSup QD QDAP QLP QRev

Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement La Pensee et les hommes Palestine Exploration Quarterly Perspectiva Teologica Fayum Papyri Patrologia graeca, ed. J. P. Migne K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyn graecae magicae Philosophy East and West Philosophical Review Palastina-Jahrbuch Papers on Language and Literature Protestantische Monatshefte Pelican New T estam ent C om m entaries Patrologia orientalis Oxyrhynchus Papyri Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America Proceedings Eastern Great Lakes Bible Society Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association Perspectives in Religious Studies Le Palais royal d 'Ugarit Perkins (School of Theology) Journal Pittsburgh Theological M onograph Series Princeton Theological Review Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece Pauly-Wissowa, RealEncyklopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft S upplem ent to PW Q uaestiones Disputatae Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine (Questions liturgiques et paroissiales (Louvain) Quarterly Review (Nashville)

RA RAC RArch RB RBen RCB RDC RE

REA REAnc RecAcLeg RechBib REg REG REJ RelArts RELiege RelLif RelS RelSoc RelSRev RES RestQ RevAfTh RevApol RevArch RevDioc Namur RevDTournai RevExp RevistB RevQ RevRef RevRel RevScRel RevSem RevSR RevThom

xxvii Revue d'assyriologie et d’archeologie orientale Reallexikon f ur Antike und Christentum Revue archeologique Revue biblique Revue Benedictine Revista de cultura biblica Revue de droit canonique Realencyklopadie fu r protestantische Theologie und Kirche Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes Revue des etudes anciennes (Bordeaux) Recueil de l 'Academie de Legislation (Toulouse) R echerches bibliques Revue d'egyptologie Revue des etudes grecques Revue des etudes juives Religion and the Arts Revue Ecclesiastique de Liege Religion in Life Religious Studies Religion and Society Religious Studies Review Repertoire d'epigraphie semitique Restoration Quarterly Revue Africaine de Theologie (Kinshasa-Limette, Zaire) Revue Apologetique Revue archeologique Revue diocesaine de Namur Revue diocesaine de Tournai Review and Expositor Revista biblica Revue de Qumran Revue Reformee Review for Religious Revue des sciences religieuses Revue semitique Revue des sciences religieuses (Strasbourg) Revue thomiste

xxviii

RevUB RGG RHD RHE RHPR RH R RHS RICP RIDA RIL RivB RM RNT RR RSB RSLR RSO RSPT

RSR RST R TL RTP RTQ R

RTR RUO RUV SaatHof SacPag SAH

Sal

A b b r e v ia t io n s

Revue de l ’Universite de Bruxelles Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Revue de l'histoire de droit Revue d ’histoire ecclesiastique Revue d ’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de l'histoire des religions Revue d’histoire de la spiritualite Revue de l 'Institut Catholique de Pans Revue internationale du droit de l'antiquite Religion and Intellectual Life Rivista biblica Rheinisches Museum fu r Philologie R egensburger Neues Testam ent Review of Religion Religious Studies Bulletin Rivista di Storiae Letteratura Religiosa (Turin)

SANT SAQ

SAWB

SB SBB SBLLA SBJ SBLASP

SBLDS SBLMasS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSCS

C o g n a te S tu d ie s

R ivista degli studi orientali

Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques Recherches de science religieuse R egensburger Studien zur T heologie Revue theologique de Louvain Revue de theologie et de philosophie Revue de theologie et des questions religieuses (M ontaublon) Reformed Theological Review Revue de l'universite Ottawa La Revue de l'Universite Laval Saat a u f Hoffnung Sacra Pagina Sitzungberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften (phil.-hist. Klasse) Salmanticensis

Studien zum Alten u n d N euen Testam ent Sam m lung ausgewahlter kirchen- u n d dogm engeschichtlicher Q uellenschriften Sitzungsberichte der (koniglich preussischen) Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (phil.-hist. Klasse) Sources bibliques Stuttgarter biblische M onographien Studii biblici franciscani liber annuus La sainte bible deJerusalem Society o f Biblical L iterature Abstracts and Sem inar Papers SBL D issertation Series SBL M asoretic Studies SBL M onograph Series SBL Sources for Biblical Study SBL Septuagint and

SBLTT SBM SBS SBT SC ScEccl ScEs SCR Scr ScrB SD SE

SEA Sef SeinSend Sem

SBL Texts and Translations Stuttgarter biblische M onographien Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Sources chretiennes Sciences ecclesiastiques Science et esprit Studies in Comparative Religion Scripture Scripture Bulletin Studies and D ocum ents Studia Evangelica 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (= T U 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88 [1964], 102 [1968], 103 [1968], 112 [1973] Svensk exegetisk arsbok Sefarad Sein und Sendung Semitica

Abbreviations

SemiotBib SHAW

SHT SHVL

SIDJC SJLA SJT SLJT SMSR SNT SNTA SNTSMS

SNTU SO SOTSMS SPap SPAW

SPB SR SSS ST STA StBibT STDJ StimmZeit STK StMon StMor Str-B

Semiotique et Bible Sitzungsberichte heidelbergen Akademie der W issenschaften Studies in Historical Theology Skrifter Utgivna Av Kungl. H um anistika Vetenskapssam fundet i L und Service international de documentation judeo-chretienne Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scottish Journal of Theology St Luke's Journal of Theology Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni Studien zum N euen T estam ent S tudiorum Novi Testam enti Auxilia Society for New Testam ent Studies M onograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Symbolae osloenses Society for O ld Testam ent Study M onograph Series Studia papyrologica Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der W issenschaften Studia postbiblica Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses Semitic Study Series Studia theologica Svensk teologisk arsshrift Studia biblica et theologica Studies on the Texts of the D esert of Ju d ah Stimmen der Zeit (M unich) Svensk teologisk kvartalskrif t Studia Monastica Studia Moralia H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen

StudBib StudClas StudMiss StudN eot StudPat STZ SUNT SVTP SWJT SymBU

TantY ΤΑΡΑ TB TBC TBl TBu TC TD TDNT

TE TextsS TF TGeg TGI Th ThA ThBer THKNT

ThViat TJ

XXIX

Testament, 4 vols. (Munich: Beck’sche, 1926-28) Studia biblica Studii clasice (Bukarest) Studia Missionalia Studia neotestam entica Studia Patnstica Schweizerische theologische Zeitschnft Studien zur Umwelt des N euen Testaments Studia in Veteris Testam enti pseudepigrapha Southwestern Journal of Theology Symbolae biblicae upsalienses Tantur Yearbook Transactions of the Amencan Philological Association Theologische Beitrage Torch Bible Com m entaries Theologische Blatter Theologische Bu cherei Theological Collection (SPCK) Theology Digest G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., ET (G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1964-76) Theologica Evangelica Texts and Studies Theologische Forschung Theologie der Gegenwart Theologie und Glaube Theology Theologische Arbeiten Theologische Berichte Theologischer H andkom m entar zum N euen Testam ent Theologia Viatorum Trinity Journal

XXX

VT TK TLZ TNTC TP TPQ TQ TRev TrinSemRev TRRHD

TRu TS TSAJ TSFB TSK TT TTKi TToday TTS TTZ TU TVers TWAT

TW NT

TynB TZ UBSGNT UCL UF UFHM

A b b r e v ia t io n s

Toronto Journal of Theology Texte und Kontexte (Stuttgart) Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale New Testam ent C om m entaries Theologie und Philosophie (ThPh) Theologisch-Praktische Quartalschrift Theologische Quartalschrift Theologische Revue Trinity Seminary Review (Columbus, OH) Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiednis: Revue d'histoire de droit Theologische Rundschau Theological Studies Texte u n d Studien zum A ntiken Ju d e n tu m Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin Theologische Studien und Kritiken Teologisk Tidsskrift Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke Theology Today T rier theologische Studien Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Texte u n d U ntersuchungen Theologische Versuche (Berlin) G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift U nited Bible Societies G reek New T estam ent Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis Ugaritische Forschungen University of Florida

UnaSanc UNT US USQR USR UT UUA UUC

VC VCaro VChr VD VetC VF VKGNT

VoxEv VS VSpir VT VTSup

WA

WBC WC WD WDB WF WHAB WMANT

WO WortWahr

H um anities M onograph Una Sancta (Freising) U ntersuchungen zum N euen Testam ent Una Sancta Union Seminary (Quarterly Review Union Seminary Review (Richm ond, VA) C. H. G ordon, Ugaritic Textbook U ppsala universitetsarsskrift Unitarian Universalist Christian Vigilae christianae Verbum caro Vigiliae Christianae Verbum domini Vetera Christianorum Verkiindigung und Forschung K. A land (ed.), Vollstandige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament VoxEvangelica (London) Verbum salutis Vie spirituelle Vetus Testamentum Vetus T estam entum , Supplem ents M. Luther, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (=“W eim ar” edition) W ord Biblical C om m entary W estm inster C om m entary Wort und Dienst Westminster Dictionary of the Bible Wege d er Forschung Westminster Historical Atlas of the Bible W issenschaftliche M onographien zum Alten u n d N euen Testam ent Die Welt des Orients Wort und Wahrheit

Abbreviations

WTJ

Westminster TheologicalJournal Wissenschaftliche U ntersuchungen zum N euen Testam ent Word and World Wiener Zeitschnft fu r die Kunde des Morgenlandes Wiener Zeitschnft fu r die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens

WUNT

ww WZKM WZKSO

ZKG ZKNT ZKT ZMR ZNW

ZEE Zeitschnft fu r Assynologie Zeitschnft fu r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschnft der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrif t des deutschen Palastina-Vereins Die Ze ichen der Zeit Zeitschnft fu r evangelische Ethik Zeitschnft fu r histonsche Theologie

ZA ZAW

ZDMG

ZDPV ZdZ ZEE ZH T

ZRGG ZSSR

ZST ZTK ZWT

xxxi Zeitschnft fu r Kirchengeschichte Zahn’s Kommentar zum N T Zeitschrif t fu r katholische Theologie Zeitschnft fu r Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft Zeitschnft fu r die neu testamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschnft fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschnft fu r Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschnft der Savigny Stiftung fu r Rechtsgeschichte, romantische Abteilung Zeitschnft f ur systematische Theologie Zeitschnft f ur Theologie und Kirche Zeitschnft fu r wissenschaftliche Theologie

D. Abbreviations for Books of the Bible, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha

NEW TESTAMENT

OLD TESTAMENT Gen Exod Lev Num D eut Josh J udg Ruth 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Kgs 2 Kgs 1 C hr

2 C hr Ezra N eh Esth Job Ps(Pss) Prov Eccl Cant Isa Je r Lam Ezek

M att Mark Luke Jo h n Acts Rom 1 Cor 2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1 Thess 2 Thess

Dan Hos Joel Amos O bad Jo n ah Mic Nah H ab Zeph H ag Zech Mai

1 Tim 2 Tim Titus Philem H eb Jas 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 Jo h n 2 Jo h n 3 Jo h n Ju d e Rev

APOCRYPHA 1 Esd 2 Esd Tob Jd t Add Esth

1 Esdras 2 Esdras Tobit Ju d ith A dditions to Esther

Wis Sir Bar E p Jer

W isdom o f Solomon Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Jesus the son o f Sirach) Baruch Epistle of Jerem y

Abbreviations

XXXii

S Th Ch Sus Bel

Song of the T hree C hildren (or Young Men) Susanna Bel and the Dragon

Pr Man 1 Macc 2 Macc

Prayer of M anasseh 1 Maccabees 2 M accabees

E. Abbreviations of the Names of Pseudepigraphical and Early Patristic Books

Adam and Eve Apoc. Abr. 2 -3 Apoc. Bar. Apoc. Mos. As. Mos. 1 -2 -3 Enoch Ep. Arist. Ep. Diognetus Jub. Mart. Isa. Odes Sol. Pss. Sol. Sib. Or. T. 1 2 Patr. T. Abr. T. Judah T. Levi Apoc. Pet. Gos. Eb. Gos. Eg. Gos. Heb. Gos. Naass. Gos. Pet. Gos. Thom. Prot. Jas.

Life of Adam and Eve Apocalypse o f A braham (1st to 2nd ce n t. a.d.) Syriac, G reek Apocalypse of Baruch Apocalypse of Moses (See T. Mos.) Ethiopic, Slavonic, Hebrew Enoch Epistle of Aristeas Epistle to Diognetus Jubilees M artyrdom of Isaiah O des of Solom on Psalms of Solomon Sibylline Oracles Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs T estam ent of A braham T estam ent o f Ju d ah Testam ent of Levi, etc. Apocalypse of Peter Gospel of the Ebionites Gospel of the Egyptians Gospel of the Hebrews Gospel of the Naassenes Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thom as Protevangelium of Jam es

Barn. 1-2 Clem. Did. Diogn. H erm . Man Sim. Vis. Ign. Eph. Magn. Phil. Pol. Rom. Smyrn. Trail. Mart. Pol. Pol. Phil. Adv. Haer. De Praesc. Haer.

Barnabas 1-2 C lem ent D idache D iognetus H erm as, M andates Similitudes Visions Ignatius, L etter to the Ephesians Ignatius, L etter to the Magnesians Ignatius, L etter to the Philadelphians Ignatius, L etter to Polycarp Ignatius, L etter to the Rom ans Ignatius, L etter to the Smyrnaeans Ignatius, L etter to the Trallians M artyrdom o f Polycarp Polycarp to the Philippians Irenaeus, Against All Heresies Tertullian, O n the Proscribing o f H eretics

F. Abbreviations of Names of Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts

CD Hev Mas Mird M ur P Q

Cairo (Genizah text of the) Damascus (Document) N ahal Hever texts Masada texts K hirbet Mird texts Wadi M urabbacat texts Pesher (com m entary) Q um ran

1Q 2‫־‬Q 3 Q etc.

N um bered caves of

QL 1Q apG en 1Q H

Q um ran, yielding written m aterial; followed by abbreviation of biblical or apocryphal book Q um ran literature Genesis Apocryphon of Q um ran Cave 1 Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Q um ran Cave 1

Abbreviations

1QIsaa,b

1Q pH ab 1QM

1QS

1QSa 1QSb 3 Q 15 4QFlor

First or second copy of Isaiah from Q um ran Cave 1 Pesher on Habakkuk from Q um ran Cave 1 Milhamah (War Scroll) Serek hayyahad (Rule of the Community, M anual of Discipline) A ppendix A (Rule of the Congregation) to 1QS A ppendix B (Blessings) to 1QS C opper Scroll from Q um ran Cave 3 Florilegium (or Eschatological Midrashim) from Q um ran Cave 4

xxxiii Aramaic “Messianic” text from Q um ran Cave 4 Prayer o f N abonidus from Q um ran Cave 4 Testimonia text from Q um ran Cave 4 Testament of Levi from Q um ran Cave 4 Phylacteries from Q um ran Cave 4 Melchizedek text from Q um ran Cave 11 Targum of Job from Q um ran Cave 11

4QMess ar 4QPrNab 4QTestim 4QTLevi 4QPhyl 11QMelch 11Q tgJob

G. Abbreviaations of Targumic Material

Tg. Onq. Tg. Neb. Tg. Ket. Frg. Tg. Sam. Tg. Tg. Isa. Pal. Tgs. Tg. Neof.

Targum Onqelos Targum of the Prophets Targum of the Writings Fragmentary Targum Samaritan Targum Targum of Isaiah Palestinian Targums Targum Neofiti I

Tg Ps. -J. Tg. Yer. I Tg Yer. II Yem. Tg. Tg. Esth I II

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Targum Yerusalmi I * Targum Yerusalmi II* Yemenite Targum First or Second Targum of Esther

*optional title

H. Abbreviations of Other Rabbinic Works

‫נ‬Abot ‫כ‬Ag. Ber. Bab. Bar. Der. Er. Rab. Der. Er. Z ut. Gem. Kalla Mek. Midr.

Pal. Pesiq. R.

5Abot de Rabbi Nathan ‫נ‬Aggadat Beresit Babylonian Baraita Derek Eres Rabba Derek Eres Zuta Gemara Kalla Mekilta Midras; cited with usual abbreviation for biblical book; bu t Midr. Qoh. = Midras Qohelet Palestinian Pesiqta Rabbati

Pesiq. Rab Kah. Pirqe R. El. Rab.

Sem. Sipra Sipre Sop. S. cOlam Rab. Talm. Yal.

Pesiqta de Rab Kahana Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Rabbah (following abbreviation for biblical book: Gen. Rab. [with periods] = Genesis Rabbah) Semahot Sipra Sipre Soperim Seder cOlam Rabbah Talmud Yalqut

Abbreviations

XXXiV

I.

Abbreviations of Orders and Tractates in Mishnaic and Related Literature

(Italicized m., t., b., or y. used before nam e to distinguish am ong tractates in M ishnah, Tosepta, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud.) ‫נ‬Abot cArak. cAbod. Zar. B. Bat. Bek. Ber. Besa Bik. B. Mes. B. Qam. Dem. cEd. cErub. Git. Hag. Hal. Hor. Hul. Kelim Ker. Ketub. Kil. Ma cas. Mak. Maks. Meg. MeHl. Menah. Mid. Miqw. Moced Moced Qat. M acas. S. Nasim

‫נ‬Abot cArakin cAboda Zara Baba Batra Bekorot Berakot Besa (= Yom Tob) BikkuHm Baba Mesica Baba Qamma Demai cEduyyot cErubin Git tin Hagiga Halla Horayot Hullin Kelim Keritot Ketubot KiPayim M acaserot Makkot M aksinn (=Masqin) Megilla Meilla Menahot Middot M iqw a^t Moced M oced Qatan McPaser Sent Nasim

Nazir Ned. Neg. Nez. Nid. Ohol. cOr. Para /Va Pesahim Qinnim Qiddusin Qodasin Ros Hassana Sanhednn Sabbat SebiHt Sebucot Seqalim Sota Sukka Ta canit Tamid Temura Terumo t Toharot Tebul Yom cUqsin Yadayim Yebamot Yoma (= Kippunm) Zabim Zebahim ZeraHm

J. Abbreviations of Nag Hammadi Tractates

Acts Pet. 12 Apost. Allogenes Ap. ]as. Ap. John Apoc. Adam

Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles Allogenes Apocryphon of fames Apocryphon of John Apocalypse of Adam

1 Apoc.Jas. 2 Apoc. Jas. Apoc. Paul Apoc. Pet. Asclepius Auth. Teach.

First Apocalypse of Jame Second Apocalypse of fa Apocalypse of Paul Apocalypse of Peter Asclepius 21-29 Authontative Teaching

Abbreviations Dial. Sav. Disc. 8 -9 Ep. Pet. Phil. Eugnostos Exeg. Soul Gos. Eg. Gos. Phil. Gos. Thom. Gos. Truth Great Pow. Hyp. Arch. Hypsiph. Interp. Know. Marsanes Melch. Norea On Bap. A On Bap. B On Bap. C On Euch. A

Dialogue of the Savior Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth Letter of Peter to Philip Eugnostos the Blessed Exegesis on the Soul Gospel of the Egyptians Gospel of Philip Gospel of Thomas Gospel of Truth Concept of our Great Power Hypostasis of the Archons Hypsiphrone Interpretation of Knowledge Marsanes Melchizedek Thought of Norea On Baptism A On Baptism B On Baptism C On the Eucharist A

On Euch. B Orig. World Paraph. Shem Pr. Paul Pr. Thanks. Prot. ]as. Sent. Sextus Soph.Jes. Chr. Steles Seth Teach. Silv. Testim. Truth Thom. Cont. Thund. Treat. Res. Treat. Seth Tri. Trac. Trim. Prot. Val. Exp. Zost.

XXXV

On the Eucharist B On the Origin of the World Paraphrase of Shem Prayer of the Apostle Paul Prayer of Thanksgiving Protevangelium of James Sentences of Sextus Sophia of Jesus Christ Three Steles of Seth Teachings of Silvanus Testimony of Truth Book of Thomas the Contender Thunder, Perfect Mind Treatise on Resurrection Second Treatise of the Great Seth Tripartite Tractate Trimorphic Protennoia A Valentinian Exposition Zostrianos

Note: T he textual notes and num bers used to indicate individual m anuscripts are those found in the apparatus criticus of Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. E. Nestle and K. Aland et al. (Stuttgart: D eutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 197926). This edition of the G reek New T estam ent is the basis for the Translation sections.

Commentary Bibliography

Barclay, W. The Gospel of Luke. Daily Study Bible Series. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956. Barrel, E. V., and Barrell, K. G. St. Luke’s Gospel: An Introductory Study. London: Murray, 1982. Bossuyt, P., and Radermakers, J. Jesus, parole de la Grace selon saint Luc 1: Texte. 2 Lecture continue. Brussels: Institut d ’Etudes Theologique, 1981. Bovon, F. Das Evan-

gelism nach Lukas. 1,1-9,50. EKKNT 3 /1 . N eukirchen/E insiedeln: N eukirchener/B enziger, 1989. Bratcher, R. G. A Translator’s Guide to the Gospel of Luke. H elps for Translators. Lond o n /N ew Y ork/Stuttgart: UBS, 1982. Busse, U., et. al. Jesus zwischen Arm und Reich: LukasEvangelium. Bibelauslegung fur die Praxis 18. Stuttgart: K atholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. Caird, G. B. The Gospel of St. Luke. London: Penguin, 1963. Craddock, E B. Luke. Louisville: Jo h n Knox, 1990. Creed, J. M. The Gospel according to St. Luke. L ondon: M acmillan, 1942. Danker, F. W. Jesus and the New Age according to St. Luke. St. Louis: Clayton, 1972. ------------ . Luke. Proclam ation Com m entaries, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. D ’Arc, J., Sr. Evangile selon Luc: Presentation du texte grec, traduction et notes. Nouvelle collection de textes et docum ents . . . G. Bude. Paris: Les Belles L ettres/D esclee de Brouwer, 1986. Dean, R. J. Luke. L ay m an ’s B ible B ook C o m m e n ta ry 17. N ashville, TN: B ro ad m an , 1983. Delebecque, E. Evangile de Luc: Texte traduit et annote. Etudes anciennes de !’Association G. Bude. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1976. Dieterle, C., et al. Manuel du traducteurpour I’evangile de Luc. S tuttgart/Paris: Alliance biblique universelle, 1977. Drury, J. Luke. J. B. Phillips Com m entaries, Fontana Books. London: Collins, 1973. Easton, B. S. The Gospel according to St. Luke: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. New York: Scribner, 1926. Ellis, E. E. The Gospel of Luke. 2nd ed. London: O liphants, 1974. Ernst, J. Das Evangelium nach Lukas, ubersetzt und erklart. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1977. Evans, C. A. Luke. Peabody, MA: H endrickson P ublishers, 1990. Evans, C. F. Saint Luke. L o n d o n /P h ila d e lp h ia : SCM /Trinity, 1990. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Gospel according to Luke. AB 28, 28A. 2 vols. G arden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-85. Geldenhuys, N. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. NICNT. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1951. Gilmour, S. M. “T he Gospel according to St. L uke.” Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville: A bingdon, 1952. 8:1-434. Godet, F. A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Tr. E. W. Shelders. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, repr. 1976 (1887, 1889). Gooding, D. According to Luke: A New Exposition of the Third Gospel. G rand R apids/Leicester, UK: Eerdmans/Inter-Varsity, 1987. Goulder, M. D. Luke: A New Paradigm. JSNTSup 20. 2 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. Grundmann, W. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. THKNT 3. 2nd ed. East Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1961. Harrington, W. J. The Gospel according to St. Luke: A Commentary. Westminster, M D /T oronto: Newman, 1967. Hauck, F. Das Evangelium des Lukas. Leipzig: D eichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934. Hendriksen, W. Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke. New T estam ent Com m entaries. G rand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978. Hobbs, H. A n Exposition of the Gospel of Luke. G rand Rapids: Baker, 1966. Johnson, L. T. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra P agina 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991. Karris, R. J. Invitation to Luke: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke with Complete Text from theJerusalem Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1977. Kealy, S. P. The Gospel of Luke. Denville, NJ: D im ension Books, 1979. Kilgallen, J. J. A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. New Y ork/M ahw ah, NJ: P aulist, 1988. Klostermann, E. Das Lukasevangelium. HNT 5. T ubingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1975 = 1929. Kodell, J. The Gospel according to Luke. Collegeville Bible C om m entary 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1983. Kremer, J. Lukasevangelium: Die Neue Echtei' Bible, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament mit der Einheitsubersetzung 3. W urzburg: Echter, 1988. Lachs, S. T. A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. H oboken, NJ: Ktav, 1987. Lagrange, M.-J. Evangile selon Saint Luc. 2 n d ed. Paris: G ab ald a, 1921. Larson, B. Luke.

Commentary Bibliography

xxxvii

C o m m u n icato r’s C om m entary 3. Waco, TX: W ord Books, 1983. LaVerdiere, E. Luke. W ilm ington, DE: Glazier, 1980. Leaney, A. R. C. A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke. BNTC. L ondon: A. 8c C. Black, 1958. Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. M ark’s and St. Luke’s Gospel. Columbus, OH: L utheran Book C oncern, 1934. Liefeld, W. “L uke.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. G aebelein et al. 8:797-1059. Linden, P. van. The Gospel of Luke and Acts. Message of Biblical Spirituality 10. W ilm ington, DE: Glazier, 1986. Loisy, A. L ’evangile selon Luc. Paris: E. Nourry, 1924. Luce, Η. K. The Gospel according to St. Luke. CGTSC. Cambridge: University Press, 1949. Manson, W. The Gospel of Luke. London: H o d d er & Stoughton, 1930. Marshall, I. H. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. McBride, D. The Gospel of Luke: A Reflective Commentary. D ublin /N o rth fo rt, NY: D om inican Publications/C astello, 1982. Mentz, H. Das Lukas-Evangelium neu erzahlt. Gottingen: V andenhoeck, 1987. Meynet, R. L ’evangile selon saint Luc: Analyse rhetorique. I. Planches; II. Commentaire. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Miller, D. G. The Gospel according to Luke. Richm ond: Jo h n Knox, 1959. Morris, L. The Gospel according to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. L ondon: Inter-Varsity, 1 9 7 4 .------------ . The Gospel according to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. 2nd ed. London: InterVarsity, 1988. Muller, P.-G. Lukas-Evangelium. Stuttgarter kleiner Kommentar, Neues Testam ent 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984. Obach, R. E., and Kirk, A. A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. New York/M ahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1986. Osty, E. La Sainte Bible traduite en francais sous la direction de l ’Ecole Biblique deJerusalem. L ’evangile selon Saint Luc. Traduction, introduction et notes. Paris: Cerf, 1961. Plummer, A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke. ICC. 5th ed. New York: Scribner, 1922. Ragg, L. St. Luke. WC. London: M ethuen, 1922. Rengstorf, K. H. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. NTD 3. 9th ed. Gottingen: V andenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1962. Rice, E. Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke. Philadelphia: U nion, 1900. Rienecker, F. Das Evangelium des Lukas. W uppertaler Studienbibel. 4th ed. W uppertal: Brockhaus, 1972. Sabourin, L. L ’evangile de Luc: Introduction et commentaire. Rome: G regorian University, 1985. Schlatter, A. von. Das Evangelium des Lukas aus seinen Quellen erklart. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1931. Schmid, J. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. RNT 3. 4th ed. Regensburg: Pustet, 1960. Schmithals, W. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Z urcher B ibelkom m entar NT 3.1. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980. Schneider, G. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 2 vols. Giitersloh: M ohn, 1977. Schurmann, H. Das Lukasevangelium: Erster Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1-9,50. HTKNT 3 /1 . Freiburg/B asel/V ienna: Herder, 1969. Schweizer, E. The Good News according to Luke. Tr. D. E. Green. London: SPCK, 1984. Stoger, A. The Gospel according to St. Luke. T he New T estam ent for Spiritual Reading 3. Tr. B. Fahy. L ondon: Sheed, 1977. Stoll, R. The Gospel according to St. Luke. New York: Pustet, 1931. Summers, R. Jesus the Universal Savior: Commentary on Luke. Waco, TX: W ord, 1972. Talbert, C. H. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Thompson, G. Η. P. The Gospel according to Luke in the Revised Stan dard Version. T he New C larendon Bible. New Y ork/O xford: O xford University Press, 1972. Tiede, D. L. Luke. A ugsburg C om m entary on the New T estam ent. M inneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1988. Tinsley, E. J. The Cambridge Bible Commentary in the New English Bible: The Gospel according to Luke. New Y ork/London: Cam bridge University, 1965. Title, E. The Gos pel according to Luke. New York: H arper and Bros., 1951. Tresmontant, C. Evangile de Luc: Traduction et notes. Paris: O.E.I.L., 1987. Wellhausen, J. Das Evangelium Lucae, u bersetzt und erklart. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904. Wiefel, W. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. THKNT 3. Ber lin: Evangelische, 1988. Zahn, T. von. Das Evangelium des Lukas ausgelegt. 4th ed. Leipzig: D eichert, 1930.

General Bibliography

Aalen, S. “St. L uke’s Gospel and the Last Chapters of I E n o ch .” N TS 1 (1966) 1-13. Aarde, A. G. van. ‘“ T he m ost high God does live in houses, bu t n o t houses built by m en . . .’: T he relativity of the m etaphor ‘tem ple’ in Luke-Acts.” Neot 25 (1991) 51-64. Abraham, Μ. V. “Good News to the Poor in L uke’s Gospel.” Biblebhashyam 14 (1988) 65-77. Achtemeier, P. J.

“Towards the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae.”JBL 89 (1970) 265-91. ------------ . “T he Lukan Perspective on the Miracles of Jesus: A Prelim inary Sketch.” JBL 94 (1975) 547-62. ------------ . “C arlston’s Parables: A Review A rticle.” A N Q 16 (1976) 227-31. Ades, J. I. “Literary Aspects of L uke.” PLL 15 (1979) 193-99. Allison, D. C. “Was T h ere a ‘Lukan Com m unity’?” IBS 10 (1988) 62-70. Arai, S. “Individual- u n d G em eindeethik bei Lukas.” A JB I 9 (1983) 88-127. Argyle, A. W. “‘H ypocrites’ and the Aramaic T heory.” ExpTim 75 (1963-64) 113-14. ------------ . “Evidence for the View T h at St. Luke Used St. M atthew’s G ospel.” JBL 83 (1964) 390-96. ------------ . “T he G reek of Luke and Acts.” ATS 20 (1974) 441-45. Asante, E. “T he T heological Jerusalem of Luke-Acts.” ATJ 15 (1986) 172-82. Asting, R. Die Verkiindigung des Wortes im Urchristentum, dargestellt an den Begriffen “Worte Gottes,” “Evangelium” und “Zeugnis.” Stuttgart: K ohlham m er, 1939. Aune, D. E. “T he Sig nificance of the Delay of the Parousia for Early Christianity.” In Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. G. F. H aw thorne. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1975. 87-109. ------------ . “T he Gospels, Biography or Theology?” BRev 6 (1990) 14-21, 37. Aurelio, T. Disclosures in den Gleichnissen Jesu. RST. Frankfurt am M ./B e rn e /L as Vegas: Lang, 1977. Baasland, E. “Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzahlungen: Z u r F orm enlehre der Gleichnisse u n d zum M ethodik der G leichnisauslegung.” NovT 28 (1986) 193-219. Bachmann, M. Jerusa lem und der Tempel: Die geographisch-theologischen Elemente in der lukanischen Sicht des judischen Kulzentrums. BWANT 6 /9 . Stuttgart: Kohlham m er, 1980. Baer, H. von. Der heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften. BWANT 3 /3 . Stuttgart: K ohlham m er, 1926. Bailey, J. A. The Tradition Common to the Gospels of Luke and John. NovTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Bailey, K. E. Poet and Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1976. ------------ . Through Peasant Eyes: More Lukan Parables, Their Culture and Style. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1980. Baird, J. A. “A Pragmatic A pproach to Parable Exegesis: Some New Evidence on Mark 4:11, 33-34." JBL 76 (1957) 201-7. Baker, J. “Luke, the Critical Evangelist.” ExpTim 68 (1957) 123-25. Balch, D. L. “C om m ents on the G enre and a Politi cal T hem e of Luke-Acts: A Prelim inary C om parison o f Two H ellenistic H istorians.” In SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. D .J. Lull. 343-61. ------------ . “The G enre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political H istory?” SW JT 33 (1990) 5-19. Baltzer, K. “T he M eaning of the T em ple in the Lukan W ritings.” H T R 58 (1965) 263-77. Bammel, E. “T he Baptist in Early Christian T radition.” ATS 18 (1971-72) 9 5 -1 2 8 .------------ and Moule, C. F. D., eds. Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Cambridge: University Press, 1984. Barr, D. L. “Speaking in Parables: A Survey of Recent Research.” TSFB 6 (1983) 8 - 1 0 .------------ and Wentling, J. L. “T he Conventions o f Classical Biography and the G enre o f Luke-Acts: A Prelim inary Study.” In Luke-Acts: New Perspectives, ed. C. H. Talbert. 63-88. Barraclough, R. “A Reassessment of L uke’s Political Perspective.” R T R 38 (1979) 10-18. Barrett, C. K. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1947. ------------ . Luke the Historian in Recent Study. FBBS 24. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970. ------------ . The Gospel according to St. John: A n Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. L ondon: SPCK, 1978. Bartsch, H.-W. Wachet aber zu jeder Zeit! H am b u rg /B erg sted t: Reich, 1963. -------------. “Das Thom as-Evangelium u n d die synoptischen E vangelien.” N TS 6 (195960) 249-61. . “Die stehenden Bilder in den Gleichnissen als Beispiel fur eine existentiale In terpretation des Bildes.” In Kerygma und Mythos, vol. 6. 2, ed. H. W. Bartsch.

General Bibliography

XXXiX

TF 31. H am burg/B ergstedt: Reich, 1964. 103-17. ------------ . “Early Christian Eschatology in the Synoptic Gospels (A C ontribution to Form-Critical R esearch).” N TS 11 (1965) 38797. Bauer, J. B. “Evangelium u n d Geschichtlichkeit: Vom heutigen Stand der Erforschung des N euen Testam ents.” In Evangelienforschung: Ausgewahlte Aufsatze dentscher Exegeten, ed. J. B. Bauer. Graz: Verlag Styria, 1968. 9-32. ------------ . “Gleichnisse Jesu u nd Gleichnisse der R abbinen.” TPQ 119 (1971) 297-307. Bauernfeind, O. Die Worte der Damonen im Markus evangelium. BWANT 3 /8 . Stuttgart: Kohlham mer, 1927. Baumbach, G. Das Verstandnis des Bosen in den synoptischen Evangelien. East Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963. ------------ . “G ott u n d die Welt in der Theologie des Lukas.” BLit 45 (1972) 241-55. Bayer, H. F. Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: The Provenance, Meaning, and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions. WUNT 2/20. T ubingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1986. Beardslee, W. A. “Parable In terpretation and the World Disclosed by the Parable.” PRS 3 (1976) 123-39. ------------ . “Parable, Proverb, and K oan.” Semeia 12 (1978) 151-77. Beare, F. W. The Gospel according to Matthew. Oxford: Blackwell, 1981. Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Exeter: Paternoster, 1972=1962. Beck, B. E. “T he Com m on A uthorship of Luke and Acts.” N TS 23 (1977) 346-52. Becker, J. Johannes der Taufer und Jesus von Nazareth. BS 63. Neukirchen-Vluyn: N eukirchener, 1972. Behm, J. M. Die Handauflegung im Urchnstentum: Nach Verwendung, Herkunft und Bedeutung in religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang untersucht. Darmstadt: W issenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. Beilner, W. Chnstus und die Pharisaer: Exegetische Untersuchung u ber Grund und Verlauf der Auseinandersetzungen. Vienna: H erder, 1959. Benoit, P., et al. Aux sources de la tradition chretienne. FS M. Goguel. Bibliotheque theologique. N euchatel/Paris: Delachaux et Niestle, 1950. ------------ and Boismard, M.-E. Synapse des Quatre Evangiles enfrangais: Tome 2, Commentaire. Paris: Cerf, 1972. Berchmans, J. “Som e A spects o f L ukan C hristology.” Biblebhashyam 2 (1976) 5-22. Berger, K. Die Auferstehung des Propheten und die Erhohung des Menschensohnes: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Geschickes Jesu in fruhchristlichen Texten. SUNT 13. G o ttin g e n : V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. ------------ . “Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen H in terg ru n d christologischer H oheitstitel.” NTS 17 (1970-71) 391-425. ------------ . “M aterialen zu Formu n d U berlieferungsgeschichte neutestam entlicher G leichnisse.” NovT 15 (1973) 1-37. Bergquist, J. A. “‘G ood News to the P o o r’—Why Does This Lukan M otif A ppear to Run Dry in the Book of Acts?” BangTF 18 (1986) 1-16. Bernadicou, P. J. “The Lukan Theology of Joy.” ScEs 25 (1973) 75-98. Berry, D. L. “Revisioning Christology: T he Logic of Messi anic A scription.” ATR 70 (1988) 129-40. Betz, O. “The Kerygma of Luke.” Int 22 (1968) 131-46. Beyer, K. Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament. Vol. 1. SUNT 1. 2nd ed. G ottingen: V andenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1968. Black, M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1946. ------------ . “T he Parables as Allegory.” BJRL 42 (1960) 273-87. Blackman, E. C. “New M ethods of Parable In terp reta tio n .” CJT 15 (1969) 3-13. Blass, F. Philology of the Gospels. London: Macmillan, 1898. Blomberg, C. L. “New H orizons in Parable Research.” TJ3 (1982) 3-17. ------------ . “T he Law in Luke-Acts.” J S N T 22 (1984) 5380. ------------ . “W hen Is a Parallel Really a Parallel? A Test Case in the Lukan Parables.” WTJ 46 (1984) 78-103. Bocher, O. Damonenfurcht und Damonenabwehr: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der chnstlichen Taufe. BWANT 90. Stuttgart: K ohlham mer, 1970. ------------ and Haacker, K., eds. Verborum Veritas. FS G. Stahlin. W uppertal: T heologischer Verlag R. Brockhaus, 1970. Bock, D. L. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Chnstology. JSNTSup 12. Sheffield: JSOT, 1 9 8 7 .________ “T he Use of the O ld Testam ent in Luke-Acts.” In SBL 1990 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990. 494511. Bonnard, P.-E. “Le psaum e 72: Ses relectures, ses traces dans l'oeuvre de Luc?” RSR 69 (1981) 259-78. Borg, M. J. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 5. New Y ork/Toronto: Edwin Mellen, 1984. Borgen, P. “From Paul to Luke: Observations towards Clarification of the Theology of Luke-Acts.” CBQ 31 (1969) 168-82. Boring, Μ. E. Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge: University Press, 1982. Boucher, M. The Mysterious Parable: A Literary Study. CBQMS 6. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1977. Bouttier, M.

xl

General Bibliography

“L’hum anite de Jesus selon Saint L uc.” RSR 69 (1981) 33-44. Bouwman, G. Das dritte Evangelium: Einubung in die formgeschichtliche Methode. Tr. H. Zulauf. Du sseldorf: Patmos, 1968. Bovon, F. Luc le theologien: Vingt-cinq ans de recherches (1950-1975). Le M onde de la Bible. N euchatel/P aris: Delachaux et Niestle, 1978. ------------ . “Le salut dans les ecrits de Luc: Essai.” R TP 23 (1973) 296-307. ------------ . “L’im portance des m ediations dans le projet theologique de Luc.” NTS 21 (1974) 23-39. ------------ . O rie n ta tio n s actuelles des etudes lucaniennes.” R TP 26 (1976) 161-90. ------------ . “Effet de reel et flou p ro p h etiq u e dans l'oeuvre de L uc.” In A cause de l'Evangile, ed. R. Refoule. 349-60. ------------ . “La fig ure de Moise dans l’oeuvre de Luc.” In Lafigure de Moise: Ecriture et relectures. Geneva: Pub lications de la Faculte de T heologie de l’U niversite de Geneve, 1978. 47-65. -------------. “Le Dieu de L uc.” RSR 69 (1981) 279-300. ------------ . “Luc: po rtrait et p ro jet.” LVit 30 (1981) 9-18. ------------ . “Du cote de chez L uc.” R TP 115 (1983) 175-89. -------------. “Is rael, die Kirche u n d die Volker im lukanischen D oppelw erk.” TLZ 108 (1983) 403-14. Boys, M. C. “The Parabolic Ways of Teaching.” BTB 13 (1983) 82-89. Braumann, G. “Das Mittel der Zeit: Erw agungen zur T heologie des Lukasevangelium s.” ZNW 54 (1963) 1174 5 . -------------, ed. Das Lukas-Evangelium: Die redaktions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Forschung. WF 280. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974. Braun, H. Qumran und d as Neue Testament. Vol. 1. T ubingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1966. Brawley, R. L. Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts. Literary C urrents in Biblical In terp retatio n . Lou isville, KY: W estm inster/John Knox, 1990. Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apol ogy, and Conciliation. SBLMS 33. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987. Breech, E. “Kingdom o f God and the Parables of Jesus.” Semeia 12 (1978) 15-41. Breech, J. The Silence of Jesus: The Authentic Voice of the Historical Man. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Brown, F. B., an d Malbon, E. S. “Parables as a Via Negativa: A Critical Review of the Work o f Jo h n D om inic Crossan.”JR 64 (1984) 530-38. Brown, R. E. The Gospel according to John. AB 29, 29A. 2 vols. G arden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70. ------------ . “Parable and Allegory R econsidered.” NovT 5 (1962) 36-45. Brown, S. Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke. AnBib 36. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. ------------ . “Precis o f E ckhard Plu m acher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller.‫ ״‬In Society of Biblical Literature. Seminar Papers, 1974, ed. G. MacRae. 2 vols. Cam bridge, MA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974. 103-13. ------------ . “‘W ater Baptism’ and ‘Spirit Baptism’ in Luke-Acts.” A TR 59 (1977) 135-51. Brox, N. Zeuge und Martyrer: Untersuchungen zur fr u hchristlichen Zeugnis-Terminologie. SANT 5. M unich: Kosel-Verlag, 1961. Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles. G rand Rapids: E erdm ans, 1951. ------------ . The Book of the Acts. NICNT. Rev. ed. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1988. Bruners, W. “Lukas-Literat u n d Theologe: N eue L iteratur zum lukanischen D oppelw erk.” BK 35 (1980) 110-12, 141-51. Buchele, A. Der TodJesu im Lukasevangelium. T heologische Studien 26. Frankfurt am Main: Joseph Knecht, 1978. Bultmann, R. Theology of the New Testament. Tr. K. G robel. 2 vols. L ondon: SCM, 1952-55. -------------. The History of the Synoptic Tradi tion. Tr. J. Marsh. 2nd ed. O xford: Blackwell, 1972. Bundy, W. E. Jesus and the First Three Gospels: A n Introduction for the Synoptic Tradition. C am bridge, MA: H arvard University, 1955. Burridge, R. A. What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. SNTSMS 70. Cambridge: University Press, 1992. Busse, U. Die Wunder des Propheten Jesus: Die Rezeption, Komposition und Interpretation der Wundertradition im Evangelium des Lukas. FB 24. S tuttgart: K atholisches B ibelw erk, 1 9 7 7 . -------------. Das Nazareth-Manifest: E ine Einfu hrung in das lukanische Jesusbild nach Lk 4: 16-30. SBS 91. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978. Bussman, C., and Radl, W., eds. Der Treue Gottes trauen: Beitrage zum Werk des Lukas. FS G. Schneider. F reiburg/B asel/V ienna: H erder, 1991. Buzy, D. Les Paraboles: Traduites et commentees. VS 6. Paris: Beauchesne, 1932. Cadbury, H. J. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. HTS 6. 2 vols. Cam bridge, MA: H arvard University, 1919-20. -------------. “T he T radition.” In Beginnings, ed. F. J. Foakes-Jackson an d K. Lake. 2:209-64. -------------. The Making of Luke-Acts. New York: Macmillan, 1927. ------------ . “Four Features of Lucan Style.” In Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. ------------ . “Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts: II. Recent Argum ents for Medical Language. ”JBL 45 (1926) 190-209. ------------ .

General Bibliography

xli

“Lexical N otes on Luke-Acts: V. Luke an d the H orse-D octors.” JBL 52 (1933) 55-65. ------------ . “Soluble Difficulties in the Parables.” In New Testament Sidelights. FS A. C. Purdy, ed. Η. K. McArthur. H artford: H artford Sem inary F oundation, 1960. 1 1 8 -2 3 .------------ . “Acts and Eschatology.” In The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology, ed. D. D aube and W. D. Davies. Cambridge: University Press, 1964. 300-321. Cadoux, A. T. The Parables of Jesus: Their Art and Use. L ondon: Clarke, 1930. Caird, G. B. “Eschatology and Politics: Some M isconceptions.” In Biblical Studies. FS W. Barclay, ed. J. R. McKay. Philadel phia: Westminster, 1976. 72-86. - - - - - - - . The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Duckworth Studies in Theology. L ondon: D uckw orth, 1980. Cambe, M. “La Χ Α Ρ ΙΣ chez Saint Luc: R em arques sur quelques textes, n o tam m en t le κEχα ριτω μένη.” RB 70 (1963) 193-207. ------------ . “Bulletin de Nouveau Testament: Etudes lucaniennes.” ETR 56 (1981) 159-67. Carlston, C. The Parables of the Triple Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. ------------ . “Changing Fashions in Interpreting the Parables.” AAQ14 (1974) 227-33. ------------ . “Proverbs, Maxims, and the Historical Jesus.” JBL 99 (1980) 87-105. ------------ . “Parable and Allegory Revisited: An Interpretive Review.” CBQ 43 (1981) 228-42. Carroll, J. T. “L uke’s Portrayal of the Pharisees.” CBQ 50 (1988) 604-21. ------------ . Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts. SBLDS 92. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988. Cartlidge, D., and Dungan, D. Documents for the Study of the Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Casetti, P., et al., eds. Melange Dominique Barthelemy. FS. D. Barthelemy. OBO 38. F rib o u rg /G o ttingen: Editions universitaires/V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1981. Cassidy, R. J. Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles. M aryknoll, NY: O rbis, 1987. ------------ an d Scharper, P. J., eds. Political Issues in Luke-Acts. M aryknoll, NY: O rbis, 1983. Cave, C. H. “T he Parables and the S criptures.” NTS 11 (1964-65) 374-87. Chance, J. B. Jerusalem, the Temple and the New Age in Luke-Acts. Macon, GA: M ercer University, 1988. Charlesworth, J. H. Jesus within Juda ism: New Light from Exciting Archaelogical Discoveries. A nchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1988. ------------ , ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. London: D arton, L ongm an 8c Todd, 1983-85. Chevallier, M.-A. L 'Esprit et le Messie dans le bas judaisme et le Nouveau Testament. Etudes d ’histoire et de philosophic religieuse 49. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958. ------------ . “Luc e t l'Esprit saint.” R SR 56 (1982) 1-16. —----------. “A pparentem ents entre Luc et Jean en m atiere de pneum atologie.” In A cause de l ’Evangile, ed. R. Refoule. 377-408. Chilton, B. D. God in Strength: Jesus’Announcement of the Kingdom. SNTU B, 1. Freistadt: Plochl, 1979. Christ, F. Jesus Sophia: Die Sophia-Chnstologie bei den Synoptikern. ATANT 57. Zurich: Zwingli, 1970. Clines, D. J. A., et al., eds. The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies at Sheffield. JSO TSup 87. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Collison, J. G. F. “Eschatology in the Gospel of L uke.” In New Synoptic Studies, ed. W. R. Farmer. Macon, GA: M ercer University, 1983. 363-71. Conzelmann, H. The Theology of St. Luke. Tr. G. Buswell. New York: H arp er 8c Brothers, 1960. ------------ . An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. NTL. Tr. J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1969. ------------ . Die Apostelgeschichte. T ubingen: Mohr, 1972. Cook, C. “T he Sense of A udience in Luke: A Literary E xam ination.” NB 72 (1991) 19-30. Cook, D. E. “A Gospel Portrait of the Pharisees.” RevExp 84 (1987) 221-33. Cope, L., et al. “N arrative O utline of the Com position of Luke according to the Two Gospel H ypothesis.” In SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 98-120. Cosgrove, C. H. “T he Divine in Luke-Acts: Investigations into the Lukan U n derstanding of G o d ’s P rovidence.” NovT 26 (1984) 16890. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. CGTC. Cambridge: University Press, 1959. Crehan, J. H. “T he Purpose of Luke in Acts.” SE 2 [= TU 87] (1964) 354-68. Cribbs, F. L. “A Study of the Contacts that Exist between St. Luke and S t. Jo h n .” In SBL Seminar Papers 1973, ed. G. MacRae. Cam bridge, MA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. 2:1-93. Crossan, J. D. In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. New York: H arp er 8c Row, 1973. ------------ . Raid on the Articulate: Comic Eschatology in Borges and Jesus. New York: H arper 8c Row, 1976. ------------ . Finding Is the First Act: Trove Folktales and Jesus’ Treasure Parables. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ------------ . Cliffs of Fall: Paradox and Polyvalence in the Parables of Jesus. New York: Seabury, 1980. ------------ . In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus.

xlii

General Bibliography

San Francisco: H arper and Row, 1983. ------------ . The HistoricalJesus: The Life of a Mediterra nean Jewish Peasant San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991. . “Parable as Religious and Poedc E xperience.”//? 53 (1973) 330-58. ------------ . “T he Servant Parables of Jesus.” Semeia 1 (1974) 17-62. ------------ . “Parable and Exam ple in the Teaching o f Jesus.” Semeia 1 (1974) 63-104. ------------ . “Structuralist Analysis and the Parables of Jesus.” Semeia 1 (1974) 192-221. ------------ . “Paradox Gives Rise to M etaphor: Paul R icoeur’s H erm eneutics and the Parables of Jesus.” BR 24-25 (1979-80) 20-37. Crump, D. M. ‘Jesus the Interces sor: Prayer and Christology in Luke-Acts.” Ph.D. diss., University o f A berdeen, 1988. Cullmann, O. The Christology of the New Testament. Tr. S. C. G uthrie and C. A. M. Hall. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1963. Culpepper, R. A. “Paul’s Mission to the Gentile World: Acts 13-19.” RevExp 71 (1974) 487-97. Dahl, N. A. “The Purpose of Luke-Acts.” In Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church: Essays. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976. 87-98. Dalman, G. Orte und WegeJesu. BFCT 2 /1 . 3rd ed. Gu tersloh: Bertelsm ann, 1924. D’Angelo, M. R. “Images of Jesus and the Christian Call in the Gospels of Luke and J o h n .” Spr i tuality Today 37 (1985) 196-212. Danker, F. W. “Im aged through Beneficence.” In Reimaging, ed. D. D. Sylva. 57-67, 184-86. ------------ . “Theological Presuppositions of St. L uke.” CurTM 4 (1977) 98-103. Darr, J. A. “D iscerning the Lukan Voice: T he N arrator as C haracter in Luke-Acts.” In SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 255-65. Daube, D. The Neiv Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. L ondon: A thlone, 1956.------------ . “Sham e Culture in L uke.” In Paul and Paulinism. FS C. K. Barrett, ed. M. H ooker and S. G. Wilson. L ondon: SPCK, 1982. 355-72. Dauer, A. Beobachtungen zur literanschen Arbeitstechnik des Lukas. A thenaum s M onografien, Theologie. BBB 79. Frankfurt. H ain, 1990. Davies, W. D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: University Press, 19 6 4 .-------------and Allison, D. C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Vol. 1. Introduction and Commentary on MatthewI-VII. ICC. E dinburgh: Clark, 1988. Dawsey, J. M. The Lukan Voice: Confusion and Irony in the Gospel of Luke. Macon, GA: M ercer University, 1986. ------------ . “W hat’s in a Name? Characterization in L uke.” BTB 16 (1986) 143-47. ------------ . “T he Tem ple-Them e in L uke.” M elT 38 (1987) 26-32. ------------ . “T he U nexpected Christ: T he Lucan Im age.” ExpTim 98 (1987) 296-300. ------------ . “T he L iterary Unity of Luke-Acts: Q uestions of Style—a Task for Literary Critics.” NTS 35 (1989) 48-66. Degenhardt, H.-J. Lukas, Evangelist der Armen: Besitz und Besitzverzicht in den lukanischen Schriften. Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1965. Dehandschutter, B. “T he Gospel of Thom as and the Synoptics: T he Status Q uaestionis.” SE 7 [= TU 126] (1982) 157-60. Delebecque, E. Etudes grecques sur I’evangile de Luc. Paris: Societe d ’edition “Les Belles L ettres,” 1976. ------------ . “L’H ellenism e de la ‘relative com p lex e’ dans le Nouveau T estam ent et principalem ent chez L uc.” Bib 62 (1981) 229-38. Delobel, J., ed. Logia: Les paroles de Jesus— The Sayings offesus. FS J. Coppens. BETL 59. Leuven: P eeters/ U niversity Press, 1982. Delorme, J., an d Duplacy, J., eds. La parole de grace: Etudes lucaniennes. FS A. George. Paris: R echerches de Science Religieuse, 1981. Demel, S. ‘Jesu Umgang mit Frauen nach dem Lukasevangelium.” BibNot 57 (1991) 41-95. Derrett, J. D. M. Law in the New Testament. L ondon: D arton, Longm an, and Todd, 1970.------------ . New Resolutions of Old Conundrums: A Fresh Insight into Luke’s Gospel. Shipton-on-Stour: Drinkwater, 1986. Descamps, A., and Halleux, A. de, eds. Melange bibliques. FS B. Rigaux. Gembloux: Duculot, 1970. Diamond, G. “Reflections upo n R ecent D evelopm ents in the Study of Parables in L uke.” A B R 29 (1981) 1-9. Dibelius, M. Die urclmstliche Uberlieferung von Johannes dem Taufer. FRLANT 15. Gottingen: V andenhoeck 8c R uprecht, 1911. ------------ . From Tradition to Gospel. Tr. B. L. Woolf. London: Ivor Nicholson 8c Watson, 1934. ------------ . Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. H. Greeven. Tr. M. Ling. L ondon: SCM, 1956. Dietrich, W. Das Petrusbild der lukanischen Schnften. BWANT 94. Stuttgart: K ohlham m er, 1972. Dihle, A. “Die Evangelien un d die biographische Tradition der Antike.” ZTKS0 (1983) 33-49. Dillon, R. J. From Eye-witnesses to Ministers of the Word. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. Dodd, C. H. The Parables of the Kingdom. 3rd ed. New York: S cribner’s, 1961. Domer, M. Das Heil Gottes: Studien zur Theologie des lukanischen Doppelwerkes. BBB 51. C ologne/B onn: P eter H anstein,

General Bibliography

xliii

1978. Domeris, W. R. “T he Holy O ne of God as a Title of Jesus.” Neot 19 (1985) 9-17. Donahue, J. R. The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative, and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. Downing, F. G. “Law and Custom: Luke-Acts and Late H el lenism .” In Law and Religion, ed. B. Lindars. 1 4 8 -5 8 , 187-91. . “Com m on G round with Paganism in Luke and Josephus.” NTS 28 (1982) 5 4 6 -5 9 .------------ . “Freedom from the Law in Luke-Acts.”JSN T 26 (1986) 49-5 2 .------------ . “A has les aristos: The Relevance of H igher Literature for the U nderstanding of the Earliest Christian W riting.” N o vT 30 (1988) 212-30. Drazin, I. Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary. New York: Ktav, 1982. Drury, J. Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel: A Study in Early Christian Historiography. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976. ------------ . The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory. New York: Crossroad, 1985. ------------ . “The Sower, the Vineyard, and the Place of Allegory in the In terpretatio n of M ark’s Parables. ”JTS, n.s., 24 (1973) 367-79. D’Sa, T. “T he Salvation of the Rich in the Gospel o f L uke.” Vidyajyoti 52 (1988) 170-80. Dschulnigg, P. “Positionen des Gleichnisverstandnisses im 20. Jah rh u n d ert: Kurze Darstellung von fun f wichtigen Positionen der Gleichnistheorie (Ju licher, Jeremias, Weder, Arens, H arnisch).” T Z 45 (1989) 335-51. Dubois, J.-D. “La figure d ’Elie dans la perspective lu canienne.” R H P R 53 (1973) 155-76. Dumais, M. “Ministeres, charismes et esprit dans l’oeuvre de Luc.” EglT 9 (1978) 413-53. ------------ . “L’evangelisation des pauvres dans l’oeuvre de Luc.” ScEs 36 (1984) 297-321. Dungan, D. L. ‘Jesus and V iolence.” In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church. FS W. R. Farmer, ed. E. P. Sanders. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1987. 13562. Dunn, J. D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. L ondon: SCM, 1970. ------------ .Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Refleeted in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975. ------------ . “Pharisees, Sinners and Jesus.” In The Social World ofFormative Christianity and Judaism, ed. J. Neusner et al. 264—89. Dupont, J. Les actes des Apotres. Paris: Cerf, 1953.------------ . Les beatitudes. 3 vols. Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1958, 1969, 1973. ------------ . Le discours de Milet: Testament pastoral de saint Paul (Actes 20, 18-36). LD 32. Paris: C erf, 1 9 6 2 . -------------. “Die in d iv id u elle E sch ato lo g ie im Lukasevangelium u nd in der A postelgeschichte.” In Orientierung an Jesus. FSJ. Schmid, ed. P. H offm ann et al. 37-47. ------------ . Pourquoi les paraboles? La methode parabolique de Jesus. Lire la Bible. Paris: Cerf, 1977. ------------ . Etudes sur les evangiles synoptiques. BETL 70. 2 vols. Leuven: University P ress/Peeters, 1985. ------------ . “Le salut des Gentiles et la signifi cation theologique du Livre des Actes.” NTS 6 (1959-60) 132-55. - - - - - . “Le chapitre des paraboles.” N R T 89 (1967) 800-820. ------------ . “L’apres m o rt dans l’oeuvre de Luc.” R TL 3 (1972) 3 - 2 1 .------------ . “T he Poor and Poverty in the Gospel and Acts.” In Gospel Poverty: Essays in Biblical Theology. Chicago: Franciscan H erald, 1977. 2 5 -5 2 .------------ . “La priere et son efficacite dans l’evangile de L uc.” RSR 69 (1981) 45-56. Easton, B. S. “T he Purpose of Acts.” In Early Christianity: “The Purpose of Acts”and Other Papers, ed. F. C. Grant. L ondon: Seabury, 1955. 33-118. Ebertz, Μ. N. Das Charisma des Gekreuzigten: Zur Soziologie derJesusbewegung. WUNT 1/45. T ubingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1987. Edwards, D. R. “Acts of the Apostles and the Graeco-Roman World: Narrative Com m unication in Social Contexts.” In SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. 362-77. Edwards, O. C., Jr. Luke’s Story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Ehrhardt, A. “The Construction and Purpose of the Acts o f the Aposdes.” ST 12 (1958) 45-79. Ehrhardt, E. The Framework of the New Testament Stories. Manchester: University Press, 1964. Eichholz, G. Einfiihrung in die Gleichnisse. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1963.------------ . Gleichnisse der Evangelien: Form, Uberlieferung, Auslegung. 3rd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: N eukirchener, 1979. Elliott, J. H. “Tem ple versus H ousehold in Luke-Acts: A C ontrast in Social Institutions.” H TS 47 (1991) 88-120. ------------ . “Household and Meals vs. Tem ple Purity: Replication Patterns in Luke-Acts.” BTB 21 (1991) 1028. Ellis E. E. “T he Making of Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. W ansbrough. 301-24. ------------ . Eschatology in Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. ------------ . “Present and Future Eschatology in L uke.” N TS 12 (1965-66) 27-41. ------------ . “‘Those of the Circumcision’ and the Early Christian Mission.” 5E4 [= TU 102] (1968) 390-99. Eltester, W. “Israel im lukanischen Werk u n d die N azarethperikope.”

xliv

General Bibliography

In Jesus in Nazareth, ed. W. Eltester. 7 6 -1 4 7 .------------ , ed. Neutestamentliche Studien. FS R. Bultm ann. BZNW 21. Berlin: T opelm ann, 1954.------------ , ed. Jesus in Nazareth. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972. Enslin, M. S. “Luke, the L iterary Physician.” In Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature. FS A. P. Wikgren, ed. D. E. Aune. NovTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 135-43. Ernst, J. Herr der Geschichte: Perspektiven der lukanischen Eschatologie. SBS 88. Stuttgart: K atholisches Bibelwerk, 1978. -------------. Lukas: Ein theologisches Portrait. Du sseldorf: Patmos, 1985. ------------ . “Das Evangelium nach Lukas— kein soziales Evangelium .” TGl 67 (1977) 415-21. Esler, P. F. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology. SNTSMS 57. C am bridge/N ew York: Cam bridge University Press, 1987. Evans, C. A. “Is L uke’s View of the Jewish Rejection of Jesus Anti-Semitic?” In Reimaging, ed. D. D. Sylva. 29-56, 174-83. ------------ . “L uke’s Use of the E lijah/E lisha Nar ratives and the Ethic of Election." JBL 106 (1987) 75-83. Farmer, W. R. The Synoptic Prob lem: A Critical Analysis. Macon, GA: M ercer University, 1976. - - - - - - - . “L uke’s Use of Matthew: A Christological Inquiry.” PSTJ 40 (1987) 39-50. Feldkamper, L. Der betendeJesus als Heilsmittler nach Lukas. V eroffentlichung des M issionspriestersem inars 29. St. Augustin b ei B onn: Steyler, 1978. Fiebig, P. “Je su G leichnisse im L ich te d e r ra b b in isc h e n G leichnisse.” Z N W 13 (1912) 192-211. Fiedler, P. Jesus und die Sunder. BET 3. Frankfurt am M ./B e rn : L ang, 1976. Fiedler, W. A ntiker Wetterzauber. W u rz b u rg e r S tu d ien zu r Altertumswissenschaft 1. Stuttgart: Kohlham m er, 1931. Finegan, J. The Archaeology of the New Testament: The Mediterranean World of the Early Christian Apostles. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1981. Fisher, N. F. The Parables of Jesus: Glimpses of God’s Reign. New York: C ro ssro ad /C o n tinuum , 1990. Fitzmyer, J. A. Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching. New York/M ahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1989. ------------ . “The Priority of Mark and the ‘Q ’ Source in L uke.” In Jesus and M a n ’s Hope, ed. D. G. Miller. Perspective Books. 2 vols. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh T heo logical Seminary, 1970. 1:131-70. - - - - . Essays on the Semitic Background of he New Testa ment. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974. - - - - - - - . "Jesus in the Early C hurch th ro u g h the Eyes o f Luke-Acts.” ScrB 17 (1987) 2 6 -3 5 .------------ . “T he Use of the O ld Testam ent in LukeActs.” In SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 524-38. ------------ et al. A cause de I’Evangile: Etudes sur les Synoptiques et les Actes. FS J. D upont. LD 123. Paris: Cerf, 1985. Flanagan, N. M. “T he W hat and How of Salvation in Luke-Acts.” In Sin, Salvation and the Spirit, ed. D. Durkin. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979. 203-13. ------------ . “T he Position of W omen in the Writings of St. L uke.” Marianum 40 (1978) 288-304. Flender, H. St. Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History. Tr. R. H. and I. Fuller. London: SPCK, 1967. Foakes-Jack son, F. J., and Lake, K., eds. The Beginnings of Christianity. Part 1, The Acts of the Apostles. 5 vols. L ondon: Macmillan, 1920-33. Focant, C. “La chute de Jerusalem et la datation des evangiles.” R T L 19 (1988) 17-37. Ford, J. M. My Enemy Is My Guest: Jesus and Violence in Luke. M aryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984. France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. L ondon: Tyndale, 1971. Francis, F. O. “Eschatology and History in Luke-Acts.”JAAR 37 (1969) 49-63. Frankemolle, H. “H at Jesus sich selbst verku ndet? Christologische Im plicationen in den vorm arkinischen P arab eln .” BibLeb 13 (1972) 184-207. ------------ . “Kommunikatives H an d eln in G leichnissen Jesu. Historichkritische u nd pragmatische Exegese. Eine kritische Sichtung.” NTS 28 (1982) 6190. Franklin, E. Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975. Freire, C. E. "Jesu s profeta, libertador del hom bre: Vision lucana de su ministerio terrestre.” EE 51 (1976) 463-95. Freyne, S. The Twelve: Disciples and Apostles. An Introduction to the Theology of the First Three Gospels. London: Sheed and Ward, 1968. ------------ . Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations. Dublin: Gill and M acm illan, 1988. Fridrichsen, A. Le probleme du miracle dans le Christianisme primitif. Strasbourg/Paris: Istra. 1925. ------------ . "Jesu K am pf gegen die u n rein en Geister.” In Der Wunderbegriff im Neuen Testament, ed. A. Suhl. WF 295. D arm stadt: W issenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980. 248-65. Friedrichsen, T. A. “T he Matthew-Luke Agreem ents against Mark: A Survey of R ecent Studies: 1974-89.” In L ’E vangile de Luc (1989), ed. F. Neirynck. 335-91. Frye, R. M. “The Jesus of the Gospels: A pproaches through N arrative S tru ctu re.”

General Bibliography

xlv

In From Faith to Faith. FS D. G. Miller, ed. D. Y. H adidian. PTMS 31. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979. 75-89. Fuchs, A. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zum Matthaeus und Lukas: Fin Beitrag zur Quellenkritik. AnBib 49. Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1971. Fuchs, E. “B em erkungen zur G leichnisauslegung.” In Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus: Gesammelte Aufsatze II. 2nd ed. Tubingen: Mohr, 1960. 136-42. ------------ . “Die A nalogic.” In Die neutestamentliche Gleich nisforschung, ed. W. H arnisch. 1-19. Fuller, R. H. Interpreting the Miracles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. Funk, R. W. “T he N arrative Parables: T he Birth o f a Language Tradi tion.” In God’s Christ and His People, ed. J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977. 42-50. ------------ . Parables and Presence: Forms of the New Testament Tradition. Philadel phia: Fortress, 1982. ------------ . “Critical N ote.” Semeia 1 (1974) 182-91. - - - - - - - - . “Struc ture in the Narrative Parables of Jesus.” Semeia 2 (1974) 51-73. - - - - - - - . “Parable, Paradox, Power: T he Prodigal Sam aritan.”JAAR 48 (1981) 83-97. ------------ . “From Parable to Gospel: D om esticating the T radition.” Forum 1 (1985) 3 - 2 4 . ------------ . “Unraveling the Jesus T radition.” Forum 5.2 (1989) 31-62. Fusco, V. “T endences recentes dans l'inter pretation des paraboles.” In Les paraboles evangeliques: Perspectives nouvelles. XIIe congres de l'ACEF, ed. J. Delorm e. LD 135. Paris: Cerf, 1989. 19-60 Gaechter, P. Μ ariα im Erdleben: Neutestamentliche M ariestudien. 3rd ed. Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1955. Gager, J. G. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Engelw ood Cliffs: Prentice-H all, 1975. ------------ . The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes towardsJudaism in Pagan and Christian Antiq uity. New Y ork/O xford: O xford University Press, 1985. Garrett, S. R. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings. M inneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989. Gartner, B. E. “T he Person of Jesus and the Kingdom of G od.” TToday 27 (1970) 32-43. Gasque, W. W. A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1975. Gaston, L. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. NovTSup 22. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Gault, J. A. “T he Discourse Function of Kai Egeneto in Luke and Acts.” OPTAT 4 (1990) 388-99. Gaventa, B. R. “T he Eschatology of Luke-Acts R ev isited .” Encounter 43 (1982) 27-42. Geiger, R. “G e sp ra c h sp a rtn e r Je su im Lukasevangelium .” In Biblische Randbemerkungen. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. H. Merklein an d J. Lange. W urzburg: Echter, 1974. 150-56. George, A. “Miracles dans le m onde hellenistique.” In Les miracles deJesus, ed. X. Leon-Dufour. 95-108. ------------ . “Le miracle dans l'oeuvre de Luc.” In Les miracles de Jesus, ed. X. Leon-Dufour. 249-68. ------------. Etudes sur l'oeuvre de Luc. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1978. ------------ . “La royaute de Jesus selon l'evangile de Luc.” ScEccl 14 (1962) 57-69. ------------ . “Jesus Fils de Dieu dans l 'evangile selon Saint Luc.” RB 72 (1965) 185-209. ------------ . “T radition et redaction chez Luc: La co n stru c tion du troisieme evangile.” ETL 43 (1967) 100-129. . “Israel dans l'oeuvre de Luc.” RB 75 (1968) 481 -5 2 5 .------------ . “L’em ploi chez Luc du vocabulaire de salut.” NTS 23 (1977) 3 0 8 -2 0 .------------ . “L’Esprit-Saint dans l'oeuvre de L uc.” RB 85 (1978) 500-542. Gerhardsson, B. “The N arrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels.” NTS 34 (1988) 3396 3 .------------ . “If We Do N ot Cut the Parables out of T heir Frames.” NTS 37 (1991) 321-35. Gewalt, D. “Das ‘P etrusbild’ der lukanischen Schriften als Problem einer ganzheitlichen Exegese.” LingBib 34 (1975) 1-22. Gibbs, J. M. “Mark 1.1-15, M atthew 1.1-4.16, Luke 1.14.30, Jo h n 1.1-51: T he Gospel Prologues and T heir F un ctio n .” SE 6 [= TU 112] (1973) 154-88. Giblin, C. H. The Destruction of Jerusalem according to L uke’s Gospel: A HistoricalTypological Moral. AnBib 107. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1985. ------------ . “D iscerning Gos pel G e n re .” Thought 47 (1972) 225-52. Giet, S. “U n p ro ced e litteraire d ’exposition: l'anticipation chronologique.” REA 2 (1956) 243-53. Gilbert, A. “O u fut ecrit l'evangile de Luc?” ScEs 39 (1987) 211-28. Giles, K. “Salvation in Lukan Theology (1).” R T R 42 (1983) 10-16. ------------ . “T he C hurch in the Gospel of L uke.” SJT 34 (1981) 121-46. ------------ . “Is Luke an E xponent o f ‘Early Protestantism ’?: C hurch O rd er in the Lukan Writings (Part I).” E v Q 54 (1982) 193-205. Gillman, J. Possessions and the Life of Faith: A Reading of LukeActs. Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991. Gils, F. Jesus prophete d ’apres les evangiles synoptiques. O rien talia et Biblica Lovaniensia 2. Louvain: U niversite de Louvain, 1957. Glen, J. S. The Parables of Conflict in Luke. Philadelphia:

xlvi

General Bibliography

W estm inster, 196 2 . Glockner, R. Die Verku ndigung des Heils beim Evangelisten Lukas. W alberger S tu d ien d e r A lbertus-M agnus-A kadem ie. T h eo lo g isch e R eihe 9. Mainz: Gru newald, n.d. (1976). Glombitza, O. “Die Titel διδάσκαλος u n d έ π ισ τά τη ς fu r Jesus bei Lukas.” ZAW 49 (1958) 275-78. Glover, W. W. “T he K ingdom o f G o d ’ in L uke.” B T 29 (1978) 231-37. Gnilka,J. Das Matthausevangelium. HTKNT. 2 vols. Freiburg/B asel/V ienna: H erder, 1 9 8 6 -8 8 . ---------. Die Verstockung Israels: Isaias 6, 9-10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker. SANT 3. M unich: Kosel, 1961. Goudoever, J. van. “T he Place o f Israel in L uke’s G ospel.” NovT 8 (1966) 111-23. Goulder, M. D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974. 452-71. ------------ . The Evangelists’ Calendar. London: SCM, 1978. -------------. “Char acteristics of the Parables in the Several Gospels.” JTS, n.s., 19 (1968) 51-69. -------------. O n P utting Q to the Test.” ATS 24 (1978) 218-34. ------------ . “Did Luke Know Any o f the Pauline Letters?” PRS 13 (1986) 97-112. Gowler, D. B. Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Por traits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts. Em ory Studies in Early Christianity 2. New Y ork/ Bern: Lang, 1991. ------------ . “Characterization in Luke: A Socio-Narratological A pproach.” BTB 19 (1989) 54-62. Grasser, E. Das Problem der Parusieverzogerung in den synoptischen Evangelien. BZNW 22. 2nd ed. Berlin: T opelm ann, 1960. Grassi, J. A. God Makes Me Laugh: A New Approach to Luke. W ilmington: Glazier, 1986. Green, J. B. “‘T he Message of Salva tio n ’ in Luke-Acts.” E xA ud 5 (1989) 21-34. Grelot, P. “Miracles d e Jesus et la dem onologie juive.” In Les miracles de Jesus, ed. X. Leon-Dufour. 59-72. Grundmann, W. Das Evangelium nach Markus. THKNT 2. 2nd ed. East Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1959. -------------. “W eisheit im H orizont des Reiches Gottes: Eine Studie zur Verku ndigung Jesu nach d er S pruchu berlieferung Q .” In Die Kirche des Anfangs. FS H. Schurm ann, ed. R. Schnacken burg, J. Ernst, a n d J. Wanke. F reiburg/B asel/V ienna: H erder, 1978. 175-200. Guillet, J. “Bulletin d ’exegese lucanienne.” RSR 69 (1981) 425-42. Gundry, R. H. Matthew: A Commen tary on His Literary and Theological Art. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1982. Guttgemanns, E. “Narrative Analyse synoptischer Texte.” In Die neutestamentliche Gleichnisforschung, ed. W. H arnisch. 179-223. Haaker, K. “V erw endung u n d V erm eidung des A postelbegriffs im lukanischen W erk.” N o vT 30 (1988) 9-38. Hadidan, D. Y., ed. Signs and Parables. PTMS 23. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978. Haenchen, E. Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklarung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen. Berlin: T opelm ann, 1966. -------------. Die Bibel und wir: Gesammelte Aufsatze. 2 vols. Tubingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1968. ------------ . The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Tr. B. N oble and G. Shinn. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. ------------ . “H istorie u n d Verku ndigung bei Markus u n d Lukas.” In Das Lukas-Evangelium, ed. G. B raum ann. 287-316. ------------ . “Petrus-Problem e.” N TS 7 (1960-61) 187-97. Hahn, F. The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity. Tr. H. Knight and G. Ogg. L ondon: L utterw orth, 1969. Hamm, D. “Sight to the Blind: Vision as M etaphor in L uke.” Bib 67 (1986) 457-77. Hammer, R. A. “Elijah and Jesus: A Q uest for Identity. ”Judaism 19 (1970) 207-18. Hanford, W. R. “D eutero-Isaiah and Luke-Acts: Straightforw ard Universalism?” CQR 168 (1967) 141-52. Harnack, A. von. Luke the Physician: The Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. New Testam ent Studies 1. Tr. J. R. W ilkinson. New York: P utnam , 1907. -------------. The Acts of the Apostles. New T estam ent Studies 3. Tr. J. R. Wilkinson. L ondon/N ew York: Williams Sc N orgate/G . P. P utnam ’s Sons, 1909. ------------ . “'Ich bin gekom m en’: Die ausdru cklichen Selbstzeugnisse Jesu u b er den Zweck seiner Sendung u n d seines K om m ens.” Z T K 22 (1912) 1-30. Harnisch, W. Die Gleichniserzahlungen Jesu: Eine hermeneutische Einfuhrung. U nitaschenbu cher 1343. G ottingen: V andenhoeck Sc R uprecht, 1985. ------------ . “Die Ironie als Stilsmittel in Gleichnisse Je su .” E v T 32 (1972) 421-36. ------------ . “Die sprachkraft der A nalogie : Zur These vom ‘argum entativen Character’ der Gleichnisse Jesu .” ST 28 (1974) 1-20. ------------ . “Die M etaphor als heuristisches Prinzip: N euerscheinungen zur H erm eneutik der Gleichnisreden Jesu.” VF 24 (1979) 53-89. ------------ , ed. Die neutestamentliche Gleichnisforschung im Horizont von Hermeneutik und Litera turwissenschaft. WF 575. D arm stadt: W issenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982. , ed. Gleichnisse Jesu: Positionen der Auslegung von AdolfJulicher bis zur Formgeschichte. WF 366. D arm stadt: W issenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982. Hartman, L. Testimonium Linguae:

General Bibliography

xlvii

Participial Constructions in the Synoptic Gospels: A Linguistic Examination of Luke 21, 13. ConNT 19. Lund: G leerup, 1963. Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982. Hasler, V. Amen. Z urich/S tuttgart: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1969. Hastings, A. Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem. Baltimore: Helicon, 1958. Haubeck, W., and Bachmann, M., eds. Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien. FS K. H. Rengstorf. Leiden: Brill, 1980. H auerw as, S. “T he Politics o f Charity.” Int 31 (1977) 251-62. H aw kins, J. C. Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. 2nd ed. Oxford: C larendon, 1909. Heard, W. “Luke’s Attitude toward the Rich and the Poor.” TJ 9 (1988) 47-80. Heinemann, J. “T h e T rie n n ia l L ec tio n a ry C ycle.” JJS 19 (1968) 41-48. H ein in g er, B. Metaphorik, Erzahlstruktur und szenisch-dramatische Gestaltung in den Sondergutgleichnissen bei Lukas. NTAbh n.f. 24. Mu nster: A schendorff, 1991. H em er, C. J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. C. H. Gempf. WUNT 49. Tu bingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989. H engel, M. The Char ismatic Leader and His Followers. Tr. J. C. G. Greig. New York: Crossroad, 1981. H ennecke, E. New Testament Apocrypha. Ed. W. Schneem elcher. Tr. R. McL. Wilson. 2 vols. London: Lutterw orth, 1963-65. Heutger, N. “Mu nzen im Lukasevangelium .” BZ 27 (1983) 97-101. H iers, R. H. The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition. UFHM 33. Gainesville: University of Florida, 1970. ------------. “T he Problem of the Delay of the Parousia in Luke-Acts.” NTS 20 (1974) 145-55. H iggins, A. J. B. Jesus and the Son of Man. L o n d o n /P h ila d elp h ia : L utterw orth/F ortress, 1 9 6 4 .------------ . “Non-Gnostic Sayings in the Gospel of T hom as.” N o vT 4 (1960) 292-306. Hill, E. “Messianic Fulfilm ent in St. L uke.” S E 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 190-98. H innebusch, P. "Jesus, the New Elijah, in Saint L uke.” BiTod 31 (1967) 2175-82; 32 (1967) 2237-44. H irsch, E. Die Auferstehungsgeschichten und der christliche Glaube. Tu bingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1940. H obart, W. K. The Medical Language of St. Luke: A Proof from Internal Evidence that “The Gospel according to St. Luke ” and “The Acts of the Apostles ” Were Written by the Same Person, and that the Writer Was a Medical Man. G rand Rapids: Baker, 1954 = 1882. H oehner, H. W. Herod Antipas. SNTSMS 17. Cambridge: University Press, 1972. H offm ann, J. C. “Story as M ythoparabolic Medium: Reflections on Crossan’s Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus.” USQR 37 (1983) 323-33. H offm ann, P. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. Mu nster: Aschendorff, 1972. ------------ et al., eds. Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker. FS J. Schmid. Freiburg/B asel/V ienna: H erder, 1973. H ollenbach, P. H. “From Parable to Gospel: A Response Using the Social Sciences.” Forum 2.3 (1986) 67-75. H oltz, T. Untersuchungen u ber die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas. TU 104. Berlin: A kademie , 1968. H oltzm ann, H. J. Die Synoptiker. HKNT. 3rd ed. T u bingen: Mohr, 1901. H ooker, M. D. The Son of M an in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term “Son of M a n ‫״‬ and Its Use in St. M ark’s Gospel. M ontreal: McGill University, 1967. H o rn , F. W. Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas. GTA 26. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Horsley, R. A. Sociology and the Jesus Movement. New York: Crossroad, 1989. H oulden, J. L. “The Purpose of L u ke.”JSN T 21 (1984) 53-65. H ouse, P. “Suffering and the Purpose of Acts.”JE T S 33 (1990) 317-30. H ubbard, B. J. “Commissioning Stories in Luke-Acts: A Study of T heir A ntecedents, Form, and C o n ten t.” Semeia 8 (1977) 103-26. ------------ . “Luke, Josephus, and Rome: A Com parative A pproach to the Lukan Sitz im Leben.” In 1978 SBL Seminar Papers, ed. P. J. Achtemeier. Missoula: Scholars, 1978. 1:59-68. H uffm an, N. A. “Atypical Features in the Parables of Jesus. ”JBL 97 (1978) 207-20. Hull, J. M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition. SBT 2/28. L ondon: SCM, 1974. H ultgren, A. J. “Interpret ing the Gospel of Luke.” Int 30 (1976) 353-65. Hunkin, J. W. “‘Pleonastic’άρχομαί in the New T estam ent.” JTS, o.s., 25 (1924) 390-402. H unter, A. M. The Parables for Today. London: SCM, 1983. ------------ . “In terpreting the Parables.” I n t 14: (1960) 70-84; 167-85; 31554. Jackson, D. “Luke and Paul: A Theology of O ne Spirit from Two Perspectives. ”JETS 32 (1989) 335-43. Jellicoe, S. “St. Luke and the L etter o f A risteas.” JBL 80 (1961) 14955. Jerem ias, Jesus’Promise to the Nations. SBT 24. Tr. S. H. Hooke. L ondon: SCM, 1958. ------------ . Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. ------------ . New Testa ment Theology. Vol. 1. London: SCM, 1971. ------------ . The Parables of Jesus. Tr. S. H. H ooke et al. 3rd ed. L ondon: SCM, 1972. ------------ . Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion

xlviii

General Bibliography

und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums. KEK, Sonderband. G ottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. ------------ . “Pericopen-U m stellungen bei Lukas?” N TS 4 (1958) 115-19. Jervell, J. Imago Dei. FRLANT 58. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. ------------ . Luke and the People of God. M inneapolis: Augsburg, 1972. -------------. The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. ------------ . “Die Mitte der Schrift: Zum lukanischen Verstandnis des Alten Testam ents.” In Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments, ed. U. Luz and H. Weder. 79-96. ------------ . “G od’s Faithfulness to the Faithless People: Trends in Interpretation of Luke-Acts.” WW 12 (1992) 29-36. ------------ . “Retrospect and Prospect in Luke-Acts In terp reta tio n .” In SBL 1991 Seminar Pa pers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 283-404. . “T he C hurch of Jews and G odfearers.” In Luke-Acts and the Jewish People, ed. J. B. Tyson. 11-20, 138-40. Johnson, L. T. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. SBLDS 39. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977.------------ . LukeActs: A Story of Prophet and People. Chicago: Franciscan H erald, 1981. Johnston, R. M. “T he Study of Rabbinic Parables: Some Prelim inary O bservations.” In Society of Biblical Litera ture. 1976 Seminar Paper. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976. 337-57. Jones, C. P. M. “T he Epistle to the Hebrews and the Lukan W ritings.” In Studies in the Gospels. FS R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. N ineham . Oxford: Blackwell, 1955. 113-43. Jones, D. L. “L uke’s U nique Interest in Historical Chronology.” In 1989 SBL Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. 378-87. Jones, G. V. The Art and Truth of the Parables. L ondon: SPCK, 1964. Jonge, M. de, ed. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Leiden: Brill, 1978.------------ and Woude, A. S. van der. “11 Q M elchizedek and the New T estam ent.” NTS 12 (1965-66) 301-26. Jorns, K. P. “Die G leichnisverkundigungjesu: Reden von G ott als Wort G ottes.” In Der R u f Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. FS J. Jerem ias, ed. E. Lohse. Gottingen: V andenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1970. 157-77. Judge, E. A. “T he Social Identity of the First C hristians." JRomH 11 (1980) 201-17. Juel, D. Luke-Acts: The Promise of History. Atlanta: Jo h n Knox, 1983. Julicher, A. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. 2 vols. 2nd ed. T ubingen: Mohr, 1910. Jungel, E. Paulus und Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zur Prdzisierung der Frage nach dern Ursprung der Christologie. H U Th 2. 4th ed. T ubingen: Mohr, 1972. 71-215. Kaesdi, J.-D. L 'Eschatologie dans l'oeuvre de Luc. Geneva: L abor et Fides, 1969. Kahlefeld, H. Gleichnisse als Lehrstucke im Evangelium. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1964-65. Kahler, M. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the

Historic Biblical Christ.

Tr . C. E. B raaten .F ortrcss:P h ilad elph ia, 1 9 6 4 . K a m p l i n g . R . " J e s u s v o n

N azaret—L ehrer un d Exorzist.” BZ 30 (1986) 237-48. Karris, R. J. Invitation to Luke. Gar den City: Doubleday Image, 1977. . What Are They Saying about Luke and Acts? A Theology of the Faithful God. New York: Paulist, 1979. ------------ . Luke: Artist and Theologian. New York: Paulist, 1985. ------------ . “Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben." In Perspect ives on Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert. 112-25. . “Windows and Mirrors: Literary Criticism and L uke’s Sitz im Leben." In 1979 SBL Seminar Papers, ed. P. J. A chtem eier. Missoula: Scholars, 1979. 1:47-58. ------------ . “T he Lukan Sitz im Leben: M ethodology and Prospects.” In Society of Biblical Literature. 1976 Seminar Papers. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976. 219-33. ------------ . “Missionary Com munities: A New Paradigm for the Study of LukeActs.” CBQ 4 1 (1979) 80-97. Kasemann, E. Essays on New Testament Themes. SBT 41. London: SCM, 1964. Keathley, N. H. “T he Tem ple in Luke and Acts: Im plications for the Synoptic Problem and Proto-Luke.” In With Steadfast Purpose: Essays on Acts. FS H. J. Flanders, Jr., ed. N. H. Keathley. Waco, TX: Baylor University, 1990. 77-105. Keck, L. E., and Martyn, J. L., eds. Studies in Luke-Acts. FS P. Schubert. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980 = 1966. Kee, H. C. Christian Origins in Sociological Perspective. L ondon: SCM, 1980. ------------ . Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study in Sociohistorical Method. New Haven: Yale University, 1983. Kellner, W. Der Traum vom Menschensohn: Die politisch-theologische Botschaft Jesu. M unich: Kosel, 1985. Kelly, J. F. “T he Patristic Biography of L uke.” BiTod 74 (1974) 113-19. Kelly, J. G. “Lucan Christology and the Jewish-Christian D ialogue."JES 21 (1984) 688-708. Kenny, A. A Stylometric Study of the New Testament. O xford/N ew York: University P ress/C laren d o n , 1986. Kertelge, K. Die Wunder Jesu im M arkusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. SANT 33. M unich: Kosel, 1970. ------------ . “Die W under Jesu in d er n eu eren

General Bibliography

xlix

Exegese.” TBl 5 (1976) 71-105. Kilgallen, J. J. “T he Function of S tep h en ’s Speech (Acts 7,2-53).” B ib 70 (1989) 173-93. ------------ . “Social D evelopm ent and the Lukan W ritings.” StudMiss 39 (1990) 21-47. Kilpatrick, G. D. “T he Gentiles and the Strata of L uke.” In Verborum Veritas, ed. O. Bocher. 83-88. King, N. Q. “T he ‘Universalism o f the T hird Gosp el.” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 199-205. Kingsbury, J. D. Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. ------------ . Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. M inneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. ------------ . “E rnst Fuchs’ Existentialist In terp retatio n of the Parables.” L Q 22 (1970) 380-95. ------------ . “Major Trends in Parable In terp retatio n .” CTM 42 (1971) 579-96. ------------ . “T he Parables of Jesus in C u rren t Research.” Dialog 11 (1972) 101-7. Kirchschlager, W. Jesu exorzistisches Wirken aus der Sicht des Lukas: Lin Beitrag zur lukanischen Redaktion. OBS 3. K losterneuburg: Osterreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981. Kissinger, W. S. The Parables of Jesus: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography. M etuchen, NJ: Scarecrow and ATLA, 1979. Kistemaker, S. J. The Parables of Jesus. G rand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Klauck, H.-J. Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten. Munster: A schendorff, 1978. ------------ . “N eue Beitrage zur G leichnisforschung.” BibLeb 13 (1972) 214-30. ------------ . “Die A rm ut der J u nger in der Sicht des Lukas.” Claretianum 26 (1986) 5-47. ------------ . “Die heilige Stadt: Jerusalem bei Philo u n d Lukas.” Kairos 28 (1986) 129-51. Klein A. F. J. “Jo d e n en heidenen in Lukas-H andelingen.” KeTh 13 (1962) 16-24. Klein, H. “Zur Frage nach dem Abfassungsort der Lukasschriften.” E vT 32 (1972) 467-77. Klinghardt, M. Gesetz und Volk Gottes: Das lukanische Verstandnis des Gesetzes nach Herkunft, Lunktion und seinem Ort in der Geschichte des Urchristentums. WUNT 2/32. Tu bingen: Mohr, 1988. Klostermann, E. Das Markusevangelium. HNT 3. T ubingen: Mohr, 1926. Knox, W. L. The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels. Vol. 2, St. Luke and St. Matthew. Ed. H. Chadwick. C am bridge: U niversity Press, 1957. Koch, R. “Die W ertung des Besitzes im Lukasevangelium .” Bib 38 (1957) 151-69. Kodell, J. “L uke’s Use of laos, ‘P eople,’ Especially in the Jerusalem Narrative (Lk 19,28-24,53).” CBQ 31 (1969) 327-43. ------------ . “T he T he ology of Luke in R ecent Study.” BTB 1 (1971) 115-44. Koenig, J. “Occasions of Grace in Paul, Luke, and First C entury Judaism .” ATR 64 (1982) 562-76. Koester, H. Ancient Chris tian Gospels: Their History and Development. Philadelphia, PA: Trinity, 1991. ------------ . “From the Kerygma-Gospel to W ritten Gospels.” N TS 35 (1989) 361-81. Koet, B. J. F ive Studies of Scripture in Luke-Acts. SNTA 14. Leuven: University Press, 1989. Kopas, J. ‘Jesus and Women: L uke’s Gospel.” TToday 43 (1986) 192-202. Kraybill, D. B. “Possessions in Luke-Acts: A Sociological Perspective.” PRS 10 (1983) 215-39. Kremer, J., ed. Les Actes des Apotres: Tradi tions, redaction, theologie. BETL 48. Gembloux: Duculot, 1979. Kuhschelm, R . J ungerverfolgung und Geschick Jesu: Eine exegetisch-bibeltheologische Untersuchung der synoptischen Verfolgungsanku ndigungen Mk 13, 9-13 par und M t 23, 2 9 -3 6 par. OBS 5. K losterneuburg: O sterreich isches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. Kummel, W. G. “N och einmal: Das Gleichnis von der selbstw achsenden Saat: B em e rk u n g e n zur n e u e ste n D iskussion um die A uslegung d e r Gleichnisse Jesu.” In Orientierung an Jesus. FS J. Schmid, ed. P. H offm ann et al. 220-37. ------------ . Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatalogical Message of Jesus. SBT 1/23. Tr. D. M. Barton. N aperville/L ondon: A llenson/SCM , 1957. ------------ . Introduction to the New Testa ment. Tr. H. C. Kee. 2nd ed. L ondon: SCM, 1975. ------------ . “Futurische u n d prasentische Eschatologie im altesten C hristentum .” NTS 5 (1958-59) 113-26. ------------ . “C u rren t T heological A ccusations against L uke.” A N Q 16 (1975) 131-45. Kurz, W. S. “N arrative A pproaches to Luke-Acts.” Bib 68 (1987) 195-220. ------------ . “N arrative M odels for Im i tation in Luke-Acts.” In Greeks, Romans and Christians. FS A. J. M alherbe, ed. D. L. Balch et al. M inneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. 171-89. Lacan, M.-F. “Conversion et Royaume dans les Evangiles synoptiques.” LumVie 9 (1960) 25-47. Ladd, G. E. “T he Life-Setting o f the Parables o f the K ingdom .” JBR 31 (1963) 193-99. Lambrecht, J. “Les parables dans les synoptiques.” N R T 102 (1980) 672-91. Lampe, G. W. H. “T he Holy Spirit in the W ritings o f St. L uke.” In Studies in the Gospels. FS R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. N ineham . Ox ford: Blackwell, 1955. 159-200. ------------ . “T he Lukan P ortrait o f Christ.” NTS 2 (1956) 160-75. Lane, W. L. The Gospel according to Mark. NICNT. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1974.

1

General Bibliography

------------ and Robertson, M. J., III, eds. The Gospels Today: A Guide to Some Recent Develop ments. Philadelphia: Skilton House, 1990. Lategan, B. C. “T radition and In terp retatio n — Two M ethodological Rem arks.” Neot 7 (1973) 95-103. Laufen, R. Die Doppeluberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums. BBB 54. K onigstein/B onn: H anstein, 1980. LaVerdiere, E. “T he Gospel of L uke.” BiTod 18 (1980) 226-35. ------------ an d Thompson, W. G. “New T estam ent Com m unities in Transition: A Study o f M atthew and L uke.” TS 37 (1976) 567-97. Legasse, S. Jesus et l'enfant: “E nfant,” “petits” et “simple” dans la tradition synoptique. Paris: Gabalda, 1969. Legrand, L. “C hrist’s Miracles as ‘Social W ork.’” IES 1 (1962) 43-64. ------------ . “T he Parables of Jesus Viewed from the Dekkan P lateau.” ITS 23 (1986) 154-70. Lemcio, E. E. The Past of Jesus in the Gospels. SNTSMS 68. Cam bridge: University Press, 1991. Leon-Dufour, X. Etudes d ’evangile. Parole de Dieu. Paris: Seuil, 1965. ------------ , ed. Les miracles de Jesus selon le Nouveau Testament. Paris: Seuil, 1977. Levy, J. Neuhebraisches und chaldaisches Worterbuch u ber die Talmudim und Midraschim. 4 vols. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1876-89. Lightfoot, R. H. Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels. L ondon: H o d d er 8c Stoughton, 1938. Lindars, B. “Elijah, Elisha, and the Gospel M iracles.” In Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History, ed. C. F. D. Moule. L ondon: Mowbray, 1965. 63-79. ------------ . Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gos pels in the Light of Recent Research. L ondon: SPCK, 1983. , ed. Law and Religion : Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity. Cam bridge: J. Clarke and Co., 1988. Lindeboom, G. A. “Luke the Evangelist and the A ncient G reek Writers on M edi cine."Janus: Revue Internationale de l'histoire des sciences, de la medicine, de la pharmacie et de la technique 52 (1965) 143-48. Lindemann, A. “Erw agungen zum Problem einer ‘Theologie d er synoptischen Evangelien.’” ZAW 77 (1986) 1-33. Lindeskog, G. ‘Jo h an n es d er Taufer: Einige R andbem erkungen zum heutigen Stand der F orschung.” A STI 12 (1983) 55-83. Lindsey, R. L. “A Modified Two-Document T heory of the Synoptic D ependence and Inte rd e p en d e n ce .” NovT 6 (1963) 239-63. Linnemann, E. Jesus of the Parables: Introduction and Exposition. New York: H arper and Row, 1 966.------------ . Parables of Jesus. Tr. J. Sturdy. New York: H arper 8c Row, 1966. Linton, O. “C oordinated Sayings and Parables in the Syn optic Gospels: Analysis versus T heories.” N TS 26 (1980) 139-63. Little, J. C. “Parable Research in the Tw entieth C entury.” E xpTim 87 (1975-76) 356-60; 88 (1976-77) 40-44, 7175. Lohfink, G. Die Sammlung Israels: Eine Untersuchung zur lukanischen Ekklesiologie. SANT 34. M unich: Kosel, 1975. Lohmeyer, E. Das Evangelium des Markus. KEK. G ottingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1953. Lohse, E. “M issionarisches H an d eln Jesu nach dem E v angelium des L u k as.” TZ 10 (1954) 1 - 1 3 . -------------. “L ukas als T h e o lo g e d e r H eilsgeschichte.” E vT 14 (1954) 2 5 6 -7 5 .------------ et al., eds. Der R u f Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde: Exegetische Untersuchungen. FS J. Jerem ias. G o ttin g en : V an d en h o eck & R uprecht, 1970. Loisy, A. Les evangiles synoptiques. Vol. 1. Cliffonds: Chez l’auteur, 1907. Loos, H. van der. The Miracles of Jesus. NovTSup 9. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Lovering, E. H., Jr., ed. Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars, 1991. ------------ , ed. Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Lovestam, E. Son and Saviour: A Study of Acts 13, 32-37. With an Appendix: ‘Son of God’ in the Synoptic Gospels. ConN T 18. Tr. M. J. Petry. Lund: G leerup, 1961. Luck, U. “Kerygma, T radition, u n d G eschichte Jesu bei L ukas.” Z TK 57 (1960) 51-66. Luhrmann, D. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. WMANT 33. N eukirchen: N eukirchener, 1969. ------------ . “T he Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q ." JBL 108 (1989) 51-71. Lull, D. J., ed. 1989 SBL Semi nar Papers. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989. Luomanen, P., ed. Luke-Acts Scandinavian Perspec tives. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 54. H elsinki/G ottingen: Finnish Ex egetical Society/V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1991. Luz, U., and Weder, H., eds. Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie. FS E. Schweizer. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1983. Mack, B. L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. ------------ and Robbins, V. K. Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1989. MacRae, G. W. “The Gospel of Thom as— Logia Iesou?" CBQ 22 (1960) 56-71. Maddox, R. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. E dinburgh: Clark, 1982. Magass, W.

General Bibliography

li

“Die m agistralen Schlusssignale der Gleichnisse Jesu .” LingBib 36 (1976) 1-20. Mainville, O. L ’esprit dans l'oeuvre de Luc. H eritage et Projet 45. Montreal: Fides, 1991. ----------- . "Jesus et l’Esprit dans l’oeuvre de Luc: Eclairage a p artir d ’Ac 2, 33.” ScEs 42 (1990) 193-208. Malina, B. J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: Knox, 1981. ------------ . “In terpreting the Bible with A nthropology: T he Case o f the Rich and the Poor.” Listening 21 (1986) 148-59. ------------ . “Wealth and Poverty in the New T estam ent and Its W orld.” Int 41 (1987) 354-67. Maloney, F. J. “Reading Eucharistic Texts in L uke.” ProcIBA 14 (1991) 25-45. Maly, E. H. “W omen and the Gospel o f L uke.” BiTod 10 (1980) 99-104. Manek,J. “Das A posteldekret im K ontext der L ukastheologie.” CV 15 (1972) 15160. Mangatt, G. “T he Gospel of Salvation.” Biblebhashyam 2 (1976) 60-80. Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. L ondon: SCM, 1949. ------------ . The Teaching of Jesus: Studies in Its Form and Context. Cambridge: University Press, 1959 = 1935. Manson, W. Jesus the Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation of God in Christ, with Special Reference to Form-Criticism. Lon don: H o d d er & S toughton, 1943. Marin, L. “P our u ne th eo rie d u texte p arab o liq u e.” In Le recit evangelique, ed. C. C h ab ro l an d C. M arin. BSR. Paris: A u b rier M o n ta g n e / D elachaux et N iestle/C erf/B rouw er, 1974. 165-92. Marshall, I. H. Eschatology and the Parables. L ondon: Tyndale, 1963. ------------ . Luke: Historian and Theologian. Exeter: Pater noster, 1970. ------------ . The Acts of the Apostles. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980. . Luke: Historian and Theologian. 3rd ed. Exeter Paternoster, 1988. ------------ . Luke: Historian and Theologian. Enl. ed. G rand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.------------ . “T he Present State of Lukan Studies.” Themelios 14 (1988-89) 5 2 -5 7 .------------ , ed. New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Exeter: Paternoster, 1977. Martin, R. A. Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents. SBLSCS 3. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974. ------------ . Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels. Studies in the Bible an d Early Christianity 10. Lewiston, N Y /Q ueenston, Ont.: Mellen, 1987. Martin, R. P. “Salvation and Discipleship in L uke’s G ospel.” Int 30 (1976) 366-80. Marx, W. G. “Luke, the Physician, Re-exam ined.” ExpTim 91 (1980) 168-72. Marxsen, W. Der “Fruhkatholizismus”im Neuen Testament. BibS(N) 21. N eukirchen: N eukirchener, 1958. Marz, C.-P. Das Wort Gottes bei Lukas: Die lukanische Worttheologie alsFrage an die neuere Lukasforschung. ETS 11. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1974. Masson, C. Vers les sources d ’eau vive: Etudes d ’exegese et de theologie du Nouveau Testament. Publication de la Faculte de theologie, Universite de Lausanne 2. Lausanne: Libraire Payot, 1961. Matera, F. J. “Responsibility for the D eath of Jesus according to the Acts of the Apostles.” JSN T 39 (1990) 77-93. Matthey, J. “Puissance et pauvrete: Notes sur la mission de l’Eglise a partir de la theologie de Luc.” BulCPE 30 (1978) 47-54. Mattill, A. J., Jr. “T he Purpose of Acts: Schneckenburger R econsidered.” In Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays. FS F. F. Bruce, ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin. E x eter/G ra n d Rapids: Paternoster/E erdm ans, 1970. 108-22. ------------. Luke and the Last Things: A Perspectivefor the Understanding of Lukan Thought. Dillsboro, NC: W estern N orth Carolina, 1979. ------------ . “Naherwartung, Fernerwartung, and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: Weymouth R econsidered.” CBQ 34: (1972) 276-93. ------------ . “T h e Jesus-Paul Parallels and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: Η. H. Evans R econsidered.” NovT 17 (1975) 15-46. McArthur, K. H., and Johnston, R. M. They Also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era. G rand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. McBride, D. Emmaus: The Gracious Visit of God according to Luke. Dublin: D om inican Publications, 1991. McDowell, E. A. “T he Gospel o f L uke.” SWJT 10 (1967-68) 7-24. McEachern, V. E. “Dual Witness and Sabbath Motif in L uke.” CJT 12 (1966) 267-80. McLaren, J. S. Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of Their Land 100 B.C.-A.D. 70. JSNTSup 63. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. McLoughlin, S. “Les ac cords m ineurs Mt-Lc contre Mc et le problem e synoptique: Vers la th eo rie des deux sources.” ETL 43 (1967) 17-40. McPolin, J. “Holy Spirit in Luke and J o h n .” IT Q 45 (1978) 117-31. Melbourne, B. L. Slow to Understand: The Disciples in Synoptic Perspective. Lanham , M D /N ew Y ork/London: UP o f America, 1988. Mellon, C. “La parabole, m aniere de parler, m aniere d ’en te n d re .” In Le recit evangelique, ed. C. Chabrol and L. Marin. Paris: AubrierM ontaigne/D elachaux et N iestle/C erf/B rouw er, 1974. 147-61. Menoud, P.-H. Jesus-Christ

lii

General Bibliography

et la foi: Rech erches neotestamentaires. Bibliotheque theologique. N euchatel/P aris: D elachaux et Niestle, 1975. ------------ . Jesus Christ and the Faith. PTMS 18. Tr. E. M. Paul. Pittsburg: Pickwick, 1978. ------------ . "Jesus et ses temoins: Rem arques sur l’unite de l'oeuvre de L uc.” EglT 23 (1960) 7-20. Menzies, R. P. The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to Luke-Acts. JSNTSup 54. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Merk, O. “Das Reich Gottes in den lukanischen Schriften.” In Jesus und Paulus. FS W. G. Ku mmel, ed. E. E. Ellis and E. Grasser. G ottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. 201-20. Metzger, B. M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. 3rd ed. U n ite d Bible S ocieties, 1971. Meyer, A. Jesu Muttersprache: Das galilaische Aramaisch in seiner Bedeutung fu r die Erklarung der Reden Jesu und der Evangelien uberhaupt. Freiburg i. B./Leipzig: M ohr (Siebeck), 1896. Meyer, B. F. The Aims of Jesus. L ondon: SCM, 1979. ------------ . Critical Realism and the New Testament. Princeton Theological M onograph Series 17. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1989. ------------ . “How Jesus Charged Language with Meaning: A Study of Rhetoric.” SR 19 (1990) 273-85. Meyer, E. Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962 = 1921-23. Meynet, R. Quelle est donc cetteparole? Lecture "rhetorique”de l ’evangile de Luc (1-9, 22-24). LD 99. 2 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1979. -------------. Avey-vous lu saint L u c ? Guide pour la rencontre. Lire la Bible 88. Paris: Cerf, 1990. ------------ . “Crie de joie, sterile!” Christus 33 (1986) 481-89. Michaelis, W. Die GleichnisseJesu: Eine Einfuhrung. 2nd ed. H am burg: Furche, 1956. ------------ . “Das u n b eto n te καί αύτός bei Lukas.” S T 4 (1950) 86-93. Michalczyk, J. J. “T he Experience of Prayer in L uke/A cts.” RevRel 34 (1975) 789801. Michiels, R. “La conception lucanienne de la conversion.” ETL 41 (1965) 42-78. Miller, Μ. H. “T he C haracter of Miracles in Luke-Acts.” Th.D. diss., G raduate Theological U nion, Berkeley, 1971. Miller, R. J. “Elijah, Jo h n and Jesus in the Gospel of L uke.” N TS 34 (1988) 611-22. Mills, Μ. E. Human Agents of Cosmic Power in HellenisticJudaism and the Synop tic Tradition. JSNTSup 41. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990. Minear, P. S. To Heal and to Reveal: The Prophetic Vocation according to Luke. Crossroad Books. New York: Seabury, 1976. ------------ . “Dear T heo.” Int 27 (1973) 131-50. ------------ . ‘Jesus’ Audiences, according to Luke.” NovT 16 (1974) 81-109. Miyoshi, M. Der Anfang des Reiseberichts Lk 9, 51-10, 24: Eine redaktionsge schichtliche Untersuchung. AnBib 60. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1974. Moessner, D. P. “‘The Christ Must Suffer’: New Light on the Jesus—Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke-Acts.” NovT 28 (1986) 220-56. ------------ . “The ‘Leaven of the Pharisees’ and ‘This G eneration’: Israel’s Rejection of Jesus according to Luke.” JSN T 34 (1988) 21-46 . ------------ . “Paul in Acts: Preacher of Eschatological Repentance to Israel.” NTS 34 (1988) 96-104. Moffatt, J. An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. International Theological Library. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1918. Monloubou, L. L a priere selon Saint Luc: Recherche dune struc ture. LD 89. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Moore, S. D. “L uke’s Economy of Knowledge.” In 1989 SBL Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989, 38-56. ------------ . Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge. New Haven, C T /L ondon: Yale UP, 1989. ------------ . “The Gospel o f the Look.” Semeia 54 (1991) 159-96. Morgenthaler, R. Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis: Gestalt und Gehalt der Runst des Lukas. ATANT 14-15. 2 vols. Zurich: Zwingli, 1949. ------------ . Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes. Zu rich/Frankfurt am Main: Gothelf, 1958. Morris, L. The New Testament and theJewish Lectionaries. London: Tyndale, 1964. ------------ . The Cross in the New Testament. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1965. -------------. “Luke and Early Catholicism .”JTSA 40 (1982) 4-16. Morton, A. Q., and MacGregor, H. C. The Structure of Luke and Acts. New Y ork/Evanston, IL: H arp er 8c Row, 1965. Moscato, M. “C urrent Theories regarding the Audience of Luke-Acts.” CurTM 3 (1976) 355-61. Most, W. “Did St. Luke Imitate the Septuagint?” JSA T 15 (1982) 30-41. Moule, C. F. D. “The Intention of the Evangelists.” In New Testament Essays. FS T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins. M anchester University, 1959. 165-79. ------------. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1963. Moulton, J. H., and Milligan, G. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources. London: H odder & Stoughton, 1930. Moxnes, H. The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel.

General Bibliography

liii

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.------------ . “Meals and the New Community in Luke.” SEA 5152 (1986-87) 158-67. Muhlack, G. Die Parallelen von Lukas-Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte. T h eologie u n d W irklichkeit 8. B e rn /F ra n k fu rt/L a s Vegas: Lang, 1979. Mulder, H. “Theophilus de ‘godvrezende.’” In Arcana revelata. FS F. W. Grosheide, ed. N. J. H om m es et al. Kampen: Kok, 1951. 77-88. Muller, P.-G. “Conzelmann und die Folgen: Zwanzig Jahre redak tionsgeschichtliche Forschung am Lukas-Evangelium.” B K 28 (1974) 138-42. , ed. Das Zeugnis des Lukas: Impuse fu r das Lesejahr C. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985. Mussner, F. “Wege zum Selbstbew usstsein Jesu: Ein V ersuch.” BZ 12 (1968) 161-72. Navone, J. Themes of St. Luke. Rome: G regorian University, 1971.------------ . “T h ree Aspects of Lucan Theology of History.” BTB 3 (1973) 115-32. Neale, D. A. “None but the Sinners‫״‬: Religious Categories in the Gospel of Luke. JSNTSup 58. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Nebe, G. Prophetische Zuge im Bilde Jesu bei Lukas. BWANT 127. S tu ttg art/B erlin /C o lo g n e: Kohlhammer, 1989. Neirynck, F. “La matiere m arcienne dans l’evangile de Luc.” In Problemes. FS L. Cerfaux, ed. F. Neirynck, 157-201. ------------ . “Recent Developments in the Study of Q .” In Logia. FSJ. Coppens, e d . J. Delobel. 29-75. ------------ . Evangelica. Gospel Studies. Col lected Essays. Ed. F. van Segbroeck. BETL 60. Leuven: University Press, 1982. . “The A rgum ent from O rder and St. Luke’s Transpositions.” ETL 49 (1973) 784-815. ------------ , ed. L ’evangile de Luc: Problemes litteraires et theologiques. FS L. Cerfaux. BETL 32. Gembloux: Duculot, 1 9 7 3 .------------ , ed. L ’evangile de Luc— The Gospel of Luke. Revised and Enlarged Edition o f L ’Evangile de Luc: Probleme litteraires et theologique. BETL 32. 2nd ed. Leuven: Univer sity Press/Peeters, 1989. , ed. The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark: With a Cumulative List. In collaboration with T. H anson and F. van Segbroeck. BETL 37. Leuven: University Press, 1974. Nelson, P. K. “Leadership and Discipleship: A Study of Luke 22:24-30.” Ph.D. diss., Trinity College, Bristol, 1991. Nestle, E. Philologica Sacra: Bemerkungen u ber die Urgestalt der Evangelien und Apostelgeschichte. Berlin: von R euther u nd Reichard, 1896. Neusner, J., et al., eds. The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. FS H. C. Kee. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Nevius, R. C. “Kynosand Iesous in St. L uke.”A T R 48 (1966) 75-77. Neyrey,J . H., ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Peabody, MA: H endrickson, 1991. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Riches, the Rich, and G od’s Judgm ent in I Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel according to L uke.” N T S 25 (1978-79) 324-44. Nielsen, H. K. Heilung und Verkundigung: Das Verstandnis der Heilung und ihres Verhaltnisses zur Verkundigung bei Jesus und in der altesten Kirche. ATDan 22. Tr. D. Harbsmeier. L eiden/N ew York: Brill, 1987. Nodet, E. "Jesus e t Jean-Baptiste selon Josephe.” RB92 (1985) 497-524. Nolland, J. L. “L uke’s Readers: A Study of Luke 4.22-8; Acts 13.46; 18.6; 28.28 and Luke 21.5-36.” Ph.D. diss., Cambridge, 1977. ----------- . “Luke’s Use of χά ρις.”N TS 82 (1986) 614-20. Norden, E. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formgeschichte religioser Rede. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1956 = 1923. Nuttall, G. F. The Moment of Recognition: Luke as Story-Teller. London: Athlone, 1978. Nutzel, J. M. Jesus als Offenbarer Gottes nach den lukanischen Schriften. FB 39. W urzburg: Echter, 1980. O ’Brien, P. T. “Prayer in Luke-Acts.” TynB 24 (1973) 111-27. Oesterley, W. Ο. E. The Gospel Parables in the Light of Their Jewish Background. New York: M acm illan, 1936. O Fearghail, F. “Israel in Luke-Acts.” ProcIBA 11 (1988) 23-43. Ommeren, N. M. van. “Was Luke an Accurate H istorian?” BSac 148 (1991) 57-71. O ’Neill, J. C. The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1970. ------------ . “The Six A m en Sayings in L uke.” JTS, n.s., 10 (1959) 1 - 9 .------------ . “T he Silence o f Jesus.” NTS 15 (1968-69) 15367. Orchard, J. B. “Some Reflections on the Relationship of Luke to Matthew.” In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church. FS W. R. Farmer, ed. E. P. Sanders. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1987. 3346. O ’Rourke, J. J. “T he C onstruction with a Verb of Saying as an Indication o f Sources in L uke.” N TS 21 (1975) 421-23. Osborne, G. R. “Luke: Theologian of Social C oncern.” TJ 7 (1978) 135-48. O ’Toole, R. F. The Unity of Luke’s Theology: A n Analysis of Luke-Acts. W ilmington, DE: Glazier, 1984. ------------ . “Why Did Luke Write Acts (Lk-Acts)?” BTB 7 (1977) 66-76. ------------ . “Parallels between Jesus and His Disciples in Luke-Acts: A Furth er Study.” Β Ζ 27 (1983) 1 9 5 -2 1 2 .------------ . “L uke’s Message in Luke 9:1-50.” CBQ 49 (1987) 74-98. ------------ . “T he Parallels between Jesus and Moses.” BTB 20 (1990) 22-29.

liv

General Bibliography

------------ . “Poverty and Wealth in Luke-Acts.” ChicStud 30 (1991) 29-41. Ott, W. Gebet und Heil: Die Bedeutung der Gebetsparanese in der lukanischen Theologie. ANT 12. M unich: Kosel, 1965. Parsons, M. C. “‘Allegorizing Allegory’: N arrative Analysis an d Parable In terp reta tio n .” P R S 15 (1988) 147-64. Patte, D., ed. Semiology and Parables: Exploration of the Possibili ties Offered by Structuralism for Exegesis. PTMS 9. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1976. Payne, P. B. “M etaphor as a M odel for In terpretation of the Parables of Jesus with Special R eference to the Parable of the Sower.” Ph.D. diss., Cam bridge, 1975. Percy, E. Die Botschaft Jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung LUA 1, 49, 5. Lund: Gleerup, 1953. Perkins, P. Hearing the Parables of Jesus. New York: Paulist, 1981. Pernot, H. Etudes sur la langue des evangiles. Collection de l’Institut Neo-hellenique de l’Universite de Paris 6. Paris: Societe d ’Edition “Les belles lettres,” 1927. Perrin, N. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. NTL. L on don: SCM, 1 9 6 7 . . Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. ------------ . “T he M odern In terpretation of the Parables o f Jesus and the Problem of H erm eneutics.” Int 25 (1971) 131-48. ------------ . “Historical Criticism, Literary Criticism, and H erm eneutics: T he In terpretation of the Parables o f Jesus and the Gospel o f Mark Today.” JR 52 (1972) 361-75. Pervo, R. I. “Must Luke and Acts Belong to the Same G enre?” In 1989 SBL Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. 309-16. Pesch, R. Das Markusevangelium. 2 vols. Freiburg: H erder, 1976-77. ------------ . Die Apostelgeschichte. 2 vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: N eukirchener, 1986. Petersen, N. R. Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics. P hiladel phia: Fortress, 1978. . “On the N otion o f G enre in V ia’s ‘Parable an d Exam ple Story: A Literary-Structuralist A pproach.’” Semeia 1 (1974) 134-81. Petzke, G. Das Sondergut des Evangeliums nach Lukas. Zu rcher W erkkom m entare zur Bibel. Zurich: Theologischer, 1990. Pilgrim, W. E. Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts. M inneapolis: A ugsburg, 1 9 8 1 .------------ . “Luke-Acts as a Theology of Creation.” WW 12 (1992) 51-58. Piper, R. A. Wisdom in the Q- Tradition. SNTSMS 61. Cam bridge: University Press, 1989. Pittner, B. Studien zum lukanischen Sondergut: Sprachliche, theologische und form-kritische Untersuchungen zu Sonderguttexten in Lk 5-19. ETS 18. Leipzig: St. Beno, 1991. Plooy, G. P. V. du. “T he Use of the Optative in Luke-Acts: Gram m atical Classification and Im plica tions for T ranslation.” Scriptura 19 (1986) 25-43. . “T he A uthor in Luke-Acts.” Scriptura 32 (1990) 28-35. Plumacher, E. Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte. SUNT 9. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Plymale, S. F. “L uke’s Theology o f Prayer.” In 1990 SBL Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990. 529-51. ------------ . The Prayer Texts of Luke-Acts. Am erican University Studies. 7/118. New Y ork/San F rancisco/B ern: Lang, 1991. Pokorny, P. “Strategies o f Social Form ation in the Gospel of L uke.” In Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings. FS J. M. Robinson, ed. J. E. G oehring et al. Forum Fascicles. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990. 106-18. Portefaix, L. Sisters Rejoice: P aul’s Letter to the Philippians and Luke-Acts as Seen by Lirst Century Philippian Women. ConBNT 20. Stockholm: Amlqvist & Wiksell, 1988. Potterie, I. de la. “Le titre κύριος ap p lique a Jesus dans l ’evangile de L uc.” In Melanges bibliques. FS B. Rigaux, ed. A. Descamps and A. de Halleux. Gembloux: D uculot, 1970. 117-46. ------------ . “Les deux nom s de Jerusalem dans l’evangile de Luc.” RSR 69 (1981) 57-70. Powell, M. A. What Are They Saying about Luke? New York/M ahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1989. ------------ . “Are the Sands Still Shifting? An Update on Lukan Scholarship.” TrinSemRev 11 (1989) 15-22. ------------ . “The Religious Leaders in Luke: A Literary-Critical Study.” JBL 109 (1990) 93-110. ------------ . “Salvation in Luke-Acts.” W W 12 (1992) 5-10. Praeder, M. ‘Jesus-Paul, Peter-Paul, and JesusPeter Parallelisms in Luke-Acts: A History of R eader R esponse.” SBLASP 23 (1984) 23-39. Prior, M. “Revisiting L uke.” ScrB 10 (1979) 2 -11. Radl, W. Das Lukas-Evangelium. Ertrage der Forschung 261. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988. ------------ . Paulus und Jesus im lukanischen Doppelwerk. B ern/Frankfurt: Lang, 1975. Ramsay, W. M. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. 2nd ed. L ondon: H o d d er & Stoughton, 1915. ------------ . “Luke the Physician” and Other Studies in the History of Religion. G rand Rapids: Baker, 1956 = 1908. Ravens, D. A. S. “St. Luke an d A to n em en t.” ExpTirn 97 (1986) 2 9 1 -9 4 .------------ . “Luke 9:7-62 and the P rophetic Role of Jesus.” NTS 36 (1990)

General Bibliography

lv

119-29. Reese, T. “The Political Theology of Luke-Acts.” BTB 22 (1972) 62-65. Refoule, F., ed. A cause de l'Evangile: Etudes sur les Synoptiques et les Actes. FS J. D upont. LD 123. Paris: Cerf, 1985. Rehkopf, F. Die lukanische Sonderquelle: Ihr Umfang und Sprachgebrauch. WUNT 5. T ubingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1959. Reicke, B. The Gospel of Luke. Richm ond: Jo h n Knox, 1964. Reid, B. E. “The Centerpiece of Salvation History.” BiTod 29 (1991) 20-24. Reiling, J. “T he Use and Translation of kai egeneto, A nd It H ap p e n ed ,’ in the New T estam ent.” B T 16 (1965) 153-63. Reitzel, F. X. “St. L uke’s Use of the Tem ple Im agery.” RevRel 38 (1979) 520-39. Rese, M. Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas. Gutersloh: M ohn, 1969. ------------ . “Das Lukas-Evangelium: Eine Forschungsbericht.” A N R W II/2 5 . 3 (1985) 2259328. ------------ . “N eurere Lukas-Arbeiten: B em erkungen zur gegenw artigen Forschungs lage.” T L Z 106 (1981) 225-37. Richard, E. ‘Jesus’ Passion and Death in Acts.” In Reimaging, ed. D. D. Sylva. 153-69, 204-10. ------------ . “T he Divine Purpose: T he Jews and the G en tile Mission.” SBLASP 17 (1978) 267-82. . “Luke—Writer, Theologian, Histo rian: Research and O rientation of the 1970’s.” BTB 13 (1983) 3 - 1 5 . , ed. New Views on Luke and Acts. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990. Richards, K. H., ed. Society of Biblical Literature. 1982 Seminar Papers. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982. Riches, J. “Parables and the Search for a New Com m unity.” In The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism, ed. J. N eusner et al. 235-63. ------------ . The World of Jesus: First-Century Judaism in Crisis. U n d erstan d in g Jesus Today. C am bridge: University Press, 1990. Ricoeur, P. “Biblical H erm eneutics.” Semeia 4 (1975) 29-148. Riddle, D. W. “T he Occasion of Luke-Acts.” JR 10 (1930) 545-62. Riesenfeld, H. The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings. London: Mowbray, 1957. Riesner, R . Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchungzum Ursprung der Evangelien-Uberlieferung. WUNT 2 /7 , 2nd ed. T ubingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1984. Rigaux, B. Temoignage de l'evangile de Luc. Pour une histoire de Jesus 4. B ruges/Paris: Brouwer, 1970. Ringgren, H. “L uke’s Use of the O ld T estam ent.” H TR 79 (1986) 227-35. Robbins, V. K. “W riting as a R hetori cal Act in Plutarch and the Gospels.” In Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric. FS G. A. Kennedy, ed. D. F. Watson. JSNTSup 50. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. 142-68. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 3rd ed. New York: H odder 8c Stoughton, 1919. Robinson, D. W. B. “T he Use of Parabole in the Synoptic Gospels.” E v Q 21 (1944) 93-108. Robinson, J. A. T. Twelve New Testament Studies. SBT 34. London: SCM, 1962. ------------ . Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. ------------ . “Elijah, Jo h n , and Jesus: An Essay in D etectio n .” NTS 4 (1957-58) 263-81. Robinson, J. M. The Problem of History in Mark. SBT 1/21. L ondon: SCM, 1957. ------------ . ‘Jesus’ Parables as God H appening.” In Jesus and the Historian. FS E. C. Colwell, ed. F. T. Trotter. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. 134-50. Robinson, W. C., Jr. Der Wegdes Herrn: Studien zur Geschichte und Eschatologie im Lukas-Evangelium. TF 36. H am burg/B ergstedt: H erb ert Reich, 1964. Rohde, J. Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists. NTL. Tr. D. M. Barton. London: SCM, 1968. Rolland, P. “L’arriere-fond sem iotique des evangiles synoptiques.” ETL 60 (1984) 358-62. ------------ . “L’organisation du Livre des Actes et de l'ensem ble de l’oeuvre de Luc.” Bib 65 (1984) 81-86. Roloff, J. Apostolat— Verku ndigung—Kirche: Ursprung, Inhalt und Funktion des kirchlichen Apostelamptes nach Paulus, Lukas und den Pastoralbriefen. G utersloh: M ohn, 1 985.------------ . Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus: Historische Motive in den Jesus-Erzahlungen derEvangelien. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Rosenblatt, M.-E. “Landless and H om eless.” BiTod 29 (1991) 346-50. Runnalls, D. R. “T he King as Tem ple Builder: A Messianic Typology.” In Spirit within Structure. FS G. Jo hnston, ed. E. J. Furcha. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1983. 15-38. Russell, H. G. “W hich Was W ritten First, Luke or Acts?” H TR 48 (1955) 167-74. Russell, W. “T he A nointing with the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts.” TJ 7 (1986) 47-63. Sahlin, H. Der Messias und das Gottesvolk: Studien zur protolukanischen Theologie. ASNU 12. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1945. ------------ . Studien zum dritten Kapitel des Lukasevangeliums. UUA 2. U p p sala/L e ip zig : L u n d eq v istsk a / Harrassowitz, 1949. Saldarini, A. J. “Interpretation of Luke-Acts and Implications for JewishChristian D ialogue.” W W 12 (1992) 37-42. Sanders, E. P. "Jesus and the Kingdom: The Restoration of Israel and the New People of G od.” In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church. FS

lvi

General Bibliography

W. R. Farmer, ed. E. P. Sanders. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1987. 225-39. ------------. Jesus and Juda ism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.----------- . Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 B.C .E.-66 C.E. L on d o n /P hiladelphia: SCM/Trinity, 1992. ------------ and Davies, M. Studying the Synoptic Gos pels. L o ndon/P hiladelphia: SCM /Trinity Press International, 1989. Sanders, J. A. “Isaiah in L uke.” Int 36 (1982) 144-55. Sanders, J. T. “T he Prophetic Use of Scripture in LukeActs.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis. FS W. H. Brownlee, ed. C. A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987. 191-98. ------------ . “T he Salvation of the Jews in Luke-Acts.” In Luke-Acts: New Perspectives, ed. C. H. Talbert. 104-28. -------------. The Jews in L uke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.------------ . “W ho Is a Jew and W ho Is a G entile in the Book of Acts?” NTS 37 (1991) 434-55. Sato, M. Q und Prophetie. WUNT 2/29. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1988. Saxer, V. “Le Ju ste Crucifie’ de Platon a T h eo d o ret.” R S L R 19 (1983) 189-215. Schaberg, J. “Daniel 7, 12, and the New Testam ent Passion-Resurrection Predictions.” NTS 31 (1985) 208-22. Schelkle, K. H. Die Passion Jesu in der Verkundigung das Neuen Testaments: Ein Beitrag zurFormgeschichte und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments. H eidelberg: F. H. Kerle, 1949. ------------ . “Der Zweck d er G leichnisreden.” In Neues Testament und Kirche. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg: H erder, 1974. 71-75. Schenk, W. EvangeliumEvangelien-Evangeliologie: Ein “hermeneutisches” Manifest. Theologische Existenz heu te 216. M unich: Kaiser, 1983. Schenke, L. Die Wundererzahlungen des Markusevangeliums. SBB. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, n.d. [1974]. Schlatter, A. von. Die Evangelien nach Markus und Lukas. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1947. ------------ . Der Evangelist Matthaus. 6th ed. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963 = 1929. Schlosser, J. La regne de Dieu dans les dits deJesus. Paris: Gabalda, 1981. Schmauch, W. “In der W uste.” In In Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer, ed. W. Schm auch. Stuttgart: E van gelischen V erlagswerk, 1951. 2 0 2 - 2 3 . -------------. Orte der Offenbarung und der Offenbarungsort im Neuen Testament. G ottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956. Schmid, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. RNT 2. Regensburg: Pustet, 1963. Schmidt, D. D. “Syntactical Style in the ‘We’ Sections of Acts: How Lukan Is It?” In 1989 SBL Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. 300-308. Schmidt, K. L. Die Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur altesten Jesusuberlieferung. Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1919. Schmidt, T. E. Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels. JSNTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. Schmithals, W. “Lukas— E vangelist d e r A rm e n .” ThViat 12 (1975-76) 1 5 3 - 6 7 . -------------. “Die B erich te des A postelgeschichte uber die B ekehrung des Paulus u n d die ‘T en d en z’ des Lukas.” ThViat 14 (1977-78) 145-65. Schnackenburg, R. “Die lukanische Eschatologie im Lichte von Aussagen der Apostelgeschichte.” In Glaube und Eschatologie, ed. E. Grasser and O. Merk. T u b in g en : M ohr, 1985. 2 4 9 - 6 5 . -------------et al., eds. Die Kirche des Anfangs. FS H. S churm ann. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977. Schneider, G. Parusiegleichnisse im Lukasevangelium. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. ------------ . Die Apostelgeschichte. HTKNT. 2 vols. Freiburg: H erder, 1980-82. ------------ . Lukas, Theologe der Heilsgeschichte: Aufsatze zum lukanischen Doppelwerk. BBB 59. Bonn: H anstein, 1985. ------------ . “D er Zweck des lukan ischen Doppelwerks.” BZ 21 (1977) 45-66. ------------ . “Schrift u n d Tradition in der theolo gischen N euinterpretation der lukanischen Schriften.” BK 34 (1979) 112-15. . "Jesu uberraschende Antworten: B eobachtungen zu den A pophthegm en des dritten Evangeli u m s.” N T S 29 (1983) 321-36. . “N euere L iteratu r zum d ritten Evangelium (1987-1989).” TRev 86 (1990) 353-60. Schnider, F. Jesus der Prophet. OBO 2. F rib o u rg / G o ttingen: U niv ersitatsv erlag /V an d en h o eck & R u p rech t, 1973. Schottroff, L., an d Stegemann, W. Jesus von Nazareth: H offnung der Armen. Stuttgart: K ohlham m er, 1978. Schrage, W., ed. Studien zum Text und zu r Ethik des Neuen Testaments. FS H. Greeven. B e rlin / New York: de Gruyter, 1986. Schramm, T. Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. SNTSMS 14. C am bridge: University Press, 1971. Schreckenburg, H. “Flavius Josephus u n d die lukanischen S chriften.” In Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien. FS K. H. Rengstorf, ed. W. H aubeck and M. Backm ann. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 179-209. Schroeder, E. H. “L uke’s Gospel th rough a System atician’s L ens.” CurTM 3 (1976) 337-46. Schroeder, H.-H. “H aben Jesu Worte u b er A rm ut u n d R eichtum Folgen fu r das soziale V erhalten?” In Studien zum Text, ed. W. Schrage. 397-409. Schulz, S.

General Bibliography

lvii

Die Stunde der Botschaft: Einfuhrung in die Theologie der vier Evangelisten. 2nd ed. H am b u rg / Zurich: F urche/Z w ingli, 1970. . Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Zurich: T heologischer Verlag, 1972. ------------ . “Gottes Vorsehung bei Lukas.” ZAW54 (1963) 10416. Schurer, E. The History of theJewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. ed. G. Vermes et al. 4 vols. Edinburgh: Clark, 1973, 1979, 1986, 1987. Schurmann, H. Quellenkritische Untersuchung des lukanischen Abendmahlsberichtes Lk 22, 7-38. NTAbh 19/5, 2 0 /4 -5 . 3 vols. M unster in W.: A schendorff, 1953-57. ------------ . Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien. Du sseldorf: Patmos, 1968. ------------ . Ursprung und Gestalt: Erorterungen und Besinnungen zum Neuen Testament. K om m entare u n d Beitrage zum Alten u nd N euen Testament. Du sseldorf: Patmos, 1970. ------------ . Gottes Reich—Jesus Geschick: Jesus ureiniger Tod im Licht seiner Basileia-Verkundigung (Teildruck). Die Botschaft Gottes 2/34. Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1985. ------------ . “Sprachliche Reminiszenzen an a b g e a n d e rte o d e r ausgelassene B esta n d teile d e r S p ru ch sam m lu n g im Lukas- u n d Matthausevangelium.” NTS 6 (1960) 193-210. ------------ . “Das Thom asevangelium u n d das lukanische S ondergut.” BZ7 (1963) 236-60. Schutz, F. Der leidende Christus: Die angefochtene Gemeinde und das Christuskerygma der lukanischen Schriften. BWANT 9. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969. Schwarz, G. Jesus und Judas: Aramaische Untersuchungen zur Jesus-Judas-Uberlieferung der Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte. BWANT 123. S tu ttg a rt/B e rlin /C o lo g n e /M a in z : Kohlham mer, 1988. Schweizer, E. Church Order in the New Testament. SBT 32. London: SCM, 1961. ------------ . Luke: A Challenge to Present Theology. Atlanta: Jo h n Knox, 1982. ------------ . “Zur lukanischen Christologie.” In Verifikation. FS G. Ebeling, ed. E. Jungel, J. W allmann, and W. W erbeck. T ubingen: Mohr, 1982. 43-65. -------------. “Zur Frage d er Q u ellen benutzung durch Lukas.” In Neues Testament und Christologie im Werden: Aufsatze. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. 33-85. ------------ . “Pladoyer d er V erteidigung in Sachen: M oderne T heologie versus Lukas.” T L Z 105 (1980) 241-52. Scott, B. B. Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. ------------ . “Parables of Growth Revisited: Notes on the C urrent State of Parable Research.” BTB 11 (1981) 3-9. ------------ . “Essaying the Rock: T he Authenticity of the Jesus Parable T radition.” Forum 2.1 (1986) 3-53. Scott, J. A. Luke: Greek Physician and Historian. Evanston: N orthwestern University, 1930. Scroggs, R. “T he Sociological Interpretation of the New Testament: T he Present State of R esearch.” NTS 26 (1980) 164-79. Seccombe, D. P. Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts. SNTU B /6. Linz, 1982. ------------ . “Luke and Isaiah.” NTS 27 (1981) 252-59. Segbroeck, F. van. The Gospel of Luke: A Cumulative Bibliography 1973-88. BETL 88. Leuven: Leuven U P /P eeters, 1989. Seifrid, M. A. “Messiah and Mission in Acts: A Brief Response to J. B. Tyson.‫ ״‬JSN T 36 (1989) 47-50. Sellin, G. “Allegorie u n d ‘G leichnis’: Zur F orm enlehre der synoptischen G leichnisse.” Z T K 75 (1978) 281-335. Sheeley, S. M. Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts. JSNTSup 72. Sheffield: JSOT, 1 992.------------ . “Narrative Asides and Narrative Authority in LukeActs.” BTB 18 (1988) 102-7. Shelton, J. B. Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts. Peabody, MA: H endrickson, 1991. Sheridan, M. “Disciples and Discipleship in M atthew and L uke.” BTB 3 (1973) 235-55. Shuler, P. L. A Genrefor the Gospels. Phila delphia: Fortress, 1982. Sider, J. W. “T he M eaning of Parabole in the Usage of the Synoptic Evangelists.” Bib 62 (1981) 453-70. ------------ . “N urturing O ur Nurse: Literary Scholars and Biblical Exegesis.” CLit 32 (1982) 15-21. ------------ . “Rediscovering the Parables: The Logic o f the Jerem ias T radition.”JBL 102 (1983) 61-83. ------------. “Proportional Analogy in the Gospel Parables.” N T S 31 (1985) 1-23. Siegert, F. “Lukas— ein Historiker, d.h. ein Rhetor? Freundschaftliche E ntgegnung au f E rh a rd t G uttgem an n s.” LingBib 55 (1984) 57-60. Simson, P. “T he D ram a of the City of God: Jerusalem in St. L uke’s G ospel.” Scr 15 (1963) 65-80. Siotis, M. A. “Luke the Evangelist as St. P aul’s C ollaborator.” In Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geschehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament. FS O. Cullm ann, ed. H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke. Z urich/T ubingen: Theologischer V erlag/M ohr (Siebeck), 1972. 105-11. Siverns, L. E. “A Definition of Parable.” NESTR9 (1988) 60-75. Sloan, R. B. The Favorable Year of the Lord: A Study of Jubilary Theology in the Gospel of Luke. Fort W orth, TX: Schola, 1977. Smalley, S. S. “Spirit, Kingdom, and Prayer in Luke-Acts.” N o v T 15 (1973)

lviii

General Bibliography

59-71. Smith, B. T. B. The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels. Cambridge: SPCK, 1937. Smith, D. E. “The Eschatology of Acts and Contemporary Exegesis.” CTM 29 (1958) 881-901. ------------ . “Table Fellowship as a Literary M otif in the Gospel of Luke.”JBL 106 (1987) 613-38. Smith, R. H. “H istory and Eschatology in Luke-Acts.” C T M 29 (1958) 881-901. Snape, H. C. “T he Com position of the Lukan Writings: A Re-assessment.” H T R 53 (1960) 27-46. Snodgrass, K. R. “Streams of T radition Em erging from Isaiah 40:1-5 and T heir A daption in the New T estam ent.”J S N T 8 (1980) 24-45. Sparks, Η. E D. “T he Semitisms o f St. L uke’s G ospel.” JTS, o.s., 44 (1943) 129-38. ------------ . “St. L uke’s T ranspositions.” N TS 3 (1957) 219-23. Spicq, C. Agape dans le Nouveau Testament: Analyse des textes. Vol. 1. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1958. Stalder, K. “D er heilige Geist in der lukanischen Ekklesiologie.” US 30 (1975) 287-93. Standaert, B. “L’art de com poser dans l’oeuvre de L uc.” In A cause de l ’Evangile, ed. F. Refoule. 323-48. Stegemann, W. Zwischen Synagoge und Obrigkeit: Zur histonschen Situation der lukanischen Christen. FRLANT 152. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Stein, R. H. An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981. ------------ . “T he Matthew-Luke A greem ents against Mark: Insight from J o h n .” CBQ 54 (1992) 482502. Stendahl, K. The School of St. Matthew, and Its Use of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Stenning, J. F., ed. The Targum of Isaiah. O xford: C larendon, 1949. Sterling, G. E. “Luke-Acts and Apologetic H istoriography.” In 1989 SBL Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. 326-42. Stewart, R. A. “T he Parable Form in the O ld T estam ent and the Rabbinic L ite ra tu re .” EvQ 36 (1964) 133-47. Steyn, G. J. “In te rte x tu a l S im ilarities b etw een Septuagint Pretexts and L uke’s G ospel.” Neot 24 (1990) 229-46. Stoger, A. “A rm ut u n d Ehelosigkeit: Besitz u n d Ehe der J u nger nach dem Lukasevangelium .” GuL 40 (1967) 4 3 5 9 .------------ . “Die Theologie des Lukasevangeliums.” BLit 46 (1973) 227-36. Stonehouse, N. B. The Witness of Luke to Christ. London: Tyndale, 1951. Strauss, D. F. The Life of Jesus Criti cally Examined. Ed. P. C. H odgson. Tr. G. Elliot. SCM Press Lives o f Jesus. L ondon: SCM, 1973. Strobel, A. “Lukas der A ntiochener (B em erkungen zu Act 11, 28D ).” ZN W 49 (1958) 131-34. Stronstad, R. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: H endrickson, 1984. Stuhlmacher, P. Das paulinische Evangelium. Vol. 1, Vorgeschichte. FRLANT 95. G ottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. ------------ . “Warum musste Jesus sterben?” TB 16 (1985) 273—85. ------------ , ed. Das Evangelium und die Evangelien: Vortrager vom Tubinger Symposium 1982. WU NT 28. T ubingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1983.------------ , ed. The Gospel and the Gospels. G rand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Suggs, M. J. Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew's Gos pel. C am bridge, MA: H arvard University, 1970. Sundwall, J. Die Zusammensetzung des Markusevangeliums. Acta Academ iae Aboensis. H um aniore 9 /2 . Abo: Tilgm anns, 1934. Sutcliffe, E. F. “A N ote on the Date of St. L uke’s G ospel.” Scr 3 (1948) 45-46. Swaeles, R. "Jesus nouvel Elie dans S. L uc.” AsSeign 69 (1964) 41-66. ------------ . “L’evangile du salut: Saint Luc.” ComLit 1 (1977) 45-70. Sylva, D. D. “Ierousalem and Hierosoluma in Luke-Acts.” Z N W 74 (1983) 207-21.------------ . “Death and Life at the Center of the World.” In Reimaging ed. D. D. Sylva. 153-169, 211-17. ------------ , ed. Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus. A thenaum s M onografien. BBS 73. Frankfurt am M.: A nton H ain, 1990. Taeger, J.-W. Der Mensch und sein Heil: Studien zum Bild des Menschen und zur Sicht der Bekehrung bei Lukas. SNT 14. Gu tersloh: M ohn, 1982.------------ . “Paulus u nd Lukas liber den M enschen.” ZA W 71 (1980) 96-108. Talbert, C. H. Luke and the Gnostics: A n Examination of the Lukan Purpose. Nashville: A bingdon, 1966. ------------ . The Certainty of the Gospel: The Perspective of Luke-Acts. Deland, FL: Stetson University, 1981. ------------ . “The Redaction Critical Q uest for Luke the T heologian.” In Jesus and M an’s Hope: Proceedings of the Pittsburgh Festival on the Gospels, ed. D. G. Miller. 2 vols. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970. 1:171-222. ------------ . Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts. SBLMS 20. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974. ------------. What Is a Gospel ? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. ------------ . “The Lukan P resentation of Jesu s’ Ministry in Galilee: Luke 4:31-9:50.” RevExp 64 (1967) 485-97. ------------ . “An Anti-Gnostic Tendency in Lukan Christology.” NTS 14 (1967-68) 259-71. ------------ . “Shifting Sands: T he Recent Study of the Gospel of L uke.” I n t 30 (1976) 3 8 1 -9 5 .------------ , ed. Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Perspectives

General Bibliography

lix

in Religious Studies 5. Danville, V A /E dinburgh: Association of Baptist Professors of Reli gion/T . & T. Clark, 1978.------------ , ed. Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar. New York: Crossroad, 1984. Tannehill, R. C. “A Study in the Theology of Luke-Acts.” ATR 43 (1961) 195-203.------------ . The Sword of His Mouth. P h ilad elp h ia/ Missoula, MT: F ortress/S cholars, 1 9 7 5 .-------------. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Lit erary Interpretation. Vol. 1, The Gospel according to Luke. F o u n d atio n s an d Facets. Phila delphia: Fortress, 1 9 8 6 .------------ . “Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story.” JBL 104 (1985) 6 9 - 8 5 .-------------. “W hat Kind of King? W hat Kind of Kingdom? A Study of L uke.” WW 12 (1992) 17-22. Taylor, V. Behind the Third Gospel. Oxford: C larendon, 1926. -------------. The Gospel according to St. Mark. 2nd ed. L o ndon/N ew York: M acm illan/St. M artin’s 1966. ------------ . “R ehkopf’s List of Words and Phrases Illustrative of Pre-Lukan Speech Usage.” JTS, n.s., 15 (1964) 59-62. Tenney, M. C. “H istorical Verities in the Gospel o f L uke.” BSac 135 (1978) 126-38. TeSelle, S. M. Speaking in Parables. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. ------------ . “Parable, M etaphor and Theology.” JAAR 42 (1974) 630-45. Theissen, G. The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of the Earliest Christianity. Tr. J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1978. ------------ . The Miracle Stones of the Early Christian Tradition. Tr. F. M cDonagh. E dinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 19 8 3 .------------ . Localkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitragezur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Novum Testam entum et Orbis Antiquus 8. Fribourg: Universitatsverlag, 1989. ------------ . The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Tr. L. Maloney. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991. ------------ . "Jesusbew egung als charism atische W ertrevolution.” N T S 35 (1989) 343-60. Theobald, M. “Die Anfange der Kirche: Zur S truktur von Lk 5.1-6.19.” NTS 30 (1984) 91-108. Theriault, J.-Y. “Les dim ensions sociales, econom iques et politiques dans l 'oeuvre de Luc.” ScEs 26 (1974) 205-31. Thiselton, A. C. “O n Models and Metaphors: A Critical Dialogue with Rob ert M organ.” In The Bible in Three Dimensions, ed. D. J. A. Clines et al. 337-56. . “T he Parables as Language-Event: Some Com m ents on Fuchs’s H erm eneutics in the Light o f Linguistic Philosophy.” SJT 23 (1970) 437-68. Thrall, Μ. E. Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies. NTTS 3. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Tiede, D. L. “‘Glory to Thy People, Israel’: Luke-Acts and the Jew s.” In The Social World of Formative Christian ity and Judaism, ed. J. N eusner et al. 327-41. . Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Tinsley, E. J. “Parable, Allegory, an d Mysticism.” In Vindica tions: Essays in the Historical Basis of Christianity, ed. A. H anson. L ondon: SCM, 1966. 15392. ------------ . “Parable and Allegory: Some L iterary Criteria for the Interpretation of the Parables of C hrist.” CQ 3 (1970) 32-39. ------------ . “Parables and the Self-Awareness of Jesus.” CQ4 (1971) 18-27. Todt, Η. E. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. NTL. Tr. D. M. Barton. London: SCM, 1965. Tolbert, M. “Leading Ideas of the Gospel of L uke.” RevExp 64 (1967) 441-51. Tolbert, M. A. Perspectives on the Parables: A n Approach to Multiple Interpre tations. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Tooley, W. “T he S hepherd and Sheep Image in the Teaching of Jesus.” NovT 7 (1964) 15-25. Torrey, C. C. “T he Translations Made from the O riginal Aramaic Gospels.” In Studies in the History of Religions. FS C. H. Toy, ed. D. G. Lyon and G. F. Moore. New York: Macmillan, 1912. 269-317. ------------ . Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence. New York: H arper, 1936. Trocme, E. Le “Livre des Actes ” et l'histoire. Etudes d ’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 45. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957. ------------ . “T he Jews as Seen by Paul and L uke.” In “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, and “Others” in Late Antiquity, ed. J. N eusner and E. S. Frerichs. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985. 145-61. Tuckett, C. M. “T he A rgum ent from O rd er and the Synoptic Prob lem .” TZ 36 (1980) 3 3 8 -5 4 . . “Q, the Law and Judaism .” In Law and Religion, ed. B. Lindars. 90-101, 176-80.------------ , ed. Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983. JSO TSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT, 1984. Turner, M. “Spirit E ndow m ent in L u k e/ Acts: Some Linguistic C onsiderations.” VoxEv 12 (1981) 45-63. . “T he Signifi cance of Receiving the Spirit in Luke-Acts: A Survey of M odern Scholarship.” T J2 (1981) 131-58.------------ . “The Spirit and the Power of Jesus’ Miracles in the Lucan C onception.” NovT 33 (1991) 124-52. ------------ . “The Spirit of Prophecy and the Power of Authoritative

lx

General Bibliography

P reaching in Luke-Acts: A Q uestion of O rigins.” N T S 38 (1992) 66-88. Turner, N. Gram matical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1965. . “T he M inor Verbal A greem ents o f Mt. and Lk. against M k.” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 223-34. Tyson, J. B. The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts. Colum bia: University o f South C arolina, 1986. ------------ . Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives. M inneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. ------------ . Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts. Columbia, SC: University of South Caro lina, 1992. ------------ . “T he O pposition to Jesus in the Gospel o f L uke.” PRS5 (1978) 14450. ------------ . “T he Jewish Public in Luke-Acts.” N TS 30 (1984) 574-83. -------------. “T he Gentile Mission and the Authority of Scripture in Acts.” NTS 33 (1987) 619-31. -------------. “Scripture, Torah, and Sabbath in Luke-Acts.” In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church. FS W. R. Farmer, ed. E. P. Sanders. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1987. 89-104. ------------ . “Source Criticism o f the Gospel of Luke.” In Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert. 24-39. ------------ . “To rah and P rophets in Luke-Acts: T em porary or P erm an en t?” In SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 539-48. Unnik, W. C. van. “L uke’s Second Book and the Rules of Hellenistic Historiography.” In Les Actes des Apotres, ed. J. Kremer. 37-60. ------------ . “The ‘Book of Acts’ the Confirm ation of the Gospel.” NovT 4 (1960-61) 26-59. ------------ . ‘Jesus the C hrist.” N TS 8 (1961-62) 101-16. Untergassmair, F. G. Kreuzweg und Kreuzigung Jesu: E in Beitrag zur lukanischen Redaktionsgeschichte und zur Frage nach der lukanischen “Kreuzestheologie.” P ad erb o rn er theologische S tudien 10. P ad erborn: S choningh, 1980. Vaage, L. E. “Q 1 and the H istorical Jesus: Some Peculiar Sayings (7:33-34; 9:57-58, 59-60; 14:26-27).” Forum 5.2 (1989) 160-76. Vermes, G. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. SPB 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Vesco, J.-L. Jerusalem et son prophete: Une lecture de l'Evangile selon saint Luc. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Via, D. O., Jr. The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. -------------. “Parable an d Exam ple Story: A Literary-Structuralist A pproach.” Semeia 1 (1974) 105-33. ------------ . “A Response to Crossan, Funk, and P etersen.” Semeia 1 (1974) 222-35. Via, E. J. “W omen in the Gospel o f L uke.” In Women in the World’s Religions: Past and Present, ed. U. King. New York: Paragon, 1987. 38-55. ------------. “Women, the Discipleship of Service and the Early Christian Ritual Meal in the G ospel of L uke.” SLJT 29 (1985) 37-60. Vielhauer, P. “Zum ‘P aulinism us’ d er A postelgeschichte.” E vT 10 (1950-51) 1-15. Vincent, J. J. “T he Parables o f Jesus as SelfRevelation.” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 79-99. Vogtle, A. “Exegetische Erw agungen u b er das Wissen u n d Selbstbewusstsein Jesu .” In Gott in Welt. FS K. Rahner, ed. J. B. Metz et al. F reiburg/B asel/V ienna: H erder, 1964. 608-67. Volkel, M. “D er A nfang Jesu in Galilaa: B em erkungen zum G ebrauch u n d zur Funktion Galilaas in d en lukanischen S chriften.” ZAW64 (1973) 222-32. ------------ . “Zur D eutung des ‘Reiches G ottes’ bei Lukas.” ZNW 65 (1974) 57-70. Voss, G. Die Christologie der lukanischen Schriften in Grundzugen. StudN eot 2. Paris/B ruges: Brouwer, 1965. Votaw, C. W. “T he Gospels and C ontem porary Bibliography.” A J T 19 (1915) 45-73, 217-49. Vriezen, T. C. “L eert Lukas de verw erping van Israel?” KeTh 13 (1962) 25-31. Waal, C. van der. ‫ ״‬T he Tem ple in the Gospel according to L uke.” Neot 7 (1973) 49-59. Wagner, G., ed. A n Exegetical Bibliography of the New Testament: Vol. 2, Luke and Acts. Macon, GA: M ercer University, 1985. Wainwright, A. W. “Luke and the Res toration of the Kingdom to Israel.” ExpTim 89 (1977) 76-79. Walaskay, P. W. "A n d so we came to Rome”: The Political Perspective of St. Luke. SNTSMS 49. Cambridge: University Press, 1983. ------------ . “T he Trial and D eath of Jesus in the Gospel of L uke.”JBL 94 (1975) 8 1 93. Walker, W. O. “‘N azareth’: A Clue to Synoptic R elations.” In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church. FS W. R. Farmer, ed. E. P. Sanders. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1987. 105-18. Wallis, E. E. “Aristotelian Echoes in L uke’s Discourse S tructure.” OPTAT 2 (1988) 81-88. Wanke, J. Beobachtungen zum Eucharistieverstandnis des Lukas a u f Grund der lukanischen Mahlberichte. ETS 8. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1973. Wansbrough, H., ed.Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. ------------ . “Poverty in the Gospel T radition.” ProcIBA 6 (1982) 47-57. Watson, F. “Why Was Jesus Crucified?” Theology 88 (1985) 105-12. Weatherly, J. A. “T he Jews in Luke-Acts.” TynB 40 (1989) 107-17. Weder, H. Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern. G ottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Wehnert, J. Die Wir-Passagen der

General Bibliography

lxi

Apostelgeschichte: Ein lukanisches Stilsmittel aus j udischer Tradition. GTA 40. G ottingen: Vandenh oeck & R uprecht, 1989. Weinert, F. D. “The M eaning of the Temple in Luke-Acts.” B T B 11 (1981) 85-89. ------------ . “Luke, Stephen, and the Tem ple in Luke-Acts.” BTB 17 (1987) 88-90. Weiser, A. Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien. SANT 29. M unich: Kossel, 1971. Wenham, J. Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. L ondon: H odder and Stoughton, 1991. ------------ . “T he Identification o f L uke.” EvQ 63 (1991) 3-44. Wernle, P. Die synoptische Frage. Freiburg i. B./Leipzig: Mohr, 1899. Wescott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. 2 vols. C am b ridge/L ondon: Macmillan, 1890, 1896. Westermann, C. The Parables of Jesus in the Light of the Old Testament, ed. F. W. Golka and A. Η. B. Logan. Tr. F. W. Golka and A. Η. B. Logan. M inneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. Wettstein, J. J. Novum Testamentum Graecum . . . Opera et Studia. 2 vols. A m sterdam : O ffic in a D o m m e rian a, 1751-52. Wilckens, U. Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. WMANT 5. 2nd ed. N eukirchen-V luyn: N eu k irc h en er, 1963. Wilcox, M. The Semitisms o f Acts. O xford: C larendon, 1965. Wilder, A. Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel. NTL. Lon don: SCM, 1964; rev. ed., Cam bridge, MA: H arvard University, 1971. . Jesus’ Parables and the War of Myths: Essays in Imagination in Scripture. Ed. J. Breech. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. ------------ . “Eschatological Images and Earthly C ircum stances.” N TS 5 (1959) 229-45. Wilkens, W. “Die theologische Struktur der Komposition des Lukasevange hum s.” TZ 34 (1978) 1-13. Williams, C. S. C. “T he Date o f Luke-Acts.” Exp Tim 64 (195253) 283-84. Williams, J. G. “N either H ere nor T here.” Forum 5.2 (1989) 7-30. Wilshire, L. E. “Was Canonical Luke W ritten in the Second Century?—A C ontinuing Discussion.” NTS 20 (1974) 246-53. Wilson, R. M. “F arrer and Streeter in the M inor A greem ents of Mt. and Lk. against Mk.” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 254-57. Wilson, S. G. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. SNTSMS 23. Cambridge: University Press, 1 9 7 3 .------------ . Luke and the Pastoral Epistles. London: SPCK, 1979. ------------ . Luke and the Law. SNTSMS 50. Cambridge: University Press, 1983. ------------ . “Lukan Eschatology.” N TS 15 (1969-70) 330-47. Wimmer, J. F. Fasting in the New Testament: A Study in Biblical Theology. Theological Inquir ies. New York: Paulist, 1982. Wink, W. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. SNTSMS 7. Cambridge: University Press, 1968. Wittig, S. “A T heory of Multiple M eanings.” Semeia 9 (1977) 75-103. Wojcik, J. The Road to Emmaus: Reading Luke’s Gospel. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1989. Wolfe, K. R. “The Chiastic Structure of Luke-Acts and Some Im plications for W orship.” SWJT22 (1980) 60-71. Wren, M. “Sonship in Luke: T he Advan tage of a Literary A pproach.” SJT 37 (1984) 301-11. Yadin, Y. “A N ote on M elchizedek and Q u m ran .” IE J 15 (1965) 152-54. Yarnold, E. “T he Trinitarian Im plications of Luke and Acts.” HeyJ7 (1966) 18-32. Yoder, J. H. The Politics of Jesus. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1972. Zahn, T. von. Introduction to the New Testament. Tr. J. M. T rout et al. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1909. Zeilinger, F. “Die Bew ertung d er irdischen Gu ter im lukanischen D oppelwerk u n d in den P astoralbriefen.” BK 58 (1985) 75-80. Zeller, D. Kommentar zum Logienquelle. Stuttgarter kleiner Kommentar, N eues T estam ent 21. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984. Zerwick, M. Biblical Greek, Illustrated by Examples. Ed. and tr. J. Smith. Scripta Pontifici Instituti Biblici 114. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. Ziesler, J. A. “Luke and the Pharisees.” N TS 25 (1979) 146-57. Zimmermann, A. F. Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre: Darstellung der historischkritischen Methode. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968. ------------ . Der urchristlichen Lehrer: Studien zum Tradentkreis der διδάσκαλος' im fruhen Urchristentum. T ubingen: M ohr (Siebeck), 1984. Zingg, P. Das Wachsen der Kirche: Beitrage zur Frage der lukanischen Redaktion und Theologie. OBO 3. F rib o u rg /G o ttin g en : Univer sitatsverlag/V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1974. . “Die Stellung des Lukas zur H eidenm ission.” NZM 29 (1973) 200-209.

Luke 18:35-24:53

Reaching the City of Destiny

(18:35-19:46)

Jesus makes his way to the city as a royal figure, bu t ultim ately as one who m ust go into a far country to take full possession of his kingly power. Meanwhile he saves the lost and the blind, restores the tem ple to its sanctity as a place for prayer, and makes it the base for his own teaching ministry to all the People.

“Jesus, Son of David Have Mercy on Me!" (18:35- 43) Bibliography Achtemeier, P. J. “‘A nd he followed h im ’: Miracles and Discipleship in Mark 10:46-52.” Semeia 11 (1978) 115-45. Betz, H. D. “T he Early Christian Miracle Story: Some Observa tions on the Form Critical Problem .” Semeia 11 (1978) 69-81. Burger, C. Jesus als Davidssohn:

Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FRLANT 98. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. 42-46, 107-12. Busse, U. Wunder. 227-34. Dupont, J. “L’Aveugle de Jericho recouvre la vue et suit Jesus (Marc 10, 4 6-52).” RevAJTh 8 (1984) 165-81. Fisher, L. R. “‘Can This Be the Son of David?’” In Jesus and the Historian. FS E. C. Colwell, ed. F. T. Trotter. Philadel phia: Westminster, 1968. 82-97. Fuchs, A. Sprachliche Untersuchungen. 45-170. Haenchen, E. Der Weg Jesu. 369-72. Johnson, E. S., Jr. “Mark 10:46-52: Blind Bartim aeus.” CBQ 40 (1978) 191-204. Kertelge, K. Die Wunder Jesu. 179-82. Ketter, P. “Zur Lokalizierung der Blindenheilung b ei Jerich o .” Bib 15 (1934) 411-18. Meynet, R. “Au coeur du texte: Analyse rhetorique de l’aveugle de Jericho selon saint Luc.” NRT 103 (1981) 696-710. Mirro, J. A. “Bartimaeus: the M iraculous C ure.” BiTod 20 (1982) 221-25. Paul, A. “La guerison de l’aveugle (des aveugles) de Je ric h o .” FV 69 (1970) 44-69. Robbins, V. K. “T he H ealing of Blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52) in the M arcan Theology.”JBL 92 (1973) 224—43. Roloff, J. Das Kerygma. 121-26. Schramm, T. Markus-Stoff. 143-45. Steinhauser, M. G. “T he Form of th e B artim aeu s N arrativ e (M ark 1 0 .4 6 -5 2 ).” N T S 32 (1986) 58 3 -9 5 . Trilling, W. Christusverku ndigung in den synoptischen Evangelien: Beispiele gattungsgemasser Auslegung. Biblische H andbibliothek 4. M unich: Kosel, 1969. 146-64.

Translation

35It so happened that as he drew near to Jericho, there was a certain blind person seated by the road, begging. 36As he heard the crowd passing along, he inquired what this might be. 37They informed him that Jesus the Nazorean was passing by. 38So he called out, "Jesus, Son ofDavid, have mercy on me!" 39Those who were in the lead began to rebuke him that he should be quiet; a but he cried out all the more,b“Son ofDavid, have mercy on me!”40Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to him. When he had drawn near, he asked him,41 “What do you want me to dofor you?”He said, "Lord, that I might see again!”42Jesus said to him, “See again! Yourfaith has saved you. ”43Then, immediately, he could see again, and he began tofollow him glorifying God; and all the People, as they saw [this] gave praise to God.

898

Luke 18:35-43

Notes a Without change of sense, ‫ א‬A Θ/ 113 etc. have here Mark’s σίωπήση. b ‫ א‬3etc. 1,f supply here the "Jesus” expected on the basis of v 38.

Form/Structure/Setting T he new section runs from 18:35 to 19:46. It has prim arily a christological fo cus to which the “Son of David” of the present unit makes its own contribution. The linked set o f location m arkers contributes to the identification of the sec tion here (18:35: ευ τω έγγίζείυ αύτδυ εις Ιεριχώ, “when he drew near to Jeric h o ”; 19:1: είσελθώυ δίήρχετο τήυ Ιεριχώ, “he entered and was passing through Jeri ch o ”; v 11: διά το εγγύ ς εΐυαί Ιερουσαλήμ, “because he was near Jeru salem ”; v 29: ώς ήγγισευ εις Βηθφαγή καί Βηθαυίαυ, “he went ahead going up to Jerusalem . . . as he drew n ear to B ethphage and B ethany”; v 37: έγγίζο υ το ς . . . τή καταβάσει του ,Όρους τώυ Έλαίώυ, “as he was drawing near to the descent of the M ount o f Olives”; v 41: ώς ήγγισευ, ίδώυ τήυ πόλίυ, “as he drew near, seeing the city”; v 45: είσελθώυ εις τό ίερόυ, “entering the tem ple”). The inclusio effect around the Journey to Jerusalem narrative noted in the last several pericopes continues here: “Son of David” here in the first unit be yond the jo u rn ey reintroduces the messianism that surfaced in the last unit before the section in which Luke introduced the jo u rn ey narrative. Luke passes over the m aterial of Mark 10:35-45, bu t continues here with the M arkan sequence in a version of Mark 10:46-52. Luke has changed the location of the episode, significantly abbreviated the account, clarified some of the obscu rity of the Markan account, and added a doxological ending (for details see below). T he original unity of the M arkan account has been questioned along a num ber of fronts. (i) Names are unusual in Gospel episodes, so both the location on the outskirts of Jericho and the nam e Bartim aeus have been seen as marks of later developm ent. ( ii) The disciples and the crowd are introduced rath er awk wardly in v 46, so the presence of one a n d /o r the o th er is often thought to be secondary, (in) Awkwardness has been sensed in the role of the “m any” in v 48 and o f the unspecified “they” of v 49, and this along with the unusual doubling of the appeal m ade by the blind m an to Jesus has convinced many that vv 48-49(50) rep resent a later developm ent, (iv) The final statem ent about the m an following Jesus in the way is norm ally considered secondary because it creates a tension with ύπαγε, “go o ff/d e p a rt,” earlier in the verse, (v) Finally, the uses of “Son of David” in the episode are generally thought to be additions because they are en tirely unm otivated within the pericope, and, taken with o th er types of reference to Jesus in the pericope, create both a sense of overload and even a m easure of tension (esp. between “R abbouni” and “Son of David”). O f these, points ii, iv, and v are the m ost persuasive, though there is considerable difference of opin ion about when and why “Son of David” was added to the pericope (for a brief and balanced discussion see Johnson, CBQ 40 [1978] 191-98, though I would be m ore inclined to retain vv 48-49 in the original [the structural role is parallel to that of 2:4], and, despite his reservations, to attribute “Son of David” here to Mark [cf. Robbins, JBL 92 (1973) 224-43]; Steinhauser [NTS 32 (1986) 583-95; and cf. Achtemeier, Semeia 11 (1978) 115-45] has m ore recently argued for the

Comment

899

unity of the whole as a call narrative, bu t the argum ent for the call form is far from com pelling.) T he discussion about the right form-critical category to which one should as sign this account has been inconclusive. T he persistence of the blind m an is too im portant for a p ro nouncem ent story and at least unusual for a m iracle story. In the preserved form , the presence of “Son of David” has a confessional signifi cance that moves beyond the norm al range of a miracle story. Call narrative has been ru led o u t above. A m odified miracle-story form seems to be best. This is the only account in Luke of a restoration of sight (but see 7:21-22). Mark has as well 8:22-26, while Matthew has 9:27-31 (which is likely to be a sec ondary M atthean form ulation). O n the healing accounts generally, see at 4:38-39, and on their historicity, see fu rth er at 7:11-17; 8:22-25. T here can be no doubt that Jesus was known as a healer and that people attributed extraordinary restor ations to his power. Comment Jesus’ power to heal is here shown to rem ain effective, faith is portrayed as persistent action on the conviction that G od’s help is to be found with Jesus, royal messianic categories are reintroduced with the blind m an ’s “Son of David,” and a popularity base for Jesus with all the People of God is brought to the fore. 35 Luke wants this pericope before 19:1-10, bu t Zacchaeus is m ore naturally located in the city so, starting from the M arkan words at the beginning of 10:46, Luke relocates the encounter with the blind m an from the time of exiting from Jericho to that o f entry into Jericho. Luke takes the opportunity to introduce έγγίζβίΐ^, “to draw near,” thus providing a root that he will use three m ore times in the introductory part of pericopes, or m ajor sections of pericopes, in this sec tion (see above; the verb is also introduced in v 40). Luke drops the m ention of disciples, the crowd (he will introduce the crowd in v 36), and the (doubly given) nam e of the blind m an and says that the m an was begging, rath er than that he was a beggar (Matthew has two unnam ed blind p eo p le). Since Jericho and Jerusa lem are linked already in the re ad er’s m ind by 10:30, the sense of approach to Jerusalem now begins to be represented geographically (cf. v 11). From 7:21-22, the reader is aware that from Jesus the blind receive their sight. 36-37 Luke elaborates on how the blind m an comes to know that Jesus is passing by, in a m anner that accentuates the conversational exchange that char acterizes the whole acco u n t (with d iffe ren t changes he achieved m uch the same in 18:24-30). M ark’s Ναζαρρνός becomes Ναζωραίος (cf. Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 26:9; the form is found also in M atthew 2:23; 26:71; Jo h n 18:5, 7; 19:19). M ark’s form m eans unproblem atically “a person from N azareth,” but the sense of the Lukan form rem ains uncertain. The m ain suggestions are that (i) it is merely a spelling variant for the M arkan word; (ii) it is related to the Hebrew ‫נזיר‬, nazir, which is used in connection with those who take particular vows of consecration to God (see N um 6:1-21; b u t the Greek OT knows no such form ); (iii) it is related to the H ebrew ‫נ צ ר‬, neser.; “sh o o t/sp ro u t,” which could develop a messianic sense via Isa 11:1 (cf. Rev 22:16); (iv) the usage can be illum inated from the M andean writings, which have the A ram aic ‫נ צ ריי א‬, nasorayya ‫כ‬, said to m ean “observers,” for a group related to Jo h n the Baptist (though this has

900

L uke 18:35-43

the problem atic long “o ” that the o th er suggestions lack, its relevance seems doubtful; for fu rth er discussion of Ναζωραίος see R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah [G arden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977], 209-13, 223-25; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:275-84 [who both provide extensive bibliography]). At least for Luke, Ναζωραίος is best taken in the same sense as the M arkan term , though it is n o t at all unlikely that he has inadvertently used a spelling that is the product of Chris tian reflection on ‫ נזיר‬or possibly ‫( נצר‬cf. esp. Matt 2:23) . M ark’s έσηυ, “is,” becomes παρέρχεται , “is passing by,” which causes ‘Jesus the N azarene” to be taken now as subject (m ovem ent toward Jerusalem is again underlined). 38 Luke changes the introduction here, d ropping M ark’s “he b eg an ,” sub ordinating one o f the verbs as a participle, and using βοάυ in place of M ark’s κράζείυ to speak of the m a n ’s crying out. Luke also brings "Jesu s” forw ard to the beginning o f the m an ’s appeal. We are clearly m eant to take “Son of David” as a royal messianic designation (see Pss. Sol. 17:22; and cf. Luke 1:27, 32: 2:4; 9:20). Despite the links between Solom on as son of David and exorcism in strands of Jew ish tra d itio n (as draw n a tte n tio n to by K. B erger, “Die k o n ig lic h e n M essiastraditionen des N euen Testam ents,” N T S 20 [1973-74] 1-44; D. C. Duling, “Solom on, Exorcism, and the Son of David,” HTR 68 [1975] 235-52), there is no real basis for identifying a Jewish expectation of a Davidic healer. In connec tion with the inclusio around the Jo u rn ey to Jerusalem narrative, some kind of parallelism with 9:20 is likely. Royal categories are to be im p o rtan t th ro u g h o u t this section. Jesu s’ own practice, experience, and expectations begin to red e fine the expectations of royal messianism. We have seen earlier the role played by Isaianic traditions in L uke’s redefinition of traditional messianic hopes (e.g., 3:4-6; 4:18-19; 7:22). T he rich m an ’s appeal to A braham was the same “have mercy on m e” (16:24), and, expressed in the plural, the lepers say the same (17:13). Jesus describes the restoration of the dem oniac in Mark 5:19 using the same language: “[the Lord] had mercy on you.” The call is for com passionate treatm ent. 39 M ark’s vague “m any” is clarified as “those who were in the lead.” Luke changes M ark’s verb for “should be q u iet” and adds an em phatic “h e ” to go with “cried o u t” (this time Luke keeps the verb he discarded in v 38). T he language of rebuke and call to silence is rem iniscent of Jesus’ words to the dem ons (see 4:35), b u t this is a false trail. The role here of the vanguard of the crowd is, rather, com parable to that o f the disciples in v 15 (and cf. 19:40). The m a n ’s persistence in the face of such opposition is an expression of his faith, which will be comm ended in v 42. 40 M ark’s “he said, ‘Call h im ’” becom es “he com m anded him to be brought to h im ” (Luke’s “to be b ro u g h t” is appropriate for a blind m a n ). The interchange of others with the blind m an disappears, and M ark’s graphic account of the m an ’s com ing is reduced to έ γγίσ α υ το ς δέ αυτού , “when he had drawn near.” Finally, the introduction to Jesus’ question is simplified to “he asked him .” 41 Luke does without τυφλός , “[the] blind m an ,” and αύτω, “to h im ,” and replaces the Semitic ραββουυί, “rabbouni,” with the κύριε , “L ord,” which he fre quently uses (the term m eans m ore than “Sir,” but only takes on the full Christian m eaning for those who are ready to confess Jesus as Lord; “L o rd ” sits m ore easily with “Son of David” than does M ark’s “ra b b o u n i” [equivalent to rabbi]). A plural form o f the same question is addressed to the sons of Zebedee in Mark 10:35.

Explanation

901

T here the answer revealed a request for places of glory, a request that Jesus was unable to honor; the request here is to be able to see again. 42 Luke omits M ark’s “d e p a rt/g o o ff” and com pensates with “see again!” This moves the emphasis slightly from the effect of the m an ’s faith onto the power and authority of Jesus’ word (cf. 4:36). “Your faith has saved you” has already occurred at 7:50; 8:48: 17:19 (see discussion at those verses and also at 5:20). The faith is to be related to the persistence in the face of the crowd rath er than im m e diately to the Son-of‫־‬David confession. 43 Luke prefers παραχρήμα (Lukan in sixteen of eighteen NT uses, mostly in the Gospel in connection with instantaneous cures) to M ark’s βύΘύςϊοτ “im m edi ately.” In place of M ark’s “in the way,” Luke adds the wording from “glorifying God” to the end of the verse (this makes for a m ore typical miracle-story ending). T he m an now joins the disciple band on its way to Jerusalem (cf. the language of following in 18:22, 28; this m an has nothing that he needs to leave!). “Glorifying G od” is a refrain that runs through the Gospel account (cf. at 2:20). It is a recogni tion that God has been marvelously at work. The People’s praise is their equivalent to the m an’s glorifying of God. A cognate role for “all the People” (God’s people) comes again in 19:48 at the beginning of the next section and a third time in 21:38 at its en d (the first is πας δ λαός , the second o λαός . . . άπας and third, again, πας ό λαός) . This beginning of Jesus’ activity against a backdrop of broad-based Jew ish affirm ation is an im portant Lukan perspective for the passion to come. Explanation T he new section takes us through to 19:46 and is concerned with Jesus as a royal figure. As well as reintroducing that motif, this un it also challenges to a faith like that of the blind m an and shows how Jesus honors such faith. The unit also points to the widespread Jewish recognition that God was mightily at work in and through Jesus. The blind m an would be on the pilgrim route through Jericho to Jerusalem — a good place to beg. The passing of a crowd piqued his curiosity, and his inquiry gained him the news that Jesus the Nazorean (probably m eaning “com ing from N azareth”) was passing by. R eader expectation is stirred by knowing already that from Jesus the blind receive their sight (7:21-22). The m an cries out to make him self h eard and appeals for mercy (here m ore as compassion than in connection with forgiveness). He addresses Jesus as “Son of David,” which m ust be taken as a messianic designation (see esp. 1:32 with its m ention of “the th rone of [Jesus’] father David”). Those in the vanguard of the crowd try to shut him up. W hether they think in term s of n o t delaying Jesus on his jo urney or of Jesus as too im portant to be bothered with such a one, or w hether they are seeking to exercise some proprietary claim upon Jesus for themselves rem ains unclear. In any event, it is clear that for them this blind beggar is unim portant. But the m an is no t to be deterred. His voice simply becom es louder. Jesus comes to a standstill and asks for the blind m an to be brought (he will n o t be able easily to find his own way). As he reaches Jesus, he is asked what he wants and expresses, naturally enough, his wish to see again. Jesus points to the m an ’s faith, dem onstrated in his persistence to establish contact with Jesus despite all opposition. For Jesus this is key to his restoration. But there is a second

902

L uke 19:1-10

key as well: Jesus has only to issue the com m and “see again,” and the authority and power of his word are im mediately evident. T he m an at once joins the disciple band headed for Jerusalem , but unlike the rich m an or even the Apostles (18:22, 28), he has nothing that he needs to leave behind. N ot ju st the m an him self but all the People (Luke uses this term techni cally of G od’s People, the Jews) recognize that God has been marvellously at work in their m idst (Luke will reinforce this point at the beginning and the end of the next m ain section).

“The Son of Man Came to Seek and to Save the Lost” 19:1-10 Bibliography Ahern, B. M. “T he Zacchaeus Incid en t.” BiTod 25 (1987) 348-51. Arens, E. The ΗΛΘΟΝ-

Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition. OBO 10. F re ib u rg /G o ttin g e n : U n iv ersit’atsv erla g / V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1976. 161-80. Bizer, C. “G eschichte von Zachaus (Lk 19,110)— relig io n su n te rric h tlic h , religionskundlich u n d alternativisch bu ch stab iert: Ein durchaus subjecktiver Versuch.” EvErz 28 (1976) 217-24. Cocagnac, A.-M. “L’Evangile (Lc 19,10): Zachee, l’eglise et la maison des pecheurs.” AsSeign o.s. 91 (1964) 3 9 -5 1 . ------------ . “L’Evangile (Lc 19,10): Zachee, l’eglise et la maison des pech eu rs.” AsSeign n.s. 62 (1970) 81-91. Dauvillier, J. “Le texte evangelique de Zachee et les obligations des Publicains.” RecAcLeg 5 /1 (1951) 28-32. Derrett, J. D. M. Law. 278-85. Drury, J. Tradition and Design. 72-75. Dupont, J. Beatitudes. 2:249-54; 3:160-62.------------ . “Le riche publicain Zachee est aussi un fils d ’A braham (Luc 19, 1 -10).” In Der Treue Gottes trauen, ed. C. Bussmann and W. Radl. 265-76. Ebel, B. “Das Evangelium der Kirchweihmesse (Lukas 19, 1-10), gedeutet im Geist der Vater.” In Enkainia: Gesammelte Arbeiten zum 800jahrigen Weihegedachtnis der Abteikirche Μ αήα Laach am 24. August 1956, ed. H. Edm onds. Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1956. 110-22. Fiedler, P. Jesus und die Sunder. 129-35. Garland, J. M. “R etrospect.” ExpTim 95 (1984-85) 371-73. Grindlay, B. W. “Zacchaeus u n d David.” ExpTim 99 (1987-88) 46-47. Hahn, F. Titles. 36, 40-41. Hamm, D. “Luke 19:8 O nce Again: Does Zacchaeus D efend or Resolve?” JBL 107 (1988) 431-37. Hobbie, F. W. “Luke 19:1-10.” Int 31 (1977) 285-90. Hollenweger, W. J. Besuch bei Lukas: 4 narrative Exegesen zu 2 Mose 14, Lukas 2,1-14, 2 Kor 6,4-11 und Lukas 19,1-10. Traktate 64. Munich: Kaiser, 1981. Kariamadam, P. The End of the Travel Narrative (Luke 18,31-19,46): A Redaction-Critical Investigation. Kerala: Pontifical Institute of Theology and Philosophy, 1985.------------ . The Zacchaeus Story [Lk. 19,1-10]: A Redaction-Critical Investigation. Pontifical Institute Publications 42. Alwaye, India: Pontifical Institute of Theology and Philosophy, 1985. Kerr, A. J. “Z acchaeus’ Decision to Make Fourfold R estitution.” Exp Tim 98 (1986-87) 68-71. Klein, H. Barmherzigkeit gegenu ber den Elenden und Geachteten: Studien zur Botschaft des lukanischen Sondergutes. Biblisch-theologische Studien 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: N eukirchener, 1987. 68-71. LaVerdiere, E. A. “Z acchaeus.” Emman 90 (1984) 461-65. Loning, K. “Ein Platz fur die V erlorenen: Zur F orm kritik zweier neutestam entlicher L egenden (Lk 7, 36-50; 19, 1-1 0 ).” BibLeb 12 (1971) 198-208. Loewe, W. P. “Towards an In terpretation of Lk 19:1-10.” CBQ 36 (1974) 321-31. Mitchell, A. C. “Zacchaus Revisited: Luke 19,8 as a D efense.” Bib 71 (1990) 5 3 -7 6 .------------ . “T he Use o f

Form / Structure/Setting

903

συκοφαντείv in Luke 19, 8: F urther Evidence in Zacchaeus’s D efense.” B ib 72 (1991) 54647. O ’Hanlon, J. “T he Story of Zacchaeus and the Lukan E thic.” JSN T 12 (1981) 2-26. O ’Toole, R. F. “T he Literary Form of Luke 19:1-10.”JBL 110 (1991) 107-16. Ravens, D. A. S. “Zacchaeus: T he Final Part of a Lucan Triptych?" JSN T 41 (1991) 19-32. Rouillard, P. “Zachee, descends vite.” VSpir 112 (1965) 300-306. Salom, A. P. “Was Zacchaeus Really R efo rm in g ?” ExpTim 78 (1966-67) 87. Schneider, G. “‘D er M e n sc h e n so h n ’ in d e r lukanischen C hristologie.” In Jesus und der Menschensohn. FS A. Vogtle, ed. R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg. Freiburg im B.: H erder, 1975. 267-82, esp. 278-79. Schwank, B. “Die From m igkeit des Zachaus.” EuA 54 (1978) 64-66. Schwarz, G. “ τη ηλικία μικρός η ν ” BibNot 8 (1979) 23-24. Vogels, W. “Structural Analysis and Pastoral Work: T he Story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19, 1-1 0 ).” L V it 33 (1978) 482-92. Watson, N. M. “Was Zacchaeus Really R eform ing?” ExpTim 77 (1965-66) 282-85. Weymann, V. “Vom Zwiespalt b efreit im Zweispalt leben: Biblisch-theologische B eobachtungen zur E rfahrung der Befreiung vom Bosen inm itten des Bosen (Lc 19,1-10; Gen 32,23-33).” Reformatio 26 (1977) 333-42. White, R. C. “A Good Word for Zacchaeus? Exegetical C om m ent on Luke 19:1-10.” LexTQ 14 (1979) 89-96. -------------. “V indication for Z acchaeus?” ExpTim 91 (1979-80) 21. Willcock, J. “St. Luke xix. 8.” ExpTim 28 (1916) 236-37.

Translation

1 Having enteredJericho, he was on his way through. 2There was a man there called by the name Zacchaeus, and he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3He was trying to seeJesus— who he was—, but because of the crowd he was not able to, as he was small of stature. 4So, running on ahead,a he climbed up into a sycamore-fig tree so as to be able to see him, for he was going to pass along that way. 5As he came to the spot, Jesus looked up and said to him, “Hurry and climb down, for today I must stay at your house.” 9He burned and climbed down, and welcomed him, rejoicing. 7Everyone, as they saw [this], began to grumble, saying, “He went in to lodge with a sinful man! ” 8Zacchaeus, as he stood [there], said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, the half of my goods I [plan to] give to the poor, and if I have unlawfully exacted anything from anyone I [will] repay fourfold.”9Jesus said to him, “Today, salvation has come to this house!For he too is a son of Abraham. 10For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Notes a T here is a pleonasm in the Gr. here no t represented in translation: lit. “ru n n in g ahead into the before.” E F G H L T W T etc. sm ooth this difficulty by reading προσδραμώτ, “ru n n in g to .” O thers solve the problem by om itting the prepositional phrase (D R W Ψ e tc .). (Note that W Ψ do both!)

Form/Structure/Setting T he extended “arrival” in Jerusalem , begun in 18:35, and due to climax in 19:41-44, 45-46, continues here with an episode set at the point where Jesus passes through Jericho (near to Jerusalem ; cf. v 11). The “Son of David” of 18:35-43 gives way to “Son of M an” in the present unit (but note the Davidic content of the allusion to Ezek 34). To the deliverance in 18:35-43 of a m an lost in blindness and poverty corresponds now the deliverance of a m an lost in wealth and corruption. Luke intrudes this unit (and the following) into the M arkan sequence he has been following. T he story is preserved by him alone. The language of the telling

904

L uke 19:1-10

is extensively Lukan, but the frequent parataxis and occasional non-Lukan ele ments, as well as indications of Lukan addition, point to a pre-Lukan account likely to have provided the whole narrative apart from vv 1 and 8 (see below and cf.Jerem ias, Sprache, 275-77). T he account as we have it is quite com plex (even w ithout vv 1 and 8). This makes it difficult to assign the pericope form critically and also raises questions about its developm ent. At its simplest we have a story about the com ing of salva tion to a particular well-differentiated individual (this bears some relationship to each of the categories “biographical apophthegm s,” “personal-legends,” and “stories about Jesus” to which the account has been variously assigned). A possible m inim al original account could have em braced only vv 2-6, since all that follows is in one way or an o th er a developm ent of what is already present in nucein these verses. If there has been developm ent, then vv 7, 9-10 were added in a single stage o f developm ent, with the addition of v 8 (by Luke) as a second stage. The addition o f vv 9-10, if such there was, moved the form in the direction of a pronouncem ent story. Such a developm ent would have a firm basis in other traditions about the historical Jesus, and it rem ains quite possible that the full account (with out vv 1 and 8) has a single point of origin and reflects an actual experience in the m inistry o f Jesus. Comment Over the grum blings of the crowd, Jesus works a saving transform ation on a m an whose situation seem ed to be one of double jeopardy: he is both a chief tax collector and a m an of wealth. Jesus’ presence brings salvation, since he has come as the Son of Man to seek and to save the lost (in line with the anticipation in Ezek 34 of God him self and [a messianic] David com ing to the rescue of the lost sheep o f the house of Israel). 1 T he episode here has no intrinsic link with Jericho. And as the language here is quite Lukan (είσελθών . . . την Ιεριχώ, “entering Jeric h o ,” is Lukan para phrase of Mark 10:46a; διέρχεσθαι, “to go th ro u g h ,” is used nine times in the Gospel), the verse is best seen as the Lukan provision of a setting (the nam e to com e in v 2 might, however, be taken to count in favor of a pre-Lukan localiza tion), which continues the m otif of the m ovem ent to Jerusalem . 2 T hough so m uch nam ing happens in Luke-Acts, the pleonastic idiom “called by the nam e . . . ” (όνόματι καλούμενος . . .) is no t found elsewhere in Luke-Acts and so may be pre-Lukan. With the same spelling, the nam e Zacchaeus is found in 2 Macc 10:19. The Hebrew nam e that lies behind it uses a root m eaning “clea n / in n o cen t,” b ut it is doubtful w hether this etymology plays any role in the story (the nam e could p oint to the m an ’s destiny beyond this encounter with Jesus). άρχιτελώνης , “chief tax collector,” is, again, not used elsewhere by Luke (only here in the NT, and according to Fitzmyer, 1223, not attested in any Greek writ ing up to this p e rio d ). Presumably an άρχιτελώνης is a holder of a taxing contract (see at 3:12), b u t the role of “c h ie f" here is n o t closely related to a precise knowl edge of his place in the tax system, rather, as O ’H anlon well expresses it (JSNT 12 [1981] 9), “he is a chief, rich tax collector, the sinner suprem e.” The reader comes to the story with an awareness (i) that Jesus is the “friend of tax collectors and

Comment

905

sinners” (7:34; cf. 5:30), bu t (ii) that it is hum anly impossible for the rich to en ter the kingdom of God (18:25; cf. v 23). 3 Luke was responsible at 9:9 for καί έζήτει ίδεΐν αύτόν [i.e., τον 'Iήσουν ] (lit. “and he was seeking to see him ”) , but that text may be inspired by this. Though there is no reason to think that this m an ’s desire to see Jesus expresses the same sense of need, the crowd here constitutes the same barrier to access to Jesus that they were initially for the blind m an (18:39, cf. v 36). Despite this m an ’s wealth and official power, he is quite unable to penetrate the crowd: he is clearly a social outsider, whose “littleness” in the eyes of others is m ore than physical. 4 Distinctive vocabulary, construction, and word usage com bine to suggest that a strong pre-Lukan residue rem ains in v 4a. ε ις τό έμπροσθεν (lit. “into the b efo re”) is pleonastic, m uch as καλούμενος, “called,” was in v 1. The “sycamore fig” is found only here in the NT. It is a large evergreen, said to be easy to climb. A part from the initiative of Jesus in v 5, the m an ’s strategy would have produced only a quite anonym ous contact with Jesus, with no com m unication (neither Jesus n o r the crowd is m eant to see him clim bing the tree). 5 Luke’s Jesus has an uncanny knowledge of the secret affairs of others (see at 4:23 and note the com ing δει [lit. “it is necessary”] that links in the divine plan and p u rp o se). σπεύσας, “hurry,” may, for Luke, reflect the eschatological urgency attached to the presence of Jesus (note the use of “today” here and in v 9 [see th e re ]; and cf. at 9:57-62; 12:54-59). For the dom estic hospitality to be extended to Jesus here, cf. 5:29 (and at v 30), bu t here overnight accom m odation appears to be specifically involved as well. 6 T he language of the com m and is now repeated in the indicative. The lan guage of welcome evokes that of the mission charges (see esp. 10:8-9), and its im port is un d erlin ed by the language of joy (cf. at 1:14): for this m an the king dom of God has m ade its approach, and he has em braced it. This m an is no longer the outsider that he was in vv 3-4. 7 “All” is likely to be Lukan hyperbole. In 5:30; 15:2 (see there), a very similar grum ble is directed by Pharisees at, in the first instance, the disciples. But D errett (Law, 281-82) rightly points to the widespread nature of ( i) the view that to accept the hospitality of a man whose wealth is ill gotten is to become a partner with him in his crimes, and (ii) the practice of social ostracism as a means of deterrence. Jesus practices a far more creative alternative (cf. the discussion of love of enemy at 6:27-38). 8 T he vocabulary of the verse is quite Lukan, and since the fit is slightly awk ward (Zacchaeus addresses Jesus, b u t his words seem to be in some sense a response to the grum bling of the crowd; Jesus in turn addresses him in v 9, but speaks o f him in the third p erso n ), it may best be taken as a Lukan developm ent (underlining of the point expressed m ore subtly by the language of receiving and rejoicing in v 6). σταθείς (lit. “standing”; Luke uses the word in 18:40), by giving a public face to the m an ’s statem ent, is probably m eant to provide the link with the grum bling that precedes. O n L uke’s use of “the L ord” in narrative, see at 7:13. H ere it pushes the following vocative use to a stronger sense than “sir” (Luke’s blind m an also addresses Jesus as “L ord” [18:41]). The “h a lf" here is sig nificant only in (i) being less than the “all” of 18:22; and (ii) in representing a radical disposal of wealth for the benefit o f the poor (the language echoes that of 18:22, b u t is closer to that of the Markan source).

906

L uke 1 9 :1 1 0 ‫־‬

O n έσυκοφάντησα, “unlawfully exacted,” see at 3:14. The fourfold restitution is probably n o t the fulfillm ent of any legal requirem ent. In Jewish law restitution in connection with theft norm ally required only the addition of a fifth (Lev 6:25); only in the case of sheep and oxen that had been stolen and then disposed of or slaughtered (Exod 22:1-4; partly reflected in 2 Sam 12:6) is the restitution on a m uch greater scale (fourfold and fivefold respectively [twofold if still in the possession of the th ief]). Rom an law required fourfold restoration in certain cir cumstances, particularly in cases of wrongful accusation in the courts (see Kerr, ExpTim 98 [1986] 70). A Rom an influence on Jewish affairs may be evidenced by Jo sep h u s’ reference (Ant. 16.3) to fourfold restoration (the context shows that Exod 22:1-4 is in m ind, bu t Josephus assumes a wider relevance of the fourfold restoration) and also by the early second-century text M ur 19:10, which envis ages a fourfold restoration in connection with a Jewish divorce settlem ent. Against this general background, Zacchaeus’ scale of restoration appears to m ore than com pensate for any of his misdeeds. The view that Zacchaeus is describing his regular practice and not his newfound intention has recently gained a certain popularity (see W hite, LexTQ 14 [1979] 89-96; id., ExpTim 91 [1979-80] 21; Fitzmyer, 1220-21). This involves taking the present tense verbs as iterative, rath er than as futuristic. The story then becom es a vindication story rath er than a salvation story. But the whole tone of the story finally counts against this view, from the image of Zacchaeus that em erges in vv 3-4, via the mission echoes of v 6, through the role of the o th er statem ents simi lar to v 7 in the Gospel account, to the salvation-of-the-lost em phasis of vv 9-10. 9 T hat Jesus’ words here are said to be addressed to Zacchaeus is likely to be the p roduct of the introduction of v 8. The words “today” and “salvation” have suggested to some that the first half of v 9 m ight belong with v 8 as a Lukan contribution (see esp. D upont, Beatitudes 2:251), and the second half is also at times considered Lukan (e.g., Marshall, 698). A text w ithout the first statem ent of v 9 seems most unsatisfactory in prom oting the flow of thought. E ither all the verse is Lukan, or it all reflects an original com ponent of the narrative. At a literary level, v 10 is m ore effective com ing after a strong indication that the salvation o f a lost one has ju st happened, than as needing to be, by itself, the response to the grumbling. This, plus a recognition that the language of “today” (with “house”) is already to be found in v 5, while salvation language is in v 10 (based on Ezek 34:22), leads me to the view that while Luke may have had a h and in the particu lar wording, the co n tent of v 9 should be considered p art of the original account. T he mission charge links of v 6 are here carried further, but with the com ing of salvation taking the place of the drawing near of the kingdom of God (10:9). O n “today,” see at 4:21. O n “salvation,” see at 1:69. C ontact with Jesus has trans form ed Zacchaeus. Despite his m anner of life up to this point, Zacchaeus is no t to be disenfranchised from the People of God. As one of the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:6), he is no t beyond the reach of the present saving outreach of God. For the role of the link to A braham in being a candidate for the prom ised salvation, see 1:55, 73; 13:16. For a counterbalancing m otif that preserves G od’s freedom and stands against presum ption, see 3:8. 10 This verse has obvious links with 5:32, but its particular im agery is inspired by Ezek 34, where God him self and David gather the scattered sheep of Israel. In

Explanation

907

Ezek 34 the needy state of the sheep is the outcom e of oppression; the needy state of Zacchaeus has a somewhat different com plexion. The verse is n o t to be seen as an originally separate tradition that has been added here, since some such statem ent is n eeded to provide closure after the outcry of v 7. Only the self designation as Son of Man raises questions (see discussion at 7:34). The usage could well be original, but “Son of M an” may have replaced an earlier “I” (Luke would n o t be responsible for the change). The influence of Ezek 34 here sug gests a Davidic role for this Son of Man. Thus the strand of royal messianism begun in 18:35-43 continues here. O n “Son of M an,” see fu rth er in Form/Structure/Setting for 6:1-5 and the “Son of M an” excursus. Explanation Proximity to Jerusalem distinguishes the units of 18:35-19:46 from the long jo u rn ey narrative that preceded. Allusion to Ezek 34 in 19:10 continues for this u n it the Davidic note reintroduced by the blind m an ’s cry in 18:38, 39. To the deliverance there of a m an lost in blindness and poverty corresponds now the deliverance of a m an lost in wealth and corruption. The popular support for the form er is to be contrasted with the popular dismay at the latter. If tax collectors were considered to be unsavory characters, then Zacchaeus as a chief tax collector can only be considered to be that m uch worse. From this starting point the reader comes to the story with an awareness (i) that Jesus is the “friend of tax collectors and sinners” (7:34; cf. 5:30), but (ii) that it is hum anly impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (18:25; cf. v 23). The crowd bars this m an ’s way to Jesus ju st as the crowd had done in the case of the blind man. T hough this m an has the power of wealth and official status, he is clearly a social outsider. In the eyes of his Jewish com patriots, his “littleness” is m ore than physical. He is a nobody. The m an ’s strategy to see Jesus would not change this situation: he would get a private view from the tree, and that is all (neither Jesus n o r the crowd are m eant to see him clim bing the tree). T he true initiative in the story belongs to Jesus. The Lukan Jesus has an uncanny knowledge of the secret affairs of others. Zacchaeus is no t hidden from him! He insists that anonym ous acquaintance should give way to close encoun ter. Jesus invites him self hom e, and this enables Zacchaeus to welcome him in a m an n er that echoes the pro p er reception, in Luke 10, of the missioning seventy with their message and accom panying m anifest reality of the kingdom of God. For Zacchaeus the kingdom of God has m ade its approach, and he has em braced it with joy: he is no longer the outsider of vv 3-4. T he accom panying crowd is m ore im pressed by the “traito r” role and lawless excesses of tax collectors. Such types are hardly to be considered as candidates for salvation! T he onlookers are scandalized at the social recognition im plied by Jesus’ initiative (see 5:30; 15:2). But it is Jesus’ approach, not theirs, that dem on strates a power to creatively transform the hum an situation encountered. Zacchaeus has been inwardly transform ed by his encounter with Jesus. His spon taneous response is to dispose of half his fortune toward m eeting the needs of the p oor and to make generous provision for putting right the injustices of his previous professional life. In the Lukan account the obvious adequacy of this move

908

L uke 19:11-28

serves to relativize the earlier call to the rich ru ler to dispose of all his wealth. At the same time it leaves the issue of the practical disposition of m oney high on the agenda o f any who would consider what m ight be an adequate response to the approach of the kingdom of God. T he com ing of Jesus is to be equated with the com ing of the kingdom of God, which is in tu rn to be equated with the com ing of salvation. Zacchaeus has en co untered the “today” of salvation, the same today of which Jesus speaks in 4:21. This is also the salvation anticipated in 1:69. Those who were convinced of their own holiness were inclined to read others out of the People of God, but the prom ises to the descendants of A braham (see 1:55, 73) are also to “the lost sheep of the house o f Israel” (Matt 10:6). The “Man of Destiny” came no t to confirm cus tom ary exclusions b ut precisely to seek out and save the lost sheep of Israel. The wording here echoes Ezek 34, where God him self and David (presum ably a new messianic David) would com e to the rescue of the scattered sheep.

Going to a Distant Land to Receive Kingly Power (19:11-28) Bibliography Aletti, J.-N. “Lc 19, 11-28: Parabole des m ines e t/o u parabole du roi: R em arques sur

l’ecriture parabolique du Luc.” In Les paraboles evangeliques: Perspectives nouvelles. XIIe congres de l ’ACEF, ed. J. D elorm e. Lectio Divina 135. Paris: Cerf, 1989. 309-32. Bauer, J. B. “Die A rbeit als H eilsdim ension (Lk 19,26 u. 1 Tim 2,14s).” BLit 24 (1956-57) 198-201. Bouwman, G. Das dritte Evangelium: Einubung in die formgeschichtliche Methode. Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1968. 56-61. Brightman, F. E. “S. Luke 19, 21: alpeLS' ο ούκ βθηκας." JT S 29 (1927-28) 158. Candlish, R. “T he Pounds and the Talents.” ExpTim 23 (1911-12) 136-37. Carroll, J. T. Response to the End of History. 97-103. Conzelmann, H. Luke. 64, 72-73, 82-83, 113, 121, 138-41, 198. Dauvillier, J. “La Parabole des m ines ou des talents et le 99 du code de H am m o u rab i.” In Melanges. FS J. M agnol. Paris: Recueil Sirey, 1948. 153-65. Derrett, J. D. M. “Law in the New Testament: T he Parable of the Talents and Two Logia.” ZAW 56 (1965) 184-95; reprinted, Law. 1 7 -3 1 .--------- . “A H orrid Passage in Luke Explained (Lk 19:27).” ExpTim 97 (1985-86) 136-38. Didier, M. “La parabole des talents et des m ines.” In DeJesus aux evangiles: Tradition et redaction dans les evangiles synoptiques. FS J. Coppens, ed. I. de la Potterie. BETL 25. 2 vols. Gembloux: D uculot, 1967. 248-71. Dodd, C. H. Parables. 7, 12, 100, 114-21, 127-29. DuBuit, F. M. “La parable des Mines ou des T alents.” Evangile 49 (1968) 19-27. Dupont, J. “La parabole des talents (Mat. 25: 14-30) ou des m ines (Luc 19: 1 2-27).” R TP 19 (1969) 3 7 6 -9 1 .--------- . “La parabole des talents (Mat. 25: 14 -3 0 ).” AsSeign n.s. 64 (1969) 18-28. Enslin, M. S. “Luke and Matthew, Com pilers or A uthors?” A N R W 2 /2 5 .3 (1985) 2357-88, esp. 2385-87. Fiedler, P. “Die u b erg e b en en T alente: A uslegung von Mt 25,14-20.” BibLeb 11 (1970) 259-73. Foerster, W. “Das Gleichnis von d er anvertrauten P fu n d en .” In Verbum Dei manet in aeternum. FS D. O. Schmitz, ed. W. Foerster. W itten: Luther, 1953. 37-56. Ganne, P. “La parabole des talents.” BVC 45 (1962) 44-53. Grasser, E. Parusieverzogerung. 114-19. Holdcroft, I. T. “T he Parable o f the Pounds

Translation

909

and O rig en ’s D octrine of G race.”JTS 24 (1973) 503—4. Jeremias, J. Parables. 58—63, 67, 86, 95, 99-100, 136, 166. Johnson, L. T. “T he Lukan Kingship Parable (Lk. 19:11-27).” NovT 24 (1982) 139-59. Jouon, P. “La parabole des m ines (Luc, 19, 13-27) et la parabole des talents (M atthieu, 2 5 , 14-30).” R S R 29 (1939) 489-94. Julicher, A. Gleichnisreden. 2:472-95. Kaestli, J.-D. L ’Eschatologie. 38-40. Kamlah, E. “Kritik un d Interpretation der Parabel von den anvertrauten Geldern: Mt. 25,14ff.; Lk. 19,12ff.” KD 14 (1968) 28-38. Lambrecht, J. Once More Astonished. 167-95. Luthi, W. “Das Gleichnis vom anvertrauten Pfund: Predigt u ber Lk. 19,11-27.” In Das Wort sie sollen lassen stahn. FS D. A. Schadelin, ed. H. D urr et al. Bern: H. Lang, 1950. 207-14. Manns, F. “La parabole des talents: W irkungsgeschichte et racines juives.” RevScRel 65 (1991) 343-62. McCulloch, W. “T he Pounds and the Talents.” ExpTim 23 (1911-12) 382-83. McGaughy, L. C. “T he Fear of Yahweh and the Mission of Judaism : A Postexilic Maxim and Its Early Christian Expansion in the Parable of the Talents. ”JBL 94 (1975) 235-45. Meynet, R. Initiation a la rhetonque biblique: ‘Qui donc est le plus grand?’ I. Initiations. Paris: Cerf, 1982. 85-131. Neuhausler, E. “Mit w elcher Massstab misst G ott die M enschen? D eu tu n g zweier Jesu ssp ru c h e .” BibLeb 11 (1970) 104-13. Panier, L. “La parabole des mines: Lecture sem iotique (Lc 19, 11-27).” In Les paraboles evangeliques: Per spectives nouvelles. XIIe congres de l ’ACEF, ed. J. D elorm e. LD 135. Paris: Cerf, 1989. 333-47. Pesch, W. Der Lohngedanke in der Lehre Jesu verglichen mit der religiosen Lohnlehre des Spatjudentums. MTS 1/1. M unich: Zink, 1955. 30-39. Potterie, I. de la “La parabole du p reten d an t a la royaute (Lc 19,11-28).” In A cause de l'Evangile. FS J. D upont, ed. F. Refoule. 613-41. Resenhofft, W. “Jesu G leichnis von d en T alenten, erganzt d u rch die LukasFassung.” NTS 26 (1979-80) 318-31. Sanders, J. T. “T he Parable of the Pounds and Lucan Anti-Semitism.” TS 42 (1981) 660-68. Schneider, G. Parusiegleichnisse. 38-42. Schulz, S. Spruchquelle. 288-98. Simpson, J. G. “T he Parable of the P ounds.” ExpTim 37 (1925-26) 299-302. Spicq, C. “Le chretien doit p o rter du fru it.” VSpir 84 (1951) 605-15. Stock, W. “The Pounds and the Talents.” xpT im 22 (1901-11) 424-25. Tarrech, A. P., i. “La parabole E des talents (Mt 25, 14-30) ou des m ines (Lc 19, 11-28).” In A cause de l'Evangile. FS J. D upont, ed. F. Refoule. 165-93. Taylor, C. “Plato and the New Testament: 1. St Luke XIX, 21.” JTS 2 (1901) 432. Thiessen, H. C. “T he Parable o f the N oblem an and the Earthly Kingdom: Luke 19:11-27.” BSac 91 (1934) 180-90. Thomson, P. “‘Carry o n !’ (Luke xix. 13).” ExpTim 30 (1918-19) 277. Weder, H. Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern. 193-210. Weinert, F. D. “T he Parable of the T hrone Claim ant (Luke 19:12,14-15a,27) Reconsidere d .” CBQ 39 (1977) 505-14. Weiser, A. Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien. SANT 29. M unich: Kosel, 1971. 226-72. Winterbotham, R. “Christ, or Archelaus?” Exp 8 /4 (1912) 338-47. Zerwick, M. “Die Parabel vom T hronanw arter.” Bib 40 (1959) 654-74.

Translation

11As they were listening to these things, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and they thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. 12S0 he said, “A certain well-born man went into a distant land to acquire kingshipafor himself and [then] to return. 13He called ten of his slaves and gave to them ten mnas, and he said to them, 'Conduct businessb [with this] while I am gone.’14Some of his fellow citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We do not want this person to rule over us.’ 15When he came back, having acquired the kingship, he asked for the slaves to whom he had given the money to be summoned to him, so that he might find out what business they had done.c 16The first arrived and said, '.Sir, your mna has earned ten mnas."'17He said to him, 'Well done, good servant! Since you have beenfaithful in a very small matter, you are to have authority over ten cities.’18Then the second one came and said, Your mna, sir, has made five mnas.’19He said to this one as well, 'And you are to be overfive cities.’20Then thed other one came and said, 'Sir, look,

9 10

L uke 19:11-28

your mna which I have had stored away in a sweat cloth. 21For I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting person: you carry off what you have not deposited; and you harvest what you have not sown.’22He said to him, 'Wicked servant, I will judge you out ofyour [own] mouth. You knew, did you, that I am an exacting person, carrying off what I have not deposited and harvesting what I have not sown? 23Then why didn't you place my money with a bank? Then I would have collected it with interest when I came. ’ 24Then he said to his attendants, ‘Take the mna from him and give it to the one who has ten mnas.’ 25They said to him, ‘Sir, he has ten mnasT—26e tell I you, that to everyone who has shall [more] be given; but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.f—27‘But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them before me. ’” 28Having said these things he went on ahead, going up toJerusalem. Notes a β α σ ιλεία (is) (lit. “kingdom ”) as in v 11. b By reading an infinitive here ‫ א‬A D E L W Θ 13 346 etc. mix direct and indirect speech. c “each one had d o n e ” (added τις- and singular verb) in A (W) Θ / 1,13 33 892 etc. d “T h e ” is missing from A W Ψ / 1 33 1006 etc., no d o u b t to help with the problem posed by only th ree o f the ten slaves being m entioned. e A D W Θ Ψ f 13 etc. link with γάρ, “for,” as in Matthew. f ά π ’ αύτοϋ, “from h im ,” is added in 2‫ א‬A D W Θ Ψ / 1,13 etc. to align with the M atthean text.

Form/Structure/Setting T he royal m otif of the previous units continues, and ju st as there has been a certain paralleling of the first two units of this section so there will now be of the next two. Both are accounts of royal arrivals: the one a parable designed to deflect expectation away from Jesus’ pending arrival in Jerusalem , the o th er the account of that arrival (for the purposes of this parallelism vv 41-44 belong with 29-40, though they are treated separately below ). L uke’s parable here is a variant of that found in Matt 25:14-30, but with those parts of the parable that concern royal rule (opposition to it, reception in a dis tant land, sharing it with his stewards, executing his opponents) represented only in the Lukan form. Scholarly opinion is divided about w hether Luke and Mat thew received the parable in the same form. A decision about this is linked in tu rn to a second about w hether the m ain differences are redactional develop m ents o f an original that in all essentials is represented by the M atthean form (an original like the Lukan form is quite unlikely given the difficulties of the Lukan narrative [the roles of the servants entrusted with funds and of the unwill ing citizens seem to operate quite independently, and where the royal m otif comes into contact with the servant stream it seems to create tensions in the narrative (see fu rth er below )]), or w hether these differences represent the m ain part of a second parable, which has, either by Luke or before him , been m erged with the m ain parable. Two main factors count in favor of identifying a second parable: (i) the narrative that em erges, if we extract and fit together those parts of the parable that deal with royal rule, is in its own right a m ore or less com plete and coherent n arra tive; and (ii) the allusions to Archelaeus that are characteristic of these additions

Form / Structure/Setting

911

(see below) and that give a quite negative tone to the royal figure seem m ore likely to p oint to the boldness of Jesus than to Luke or the church tradition be fore him (see esp. Zerwick, Bib 40 [1959] 654-74; and fu rth er Jerem ias, Parables, 58-60; W einert, CBQ 39 [1977] 505-14; Resenhofft, NTS 26 [1979-80] 327-28; Crossan, In Parables, 103). In favor of Lukan redaction is the usefulness of this additional m aterial for the presentation of what are clearly Lukan interests, and the help that its presence gives to the literary structuring at this point. Language considerations (there is some non-Lukan phraseology in these verses) and the partial fit with Lukan interests (see below) tip the balance in favor of a non-Lukan origin in a separate parable. (Though naturally seen by later Christians in con nection with Jesus’ messianic identity, on the lips of the historical Jesus the use of language that would rem ind of Achelaeus [whose rule was rem em bered as one of cruelty and tyranny, and who never actually becam e a king] is likely to have had the effect of distancing the parable from issues of messianism in favor of a concern simply with the confirm ation of authority, which is ignored at o n e ’s peril [cf. 20:9-18; 9:26].) The question rem ains w hether the m erging of the parables is Lukan or preLukan. H ere the usefulness of the transform ed version of the parable to Luke counts in favor of the former. T here is no true parallel elsewhere in the Gospel for such a Lukan role, though the form ation of 12:35-38 may be suggestive (note esp. the introduction of v 37). So finally, there is nothing that counts strongly against the m ain parable being available to Matthew and Luke in essentially the same form. For the wording of the source form of the parable see Comment below. There is a broad scholarly consensus that v 26 (par. Matt 25:29) represents the addition of a floating logion to the parable. A part from this there is very little dissent from the view that this parable may be traced to the historical Jesus (but see Fiedler, “U bergebenen T alente,” 271; A. Satake, “Zwei Typen von M enschen bildern in den Gleichnissen Jesu,” AJBI 4 [1978] 45-84; Goulder, Midrash, 440-42). In broad framework the parable is no t unlike Mark 13:34-36 (see discussion at 12:35-48), and it shares with quite a num ber of parables the juxtaposition of an appropriate and an inappropriate response. The use to which the original parable may have been pu t by the historical Jesus rem ains m uch m ore open to question. The developm ent of the parable focuses m uch attention on the case of the m an who preserved intact the money entrusted to him, but did nothing with it; and it is largely what we make of this feature of the story that determ ines the sense proposed (along with the decision m ade about the identity of the original h ea rers). Do we have here a general com m endation of the virtues of fidelity and effort as necessary for the person who would en ter the kingdom of God (Julicher)? O r do we have an attack on the preservers of the Jewish religious tradition, who have preserved it essentially intact, b u t not, according to Jesus, m ade profitable use of it for God (Jeremias)? O r is an attack m ade on the fear-centered, and therefore legalistic, approach to reli gion of those whom Jesus attacks (Dupont)? O r do we have a challenge to disciples to make fruitful for God what has now come to them from Jesus (whether this is to be seen m ore generally, or applied to som ething as focused as the spreading of the message [Weiser; Weder; D idier])? O r does the rule of God as revealed by Jesus seem to the scribes and Pharisees to ask too m uch, and the parable describes their revolt against it (Lam brecht)? O r is the challenge to respond to the

912

L uke 19:11-28

message of the kingdom with the dynamism of a bold readiness to risk all, and n o t to take refuge in a sterile security (Tarrech)? A lthough early Christians likely applied the parable to the good news they be lieved Jesus had entrusted to them , it seems finally m ore likely that the parable initially evoked the historic trust com m itted to the People of God and that the retu rn in g m aster was an image of God, rath er than of Jesus himself. The accu racy of the servant’s perception of his m aster is m ore than questionable, but there is no do u b t that he felt pressure from his m aster’s expectations and was quite unwilling to risk responsibility. T hough he took custody of his m aster’s money, he did n o t take up the task entrusted to him by his master: he preferred to pass. R ather than any of the suggestions of the paragraph above, it seems m ore likely th at Jesus is addressing a certain kind of nom inalism am ong some of his contem poraries: quite happy to be in a general way within the orbit of the People of God, b u t unwilling to make themselves answerable to G od’s expectations in any com m itted sense. Feeling that God was som ething of an exacting tyrant, they chose to avoid the pressures of fulfilling his expectations rath er than to ru n the risk of doing what they feared m ight be too little. The parable challenges directly the perverted logic of this kind of opting out. But m ore subtly it places in question the assum ptions m ade about God (how has he in fact dealt with the o ther ser vants?) and draws attention to what these abstainers have failed to realize: though G od’s m andates to his servants open up a vast sphere of possibility, he is p re pared to accept, when there has been any sort of effort to im plem ent the m andate, what is actually a m inim al retu rn on his investment. A form of the parable is found in the Gospel of the Nazaraeans 18. However, since this form shows influence both from the M atthean and the Lukan form (as w ell as o f th e p a r a b le o f th e P ro d ig a l S o n ), it is o f n o v alu e in tra c in g th e o rig in

of the parable. Comment Jesus is about to enter Jerusalem , and he will do so as a royal figure. However, he enters n o t as a royal p reten d er seeking to take the throne bu t as one about to jo u rn ey far away to gain his royal commission to rule. He will leave behind ser vants who m ust see themselves as entrusted with resources to be used to gain profit for their master, and fellow citizens who object to his royal pretensions. W hen he returns with his royal authority secured, he will receive his servants and, in accord with their fidelity, share his rule with them . U pon his retu rn he will also liquidate those whose response to his royal claims was treasonable: they have no place in his kingdom. 11 O n the basis of vocabulary, style, o ther Lukan practice, and the way in which the present introduction seems to produce a secondary application of the parable(s), the present verse is widely recognized to be a Lukan contribution. Luke links with the previous unit by m eans of άκονόντων αυτών ταυτα προσθείς, “as they were listening to these things, he went on to .” The linking seems mainly co ncerned to provide a form al structural link with the previous unit (cf. 14:15). Luke may want the “today” of salvation to prepare for the expectation of an im m ediate appearance of the kingdom of God, but if we press the link too literally

Comment

913

it involves a change of plan for Jesus from v 5 (cf. v 28), which is surely no t L uke’s point. T he language of nearness continues as one of the m arkers of the sense of progress in the section. The nearness to Jerusalem is only relative, since Jericho was still seventeen miles from Jerusalem and the jo urney included a rise of 3,300 feet in altitude. T he im portance of the proximity of Jerusalem comes from its historic role as throne city, from the time when David took it as his royal city to reign over the u n ited tribes of Israel (1 Sam 5). More recently H erod the Great had taken Jerusalem by force to impose his rule upon the Jewish nation (with p articu lar su p p o rt from Jeric h o on the eve of his advance u p o n Jerusalem [Josephus, War 1.335-60; Ant. 14.459-91 (his successor Archelaus seems to have been able to take up his rule w ithout force, but only because his Rom an associ ates had already p u t down a series of uprisings [War 2.1-112; Ant. 17.20-344])]). I have argued elsewhere (“Luke’s R eaders,” 129-240, esp. 144-203), especially in connection with Acts 6:13-14, that Luke is sensitive to a polem ical castigation of Christianity as an insurrectionist m ovem ent, hostile to the existing Jerusalem re ligious structures (cf. the Q um ran attitudes to Jerusalem and their expectations of the eschatological fate of the “wicked” regim e in power there). In this context, the prospect of the im m ediate com ing of the kingdom of God in Jerusalem takes on the coloring of a m ilitary takeover by Jesus at the head of a fanatical band of followers. All of Luke’s account to follow is at one level a careful distancing of Jesus from any such possibility. A part from this specific focus, however, the con cern here is to insist that the execution, rather than royal instatem ent, that awaited Jesus in Jerusalem represented no failure bu t a stage in the im plem entation of G od’s purposes for the consum m ation of the kingdom . (The standard view, that the parable seeks to explain the delay of the Parousia, does no justice at all to the link between the expectation of immediacy and the arrival of the historical Jesus in Jerusalem . The view of Johnson [NovT 24 (1982) 139-59], that the following messianic acclam ation of Jesus is in view [and so Jesus will affirm rath er than place in question the popular expectation h e re ], is m ore sensitive to the link to Jerusalem , bu t [i] it requires an impossible reading of άναφαίνεσθοη [lit. “to be lit u p ” and so: “to be caused to ap p ear”] as “to be revealed” in the sense of “to be declared [as a symbolic m anifestation]”; [ii] it requires a sense for “kingdom of G od” unparalleled elsewhere in Luke; and [iii] it allows no justice at all to be done to the actual parable. De la P otterie’s variant of this view [“La parabole,” 613-41], which makes the messianic acclam ation a type of the heavenly en th ro n em en t to come, is no t unattractive, but it only partly overcomes the difficulties of Jo h n so n ’s view. While it takes up an im portant Lukan motif, it leaves us finally with a rath er fragm ented sense.) 12 Probably only άνθρωπος, “p e rso n /m a n ,” survives of the original opening of the m ain parable. The shared jo u rn ey m otif makes it possible for Luke to fuse the two parables. Perhaps with a significant infusion of Lukan language, we have here the opening of the second parable. In the world of the day, one went to Rome to gain the status of king before taking up o n e ’s rule. This is what H erod the G reat had done (Josephus, War 1.282-85; Ant. 14.374-89), and it is what Archelaus had done as well ( War 2.14-100; Ant. 17.224-340), though he had to be content with the title ethnarch until he proved him self ( War 2.94; Ant. 17.318),

914

L uke 19:11-28

which he failed to do. (It is interesting that though Archelaus is only ethnarch, Josephus speaks of “the kingdom ” in connection with him, m uch as does our parable, which refrains from actually calling the chief character a king.) The cru elty and tyranny of the Rom an-sponsored rulers of the H erodian family would inevitably be called to m ind, though it is unlikely that this evocation was opera tive for Luke. T he “distant lan d ” stands in im plicit contrast to the nearness of Jerusalem and the “im m ediately” of the popular expectation. Luke thinks in term s of Jesus’ instatem ent at the right hand of God and com ing in glory (cf. Acts 2:30, 33-36; Luke 24:26; 22:69; 9:51; Acts 3:20; 1:11). 13 L uke’s “ten of his slaves” fits the social status of the m an of noble birth who is in line for kingly rule. It probably belongs to Luke’s efforts to m erge the two parables, but he seems to forget about the num ber as the story unfolds. Luke’s one m na per servant is dramatically less than M atthew’s figures where the best provided o f the servants receives ten talents, which is six h u n d red times as m uch. L uke’s am ount seems clearly to be a token am ount, as a kind of trial. M atthew’s represents a m ore serious financial exposure, bu t in the story it is still m eant as a small am ount, which will later give way to a m uch larger fiscal trust (vv 21, 23). It rem ains uncertain which is the m ore original. The M atthean allocations graded according to ability are often thought to represent a developm ent over L uke’s sim pler ec[ual distribution, but Luke’s “te n ” in v 24, where his n um ber should be “eleven,” is an error best seen as based on an original that had “ten ” there and that reflected the M atthean pattern of distribution. Luke may well have been concerned that the source form could be (falsely) read as implying that the outcom e may be read already out of the starting point abilities (or allocation) of the respective slaves: the m ore ability, the m ore likely to succeed with God; the less ability, the less likely. Not so certain is whether the explanation of this distribution as “according to ability” is an original part of the parable. Also uncertain is whether Luke has provided the final clause of the verse, which makes explicit the business responsi bilities laid upon the slaves. Luke may be preparing already to clarify the nature of the failure of the third of the slaves (the use of προς for “to ” with a verb of speaking and the fact that a verb cognate to πραγματεύσασθε, “conduct business,” is probably introduced by Luke in v 15 may count in favor of Lukan p ro d u c tio n ). εν ω έρχομαι is unusual. B eginning with εν ώ, the phrase is unlikely to m ean “until I com e” (as RSV, NIV, etc.). De la Potterie’s “while I am com ing,” referring to the continual coming of Jesus to his own in the church period (“La parabole,” 63235), is artificial. Best is Fitzmyer’s “while I am g o n e” (1235), referring to the whole journey. Luke thinks of the disciples’ responsibility in the period of Jesus’ absence—perhaps particularly the responsibility m irrored in 9:1-6 and 10:1-16. L uke’s writing activity will in its own way be an attem pt to discharge this responsi bility. 14 Luke now continues the thread of the second parable. The text here has no notable Lukan features, though its language and idioms can be found else where in the Gospel. T here is little doubt that we have here an allusion to the delegation that sought to oppose the confirm ation by Augustus of Archelaus as ru ler of Ju d ea (Josephus, Ant. 17.299-314). But we cannot be sure that Luke is aware of this. δε πολΐταί is best translated “some of his fellow citizens.” If Luke had in ten d ed all his fellow citizens, he would have m ade use of his favored πας, “all.” Sanders ( TS 42 [1981] 660-68) is wrong to find anti-Semitism here.

Comment

915

15 Luke has no equivalent to Matt 25:16-18. It is probably a M atthean devel op m en t designed to fill the gap between the m an ’s departure and return, but it is also possible that it has been displaced by L uke’s addition of v 14. V 15 seems to be for the m ost part a Lukan reform ulation of M att 25:19 in the light of the royal m otif of the second parable. As a king he now acts through the agency of others, and so he asks for his slaves to be called. He wants to know the results of their business activities in his absence. ( άργύρων , “money,” as used here may be what stood in the original parable in place of M atthew’s τά υπάρχοντα αύτοϋ, “his goods,” in 25:14.) 16 A part from the quantities, Luke is likely to be closer to the original here, b u t ταρεγένετο, “cam e,” may be a Lukan contribution. For the scale of the re turn, see D errett, ZNW 56 (1965) 190. A ncient business knew very high returns, b u t also spectacular failures. 17 Lukan intervention is m ore evident here, where the outcom e of the faith ful servant’s endeavors leads to a share in the rule of the newly established m onarch (Luke may also be responsible for εύγε rath er than M atthew’s εν for “well d o n e!”; for the superlative form έλαχίστω, “a very small m atter”; and for the overall syntactical stru ctu re). But the form of the parable in Matthew is likely to be considerably M atthean as well (probably “and faithful” and “enter into the joy of your m aster”) . Cf. the language of 22:29-30. T hat the reward is com m ensu rate with the success is part of the dynamic of the parable, but it is to some degree an allegorizing elem ent, since it makes no allowance for the arbitrary risk factor in ancient business life (but, then, despotic masters may no t always have m ade such allowances!). 18-19 The case of the second servant is dealt with in parallelism with that of the first, but in v 18 Luke varies the introductory verb for the arrival of the second servant, switches word order for the vocative “Sir,” and has both a change of verb and of word order in “has m ade five m nas.” In v 19 he links the second time with δε, “a n d /b u t,” rather than καί, “and,” now using a καί to m ean “also.” Finally, he abbre viates heavily the reward statement, which now loses both its praise and its explanation (both, however, to be understood). The Matthean parallelism is considerably stricter. This second instance established the proportionality of the rewards. 20 L uke’s ό ετερος, “the o ther o n e,” for the third slave has now forgotten that in v 13 the num ber of slaves involved has been set at ten. The third case begins in reasonably close parallelism to the first two, bu t then departs drastically from the pattern. Luke uses σουδάριον again in Acts 19:12. It is a Latin loanword and refers to a sweat cloth for the face or the neck. M atthew’s slave here buried his stake. The difference is probably a reflection of the difference in the stake involved here: a talent weighed around fifty-five pounds and could no t easily be w rapped in a sweat cloth to be hidden (Lam brecht, Once More, 179-80). Burying has always been a favored m ethod in the preservation of wealth, so the change is a natural one. In Matthew the m an ’s explanation precedes instead of following the revealing of the fate of the one talent. In the M atthean telling, all the slaves bring the m oney with them ; in the Lukan, only the m an who has m ade no use of his stake. In both these cases the Lukan form is to be preferred both in term s of realism and of artistry. 21 W here Matthew’s second image of the m aster’s hardness is no m ore than a paraphrase of the first, Luke has added what is probably a banking image (perhaps

916

L uke 19:11-28

suggested to him by the m aster's advice in v 23). The image may be alm ost pro verbial; it is paralleled in several ancient writers (Plato, Leges 11.913C; Aelian, Varia hist. 3.46; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.216; Philo, Hypo. 7.6). L uke’s αύστερός , “se v ere/ex ac tin g /strict,” is m ore likely to be original than M atthew’s σκληρός (lit. “h ard ,” with the suggestion of cruelty and lack of mercy), but the difference is slight. The slave’s image of his m aster is as one who works things to his own advantage in a way that shamelessly exploits others. The m aster does no t disown this image, b ut his treatm ent of the first two slaves hardly supports it. 22 L uke’s historic present here (λέγει, “he says”) will be original; “I will judge you o ut of your [own] m o u th ” is likely to be a Lukan em bellishm ent (cf. Job 15:6), and he may be responsible for the repetition involved in having here “I am an exacting person.” But it is Matthew who will have added “and slothful” to “wicked slave.” The m aster will argue that far from being any excuse for inactivity, this extrem e image that the slave has of him should rath er have produced action. 23 The reform ulation here is likely to be Lukan (Luke introduces διά ‫ דד‬for “why” in o th er places; τραπεζίτης, “banker,” and κόμιζε lu, “obtain,” are found in M atthew only h e re ). L u k e’s εδ ω κ α ς in th e sense “p u t / p la c e ” is p robably Septuagintal. T he word for “b an k ” is literally “table.” The usage is related to that in Mark 11:15 of the tables of the m oneychangers. For the practice of lending at interest, see discussion at 16:5. The procedure recom m ended here would have produced a rath er m ore m odest retu rn than that achieved by the o ther slaves, b u t it would have involved the very m inim um of effort on the part of this slave and would have exposed him to m inim al financial risk. T hough this was no t at all what the m aster had asked for, it would at least have produced som ething for the m aster for whom, in this slave’s image, gaining m ore was the consum ing passion. As it is, the slave has neither obeyed the directions of his master, n o r even m ini mally acted in accord with his (surely false) image of his master. See in Form/ Structure/Setting above for discussion of the original thrust of this feature of the parable. 24 T he M atthean account has nobody identified to whom the com m and “Take from him . . . ” can be directed. Luke makes good this lack with “He said τοΐς παρεστώσίκ,”where τοΐς πάρεgtcoglu may simply be those standing around, but, given their task and the royal status of the Lukan figure, are m ore likely to be “attendants.” T he m an would actually have eleven m nas already, having gained ten additional m nas from his business efforts; the “te n ” here is likely to be a left over from the “te n ” of the source, which contained the M atthean num bers. To have an extra m na to trade with cannot be of m uch significance for one who now rules the affairs of ten cities. This is a difficulty with the story that flows from L uke’s fusing of the two parables. 25 T here is no parallel to this verse in the M atthean account. Its presence clarifies the application of v 26 to the situation. It is best seen as a Lukan “im provem ent,” though at this point Luke has tem porarily lost sight of the fact that this slave has meanwhile been entrusted with ten cities. 26 Luke has an introductory “I tell you th a t” not found in the M atthean ac count. This may be a fresh introduction after the change of speaker caused by the insertion of v 25, but is perhaps better seen as com ing from the shared source. In any case it should be seen as functioning in the Lukan text as an aside by

Explanation

917

Jesus, rath er than as part of the narrative progress of the parable. The additional και περίσσενθήσεταί, “and he will have a great abu n d an ce” (also found in the form of the logion at Matt 13:12 [contrast Mark 4:25]), is likely to be a M atthean doubling [as in M atthew’s parallel to v 22]). Luke has rem oved the p en d an t con struction from the M atthean syntax. This verse is unlikely to have been an original elem ent of the parable: that it is also found in a quite different context raises the possibility that it is a floating logion; on the lips of the m aster it does no t fit the narrative world particularly well, bu t as an aside on the lips of Jesus it is anom a lous; in itself it is an appropriate enough proverbial com m ent on the respective fates of the favored and non-favored slaves, bu t its presence shifts the center of attention from the parable’s natural focus, which is on the slave who failed his trust. 27 Luke concludes by returning to the royal parable. The action here is a natural part of the consolidation of power of the newly instated m onarch. This sort of behavior had been part of A rchelaus’ strategy on gaining possession of his ethnarchy (Josephus, War 2.111) and was a notable feature of H erod the G reat’s accession to power (War 1.351-58). It also has its counterpart in OT victory scenes (1 Sam 15:33). In the Lukan use, this will be a picture of eschatological ju d g m ent, b u t since, for Luke, the d estru ctio n of Jeru salem is already the first installm ent of that ju d g m en t (see at 17:31 and esp. at chap. 21), the quasi-mili tary im agery here is appropriately to be linked with what is anticipated in chap. 21. The link with chap. 21 is strengthened by the presence in this section of 19:4144. O n the three horizons of ju d g m en t with which Luke works, see at 12:5; 13:3. κατασφάζειv, “to slay,” is found only here in the NT. Luke has no equivalent for the M atthean words in 25:30 of ju d g m en t in term s of o u ter darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth. Since Matthew has som ething similar several times (8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51), it is m ost likely that he is responsible for the presence of this verse (in the original parable the removal of the trust is itself the ju d g m en t that falls on this slave who failed to carry through at all on his m aster’s directive). 28 Luke rounds the unit off with the present words that create with v 11 an inclusion around the parable (beyond the recurrence of "Jerusalem ” [different Greek form s for "Jerusalem ” are used, bu t this is a byproduct o f the borrowing of the phrase εις Ιεροσόλυμα , “[in] to Jerusalem ,” in v 28 from Mark 11:1], note the paralleling o f άκονόυτωυ . . . ταντα , “hearing these things,” with είπώυ ταυτα , “having said these things”; on the treatm ent of this verse as the conclusion of the present un it rath er than as the beginning of the following see esp. de la Potterie, “La parabole,” 627-29, who em phasizes the links between vv 27 and 28). The picture here of Jesus moving on ahead of his com panions is a m otif found in Mark 10:32, which Luke m ade no use of in his parallel to that verse (18:31). The forward jo u rn ey to Jerusalem is now to be seen in the light of the parable. Explanation The them e of royalty continues now with this parable of a royal pretender whose claim to a th ro n e is sustained. To the present parable, designed to deflect expec tation away from the m o m en t of Jesu s’ im pending arrival in Jerusalem , will

918

L uke 19:11-28

correspond the im mediately following account of that royal arrival. He will arrive as one about to jo u rn ey far away to gain his royal commission to rule. As he leaves, he entrusts resources to slaves expected to be trustworthy, but he also has to ru n the gauntlet of fellow citizens who do their best to see that he does not have his rule confirm ed. The form er are being tried out for a greater destiny; the latter are in line for an unhappy fate. Luke appears to have m erged two of Jesus’ parables here. Perhaps Luke thinks of the language of the “today” of salvation in v 9 as fuel ing the expectations associated with the im pending arrival in Jerusalem . Luke is concerned to say that the execution, rath er than royal instatem ent, that awaited Jesus in Jerusalem represented no failure of the Christian m ovem ent. But there is an extra note as well. Luke is concerned to distance Christianity from any kind of “arrival” of the kingdom of God that would look like the bloody takeover of a figure like H erod the Great. Luke knew that accusations that Christianity was sec tarian and insurrectionist were p art of the arsenal of the opponents of early Christianity. He is concerned to show that Christianity has a quite different na ture and plays out its destiny on a m uch larger canvas. In the world of the day one went to Rome to gain the status of king before taking up o n e ’s rule. H erod the Great had done this, and so had Archelaus his son. Allusions to Archelaus are to be found pervasively through the “royal” strand of the parable, though it is unclear w hether Luke was clearly aware of them . Be fore d ep artu re this m an hands out a m odest am ount of m oney (a m na was worth two h u n d red denarii, and a denarius was a day laborer’s wage) to each of ten slaves who are to use it to engage in business. This turns out to be a kind of test. Luke probably thinks particularly, but no t exclusively, of the kind of task that the Twelve and the Seventy have undertaken (9:1-6; 10:1-16). Some of the m an ’s fellow citizens seek to interfere with the confirm ation of his status as ruler, but their bid is clearly unsuccessful and the m an comes back with full royal authority. H ere the opposition to Jesus, perhaps especially that which culm inates in his death, is in view. In the larger Lukan picture the jo u rn ey is a jo u rn ey through death and to God (see Acts 2:33-36), and the re tu rn is the an ticipated com ing of the Son of Man (see Luke 21:27-28). The success achieved by the first two slaves may seem extraordinary to us, but in the ancient world huge risks went with huge returns. They have done well in their trial and are given an im portant share in the rule of their m onarch (cf. 22:29-30). The third slave, however (Luke seems to lose sight of the rest of the ten who were en trusted with m oney), returns the money, carefully preserved, b u t has m ade absolutely no use of it. The m an explains his action as provoked by fear, based on his understanding of the exacting nature of his master: this m an withdraws from the bank what he has no t deposited and claims the harvest that represents the effort of somebody else’s sowing. T he image of the m aster that the reader derives from the parable hardly ac cords with this, b u t the m aster deals with his slave on the slave’s own term s. T here is no d oubt that the slave felt pressure from his m aster’s expectations and, though he took custody of his m aster’s money, he would not accept the responsi bility that accom panied it. T here is a certain kind of nom inalism involved here: readiness in a general way to be identified with Jesus, but unwillingness to be answerable in any com m itted sense to G od’s expectations that are m ade known

Bibliography

919

to us in connection with Jesus; a preference for doing nothing rath er than ru n ning the risk of doing too little. T he m aster will argue that the extrem e image that the slave has of him, far from being any excuse for inactivity, should rath er have produced action. To put the m oney on deposit with a bank would have produced a rather m ore m odest retu rn than that achieved by the other slaves, bu t it would have involved the very m inim um of effort on the p art of this slave and would have exposed him to m ini mal financial risk. Beyond questioning the logic o f the slave’s position, this suggestion hints that though G od’s m andates to his servants open up a vast sphere of possibility, he is prepared to accept, when there has been any sort of effort to im plem ent the m andate, what is actually a m inim al retu rn on his investment. In m arked contrast to the other two, the third slave loses his stake in his m aster’s affairs precisely when his m aster has becom e the undisputed ruler of the realm. H ere too the proverb proves true that winners win yet m ore and losers lose all th at they have. But this slave is n o t the only loser in our story. His loss suddenly appears m odest when it can be com pared to that of the fellow citizens who opposed the com ing to power of this ruler. They are guilty of treason, and they will pay the ultim ate penalty.

Making a Royal Approach toJerusalem

(19:29-40)

Bibliography Baarlink, H. “Friede im H im m el: Die lukanische R edaktion von Lk 19 38 u n d ihre D eutung.” ZAW 76 (1985) 170-86. Bailey, J. A. The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John. NovTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1963. 22-28. Barnicki, R. “Das Zitat von Zach 9:9-10

u n d die Tiere im Bericht von M atthaus fiber dem Einzug Jesus in Jerusalem (Mt 21: 111).” NovT 18 (1976) 161-66. Bauer, W. “T he ‘C olt’ of Palm Sunday (Der Palm esel) .”JBL 72 (1953) 220-29. Bergen, P. van. “L’E ntree m essianique de Jesus a Jeru salem .” QLP 38 (1957) 9-24. Bishop, E. F. F. “H osanna: T he Word of the Joyful Jerusalem Crowds.” ExpTim 53 (1941-42) 212-14. Blenkinsopp, J. “T he O racle of Judah and the Messianic Entry.”JBL 80 (1961) 55-64. --------- . “The H idden Messiah and His E ntry into Jeru salem .” Scr 13 (1961) 51-56, 81-88. Bratcher, R. G. “A N ote on Mark 11:3: o κύριος αυτού χρεία ν έ χ ε ι.” ExpTim64 (1952-53) 9 3 .--------- . “A N ote on Mark 11:3: o κύριος αύτον χρεία ν ε χ ε ι.” Β Τ 4 (1953) 52. Bromboszcz, Τ. “D er Einzug Jesu in Jerusalem bei M ondschein? Ein Beitrag zur C h ro n o lo g ie d e r L eid en sg e sch ic h te .” BZ 9 (1911) 164-70. Burger, C. Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FRLANT 98. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1970. 112-14. Buth, R. “Luke 19:31-34, Mishnaic Hebrew, and Bible Transla tion: Is κύριοι τού πώλου singular?”JBL 104 (1985) 680-85. Catchpole, D. R. “T he ‘trium p h al’ entry.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. 319-34. Crossan, J. D. “Redaction and Citation in Mark 11:9-10 and 11:17.” BR 17 (1972) 33-50. Davies, T. L. “Was Jesus Com pelled?” ExpTim 42 (1930-31) 526-27. Derrett, J. D. M. “Law in the New Testament: T he Palm Sunday Colt.” NovT 13 (1971) 241-58. Doeve, J. W. “Pu rification du tem ple de dessechem ent du figuier: Sur la structure du 21erne chapitre de

920

L uke 19:29-40

M atthieu et paralleles (Marc x i.l-x ii.12, Luc xix.28-xx.19).” N TS 1 (1954-55) 297-308. Duff, P. B. “T he March of the Divine W arrior and the Advent o f the Greco-Roman King: M ark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem .”JBL 111 (1992) 53-71. Dupont, J. “L’entree

de Jesus a Jerusalem dans le recit de saint M atthieu (XXI, 1 -1 7 ).” LumVie 48 (1960) 1-8. ------------ . “L’entree m essianique de Jesus a Jerusalem .” AsSeign 37 (1965) 46-62. Fahy, T. “T h e T riu m p h al E ntry into Je ru sa le m .” In New Testament Problems. D u b lin /L o n d o n : C lorim ore and R eynolds/B urns and O ates, 1963. 126-39. Farmer, W. R. “T he Palm Branches in Jo h n 12, 13.” JTS n.s. 3 (1952) 62-66. Flender, H. St Luke. 61, 92-94, 103-4. Frayn, R. S. “Was Jesus Com pelled?” ExpTim 43 (1931-32) 381-82. Freed, E. D. “T he En try into Jerusalem in the Gospel of J o h n .” JBL 80 (1961) 329-38. Frenz, A. “Mt xxi 5.7.” NovT 13 (1971) 259-60. George, A. Etudes sur l'oeuvre de Luc. 2 7 4 -7 6 .------------ . “Le royaute de Jesus selon l’evangile de Luc.” ScEccl 14 (1962) 57-69. Giblin, C. H. The Destruction of Jerusalem. 47-56. Haenchen, E. Der Weg Jesu. 372-79. Haeusler, B. “Zu Mt 21:3b u n d P a ra lle le d ” BZ 14 (1917) 153-58. Hahn, F. Titles. 82-84, 253-56. Harvey, A. E . Jesus and the Constraints of History. 120-29. Herklotz, F. “Zu Mt 21:9, 15.” BZ 18 (1928-29) 39. Jack, J. W. “Was Jesus C om pelled?” ExpTim 43 (1931-32) 381-82. Jacob, R. Les pericopes de l'entree ά Jerusalem et de la preparation de la cene: Contribution a l ’etude du probleme synoptique. Etudes Bibliques NS. Paris: Gabalda, 1973. Johnson, C. H. “The Song o f Entry: Matt 21,9; Mark 11,9; Luke 19,38: Jo h n 12,13.” B W 34 (1909) 47. Johnson, S. L. “The Trium phal Entry of Christ.” BSac 124 (1967) 218-29. Kennard, J. S. “‘H osanna’ and the Purpose of Jesus.” JBL 67 (1948) 171-76. Kuhn, H.-W. “Das Reittier Jesu in der Einzugsgeschichte des Markusevangeliums.” ZNW50 (1959) 82-91. Lohse, E. “H osianna.” N ovT 6 (1963) 113-19. Mackay, W. M. “T he Contrasts of Palm Sunday.” ExpTim 44 (1932-33) 275-77. Marz, C.-P. “Siehe, dein Konig kommtzu d ir. . .": Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Einzugsperikope. ETS 43. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1980. Mariadasan, V. Le triomphe messianique de Jesus et son entree a Jerusalem: Etude critico-litteraire des traditions evangeliques (Mc 11,1-11; M t 21,1-11; Lc 19,28-38; Jn 12,12-16). Tindivanam, India: TNBCLC, 1978. Mastin, B. A. “T he Date of the T rium phal Entry.” NT'S 16 (1969-70) 76-82. Meikle,J. “WasJesus Com pelled?” E xpTim 43 (193132) 288. Michel, Ο. “πώλος'.” TDNT 6:959-61. “Eine philologische Frage zur Einzugsgeschichte.” NTS 6 (1959-60) 81-82. Patsch, H. “D er E in zu g Jesu in Jerusalem : Ein historischer Versuch.” ZTK 68 (1971) 1-26. Paul, A. “L’entree de Jesus a Jerusalem (Mc 11; Mt 21; Lc 19; Jn 12).” AsSeign 19 (1971) 4-26. Pesch, R., and Kratz, R. "Jesus zieht ein in Jerusalem .” In So liest man synoptische: Vol. VI. Passionsgeschichte, Teil I. Frankfurt am M.: Knecht, 1979. 64-72. Pieper, K. “Zum E inzug Jesu in Jerusalem .” BZ 11 (1913) 397-402. Rese, M. Alttestamentliche Motive in der Chnstologie des Lukas. SNT 1. Gu tersloh: G. M ohn, 1969. 196-99. Richardson, C. C. “Blessed is He that Com eth in the Name of the Lord: A Liturgical N ote.” ATR29 (1947) 96-98. Rilliet, F. “La louange des pierres et le tonnerre: Luc 19,40 chez Jacques de Saroug et dans la patristique syriaque.” RHR 117 (1985) 293-304. Ross, J. M. “Names of God: A C om m ent on Mark 11.3 and Parallels.” B T 35 (1984) 443. Samuel, O. “Die Regier ungsgewalt des Wortes G ottes.” E vT 3 (1936) 1 -3. Schildenberger, J. “D er T rium phzug ders Palm sonntag.” BenM 17 (1935) 100-108. Schniewind, J. Die Parallelperikopen bei Lukas u n d Johannes. L e ip z ig /D a rm sta d t: H in ric h s/W is se n sc h a ftlic h e B u ch g esellsch aft, 1914=1970. 26-28. Schramm, T. Markus-Stoff. 145-49. Smith, D. M. "Jo h n 12, 12ff and the Q uestion of J o h n ’s Use of the Synoptics. ‫ ״‬JBL 81 (1965) 58-64. Souter, A. “In terp retatio n o f C ertain New Testam ent Passages—Luke xix. 33.” Exp 8 /8 (1914) 94-95. Spitta, F. “D er V olksruf beim E inzug Jesu in Je ru sa le m .” ZW T 52 (1910) 307-20. Stanley, D. M. “Etudes m atheennes: l’entree m essianique a Jerusalem .” ScEccl 6 (1954) 93-106. Trautmann, M. Zeichenhafte Handlungen Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem geschichtlichen Jesus. FB 37. W urzburg: Echter, 1980. 347-78. Viard, A. “L’entree de Jesus a Jerusalem (Lc. 19:28-40).” E V 84 (1974) 170-72. Vielhauer, P. “Ein Weg zur n eu testam en tlich en C hristologie?” Gesammelte Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament. TB 31. M unich: Kaiser, 1965. 141-98, esp. 153-57. Visser’t Hooft, W. A. “T rium phalism in the Gospels.” SJT 38 (1985) 491-504.

Form/Stru cture/Setting

921

Translation

29It happened that as he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany,a to the mount called “Of Olives,”he sent two of theb disciples, 30saying, “Go into the village opposite, where, as you enter, you will find a donkey tethered, on which no person has ever sat. Untie it and bring it [here]. 31And if someone asks you why you are untying [it], you must say this:c Because the Lord has need of it!'”d 32Those sent went off and found [things] just as he had said to them. 33As they were untying the donkey, its owners said to them, “Why are you untying the donkey?”34 They said, “Because the Lord has need of it!”35Then they brought it to Jesus, and, throwing their garments onto the donkey, they put Jesus [onto the mount]. 36As he went along, they strewed their garments on the road. 37As he was already drawing near to the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and to praise God in loud voicesefor all the mighty works they had seen. 38They said, “Blessed is the coming one, the king;f [the one who comes] in the name of the Lord! There is [to be] peace in heaven, and glory [for God] in highest heaven.” 39Some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!” 40He replied, “I tell you, if these are silent,g the stones will cry out!”h Notes a T he texts differ over w hether this nam e should have an indeclinable form . b “H is” in A D W Θ Ψ f 1,13 etc. c Gr. ούτως (lit. “s o /th u s ”). αύτω, “to him ,” is added by A W Θ Ψ / 1,13 etc. d o t l at the beginning o f this clause could also be a m arker o f direct speech, b u t in vv 33-34, where the clause is repeated, the o th er direct speech is n o t introduced by o t l . e Gr. sing. f A loss of a definite article makes this “the com ing king” i n ^ cA K L A 0 I l vi/ / 1,13 etc.; 063) ‫ )א‬etc. have simply “the king”; (D) W (579) 1216 etc. have only “the com ing o n e .” g T he ungram m atical future after εάν, “if,” is corrected in Θ Ψ f1,13 etc. to the aorist subjunctive. h A R W Θ Ψ f 1,13 etc. have a future perfect here, a tense n o t otherw ise found in the NT, b u t which could ju st possibly be original in Luke.

Form/Structure/Setting T he royal m otif of the section continues here, and Luke would have the present episode read closely with 19:11-28 (see there): this is no bid for present en th ro n e m ent in Jerusalem . Luke has positioned the m aterials of vv 41-44 in order to enhance the parallelism between vv 11-28 and vv 29-44 (vv 29-44 are, at least for certain purposes, properly one unit for Luke; he does, however, provide some m easure o f separation by m eans of the renewed use of έγγίζβιν, “to draw n e a r”; and vv 41-44 have, in any case, been separated here for convenience of consider ation). Luke now returns again to the Markan sequence for what, in Mark, comes after the healing of the blind m an (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43). For the m ain narrative there is no sufficient reason for thinking that Luke had access to any thing o th er than his M arkan source (but Jo h n 12:12-15 may well reflect an

922

Luke 19:29-40

in d ep en d en t version of this trad itio n ). For vv 39-40, however, Luke does seem to have been able to draw on a separate tradition, one which in a quite different form stands behind Matt 21:14-16. This tradition will have had no original unity with the m ain episode here, but has been placed here by Luke, at least in part, to enhance the parallelism between 19:11-28 and 29-44. T he basic historicity of the narrative has received severe challenge, m ost con sistently in connection with the fetching of the donkey, bu t also in connection with the oth er elem ents of the account. In a narrative in which biblical allusion plays such a central role, fundam ental historicity is that m uch m ore difficult to assess. “T he Lord has need of it” seems to be m ore a form al representation of the com prehensive authority o f Jesus than an identifiable aspect of the reporting of an actual episode (but his historical m inistry was m arked by ju st such a distinc tive authority). T he tethered state of the donkey, while natural enough in itself, is spoken of for the sake of the link with Gen 49:11. Jesus’ apparent knowledge of rem ote circum stances may well be a genuine rem iniscence of the way in which he was experienced as mysteriously other. The account as we now have it, of the enthusiastic affirm ation in word and action as Jesus headed towards Jerusalem on the donkey, is heavily m arked by a messianic understan d in g /ap p licatio n of Zech 9:9 and Ps 118(117) :26, and allusion to 2 Kgs 9:13. In the search for a his torical core behind the n a rra to r’s own interpretation, how are we to distinguish the intention of Jesus from the perception of the enthusiasts and, then, what may be a general enthusiastic endorsem ent of Jesus from an awareness on the part of those involved that they are taking part in the affirm ation of a claim to royal identity being m ade by Jesus? J o h n may n o t be too far wrong with his: “His disciples did not understand this at first” (12:16). I have defended the essential historicity of the Petrine confes sion at 9:18-20, and despite C atchpole’s recent skepticism (“T he ‘triu m p h al’ entry,” 328-30) will in chap. 23 defend the historicity of the Gospel view that Jesus died as a messianic pretender. Against this background, if Jesus, who for all his m inistry had walked to his destinations, had m ade a fuss about getting a d o n key to ride the last couple of miles into Jerusalem , at a time when he had been speaking in a way that had caused his disciples to believe that his m inistry was h eaded for some kind of crisis or denouem ent, then with, or perhaps even with out, reference to Zech 9:9, there m ight be good reason to take this as some kind o f prophetic symbolic action designed to assert a fundam ental orientation of his ministry: whatever his connection with Jewish messianic expectations m ight have been, it was n o t such as would contem plate a com ing to power through the vio lence of a coup (see at 19:11-27 on the violent com ing to power of H erod, and to a lesser extent A rchelaus). It may be that the enigm atic riding on a donkey on the approach to Jerusalem has a historical basis that can be m ore confidently asserted than the accom panying affirm ation. However, there is no sufficient rea son for not accepting the latter as well, as long as its scale and overt content are n o t taken to be such as would attract Rom an attention, and so long as it is seen as a celebration on the part of accom panying sympathizers and no t as a welcome by the inhabitants of the city (on this last point see Mariadasan, Triomphe messianique). Catchpole (“T he ‘trium phal’ entry,” 319-21) offers an attractive case for cor relating the entry with a well-known ancient pattern involving what he calls a “celebratory entry to a city by a hero figure who has previously achieved his

Comment

923

triu m p h ” (319). C atchpole points to accounts of the welcome given to a whole series o f rulers and military com m anders as they en ter Jerusalem and o th er cities after some decisive victory. While no t wanting to deny some influence from this pattern (this pattern, which frequently involves the victorious figure going to the tem ple to worship or even to pu t things to rights there, may have som ething to do with the way that, in Luke, the goal of Jesus’ entry is the tem ple and n o t the city as su ch ), I would want to stress the way in which the M arkan account is ori en ted to what is com ing rather than to what has already been achieved (Luke has a m ore significant orientation back to what has been achieved, but even here, n o t in a way that displaces the forward-looking o rien tatio n ). In any case it is quite clear from the series of distinctive features in the narrative that the account has n o t been simply generated out of the pattern. Comment A rich vein of biblical allusion here celebrates the royal identity of Jesus and the sense that som ething decisive in relation to this identity is about to transpire in Jerusalem . At the same time, the story stresses the distance between this royal figure and oth er com petitors for royal dignity and power. The text looks back on the cumulative achievem ent of Jesus’ ministry and forw ard to his translation into the heavenly sphere. 29 Luke has already used M ark’s ε ις Ιεροσόλυμα, “to Jerusalem ,” in v 28. For M ark’s δ τε , “w hen,” with the present verb, Luke substitutes έγέυετο ως, “it hap p en ed w h e n /a s,” with the aorist (έγέυετο ώς is no t infrequent in the LXX, and it may be considered here as Lukan im itation of Septuagintal style; since, however, the only o th er uses of this construction in the NT [1:23, 41; 2:15] may reflect a Semitic source, the use here has been appealed to as reflecting a second Lukan source). Luke makes it clear that Έλαιώυ, "O f Olives,” is a nam e and no t a de scription by adding 70 ‫ ־‬καλούμενου, “called” (cf. 6:15; 7:11; 9:10; etc.). M ark’s historic present for “sent” (lit. “sends”) also becom es for Luke an aorist. ήγγισευ, “he drew near,” involves a Greek root that Luke uses throughout this section (18:35; 19:11, 37, 41) to highlight the thread of geographical procession. T he location of Bethphage is uncertain, though it m ust have been close enough to Bethany for the villages to be naturally paired. Its nam e is norm ally taken as a transliteration of an Aramaic phrase m eaning “house of unripe figs,” which is then explained in terms of a species of fig that though edible never seems to ripen properly. Bethany is to be located about two miles east of Jerusalem , on the east ern slopes of the M ount of Olives. The nam e is again Aramaic, but an etymological sense “house of dates” (Marshall, 712) is likely to be based on the Gospel pairing of the two names; “House of (H )an an iah ” is m ore likely (cf. Fitzmyer, 1248). The M ount of Olives is the central of three m ain summits of a range rising from the Kidron valley, east of the city and ru n n in g north-south. Jesus is still on the oppo site side of the m ountain from Jerusalem . While it is n ot impossible that the M ount of Olives at this p o int in Mark has a symbolic significance (in 13:3 it does seem to have a symbolic significance, where Ezek 11:23 appears to be echoed), there is no basis for reading Luke in this way (see Nolland, “Luke’s R eaders,” 129-30). “Two disciples” o f the Baptist are involved at 7:19 (and see 22:8; cf. Mark 14:13; Luke 10:1). Given the mysterious complexity of the arrangem ents for finding

924

Luke 19:29-40

and fetching the donkey, the num ber may be related to the them e of legal ad equacy for witness (cf. at 7:18). 30 Luke makes a series of m inor editorial adjustm ents to the M arkan text here, of which the m ost notable are the replacem ent of several of the verbs with participles; the omission of one of M ark’s uses of “im m ediately”; the better choice o f άγάγετε, “b rin g /le a d ,” over M ark’s φέρετε, “c a rry /b rin g ,” for the leading of an animal; and the touch of elegance gained by L uke’s εν rj (lit. “in w hich”) for a M arkan paratactic καί, “a n d ” (Luke in this way creates a kind of parallelism with the com ing έ φ ’ ov, “upon w hich”). O ne m inor piece of artistry worth noting is the chiastic parallelism created in the L ukan o rd e rin g of εύρήσετε πώλον δεδεμένον, “you will find a donkey teth ered ,” and λύσαντες αυτόν άγάγετε, untie and bring it.” T he M arkan text leaves unclear which of the two villages is intended, and Luke does no t clarify (Matthew solves the problem by only m en tioning Bethphage in this episode). πώλον is capable of a range of m eanings, but despite Bauer (JBL 72 [1953] 220-29), it will m ean “donkey” here (as in LXX) and no t “h o rse” (as would be m ore natural in secular Greek of the period; cf. Michel, NTS 6 [1959-60] 81-82; id., TDNT 6:959-61; Kuhn, ZAW 50 [1959] 82-91). Jesus dem onstrates an unex plained awareness of (i) the location of the beast; (ii) its tethered state; (iii) the fact th at it has never been ridden; and he has the perception to provide, as well, ( iv) a p attern of words that will ensure the release of the anim al by its owners (v 31). While this is of a piece with the Lukan portrayal of Jesus’ uncanny awareness of what goes on in other peo p le’s m inds (see at 4:23; for Mark, prior arrange m en t could be the preferred explanation [cf. 14:13-15, which Luke reproduces in 22:10-12], but this seems less likely for Luke, and is no t certain for Mark), m ore is surely involved here, especially when the anticipated events are substanti ated in vv 32-35. Why the extended treatm ent? Despite the very lim ited basis of agreem ent, only an echo of Gen 49:11 can, to my m ind, account for the generos ity of this narrative investment. This likelihood is strengthened if (i) as m aintained by a range of scholars, Zech 9:9 (see discussion at v 35 of the present episode’s links with that verse) already involves allusion to Gen 49:11 (or if an exegetical tradition linking the two already existed in the first century); and if (ii) “upon which no person has ever sat” is to be traced back to the Septuagintal νέον, “n ew / y o u n g /fresh ,” used to describe the donkey o f Zech 9:9. If there is such a link with Gen 49:11, what significance will it have? T here is a dram atic contrast between the royal figure of Gen 49:11-12, who in the best traditions of royal excess and self-indulgence, tethers his own beast to the vine in order to satiate him self on the richness of wine and milk, and the figure (no less royal) in Luke of one who m ust borrow a donkey in order to stage his royal entry into Jerusalem (Luke will drop the M arkan assurance that the donkey will be re tu rn ed at once), and who does so with full anticipation of rejection and execution. If this contrast is intended, th en the humility m otif of Zech 9:9, which lacks explicit expression in either the Lukan or the M arkan form , is nonetheless likely to be in view (at least in Mark, and probably also in Luke who would have been likely to abbreviate heavily if he had n ot seen the point). T hat the donkey had no t been used as a m o u n t is of a piece with the use of garm ents in lieu of trappings in v 36 (cf. C atchpole, “T he ‘trium phal’ entry,” 324). The thought here is probably to be related to the req uirem ent that unused beasts be used for sacred purposes (that

Comment

925

is beasts whose potential has no t been already partly used up; Num 19:2; D eut 21:3; 1 Sam 6:7), and then in tu rn to the point m ade in 23:53 that it was a previ ously unused tom b in which the body of Jesus was placed. It befits his royal dignity that he should n o t have to share with previous users (the thought actually fits a little awkwardly with the fact that the donkey is only a tem porarily borrowed o n e!). Are we to think of an unbroken m ount over which Jesus exercises royal mastery, or should we be less literal and think of a beast trained to be a m ount, but no t yet p u t to use, or does the fram ing of such questions already take us outside the in ten t of the narrative? 31 Luke makes a series of stylistic alterations to M ark’s wording here and drops the M arkan clause about the prom pt re tu rn of the donkey. T hough found persuasive by several, we should probably not follow D errett (NovT 13 [1971] 241-58) in appealing here to a (royal) right of im pressm ent for which this state m e n t o f n e e d w ould co n stitu te sufficient ju stificatio n . A uthority is rightly discerned, b u t this authority is the unique christologically determ ined authority of Jesus, n o t the culturally determ ined authority of a class of persons in society. Nor, despite its fit with the allusion to Gen 49:11 supported above, should the Markan text here (and still less the Lukan text) be read as “his lo rd /m aster has need of it.” To Luke and to his readers “the L ord” here is the “L ord” of the full Christian affirm ation (cf. at 7:13), though in L uke’s story line, the term inology n eed m ean no m ore than “the m aster” (of the disciples), whose authority, n one theless, comes with his disciples, who speak the words that have been given to them by their master. 32 Both Matthew and Luke feel the need to specify the subject here. Luke’s 01 σταλμένοι, “the ones sent,” may be chosen because it is cognate with “apostle,” and here these disciples will act as Jesus’ authorized delegates (see at 6:12-16). Luke brings ‘ju st as he had said” forward from its position in Mark 11:6 and applies it, n o t to the repetition of Jesus’ words, but to finding things ju st as Jesus had forecast (cf. 22:13 par. Mark 14:16). This places additional emphasis on the foreknowlege of Jesus. 33 Luke continues his pattern of purely stylistic im provem ent here, but also makes one significant change: M ark’s “bystanders” becom e οί κύριοί αύτοϋ (lit. “his m asters/lords”) . Luke could intend the phrase to m ean those who had charge of the beast, b ut he probably thinks of owners (Buth [JBL 104 (1985) 680-85] offers no adequate justification for reading the phrase in term s of a Hebrew idiom, and therefore as singular). The shared ownership of a donkey has attracted com m ent as an unlikely state of affairs. The question is asked, ju st as anticipated, and (in v 34) the answer will be given exactly as coached. 34 Having used the “just as” m ethod of reporting in v 32, Luke here spells out with repetition of Jesus’ own words. The authority of these words is so deci sive that he feels no need to include M ark’s “and they let them [take the anim al].” 35 Luke changes all M ark’s verbs here (the first as in v 30; the second and third use m ore elegant language, though Luke may, for the third, be influenced by the Septuagintal language of 1 Kgs 1:33 [but Luke uses the verb also at 10:34 and Acts 23:24; the idiom involving the second verb is found in 2 Sam 20:12; 1 Kgs 19:19 (with the singular “garm ent” rather than Luke’s “garm ents”), bu t there is no real reason for linking these texts]). Thus far the initiative has been with Jesus, but now it passes to the disciples (Luke’s third verb change may be motivated

926

Luke 19:29-40

in p art by a desire to make this move m ore clear cut than the M arkan text d o es). T he garm ents on the donkey may well be in lieu of the missing standard trap pings, b u t there is likely to be as well an allusion to the honoring as king of the newly anointed Je h u in 2 Kgs 9:13. 36 Luke uses a genitive absolute to provide a transitional expression: “as he went along” (M ark’s “m any” is lost in com pensation , which leaves the Lukan text vague about who is engaged in these actions); with a change of tense he makes a continuous process out of the strewing of garm ents; and he deletes m ention of the cutting o f leafy branches for the same purpose. An extravagant expression of suprem e h o noring is clearly intended, bu t no close parallel has been cited. 37 T he co n ten t of this verse is n o t paralleled in the M arkan account (nor in Matthew or Jo h n ). Does the verse betray L uke’s access to a second source here? T he distinctive use of έγγίξβίν, “to draw near,” with προς, “to,” + dative is the strongest elem ent in the case for such a source. But since we have already noted L uke’s use o f this verb to m ark progress th roughout this section of the Gospel, it may be possible to treat this usage as a hybrid influenced by the source use with προς + acc. in v 29, but taking on the dative that Luke norm ally uses after this verb, δυνάμεις for “m ight works” is also unusual for Luke (only a source use in 10:13). T he clear links with the language of 2:14 in v 38 stand in support of the language here being a deliberate echo of that in 2:13, 20 (see fu rth er below). T he explosion of praise comes as Jesus approaches the crest of the m ount, beyond which Jerusalem will com e into view. Luke wants to depict a crowd action as in Mark, b u t for him only disciples are in a position to discern the significance of this entry to anything like the level of perception that would w arrant the ecstatic praise an d affirm ation th at he h ere reports. Besides, a general crowd response here would create confusion about the referent of 13:35b, by m aking it possible to think that what was anticipated there had now already arrived (cf. v 38 below). At this point of anticipation of the fateful arrival in Jerusalem , the praise concerning “the mighty works” represents a retrospective affirm ation of the whole of Jesus’ ministry, now drawing to a close (the “m ultitude” of the dis ciples will also rep resent symbolically the whole fruit of Jesus’ disciple-making activity), b ut the praise may also reasonably be taken as indicating the view that these mighty works are a precursor of the messianic blessedness to com e out of this fateful entry. 38 Luke dispenses with M ark’s opening “h o sanna” (he frequently dispenses with transliterated Semitic form s); he incorporates his own understanding of M ark’s second “blessed” clause into the first with an added appositional “the king” (John also uses “the king,” bu t the differences are striking and both text forms are natural developm ents of the M arkan form ); and for M ark’s ώσαννά εν τοΐς ύφίστοις, “hosanna in the highest,” Luke has εν ούρανω ειρήνη καί δόξα εν ύφίστοίς, “in heaven peace, and glory in [the] highest.” W ithout the in tru d ed “the king,” “blessed is he who comes in the nam e of the L o rd ” is a quotation from Ps 118(117):26 (M ark’s opening “h o san n a” is a transliterated version of an Aramaic rendering [cf. Fitzmyer, 1250-51] of part of the previous verse). This section of the psalm is clearly a ritualized welcome for pil grims arriving in Jerusalem to worship at the tem ple. It is known to have been used in the great pilgrim feasts (Passover, Tabernacles, and perhaps even P ente cost and D edication). As “the com ing o n e ” Jesus is m uch m ore than an o th er

Explanation

927

pilgrim (cf. at 7:19), and Luke makes this quite explicit with his intrusion of “the king.” Despite the word order, it will be the com ing that is in the nam e of the Lord. Luke has n o t previously used “king” of Jesus, though in this section Jesus is consistently a royal figure. The term becomes im portant in chap. 23. Jesus is now on his way to royal rule, but only in the term s that 19:11-28 has defined this. L uke’s εν ούρανω ειρήνη καί δόξα εν ϋψίστοις, “in heaven peace, and glory in [the] highest,” has an evident relationship to 2:14: δόξα εν υψίστοις θείο καί επί γης' ειρήνη . . . , “glory in [the] highest to God, and on earth peace. . . . ” Baarlink (ZNW 76 [1985] 170-86) has em phasized this link and understood it in term s of the removal to heaven, and so from availability to the Jewish leaders in their hostility to Jesus, of the peace that came to the earth with Jesus. But, despite the protest of the Pharisees in vv 39-40, this is hardly a natural reading of the text in its im m ediate context: the tone is celebratory, no t threatening. But it is true that what is being celebrated is oriented to heaven and not to the earth. Though my suggestion does not involve the most natural of m eanings for ειρήνη, “peace,” I rath er think that Luke has in m ind what is about to be achieved in heaven by m eans of Jesus’ exaltation through death to the right hand of God: the m ultitude of the angels had celebrated (2:13-14) what is achieved on the earth in the birth of Jesus; the m ultitude of the disciples now celebrate what is achieved in heaven by Jesus’ journey through death to exaltation. In both cases “there is glory [for God] in highest heaven.” In the unfolding of G od’s saving intervention, peace has com e (or is about to) on earth and in heaven. The NT texts with the closest links are Col 1:20; Rev 12:10. The alternative is to take “peace in heaven” as analo gous to “treasure in heaven,” bu t this does no real justice to the parallel with 2:14. 39 T hat Luke has a source for vv 39-40 is m ade likely by the evident link with Matt 21:14-16, b u t given the total failure of shared language and the very limited extent of shared content, the Evangelists will hardly have used a shared source here. It rem ains unclear what of the verses is traditional and what redactional. Pharisees have been regular antagonists for Jesus in Luke, bu t they have not been m entioned as present since 17:20 (but see 18:9; cf. v 10). This will be their final appearance, and so their protest here should be taken to encapsulate all that has gone on before. They cannot see what God is doing in Jesus; they see in what he does only the fracturing of their piety and therefore the insulting of God. A Phari see addresses Jesus as “teacher” in 7:40 (see there). Pharisaic opposition to Jesus’ royal pretensions here parallels the role of the fellow citizens in 19:14. 40 In the biblical tradition there is a strong sense that nature participates in the witness and celebration of what God is doing (the verbally closest parallel is actually H ab 2:11 where the stones of the walls of the house and its beams cry out in witness against the wickedness that has been perpetrated, but that is hardly what is happening here). The disciples are m arking a m om ent of high destiny; if the ir m arking of it were to be silenced, then the stony terrain around them would need to take their place. Explanation The present episode needs to be read closely with 19:11-28: Luke has gone to some pains to present them in parallel. The present royal arrival in Jerusalem is

928

Luke 19:29-40

no bid for im m ediate en th ro n em en t there. The narrative here is built upon a basis of biblical allusion and quotation that p oint to the royal dignity of this arriv ing figure, b ut also to the gulf that separates him from the norm al understanding of the exercise of the prerogatives of royal power. T he action begins about two miles from Jerusalem , when the pilgrim band was still out of sight of Jerusalem on the eastern slopes of the M ount of Olives. It will reach its climax as Jesus approaches the crest and the city comes into view. It is unclear which of the villages Luke understands the disciples to have been sent to. Jesus’ prior knowledge of what would be found there is clearly of great im portance in the account. This is part of his mysterious otherness. It may be that the m ention of the two disciples is precisely to indicate that the tru th of this instance of Jesus’ prescience can be legally assured, according to the OT require m ents for legally valid witness. W hat the disciples are told they will find (and do find) is a tethered donkey that has never been used as a m ount. Several biblical allusions are involved here. T he first is to Gen 49:11-12. But here m ore contrast than equation is involved. T here is a dram atic contrast between the royal figure of Gen 49:11-12, who in the best traditions of royal excess and self-indulgence, tethers his own beast to the vine in o rd er to satiate him self on the richness of wine and milk, and the figure (no less royal) in Luke of one who m ust borrow a donkey in order to stage his royal entry into Jerusalem , and who makes his entry with clear awareness of com ing rejection and execution. A second allusion is to Zech 9:9, an allusion pervasive in the narrative. The Greek translation of this verse speaks of a new or fresh donkey, and this is prob ably beh in d “on which no person has ever sat.” We should see this statem ent in light of the OT requirem ent that what was given to God no t be som ething that was already secondhand, and therefore partly used up (see Num 19:2; D eut 21:3; 1 Sam 6:7). A similar point will com e in Luke 23:53. This is part of the affirm ation o f Jesus’ royal dignity. As the disciples carry out their task all goes as Jesus has said it would. O f par ticular note is the way in which his words, which have been shown again and again in the Gospel to be authoritative, are here shown to be no less so w hen they are spoken by those who have been sent as authorized delegates by Jesus. We have here som ething similar to the message of the mission charges (Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-16; and note esp. 10:17). For the strewing of the garm ents and the putting of Jesus on the donkey, Luke probably thinks of two scenes in which OT figures p rep are for a royal role: Solom on on David’s donkey in 1 Kgs 1:33, and the newly anointed Je h u in 2 Kgs 9:13. Jesus is treated to an extravagant expression of suprem e honoring. As Jerusalem is about to com e into view, there is an explosion of ecstatic praise to God for all that Jesus represents. The praise focuses on the mighty works of Jesus, and, com ing here, it represents a retrospective affirm ation of the whole of Jesu s’ ministry, now drawing to a close. But the link of the excitem ent to the appearance of Jerusalem suggests that these mighty works are also to be viewed as a precursor o f the messianic blessedness that is expected to com e out of this fateful entry. V 38 uses some of the wording of Ps 118:26. The quotation is from what is clearly a ritualized welcome for pilgrims arriving in Jerusalem to worship at the

Translation

929

tem ple. It is known to have been used in the great pilgrim feasts, bu t as “the com ing o n e ” of the psalm, Jesus is m uch m ore than another pilgrim (cf. at 7:19), and Luke makes this quite explicit with his intrusion of “the king” (which has no place in the wording of the psalm ). Beyond the quotation from Ps 118:26, the language of vv 37-38 involves allu sion, n o t now to further biblical text, but to an earlier p art of Luke’s own text: chap. 2:13-14, 20. The intention of this link is disputed, but I think it is best understood as recognition of what is about to be achieved in heaven by m eans of Jesus’ exaltation through death to the right h an d of God: the m ultitude of the angels had celebrated (2:13-14) what is achieved on the earth in the birth of Jesus; the m ultitude of the disciples now celebrate what is to be achieved in heaven by Jesus’ jo u rn ey through death to exaltation. As co u n terp art to the adoring praise of the disciples, we have the com plaint of the Pharisees. They cannot see what God is doing in Jesus. Instead, they see only the fracturing of their piety and therefore the insulting of God. T he respective roles of disciples and Pharisees provide parallels to those of the slaves and the fellow citizens of the preceding parable. To the Pharisees’ com plaint, Jesus replies that in such a high m om ent of destiny, if the disciples were silenced, then lifeless stones would take up the refrain: creation m ust in some shape or form bear its witness to such a m om entous occasion.

Lamenting the Coming Fate of Jerusalem (19:41 -4 4 ) Bibliography Dodd, C. H. “T he Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘A bom ination of D esolation.’” JRS 37 (1947)

47-54; reprinted in More New Testament Studies. G rand Rapids, MI: Eerdm ans, 1968. 69-83. Dupont, J. “Il n ’en sera pas laisse pierre sur pierre (Marc 13,2; Luc 19,44).” Bib 52 (1971) 301-20. Gaston, L. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. NovTSup 23. L eiden: Brill, 1970. 12, 61, 244, 355-60. Gnilka, J. Die

Verstockung Israel: Isaias 6,9-10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker. SANT 3. M unich: Kosel, 1961. 137-40. Reicke, B. “Synoptic Prophecies on the D estruction of Jerusalem .” In Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature. FS A. P. Wikgren, ed. D. E. Aune. NovTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 121-34. Robinson, W. C., Jr. Der Weg des Herrn. 50-53, 55-56. Schramm, T. Markus-Stoff. 146-47. Tiede, D. L. “W eeping for Jerusalem .” In Prophecy and History. 65-96, 143-48. Uhsadel, W. “Predigt zum G edachtnistage der Zerstorung Jerusalem s.” In Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gesprach u ber die Bibel. FS O. Michel, ed. O. Betz et al. Leiden: Brill, 1963. 459-66.

Translation

41As he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it 42saying, “Would thata you also had recognized on this day what concerns peace; but now this is hidden from your eyes. 43For days will come upon you whenb they will set upc siege mounds against you, and

930

Luke 19:41-44

encircle you, and press you on every side; 44and they will throw down both you and the children within you, and no stone in you will be left upon another, because you did not recognize the time ofyour visitation.” Notes a Expressed with the prodosis of a condition contrary to fact w ithout following apodosis. b Gr. καί (lit. “a n d ”). c περίβαλοϋσίν, “encircle w ith,” is read by A B C2W f 1,13 892 1006 etc. T he reading may result from a desire to bring the text m ore into line with what actually h a p p en e d in the siege of Jerusalem .

Form/Structure/Setting T he increasing proximity of Jerusalem , which is an organizing principle of this section (18:35-19:46), is m arked here by the com ing into sight of the city. However, no use of the royal motif, so notable in the section, is directly m ade in this unit. In the parallelism that Luke has created between 19:11-28 and 29-44 (see th ere), there is a correspondence between the com ing fate of Jerusalem la m ented here and the fate of the unwilling subjects of v 27. Luke alone has this episode. Vv 41-42 seem to be largely a setting provided by Luke (though the m ention of weeping may have a traditional basis). The final clause of v 44, while it may have some basis in tradition (in the judgm ent statem ent in 10:13 there is a reason given for the ju d g m en t), is to be identified in its present form as Lukan. For the main part of the material (vv 43-44ab) Luke does, however, seem clearly to be dependent on a source. (See Comment below for details.) The imagery o f no stone left u pon an o th er is also to be found in Mark 13:2 (par. Luke 21:6), b u t Luke will n o t have drawn it fro m th e r e fo r its p r e s e n t u se (see esp. D u p o n t, Bib 52 [1971] 313-20). R ather it is likely that Mark 13:2 has been drawn from a version o f the tradition preserved here in Luke (and no t from a version of Mark 14:58 as has at times been m aintained [for this discussion see D upont, 301-20]). T he m aterial here takes its place with a num ber of other anticipations in the Jesus tradition of a coming reckoning for Jerusalem (13:34-35; chap. 21; cf. 11:4950; 17:22-37; Mark 14:58; etc.). As is typical in prophetic words, it takes up the language of G od’s past actions to speak of what is anticipated, and can hardly be claim ed to be a description after the event of the actual destruction of Jerusalem (see Comment below for details; the classic protest against reading the words here and in chap. 21 as a description after the event rem ains that of Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem ,” 69-83). As a historical prediction what we have here is no less plau sible than that m ade by the Q um ran com m unity about the fall of the co rru p t regim e in Jerusalem (1Q pH ab 9:5-7). F urtherm ore, its credentals m ust be con sidered to be o f a higher o rder than those of “a voice against Jerusalem and its sanctuary” reported by Josephus to have been uttered repeatedly by another Jesus in the years leading up to the destruction of the city (War 6.300-309). Comment T he com ing of the city into sight draws from Jesus, as a weeping Jerem iah, an an n o u n cem en t of its pending doom as a city that has failed to recognize in the m inistry of Jesus the visitation of God.

Comment

931

41 This verse may be entirely a Lukan contribution (for ώς ήγγισεν, “as he drew near,” cf. v 29; for εκλαυσεν έπ\ “he wept over,” cf. 23:28 [the only other place in the NT where this idiom occurs; bu t there it is traditional, which could suggest that the idiom here is traditional as w ell]; Luke is responsible for ίδών, “seeing,” at least in 5:12; 18:43). Jesus’ progress to the city takes yet an o th er step. Jesus’ lam entation is especially rem iniscent of that of Jerem iah (Jer 9:1; 13:17; 14:17), b u t Tiede (“W eeping for Jerusalem ,” 78) catches well the wider canvas: “It is finally the sympathy of the suffering prophet, of D euteronom y’s Moses, of Jerem iah, Isaiah, and Hosea, caught up in the rage, anguish, frustration, and sor row of God for Israel that constitutes the pathos of the story.” 42 Luke may still be form ulating here his setting for the verses to com e (the failure to recognize recurs in v 44; τά προς ειρήνην, “what concerns peace,” may be taken up from v 38; this possibility finds support from the καί σύ, “also you,” if this is read in connection with the perceptiveness in vv 37-38, by contrast, of the “m ultitude of the disciples”; this in tu rn suggests that “in this day” is a reference to the day in which the “m ultitude of the disciples” make their acclam ation a n d / or the day of Jesus’ royal approach to Jerusalem ; νυν, “now,” is one of Luke’s preferred words; έκρύβη άπό οφθαλμών σου, “they are hidden from your eyes,” echoes language elem ents of 18:34 and 24:16). The city collectively is in the same place as the Pharisees of v 39. A m otif of general inability to understand has been m et already at 8:10 (cf. v 12 and 13:33; Acts 28:26-27). This becomes in Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17; 13:27; 17:30 a culpable b u t forgivable ignorance. Luke uses lan guage of blindness similarly in connection with disciples (9:45; 18:34; 24:16), but their blindness is only a lim ited blindness. In both cases it may be best in the Lukan fram e to attribute this blindness to Satan (see at 9:45). If the reference to peace is Lukan, and no t traditional, then it is hardly likely that there is a play h ere on the nam e Jerusalem (as, e.g., Fitzmyer, 1256-57). 43 Now, except for the use of συνέχειν, “to press,” the language takes on a n o n -Lukan cast (the paratactic construction is un-Lukan; ήξουσίν ήμέραι is not L uke’s idiom for “days will com e” [see 5:35; 23:29; cf. Acts 2:20]; periods of time do n o t com e upon people elsewhere in Luke-Acts; L uke’s natural language for the Romans would no t be “your enem ies”; four of the key words are no t found elsewhere in Luke-Acts [three n o t elsewhere in the N T]). 7ταρεμβάλλειν m eans literally “to p u t in betw een” and so “to insert or interpose.” It is used in the LXX in connection with attacks on cities (e.g., 2 Kgdms 12:28). χάραξ should m ean a stake or a palisade, but may com e to m ean an earthen ram part set with palisades (as the Latin vallum). In the LXX the word is used to translate ‫ ס ל ל ה‬, solela, which, because o f the verb always associated with it, which literally m eans “to pour o u t,” m ust refer to a m ound of earth (the same term is used to translate ‫ מ צ ב‬, mussab; though this is clearly a m ilitary term , its precise sense is unknow n). The m ound is p art of the equipm ent used in laying siege to a city. The four Rom an earthwork em bankm ents set against the walls of Jerusalem by Titus’ army (see Josephus, War 5.466) could correspond to this, but do no t really fit the use of ταρεμβαλοϋσίν, and are n o t likely to be quite what is in view in the OT language reflected here. τερίκυκλοϋν is used in connection with the m ilitary encirclem ent of a city (this verb is found in 4 Kgdms 6:14). This could be for siege purposes or to cut off avenues of escape. Titus’ army built an encircling wall around Jerusalem (Josephus, War 5.508). Only συνέχειν, “to press,” is no t used in the LXX in connection with

932

Luke 19:41-44

the siege of a city (it is found in 1 Kgdms 23:8 in connection with the besieging of David by Saul), and this is the one clearly Lukan term in the description. Not in precise language, b ut as a whole description, what we find here has its closest parallels in Isa 29:3; Ezek 4:1-3. 44 T he non-Lukan cast of the language continues here, except perhaps for the final clause. έδαφίζειν is used in the LXX norm ally of the throwing down to the gro u n d of wom en and children (thought of as destroying them ) in the con text of the sacking of a city. It is used in Ezek 31:12 (in connection with the imagery o f the cutting down of a tree) of the bringing down of a city, and in Isa 3:26 of the bringing down o f Zion. The shared fate of city and children comes closest to being reflected by Nah 3:10; Hos 14:1 (ET 13:16). The cumulative effect of the evocation in vv 43-44 of the OT descriptions of m ilitary conquest is to call to m ind strongly the role of these conquests as judg m ents of God upon the sin of his people (a n d /o r on the sin of their oppressors, but here the form er). The striking im agery of no stone upon an o th er is clearly a developm ent of the idea of the throwing down of a city. It is no t found in the OT (the im agery in 2 Sam 17:13 is closest, b u t there the im agery is of the dispersal of the stones of a city; Hag 2:15 uses the im agery of stone upon stone in connection with building). D upont ( Bib 52 [1971] 310-20) has argued (to my m ind convincingly) that the use of this im agery in Mark 13:2 (par. Luke 21:6) is based on a use of the same dom inical tradition as reflected here in Luke. Many centuries earlier Micah had anticipated a similar degree of destruction for Jerusalem (3:12), which did no t in fact tran spire (Jer 26:18-19). In the Jewish war of A.D. 70, while the walls of Jerusalem were for the m ost part leveled, some of the towers and at least one section of the wall were left standing (Josephus, War 7.1-4). In the final clause of the verse, άνθ’ ών is likely to be Lukan (cf. at 12:3). The Lukan concern with the ignorance m otif has been explored at v 42 above, επισκοπή is used in the NT with the sense “visitation” only here and in 1 Pet 2:12, bu t Luke has the cognate verb for seven of its ten occurrences in the NT (in one o f L uke’s uses the sense is different). The time of visitation by God is not the entry to Jerusa lem as such, b u t the whole of the m inistry of Jesus, now com ing to its end. τον καιρόν τής επισκοπής σου, “the time of your visitation,” may reflect the lan guage of Jer 6:15 (LXX): εν καιρώ επισκοπής αυτών, “in the time of their visitation,” which anticipates the same prospect of destruction for the city, but, by contrast with Luke, sees the visitation of God as itself destructive. See fu rth er at chap. 21 for how Luke understands this com ing ju d g m en t upon Jerusalem . Explanation Jesus continues to get closer to Jerusalem . The sight of the city draws from him , as a weeping Jerem iah-like figure, a prophetic an n o uncem ent of the com ing destruction of the city, a fate that awaits it precisely because it has failed to see in the m inistry of Jesus the visitation of God that was taking place. T he m ultitude of the disciples had recognized the connection between Jesus and what makes for peace, bu t the city of Jerusalem , like the Pharisees of v 39, h ad not. T he populace had been subjected to a blinding that is probably to be understood as satanic. Jesus lam ents their situation, because he sees, pro p h eti cally, the future outcom e of it.

Bibliography

933

T he description of what awaits the city is a pastiche of OT texts that describe the taking in siege of cities, and especially of Jerusalem . N ot in exact language, b ut as a whole description, what we find here has its closest parallels in Isa 29:3; Ezek 4:1-3. W hat Jesus anticipates is a replay of the experience of the Babylonian period. Since in precise detail what actually hap p en ed when Jerusalem m et its doom in A.D. 70 does n o t agree with this description, we can be reasonably confi d en t that this is no prophecy after the event. In any case this is no t the only evidence that Jesus foretold the destruction of Jerusalem . T he ju d g m en t comes because the city had n o t recognized and responded to the visitation of God occurring in and through the ministry of Jesus. But of course this is no m ore a writing off of the Jews than the Babylonian exile had been cen turies before. T h o ugh in individual cases ju d g m e n t may leave no place for restoration, it is, th roughout the OT, primarily a m atter of chastisem ent and pur gation for the historic People of God.

Symbolic Protest in the Temple

(19:45-46)

Bibliography Barrett, C. K. “T he H ouse of Prayer and the D en of Thieves.” In Jesus u n d Paulus. FS W. G.

Ku mmel, ed. E. E. Ellis and E. Grasser. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. 1320. Bauckham, R. J. “Jesus’ D em onstration in the T em ple.” In Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, ed. B. Lindars. Cambridge: Clarke, 1988. 72-89, 171-76. Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primi tive Christianity. M anchester: U niversity Press, 1967. 255-57, 330-40. Braun, F.-M. “L’Expulsion des vendeurs du Tem ple (Mt., xxi, 12-17,23-27; Me., xi, 15-19,27-33; Lc., xix,45-xx,8; Jo., ii,13-22).” RB 38 (1929) 178-200. Buchanan, G. W. “Symbolic Moneychangers in the Tem ple?” NTS 37 (1991) 280-90. Buse, I. “T he Cleansing of the Temple in the Synoptics and in J o h n .” ExpTim 70 (1958-59) 22-24. Bussche, H. van den. “Le signe du Tem ple (Jean 2, 13-22).” BVC 20 (1957-58) 92-100. Caldecott, A. “T he Significance of the ‘Cleansing of the T em ple.’" JTS 24 (1923) 382-86. Carmichael, J. "Jesus-Christ et le T em ple.” N R F 12 (1964) 276-95. Catchpole, D. R. “T he ‘triu m p h al’ entry.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. 319-34, esp. 330-34. Cooke, F. A. “T he Cleansing of the T em ple.” ExpTim 63 (1951-52) 321-22. Dawsey, J. M. “Confrontation in the Temple: Luke 19.45-20.47.” P R S 11 (1984) 1 5 3 -6 5 .------------ . “T he O ri gin o f L uke’s Positive Perception of the Tem ple.” PRS 18 (1991) 5 -2 2 .------------ . “Was UrMarkus the Source for Lk 19:45-20:47?” MelT 42 (1991) 95-110. Derrett, J. D. M. “T he Zeal of the H ouse and the Cleansing of the T em ple.” DR 95 (1977) 79-94. Doeve, J. W. “Purification du Temple et dessechem ent du figuier.” NTS 1 (1954-55) 297-308. Eppstein, V. “T he Historicity of the Gospel A ccount o f the Cleansing of the Tem ple.” ZNW55 (1964) 42-58. Evans, C. A. ‘Jesus’ Action in the Tem ple and Evidence o f C o rruption in the FirstC entury T em ple.” In SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989. 5 2 2 -3 9 .------------ . ‘Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or P o rten t o f D estruction?” CBQ 51 (1989) 237-70. Fredriksen, P. “Jesus an d the Tem ple, Mark an d the War.” In SBL 1990 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990. 293-310. Haenchen, E. Der

934

Luke 19:45-46

Weg Jesu. 382-89. Hahn, F. Titles. 155-57. Hamilton, N. Q. “Tem ple Cleansing and Tem ple Bank." L JB 83 (1964) 365-72. Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. 129-34. Hiers, R. H. “Purification of the Temple: P reparation for the Kingdom of G o d JBL ." 90 (1971) 82-90. Jeremias, J. “Zwei Miszellen: 1. Antik-ju dische Mu nzdeutungen; 2. Zur Geschicht lichkeit der T em pelreinigung.” N TS 23 (1976-77) 177-80, esp. 179-80. Leon-Dufour, X. “Le signe du Tem ple selon saint Jea n .” RSR 39 (1951) 155-75. Lightfoot, R. H. “Unsolved New Testam ent Problem s—T he Cleansing of the Tem ple in St J o h n ’s G ospel.” ExpTim 60 (1948-49) 64-68. Lohmyer, E. “Die R einigung des T em pels.” TBl 20 (1941) 257-64. Manson, T. W. “T he Cleansing of the T em ple.” BJRL 33 (1950-51) 271-82. Matson, M. A. “T he C ontribution to the Tem ple Cleansing by the Fourth G ospel.” In SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 489-506. Mendner, S. “Die T em pelreinigung.” ZNW 47 (1956) 93-112. Miller, R. J. “T he (A) Historicity of Jesus’ Tem ple D em onstration: A Test Case in M ethodology.” In SBL 1991 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 235-52. Neusner, J. “M oney-changers in the Temple: T he M ishnah’s E xplanation.” NTS 35 (1989) 287-90. Pesch, R. “D er A nspruch Je su .” Orientierung 35 (1971) 53-56. Richardson, P. “Why T urn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Tem ple Precincts.” In SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 507-23. Roloff, J. Das Kerygma. 89-110. Roth, C. “The Cleansing of the Temple an d Zechariah xiv 21.” N o vT 4 (1960) 174-81. Runnalls, D. “T he King as Tem ple Builder: A Messianic Typology.” In Spirit within Structure. FS G. Jo h n sto n , ed. E. J. Furcha. Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, 1983. 15-37. Salin, E. ‘Jesus u n d die Wechsler.” A ppendix in A. BenDavid, Jerusalem und Tyros: Lin Beitrag zur palastinensischen M unz-und Wirtschaftgeschichte (126 a .C .-57 p.C.). Kleine Schriften zur W irtschaftsgeschichte. B asel/T ubingen: Kyklos/M ohrSiebeck, 1969. 49-55. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. L ondon: SCM, 1985. 61-76, 363-69. Schnider, F., and Stenger, W. Johannes und die Synoptiker: Vergleich ihrer Parallelen. Biblische H andbibliothek 9. M unich: Kosel, 1971. 26-53. Schramm, T. Markus-Stoff. 149. Soding, T. “Die T em p ela k tio n Jesu: R e d ak tio n sk ritik — U b e rlie fe ru n g sg e sc h ic h te — h isto risch e Ruckfrage (Mk 1,15-19; Mt 21,12-17; Lk 19,45-48; Jo h 2,12-22).” TTZ101 (1992) 36-64. Trautmann, M. Zeichenhafte Handlungen Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem geschichtlichen Jesus. FB 37. Wu rzburg: Echter, 1980. 96-103. Trocme, E. "Jesus-Christ et le Temple: eloge d ’un naif.” R H P R 44 (1964) 2 4 5 -5 1. ------------ . “L’Expulsion des m archants du T em ple.” N TS 15 (1968-69) 1-22. Wagner, G. “T he Cleansing of the T em ple.” In Survey Bulletin. Ru schlikon: Baptist Theological Seminary, 1967. 30-42.

Translation

45Having entered the temple, he began to expel those who were selling, 46saying to them, "It has been written, ‘My house shall be a house ofprayer,’but you have made it ‘a den of robbers. Notes W hile the textual witness offers various accom m odations to the M arkan text here, none of them is likely to be original.

Form/Structure/Setting T he final u nit of the section 18:35-19:46 takes us into Jerusalem , to the tem ple, where Jesus m ounts a symbolic protest against aspects of its present use, p rior to m aking the tem ple precincts the regular setting for his final period of ministry, in Jerusalem (the following section, 19:47-21:38). T hat the goal of the extended approach is the tem ple and n o t the city as such may have som ething to do with a

Form/ Structure/Setting

935

pattern for arrival in cities of royal figures or military com m anders that has been identified by Catchpole (see Form/Structure/Setting at 19:29-40). The tem ple fo cus of the final chapters of L uke’s Gospel, which is here anticipated, corresponds to the tem ple focus of the opening chapters. After 19:41-44, Luke returns to his Markan source (11:15-17). However, he strips out the setting in the account of the cursing of the fig that Mark has provided for the temple incident (11:11-14, 20-25), and he makes no use here of the Markan report of the response of the chief priests and scribes (11:18-19). Luke severely abbreviates in away that draws the emphasis strongly onto the biblical citations in 19:46. Though there are some agreements in omission between Luke’s version and the account in Matt 21:10-13, these do no t w arrant the assum ption of a second source. The ac count in John 2:13-17 is most likely to be independent of that in the synoptic Gospels. It locates the incident in the temple in the early stages of the ministry of Jesus. T here is a general scholarly consensus that the texts used in Mark 11:17 are n o t likely to be an original part of the episode. They may be from a separate tradition with its own claim to being tracable back to the historical Jesus, as part of his prophetic critique of his own generation, or (perhaps m ore likely) they may represent a stage in the early ch u rch ’s use and interpretation of the account of the disturbance created by Jesus in the tem ple. The historicity of the core account has occasionally been questioned, but the very difficulties of the account tell strongly in its favor; its historicity is generally recognized even by those who have quite a minim alizing approach. Much m ore difficult is the question of what the event represented in the m ind of Jesus a n d / or of those who witnessed it. Among the many ways in which the tem ple dem onstration has been un d er stood, the following suggestions may be taken as representative: (i) trade in the temple was a desecration of its spiritual purpose, so Jesus, with or without help from others, shut down the trade in sacrificial animals and the provision for changing oth er currencies into the Tyrian coinage, which alone was accepted for paym ent of the tem ple tax; (ii) as above, but with a focus on the m arket’s interference with the use of the outer tem ple as a place where Gentiles m ight worship God; (iii) the trade and m oney exchange exploited the people by m aking excessive charges for the services provided, so Jesus intervened; ( iv) the priestly class who were responsible for the presence of the m arket in the tem ple were abusing their spiritual calling by being involved in business in this way; (v) Jesus was caught up in a conflict between the Sanhedrin and the High Priest Caiaphas in A.D. 30, during which Caiaphas perm itted m arkets in the tem ple as punitive com petition to those controlled by the Sanhedrin on the M ount of Olives (Eppstein, ZNW 55 [1964] 42-58); (vi) Jesus stopped the sale of tem ple sacrifices because, for him, worship consisted no t in the externals of anim al sacrifice but in a purely inward and spiritual worship; (vii) the tradition comes no t in the life of Jesus but in early church controversy with Judaism , as an expression of early church opposition to the tem ple cultus; ( viii) however the abuse in the tem ple is to be understood, (a) Jesus, in conscious fulfillm ent of Mal 3:1-2, is com ing as Lord to his tem ple to purge like a refin er’s fire (notably in Luke, Jesus at this point “takes possession” of the tem ple as the “schoolroom ” [perhaps royal chapel] where he teaches); or ( b) he contributes to the m eeting of the conditions for the com ing of the king dom of God by seeing to it that there should “no longer be a trader in the house

936

Luke 19:45-46

of the L o rd ” (Zech 14:21 [the same verse has also been taken as the basis for the M arkan p oint about no t carrying a vessel through the tem p le]); or (c) he acts as a royal figure in line with the place that tem ple cleansing had in connection with the restoration of the Jewish kingdom in earlier phases of the Jewish kingdom (Hezekiah, Josiah, Judas M accabee); or (d) he aligns him self with a tradition of radical action through zeal for the law, which dem onstrated his alignm ent with the ideology of the zealot freedom fighters, or, m ore likely, caused people, mis takenly, to draw such a link; or (e) he was acting out the p art of the Lord in Isa 59 : 14-20 who in anger brings his own right arm to bear to restore the situation (D errett, DR 95 [ 1977 ] 79- 94 ); ( ix) Jesus’ act is a piece of prophetic symbolism, in ten d ed (a) to bring about the repentance and re tu rn of Israel in the last days; or ( b) to symbolize the destruction for which the tem ple was destined (as a prelim inary to its eschatological restoration: the act would signal that “the end was at h an d and that the tem ple would be destroyed, so that the new and perfect tem ple m ight arise” [Sanders, Jesus, 75 ] ) . Most interpreters jo in together features from m ore than one of the listed suggestions. Given this incredible range of options, is there any possibility of knowing what Jesus in ten d ed in this episode in the temple? With any certainty it probably is not. But m any of the proposals above have been effectively criticized and should be set aside, while aspects of others have com m ended themselves from a variety o f angles. The following points can be m ade with some confidence: (i) whatever the action m eant, it probably took place on a fairly m odest scale (there was no police intervention), and should be seen as a symbolic action, rath er than as a serious attem pt to produce a p erm an en t change in m arket arrangem ents; (ii) Jesus was involved in the disruption of the standing arrangem ents for tem ple worship, which, despite Eppstein, should probably be seen as longstanding ar rangem ents and n o t as some recent innovation; (in) while the disruption may have stem m ed in p art from a concern about those particular arrangem ents (as in Mark 11 : 17 ), it is even m ore likely to be intended as a rath er general com plaint th at those who came to the tem ple were not offering acceptable worship to God in their lives at a m ore com prehensive level (cf. Je r 7 :8- 11 ; Mal 1: 10 ); (iv) the symbolism involved is likely to have a connection with Jewish traditions of tem ple purification, or even of eschatological tem ple replacem ent, but probably w ithout the precision that would enable a choice between these as alternatives (S anders [Jesus, 73 - 75 ] is w rong to th in k th a t to have id e n tifie d such an eschatological perspective obviates the need to identify a critical stance on the part of Jesus: all the relevant traditions relate the eschatological hoped-for change to a present situation of failure or lim itation). T h ere is no satisfactory basis for seeking to m ake a choice betw een the Jo h an n in e dating early in the m inistry and the Synoptic dating at its end. Indeed both of these datings m ight have m ore to do with the narrative structure of the respective Gospels than with historical memory. Comment Jesus m ounts a symbolic protest against the com m ercial activity going on in the tem ple, which interfered with the p ro p er use of the tem ple as a house of prayer and was itself being carried on in a c o rru p t m anner.

Comment

937

45 T he language o f ap p ro ach th at has characterized this section now gives way to the language o f arrival. Luke rep roduces M arkan w ording here, b u t with severe abbreviation. Having spoken in v 41 of Jerusalem com ing into sight, Luke feels no n ee d for M ark’s specific m en tio n of arrival in the city. From the episode in the tem ple, Luke om its all m en tio n of the purchasers, the sellers of doves, the o v ertu rning o f the m arket fu rn itu re , and the in terfe ren c e with the carrying o f vessels th ro u g h the tem ple area. T he use of ήρξατο, “b eg a n ,” which Luke takes over from his M arkan source, may signal the symbolic (token) n a tu re o f this expulsion o f the tem ple hawkers. W hile in M ark the action is probably to be in terp reted as symbolizing the com ing destruction of the tem ple, in Luke it is difficult to find m ore th an a p ro test an d a token p u ttin g of things to rights, tho u g h th at about which the L ukan Jesus protests m akes its own small co n trib u tio n to the state o f affairs th at led Jesus to the co n fid en t prediction of 21 :5-6 (on the likely sense of the episode in the m inistry o f the historical Jesus see in Form/Structure/Setting above). Luke is co n c ern e d to m inim ize any sense in which Jesus m ight be seen as critical o f the Jerusalem tem ple. It is as a royal figure m aking a regal en try into Jerusalem th at the Lukan Jesus acts to purify the worship of the tem ple. Luke has little in terest in elucidating in description t h e precise way in which the com m ercial activity th at was going on in the tem ple posed a problem ; the OT citations in v 46 will provide all the precision th at interests him . 46 L uke’s “saying” m akes the p re sen t verse p art of the in teractio n with the sellers ra th e r th an of the w ider teaching activity th at M ark’s “an d he was teaching an d saying” suggests. Luke simplifies by n o t using the question form with which the M arkan version begins, as well as by elim inating the M arkan referen ce to πάσιν τοΐς εθηεσίη, “for all the n atio n s” (M atthew does this as well). T he latter, com bined with his switch from M ark’s κληθήσεταί, “will be called ,” to καί έ'σταί, “and [it] will b e ” (M ark has the LXX w ording, which follows the MT closely), enables Luke to treat the q uotation from Isa 56:7 as a legal stipulation, ra th e r than as the p ro p h etic w ord th at it is in the text of Isaiah (in M ark this move from prophecy to legal statute has probably already begun, in th at the use of the p re sen t tem ple is being criticized on the basis of the p ro p h etic an ticipation). In a word addressed to the sellers, the im m ediate co ntrast is betw een prayer and com m erce (probably in the sense th at the com m erce distracts others from prayer, b u t perhaps also in the sense th at the sellers engage in com m erce ra th e r than in p ra y e r); b u t this im m ediate contrast be com es m ore p o in ted in the direction of c o rru p t com m ercial activity by m eans o f the use o f Jer 7:11 (apart from an aorist verb in place of a perfect, the Lukan an d M arkan w ording agree). (So far as any inform ation on the m atter sur vives, th ere is every reason to believe th at the sale of sacrificial anim als was well regulated and n o t c o rru p t in any obvious m anner.) T he link with Jerem iah has already b een n o ted at 19 :41- 44 ; the qu o tatio n o f Jer 7:11 here provides a link with the sixth-century m alfunction in the n a tio n ’s temple-worship-life that was the setting for th at p ro p h e t’s a n n o u n c em en t of the com ing destruction of tem ple an d city. T he words in Jerem iah do n o t refer to activity in the tem ple as such, b u t to the lives o f the people in general, who nonetheless m ake a pious show o f things in the tem ple (this may still be tru e of the M arkan use of the text).

938

Luke 19:45-46

Explanation The goal of Jesus’ extended “arrival” in Jerusalem is the tem ple, where he m ounts a protest against the com m ercial activity going on there, the presence of which interfered with the p ro p er use of the tem ple as a house of prayer, and which was in any case being carried on in a co rru p t m anner. In a symbolic m an n er he puts the problem to rights, and for the whole of the section to follow (19:47-21:38), he will make the tem ple precincts the setting for his own teaching ministry. The original incident in the m inistry of the historical Jesus is likely to have looked like a m odest attem pt to disrupt the standing arrangem ents for tem ple worship. In line with texts like Je r 7:8-11; Mal 1:10 it is best seen as m aking a rath er general protest about the lives of the people who were com ing to worship in the Jerusalem tem ple. The action probably had a symbolic connection with a whole stream of Jewish traditions about the end-tim e purification of the tem ple, or its final replacem ent by a new and better tem ple, with all the faults of the old and its worship p u t to rights. In early Christian tradition the episode was interpreted in a num ber of differ e n t ways; Luke is c o n te n t to provide a fairly sim plified p re sen tatio n o f the significance of the episode. L uke’s Jesus is far m ore straightforwardly in favor of the tem ple than was M ark’s.

Teaching Daily in the Temple

(19:47-21:38)

Luke organizes his account of Jesus’ daily teaching in the temple into two subsec tions: 19:47-21:4, which emphasizes the conflict and antagonism between Jesus and segments of the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem; and 21:5-38, which presents Jesus’ vision of the unfolding future of turmoil, persecution, and acts of judgm ent, culminat ing in the coming of the Son of Man and the establishment of the kingdom of God.

Hostility from the Leaders, with Adulation from the People (19:47-48) Bibliography Kodell, J. “L uke’s Use of Laos, ‘P eople,’ Especially in the Jerusalem Narrative (Lk 19,28-

24,53).” CBQ 31 (1969) 327-43.

Translation

47He began to teach daily in the temple. The chiefpriests and the scribes were seeking to destroy him, along with the leaders of the People,48 but they could not work out what they should do, because all the People hung upon his words.a Notes a Lit. “hung upon hearing h im ” or “hung upon him as they were listening.”

Form/Structure/Setting Having reached the temple as the climax of his extended approach to Jerusalem, Jesus is now, through this section, to be found there daily, engaged in a ministry of teaching. T he section boundaries are m arked by an inclusio created by the parallelism betw een 19:47-48 at the beginning and 21:37-38 at the end (cf. Lam brecht, “Reading and R ereading,” 589-90 [in bibliography for 18:31-34]). For v 47a Luke is likely to be inspired by the wording of Mark 14:49; for the rest of the un it there is a rewording of Mark 11:18, which represents a continua tion of the M arkan sequence. The resulting generalizing sum m ary is rem iniscent of 4:14-15, which summarizes a Galilean ministry. Comment As Jesus sets up as “resident” teacher in the tem ple, Luke notes a sharp cleav age between the Jewish leadership, intent on Jesus’ destruction, and the People, who hung on his every word.

940

Luke 19:47-48

47 In the opening clause, both the periphrastic tense and the καθ’ ημέραν for “daily” are marks of Lukan style (though the opening before the latter is unusual; it may be the correct reading also at Acts 17:11). The prom inence that Luke gives to the tem ple location of Jesus’ m inistry in Jerusalem is part of his contention that Jesus, and therefore Christians (despite anticipating its fall in a divine ju d g m en t), had the highest of regards for this central point of Jewish rev erence. Luke will make it clear in 24:52-53 and in Acts with the continued Christian orientation to the tem ple that n o t even the execution of Jesus at the instigation of those who control the tem ple can dislodge this Christian loyalty. Luke adds πρώτοι του λαόν (lit. “the first [ones] of the P eople”; Luke uses πρώτοι of leaders also in Acts 13:50; 25:2; 28:17; cf. 17:4; 28:7) to the M arkan leadership groups. O n the o th er two groups, see at 9:21-22; here also Luke probably thinks of the constituent groups of the Sanhedrin, but his phrase is chosen for the sake of the poignancy o f contrast between “leaders of the P eople” and “the P eople” them selves. Ways in which Luke will refer to the Jerusalem leadership later in the Gospel are “the chief priests and the scribes, with the elders” (20:1); “the scribes and chief priests” (20:19); “chief priests and scribes” (22:2; 23:10); “chief priests, temple officers, and elders” (22:52); “eldership of the People, both chief priests and scribes” (22:66); “the chief priests and the ru lers” (23:13); “the ru lers” (23:35); “the chief priests and the rulers” (24:20). Luke moves the focus from M ark’s how to destroy Jesus onto simply the desire to destroy him (Luke saves the issue of “how” for v 48). For Luke, Pharisees have been regular antagonists to Jesus (and Jesus to th e m ), b u t they are n o t part of the leadership group that ultim ately sets out to destroy him (see Luke’s m oderation of Mark at 6:11, but cf. also 11:53-54; this picture of non-involvem ent of the Pharisees has the general support of the passion narratives preserved by each of the evangelists, bu t Matthew has 27:62 and J o h n has 18:3). 48 T he M arkan wording is com pletely reform ulated. M ark’s direct link be tween the tem ple disturbance and the leaders’ plotting of Jesus’ destruction is lost; and where for Mark the role of the crowd’s positive response to the teaching o f Jesus is to provoke the leaders to fear him and therefore to seek to destroy him (and so represents a partial explanation of the leadership response to the tem ple in cid en t), for Luke the role of this response is to stand, temporarily, in the way of the leaders plan to destroy Jesus. In Luke “the crowd” becom es “all the P eople,” that is G od’s People: G od’s People are totally taken up by what Jesus teaches. This spontaneous recognition by the People of God is offered as p art of the case that Luke seeks to make for the authenticity of Jesus. Luke works with this distinc tion between the leaders and the People also in 20:1-6, 19, 26, 45; 22:2; 23:5, 35; 24:19-20 (cf. Kodell, CBQ 31 [1969] 327-43). Luke would probably have us u n derstand that the influence of the leaders gradually overwhelms the better sense o f the People of God in general (this may account for the apparently divergent use at 23:13, and m ore im portantly for such texts in Acts as 6:12; 12:3, cf. vv 4 and 11; 21:30; 28:26-27), and that it is precisely the unhelpful role of the leaders that has led to the situation in L uke’s own day of cleavage between Christianity and Judaism , έξβκρέματο αύτου άκούων could either be “hung upon hearing h im ” or “h u n g upo n him, as they were listening” (the sense is little changed). After Luke’s addition of v 47a, which serves to generalize, M ark’s 11:19 is no longer suitable at this point, so Luke reserves it for 21:37, at the end of this section.

Notes

941

Explanation Having m ade his protest about the m arkets in the tem ple, Jesus establishes him self as a regular daily teacher in the tem ple. This will be the setting for the m aterial of the whole section from 19:47-21:38, and the section will end as it began on this note of daily teaching in the tem ple. The Lukan Jesus is strongly affirmative o f the place and im portance of the tem ple in Jewish (and JewishChristian) piety. Now the leadership groups that together make up the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish governing authority, are brought to an extrem e state of provocation by this figure who has set him self up as “resident” teacher in their holiest place. They plot his destruction, but their m achinations are tem porarily blocked by the way in which, in m arked contrast to their leaders, all the people—for Luke, the historic People of God—hang on his every word.

“By What Authority Do You Do These Things?” (20:1-8) Bibliography H aenchen, E. Der Weg Jesu. 392-96. Kremer, J. "Jesu Antwort auf die Frage nach seiner Vollmacht: Eine Auslegung von Mk 11,27-33.” BibLeb 9 (1968) 128-36. Mussies, G. “T he Sense of συΧλογίζέσθαι at Luke XX 5.” In Miscellanea Neotestamentica: Studia ad N T praesertim pertinentia a sociis sodalicii Batavi, cuius nomen Studiosorum NTi Conventus, anno 1976 quintum lustrum complentis suscepta, ed. T Baarda et al. NovTSup 47-48. Leiden: Brill, 1978. 2:5976. Roloff, J. Das Kerygma. 93-95, 101-2. Schramm, T. Markus-Stoff. 149-50. Shae, G. S. “T he Q uestion on the Authority of Jesus.” NovT 16 (1974) 1-29.

Translation

1It happened on one of those days, as he was teaching the People in the temple and announcing the good news, that the chiefpriestsa and the scribes, with the elders, came up 2and said to him, “Tell usb by what authority you do these things; who gave you this authonty?”3He answered them, “I will ask you a questionc as well, and you must tell me [the answer]: 4Was the baptism ofJohn [authorized] from heaven or [did it only come]from human beings?”5They reasonedd among themselves saying, “If we say, 'From heaven,’ [then] he will say, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’6But if we say, From human beings,’all the People will stone us, for they are persuaded thatJohn is a prophet.”7They answered that they did not know where it was from. 8Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things. ” Notes a Despite the support o f B. M. M etzger ( The Text o f the New Testament [New York: O xford Univer sity, 1964] 238-39; bu t see id., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 170), H. Greeven (“Erwagungen zur synoptischen Textkritik,” N T S 6 [1959-60] 281-96, esp. 295-96) and Fitzmyer (1271,

942

Luke 20:1-8

1274), the reading iepelg, “priests,” of A E G H K W Γ Δ Π etc. can hardly be original, given the Lukan tho u g h t developm ent in this section of the Gospel. b “Tell u s” is missing from ‫ א‬C sys etc., which conform s to the M atthean and M arkan texts. c Gr. λόγου (lit. “w ord”). d ‫ א‬C D W Θ etc. conform the text here to the other synoptists with δίολογίζοντο, “they were disputing.”

Form/Structure/Setting T he sequence o f units from 20:1-47 (and probably to 21:4, with the rich being coordinated with the leaders) takes its point of departure from the antagonism o f the Jerusalem Jewish leadership to Jesus, identified in 19:47-48. T here is also a m easure of reiteration of Jesus’ popularity with the People. 20:1-21:4 (with 19:4748 as introduction to this subsection as well as to the whole) thus constitutes a subsection within the larger section 19:47-21:38. Passing over the M arkan com pletion of the fig-tree incident, Luke continues with his M arkan sequence here and will do so for the rem ainder of the section, om itting only 12:28-34 (of which he will use only the beginning of v 28 and the en d o f v 34), having m ade substantial use of this m aterial at 10:25-28 (see there). Despite a couple of m inor agreem ents with Matthew, there is no real likeli h ood o f the use of a second source here. In connection with the prehistory of the M arkan text, the analysis of Shae of the im mediately pre-M arkan form seems well based: only the first clause of 11:27, and v 32 from “they were afraid of the crowd” should be considered as M arkan contributions (NovT 16 [1974] 4-10); in v 27 the use o f a leadership set identical to that which Mark uses elsewhere may also be vulnerable, but the location in the tem ple seems m ore secure). B ultm ann’s attem pt (History, 20) to identify vv 31-33 as a later developm ent has been well criticized for finding here a belief in the Baptist along the lines of Christian belief in Jesus, bu t his sense that there is a change between v 30 and vv 31-32 in the way in which hum an and divine authorization are being contrasted does seem to have m erit (Shae’s attem pt [NovT 16 (1974) 10-14] to identify an early dialogue form w ithout the shape of a controversy is an all too speculative attem pt to develop B ultm ann’s insight by postulating a m ore extensive earliest source on the basis of appeal to a rabbinic pattern of teaching through question and co unter question; beyond its merely speculative nature, it is vulnerable at the p o in t of the dating of the rabbinic m aterials appealed to, and in connection with the difference of senses claim ed for the two questions in Mark 11:28). If we take the account to have term inated originally with v 30, then the thrust of Jesus’ response is to question w hether J o h n ’s m inistry needed any kind of offi cial sanction to be valid, the im plication being that both J o h n ’s and his own ministry were validated from heaven, n o t through the official channels of reli gious authority in Judaism . Vv 31-33 represent an attem pt to spell this out against a backdrop o f antagonism and in connection with the lack of im pact of the m in istry of J o h n on official Judaism , contrasted with its extensive im pact on popular Judaism . But in the spelling out, the contrast between έξ ουρανού (“from heaven”) and έξ άνθρώπων (lit. “from p eo p le”) shifts in the sense given to its second m em b er from “authorized at a hum an level” to “only a hum an affair and therefore n o t authentically of G od.” The original short form is of a piece with o th er state m ents of the historical Jesus in affirm ation of Jo h n and is not likely to be a product of early church reflection.

Comment

943

Comment In the present interchange, the religious leaders of Jerusalem express their antagonism to Jesus but do not move discernibly closer to their goal of destroy ing him. Rather, they reveal their own bankruptcy as guides to the truth. At the same time the passage suggests that the authenticity base for Jesus is like and somehow related to the authenticity base for John. 1 Not having used Mark 11:19, Luke has no need for a retu rn to the city here, καί εγενετο εν μια των ήμερων (lit. “it happened in one of those days”) is introduced identically by Luke at 5:17 (and almost so at 8:22). The reference to teaching the People in the tem ple merely reiterates m aterial from 19:47-48. Its presence encourages us to take the questioning here as concerned with estab lishing the authority for Jesus’ teaching. Luke glosses “teaching” with his favored verb εύαγγελίζεσθαι, “evangelize/announce good news” (Marshall, 722, is wrong to think that for Luke there is no presentation of the gospel in this section). The Lukan απίστησαν, “they came u p /sto o d by,” displaces M ark’s έρχονται προς αύτόν, “they come to h im .” Luke reproduces M ark’s leadership groups but subordinates “the elders” (“with the elders”). The three term s here are those of 9:22 (see there), b u t Luke will in ten d the same people as in 19:47 (see there). 2 Luke drops a M arkan repetition bu t adds two redundancies of his own (λεγοντες, “saying”; είπόν ήμΐν, “tell us”); he makes other m inor changes. The two questions here are not really different (against Shae, NovT 16 [1974] 11): the form er is m ore general, while the second becom es m ore precise by focusing on the issue of authorization. The authority in question is Jesus’ authority to teach as he does. T he m anifest reality of Jesus’ authority, evident in 5:32, 36; 5:24, is not in view here. It may be that the claim of these leadership groups to be able to authorize in various ways sits in the background at this point. 3 Luke as elsewhere with εΐπεν, “he said,” adds a red u n d an t άποκριθείς (lit. “having answ ered”), and in com pensation he drops M ark’s "Jesus”; he reduces M ark’s verb for “I will ask” to the simple form; he substitutes “I also” for M ark’s “o n e ”; he prefers “tell m e” to M ark’s “answer m e”; and he drops as repetitive M ark’s final clause. Jesus trades question for question: as will becom e clear he will answer if they will answer. 4 Luke’s m ain change here is to drop M ark’s repetition of άποκρίθητέ μοι, “you m ust answer m e,” from v 29. Jesus’ question is about the basis for J o h n ’s baptism. Has it only a hum an basis? (Perhaps we could gloss this, in part, as “Did Jo h n get or need your perm ission for his teaching?”) O r does the authority of God stand b ehind the challenge that it represents? The relevance of such a ques tion is based upo n the significant parallel between the teaching of Jesus and the challenge and eschatological expectations associated with Jo h n (on the parallelism between Jo h n and Jesus see chaps. 1-2 and 7). O n the contrast between a hum an m atter and what comes from God, cf. Acts 5:38. The question puts Jesus’ adversaries into a cleft stick. 5 L uke’s changes here are only minor, except for the replacem ent of M ark’s διελογίζοντο, “were disputing,” with συνελογίσαντο. Mussies ( “συλλογιζέσθαι,” 5976) has argued convincingly that the sem antic range of this verb does no t extend to “d ispute/debate”; rather it must mean here something like “to reason” (beyond his thorough survey of the texts in which the verb is used, Mussies points to the

944

Luke 20:1-8

way in which Luke has in effect [by com parison with Mark] com pleted the steps of the syllogism here). The im plication is that the leadership groups in Jerusa lem had been u n to uched by the m inistry of John. 6 Beyond m inor changes, Luke’s changes in the verse are in connection with the correction of the broken syntax of the Markan text. This involves recasting an editorial com m ent into part o f one o f the steps in the reasoning of these em barrassed leaders. In the change, by talking of the prospect of stoning (Luke speaks o f stoning quite a lot of times, but elsewhere with the simple form of the verb or a quite different verb for “to stone”), Luke dispenses with the fear language of Mark (he dispensed with it also in 19:48, but will accept the language at 20:19); and he introduces a use of o Χάος άπας , “all the People [of God] ” (which he introduced in 19:49). L uke’s πεπεισμένος, “being con v in ced /p ersu ad ed ,” makes a better parallel with επισπεύσατε, “did . . . believe,” in v 5 than M ark’s ειχον (lit. “h a d ”) . The People are considered to be deeply com m itted to the prophetic sta tus of the now dead John. For Jo h n as a prophet, see 1:76; 7:26, 28-30. 7 Luke abbreviates and moves to indirect speech expressed with an i n f i ni tive. For the evasion, cf. 22:68. O ne would not want to look to be guided into the tru th by leaders who make their answers on such a basis as that which has been revealed here. T he Chrisian m ovem ent, by contrast, bases itself on com m itm ents for which one is p repared to die. 8 A part from the replacem ent of a historical present with an aorist verb, Luke reproduces the M arkan wording here. Jesus’ antagonists have failed to answer his question so he refuses to answer theirs. As the parallelism established with J o h n makes quite clear, there is no evasion intended, but Jesus’ questioners have by their prevarication forfeited any right to have their question treated as expressing any genuine interest in learning the truth. Explanation T he hostility of the Jerusalem leaders that surfaced in 19:47-48 is picked up in the present u n it and those that follow to 21:4, in a series of scenes in which there are conflict and m utual antagonism between Jesus and segm ents of the Jewish leadership. In this first incident in the series, the leadership groups take a shared initiative, which, instead of bringing them closer to their goal of destroying Jesus, is tripped up by Jesus’ counter-questioning, and in the end reveals these leaders to be blind guides for the People. T he setting is Jesus’ teaching of the People and sharing with them his message of good news. Jesus’ questioners come from the leadership groups that m ade up the Sanhedrin, the highest level of Jewish authority. They want to know what gives Jesus the right to teach as he is doing; he has certainly no t been authorized to do so by them! If the question had been put to another, he m ight have answered by giving the nam e of one who had been his own teacher in m atters of the law. Jesus trades question for question, implicitly suggesting that he will somehow build his answer to their question on their answer to his question. H e asks his questioners to answer in connection with the now dead Jo h n the Baptist som e thing like the question that they have just pu t to him (Jesus), except that in Jesus’ form o f the question the options have been set in a distinctive m anner: d id Jo h n ’s baptism come from God or was it merely a hum an m atter? If it was from God,

Bibliography

945

then questions of authorization rath er lose their point; if it was only a hum an matter, then authorization through even the best channels of religious authoriza tion could n o t legitim ate what presented itself falsely as a decisive prophetic act. By asking this question, Jesus suggests, in effect, that the m ost useful fram e of reference fo r Judging his own case is the prophetic framework that was evidently widely recognized as appropriate in the case of John. But Jesus’ interlocutors are u n p rep ared to face a question set in such terms. They clearly had no t themselves responded in repentance to the ministry of Jo h n , so could hardly make a public affirm ation of his authority from God. But they were well aware that Jo h n had been widely recognized as a p ro p h et am ong those who m ade up the bulk of the People of God. Publicly to go against this popular groundswell could be danger ous to life and limb. Political expediency dem anded that they should utter neither of the answers that Jesus’ question allowed. They equivocated. Jesus’ antagonists failed to answer his question, so he refused to answer theirs. But no evasion is intended. The issue that lies on the table is the question of w hether both the m inistry of Jo h n and the m inistry of Jesus have their authoriza tion immediately from God himself. The claims of the institutional framework becom e irrelevant in the face of such a possibility. In any case, those who repre sent that institutional fram ework have, by their equivocation, forfeited any right to have their own question treated as a legitim ate quest for truth.

The Fate of the Wicked Tenant Farmers

(20:9-19)

Bibliography Bammel, E. “Das G leichnis von d en bosen W inzern (Mk. 12,1-9) u n d das Ju dische Erbrecht.” RIDA 3 /6 (1959) 11-17. Black, M. “The Parable as Allegory.” BJRL 42 (1959-60)

2 7 3 -8 7 .------------ . “T he Christological Use of the O ld T estam ent in the New T estam ent.” NTS 18 (1971-72) 1-14, esp. 11—14. Blank, J. “Die Sendung des Sohnes: Zur christologischen B edeutung des Gleichnisses von den bosen W inzern Mk 12,1-12.” In Neues Testament und Kirche. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg im B.: Herder, 1974. 11-41. Bornkamm, G. “λίκμάω.” TDNT 4:280-81. Brown, R. E. “Parable and Allegory R econsidered.” NovT 5 (1962) 36-45; reprinted in New Testament Essays. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965. 254-64. Bruce, F. F. “New Wine in O ld W ine Skins: III. T he C orner Stone.” ExpTim 84 (1972-73) 231-35. Burkitt, F. C. “T he Parable of the W icked H usbandm en .” In Transactions of the Third International Congress for the History of Religions 2, ed. P. S. Allen a n d J. de M. Johnson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1908. 2:321-28. Carlston, C. E. The Parables. 40-45, 76-81, 178-90. Crossan, J. D. “T he Parable of the W icked H usbandm en.” JBL 90 (1971) 451-65. Dehandschutter, B. “La parabole des vignerons hom icides (Me., XII, 1-12) et l’evangile selon T hom as.” In L ’E vangile selon Marc: Tradition et redaction, ed. M. Sabbe. BETL 34. Gembloux: Duculot, 1974. 203-19. Derrett, J. D. M. “Fresh Light on the Parable of the Wicked V inedressers.” RIDA 3 /1 0 (1963) 11-41; reprinted in Law. 286-312. ------------ . “T he Stone T hat the Builders R ejected.” SE 4 [=TU 102] (1968) 180-86. -------------. “A llegory an d th e W icked V inedressers.” JTS 25 (1974) 426-32. Dodd, C. H. Parables. 96-102, 127. Dombois, H. "Juristische B em erkungen zum Gleichnis von den bosen W eingartnern.” N Z S T R 8 (1966) 361-73. Doran, R. “Luke 20:18: A W arrior’s Boast?” CBQ 45 (1983) 61-67. Drury, J. “T he

946

L uke 20:9-19

Sower, the Vineyard, and the Place of Allegory in the In terp retatio n of M ark’s Parables.” JTS 24 (1973) 367-79. Duplantier, J.-P. “Les vignerons meurtriers: le trail d ’une parabole.” In Les paraboles evangeliques: Perspectives nouvelles. XIIe congres de l'ACEF, ed. J. Delorme. Lectio Divina 135. Paris: Cerf, 1989. 259-70. Eck, E., van, and Aarde, A. G., van. “A Narratological Analysis of Mark 12:1-12: The Plot of the Gospel of Mark in a Nutshell.” H T S 45 (1989) 778800. Frankenmolle, H. “H at Jesus sich selbst verku ndet? Christologische Implikationen in den vormarkinischen Parabeln.” BibLeb 13 (1972) 184-207, esp. 196-204 Giblin, C. H. The Destruction of Jerusalem. 57-73. Giroud, J.-C., and Panier, L. Semiotique: Une pratique de lecture et d 'analyse des textes bibliques. Cahiers Evangile 59. Paris: Cerf, 1987. Gray, A. “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandm en (M atthew xxi. 33-41; M ark xii. 1-9; Luke xx. 9 -1 6 ).” HibJ 19 (192021) 42-52. Gressman, H. “Der Eckstein.” Palastinajahrbuch 6 (1910) 38-46. Guillet, J. "Jesus et la politique.” RSR59 (1971) 531-44. Haenchen, E. Der Weg Jesu. 396-405. Harnisch, W. “Der bezwingende Vorsprung des Guten: Zur Parabel von den bosen W inzern (Markus 12,1ff. un d Parallelen).” In Die Sprache derBilder: Gleichnis und Metapher in Literatur und Theologie, ed. H. Weder. Zeitzeichen 4, GTB Siebenstern 558. Gu tersloh: M ohn, 1989. 22-38. Hengel, M. “Das Gleichnis von den W eingartnern Mc 12,1-12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri u n d der rabbinischen Gleichnisse.” ZNW 59 (1968) 1-39. Hester, J. D. “Socio-Rhetorical Criticism and the Parable of the Tenants.” JSN T 45 (1992) 27-57. Hezser, C. Lohnmetaphorik und Arbeitswel in M t 20, 1-16: Das Gleichnis von den Arbeitern im Weinberg im Rahmen rabbinischer Lohngleichnisse. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 15. Fribourg: Universitatsverlag, 1990. Hubaut, M. La parabole des vignerons homicides. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 16. Paris: Gabalda, 1976.------------ . “La parabole des vignerons homicides: son authenticite, sa visee prem iere.” R TL 6 (1975) 51-61. Iersel, B. M. F. van. “Der Sohn”in den synoptischen Jesusworten: Christus bezeichnung Jesu?NovTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1964. 124-45. Jeremias,J. Parables. 31, 41, 70-77, 86, 93, 108, 204.------------ . “Κεφαλή γωνίας— Ακρογωνιαίος.” ZN W 29 (1930) 264-80.------------ . “Eckstein-Schussstein.” Z N W 36 (1937) 154-57.------------ . “λίθος, λίθινος.” T D N T 4:268-80, esp. 271-77. Julicher, A. Gleichnisreden. 2:385-406. Kaino, K. L. “T he Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Its Synoptic T radition.” Diss., Regent College, Vancouver, 1983. Kim, S. ‘Jesus— T he Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant: T he Role of Zechariah in the Self-U nderstanding of Jesus.” In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. FS E. E. Ellis, ed. G. F. H aw thorne and O. Betz. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1987. 134-48. Klauck, H.-J. Allegorie und Allegorese. 2 8 6 -3 1 6 . ------------ . “Das Gleichnis vom M ord im W einberg (Mk 12,1-12; Mt 21,33-46; Lk 20,9-19).” BibLeb 11 (1970) 118-45. Kummel, W. G. “Das G leichnis von den bosen W eingartnern (Mark. 12. 1 -9 ).” In A ux sources de la tradition chretienne. FS M. Goguel, by P. Benoit et al. N euchatel/P aris: D elachaux et Niestle, 1950. 120-31; reprinted in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsatze 1933-1964. Marburg: Elwert, 1965. 207-17. Leon-Dufour, X. “La parabole des vignerons hom icides.” In Etudes d ’evangiles. Parole de Dieu. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1965. 3 0 3 -4 4 .------------ . “La parabole des vignerons hom icides.” ScEccl 17 (1965) 365-96; digested TD 15 (1967) 30-36. Lindars, B. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of Old Testament Quotations. London: SCM, 1961. 169-86. Lohmeyer, E. “Das Gleichnis von den bosen W ien g artn ern .” Z S T 18 (1941) 243-59. Lowe, M. “From the Parable of the Vineyard to a Pre-Synoptic S ource.” NTS 28 (1982) 257-63. Milavec, A. “M ark’s Parable of the W icked H usbandm an as Reaffirm ing G o d ’s Predilection for Israel.‫ ״‬JE S 26 (1989) 289-312.------------ . “T he Identity o f ‘the S on’ and ‘the O th ers’: M ark’s Parable of the Wicked H usbandm an R econsidered.” BTB 20 (1990) 30-37. Montefiore, H. “A Com parison of the Parables of the Gospel according to Thom as and of the Synoptic Gospels.” N TS 7 (1960-61) 220-48, esp. 236-38. Mussner, F. “Die Bosen Winzer nach Matthaus 21, 33-46.” In Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament?Exegetische und systematische Beitrage, ed. P. Eckert et al. A bhandlungen zum christlich-judischen Dia log 2. Munich: Kaiser, 1967. 129-34. Nestle, E. “Lk 20,18.” Z N W 8 (1907) 321-22. Newell, J. E., and R. R. “The Parable of the Wicked Tenants.” NovT 14 (1972) 226-37. Orchard, B. "J. A. T. Robinson and the Synoptic P roblem .” N TS 22 (1975-76) 346-52. Pedersen, S. “Zum Problem der vaticinia ex eventu: Eine Analyse von Mt. 21, 33-46 par.; 22, 1-10 par.”

Form/ Structure/Setting

947

ST 19 (1965) 167-88. Rese, M. Alttestamentliche Motive. 171-73. Robinson, J. A. T. “The Par able of the W icked H usbandm en: A Test of Synoptic Relationships.” NTS 21 (1974-75) 443-61. Schoedel, W. R. “Parables in the Gospel of Thomas: Oral Tradition or Gnostic Ex egesis?” CTM 43 (1972) 548-60, esp. 557-60. Schrage, W. Das Verhaltnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienubersetzungen. BZNW 29. Berlin: Topelm ann, 1964. 137-45. Schramm, T. Markus-Stoff. 150-67. Sevrin, J.-M. “Un groupem ent de trois paraboles contre les richesses dans l’Evangile selon Thomas: EvTh 63, 64, 65.” In Les paraboles evangeliques: Perspectives nouvelles. XIIe congres de l ’ACEF, ed. J. Delorme. LD 135. Paris: Cerf, 1989. 423-39, esp. 433-39. Snodgrass, K. R. “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: Is the Gospel of Thomas Version the Original?” NTS 21 (1974-75) 142-44. Trilling, W. “Le ju g e m e n t sur le faux Israel (M atthieu 21, 3 3 -4 6 ).” In L ’annonce du Christ dans les evangiles synoptiques. LD 69. Tr. G. Bret and A. Chazelle. Paris: Cerf, 1971. 165-89.------------ . “Les vignerons hom icides: Mt 21, 33-46.” AsSeign 58 (1974) 55-65. Trimaille, M. “La parabole des vignerons m eurtriers (Mc 12, 1-1 2 ).” In Les paraboles evangeliques: Perspectives nouvelles. XIIe congres de l'ACEF, ed. J. Delorme. LD 135. Paris: Cerf, 1989. 247-58. Weder, H. Die GleichnisseJesu als Metaphern. 147-62. Weiser, A. Die Knechtsgleichnisse. 49-57.

Translation 9 Then he began to speak to the People this parable. “Aa man planted a vineyard and leased it to farmers and went away for quite a time. 10When the time came, he sent a slave to the farmers so that they might giveb him [his share] from the fruit of the vineyard. The farmers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11He proceeded to send another slave; but they beat and shamed him and sent him away empty-handed. 12He proceeded to send a third; but they wounded and thrust out this one as well. 13The mas ter of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do?I shall send my beloved son! Perhapsc they will respect him.' 14When the farmers saw him they reasoned, saying to one another, ‘This is the heir!dLet us kill him, so that the inheritance will be ours.’15So they thrust him out of the vineyard and killed [him]. What then will the master of the vineyard do to them? 16He will come and destroy thesefarmers and give the vineyard to others." When they heard this they said, “Heaven forbid!" 17B utlooking at them he said, “What then is this that stands written, A stone which the builders rejected— this became the head of the corner’? 18Everyone who falls on that stone will be crushed; on whomever it falls, it shatters him."" 19The scribes and the chief priestsc sought to lay their hands upon him at that very hour; but they feared the People. For they realized that he had spoken this parable with reference to them. Notes a τ ις , “a certain,” is added by A W Θ / 131241 etc. to conform to oth er Lukan parable introductions. b T he future tense here is unusual in a ϊνα purpose clause and is corrected to the subjunctive in C D R W Θ Ψ etc. c ίδόντες, “seeing,” is added here by A R W Θ Ψ etc. It has com e forw ard from v 14. d M ark’s “com e,” is found in ‫ א‬C D L R Θ etc. e T he ord er is reversed in ‫ א‬D R Ψ etc.

Form/Structure/Setting Though this parable is told “to the People” (v 9), it is told as a parable about the Jewish leaders (v 19). Thus in L uke’s hands, it continues the account of teaching

948

L uke 20:9-19

addressed to the People and conflict with the Jerusalem leadership, which was ann o u n ced in 19:47-48. Luke is following the M arkan sequence here, but w hether Mark is his only source rem ains somewhat less certain. The weight of the case for a possible sec ond source comes from the juxtaposition of three considerations: (i) the preserved parable appears to have been somewhat allegorized in the course of transm is sion, and there is a reasonable scholarly consensus as to what the earliest form of the parable m ight have been (see fu rth er below); ( ii) the Gospel of Thomas (saying 65) has preserved a form of the parable strikingly close to this scholarly recon struction, which suggests that the form there should be considered as independent and closer to the original than the Synoptic versions; (iii) at im portant points it is the Lukan form that comes closest to this postulated m ost original form . Taken together these considerations m ight seem to imply that both the Lukan and Gos pel of Thomas form s reflect access to a pre-M arkan form of the parable. T here are, however, a series of factors that together vitiate the confidence with which we can make such an inference. ( i) The following saying 66 of the Gospel of Thomas is clearly a version of the tradition found in Luke 20:17 and parallels; and it is a version that appears to have been abbreviated and altered in the interests of a “gnostic” understanding (involving the esoteric possession of knowledge). Now, since the addition to the parable of the appeal to Ps 118:22 would seem to belong to a developed stage in the allegorization of the parable, the presence here of saying 66 suggests that the form of parable that ultim ately lies behind the Gospel of Tho mas should have been an allegorized form, (ii) The Gospel of Thomas form of the parable finishes with the death of the son (followed by a challenge to h e a r). The narrative tells only of a m an’s loss of both his vineyard and his son to his wicked tenant farmers. As a picture of how bad the world is, this fits well into the Gospel of Thomas; but, as a story, the account lacks closure, without the question at least being raised of how the man will cope, or what he will do (Crossan [JBL 90 (1971) 451-65] tries to take the story [in the Gospel of Thomas form ] as the story of the tenants, but it simply is not told that way). At this point at least the Gospel of Thomas version seems to be an abbreviated version, (in) Since the Gospel of Thomas has no place for the salvation history that the allegorization of the parable involved, it would seem altogether plausible that, along with the dropping of the ending of the par able, the allegorization that ensured that the parable would be read as a telling of salvation history has been stripped out of it for its present role, (iv) The pattern of three (two servants and then the son) found in the Gospel of Thomas form is often th o u g h t to tell in its favor, but w here the final elem ent in the group is in some way to be set over against the preceding elem ents, then Luke’s p attern of three + one is superior dramatically and may be original (one m ight venture a guess that the reduction in the num ber of servants to two in the Gospel of Thomas is a result of the introduction after the first servant’s return of “The master said, ‘Per haps [they] did not recognize [him ]”’: this explanation could not easily be used a second time, but to offer another would stand in the way of taking up this knowl edge m otif in “the tenants knew that it was he who was the heir to the vineyard”) . (v) Finally we have had cause to recognize Luke’s fine skills as a story teller. It is not at all unlikely that his own sense of dram a and narrative developm ent would take him a long way toward restoring to its original dramatic simplicity a story that had been overlayed with allegorical developm ent (cf. Jerem ias, Parables, 72, n. 84).

Form/ Structure/Setting

949

T hough certainty is n o t possible, the weight of probability would seem finally to be on the side of the view that Luke works here only from his M arkan source (if the Gospel of Thomas version depends here on the synoptic Gospels, then to ju d g e from m inor agreem ents, both Mark and Luke were consulted). While the basis for deciding between M arkan and pre-M arkan developm ents is limited, there is general agreem ent about the shape of the m ost original form of the parable. The elaboration of the stages in the preparation of the vineyard takes place u n d er the influence of Isa 5:2 and is likely to be secondary. The gen eralizing of Mark 12:5b is in the interests of the sequence of OT prophets and will be secondary. T hough the text may conceivably have its own in d ep en d en t place in the Jesus tradition, the use of Ps 118:22-23 here is almost certainly a later developm ent as p art of the elaboration of a salvation-historical reading of the parable (given the possibility of word-play in Hebrew between “son” and “stone,” the connection is likely already to have been m ade in the pre-Greek phase of the tradition [but note the suggestive proposal of Trimaille (“La parabole,” 253-55) who, noting the frequent juxtaposition of planting and building in both OT and NT texts, sees the juxtaposition as based upon the linking of the planting of the parable and the building of the Psalm ]). “Beloved” as an epithet for the son is likely to be part of the same developm ent. The transfer of the vineyard to others may be an original feature of the parable, but it is perhaps m ore likely that the original fin ished with the question (in terms of the main thrust of the narrative, the difference is slight). It is widely agreed that the original had only individual servants. As indicated above, I favor three single servants; others are influenced by the Gospel of Thomas to favor two. It is intrinsically likely that there was some kind of devel op m en t (probably an intensification) in the treatm ent from one servant to the next, b u t in this respect the telling is too overlayed to make any serious attem pt at restoration (it is, however, unlikely that any of the servants was killed). For all its dam age to the simplicity of the story, the salvation-historical devel opm ent of the parable is no m ore than a particular elaboration of what is intrinsic to the parable. As in other of Jesus’ parables, the central character is a God-figure. T he distinction in the parable between the vineyard and those who are respon sible for it (and for the share of the crop going to the owner) makes it natural to read the parable in connection with the Jewish leadership groups of Jesus’ day. T he distinction betw een the slaves and the son corresponds to the sense of eschatological climax that Jesus clearly associated with his own ministry, and the om inous prospect of the next initiative from the father introduces a ju d g m en t m otif that is at hom e with other historical Jesus m aterial. The parable is thus inalienably semi-allegorical. But despite the occasional ju d g m en t to the contrary, this should n o t be taken as counting against its authenticity (see “M odern Parables R esearch” at the end of the Introduction). Its com plaint against the leaders of the People of God is clearly in continuity with the OT pro phetic tradition with which the historical Jesus was so aligned. The parable may be taken as involving Jesus’ prophetic anticipation of his own death (and, as I have argued at 9:21-22, Jesus did anticipate his own death), bu t prophetic antici pation is n o t necessarily involved here. The parable is interested in the rejection by the leaders of the claim of God m ade upon his People through the m inistry of Jesus. T he death of the son may, within the parabolic narrative, be no m ore than a powerful image for this rejection, or it may perhaps be a logical extrapolation

950

Luke 20:9-19

from present hostility: the pressure of the claim of God m ade present through the m inistry of Jesus will not go away as long as he lives to continue to exercise his ministry. In the latter case the parable would becom e a powerful warning against, and a hinting at the consequences of, such a decisive rejection of G od’s fin al a n d decisive em issary. T h e p lace o f th e son in th e p a ra b le is n o t christologically determ ined, except indirectly: the com ing of the son is here the ultim ate expression of the claim of the owner upon his vineyard. Comment T he attitude of the leaders to Jesus is exposed as an unwillingness to be ac countable to God. They are in the presence of G od’s final bid to gain their com pliance, and their rejection of this am bassador can only lead to disaster for themselves, and to their role as leaders being taken over by others. 9 Luke has intervened in the M arkan wording here with προς τον λαόν, “to the P eople” (linking back to 20:1; 19:48— this too is part of teaching the People in the tem ple); with a change from έν παραβολαΐς, “parabolically/in parables,” to την παραβολήν ταύτην, “this parable” (there is only one parable [the same phrase is found at 4:23; 12:41; 15:3; 18:9]); by deleting the M arkan account of the preparation of the vineyard (this echoed Isa 5:2, but, whereas in the allegory such language expresses personal involvement, the departure of the m an in the present parable does no t allow the language to perform a corresponding role; Luke is likely to have restored the parable to its original shape here); by adding χρόνους Ικανούς, “for quite a tim e” (the language allows for a sufficient time of absence for the action of the parable, b u t also for the developm ent o f the unexpressed assum ption on the part of the tenant farm ers that his absence was p erm anent; cf. 8:27; 23:8; Acts 8:11; 14:3; 27:9); and in o th er m inor ways. T he place of such absentee landlord arrangem ents in first-century Palestine is docum ented by H engel (ZNW 59 [1968] 1-39) and D errett (Law, 286-312). De spite attem pts to unlock the parable by m eans of appeal to particulars of this practice and popular attitudes to it, Fitzmyer (1283) is right to m aintain that the sense of the parable is in no way d ep e n d en t on such m atters. T he landlord is clearly a God-figure, and his absence allows for his dealing with the People of God through interm ediaries, and perhaps also for a future “com ing.” Even with o ut Isa 5:2, the vineyard functions as a figure for Israel (cf. Ps 80:9-14[ET 8-13]; Isa 27:2-5; Je r 2:21; Hos 10:1; Ezek 19:10-14). 10 Luke lightly recasts his M arkan source. T he m ain changes are his nonre p etitio n o f “the fa rm ers” from the first clause to the second, the related refocusing o f the second clause upon the farm ers’ giving instead of on the slave’s receiving, and the dropping of a specific m ention of the seizing of the slave (he will do the same in the case of the son in v 15). The nature of the rental agreem ent is clearly based on a share of the crop. If, as appears to be the case, vines came u n d er the stricture of Lev 19:23-25 (cf. b. Ber. 35a), then it would be the fifth year before there would be a claimable share. The ow ner’s representative fails in his task and is beaten up for his troubles. T hough there is nothing unrealistic for the first-century Palestinian world in this attem pt to take advantage of an absentee landlord, to fill out the narrative in term s of possible justifications for a w ithhold ing of the rental share of the crop is to go against the grain of the story-line

Comment

951

developm ent. As soon as we seek to move from the story to its m eaning, we can n o t avoid a link between this slave (and the o th er two) and the OT prophets (see, e.g., J e r 7:25-26). 11 More extensive Lukan recasting has happened here. Notably Luke accepts only the use of the verb άτιμάζείν, “to dishonor,” from the Markan description of this second slave’s reception. He adds this in participle form to a repetition of the language used of the re cep tio n o f the first of the slaves. M ark’s πάλιν άπέστείλεν προς αύτούς άλλον, “again he sent to them another,” becomes the m ore Lukan τροσέθετο έτερον πέμψαί (lit. “he added to send a different”) . 12 Luke totally recasts the rep o rt of the third slave and dispenses with the following generalizing reference to the sending of many slaves (in sequence). Luke repeats the προσέθετο . . . πέμψαί (lit. “he added to send”), which he used in v 11, b ut introduces the third slave as “th ird ” rath er than as “a different” one. T hen, for language variation, he describes the fate of this one with the words καί τούτον τραυματίσαντες έξέβαλον, “this one also they w ounded and thrust o u t” (“thrust o u t” is b rought forward from the account of the expulsion of the son). For Luke there is not the escalation from case to case (the use of “also” makes it clear that “w ounded” does not have such a role) that the M arkan sequence of three m anifested (but which is then u n d erm ined by the generalizing final state m ent, with its “some they beat; some they killed”) . Escalation is retained exclusively for the case of the son. This gives a greater psychological credibility to the fath er’s decision to send the son, since there has been no question of threat to life up to this point. 13 H ere again there is extensive Lukan recasting. Luke extends the brief piece of M arkan rep o rted speech into a soliloquy (he is probably responsible for the developed soliloquy at 15:17-19 and 16:3 [and cf. 12:17-19] as well; ποιήσω, “what shall I d o ,” could provide a link with Isa 5:4[LXX], but the similarity is probably fortuitous). The owner is identified as “the L o rd /m aster of the vine yard” (Luke has the language from Mark 12:9), perhaps to strengthen the God and Israel reference of the story. M ark’s 'ένα . . . υιόν άγαπητόν, “one beloved son,” becomes τον υιόν μου τον άγαπητόν , “my beloved son,” in order deliber ately to echo the language of 3:22 (see there and cf. 9:35), and thus Luke’s sonship Christology. Since M ark’s form ulation in 12:6a is clearly related to v 5b, which is almost certainly an addition to the parable, and since “beloved” is in any case at this p oint in the developm ent of the story a slightly odd elem ent, it is reasonable to think that its inclusion already in Mark (or prior to Mark), and then m ore so in Luke, is a result of an increasingly christological reading of the parable (cf. the en d of Form/Structure/Setting above). Unlike God, the owner in the Lukan parable does n o t realize the extent of the danger into which he is sending his son. L uke’s σως, “p erhaps,” prepares for the outcom e in a way that M ark’s confi d en t statem ent does not. 14 Lukan rewording is fairly extensive, bu t no t particularly significant here. ίδόντες αυτόν, “seeing him ,” marks the shift of scene: from the place of the father’s deliberations before the departure of the son to the vineyard at the point of the so n ’s arrival (M atthew also used ίδόντες in a sim ilar way). Luke introduces δίελογίζοντο, which m ust m ean here “reasoned” and not “p o n d ered ” as elsewhere in L uke’s use o f the verb. Luke drops M ark’s δεύτε, “com e” (and so weakens what may be a borrow ing of language from Gen 37:20 in the M arkan text [with wider

952

Luke 20:9-19

allusion to vv 18-20]) and elim inates the M arkan parataxis in favor of a ϊνα pur pose clause. T he identification as heir is based on this being an only son (explicit in Mark 12:6 and probably im plied by the use of άγαπητός, “beloved”). T he ten ant farm ers think of the absence of the owner as a p erm an en t state of affairs. It is, therefore, to go beyond the horizon of the story to ask w hether they assume they can claim the estate after the m urder of the son because they believe the father is already dead or because they think he has already transferred the estate to the son. The point is precisely the shortsightedness of failing to reckon with any subsequent action by the owner him self (is this already quasi-allegorical?). It is finally beside the point to discuss whether, in the legal and political state of affairs that p ertained at the time, there was any real likelihood of getting away with such an act. 15 L uke’s m ain change here from Mark (shared by Matthew, but with no exact agreem ent) is to reverse the sequence of putting to death and expulsion from the vineyard. The Markan parable thinks in term s of an exposed corpse left to be scavenged. Luke and Matthew think in term s of Jesus’ execution outside the walls of Jerusalem (cf. H eb 13:12-13; Jo h n 19:17). Despite the limiting “for quite a tim e” in v 9, the perm anence of the ow ner’s absence has increasingly becom e a credible underlying assum ption of the n arra tive. The d en o u m en t is reached with the shattering of this assum ption. Is there an allusion to Isa 5:5? If so, one m ight suggest that the parable is developed in deliberate contrast to the allegory of Isa 5. 16 Luke follows the Markan wording closely but adds the rep o rt of a reac tion, “hearing [this] they said, ‘Heaven forbid!”’ The realism of the story somewhat breaks down here, unless we see “destroy those farm ers” as simply graphic lan guage for bringing them to justice (though we m ight appeal to ancient practices of taking justice into o n e ’s own hands by family m em bers in cases of hom icide). T he wording, and perhaps even the presence of this section, is likely to be influ enced by Christian use of ju d g m en t language. With the letting of the vineyard to others, there is a re tu rn to realism (to take the sense here as involving the giving of the vineyard to others as a gift is not adequately motivated in the story, despite the ow ner’s lack of heir upon the m ur d er of his so n ), b ut this is probably still part of the secondary developm ent. The displacem ent of the Jewish leadership will be understood by Luke in term s of the em ergent role of a Christian leadership for the renew ed People of God. Despite their enthusiasm for Jesus, the People are reluctant to contem plate such a root and branch displacem ent of their leadership groups, μή yevoLro, found only here in the Gospels, is used idiomatically to express a strong negative reaction. 17 For Luke the appeal to Ps 118:22 is in response to the protest of v 16b. A series o f changes from the Markan source supports this role (έμβλέφας α ύτοϊς , “looking at th em ” [Luke dropped this verb at 18:22, 24, bu t may have added it at 22:61]; τ ι ovv, “what th e n ,” as the introduction to the question). M ark’s “this scripture” becom es τό γεγραμμένον τούτο (lit. “this the having been w ritten”; cf. 18:31; 21:22; 22:37; 24:44). The wording of Ps 118:22 is as in Mark (=LXX), but v 23 has been dro p p ed as less relevant (a n d /o r in com pensation for the com ing addition o f v 18). In Ps 118 “the builders” are part of the imagery and have no specific identity; a proverbial saying is being applied to the fate of the key figure of the psalm, a royal

Comment

953

figure who is ultimately exalted after having been previously dow ntrodden, hu m iliated, and th reatened with death. But in the Gospel usage, because of the connection with the parable, “the builders” are no t simply people who handle building stones b u t those who are the builders of Israel, that is, those who are the leaders of Israel. The ju d g m en t m ade by the builders is juxtaposed with the ac tual im portance of the stone, and the im portance of the stone is vindicated by its final place in the building being constructed. In Luke’s hands and after the death of the son in the parable, this m ust point finally to the vindication of Jesus through resurrection (cf. Acts 2:29-36; etc.). The im agery involved in “the head of the co rn e r” is disputed. It may be a foundation stone binding two walls at the corner of a building, or it may be a keystone locking into place the stones of an arch or some similarly constructed feature of a building. T here are other suggestions as well. T he difference of im agery does no t affect the final sense. Probably Luke sees the resurrection vindication of Jesus as preparatory to the em ergence o f the new Christian leadership of the People of God (cf. Acts 1-2). In this way, he sees the Psalm quotation as supporting the conclusion of the parable with its transfer of the vineyard to others. 18 Despite the inclusion of this m aterial in m ost texts of Matt 21:44 (it is om itted by D 33 it sys Eus), the verse is norm ally considered to be secondary there. If it were to be original, the source judgm ents m ade above would need to be revised. T he m aterial represents an elaboration of the role of the stone of v 17, b u t with im agery that is quite incom patible with that of the quotation from Ps 118. D oran (CBQ 45 [1983] 61-67) offers a no t unattractive case for taking the verse as a w arrior’s boast (taking the uses of πίπτείη, “fall,” in the sense of “fall u pon in attack”) , b ut the Lukan Jesus is hardly such a warrior. To be preferred is the traditional explanation, which finds allusion here both to Isa 8:14-15 (note the linking o f Ps 118:22 and Isa 8:14 also in 1 Pet 2:8) and to Dan 2:34, 44-45. T he falling involved is in the form er case likely to be that of falling from a height and being crushed upon im pact with this unyielding stone, and in the latter case the stone does the falling and shatters the one unlucky enough to be where it lands (the verb λικμάν used here originally m eant only “winnow,” but by m eta phorical developm ent it comes to m ean “scatter,” “flatten,” “destroy,” “shatter,” etc.; this verb is found in the T heodotion text of Dan 2:44). Luke is drawing on C hristian tradition to elaborate his stone reference from Ps 118:22. In the con text of the Lukan parable, the apparent vulnerability of the son is contrasted with the actual and ultim ate vulnerability of all others in relation to his perm anence and solidity as the “stone.” A somewhat similar saying is found in Midr. Esth 3:6: “If a stone falls on a pot, woe to the pot! If the pot falls on the stone, woe to the pot! Either way, woe to the pot!” The challenge is to side with the son in his perm anence or to be set aside, with the leaders who think they can do away with the one who threatens their autonom ous claim upon the vineyard. 19 Luke drops Mark’s departure clause from the end. Otherwise, he builds his m ore elaborate statem ent fairly closely upon the Markan wording. Luke introduces here the leadership groups with which he opened this section in 19:47. He makes use of the Septuagintal idiom “to lay hands u p o n ,” which he will also use at 21:12 (the same idiom is found in Matt 26:50; cf. Luke 22:53). He adds έν αύτη τη ώρα, “in that h o ur,” which he also has (with or without έιή at 2:38; 10:21; 13:31; 24:33; cf. 7:21. As already found in the introduction to the section 19:47-48, Jesus’

954

Luke 20:9-19

good standing with the People thwarts the destructive purposes of the leaders. The parable has clearly been told with reference to the leaders. But instead of checking their impulses, it only makes them m ore determ ined than ever to destroy Jesus. Explanation In this episode, Jesus takes the initiative. He tells a parable to the People, clearly a parable about their leaders. The hostility of the leaders to Jesus is portrayed as the culm ination of a history of unwillingness to be accountable to God. In this heightened situation of the presence of the ow ner’s son, they are now confronted with their final opportunity for com pliance. G od’s ultim ate m essenger may seem vulnerable to their destructive impulses, bu t their response to him represents a final parting of the ways. The “vulnerable” son will prove to be an indestructible rock, and the owner whose absence has been traded upon will re tu rn to reassign the vineyard to oth er tenant farm ers (= leaders of G od’s People). A certain inspiration for the parable comes from Isa 5:1-7, where the owner of a vineyard is also a God-figure. While in Isaiah the focus is on the vineyard itself, in o ur parable the focus is on those who have responsibility for the vineyard, that is the leaders of G od’s People, identified in v 19 as the scribes and the chief priests. In o u r parable, the owner is absent and deals with his tenants by m eans of a series of messengers. At the start of the parable it is clear that his absence is only tem porary, b u t as the action unfolds, the key figures, and even the listeners, lose sight of this fact. This m otif has to do with the perceived rem oteness and there fore powerlessness of God. In the end, the parable declares any thought of G od’s powerlessness to be a delusion. T hough we should no t think of each of the slaves as representing a particular prophet, the dispatching of a series of slaves to ask for the ow ner’s share of the crop corresponds to the way in which God has throughout Israel’s history m ade known what he requires from his People. The im agery of the parable highlights the leaders’ im portance for this accountability to God: they m ust bear the weight of responsibility for seeing that what has been prom ised to God is in fact deliv ered to him. T hough the parable has a real correspondence with the story of G od’s deal ings with his People, it is a story in its own right and needs to be read as such. We will miss its power if we see it only as a coded account of the sending of the prophets and then o f the Son. T here are even parts of the story that are no t true of G od’s dealings (for exam ple the suffering fate of Jesus is no t at all uncertain from the start, as m ight be suggested by v 13). T he ten an t farm ers in the story do no t think beyond the im m ediate present. They think that the owner can only deal with them from a distance, so that the destruction of the son and heir will release the vineyard for claim by possession. They have sorely miscalculated. T here is no single event with which we can identify the com ing of the owner to destroy and reassign. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 certainly led to an extensive destruction of the leadership structure of Jerusalem and of Judaism m ore broadly, but the new leadership that em erged after that war is certainly not in view here. T he reassignm ent is rath er that seen in Acts with the developm ent of the Christian leadership of the renew ed People of God.

Bibliography

955

Despite their enthusiasm for Jesus, the People are reluctant to contem plate such a ro o t and branch displacem ent of their leadership groups. But the Lukan Jesus presses the point by turning to Ps 118:22. “The builders” in that verse are to be identified with the leaders, and contrasted with their negative ju d g m en t of a certain stone is that stone’s ultimately central role in the building (the actual im agery is in detail u n ce rtain ). In Luke’s hands, and after the death of the son in the parable, this m ust point finally to the vindication of Jesus through resurrec tion (cf. Acts 2:29-36; etc.). T he im portance of this stone is elaborated in v 18 with statem ents that prob ably find their ultim ate basis in Isa 8:14-15 and Dan 2:34, 44-45. W hether the stone is seen as the moving projectile that encounters the individual, or the indi vidual is the moving projectile that encounters the stone, collision will prove disastrous. The im m ediate vulnerability of the son of the parable is to be con trasted with the ultim ate vulnerability of all else in relation to his perm anence and solidity as the “stone.” T he challenge is to side with the son in his perm a nence or to be set aside, with the leaders, who think they can do away with the one who threatens their autonom ous claim upon the vineyard. The addition of this section on the stone causes us to go back to the parable and to focus rath er m ore on the son. In particular, a renew ed interest in the identity of the son highlights the role of the phrase “my beloved son” in v 13. This is the same phrase used by the voice from heaven in 3:22. Clearly we are to find here the same understanding of Jesus as one with a unique relationship to God as father. T he leaders realize that the parable has been told with reference to them , but instead of checking their impulses, it only makes them m ore determ ined than ever to destroy Jesus. For the present, Jesus’ good standing with the People thwarts their destructive purposes.

“Is It Lawful to Pay Tribute to Caesar?”

(20:20-26)

B ibliography Abel, E. L. ‘Jesus and the Cause of Jewish N ational In d ep e n d en ce .” REJ 128 (1969) 24752. Abrahams, I. “Give unto Caesar.” In Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels. Series 1. Cambridge: University Press, 1917. 62-65. Anon. “L’im pot a Cesar (Luc, 20, 20-26).” SemiotBib 18 (1980) 8-15. Barrett, C. K. “T he New Testam ent D octrine of C hurch and State.” In New Testament Essays. London: SPCK, 1972. 1-19. Bergen, P. van. “L’im pot du a Cesar.” LumVieSup 50 (1960) 12-18. Bornkamm, G. Jesus of Nazareth. New York: H arper and Row, 1975. 120-24. Brandon, S. G. F. The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth. London: Batsford, 1968. 66-68. Bruce, F. F.

“R ender to Caesar.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: University Press, 1984. 249-63. Cassidy, R. J. Jesus, Politics and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1978. 55-61. Castelli, E. “H erm eneutik u n d Kairos.” TF 58 (1976) 60-64. Derrett, J. D. M. “Luke’s Perspective on Tribute to Caesar.” In Political Issues in Luke-Acts, ed. R. J. Cassidy et al. 38-48.------------ . “‘Render to Caesar.’” In Law. 313-38.

956

Luke 20:20-26

Giblin, C. H. ‘“ The Things o f G od’ in the Q uestion C oncerning T ribute to Caesar (Lk 20:25; Mk 12:17; Mt 22:21).” CBQ 33 (1971) 510-27. Goppelt, L. “Die F reih eit zur

Kaisersteuer (Zu Mk. 12,17 u nd Rom 13,1-7).” In Ecclesia und Res Publica. FS K. D. Schmidt, ed. G. Kretschm ar and B. Lohse. G ottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. 40-50; ET “T he F reedom to Pay the Im perial Tax (Mk 12,17).” SE 2 [=TU 87] (1964) 183-94. Haenchen, E. Der Weg Jesu. 406-9. Hart, H. St. J. “T he Coin o f ‘R ender u n to Caesar . . .’ (A N ote on Some Aspects of Mark 12:13-17; Matt. 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-26).” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: University Press, 1984. 241-48. Kennard, J. S. Render to God: A Study of the Tribute Passage. New York: O xford University, 1950. Loewe, Η. M. J. “Render unto Caesar”: Religious and Political Royalty in Palestine. Cambridge: University Press, 1940. Petzke, G. “D er historische Jesus in d er sozialethischen Diskussion.” In Jesus Christus in Histone und Theologie. FS H. C onzelm ann, ed. G. Strecker. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1975. 223-35. Rist, M. “Caesar or God (Mark 12:13-17)? A Study in F orm geschichte.”JR 16 (1936) 317-31. Salin, E. ‘Jesus u n d die Wechsler.” A ppendix in A. B en-D avid, Jerusalem und Tyros: E in Beitrag zur palastinensischen M u nz- und Wirtschaftgeschichte (126 a.C.—5 7 p.C.). Kleine Schriften zur W irtschaftsgeschichte. B asel/ Tubingen: Kyklos/M ohr-Siebeck, 1969. 49-55. Schrage, W. Die Christen und der Staat nach dem Neuen Testament. Gu tersloh: M ohn, 1971. 30-40. Schramm, T. Markus-Stoff. 168-70. Stauffer, E. Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches. London: SCM, 1955. 112-37. Stock, A. “‘R ender to Caesar.’” BiTod 62 (1972) 929-34. Tagawa, K. “Jesus critiquant l'ideologie theocratique: U ne etude de Marc 12, 13-17.” In Reconnaissance a S. de Dietrich. CBFV. Paris: Foi et Vie, 1971. 117-25. Volkl, R. Christ und Welt nach dem Neuen Testament. W urzburg: Echter, 1961. 113-15.

Translation

20So they watched [him] closely and sent spies who pretended to be righteous so that they might catch him out in his speech, in order toa hand him over to the jurisdiction and power of the governor. 21They asked him, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach truthfully and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God: 22is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar or not?”23He realized their trickery and said to them, “bShow me a denarius.c 24Whose image and inscription does it have [on it]?”They d said, “Caesar’s. ” 25He said to them, “So you should give to Caesar the [things] that are Caesar’s, and to God the [things] that are God’s. ”26They were unable to catch him out in hise speech in the presence of the People. Marveling at his answer they were reduced to silence. Notes a T he unusual use o f ώ στε here o f purpose is “c o rre c te d ” to by A W Ψ / 1,13 etc. b A C D W Θ Ψ etc. conform to M atthew and Mark here with the addition o f μ ε πειράζετε, “why do you try m e?” c ‫ א‬C L 0266vid/ 113 etc. add δέ εδειξαν, “they show ed,” to provide a com pletion along the lines o f th at in M atthew and Mark. d A re d u n d a n t άποκριθέντες, “having answ ered,” is supplied by A C D W Θ Ψ / 113‫ ׳‬etc. and could be original (it does n o t com e from M atthew or Mark). e αύτον, “his,” is n o t found in ‫ א‬B L 892 etc. and may n o t be original.

Form/Structure/Setting After Jesus’ initiative in 20:9-19, the scribes and the chief priests again resum e the initiative in their altercation with Jesus. In pursuit of their desire to entrap

Comment

957

him (19:47-48; 20:19), they adopt a new strategy, and here act secretly by m eans of agents. T he M arkan sequence continues with no indication that Luke has any other source (there are versions of this pericope in the early second-century Egerton Papyrus 2, frg. 2r; Gos. Thom. 100; and Justin Martyr, Apol. 1.17.2, but these are all clearly secondary). At the beginning and the end, Luke’s adaptation of his source is particularly evident (in v 20 there is already a preparation for 23:2; in v 26 some of the Lukan language of v 20 recurs, and Luke introduces “in the pres ence of the P eople” to connect with what is a leitm otif for him throughout this section). T he account takes the form of a p ronouncem ent story with the weight falling squarely upo n the p ronouncem ent of Jesus in v 25. The pronouncem ent, how ever, could n ot have been transm itted without its narrative context, which, except perhaps for the identification of the senders and the final note of am azem ent, m ust be considered to be as old as is the transmission of the p ronouncem ent itself. T here has scarcely been any questioning of the historicity of the episode, ap art from Petzke’s attem p t (“H istorische Jesu s,” 223-35; and cf. E. Hirsch, Fruhgeschichte des Evangeliums. Erster Buck: Das Werden des Markusevangeliums, 2nd ed. [Tubingen, 1951] 131), in the interests of creating a unified sense that fits into the historical m inistry of Jesus, to discredit the final p art of v 25 as added for the purpose of later Christian apologetic to dem onstrate that Christians saw no tension between the dem ands of the state and those of God (Petzke sees in the original a fundam ental criticism by Jesus of the world system with its service to m am m on, and of his antagonists who show by their possession of the Roman coin that they have sold their souls to this system [to be logically consistent of course they m ust pay the taxes]). Petzke attributes a radicality to Jesus’ views on m oney that cannot be consistently sustained from the historical Jesus materials. His understanding of the pericope needs to be scrutinized in the light of the considerations adduced in the Comment below. Comment U nder the cover of deceit, spies from the scribes and chief priests try to trap Jesus into com prom ising himself, either with the Rom an authorities or with the nationalist sentim ent of the People with whom he is so popular. T hough he gives a straighforward answer to their question, Jesus succeeds in turning the spotlight o f scrutiny away from him self and back upon the spies themselves. 20 T hough he otherwise prefers m iddle forms, Luke will be responsible for παρατήρησα ντες', “watched closely.” M ark’s Pharisees and H erodians disappear as distractions in connection with the dem arcation that Luke has provided be tween the opposed antagonists (see v 19). Luke elaborates M ark’s “sent . . . in o rd er to en tra p ” in term s of spies sent to infiltrate the enthusiastic crowds of the People, to whom Jesus was addressing his teaching. In the Infancy Gospel, righ teousness is an im portant quality in connection with openness to the eschatological fulfillm ent of the divine purpose that begins there. The pretense of righteous ness is introduced by Luke also in 16:15; and cf. 10:29; 18:9. The idiomatic use of λαμβάνει v (lit. “to take”) of catching som eone out in som ething is w ithout paral lel in the NT (apart from its repetition in v 26), but is known elsewhere (see

958

Luke 20:20-26

X enophon, Anab. 4.7.12). The desire of the leaders to destroy Jesus is given po litical contours here by Luke with his addition o f the final clause (cf. 23:2-5). As in 4:29 (and cf. variant readings at 9:52; Acts 20:24), the ώστε used to introduce this clause expresses purpose and no t simply result. 21 Luke accepts as skeleton for this verse M ark’s “teacher, we know th a t” and “b u t truly teach the way of G od” (the texts also share a use of “face,” but this is em bedded in somewhat different idiom s). For the rest, he extensively reform u lates b u t with little change of sense. By introducing “they asked,” Luke labels the pream ble as already part of the question. O n the address as “teacher,” see at 7:40. λαμβάνεις πρόσωπο!/is a Lukan Septuagintalism, n o t docum ented in classical or Hellenistic Greek (e.g., Lev 19:15; Ps 82:2; Lam 4:16; cf. Fitzmyer, 115, 1295). T he “way of G od” im agery is an extension of the use of the image of walking (in G od’s com m andm ents) for the concrete living ou t of o n e ’s life (in obedience to God). T he im agery is found often in the OT (e.g., D eut 8:6; 10:12-13; Isa 30:21). T he pream ble is m eant to be disarming; it is part of the subterfuge of these spies. 22 T he Lukan word o rder is slightly different from the Markan. Luke uses the m ore general φόροv, which could apply to any kind of tribute or tax, in place o f M ark’s κήνσον, which is a loanword from Latin and may be restricted in sense to a head tax. And he allows a personalizing ήμάς, “us,” to take the place of M ark’s continuation with “should we give, or should we not give?” For Luke these spies h o p ed to get what is claim ed against Jesus at 23:2: they w anted som ething against him that would impress a Rom an court. T here h ad clearly been rioting and rebellion at the time when, as a prelim i n ary to in co rp o ratin g it into the taxing stru ctu re o f the em pire, Q uirinius conducted a m ajor census in Palestine in A.D. 6-7 (see Josephus, War 2.11 8; A nt 18.1-8). Josephus links the role of Judas the Galilean in this revolt with the em er gence of the Zealot m ovem ent and its leadership in the final revolt that led to the downfall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but there is reason to be cautious about this connection. Nonetheless, the com bination of three things would suggest that the appropriateness of these foreign levees would be a perennial area of question ing: (i) extrem ely burdensom e levels of taxation (the Rom an taxes are to be seen as adding to what was already a quite heavy level of religiously based taxation; some estimates p u t the total tax b u rden as high as 40 percent); (ii) a natural antipathy to foreign dom ination; and (iii) an understandable conviction that as G od’s People their pro p er natural state was as a free nation subject to God alone (the traditional prophetic view, however, was “that this was Yahweh’s ju d g m en t on his people for their unfaithfulness, and m ust be endured until he lifted it; until then, the w ithholding of tribute from a foreign ru ler was an act of rebellion against Yahweh” [Bruce, “R ender to Caesar,” 255]). The language εξεστιν, “is it lawful,” raises the possibility that some kind of failure of loyalty to God and his law m ight be involved in m aking these tax payments. 23 Luke has totally reform ulated here, but with only m odest change of meanin g . M a rk ’s “h y p o c risy ” has b e c o m e “tric k e ry ,” a n d L uke has n o th in g corresponding to M ark’s “Why pu t m e to the test?” Does Jesus’ awareness of the motivation o f his questioners condition the role a n d /o r m eaning of the answer to come? 24 Luke abbreviates and slightly recasts his Markan source here. The denarius had an image of the head of the em peror on one side with an inscription bearing

Comment

959

his nam e and designation (the obverse varied from time to time; see H art, “T he C oin,” 241-48, for a discussion of the denarius seen by Jesus). Fitzmyer (1296) suggests that “the image and inscription on an ancient coin would have been understood as a property seal; the coins belonged to Caesar.” This may be too strong, b ut we can at least say that his nam e upon them entitled him to set the term s and conditions of their use. Though the potential for such a sensitivity is clearly there, it is doubtful w hether the prohibition of images in Exod 20:4, 23 affected first century Jewish use of Rom an coinage (the coinage used for the tem ple tax had the image of a god on it; but cf. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 9.21, who speaks of a sect of Essenes who would not handle coins because of the images they bore; since, however, in o ther respects his inform ation seems to be confused in this section, the statem ent m ust be treated with caution). 25 Luke’s alterations here are minor, the m ost significant being the inser tion of the inferential particle τοίννυ m eaning “h e n c e /s o /in d e e d .” The sense of this statem ent, which constitutes the heart of the pericope, rem ains disputed. Major questions are as follows, (i) Is the statem ent of general application, or is its application to be limited in some way? (a) Does the answer m eet craftiness with craftiness and therefore rem ain purely ad hom inem , at least in its first half? ( b) Does the answer apply only to Rom an coinage users, as those already fatally comprom ised with the foreign overlords? (c) Is the answer to be narrowly related to the leadership groups from whom the questioning comes? (ii) Is άπόδοτε to be ren d ered “give” or “give back” (and on the second translation, should we understand that there is a call to withdraw from participation in the Roman economy) ? (iii) W hat is the precise sense of the genitives “of Caesar” and “of G od”? Is it (a) “owned by,” (b) “owing to,” or (c) “to which he has a rig h t”? (iv) How does the added καί τά του θεόν τω θεω (lit. “and to God, the [things] of G od”) fit into the developm ent? (a) It lacks a supporting statem ent com parable to that pro vided for the Caesar half of the statem ent: should we provide as understood a parallel supporting statem ent in term s of the divine image in hum anity [as many, b ut esp. Giblin, CBQ 33 (1971) 520-25, who points to Isa 44:5 to parallel the “inscription” on the coin] or should we treat this second elem ent as a pious in trusive addition to the original [as Petzke, “Historische Jesus,” 223-35]? ( b) Are the paralleled elem ents to receive equal stress (as in a traditional two-kingdoms view, b ut as is also the case if we refer “the things of G od” to the tem ple tax), or is the second m eant totally to overshadow the first (pay the taxes by all means, but they hardly m atter—what m atters [in the present m om ent of eschatological ur gency] is radical obedience to God), or even to overturn its natural sense (let Caesar have his coins, bu t he has no rights over the land of Israel, which belongs only to God [as B randon, Τrial, 66-68])? (iv) Finally does irony play a role here? While n o t all the nuances will be caught, almost all of the existing views can be m apped in relation to this set of questions (which it m ust be noted are interlocked and cannot, therefore, be addressed simply in sequence; though it clearly involves irony, a view that defies allocation is that of Tagawa [‘Jesus critiquant,” 117-25], who finds a sense som ething like “you who impose the tem ple tax as ‘of G od’ m ight as well pay the Rom an taxes as ‘of Caesar,’ since both reflect the same oppressive exploitation of the peo p le”). The role of the coin would seem to exclude any interpretation that does not give considerable weight to the first of the paralleled elem ents. The irony in the

960

L uke 20:20-26

account, such as it is, is the irony of the contrast between ready use of Roman coinage for its com m ercial advantages, but lack o f interest in being so linked to the Romans when a cost rath er than an advantage is involved. In the thought developm ent an anchor point for Jesus’ introduction of the claim of God is pro vided by the use of εζεστιυ, “is it lawful,” in v 22: the possibility is envisaged there o f defining the requirem ent of God negatively in term s o f withdrawal of taxes from the Romans (and so aligning piety and self-interest); Jesus defines it instead positively in term s of giving God his due (B arrett [“C hurch and State,” 7] notes the link between the ow ner’s share of the crop in the preceding parable and the ren d erin g to God called for here). This allows us to take with full force the first of the paralleled elem ents, but also to recognize a m easure of end-stress. The link via εξεστιυ precludes the need to introduce the hum an im aging of God into the th o u g h t here. T here is finally no reason for limiting the application of the statem ent in any way (the role of the coin is by contrast m ore situation specific, designed as it is to preclude the answer being taken in any “u npatriotic” sense). 26 Mark finishes here with a note of the am azem ent of his hearers. Luke expands upo n this in the conclusion that he fashions for this episode (the idiom using λαμβάυεα ' is repeated from v 20 bu t this time with ρήματος for “w ord” in place of the λόγου of v 20; Luke introduces “the P eople” yet again into this sec tion [cf. m ost recently v 19]; σιγάν, “to be silent,” is Lukan idiom ). The mission o f the spies has failed. They have gained nothing that can be used to forward their desire to destroy Jesus no r have they been able to discredit him in the eyes o f the People: they have themselves been reduced to silence, am azed at Jesus’ capacity to deal with their stratagem. As in 20:1-8, an initiative from Jesus’ an tagonists has been neutralized and tu rn ed around. Explanation T he attem pt by the scribes and chief priests to bring Jesus to destruction con tin u es h e re by m eans of secret envoys who in filtrate the crowds o f Je su s’ enthusiastic listeners. Vocally professing their own affirm ation of Jesus, they ask him a question they think will either leave him com prom ised with the Rom an authorities or alienated from the nationalistic sympathies of the People. T he spies feign the righteousness that was the setting in the Infancy Gospel for the reception of the beginning of G od’s present new initiative, but their desire is to have a charge on which to hand him over to the Rom an governor. As becom es clear in 23:2, the leaders and their envoys are so far from righteousness that they cheerfully invent a charge before the governor, though Jesus has failed to provide them justification. W hat the envoys say about Jesus in pretense is in fact a true description of this tem ple teacher. The m ovem ent that developed from him would at times be known as “the Way” (Acts 24:14, 22; the im agery of the way is related to Jewish im agery o f the conduct o f life as a walk). Perhaps Jesus’ lack of partiality to which his questioners refer is precisely what we should find striking about his answer. T he question was about taxes. And taxes were no m ore popular in Jesus’ day than in our own, indeed less so since they were a heavy burden on a not very affluent people; they were levied by foreign overlords; and they violated the Jew ish P eople’s sense of what was pro p er for the very chosen of God, who should be

Bibliography

961

a free nation subject to God alone. T here had been riots in A.D. 6-7 when Pales tine first came u n d er the taxing structure of the em pire, and various petitions to Rome can be docum ented from the period, seeking an am elioration of the tax burden. T he form of the question seems to suggest that the taxes m ight not only be a bad thing, b u t that paym ent o f them m ight represent some kind of failure of loyalty to God and his law. Jesus sees through the m asquerade and form s his answer accordingly. His an swer will have its basis in the facts of life both for the leaders and for the rank and file of the Jewish People. A denarius would n o t be too hard to produce for visual inspection: such an am ount could conceivably be carried by even the poorest laborer, for whom it represented one day’s pay. The link between the denarius and Caesar was h ard to miss with his p o rtrait and his nam e and designation stam ped clearly into its surface. The Jewish People readily used his coinage to advantage in their com m ercial life. The denarius so readily produced and the image and inscription upon it be come the starting point for Jesus’ answer to the question posed him. The elem ents of the answer are clear enough, but precisely how Jesus’ thinking works here, and ju st what the implications are have rem ained somewhat less clear (various questions are identified in Comment above and sample views identified). Perhaps we can best unravel Jesus’ answer in the following way. Jesus’ reply is based upon noting the contrast between ready use of Rom an coinage for its com m ercial advantages and lack of interest in being so linked to the Romans when a cost rath er than an advantage is involved. To get perspective here we m ust also reach back to v 22, where “is it lawful” envisages the possibility of defining the requirem ent of God negatively in term s of withdrawal of taxes from the Romans. This represents a convenient alignm ent of piety and self-inter est, which Jesus (in ag reem ent with the attitude of the OT pro p h ets to the subjugation of the nation by foreigners) rejects on the basis of the general par ticipation in the econom ic structure provided by the Romans (cf. Je r 29:7). In Jesus’ view one shows that one is law-abiding and pious, not by w ithholding the taxes dem anded by Caesar, bu t by actively giving God his due. We should not miss the link between the ow ner’s share of the crop in the preceding parable and the ren dering to God called for here. T hough Jesus was dealing only with the specific situation of taxes to Rome in his own day and situation, there is at least a beginning point here for the exhor tations of Rom 13:1-7 and 1 Pet 2:13-17 in connection with the Christian response to the role o f the state.

“A t the Resurrection, Whose Wife Will This Woman Be?” (20:27- 4 0) Bibliography Baumbach, G. “D er sad d u zaisch e K onservativism u s.” In Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. M aier a n d J. Schreiner. W urzburg: Echter, 1973. 201-13. Bianchi, U.

962

Luke 20:27-40

“T he Religio-historical Relevance of Luke 20:34-36.” In Studies in Gnosticism and Helle nistic Religions. FS G. Quispel, ed. R. Van d en Broek and M. J. V erm aseren. L eiden: Brill, 1981. 31-37. Carton, G. “C om m e des anges d an s le c ie l.” BVC 28 (1959) 46-52. Charpentier, E. “Tous vivent p o u r lui: Lc 2 0 ,2 7 -3 8 .” AsSeign n.s. 63 (1971) 82-94. Cohn-Sherbok, D. M. “Jesus’ Defence of the Resurrection o f the D ead.” JSAT 11 (1981) 64-73. Daalen, D. H. van. “Some O bservations on Mark 12,24-27.” SE 4 [=TU 102] 24145. Downing, F. G. “T he Resurrection of the Dead: Jesus and P hilo. ‫״‬J S N T 15 (1982) 4 250. Dreyfus, F. “L’A rgum ent scripturaire de Jesus en faveur de la resurrection des m orts (Marc, XII, 26 -2 7 ).” R B 66 (1959) 213-24. Ellis, E. E. ‘Jesus, the Sadducees and Q u m ran .” N T S 10 (1963-64) 274-79. Gundry, R. H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew ’s Gospel NovTSup 18. L eiden: Brill, 1967. 20-22. Haenchen, E. DerWegJesu. 409-12. Janzen, J. G. “R esurrection and H erm eneutics: O n Exodus 3.6 in Mark 12.26.” JSN T 23 (1985) 4 3 58. Kilgallen, J. J. “The Sadducees and R esurrection from the Dead: Luke 20,27-40.” Bib 67 (1986) 478-95. Le Moyne, J. Les Sadduceens. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1972. 123-27, 12935. Manns, F. “La technique du ,Al T iqra’ dans les evangiles.” RevScRel 64 (1990) 1-7. Meyer, R. “Σαδδουκαΐος.” TDNT 7:35-54. Mudiso Mba Mundla, J. G. Jesus und die Fu hrer Israels: Studien zu den sog. Jerusalemer Streitgesprachen. NTAbh NF 17. Munster: A schendorff, 1984. 71-109, 299-305. Muller, K. ‘Jesus u nd die Sadduzaer.” In Biblische Randbemerkungen. FS R. S chnackenburg, ed. H. M erklein and J. Lange. W urzburg: Echter, 1974. 3-24. Rigaux, B. Dieu l'a ressuscite: Exegese et theologie biblique. Gem bloux: D uculot, 1973. 24-39, 46-51. Schramm, T. Markus-Stoff 170-71. Schubert, K. “Die Entw icklung d e r A uferste hungslehre von der nachexilischen bis zur fru hrabbinischen Zeit.” BZ 6 (1962) 177-214. Schwankl, O. Die Sadduzaerfrage (Mk. 12, 1 8 -2 7 parr): Eine exegetisch-theologische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung. BBB 66. Frankfurt/M : A thenaum , 1987. Strawson, W. Jesus and the Future Life: A Study in the Synoptic Gospels. London: Epworth, 1959. 203-10. Suhl, A. Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium. G utersloh: M ohn, 1965. 67-72. Trowitzsch, M. “Gemeinschaft der Lebenden un d der Toten: Lk 20,38 als Text d er Ekklesiologie.” Z TK 79 (1982) 221-29. Weir, T. H. “Luke xx. 20.” ExpTim 28 (1916-17) 426. Wiles, M. “Studies in Texts: Lk 20.34-36.” Th 60 (1957) 500-502.

Translation

27 Some of the Sadducees, who opposea [the idea that] there is a resurrection, came up to [him] and put a question, 28saying, “Moses wrote for us, 'If someone’s brother dies, and he has a wife, but is childless, then his brother must take the woman and raise up offspnng for his brother. ’29Now there wereb seven brothers. The first, having taken a wife, died childless. 30Both the second 31and the third took her, and [the rest of] the seven as well: they did not leave children and they died. 32Later on the woman also died. 33The womanc then— in the resurrection— of which of them will she bed wife? For the seven [all] had had her as wife. ” 34Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; 33but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36For they are no longer able to die, since they are equal to angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37That the dead are raised, even Moses made known, [in the passage] about the bush, when it speaks about '[the] Lord the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God ofJacob.’ 38He is not God of the dead, but of the living! For, so far as God is concerned all are alive!” 39Some of the scribes responded, “Teacher, you have spoken well!”40For they no longer dared to ask him anything.

Form/Structure/Setting

963

Notes a Gr. άνηλέγοντες'. T he simple verb (as in Mark) is read by ‫ א‬B C D L 0 / 1 etc. b 1‫ א‬D q sys have the 77‫־‬ap ’ ήμΐν, “am ong us,” of the M atthean text. c T he p e n d an t construction here is avoided by the omission of ή γννή, “the w om an,” in ‫ א‬A D W Θ Ψ / 113 etc. d Gr. γίνεται. ‫ א‬D G L Θ Ψ f x etc. read εσταί, “will b e ,” as in Mark and Matthew. T he sense is unchanged. e D f f 2 i q r 1 sysc (and cf. a c e 1) read, as well or instead, γεννώνταί καί γεννώσιν, “are begotten and beget.” Marshall (741) thinks th at this poorly attested variant may be original.

Form/Structure/Setting T hough we should probably think of the Sadducees as belonging to the lead ership classes set against Jesus, the concern of “the chief priests, scribes, and elders” to see Jesus destroyed, prom inent from the beginning of the section (19:47), now fades from sight, only to re tu rn with renew ed vigor at the beginning of the next section (see 22:1-2). In the rem aining units of this “half-section” to 21:4 (cf. at 20:1-8), Jesus will be critical of the opinions or actions of different segm ents of the leadership classes of Jerusalem . The teaching em phasis of this section contin ues. Luke co n tinues here with the M arkan sequence. T h ere is some question w hether the use of an o th er source is reflected in vv 34b-36. A second source is n ot impossible, b u t both the language and the thought are of a sufficiently Lukan hue to make such a suggestion unnecessary, and certainly unprovable. The last clause of v 38b is likely to be part of the same developm ent. Vv 39-40 are L uke’s com pensation for his failure to include the following M arkan episode (12:2834): v 39 is based on Mark 12:28, while v 40 is a version of Mark 12:34. T he m aterial is in the form of an elaborate p ro nouncem ent story (a contro versy dialogue), b ut as in the preceding pericope (20:20-26), the narrative setting m u s t b e j u d g e d to b e as o ld as th e p r o n o u n c e m e n t. T h e d isc u ssio n o f w h e th e r this episode should be traced to the historical Jesus focuses upon v 37-38 (Mark 12:26-27), which Bultm ann (History, 26) considered to be an addition to an ear lier form. This is less likely in view of Lohm eyer’s identification (Markus, 256 and n. 5) already in Mark 12:24 of the bipolar structure that is taken up chiastically in v 25 and vv 26-27 (“power of G od” in v 25; “Scriptures” in vv 26-27). The main reasons for denying the scriptural argum ent to the historical Jesus seem to be: (i) that the historical Jesus does n o t quote Scripture very often, but the early church does; (ii) that when Jesus does quote Scripture, his way of using it is not what we find here; and (iii) that in any case the argum ent involved here is so weak that it should n o t be attributed to the historical Jesus. T here is a certain validity to points i and ii, b u t in an exchange with Sadducees Jesus may well have adopted a strat egy that was unusual for him but had particular appropriateness given their starting point. In any case we m ust be wary of allowing the core in which we have the greatest confidence to be an iron h and lim iting what is possible for the historical Jesus. Point iii has no pro p er place in scholarship and is likely to reveal m ore about the cultural assum ptions of our scholarly tradition than about historical probabilities. As discussed below, the argum ent, while m aking its own assump tions, is hardly such as to be ju d g ed at once to be specious.

964

Luke 20:27-40

Comment Some Sadducees come and seek to destroy the credibility of Jesus’ belief in resurrection beyond death. But it is their own lim ited capacity to envision the glories o f the future that God has for his People that is finally revealed. And it is they who, despite their com m itm ent to the Mosaic books, have failed to plum b the depths of the com m itm ent of God to his People reflected in the traditional P entateuchal wording “God of A braham and God of Isaac and God of Jaco b .” 27 Lukan touches here include for καί as the initial link word; the use of τινες (lit. “certain ones” [Luke appears to have missed the fact that the displacem ent into the genitive of “Sadducees” produced by the introduction of τινες would require in strict gram m ar that the following phrase (in the nom inative) should now be applied to the τινες and n o t generally to the Sadducees; this cannot be his in ten tio n ]); and a reduction of M ark’s finite verbs έρχονται, “com e,” and λέγουσιν, “say,” to the participles προσελθόντβς', “com ing to ,” and άντιλέγοντες (lit. “saying against”). Sadducees occur only here in the Gospel, bu t are to be found also in Acts 4:1; 5:17; 23:6-8 (aside from the Synoptic parallels to this present episode [where Matthew has an additional use in the transition verse at the end o f his version], they are found elsewhere in the NT only in a num ber of M atthean texts where Matthew sets them in parallel to the Pharisees [3:7; 16:1, 6, 11, 12]). T he nam e “Sadducees” (Hebrew ‫ צ דו קי ם‬, sdwqym) derives from “Zadok” (H e brew ‫ צ ד ו ק‬, sdwq) an d refers to th at Zadok whose d escen d an ts becam e the authorized high-priestly line in the post-exilic period (see esp. Ezek 40:46; 43:19; Sir 51:12[Hebrew]). The Sadducees in the first century seem to have been an aristocratic group of m em bers and supporters of this high-priestly family who had to some extent developed their own distinctive views on m atters of faith and practice (see Josephus, War 2.165-66; Ant. 13.297-98; 18.16-17). They were strongly oriented to the pentateuch (the view of m any of the C hurch Fathers that they entirely rejected the prophets is probably an overstatem ent; while they cer tainly had their own traditions of pentateuchal interpretation, they were at odds with the authority given in Pharisaic circles to traditional developm ents), and of particular interest here is their disbelief in the resurrection of the dead. The ap proval of Jesus’ answer, to be registered in v 39 by some of the scribes, reflects the contrasting Pharisaic affirm ation of belief in resurrection (of which Luke will make particular mileage in Acts 22:6-9). 28 A good p art of the M arkan wording is preserved. The m ain changes are: “and leaves a wife” becom es “having a wife”; “does no t leave a child” becom es “is childless.” In v 21 Jesus has also been addressed as teacher with less than full seriousness. These Sadducees point to the Mosaic provision (Deut 25:5-10; cf. Gen 38:8-10; Ruth 3:9-4:10) of levirate m arriage, designed in the first instance to provide a son to perpetuate the nam e of a m an who has died before any sons have been b o rn to him. In D euteronom y the provision is restricted to brothers who live together. Despite the introduction with “Moses w rote,” the w ording of D eut 25:5 is m uch abridged and heavily paraphrased, and for the final clause our text is d ep e n d en t rath er on Gen 38:8. 29-32 Luke links with an ovv, “th e n /s o /th e re fo re ”; he has “taking” for M ark’s “took . . . an d ,” and “died childless” for M ark’s “dying he did no t leave any offspring”; he links the second and third cases into a single clause and drops M ark’s

Comment

965

spelling out of the second case; he keeps M ark’s “in the same way” for use in connection with the whole seven cases considered together (the Lukan compression leaves the logic defective: we m ust supply “took h er a n d ” after “in the same way”; and we are obliged to take “also the seven” as in effect “also the rest of the seven” [where for purposes of the understood clause about taking the woman, the phrase will cover cases four to seven, but for the childlessness clause, the phrase m ust cover cases two to seven]). M ark’s ούκ άφήκαν σπέρμα , “did no t leave off spring,” becom es ού κατέλιπον τέκνα , “did n o t leave ch ild ren ” (now accepting the verb that was displaced in v 28 in connection with leaving a widow behind, and no longer using the adjective introduced in v 29). Finally M ark’s “last of all” becom es “later.” T he sequence of seven is simply a good story-telling num ber. T he lack o f children allows the sequence of weddings to continue unchecked and also allows the m arriages to be as close to identical as possible. Le Moyne (Les Sadduceens, 126-27) cites for com parison a rabbinic text in which levirate m arriage leaves a m an with twelve levirate wives. 33 Luke adds an introductory “the woman, th e n ” and replaces M ark’s future έσται , “will b e,” with the futuristic γίνεται (lit. “becom es”; but see textual note above). T he argum ent is m eant to be a reductio ad absurdum : “granted your belief in resurrection, does no t the given scenario produce for you a knot that cannot be untangled?” T he popular assum ption will have been that m arriage re lationship continued in the future world m uch as in this (Str-B 1:888-89). 34 Very little of the M arkan wording survives here. In particular the accusa tion of erro r is dro pped and the reference to the m arriage practices of this age introduced. Luke has used “the sons of this age” at 16:8, where it is likely to be Lukan. T he sense is slightly different here, bu t no t fundamentally, since there is an implicit contrast here between those who are [only] sons of this age and those who are considered worthy of the age to come. “M arry and are given in m ar riag e” was fo u n d at 17:27 (there with γα μίζειν [as in Matthew] ra th e r than γαμίσκβιν for the second verb) in connection with the living out of life with an earth b o u n d horizon. Note the way that “sons” is used here to em brace women as well as m en (it is wom en who are given in m arriage). 35 After his own beginning, Luke joins his M arkan source at “the resurrec tion from am ong the d ea d ” (Mark has the idea verbally: “they rise from am ong the d ead ”) . καταζιονσθαι, “to be fo u n d /co n sid ered worthy,” is used by Luke again at Acts 5:41 (and on the thought here, cf. as well Acts 13:46). “T hat age” is the correlate to “this age” in v 34. This future age is referred to as “the age to com e” at 18:30 (see there). Resurrection is here a privilege bestowed by God on a cer tain nu m b er who are on some basis (not here specified) considered worthy. In the resurrection state, m arrying and giving in m arriage are activities that have now been left behind. 36 M ark’s “b ut they are like angels in heaven” is represented as “for they are equal to angels.” Luke has provided the rest of the verse. The logic of resurrec tion is taken by Luke to imply not only an escape from the arms of death at the point of resurrection but also a p erm an en t invulnerability to death thereafter. In this new situation there can, therefore, be no place for taking steps to provide sons to carry on the family nam e. M odern scholars are often troubled at the nar row view of m arriage that seems to be im plied by this argum ent that the lack of need for procreation dem onstrates the lack of need for m arriage. Kilgallen (Bib

966

Luke 20:27-40

67 [1986] 478-95) seeks to restrict the scope of the argum ent to levirate m ar riage, b ut this is hardly convincing. Perhaps m ore helpfully Wiles ( Theol 60 [1957] 500-502) suggests that the unitive function of m arriage whereby it “represents the deepest form of personal relationship, the highest form of social experience” does n o t in resurrection require the exclusivity that is p ro p er for the present age (presum ably it will still no t be good for m an to be alone!). “Equal to angels” is in support of “n o t able to die,” n o t of the ab an donm ent of m arriage (against Fitzmyer, 1305; bu t cf. 1 Enoch 15:6 for the thought that the angelic beings in heaven would no t naturally have wives). T hough linguistically close, in P hilo’s Ισος άγγελοις γεγονώς, “having becom e equal to the angels” (De sacrif. Abel 5 ), the likeness for Philo is to the angels’ “unbodied and blessed souls,” which is quite different from what we have here. Much closer are 2 Apoc. Bar. 51:5, 10, where the risen righteous will be “changed into the splendor of angels” and will be “like the angels.” T he com parison should not be seen in term s o f (a newly gained) intrinsic immortality, bu t rath er in connection with a certain kind o f heavenly glory and dignity o f form that carries with it freedom from de mise through bodily decline, disease, or accident. “Sons o f G od” is probably used here in connection with the dignity attaching to m em bership of the heavenly order (or rath er of the age to come, which is here treated as linked with the heavenly o rd e r). T he phrase is used in some such sense in Gen 6:2; Jo b 1:6 (where the LXX has “angels of G od”; for additional com parison texts see G. Fohrer and E. Schweizer, TDNT 8:347-49, 355). T he des ignation “sons o f G od” finds its explanation in the appended participial phrase: through resurrection they have been transported into the glories of the age to come. This final “son o f " is to be reckoned am ong the Lukan Septuagintalisms. Having disposed of the co nundrum set for him by his Sadducean antagonists, Jesus now turns to the issue of pentateuchal support for belief in resurrection. 37 While the m ain sequence and content are as in Mark, the wording is sig nificantly different th roughout (Luke takes M ark’s “concerning the d ea d ” inside the following otl, “that,” clause to make “the d ead ” the subject of the verb; M ark’s “have you n o t read in the book of Moses” becomes “Moses m ade know n/revealed”; “how [πώς] God said to him saying” is reduced to “when [ώ^] it/h e says”; “I [am] the God o f. . .” becom es “[the] Lord [in the acc.], the God [acc.] o f. . .”). For rabbinic attem pts to deduce resurrection of the dead from the Torah see b. Sank. 90b, 91b. “[The passage] about the b u sh ” is Exod 3:1-4:17. The words q u oted are, in the M arkan text, clearly from 3:6. In the Lukan text we are closer to the wording of 3:15, but in the absence of a following verb, Luke has changed the nominatives to accusatives as kind of objects to λέγει, “it/h e says (here: speaks ab o u t).” It could be God who “says/speaks ab o u t,” but, though the words in Exodus are set on the lips of God, the flow is a little sim pler if we take the verb im personally as “it [i.e., the text] says/speaks about.” Downing (JSNT 15 [1982] 42-50) has drawn attention to P hilo’s reflections on Exod 3:6, 15 in De Abrahamo 50-55, where Philo also is clearly im pressed (and even somewhat em barrassed) with how God “integrally joins his nam e w ith” (51) the nam es of the Patriarchs. Philo identifies the Patriarchs in the texts as referring n o t to hum an figures but to virtues and com m ents “for the nature of m an is perishable, bu t that of virtue is im perishable” (55). In what sense, then, can God in the Lukan text be the God o f the Patriarchs long after they are dead and gone?

Comment

967

38 Luke brings “G od” to the beginning of the sentence and provides a tran sitional δέ (lit. “a n d /b u t”). He drops M ark’s “you are greatly in e rro r” and adds “for all live to h im .” God will not have continued to advertise him self as God of the Patriarchs if he had finished with them and abandoned them to the grave. Dreyfus (RB 66 [1959] 213-24) has shown how in the OT and in ongoing Jewish tradition “God of ” in connection with the Patriarchs points to God in his role of savior, protector, and deliverer. Dreyfus recognizes that in an earlier OT percep tion of life there would have been no thought that G od’s protection had failed if one died in a good old age with a generous supply of offspring. But, Dreyfus argues, by the time of Jesus, to stop there in o n e ’s hopes for G od’s protection would be severely to foreshorten the reach of o n e ’s faith in the power of God and his covenant com m itm ent to o n e ’s protection and well-being. More recent study has not, in my view, im proved on this approach. How does L uke’s added clause continue the thought? Fitzmyer (1301-2) ar gues strongly that it expresses a view of the immortality of the soul. Josephus clearly thinks in term s of an im m ortal soul (War 3.374) and expresses Pharisaic belief to his Hellenistic readers in ju st these term s (War 2.163; 3.374). Belief in the sur vival beyond death of the righteous is clearly evident in Wis 1:15; 3:4; 8:13; 15:3; 4 Macc 7:19; 9:8; 14:5; 16:25; 17:18 (though this is hardly to be simply identified with belief in the im mortality of the soul, as is frequently assum ed). It is also likely that Luke elsewhere reflects a belief in some kind of continuing life be yond death (see at 16:22-23). However, a statem ent about the immortality of the soul seems out of place in the present Lukan context where the focus is on the issue of resurrection (cf. Ellis, NTS 10 [1963-64] 275). It may be best to make a distinction between being alive “as far as God is co n cern ed ” (αύτω) and being alive as far as the People themselves are concerned. The shadowy world of the grave has nothing of life about it, if it is to be seen as a perpetual state; bu t if it is to be seen rath er as a place of availability for a future beyond resurrection, m ade possible by the power of God, then those waiting in the wings, so to speak, are very m uch alive from the point of view of the purposes of God. We m ight paraphrase “all (no m atter w hether they have passed beyond death or not) are available to G od’s future purposes, and so in that sense still living.” But Fitzmyer (1307) has rightly n o ted that Luke, by adding the final clause to this verse, is probably intending the verse to becom e an allusion to 4 Macc 7:19. For this reason, in the light of Luke 16:22-23 and the texts from Wisdom and 4 Maccabees listed above, we should probably go further and find here the view that God has taken the righteous dead [alive] to his own realm, where they await their resurrection fu ture (cf. Wis 3:7-8), and perhaps conversely has deposited the unrighteous dead in Sheol in anticipatory suffering, awaiting the day of their final judgm ent. 39 This verse is based on Mark 12:28. Luke generalizes by moving to the plu ral, m atches “some of the Sadducees” in v 27 with “some of the scribes” here, and makes their involvement n o t a fresh question based on having been im pressed by Jesus’ answer, b ut simply a public acknow ledgm ent of how well he had answered (the address as “teacher” merely repeats that of the Sadducees). While in general term s Luke sees the leadership groups of the Jewish People as all standing opposed to Jesus, the exceptions to this are very im portant to him as p art of the case for the authenticity of the Christian m ovem ent as the true fulfillm ent of the hopes of Judaism .

968

Luke 20:27-40

40 For this verse Luke draws on Mark 12:34b. In changing from M ark’s uni versal “nobody” to an undefined “they,” Luke is likely to intend us to restrict the sense to the Sadducees, but we cannot be quite certain. These scribes are, then, im pressed that Jesus has silenced the Sadducees. Explanation The conspiracy to seek Jesus’ destruction temporarily fades from sight to return with a vengeance at the beginning of the next section (22:1). A different kind of critical interaction between Jesus and various segm ents of the leadership classes occupies the units from here to 21:4. Some Sadducees seek to make Jesus’ belief in resurrection look ridiculous, but he points them to a vision of the future, beyond anything they have been able to conceive, and invites them to go deeper in draw ing out the im plications of the Mosaic scriptures that were so im portant to them . T he Sadducees in the first century seem to have been an aristocratic group of m em bers and supporters of the Zadokite high-priestly family who had to some extent developed their own distinctive views on matters of faith and practice. O ther Jewish groups, and notably the Pharisees, had com e to believe in a future resur rection. But this view, which is only m arginally to be found in the OT, and not obviously at all in the books of the law, was one that the m ore skeptical and m ore conservative Sadducees had n o t accepted. Levirate marriage (based on Deut 25:5-10; cf. Gen 38:8-10) was a way of keeping a m an ’s nam e from dying out. Its provisions seem ed to the Sadducees to make it obvious that to think of a resurrection future only landed one in tangles that proved the idea a nonsense. According to their logic there would not be rules like this for the present life, if that life were to go on after death through resurrection. Jesus has an answer ready for their riddle. T heir focus on m arriage involved a perspective b o u n d ed by the horizons of this world. M arriage is an institution for this world, b u t for those whom God deem s worthy of the resurrection life, there is a glorious new m ode of existence. Resurrection existence is in a deathless realm. So there can be no place for taking steps to provide sons to carry on the family nam e. It would be quite out of place to think in term s of a cycle of the genera tions. (It is perhaps best to think of the relational function of m arriage, rem oved in the life o f the age to com e from connection with procreation and eroticism, as no longer needing the exclusivity that is now p ro p er to m arriage.) “Equal to angels” does n o t m ean ethereal. R ather it suggests that resurrection will have a certain kind of heavenly glory and dignity of form that carries with it freedom from demise through physical decline, disease, or accident. “Sons of G od” refers here to the way in which resurrected beings in the new age will be as in some sense members of the heavenly order (much as was the case with the angelic figures in Gen 6:2; Job 1:6). The designation “sons of G od” is somewhat explained by the following “being sons of the resurrection”: through resurrection they have been transform ed into that glorious state fitting for the age to come. Jesus points his questioners to a text from Moses him self (see Exod 3:6, 15). T he question is: “In what sense can God be the God of the Patriarchs long after they are supposed to be dead and gone?” God will no t have continued to adver tise him self as God of the Patriarchs if he had long ago finished with them and ab andoned them to the grave! W hen the OT and Jewish tradition spoke of God

Bibliography

969

as God of the Patriarchs, they regularly did so in connection with God as savior, protector, and deliverer. From a first-century Jewish perspective, was it good enough to say that God had fully acquitted his role as protector by being their protector up to the point of a good long life and offspring? Surely not! W hat does the text m ean by “So far as God is concerned all are alive”? It m ight m ean that all (w hether they have passed to the shadowy world of the grave or not) are available to G od’s future purposes, and so in that sense still living. O r it m ight reflect the view gaining ground in Judaism that, rath er than being snuffed o ut at death, people lived on in some form and experienced in a prelim inary way what would be their ultim ate fate at the day of resurrection and judgm ent. Ac cording to this view, people continue to exist only in relation to G od’s future purpose, b u t they do continue to exist. Since the m atter of the resurrection was a standing dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees (see Acts 23:6-9), it is no t surprising that Luke reports that some of the (Pharisaic) scribes were im pressed by Jesus’ answer. Jesus and Christianity after him take up the best from the most enlightened of the Jewish views of the day. Jesus has effectively silenced the Sadducees, and we will hear no m ore from them.

“How Is It That [People] Say That the Christ Is to Be a Son of David?” (20:41- 44) Bibliography

Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FRLANT 98. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1970. 52-59, 64-70, 114-16. Chilton, B. “Jesus ben David: R eflections on the D avidssohnfrage.” JSNT 14 (1982) 88-112. Cullmann, O . Christology. 130-33. Daube, D. The New Testament and RabbinicJudaism. London: University of L o ndon/A thlone, 1956. 1 5 8 -6 9 .------------ . “Four Types of Q uestions.” JTS 2 (1951) 45-48. Fitzmyer, J. A. “T he Son of David T radition and Mt 22:41-46 and Parallels.” Concil 20 (1967) 7 5 -8 7 .------------ . “T he C ontribution of Q um ran Aramaic to the Study of the New T estam ent.” NTS 20 (1973-74) 382-407, esp. 386-91. France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. L ondon: InterVarsity, 1971. 100-102, 163-69. Friedrich, G. “Messianische H ohepriesterw artung in den S y n o p tik e rn .” ZTK 53 (1956) 265-311, esp. 286-89. Gagg, R. P. “Je su s u n d die Davidssohnfrage: Zur Exegese von Markus 12,35-37.” TZ 7 (1951) 18-30. Hahn, F. Titles. 103-15,191, 251-62. Hay, D. M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18. Nashville: A bingdon, 1973. Esp. 104-21. Iersel, B. M. F. van. “Der Sohn ”in den synoptischen Jesusworten: ChristusbeichnungJesu? NovTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1964. 171-73. Lindars, B. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of Old Testament Quotations. London: SCM, 1961. 45-51. Lovestam, E. “Die Davidssohnfrage.” SEA 27 (1962) 72-82. Lohse, E. “υιός Δαυίδ.‫ ״‬TDNT 8:478-88. ------------ . “D er Konig aus Davids Geschlecht: Bem erkungen zur m essianischen E rw artung der Synagoge.” In Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gesprach uber die Bibel. FS O. Michel, ed. O. Betz et al. AGSU 5. Leiden: Brill, 1963. 337-45. Michaelis, W. “Die Davidssohnschaft Jesu als historisches u n d kerygmatisches P roblem .” Burger, C.

970

Luke 20:41-44

In Der historischeJesus und der kerygmatische Christus, ed. H. Ristow and K. M atthiae. 2nd ed. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962. 317-30. Neugebauer, F. “Die Davidssohnfrage (Mark xii. 35-7 Parr.) u n d d er M enschensohn.” NTS 21 (1974-75) 81-108. Rese, M. Alttestamentliche Motive. 173-74. Schneider, G. “Zur V orgeschichte des christologischen Pradikats ‘Sohn Davids.’” TTZ 80 (1971) 2 4 7 -5 3 .------------ . “Die Davidssohnfrage (Mk 12, 3 5 -3 7).” Bib 53 (1972) 65-90. Suhl, A. “D er Davidssohn im M atthaus-Evangelium.” ZNW 59 (1968) 57-81. Wrede, W. ‘Jesus als D avidssohn.” In Vortrage und Studien. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1907. 147-77.

Translation

41He said to them, “How is it that [people] say that the Christ is to be a son ofDavid? 42For David himself says in the book of Psalms, 6[The] Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand, 43until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.,” 44David, then, calls him lord; so how is he his son? ” Notes T h ere are n o im portant textual variants.

Form/Structure/Setting After his effective rebuttal of the Sadducean challenge, Luke’s Jesus now turns his critical eye upon the view that the Christ is (no more than) David’s son. In Mark this is a view of the scribes, bu t Luke removes the attribution, probably in the interests of allowing vv 41-44 to stand as a buffer between the rep o rt of scribes who com m end Jesus (v 39) and that of scribes whom Jesus criticizes (vv 45-47). Despite the loss of attribution, we should no doubt understand in the Lukan context that this is a view prom oted by some of the leadership groups opposed to Jesus. Luke skips over Mark 12:28-34 for which he has a substantial parallel in 10:2528 (see there) and continues here with a parallel to Mark 12:35-37a. Despite some agreem ent with Matthew in v 38, it is no t likely that Luke used any thing o th er than his Markan source; L uke’s editing is quite restrained. The form is variously identified as dom inical saying or pron o u n cem en t story. The implicitly situational nature of what Jesus says makes it probably preferable to classify as a p ro n o u n cem en t story, but little is at stake. O n a num ber of grounds, the question of w hether this episode should be traced back to the historical Jesus is often answered in the negative (e.g., H ahn, Titles, 104-5, points to [i] the kind of appeal to Scripture; [ii] the interest in Christology as such; and [iii\ the “transference of a real divine predicate” [Lord] to the mes siah, as all counting heavily against the historical authenticity of the account; L in d ar’s argum ent [Apologetic, 47], that in the account the Psalm is taken, on the basis of later Christian perspectives, to speak “of a lordship that was greater than anything that David could claim for himself,” mistakes the thrust of the narrative, which stresses that this figure is David's lord). An adequate answer to the ques tion of historicity is not possible apart from a careful consideration of the related question o f the original function and sense of the account. Inevitably, the answer is also likely to be heavily in flu e n c e d by o n e ’s overall u n d e rs ta n d in g o f christological developm ent in the earliest stages of the life of the church.

Form/Structure/Setting

971

T he m ain views as to the original function and sense of the account would seem to be the following, (i) T he necessity of Davidic descent of the messiah is being denied (by Jesus in connection with his messianic pretensions or by Chris tian groups who were sensitive about their inability to prove the Davidic descent of Jesus?), (ii) N ot Davidic descent as such, bu t its im portance is being denied here by Jesus (cf. Mark 3:33). (iii) N ot Davidic descent, bu t the messianic title “son of David” is being rejected for the messiah (to distance him from the politi cal aspirations associated with this title and to point to a less earthbound a n d /o r m ore spiritual set of eschatological expectations [perhaps in connection with Son o f Man expectations (Friedrich [ZTK 53 (1956) 286-89] sees the alternative, in stead, as a priestly m essiah)], or alternatively to ward off a possible objection to a Son of God C hristology). (iv) This is p art of a fourfold scheme evidenced in rab binic discussion, and into which the present passage contributes a discussion about (apparent) conflict between different passages of Scripture (for the origin of this view see D aube, JTS2 [1951] 45-48; i d Rabbinic ., Judaism, 158-69). (v) Jesus makes no christological point here; his goal is, rather, in controversy with his opponents, to ask a difficult question in order to break off the conversation (Gagg, TZ 7 [1951] 18-30). (vi) Davidic descent is n o t denied here, b u t a m uch m ore exalted view of the m essiah’s origin is called for as well, (vii) The account poses a ques tion the key to whose answer may be found in Rom 1:3-4: in earthly life the messiah is son of David, b u t through resurrection he becom es Lord, (viii) Jesus, who ac cepts the designation “son of David” (with overtones of Solomonic wisdom and especially of exorcistic and therapeutic skill), is here protesting the scribal equa tion of “son of David” and “m essiah” (C hilton , JSN T 14 [1982] 88-112). Scholars offer different nuances for some of these views and also com bine elem ents from m ore than one of them . It is n o t possible to provide here a full interaction with this range of views, but a nu m b er of m ain points can be m ade, (i) T he suggestions in points ii, iv, v, vii, and viii above can be set aside as n o t likely to contribute to an understanding of the original, b ut some of them may have a bearing on how the pericope should be seen in its present Synoptic contexts, (ii) T he lim ited early use of a titular “Son of David,” along with the use of “my lo rd ” in the Psalm quotation, and “his son” in Mark 12:37 tip the scales in the direction of reading “son of David” pri marily in term s o f Davidic descent ra th e r than a titular “Son of David.” (iii) Nonetheless, the p oint being protested is likely to be no t so m uch the question of descent as such, bu t a restricted view of the messianic program that went along with seeing the messiah as a Davidic figure and his activity as strongly in the line of the paradigm of the early united kingdom of Israel, u n d er David and Solomon. (iv) T hat the Synoptists show no em barrassm ent in com bining this episode with an affirm ation of Davidic descent m ust cause us to leave the possibility open that from the beginning no denial of Davidic descent was intended, (v) T here is no reason to speak of a “divine predicate” in connection with the use of “lo rd ” in the pericope: in the episode, “lo rd ” keeps the royal overtones that are provided for it by the use of “my lo rd ” in the psalm (cf. at 1:43). (vi) The quotation of the whole of Ps 110:1, and n o t ju st the first line, is probably in the interests of identifying the lord spoken of as the one linked to G od’s decisive intervention (“s i t . . . until I make your enemies . . .”), and therefore as the messiah. (vii) Set in the historical ministry of Jesus, the episode would no t constitute a messianic claim of any kind,

972

Luke 20:41-44

b u t would be a provocative rem ark designed to open up the question of the na ture of the hoped-for ultim ate intervention of God in the affairs of his People (of course in a wider sense this could no t be separated from the question of Jesus’ own relationship to the fulfillm ent of the hoped-for kingdom of G o d ). Does such an original fit into the historical ministry of Jesus? Most of the points that have been raised against the historicity of the account dep en d upon an understanding o f the original different from that which em erges from the points ju st m ade above. N eugebauer (NTS 21 [1974] 102-3) makes the im portant point that som ething altogether larger than a renewal of the Davidic kingdom was ex pected already by Jo h n the Baptist of the eschatological agent. He points fu rth er (104-5) to the way that, in line with our present text, J o h n ’s eschatological expectations focused on the person of G od’s instrum ent, som ething unusual for Jewish eschatology of the day. Given the u n doubted links between Jo h n and Jesus, these features o f J o h n ’s message make m ore credible a context in the m inistry of Jesus for the christological focus of the present episode. The difficulties that rem ain are those posed by the way in which Scripture is appealed to here. To many, the use by Jesus of the traditional attribution of the Psalm to David is a problem , b u t Jesus’ concern is with the perspectives of biblical faith, no t those of historical reconstruction. Beyond that there is the m ore general problem of attributing this sort of quoting of Scripture to the historical Jesus. O n this, see at 20:27-40 where Scripture is used n o t dissimilarly. T he strongest positive argum ent in favor of historicity is the very vagueness of the account, well reflected in the m ultitude of views as to its sense. W hen the early church used Ps 110:1 in the light of the resurrection, it m ade its points rath er m ore clearly than is the case here! Comment Jesus has no identified antagonists here, but as in the preceding episodes he seeks to challenge the lim ited perspectives that governed p eo p le’s views of the working of God and of the requirem ents of their own response to God. Messianic hope involves for Jesus m uch m ore than simply a glorious re ru n of the trium phs of the kingdom of David. 41 Luke drops the m ention of teaching in the temple (that is the understood setting for the whole of this section) and replaces the Markan response language with elnev δέ προς αυτούς , “he said to th em .” It is unclear who Luke thinks of as being addressed. Most likely, guided by the m ain drift of the section, we should think of address to the People, but v 45 to com e raises the possibility of address to the disciples in the hearing of the People (neither the Sadducees n or the scribes, though nearest at hand, make for good sense a n d /o r account for the Lukan re d action). U nlike Mark, Luke prefers n o t to treat the view Jesus criticizes as specifically scribal (see Form/Structure/Setting above). Luke replaces Mark’s o tl , “that,” clause with an infinitive construction. Davidic descent for the one through whom God would deal with his People in the hoped-for future is frequently attested in the OT. As a messianic title, however, “Son of David” is found prior to the NT only in Pss. Sol. 17:21. It comes into its own as a messianic designation in the early rabbinic period. Solomon as son of David is linked to exorcism and healing in some strands of Jewish tradition (see at 18:38). In our present text the use is unlikely to be titular. R ather the reference is to Davidic descent, but with the added implication

Explanation

973

that, in the view criticized, seeing the messiah as a Davidic descendant implied a messianic future delimited by the pattern provided by the past role of David (see Form/Structure/Setting above). The political imagery of Ps 110 from which Jesus will quote should, however, warn us against taking the episode as an anti-political state m ent (cf. Marshall, 744—45). The point is rather the positive one, that there is something bigger here than can be contained in merely Davidic categories. 42 M ark’s “said by (έυ) the Holy Spirit” becom es “says in the book of Psalms” (see Acts 1:30; cf. Luke 24:44; Acts 13:33). Jesus appeals to the traditional head ing of Ps 110: “A psalm of David.” Seventy-three of the OT psalms are so identified. It is possible that ‫ ל דו ד‬, ledawid, originally m eant som ething o th er than or m ore general than “o f/b y David,” bu t in Jesus’ day that is how the words were u nder stood (cf. the attribution to David in 11QPsa 27:2-11 of several thousand psalms and cultic songs). The argum ent builds heavily on the fact that these words quoted from Ps 110 are on David’s lips. A part from a definite article lost before “L ord” (which does n o t affect the sense), the p art of the Psalm quoted in this verse is identical to the LXX (as was the M arkan text). The first “L ord” is God, and be hind it stands the “Yahweh” of the Hebrew OT. The idiom involved with the second “lo rd ” (“my lo rd ”) represents away of speaking to or about the king. The curious fact from Jesus’ point of view is that King David should speak of another as his king. This is what he will com e back to in v 44. However, the Psalm quote does n o t stop there b u t continues with the words of God: “sit at my right h and . . . ” T he continuation of the quotation shows that, for the one spoken of as “my lord,” God will act decisively to establish his rule. This decisive intervention of God is understood eschatologically by Jesus, and therefore justifies for him the applica tion of the text to the messiah, rather than to some o th er royal figure. T here is no good evidence of a messianic understanding of the psalm prior to Jesus, but quite a satisfactory basis, in Jewish terms, for so interpreting it. For the “right h a n d ” as the place of h o n o r/in flu en ce, cf. 2 Kgs 2:19; Ps 45:9; Mark 10:37. For Luke the prom ise “Sit at my right h a n d ” attains a m ore precise sense in connection with his understanding of Jesus’ jo u rney through death and resur rection to glory at the right h and of God (see esp. the role of Ps 110:1 in the argum ent at Acts 2:25-36; cf. at Luke 19:12). Jesus will allude to Ps 110:1 in his response to the Sanhedrin in 22:69. 43 Luke conforms Mark’s υποκάτω, “under,” to the υποποδίου, “a stool [for],” that was to be found in his Greek OT. The imagery is of abject submission. O f all the kings of Israel and Judah, only the messiah will rule with such unopposed authority. 44 Luke and Matthew agree against Mark here in the use of ούυ, “th en ,” καλοί, “calls,” and πώς, “how,” but each of these changes is natural enough for the respec tive evangelists. So the agreem ent is probably only coincidental. A messiah who is defined on the basis of his Davidic descent can do no justice to this inversion ac cording to which David as a father calls his (many generations removed) son “lord.” Explanation Rebuttal of the Sadducees is now balanced by criticism of the messianic u n derstanding of other groups. Luke will think of views current am ong the leadership groups with whom Jesus is in contention. Jesus continues to challenge the re stricted views of groups of his contem poraries, as he seeks to open up a vision of

974

Luke 20:45-47

the d epth and b readth of the purposes of God and an understanding of the full scope of what it m eans to respond to the present working of God. T he puzzle that Jesus puts in this episode is clear enough, bu t the answer that he seeks to evoke is less so. Many views exist as to the original m eaning of this account (see Form/Structure/Setting above for a survey of views). The m eaning of the episode in the finished Gospel text can be m ore certainly determ ined than can the m eaning o f the account in its original use. It was generally considered that the messiah would be a descendant of David, and for this there was m uch OT support. But this idea of Davidic descent also restricted the scope of p eo p le’s vision of what God would achieve in the days of the messiah and their understanding of the role of the messiah himself. The Lukan Jesus is n o t co ncerned to overturn the idea of Davidic descent but rath er to overtu rn its controlling influence on p eo p le’s messianic understanding. In Ps 110:1 Jesus finds a text with the potential for opening up the rigid limita tions of people’s expectations. Working from the traditional ascription of the Psalm to David, Jesus draws attention to the curious ph en o m en o n of king David speak ing o f an o th er as his royal lord. T he norm al p attern would be, of course, that David’s descendants would address him as lord! This inversion needs to be accounted for. Jesus n o t only quotes the first line of the psalm but continues with the rest of the verse. This is probably to show that the psalm is about the messiah. T hough God had certainly prom ised to be with the royal line of David’s descendants, such a decisive divine intervention can only be expected for the establishm ent of the rule of the messiah. “Sit at my right h a n d ” is an image for gaining the suprem e place o f h o n o r/in flu en c e (see 2 Kgs 2:19; Ps 45:9; Mark 10:37). But for Luke in his finished Gospel the sense becom es m ore precise, because Luke can see the text in the light of Jesus’jo u rn ey through death and resurrection to glory at the right h an d o f God. Ps 110:1 will play an im portant role in connection with the resurrection and ascension in the argum ent at Acts 2:25-36. The imagery of enemies as footstools is one of abject submission. Luke does not make it precisely clear how he sees this working out in connection with Jesus, but undoubtedly the judgm ent upon Jerusalem anticipated in Luke 21 fits in here, as does the wider judgm ent of the nations anticipated there. In the larger Lukan pic ture, the coming o f Jesus as Son of Man lies beyond the humiliation of the enemies.

Criticism of Scribes

(20:45- 47)

Bibliography Derrett, J. D. M. ‘“Eating Up the H ouses of Widows’:Jesu s’s C om m ent on Lawyers?” NovT 14 (1972) 1-9. Keck, F. Die offentliche Abschiedsrede Jesu in Lk 20,45-21,36: Fine redaktions-

und motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FB 25. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. 36-46. στολαί der Schriftgelehrten: Eine E rlauterung zu Mark. 12,38.” In

Rengstorf, K. H. “Die

Comment

975

Abraham unser Vater:Juden und Christen im Gesprach uber die Bibel. FS O. Michel, ed. O. Betz et al. AGSU 5. Leiden: Brill, 1963. 383-404. Translation

45As all the People were listening, he said to thea disciples, 46 “Beware of thoseb scubes who want to walk about in fine garb and love to be greetedc in the marketplaces and [to have] the prime seats in the synagogues and first places at dinners, 47who devour widows' estatesd and make long prayers in pretense. These will receive a greater condemnation.” Notes a “H is” in A K L W O T / ] 13 etc. b Lit. “th e .” c Lit. “greetin gs.” d Lit. “h o u ses.”

Form/Structure/Setting While certain of the scribes appear in a positive light in 20:39, here Jesus, as he continues his critical engagem ent with views and practices of various of the leadership groups, warns against following the lead of some who belonged to the scribal class. Keck (Abschiedsrede, esp. 37, 41-44), identifies the beginning of a new m ajor section here on the basis of the clear definition of audience and the use of προσέχει!;, “bew are/take care,” in 20:45 and 21:34. But the same audience may well be im plied already for 20:41-44 (see there), and in any case the role of “the P eople” picks up on their role in 19:48; 20:1, 6, 9, 19, 26; προσέχειv is used in rath er different idioms in 20:45 and 21:34; and 20:45-47; 21:1-4 are singularly ill suited as introductory pericopes for 21:5-36. O n the sectioning, see further at 19:47-48 and 20:1-8. Luke continues to follow the M arkan sequence, and, except for v 45, most of the Markan wording. The unit is in the form of a warning: it warns against behaving like the scribes whose practice is described. Reluctance to attribute such sayings to the historical Jesus is based upon the inappropriateness of blanket condemnations of whole classes of people. O n such blanket criticism, see at 11:37-54. Blanket class criticism is evidenced in the prophets: it has a rhetorical force and should not be ruled out for the historical Jesus. Here, however, at least in the Markan and Lukan settings, we have criticism only of those scribes who behave as described. Comment Jesu s’ critical eye now turns to some of the scribes whose ostentatious self im portance and publicly dem onstrated piety go along with heartless exploitation o f the weak. 45 Luke takes up the use of άκούειν from his Markan source (where the hear ing involved referred to the previous com m ents of Jesus on the Davidic descent of the m essiah), and he brings forward “disciples” from Mark 12:43. Otherwise the verse is a Lukan form ulation (cf. esp. 19:48). For the background role of the People, cf. 20:26. “Disciples” have no t been specifically m entioned since 19:39.

976

Luke 2 0:4547‫־‬

They becom e the central audience here as those already com m itted to being di rected by the words of Jesus. 46 Beyond the deletion as re d u n d an t of M ark’s opening reference to teach ing (cf. at v 41), the only significant Lukan interventions are προσέχετε for M ark’s βλέπετε for “bew are” (M ark’s other use of the βλέπετε άπό idiom [8:15] is in the large M arkan section n o t reproduced by Luke; a version of Mark 8:15, using προσέχετε άπό,, is found in 12:1, but as the M atthean form also uses προσέχετε άπό, Luke may have it there from a second source) and the addition of φίλούντων, “loving,” which elim inates a zeugm a in the M arkan construction (Luke may be influenced by his source for 11:43). O n scribes, see at 5:17. των γραμματέων των θελόντων . . . could be “the scribes, who like . . .” or it could be “those scribes who like. . . .” In view of the positive role of some of the scribes in 20:39, the latter is to be preferred. R engstorf (“στολαί,”385-95) has shown how στολαί tends to be used of various kinds of distinctive clothing with some sort of functional char acter (so: of the garb of soldiers, priests, kings, etc.). The context does not allow us to follow Rengstorf further when he argues that a distinctive sabbath dress is re ferred to here, which some of the scribes had taken to wearing in an attem pt to get all people to add this custom to their sabbath-honoring rituals (396-403). We should think, rather, of ostentatious garments denoting the high office that scribes considered themselves to have. Correspondingly the greetings involve recognition of their scribal status, as do the prim e seats in the synagogues and seats of ho n o r at feasts. Pharisees are accused of the same preoccupation with greetings and synagogue seats in 11:43 (see there). O n love of places of h o n o r at banquets, see at 1 4 :7 1 1 ‫ ־‬. 47 Luke reproduces the M arkan w ording except for correcting M ark’s gramm ar with a change from participles to finite verbs for “devour” and “pray.” Idioms similar to “devour the houses” are found in Greek literature (see O. Michel, TDNT 5:131 and n. 3). Exactly how the scribes were seen as taking advantage of the vulnerability of widows so as to eat away at their estates is no t specified. O f the wide range of suggestions p u t forward, the m ost plausible are those that think of the scribes as acting im properly in their legal capacity as guardians of estates (cf. b. Gitt. 52b; see esp. D errett [NovT 14 (1972) 1-9]) and those who see the offense in term s of abuse of hospitality (cf. As. Mos. 7:6; see Jerem ias, Jerusalem, 114). O ther possibilities include (illegally) charging for legal aid to widows, taking prop erty from widows as security against debts that could not be paid, or receiving large sums of m oney in retu rn for a com m itm ent to pray at length for the widows. T hough the self-im portant behavior of the scribes is described critically, the overt criticism is clearly focused on the treatm ent of widows and falsity in prayer (representing duty to neighbor and to God respectively?), προφάσις is what one asserts, and it norm ally refers to o n e ’s actual motive for doing som ething or the pretext or ostensible motive that one publicly announces. The dative is used somewhat similarly in Acts 27:30. The best sense here is probably “in pretense.” D errett (NovT 14 [1972] 2-3, 7-8), however, argues that the word implies here actual m otivation, b u t that this motivation is intended to establish a reputation for piety th at would lead to one being appointed guardian of various estates, which could then be m isappropriated: “with such an end in view, indulge in lengthy prayers” (8). T he logic is too convoluted to be persuasive.

Translation

977

G radation of judgm ents has been m et already at Luke 12:47-48 (see there).

κρίμα is a neutral term for “decision/judgm ent/verdict,” but can be used (as here) as a synonym for κατακρίμα , “condem nation.” Luke does so again in 23:40; 24:20. Explanation Jesus continues his critical engagem ent with segments of the Jerusalem leadership groups. He now criticizes the exploitation of widows by scribes who are full of public self-importance. T he disciples are addressed as those already com m itted to being directed by the words of Jesus. As regularly through this section, however, the People are there for it all. These scribes (we should n o t think that these rem arks would be true of all scribes in Jesus’ day) strut about in their impressive garb and press to be given every m ark of public recognition. But behind this display of im portance they exploit the weak (the text probably thinks in term s of abuse of the role of guardianship of widows’ estates, or of hospitality dem ands that went far beyond the m eans of poor widows, bu t we cannot be su re), and their lengthy prayers are nothing m ore than a pretense. N either toward God n o r toward neighbor is there genuine goodness. Those who think themselves im portant, and then abuse the opportunities that are theirs, can only expect a m ore severe ju d g m en t from God than will be the o rdinary lot of hum ankind.

The Giving of the Rich and die Poor

(21:1- 4)

Bibliography Blass, F. “O n Mark xii. 42 and xv. 16.” ExpTim 10 (1898-99) 185-87, 286-87. Degenhardt, H.-J. Lukas, Evangelist der Armen. 93-97. LaVerdiere, E. “T he W idow’s M ite.” Emman 92 (1986) 316-21, 341. Lee, G. M. “T he Story of the W idow’s M ite.” ExpTim 82 (1971) 344. Malbon, E. S. “T he Poor Widow in Mark and H er Poor Rich Readers.” CBQ 53 (1991) 589-604. Murray, G. “Did Luke Use Mark?” DR 104 (1986) 268-71. Ramsay, W. M. “O n Mark xii. 42.” ExpTim 10 (1898-99) 232, 336. Simon, L. “Le sou de la veuve: Marc 1 2 /4 1 44.” ETR 44 (1969) 115-26. Sperber, D. “Mark xii 42 and Its M etrological Background: A Study in Ancient Syriac Versions.” N ovT 9 (1967) 178-90. Sugirtharajah, R. S. “T he Widow’s Mite Revalued.” ExpTim 103 (1991-92) 42-43. Wright, A. G. “T he W idow’s Mites: Praise

or Lam ent?—A M atter of C ontext.” CBQ44 (1982) 256-65.

Translation

1Looking up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, 2and he saw a certain poor widow putting in two lepta. 3Then he said, “Truly I say to you, that this poor widow has put in more than all [the rest]. 4For these [only] put into the offeringa out of their leftovers; she, out of what she lacked, has put in all the livelihood that she had. ”

Luke 21:1-4

978

Notes a

τον Θ60ν, “of God,” is added by A D W Θ Ψ 063 1012 13‫™י‬ 1/ 1‫ ־‬etc.

Form/Structure/Setting It seems likely that Luke considers the rich here to have a place am ong the leaders of the People, and that Jesus’ critical engagem ent with the leadership groupings in Jerusalem , which has m arked this section from 19:47 up to this point, should be th o u g h t of as continuing here. Luke continues to follow the M arkan sequence. He drops the change of loca tio n a n d th e calling o f the disciples, b u t otherw ise m akes only relatively insignificant changes to his M arkan source. The tradition has the form of a pro n o u n cem en t story but with a unitary com position that would no t allow for the p ro n o u n cem en t to be detached from the narrative setting. Occasionally the sug gestion has been m ade that a parable has here becom e an event, bu t there is nothing to com m end such views. Borrowing has also been suggested (see at v 3 below for the existence of similar stories), but despite the genuine similarities that exist, the present story partakes of the radical vision of the historical Jesus and shares in his dem onstrated disregard for practicalities (see fu rth er at v 3 below). T hough nothing is verbally close, there may be some inspiration from the feed ing of Elijah by the poor widow of Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:8-16). Comment Jesus now criticizes the comfortable piety of the rich, whose giving to the tem ple treasury has nothing about it of the passionate com m itm ent to God dem onstrated by the p oor widow, whose two lepta represent all that she has. 1 Luke drops the change of location and adds in com pensation “looking u p .” He dispenses with the general picture of a whole crowd of givers and focuses exclusively on the characters upon whom Jesus will make his judgm ent. M ark’s χαλκόν (properly “copper coinage,” bu t also used m ore generally of money) be comes τά δώρα, “the gifts,” which suggests nonobligatory contributions. Luke reduces to a participial phrase M ark’s separate clause about m aking contribu tions an d moves “ric h ” to an em phatic en d position (dropping, however, a reference to there being “m any” of th em ). Luke’s rich no longer give πολλά, “large sum s.” T here are o th er m inor changes as well, γαζοφυλάκίον m eans “treasure ro o m /trea su ry ” and is used in both the singular and plural in connection with the Jerusalem tem ple (see BAGD, 149, for references). The treasury appears to have been used for safekeeping of legal docum ents and private wealth, along with accum ulated tem ple wealth and valuable items, as well as for the collection of tithes and gifts. The location is uncertain: Josephus (War 5.200) has “the treasury” (pl.) in the in n er court of the temple; Jo h n 8:20 has Jesus teaching there, while o ur Lukan text requires access for women, m. Seqal. 2.1; 6.1, 5 refer to a series of thirteen chests m arked for various kinds of contributions. The contribu tions o f the rich will have supplied the financial backbone for the m aintenance and functioning of the tem ple.

Comment

979

2 Luke establishes a m easure of parallelism between his introductions of the rich givers and of the poor widow (the com ing of the widow is dropped; είδευ, “he saw,” is repeated; the same participial construction is used for h er act of con tribution [but with a chiastic reversal of word o rd e r]). W here the identity of the givers as rich has had the place of emphasis in v 1, here the w om an’s “two lepta” are in the place of emphasis. Having dropped the “m any” in v 1, Luke corre spondingly replaces M ark’s “o n e ” with “a ce rtain .” M ark’s πτω χή for “p o o r” becom es the rath er m ore poetic 7τευιχράυ; it is no t likely that he intends any dif ference of sense (he reverts to the Markan term in v 3), but possibly Luke prefers the term for one who actually has some m inim al resources for livelihood. O n the coinage, see at 12:59. Luke drops M ark’s explanatory “which is a quadrans” (us ing a Latin loan w o rd). 3 Luke does n o t need to have Jesus call the twelve since they have ju st been addressed by Jesus in 20:45-47 (no doubt he intends to continue the audience arrangem ent of 20:45). Luke replaces M ark’s “am en” here with “truly” (as in 9:27) and drops M ark’s elaboration of the “all” as “those who pu t [their gifts] into the treasury” (the “all” works better in the M arkan text with “the crowd” as anteced en t). G reek literature, Jewish tradition, and even B uddhist tradition can be quarried for stories or statem ents that set a higher value on the small gift of the poor than on the extravagant gifts of the rich (Fitzmyer, 1320, provides a useful list of relevant sources; see esp. Josephus, Ant. 6.149; Lev. Rab. 107a). Given this widespread sentim ent, it is difficult to see how we could possibly take Jesus’ words in some opposite sense as does W right (CBQ 44 [1982] 256-65; accepted by Fitzmyer, 1320, 1322), for whom Jesus is lam enting that the women has been duped by the religious sentim ents instilled by the Jerusalem leaders (the woman thus experiences a different version of the widows’ fate of 20:47, and h er contribution goes toward a tem ple that is destined for destruction [21:6]). The Lukan Jesus is thoroughly in favor of the tem ple and its worship: as re cently as 19:45-46 he has, at least symbolically, put to rights the abuses interfering with tem ple worship; and for this whole section he is presented as a regular daily temple-teacher. T he w om an’s priorities may be com pared with those of Anna (2:36-38). T he idea that there is a contradiction with the C orban tradition of Mark 7:9-13 depends upon the assum ption that Jesus is a practical teacher, but he is not! He readily isolates a single issue in a way that leaves unaddressed its inevitable interrelatedness with other issues (see at 6:27-38; 10:38-42). He calls for a radical self-abandonm ent to God in a m anner that frequently leaves un an swered questions about the practicalities of life (cf. at 9:59-61; 12:22-34). This woman is storing up treasure for herself in heaven (cf. 12:33-34). T hough in practical ethics it may be im portant to stress that one should treat oneself as one ought to treat others, that particular m ovem ent of thought has no place in the teaching of Jesus. Jesus com m ends the w om an’s evident passionate com m itm ent to the cause of God. He looks no further. 4 Luke adds ovtol, “these,” for emphasis; com pletes with ε ις τά δώρα (lit. “into the gifts”) which m ust m ean som ething like “into the offering(s) ”; replaces M ark’s υστερήσεως, “lack,” with the m ore concrete υστερήματος, “that which [she] lacked”; and conflates M ark’s appositional construction into του βίου ου εΐχευ, “the livelihood which she h ad .” In the language of paradox, the rich gave only out of their leftovers; the widow gave out of what she did no t even have. We should

980

L uke 21:1-4

n o t think that it is impossible for rich people to give appropriately (Zacchaeus does), b u t in line with L uke’s general view of the power of riches to ensnare, the text assumes that the giving of the rich, even if considerable (and Luke seems to think it was not, since he has dropped the indication of large gifts from his source in v 1), was giving at a level that rem ained token and therefore gave no expres sion to any deep com m itm ent to God. Jesus is accusing the rich of no t being serious with God. For a similar generosity of giving, cf. 2 Cor 8:1-5. The story shows no interest in how it is that Jesus knows that the two lepta represent the w om an’s whole livelihood. Explanation To be rich in ancient societies m ade one automatically part of the leadership classes, and so Jesus, in the last of the present series of critical engagem ent with segm ents o f the leadership classes (from 19:47), now turns his gaze upon the rich. He criticizes their com fortable piety, contrasting the m inim al dem and m ade upo n them by their giving to the tem ple with the extravagance of the poor widow’s com m itm ent to the cause of God. T he M arkan text speaks of the large sums given by the rich, but Luke, with his deep sense of the way in which riches tend to entrap, drops this note: he is quite sure that at least in relation to their wealth the am ounts involved were no t large. T here were chests in the tem ple to receive the various dues and freewill offerings of the People. H ere the latter are in view. These would be used to sustain the tem ple worship. Jesus observes the giving of the rich and the giving of a poor widow, whose gift consists of two of the smallest coins in cirulation in Palestine at the time. T he am ount she gives would no t buy a quarter of an h o u r of a day lab o rer’s time. In setting a higher value upon a small gift from a poor person than on a large gift from a rich person, Jesus expresses a sentim ent that has clear parallels in Greek, Jewish, and even B uddhist traditions. However, in its “im practicality” re garding the w om an’s ongoing life, it has the m ark of Jesus and his radical teaching about it. And in its identification of com m itm ent to the Jewish tem ple with com m itm ent to God, it fits in strongly with an em phasis that is im portant to Luke (cf. A nna in 2:36-38). Jesus contrasts the w om an’s evident passionate com m itm ent to the cause of God with a notable corresponding lack in the giving of the rich. To em phasize his point, Jesus makes use of the language of paradox as he describes the situation of the widow. The rich are only giving from their leftovers, expressing no com m itm ent at all. But the poor widow is said to give out of what she does n o t even have. The language is, of course, hyperbolic, and Jesus goes on to clarify that she gives “all the livelihood that she has.” This has to be an expres sion of a passionate and w holehearted com m itm ent. For a similar generosity of giving, see 2 Cor 8:1-5.

Bibliography

The Coming Destruction of the Temple

981

(21:5- 6)

Bibliography F or 21:5-36: Bacon, B. W. “T he Apocalyptic C hapter of the Synoptic Gospels.” JBL 28 (1909) 1-25. Barclay, W. “G reat Them es of the New Testament: VI. Matthew xxiv.” ExpTim 70 (1959) 32630; 71 (1960) 376-79. Bartsch, H.-W. Wachet aber zu jeder Zeit! 118-23. Beasley-Murray, G. R.

Jesus and the Future: A n Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13 with Special Reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory. L o ndon/N ew York: M acm illan/St. M artin’s, 1954.------------ . A Commentary on Mark 13. L ondon/N ew York: M acmillan/St. M artin’s, 1957. ------------ . Jesus and the Kingdom of God. G rand R apids/Exeter: E erdm ans/P aternoster, 1986. 322-37.------------ . “The Rise and Fall of the Little Apocalypse Theory.” ExpTim 64 (1952-53) 346-49.----------- . “The Eschatological Discourse of Jesus.” ReuExp 57 (1960) 153-66.-------------. “Second T houghts on the Com position of Mark 13.” N TS 29 (1983) 414-20. Black, C. C. “An O ration at Olivet: Some R hetorical D im ensions o f Mark 13.” In Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric. FS G. A. Kennedy, ed. D. F. Watson. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. 66-92. Brandenburger, E. Markus 13 und die Apokalyptik. G ottingen: V andenhoeck & R u p recht, 1984. Braumann, G. “Das M ittel d er Zeit: E rw agungen zur theologie des Lukasevangeliums.” ZNW54: (1963) 117-45, esp. 140-44. Bristol, L. O. “Mark’s Little Apocalypse: A H ypothesis.” ExpTim 51 (1939-40) 301-3. Busch, F. Zum Verstandnis der synoptischen Eschatologie: Markus 13 neu untersucht. Gu tersloh: B ertelsm ann, 1938. Carroll, J. T. Response to the End of History. 103-19. Conzelmann, H. Luke. 1 2 5 -3 6 .------------ . “Geschichte u n d Eschaton nach Me. 13.” ZNW 50 (1959) 210-21. Cotter, A. C. “T he Eschatological Discourse.” CBQ 1 (1939) 125-32, 204-13. Cousar, C. B. “Eschatology and M ark’s ‘Theologia Crucis’: A Critical Analysis of Mark 13.” I n t 24 (1970) 321-35. Cranfield, C. E. B. “St. Mark 13.” SJT 6 (1953) 189-96, 287-303; 7 (1954) 284-303. Dewar, F. “C hapter 13 and the Pas sion Narrative in St M ark.” Th 64 (1961) 99-107. Dupont, J. “La ru in e du Tem ple et la fin des tem ps dans le discours de Me 13.” In Apocalypses et theologies de l'esperance, ed. L. M onloubou. LD 95. Paris: Cerf, 1977. 2 0 7 -6 9 .------------ . Les trois apocalypses synoptiques: Marc 13; Matthieu 24-25; Luc 21. LD 121. Paris: Cerf, 1 9 8 5 .------------ . “Les epreuves des chretiens avant la fin du m onde: Lc 21,5-19.” AsSeign n.s. 64 (1969) 77-86. Easton, B. S. “T he Little Apocalypse.” BW 40 (1912) 130-38. Estes, D. F. “T he Eschatological Discourse of Jesus.” RevExp 15 (1918) 411-36. Feuillet, A. “Le discours de Jesus sur la ruine du Temple d ’apres Marc XIII et Luc XXI, 5 -3 6 .” RB 55 (1948) 481-502; 56 (1949) 6 1 -9 2 .------------ . “La sig n ificatio n fo n d a m e n ta le de M arc X III: R e ch e rc h es su r l ’e sch a to lo g ie des Synoptiques.” RevThom 80 (1980) 181-215. Flender, H. St. Luke. 107-17. Fluckiger, F. “Die Redaktion der Zukunftsrede in Mark. 13.” TZ 26 (1970) 395-409. Ford, D. The Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology. W ashington: University Press of America, 1979. France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament. 227-39. Fuller, G. C. “T he Olivet Discourse: An Apocalyptic T im etable.” WTJ 28 (1966) 157-63. Gaston, L. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970. 8-64, 355-69. ------------ . “S ondergut u n d Markus-Stoff in Luk. 21.” TZ 16 (1960) 161-72. Geddert, T. J. Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology. JSNTSup 26. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989. Geiger, R. Die lukanischen Endzeitsreden: Studien zur Eschatologie des Lukas-Evangeliums. Europaische H ochschulschriften 23/16. B ern/Frankfurt: H. Lang/P. Lang, 1973. 149-258. Glasson, T. F. “M ark xiii an d th e G reek O ld T e sta m e n t.” ExpTim 69 (1958) 213-15. Grasser, E. Parusieverzogerung. 152-70. Grayston, K. “The Study o f Mark X III.” BJRL 56 (1973-74) 371-87. Halm, F. Die Rede von der Parusie des M enschensohnes Markus 13.” In Jesus der

982

L uke 21:5-6

Menschensohn, FS A. Vogtle, ed. R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg. Freiburg im B.: H erder, 1975. 240-66. Hallback, G. “D er anonym e Plan: Analyse von Mk 13, 5-27 im H inblick auf die Relevance der apokalyptischen Rede fur die Problem atik d er Aussage.” LingBib 49 (1981) 28-53. Hanley, E. A. “T he D estrucdon of Jerusalem : Mark, Chap. 13.” B W 34 (1909) 4 5 -4 6. Harder, G. “Das esch a to lo g isc h e G esc h ich tsb ild d e r s o g e n a n n te n k le in en Apokalypse Markus 13.” ThViat 4 (1952-53) 71-107. Hartman, L. Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of SomeJewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 par. ConB, NT ser. 1. Lund: G leerup, 1966. Esp. 226-35. Holscher, G. “D er U rsprung d er Apokalypse Mk 13.” TBl 121 (1933) 193-202. Hooker, M. D. “Trial and T ribulation in Mark X III.” BJRL 65 (1982) 78-99. Jones, A. “Did Christ Foretell the E nd of the World in Mark XIII?” Scr4 (1951) 264-73. Kaestli, J.-D. “Luc 21:5-36: L’Apocalypse synoptique.” In L 'Eschatologie. 41-57. Kallilkuzhuppil, J. “T he G lorification of the Suffering C hurch (Mk 1 3 .1-37).” Biblebhashyam 9 (1983) 247-57. Keck, F. Die offentliche Abschiedsrede Jesu in Lk 20,45-21,36: Eine redaktions- und motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung FB 25. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. Kummel, W. G. Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus. SBT 23. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1957. 95-104. Lagrange, M.-J. “L’Avenement du Fils de l'H om m e.” RB n.s. 3 (1906) 382-411, 561-74. Lambrecht, J. “La structure de Mc., XIII.” In DeJesus aux evangiles: Tradition et redaction dans les evangiles synoptiques. FS I. Coppens, ed. I. de la Potterie. BETL 25. G em bloux: D uculot, 1967. 2:140-64. -------------. Die Redaktion der MarkusApokalypse: Literansche Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung. AnBib 28. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1967.------------ . “Die Logia-Quellen von Markus 13.” Bib 47 (1966) 3 2 1 -6 0 .-------------. “Die ‘M idrasch-Quelle’ von Mk 13.” Bib 49 (1968) 254-70. Maddox, R. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. 115-23. Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. 323-37. Marxsen, W. Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel. Nashville, TN: A bingdon, 1969. 151-206, esp. 190-98. Neirynck, F. “Marc 13: Exam en critique de l'interpretatio n de R. Pesch.” In Evangelica: Gospel Studies— Etudes d ’evangile. Collected Essays, ed. F. Van Segbroeck. BETL 60. Leuven: University P ress/P eeters, 1982. 5 6 5 -9 7 .------------ . “Le discours anti-apokalyptique de Me., X III.” In Evangelica: Gospel Studies— Etudes d ’evangile. Collected Essays, ed. F. Van Segbroeck. BETL 60. Leuven: University Press/P eeters, 1982. 5 9 8 -6 0 8 .------------ . “Le discours antiapokalyptique de Me., X III.” ET L 45 (1969) 154-64.------------ . “Marc 13: Exam en critique de l'interpretation de R. Pesch.” ETL 53 (1980) 369-401. Nicol, W. “Tradition und Redaction in Luke 21.” Neot 7 (1973) 61-71. Nolland, J. “L uke’s R eaders.” 129-240. O ’Flynn, J. A. “T he Eschatological Discourse.” I T Q 18 (1951) 277-81. Parsch, P. “U n discours de Jesus.” In Apprenons a lire la Bible. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1956. 166-72. Perrot, C. “Essai sur le discours eschatologique (Mc. XIII, 1-37; Mt. XXIV, 1-36; Lc. XXI, 5 -3 6 .” RSR 47 (1959) 481-514. Pesch, R. Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13. KuBANT. Du sseldorf: Patmos, 1 9 6 8 . ------------ . “Markus 13.” In L Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, e d . J. Lam brecht. Gembloux: Duculot, 1980. 355-68. Piganiol, A. “O b servations sur la date de l'apocalypse synoptique.” R H PR 4 (1924) 245-49. Rigaux, B. “La seconde venue du Messie.” In La venue du Messie: messianisme et eschatologie. RechBib 6. Bruges: Desclee de Brouwer, 1962. 1 1 7-216.------------ . “ΒΔΕΑΤΓΜΑ ΤΗΣ ΕΡΗΜΩΣΕΩΣ Mc 13,14; Mt 24,15.” Bib 40 (1959) 675-83. Roarck, D. M. “T he G reat Eschatological Dis course.” NovT 7 (1964-65) 122-27. Robinson, W. C., Jr. Der Weg des Herrn. 47-50, 64-66. Rohr, J. “D er S prachgebrauch des M arkusevangeliums u n d die ‘M arkusapokalypse.’” TQ 89 (1907) 507-36. Rousseau, F. “La structure de Marc 13.” Bib 56 (1975) 157-72. Schramm, T. Markus-Stoff 171-82. Shaw, R. H. “A C onjecture on the Signs of the E n d .” ATR 47 (1965) 96-102. Spitta, F “Die grosse eschatologische Rede Jesu.” TSK 82 (1909) 348-401. Tagawa, K. “Marc 13: La tato n n em en t d ’un hom m e realiste eveille face a la tradition apocalyptique.” F V 7 6 (1977) 11-44. Taylor, V. “Unsolved New Testam ent Problem s—T he Apocalyptic Discourse of Mark 13.” E xpTim 60 (1948-49) 94-98. Tiede, D. L. “W eeping for Jeru salem .” In Prophecy and History. 65-96, 143-48. Verheyden, J. “T he Source (s) of Luke 21.” In L ’evangile de Luc (1989), ed. F. Neirynck. 491-516. Volter, D. “Die eschatologische Rede Jesu u n d seine Weissangung von der Z erstorung Jerusalem s.” STZ 31 (1915) 180-202. Walter, N.

Form/Structure/Setting

983

“T em pelserstorung u n d synoptische Apokalypse.” ZNW 57 (1966) 38-49. Walvoord, J. F. “C hrist’s Olivet Discourse on the Time of the End: Prophecies Fulfilled in the Present A ge.” BSac 128 (1971) 206-14. Wenham, D. “Paul and the Synoptic Apocalypse.” In Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Vol. 2, ed. R. T. France and D. W enham. Sheffield: JSOT, 1981. 3 4 5 -7 5 .------------ . “This generation will n o t pass. . . . ” In Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology. FS D. G uthrie, ed. Η. H. Rowdon. Leicester: IVP, 1982. 1 2 7 -5 0 .------------ . The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse. Gospel Perspectives 4. Sheffield: JSO T Press, 1984. 1 7 5 -3 3 4 .------------ . “R ecent Studies of Mark 13.” TSFB 71 (1975) 6-15; 72 (1975) 1-9. Zmijewski, J. Die Eschatologiereden des Lukas-Evangeliums: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Lk 21,5-36 und Lk 17,20-37. BBB 40. Bonn: H anstein, 1972. 43-325, 5 4 1 -7 2 .------------ . “Die Eschatologiereden Lk 21 u n d Lk 17: Uberlegungen zum Verstandnis u n d zur E inordnung der lukanischen Eschatologie.” BibLeb 14 (1973) 30-40. F o r 2 1 :5 -6 :

Bihler, J. Die Stephanusgeschichte im Zusammenhang der Apostelgeschichte. Mu n c h e n e r theologische Studien, I. Historische Abteil 16. Munich: H ueber, 1963. 13-16. Dupont, J.

“Il n ’en sera pas laisse pierre sur pierre (Marc 13,2; Luc 19,44).” Bib 52 (1971) 301-20. Meyer, R. Der Prophet aus Galilaa: Studie zum Jesusbild der drei ersten Evangelien. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1940 (= Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970). 16-18. Schlosser,J. “La parole de Jesus sur le fin du Tem ple.” N T S 36 (1990) 398-414. Vielhauer, P. Oikodome:

Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament, Band 2, ed. G. Klein. Theologische Bucherei 65. Munich: C. Kaiser, 1979. 59-66.

Translation

5As some people were talking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and offerings, he said, 6“These things which you see— days will come in which there will not be left stone upon stonea which will not be thrown down. ” Notes a T h e Markan and M atthean ώδε, “h e r e ,” is added by ‫ א‬B L / 13 892 etc.

Form/Structure/Setting T he section 19:47-21:38, during which Jesus teaches in the tem ple, divides between the units up to 21:4, with their depiction of criticism, conflict, and an tagonism between Jesus and various segments of the leadership of Jerusalem , and the units from 21:5 to 21:36 in which Jesus anticipates the unfolding of the fu ture to the com ing of the kingdom of God and the Son of Man. These two m ajor subsections are set within an inclusio m ade up of the opening and closing units (19:47-49; 21:37-38). Since 21:5-36 is largely a single continuous m onologue, the division of units is at times a little arbitrary, but wherever possible it does seek to m ark the m ajor transitions in the text. For 21:5-36 Luke continues to follow the Markan sequence, b u t there is less than agreem ent about w hether his M arkan source is the main basis upo n which he has produced his version of these materials. T here is little doubt that Luke had access to additional materials for this eschatological discourse.

984

L uke 21:5-6

W hat is in dispute, however, is whether, in m aterials where Luke only partially parallels his Markan source, Luke is editing rath er freely or following an alternative source. At the maximal end are those who consider that Luke has had at his disposal an extensive second version of the eschatological discourse covering as m uch as vv 5-7, 10-15, 18-20, 21b-26a, 28-31, 34-36 (various scholars suggest a somewhat smaller range for the second source here). This view is mostly found linked with a Proto-Luke hypothesis, according to which Luke was first written w ithout access to the Markan materials and then at a second stage of editing the Markan materials were added into the existing framework (mostly in large blocks). At the m inim al end are those who would only allow the influence of an addi tional tradition in the case of the few verses that have echoes in chap. 17 (esp. vv 23, 27 [v 31 is likely to have its source in the M arkan eschatological discourse (13:15)]). (V 18 sounds proverbial, and so is likely to be traditional in that sense, b u t n o t necessarily as part of any eschatological discourse.) Given L uke’s general level of intervention in the reproduction of sources, it is difficult to have m uch confidence in proposals that maximize the scope of a single second source: m uch of the m aterial is better explained as Lukan editing of his M arkan source. There are, however, a series of verses of additional m aterial, where the co n ten t is n o t significantly Lukan, and where it would seem in principle rea sonable to suspect access to additional tradition. A generous list of such verses m ight include vv 11, 18, 21b, 22, 23b, 24, 25, 26a, 28, 34-36. A less generous list m ight exclude vv 11, 21b, 25a, and possibly even vv 22, 28, and 34-36. T he real difficulty is in conceiving of any form o ther than a m ore elaborate eschatological discourse in which these materials m ight have been preserved and com m uni cated. A rath er distinctive approach, which has its own answer to this problem , is offered by W enham (Rediscovery), who argues at length for the view that there was an original extended eschatological discourse from which the Synoptic evan gelists have excerpted and which they have to varying degrees edited. W enham produces a reasonable unity for his extended discourse and argues his case with considerable care, but the resulting discourse does no t com m end itself as a prim i tive unity an d (th o u g h with all tentativeness) too m uch o f the case moves speculatively from what could have been the case to what was likely to have been the case. An alternative way of accounting for the additional m aterials may be in term s o f overlapping oral traditions, but perhaps best m ight be the postulation of an additional eschatological discourse of m ore lim ited scope with a content em bracing som ething like vv 11b (beginning “there will be terro rs”), 18, 20, 21b, 22, 23b, (24), (25a), (25b), 26a, 28 (v 20 is included as a necessary center of coherence; see Comment at 21:9 for a basis for thinking that this source may have originally also included an equivalent to v 9a). However, this too is conjectural. F u rther source discussion will be provided u n it by unit. T he question of the source(s), in turn, for L uke’s M arkan source, as rep re sented by Mark 13, has for a long time been the subject of an intense debate that shows no signs o f declining. A long period of popularity has been enjoyed by the view that the core of Mark 13 is based upon a Jewish or Jewish-Christian apoca lyptic pam phlet. Much of the cogency of the original nineteenth-century case for denying the materials to the historical Jesus has collapsed with the dem ise of the accom panying liberal reconstruction of the historical Jesus (see T. Colani, Jesus Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps [Strasbourg: Treuttel et Wu rz, 1864],

Form/ Structure/Setting

985

who identifies Mark 13 with the oracle spoken of in Eusebius, H.E. 3.5.3, as the basis u p o n which the Christians of Jerusalem fled to Pella at the beginning of the Jewish war; the historicity of this flight to Pella has com e u n d er serious attack, b u t also defense, in m ore recent scholarship [S. F. G. B randon, The Fall ofJerusa lem and the Christian Church, 2nd ed. [London: SPCK, 1957] 168-73; S. F. G. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots [Manchester: University Press, 1967] 208-16; S. Sow ers, “The Circumstances and Recollection of the Pella-flight,” TZ 26 [1970] 305-20; M. Simon, “Le m igration a Pella: Legende ou realite?” RSR 60 [1972] 37-54; B. C. Gray, “T he Movements of the Jerusalem C hurch during the First Jewish War,” JEW 24 [1973] 1-7; J. J. Gunther, “The Fate of the Jerusalem C hurch,” TZ 29 (1973) 81-94; C. Koester, “The Origin and Significance of the Flight to Pella T radition,” CBQ 51 [1989] 90-106; G. Lu dem ann, “T he Successors of Pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity: A Critical Evaluation of the Pella-Tradition,” in Jewish and

Christian Self-Definition: Volume 1. The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries, ed. E. P. Sanders [London: SCM, 1980] 161-73, 245-54; Neirynck, BETL 53 [1980] 566-71, 577-85; J. Verheyden, “The Flight of the Christians to Pella,”

ETL 66 [1990] 368-84; the apocalyptic pam phlet has at times been linked not to the Jewish war b u t to the period of crisis in Jerusalem in the time of Caligula [A.D. 40], and at times it has been seen as going through two editions for use in the two periods of crisis respectively [just occasionally the setting up by Pilate of im perial standards in Jerusalem in A.D. 19 is proposed as the point of origin]). However, new argum ents have em erged, and the Jewish-Christian apocalypticpam phlet view continues to find powerful supporters (it may be fair to say that the version of this that involved the taking over of a Jewish apocalyptic text and Christianizing it [so Bultmann, History, 122] never enjoyed the same levels of popu larity and seems to have largely dropped from sight). While Colani attributed the whole of Mark 13:5-31 to the apocalyptic pam phlet, o ther proponents of the general view have been m ore inclined to recognize the com posite nature of the m aterials and to identify only a certain proportion of the m aterial as com ing from the apocalyptic pam phlet (so variable has been the identification of this core that Beasley-Murray [ Commentary, 10] can rep o rt that every single verse of Mark 13:5-31 has been included and excluded in one or an o th er of the reconstructions of the original d o cu m en t). Alongside the apocalyptic pam phlet theory need to be set some of the main com peting alternatives. Lam brecht (“S tructure,” 14-64; Redaktion) sees Mark 13 as essentially a M arkan creation, drawing on a form of Q tradition that he uses rather loosely, and inspired by a series of OT texts. Only vv 2, 5b-6, 9 , 11-13, 14b-16, 21-22, 30-36 have any kind of basis in the Jesus tradition, and of these the tradition base for v 32 is extrem ely modest. H artm ann (Prophecy Interpreted) identifies a midrashic nucleus based on Dan 2:31-45; 7:7-27; 8:9-26; 9:24-27; 11:21-12:4, 13. He considers this to have consisted of vv (5a), 5b-8a, (8b), 12-16, 19-22, 24-27, and is quite co ntent to allow that in its earliest form this m idrash goes back to the historical Jesus. Flu ckiger (TZ 26 [1970] 395-409) identifies three interm ingled sources: an apocalyptic source in the third person consisting of vv 8, 12, 17, 19-20, 24-27; a temple prophecy source in the second person made up of vv 1-4, 14-16, 18, 28-32; a collection of missionary sayings also in the second person and involving vv 5-6, 21-23, 7, 9 -1 1 , 13 (minus editorial insertions). Finally we note the view of Grayston ( BJRL 56 [1974] 371-87) who, guided by the location of four tem poral clauses

986

L uke 21:5-6

followed by imperatives in Mark 13 and somewhat by the distinction between second and third person elements in the chapter, finds an original consisting of vv 7a, 9a, (9b), 1 1 , 1 4 -1 6 , 18, 21, 23 and expanded largely from general apocalyptic tradition. O f these, Fluckiger and Grayston do n o t provide a basis for their allocations of m aterials that is finally convincing, while Lam brecht dem ands an editorial tech nique for Mark 13 that does not seem to be true of o ther sections of the Gospel. As well, L am brecht seems, at least in the case of his basis for vv 15-16, to have conceived the direction of dependence backwards (cf. at Luke 17:22-37 on v 31). H artm an offers the most prom ising approach, though he does tend to move from secure links between Daniel and Mark 13 to insecure ones, and he is too ready to elim inate materials that have no possible link with Daniel, where the discipline of such single-m indedness is hardly characteristic of ancient exposition. N one theless, a broad link with Daniel does seem to be evident with at least the following connections to be accepted: Mark 13:7 and Dan 2:28; Mark 13:14 and Dan 7:27; 12:11; Mark 13:19 and Dan 12:1; Mark 13:26 and Dan 7:13, 14. W hat rem ains uncertain, however, is w hether all of these Daniel links belong to the original wording of the material, or whether, rather, the extent of their presence is to be attrib u ted to a rew riting in Danielic idiom (perhaps inspired by an original Danielic link for only Mark 13:26). T here seems to be no reason to deny to the historical Jesus an expectation of im pending ju d g m en t upon his People, nor to question that he would, as Jerem iah before him, have focused his expectation of the com ing ju d g m en t upon the city of Jerusalem a n d /o r its holy sanctuary. W hen Jesus’ view that the intervention of God in the world had reached a decisive stage in connection with his own m inis try is linked with his experience of the substantial rejection o f his ministry, especially by the leadership classes, it becom es difficult n o t to attribute to him some such expectation of im pending judgm ent. The expectation of a present generation ju d g m en t would seem to have a good base of m ultiple attestation in the Gospel tradition (Luke 9:27; 11:49-50; 13:34-35; 19:41-44; Luke 21 [which I have suggested above fuses Mark 13 and an o th er eschatological discourse, though this is likely to be a separately transm itted variant of the same trad itio n ]). If such is the case, then there is an adequate basis for claim ing a core of Mark 13 for the historical Jesus. Thus, there is finally no need to postulate an apocalyp tic pam phlet, which may be a good thing since the present “apocalyptic pam phlet” is so unlike the apocalyptic docum ents available for com parison (see Grayston, BJRL 56 [1974] 379-81; Feuillet, RevThom 80 [1980] 187). This is n o t to deny the com posite nature of the present form of Mark 13, bu t it is to claim that, no m at ter how extensive the developm ents may have been, both in term s of rewording and in term s of the incorporation of fu rth er traditional materials, the chapter is built upo n a significant core that is likely to go back to the historical Jesus (it may be that some general guidance as to the scope of this core is available from the scope of the additional form of the eschatological discourse, which, as I have suggested above, Luke is likely to have em ployed). T he source question will receive further attention u n it by unit. An outline may help to clarify the large shape and m ain developm ents in the discourse (naturally the outline reflects the results yet to emerge in the discussion below). Overhearing in the temple the (self-congratulatory) glorying in the tem ple by some unn am ed people, Jesus, speaking to his disciples in the hearing of the

Comment

987

People, predicts the tem ple’s com ing destruction. The disciples ask how and when this will be. Jesus cautions them against any enthusiasm for the destruction of the tem ple and any th o ught that as Christians they have a role in m aking it happen. T hen he begins to outline the sequence of events within which the destruction of the tem ple (and the city with it) will take place. Jesus maps an escalating pattern, from reports of wars and uprisings to the involvement of the whole cosmos, as all the nations of the world convulse u n d er the ju d g m en t of God. But even before this p attern of escalation has its beginning a yet m ore im por tant beginning is located in the persecution, witness, suffering, and deliverance of the disciple community. This prepares for the com ing ju d g m en t in a way that significantly parallels Jesus’ own path of rejection and suffering in preparation for the com ing ju d g m en t on the Jewish People. Well along the curve of escalation comes the disaster to befall Jerusalem . Dis ciples are to flee when they see armies preparing to lay siege to the city: the city is d oom ed to fall, to fulfill all scriptural expectations about ju d g m en t upon G od’s rebellious People. But after Jerusalem has felt the full b ru n t of G od’s anger, the gentile nations too will get their turn: when the times are ripe, localized ju d g m ent in Palestine will give way to (escalate to) a time of ju d g m en t for each and every nation of the world. This will herald the com ing of the Son of Man and the final deliverance that he will bring. The disciples are encouraged with the parable of the fig tree and all the trees to find sure pointers to the nearness of deliverance in the unfolding sequence of disasters as they happen; and they are referred to the solid and abiding significance of the words of Jesus in the m idst of all this sea of change. In light of all this, Jesus ends with a call to vigilance and prayer: a well sign-posted development to the end will strike as a sudden and unexpected snare if the disciples fail in this discipline. For vv 5-6, Luke describes a different setting from M ark’s, uses an imprecise “certain ones” as speakers instead of M ark’s “one of the disciples,” and otherwise retains little of the precise M arkan wording. The changes make good redactional sense, and there is no sufficient reason to consider that Luke has used m ore than his M arkan source. These verses have the form of a p ro nouncem ent story, which may have circulated quite independently of the following materials. The agreem ent with Luke 19:44, however, over the striking image of not one stone being left upon an o th er raises the possibility that Mark 13:1-2 has been com posed by Mark as an introduction to the eschatological chapter on the basis of a tradition like 19:4144 (see D upont, Bib 52 [1971] 301-20). If this is right, then the redundancy involved in having ού μή καταλνθη, “which will not be thrown dow n/destroyed” (Mark 13:2), to follow “there will no t be left here one stone upon a n o th e r” is probably to be explained in term s of a secondary dependence upon Mark 14:58. Comment T he g ran d eu r of the tem ple, resplendent with the tributes offered in h o n o r of its God, should n o t lull people into feeling that all is well with God and the world. Indeed all is n o t well, and the tem ple of which people were so proud is destined for the same fate as befell the temple of Jerem iah’s day, a temple that had become a focus of false security before God am ong those whose lives failed to ho n o r him.

988

L uke 21:5-6

5 Luke reform ulates extensively: what in Mark was an interaction between a certain disciple and Jesus becom es in Luke a tableau played out in front of Jesus u p o n which he com m ents to his disciples (rather as in 21:1-4); what in Mark need express no m ore than that disciple’s im pression of the fortress-like im preg nability o f the Jerusalem tem ple becomes in Luke what is probably m eant to be a subtle expression o f a falsely based claim upon G od’s favor (God is fitly hon o red and his com m itm ent to Jerusalem assured by the presence of a tem ple m ade splen did by m agnificent offerings; cf. Je r 7; and, for the language, 2 Macc 9:16; Philo, Ad Gaium 23.157). See Nolland, “L uke’s R eaders,” 135-42. O n the stones used in the building of the H erodian tem ple see Josephus, Ant. 15.392; War 5.189; and for an exuberant description of the grandeur of the tem ple see War5.184-226; Ant. 15.391-402. T he offerings in view here are those used to beautify and enrich the tem ple (cf. 2 Macc 3:2; 9:16; Josephus, War 5.210-12; Ant. 15.395). 6 Unlike in Mark, Jesus in Luke no longer responds directly to the repre sentative(s) of the sentim ent (the “you” who “see” are not the anonymous speakers of v 5, but rather “the disciples” . . . “[in the hearing of] all the People” who are identified as Jesus’ audience in 20:45). Luke introduces a pendant construction (“these things which you see” [using θεωρείτε in place of M ark’s βλέπεις) for M ark’s grammatically complete “Do you see these great buildings?” (different from Mark, Luke has not used “buildings” in v 5 and so cannot take the term up again h e re ). Luke’s added έλεύσεται ήμέραι, “days will com e” (redactional also in 17:22; found as well in 5:35; with a present tense in 23:29; and with ηξουσιν in 19:43), is best seen in relation to the prophetic formula, particularly favored by Jeremiah, ιδού έρχονται ήμέραι, “behold days are com ing” (twelve of seventeen uses, including one in chap. 7 [v 32], a chapter that has other links with the present section). The usage heightens the sense of threat or promise (here the former) in what follows. Luke uses “in which” to link this insertion and prefers simple negative futures for Mark’s ού μή + aorist subjunctives (emphatic negative futures). Luke deletes Mark’s ωδε, “here,” and pre fers the dative after έπί, “u p o n ” (he failed to make a corresponding change at 19:44). Luke retains the redundancy of the final Markan clause. He will have no parallel to Mark 14:58 but will make use of the link that the language provides at Acts 6:13. A similar u tter desolation of the tem ple was anticipated m any centuries earlier by Jerem iah (7:1-14; 22:5; cf. 52:12-13). Josephus linked the two destructions by m aintaining that the firing of the tem ple in A.D. 70 had taken place on the same day o f the year as the firing of the tem ple by the king of Babylon (War 6.250). Luke is also keenly aware of the parallelism. Explanation T he criticism, conflict, and antagonism of the first half of the present section (19:47-21:38) now give way to a series of linked units in which Jesus anticipates the unfolding o f the future to the com ing of the kingdom of God and the Son of Man. For the People of God, as for the wider world of the Gentiles, the future th at leads to the com ing of the kingdom of God and the Son of Man involves the pouring o u t of G od’s wrath in judgm ent. T he setting for the discourse about the future is provided by a group of unnam ed people who are heard to glory in the m agnificence of the tem ple and the

Form/ Structure/Setting

989

splendor of the adornm ents provided through the votive offerings that had been given there. T here is an im plicit expression here of claim upon God akin to that found in J e r 7. God m ust surely be delighted by all the honors he has received! T he conflict between Jesus as G od’s emissary and the various leadership groups in 19:47-21:4 suggests, however, that God is probably n o t delighted after all. And Jesus’ words to his disciples here confirm this im pression. He describes a ju d g m en t that will obliterate the very shrine that was considered to symbolize G od’s com m itm ent to his People and their claim u p o n God. Jesus speaks m uch as Jerem iah had in the vanguard of the sixth-century destruction of Jerusalem and tem ple (see J e r 7). History will replay itself on a yet grander scale.

The Buildup to the Coming Devastation

(21:7-11)

Bibliography Manson, W. “T he ΕΓΩ EIMI of the Messianic Presence in the New Testament. ”JTS 48 (1947) 137-45. And see at 21:5-6.

Translation 7 They asked him, “Teacher, when then will these things be and what is the sign, when these things are to happen ?”8He said, “See that you are not led astray! For many will come in my name saying, T am [he], ’ and ‘the time has drawn near. ’Do not go after them. 9When you hear of wars and uprisings do not be terrified. For it is necessary that these things happen first. However, the fulfillmenta will not occur immediately.”19Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom; 11there will be great earthquakes, and famines and plagues from place to place; there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven.” Notes a Gr. τέλος- (lit. “e n d ”).

Form/Structure/Setting Jesus’ rem ark in v 6 provokes questioning by the disciples about tim ing and about what sign m ight point to the im pending disaster. Jesus’ answer carries on to v 36, b u t it begins in vv 8-11 with a w arning about being misled and an ac count of a rising crescendo of tum ult in the world. Luke follows the M arkan sequence, and though there are significant differ ences (once again [as in vv 5-6] a change of location is deleted, specified persons

990

Luke 2 1 : 7 1 1 ‫־‬

[here the questioners] becom ed anonym ous, and a reference to Jesus’ nam e is dropped; “the time has drawn n e a r” is added to the false message of v 8; and in v 11 “these [are] the beginnings of the birth pangs” is displaced by “there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven”), there is no sufficient reason for postulating an additional source, except perhaps for v 11b (see further at 21:5-6). The Markan material is itself not unitary. The question of Mark 13:4 is best seen as a Markan formulation, preparing for the discourse to follow (though the tensions within the question itself m ight argue for a traditional core [as Zmijewski, Eschato logiereden, 85-87; etc.], it is perhaps m ore likely to result from the artificiality of formulating a question that needs to follow v 2 and at the same time anticipate what is to come in vv 5-37). The material of v 5 occurs in another form in Luke 17:23, a form likely to be closer to the original (see discussion th ere). Vv 7-8 belong together (as well as shared subject matter, there is a parallelism of structure). They form no original unity with what precedes or follows, but it is difficult to see how they could have been transmitted without a larger context. War is “a standard apocalyptic stage p ro p ” (Fitzmyer, 1336), and it is certainly possible that the verses belong to a late stage in the development of this discourse. But war belongs to the OT judgm ents in history (see Isa 19:2; 2 Chr 15:6) every bit as m uch as to an apocalyptic climax at the end o f history (4 Ezra 13:31). An original unity with the m aterials to com e in vv 14-20 is perhaps yet m ore likely, since v 14 certainly requires some introduc tory material, and vv 7-8 would provide introductory material of the correct genre. Comment How and when will the destruction of the tem ple take place? Certainly not by violent intervention by Christ or his followers! An escalating p attern of wars and disturbances, along with earthquakes, famines, and plagues and with dreadful portents and signs from heaven, will be part of the divinely appointed process that leads to the demise of the tem ple. 7 In line with his desire to set the whole of this section in the tem ple pre cincts, Luke deletes the M arkan setting. The M arkan privacy is also removed, and along with it goes the list of nam es of those privileged to be with Jesus at this point. T he M arkan “teacher,” which was no t used in v 5, is used here (on Luke’s use of “teach er” in address to Jesus see at 7:40). Luke finds M ark’s “all” before “these things” unm otivated and deletes it (it was form ulated by Mark m ore with an eye to what is to come than with reference to what p recedes). Similarly, M ark’s rath er grand συντβλβΐσθαί, “to be accom plished,” is reduced to γίνβσθαί, “to happ e n ” (in the process obscuring what is likely to have been an allusion to Dan 12:7 [see LXX w ording]). In the Lukan question, nothing appears beyond the de struction of the tem ple as envisaged in v 6. T here are o th er m inor changes. Why should the disciples assume that there will be a sign given before the de struction o f the temple? And what m ight constitute such a sign? I have argued elsewhere (“Luke’s Readers,” esp. 208-12), in connection with the thesis that Luke writes with an awareness of a Jewish polem ical use of the tradition behind Mark 14:58/Acts 6:14 (used to stigmatize Christians as followers of a schismatic pseudo m essiah, unfaithful to central Jewish practices, who p lan n ed a revolutionary takeover in Jerusalem involving the destruction of the present tem ple [see “Luke’s R eaders,” 144-203]), that Luke is served by a deliberate ambiguity in the sign

Comment

991

language here. Against the background of this Jewish polem ic the σημείου could be taken as the “signal” for the assault on Jerusalem and its tem ple and is thus well motivated in this particular way. But as the discourse unfolds, it becomes quite clear that the answer distances itself from all such assum ptions and that the question has after all no t been intended in such a sense at all. The role of the sign here is to be seen against the background of the signs of 2 Kgs 19:29-31 = Isa 37:30-32; Isa 7:11-16 (and cf. Exod 3:12), where the sign is n o t so m uch a w arning announcem ent com ing immediately prior to the pro p h esied event b u t serves ra th e r to provide a time fram e for the com ing of the heralded future. It is likely, therefore, that we should see “the sign” in a somewhat encompassing way as the increasing turm oil in the world around, culminating in the encirclem ent of Jerusalem by armies. 8 Luke strips out from his M arkan source the fresh introduction of Jesus and the language of beginning. He recasts M ark’s μή τις υμάς πλαυήση (lit. “lest som eone lead you astray”) into the passive, adds “and the time has drawn n e a r” to the language of those who would mislead, and replaces M ark’s “and they will lead many astray” with “do no t go after them .” T here are other m inor changes. For Luke, Christians are well w arned against those who would mislead and will, therefore, n ot be led astray, έπΐ τω όυόματί μου (lit. “upon my n am e”) has been taken in quite a num ber of ways (“as Christians”; “pretending to be m e”; “claiming my authority”; “speaking in my nam e [as OT prophets spoke in the nam e of Yahweh]”; etc.). But the traditional understanding “claiming to be the Christ, i.e., claiming my office” has the most to com m end it (see Nolland, “Luke’s R eaders,” 213-18, 313-23). εγώ είμί (lit. “I [emphatic] am ”) has m ost often been taken to m ean “I am the C hrist,” but by some to m ean “[that] I am h e re ” (an nouncing Jesus’ secret presence), or as a m ark of prophetic possession in which the speaker becomes the m outhpiece of the deity (see discussion in “Luke’s Read ers,” 213-16). The predom inant view is certainly the correct one. Luke’s addition of “the time has drawn n e a r” has often been taken as warning against all preaching of the im m inence of the eschaton. But this is to lose sight of the im m ediate context, in which the time we have been encouraged to focus on is that of the destruction of the tem ple (and cf. the use of the same verb form in v 20; and the almost identical language in Lam 4:18 in connection with the de struction of Jeru sa lem ). Again, the Jewish polem ic may offer insight, with its suggestion (with a certain family likeness to Q um ran hostility to the leadership in Jerusalem and dream s of future violent displacem ent of that leadership) that the Christian messiah had been expected to lead his followers in an attack on Jerusalem , to wreak vengeance on the present regim e, to destroy the tem ple and forcibly to set up a Christian regime. Against this background L uke’s rewording “do n o t follow th em ” may be taken as forbidding the following into battle of mes sianic war leaders who declare that the time is ripe for Jerusalem ’s destruction. C ontrast the totally passive role assigned to Christians at the time of the destruc tion (v 21) and the absence of Jesus in the crucial period and until his later arrival as the Son o f Man (v 27, 36). The aim of the verse in L uke’s hands is to distance Christianity from the Jewish polem ical caricature. In the process, he produces a form of the prophecy that, while it accurately reflects strands within the range of Jewish thinking of the period received historically, so far as we are aware, describes no precise fulfillment.

992

L uke 21:7-11

9 L uke’s changes h ere are άκαταστασίας , “uprisings,” for M ark’s άκοάς πολέμων, “rum ors o f wars”; πτοηθήτε , “be terrified,” for θροεΐσθε, “be d istu rb ed / frig h ten ed ”; οώτ ευθέως, “no t immediately,” for οϋπω, “no t yet”; and the addition o f ydp ταϋτα . . . πρώτον, “for these things [to happen] first” (there may be an allusion to Jer 51:46 in the M arkan text that L uke’s editing has obscured; if this is so, th en a corresponding allusion to v 45 may be better preserved in Luke 21:21b, to v 55 in Luke 21:25b, and, possibly, to v 48 in Luke 21:25-26). Repeatedly in the OT, terro r is a natural response to the prospect o f war (e.g., Amos 3:6). The en couragem ent here not to be terrified is the beginning point of a thread through the chapter of indications that there is in the m idst of this rising tide of turm oil and distress some kind of protection for the disciple com m unity (cf. vv 18-19, 21, 28 [but contrasty 16]). The specific reason provided for n o t being terrified is the divine necessity that is in control of this apparently chaotic and out of control unfolding o f events (an allusion to Dan 2:28 is claim ed but is far from certain). Luke marks here the beginning point of an unfolding developm ent, which will carry through to το τέλος (lit. “the e n d ”), bu t n o t at once (Luke’s “n o t im m edi ately” is n o t really different from M ark’s “not yet” when we take into account M ark’s “these [are the] beginning of the birth-pangs,” which Luke does no t u se). το τέλος may be deliberately am biguous, but its m ost evident reference is to the en d of the tem ple, possibly with the word taking the sense “fulfillm ent” as it does in 22:37. Alternatively it may function as a synonym for judgm ent, along the lines of the uses in Ezek 7:2-3, 6-7. In the developm ent of the chapter, we should note the continuity as well as escalation from v 9 to vv 10-11 and to vv 25-26 (Luke’s change to “uprisings” [i.e., smaller-scale disturbances] may be in the interests of m arking m ore clearly this escalation). 10 Luke provides a fresh beginning here with “T hen he said to th em ” (Mark linked with “for,” b ut Luke has used that in v 9; cf. the Lukan insertion at 6:5). T he language here may allude to 2 C hr 15:6 (for the reference to “nation against n atio n ”) and to Isa 19:2 (for “kingdom against kingdom ”; these texts share a ref erence to “city against city” no t used here). If this is so, then these prelim inary experiences m ust be seen as already com ing within the orbit, in a prelim inary way, of that climactic ju d g m en t that is to be anticipated later in the chapter. 11 Luke moves the verb “will b e ” from its Markan opening position and drops M ark’s repetition of the verb. He adds “great” to “earthquakes” to replace “from place to place,” which he steals to link instead with “fam ines.” With “fam ines” Luke pairs “plagues” (the Greek term s are λιμοί and λοιμοί, so they form a natu ral literary pair [see Hesiod, Op. 243; Thucydides, Hist. 2.54; T Judah 23:3; Sib. Or. 8:175]). For some of these disasters, cf. Ezek 38:19-22; Isa 5:13-14; Hag 2:6; Rev 6:8; 11:13; etc. In place of M ark’s “these [are the] beginning of the birth-pangs,” Luke continues the list with “there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven” (perhaps from a second source). In term s of the escalation, it may be right to distinguish “signs from heaven” = “signs from G od” here from the signs in the heavenly bodies of v 25, or alternatively “signs in the sky” from the signs in the heavenly bodies. V 11b has interesting parallels in Jo sep h u s’ description of events su rrounding the destruction of the tem ple in A.D. 70 (War 6.288-311; cf. also Tacitus Hist. 5.13; 2 Macc 5:2-3; Sib. Or. 3:796-808). T he Lukan changes in vv 10-11 m ake what was in Mark an elaboration of the point of the previous verse into a separate escalating developm ent. T here is, however, no reason up to this

Explanation

993

point for seeing this developm ent as heading toward anything o ther than the destruction of the tem ple as introduced in v 6. Explanation Jesus’ forecast naturally provokes questioning: how and w hen will the destruc tion of the tem ple take place? T he answer begins by rejecting any Christian do-it-yourself origination of the divinely ordained future. He then portrays an escalating sequence of hum an and natural disasters, along with portents from God, th at will begin the process leading inexorably to the destruction of the tem ple. T here is quite an ambiguity in the question about “the sign.” It would seem that there was a Jewish caricature of Christianity used in polem ic that was based on the traditions b ehind Mark 14:58; Acts 6:13-14. This represented Christianity as violently opposed to the norm al practices of Judaism and as fostering dream s of a violent capture of Jerusalem , involving the destruction of the tem ple and the im position of a Christian regim e. Against this background “the sign” could be a signal that the time had com e to make an attack on Jerusalem . Luke allows for the possibility o f the question being (mis-) taken this way in order to show, especi ally in v 8, how wrong it is to see Christians in any such light. If the sign is no signal to attack, neither is it likely to be narrowly conceived as a warning announcem ent, immediately to precede the prophesied event. As in 2 Kgs 19:29-31 and Isa 37:30-32, it is more likely that the sign provides something of a time frame for the anticipated event. It is to be thought of in a rather more encom passing m anner as related to the picture Jesus is about to create of increasing turmoil in the world around, culminating in the encirclem ent of Jerusalem by armies. The false Christs anticipated in v 8 are those who would encourage their fol lowers to work actively for the destruction of the temple: “the time has come for its destruction; let’s go and do it.” Christians have been w arned to avoid such involvement (see v 21 below) and would no t follow any such leader. Instead, Jesus finds the beginning point of the process that will lead to the tem ple’s destruction in reports of wars and uprisings (events with which disciples have no personal connection). They should not be terrified by what seems to be a chaotic unfolding of events because such are not simply random manifestations threatening to engulf them . Far from it! They represent the necessary unfolding of the divine plan. As the chapter develops, it will becom e clearer that this unfolding future includes a m easure of special protection for the disciple band. The identified beginning point is subject to escalation, and the escalation is spelled out in vv 10-11. Beyond the hum an disaster of war there will be earthquakes, famines, and plagues. And beyond these again there will be dreadful portents and signs from heaven. The Jewish historian Josephus reported such portents and signs in the buildup to the destruction of Jerusalem and the tem ple. T here was a widespread belief in the ancient world that such m anifestations would anticipate or accompany highly significant happenings. Against such a background, it is hard to be sure, as m oderns, how literally to take such language. In any case, we can detect a rising crescendo that has n o t reached its high point by v 11.

994

Luke 21:12-19

Persecution Comes First of All

(21:12-19)

Bibliography

The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1966. 130-32. Dupont, J. “La persecution com m e situation missionaire (Marc 13, 9 -1 1 ).” In Die Kirche des Anfangs, ed. R. S chnackenburg et al. 97-114. Fuchs, A. Sprachliche Untersuchungen. 37-44, 171-91. Giblet, J. “Les promesses de l’Esprit et la mission des apotres dans les evangiles.” Irenikon 30 (1957) 5-43, esp. 17-19. Grasser, E. Parusieverzogerung. 158-61. Hartman, L. Testimonium Barrett, C. K.

linguae: Participial Constructions in the Synoptic Gospels: A Linguistic Examination ofLuke 21,13. ConN T 19. Lund: G leerup, 1963. 57-75. Kilpatrick, G. D. “Mark xiii. 9 -1 0 .” JTS n.s. 9 (1958) 81-86. K uhschelm, R. Jungerverfolgung und GeschickJesu: Eine exegetisch-bibeltheologische

Untersuchung der synoptischen Verfolgungsankundigungen Mk 13,9-13 par und Mt 23,29-36par. OBS 5. K losterneuburg: O sterreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. Mahoney, M. “Luke 21:14-15: Editorial Rewriting or A uthenticity?” ITQ 47 (1980) 220-38. Reicke, B. “A Test of Synoptic Relationships: M atthew 10,17-23 and 24,9-14 with Parallels.” In New Synoptic Studies, ed. W. R. Farmer. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1983. 209-29. A nd see at 21:5-6.

Translation 12 “But [even] before all these things, they will lay their hands upon youa and persecute [you], handing you over to synagogues and prisons, [and with you] being brought before kings and governors for the sake of my name. 13This will lead to [an opportunity] for you for witness. 14Determine in your hearts, then, not to prepare beforehand in order to make a defense. 15For I will give you a mouth and wisdom which none of your oppo nents will be able to withstand or contradict. 16You will be handed over even by parents and brothers, and relatives and friends, and they will have some of you put to death.b 17You will be hated by all because of my name. 18But not a hair ofyour head will perish. 19By your steadfastness securec your lives!” Notes a ‫ א‬reads “th em ,” which can only be a m echanical transcription error. b Lit. “they will pu t some o f you to d e ath .” c A B Θ / 13 33 pc lat sa bopt read κτήσβσθε, “you will secure.” T he th o u g h t flows m ore easily and consistently with this reading, and it is ju st possible that it is original.

Form/Structure/Setting Before the necessary wars and uprisings make their appearance, the persecu tion o f the disciple com m unity begins. Many locate the end of the parenthesis begun in v 12 at v 24, but there are considerable difficulties with such a term inus: (i) in this arrangem ent Jerusalem (and thus the tem ple) gets destroyed in the parenthesis, which is awkward given the starting point in v 6; (ii) there is no con tinuity between the them es of vv 12-19 and v 20, which makes v 20 a m ore natural breaking point; (iii) the fresh time indication at v 20 points in the same direction;

Comment

995

( iv) the war language of vv 9, 10 is good preparation for the role of armies in v 20; (v) the m easure of parallelism between v 23a and 26a is best respected if the form er is n o t separated into a parenthesis. Luke continues to follow the M arkan sequence, while providing with his chro nological paren th esis his own precision o f the relatio n sh ip betw een events anticipated in this chapter. For the most part, nothing beyond the M arkan source is evident, b u t for vv 14-15 it is likely (against the consensus of scholarship) that Luke has m ade fu rther use of the second source also reflected in p art at 12:1112 (see there and Comment below), and v 18 may be from the second eschatological discourse with which Luke appears to have conflated his M arkan source in this chapter (see at 21:5-6). T he materials behind the M arkan section do not constitute an original unity. Mark 13:9-11, 12 (-13a), and 13(b) are each likely to have in d ep en d en t tradition histories. T he tradition behind vv 9-11 (without the last phrase of v 9 and all of v 10) is independently attested by a second source available to Matthew and Luke. O n its fundam ental historicity, cf. at 12:11-12. The tradition behind Mark 13:12 clearly has some family likeness to that behind Luke 12:51-53. T hough it is likely that Jesus anticipated the em ergence, in connection with allegiance to himself, of fundam ental divisions between even those m ost intim ately related (cf. 14:26), it is n ot clear w hether the specific language here, and in particular the elabora tion in term s of allusion to Mic 7:6, goes back to the historical Jesus or n o t (on the place of Mic 7:6 in the Gospels and Jewish tradition see Grelot [Bib 67 (1986) 363-77]). V 13a may still belong to the allusion to Mic 7:6 (see Comment below ). T hough the steadfastness com m ended in v 13b fits well enough the historical Jesus, the form ulation here is likely to be Markan. Luke retains the large shape of the M arkan structure with its move from per secution to “triu m p h ” in 13:9-11 and then again in vv 12-13. He reinforces the positive tone of the outcom e in Luke 21:18-19. Comment T he persecution of the disciples follows in the train of the rejection of Jesus, and is yet m ore fundam ental than the wars and portents in the p attern of events leading to the ju d g m en t that is to fall on the Jerusalem tem ple. The exalted Jesus will him self provide the powerful words of witness needed to confute every foe; and though some will die, Christians who rem ain steadfast in their confession of faith will experience divine protection to an extraordinary degree. 12 L uke’s total reform ulation includes the replacem ent of M ark’s opening words o f w arning by his own “Before all this” th ro u g h to “persecute [you]” (D upont [Trois apocalypses,114] has drawn attention to the way in which Luke has systematically changed the tone through vv 12-19 from that of w arning to that of encouragem ent and call for confidence; the idiom “to lay hands u p o n ” has been introduced by Luke in 20:19 in connection with Jesus and is used here to link the disciples’ com ing experience and his; “persecute” is probably for the sake of a link with 11:49); the use of “synagogues” and “prisons” as a pair instead of M ark’s “councils [συνέδριά] and synagogues” (Luke does not speak of “councils”; he uses the word only of the Sanhedrin); the loss of Mark’s m ention of beatings (since beat ings are frequent in Acts and also part of the passion account [a fact curiously

996

Luke 21:12-19

denied by Ku hschelm , Jungerfolgung 200], the loss is likely to be only stylistically m otivated); reversal of the order in which governors and kings are introduced (possibly with the o rder in Ps 2:2 in m ind [cf. Acts 4:25-29], but perhaps ju st to start at the higher level, as is his practice elsewhere); replacem ent of “for my sake” with “for the sake of my n am e” (Luke does n o t use the precise phrase else where, but he uses “the nam e o f ” in relation to Jesus m any times, predom inantly in connection with the actual utterance of Jesus’ nam e; here the sense is prob ably “because o f the confession o f m e which you m ak e”). Luke creates an awkwardness with his use of άπαγομένους , “being b ro u g h t”: this participle forms a kind of parallel to παραδίδόντες , “handing over,” where the latter refers back to the persecutors who have been the subject of the preceding verbs, while the form er refers back to the use of υμάς , “you,” after the first verb. Far from being concerned to distance his account of the persecution of Chris tians from his narrative of the developm ents to the final crisis, L uke’s “before all this” gives to the persecution a fundam ental significance for precisely this final crisis (cf. 11:49-51 and discussion there). The persecutors are introduced anony mously, b u t that both the Jewish and the gentile spheres are involved is signalled by “synagogues” and “governors,” respectively. The Acts m aterial provides exten sive illustrations of how he saw this to be worked out concretely in the life of the church. 13 Luke amplifies M ark’s 6ίς μαρτύρων αύτοίς, “for a witness to /ag ain st th em ,” into the separate statem ent άποβήσεταί ΰμΐν εις μαρτύρίον (translated above as “this will lead to [an opportunity] for you for witness”). The sense of L uke’s form has been taken in various ways. H artm an ( Testimonium, 57-75; cf. Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 161-69; D upont, Trois apocalypses, 115-16) thinks of a testimony in the disciples’ favor at the eschatological judgm ent, but this makes for a hardly w arranted intrusion into the present context. O th er unlikely senses include “this will cause you to be shown up in a positive light” and “this will show you how stiff-necked and therefore destined to ju d g m en t are the Jews” (for the latter see Keck, Abschiedsrede, 205-8). The majority of scholars rightly see that Luke has changed the Markan m eaning little here. In question is only w hether Luke thinks of the whole response to the courtroom situation as constituting the wit ness or w hether he thinks m ore narrowly of verbal witness to the Christian faith. Despite the norm al distinction between μαρτύρων as the objective testimony and μαρτυρία as the act of testifying (which would favor the latter view), com parison with Acts 4:33 and the role of verbal activity in vv 12 and 14-15 incline me to think that he intends the latter. Luke lacks an equivalent to Mark 13:10: the verse does no t lend itself to L uke’s p attern of editing all the materials of this un it to second person plural forms (see D upont, Trois apocalypses, 113); the general point about witnessing to the faith has already been adequately made; Luke avoids the noun form “gospel”; and from his point of view the gospel to the nations is at this point still anachronistic (24:47 may be a Lukan equivalent to the M arkan verse). 14 θέτε . . . ευ ταΐς καρδίαις υμών (lit. “place in your h earts”) is Semitic but is likely to be a Lukan Septuagintalism (cf. at 1:66; see 1 Kgdms 21:13; Mal 2:2; and esp. Hag 2:15). προμελετάν, “prepare, rehearse befo reh an d ,” which has a technical use in connection with practicing or m em orizing a speech (see BAGD, 708), is likely to be a Lukan im provem ent (this is the only NT occurrence). The

Comment

997

use of άπολογηθήναί, “make a defense,” is the one clear verbal link (beyond a γάρ , “fo r”) with the form of this tradition given at Luke 12:11-12 (see there). 15 Luke is likely to be responsible for making Jesus himself the dispenser of “m outh and wisdom” (cf. Acts 18:9-10; 4:29). Otherwise Luke probably follows quite closely his second source here (cf. at 12:11-12). The role of the m outh is quite promi nent in OT diction, but only Judg 9:38 comes close to the idiom involved here. The gift of wisdom is a widely attested idea within and outside Judaism. In Luke, cf. 2:40, 52; 7:35; 11:49. “Wisdom” and “Spirit” are paired in Acts 6:10 (reverse order in 6:3), "wisdom” and “stature” in Luke 2:52, “grace” and “wisdom” in Acts 7:10. Luke is responsible for some of these pairings but is not likely to have originated the pairing here of “m outh” and ‘"wisdom” (the similar language in Acts 6:10 [note the use there of άντίστήναί, "withstand,” as well] is to recall the present verse), άπαντβς οί άντίκείμενοί (lit. “all the opponents”) echoes 13:17 and makes clear that 13:10-17 is a working out in Jesus’ own ministry (but not directly in a courtroom context) of what is promised to his disciples here for the future (considering its schematic role there, it is likely that the language in 13:17 has been borrowed from the present verse to make the link). In v 16 it becomes clear, however, that being able to speak so powerfully is not a guarantee of safe deliverance. 16 Luke changes to a second person verb form and adopts his own approach to the form ulation of this prophecy of intim ate betrayal: Mark identifies both parties in each of a series of family relationships and deals with children betray ing parents in a separate clause; Luke treats all together b u t specifies in each case only one party, seeing each in term s of the relationship to the “you” of the verb. Luke introduces a general term for relatives and also moves beyond family to include friends. By dropping “to d ea th ” from the statem ent about handing over and by adding “some of you,” Luke makes it clear that the prospect of death is n o t general. In the Lukan rewording, the allusion to Mic 7:6 in Mark 13:12 disappears from sight. The involvement of family and friends is yet m ore distressing than the anonym ous opponents introduced in v 12. The death of some is amply illustrated in Acts, but there is no rep o rted incident of intim ate betrayal (the prototype will be betrayal of Jesus by Ju d a s). 17 Mark 13:13a is reproduced w ithout change. The widespread unpopular ity o f the Christian m ovem ent is reflected in Acts 28:22, but Luke is unlikely to think in term s of a necessary profound antagonism between Christians and all others (cf. Acts 19:31; etc.). Perhaps he takes “all” as “all sorts o f ” rath er than universally, or m ore likely as referring to all (sorts of) family and o th er intim ate links (the LXX of Mic 7:6 has “[the] enem ies of a m an will be all the m en in his house [hold] ”). But in the context of the m ovem ent toward the eschatological climax, there is a tendency toward dualistic language, and Luke may consider that the extrem ity of the language is appropriate in such a setting, διά το όνομά μου, “because of my nam e,” is likely, as for the similar phrase in v 12, to refer to confession of allegiance to Jesus. 18 Luke adds v 18, which may com e from a second eschatological discourse (see at 21:5-6). The addition strengthens the positive thrust of v 19 to come. T hough 12:7 is based on the Jewish idiom reflected here as well (see at 12:7), that verse is hardly a doublet of 21:18. Luke will echo the present prom ise in Acts 27:34 (those with Paul participate in his divine p ro tec tio n ). T hough Luke admits the reality of the prospect of death in v 16, he thinks, nevertheless, very concretely,

998

Luke 21:12-19

and m ore generally, of the reality of divine protection in the m idst of extrem e difficulty (there is no encouragem ent at all to spiritualize here). Again the m ate rial in Acts provides am ple illustration. 19 T he threatening edge to M ark’s word of encouragem ent disappears in the Lukan editing: there is no questioning of the disciples’ perseverance, only a pointing to steadfastness in the confession of Christ as offering the place of secu rity for the future. Following on v 18, Luke thinks concretely of the saving of life in the m idst of danger (he thinks of deliverance in concrete situations and not, as in Mark, o f salvation resulting from a steady perseverence to the eschaton/fall o f Jerusalem ). Luke deliberately uses language that will sound paradoxical in a context where secular wisdom would suggest that renouncing C hrist is what will assure life. O f course the assurance o f the present verse cannot negate the thrust o f v 16, b u t it is 9:24 and not the present verse that proposes a larger view that can em brace death as a way to retain life. Explanation Wars and portents may be im portant m arkers, b u t what begins yet earlier and is o f m ore fundam ental im portance is the persecution of the disciple com m u nity. Luke begins a parenthesis here that he will carry through to v 19 at the end o f this unit. T he story describes terrible persecution balanced by help from on high that is m ore than a m atch for the opposition. Persecution o f Christians follows the opposition m ounted to Jesus him self and makes its own contribution to the onset of the divine ju d g m en t that is to be the outcom e of the rejection of his ministry (see 12:49-53; 11:49-51; 13:34-35; 19:4144). It is clear from the venues involved that Luke thinks in term s of persecution in both the Jewish and gentile spheres. For Christians, persecution is to be an opportunity for faithful confession and bearing witness to the Christian faith one has professed. W hat is called for in these situations of legal answerability is n o t a well-prepared defense script but simply the readiness to becom e the m outhpiece of the exalted Jesus. This will produce a powerful witness, which no t even the m ost hard en ed of opponents will be able to w ithstand or contradict (cf. Acts 6:10). Persecution will, however, com e from even the closest of quarters: from the bosom o f o n e ’s family and from o n e ’s intim ate friends (the prototype for inti m ate betrayal is Ju d as’ betrayal of Jesus). And persecution will for some of the disciple ban d lead to loss of life (cf. Acts 7:60; 12:2). Indeed the disciple m ust look forw ard to the prospect of universal hatred. But if this is so, the disciple may also look forw ard to dram atic and palpable divine protection. Again Acts provides illustrations, of both a m iraculous and a n o n -m iraculous nature (e.g., Acts 4:21, 29; 9:23-25; 12:6-11; etc.). W here pop u lar wisdom would see the renunciation of faith in Christ as the way to save o n e ’s life, our text m aintains exactly the opposite. T he key to the preservation of life is precisely steadfastness in the confession of Christ. This will not cover every case (see v 16), and there is a place for backing up to the even m ore paradoxical teach ing o f 9:24, b u t the point here is the reality of the divine protection of life in the m idst o f the m ost dangerous of situations into which one has been placed for confessing Christ.

Form/Structure/Setting

The Devastation of Jerusalem

999

(21:20-24)

Bibliography Braumann, G. “Die lukanische In terpretation der Z erstorung Jerusalem s.” NovT6 (1963) 120-27. Conzelmann, H. Luke. 125-32. Dodd, C. H. “The Fall of Jeru salem .” JRS 37 (1947)

47-54; reprin ted in More New Testament Studies. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1968. 69-83. Fluckiger, F. “Luk. 21.20-24 u n d die Z erstorung Jerusalem s.” TΖ28 (1972) 385-90. Giblin, C. H. The Destruction ofJerusalem according to Luke’s Gospel: A Historical-Typ0logical Moral AnBib 107. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1985. Holst, R. “G od’s T ru th in a Kaleidoscope: Using a Synopsis.” CurTM 3 (1976) 347-54. Pedersen, S. “Zum Problem der vaticinia ex eventu (Eine analyse von Mt. 21,33-46 par.; 22,1-10 par.).” ST 19 (1965) 167-88. Reicke, B. “Synoptic Prophecies on the D estruction of Jerusalem .” In Studies in the New Testament

and Early Christian Literature. FS A. P. W ikgren. NovTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 121-34. Taylor, V. “A Cry from the Siege: A Suggestion regarding a Non-M arcan O racle Em bed ded in Lk. xxi 20-36. ”JTS 26 (1924-25) 136-44. Wainwright, A. W. “Luke and the Restora

tion of the Kingdom to Israel.” ExpTim 89 (1977-78) 76-79. A nd see at 21:5-6.

Translation 20 “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,a then know that its devastation has drawn near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and letb those in the midst of the cityc go out from it, and those out in thefields not enter it. 22For these are days of vengeance to fulfill all that has been written. 23 Woe to those who are preg nant and to those who are nursing [infants] in those days. For there will be great calam ity upon the land and wrath against this People. 24They will fall by the mouth of the sword and be led captive to all the nations, until the times for the nations have their fulfillment. ”d Notes a O r “cam ps.” b D vgmss ra th e r curiously have inserted a negative here. c Gr. αυτόν, “h e r /it.” d Gr. πληρωθώσιν (lit. “are fille d /fille d ”).

Form/Structure/Setting T he continuity p oint for v 20 is v 11, since vv 12-19 have been a chronological parenthesis (see at 21:12-19: vv 12-19 set the background m ore rem otely than do vv 8-11). T he pattern of escalation from v 9 to vv 10-11 will continue in vv 2526. T he ju d g m en t of God upon Jerusalem takes its place along the curve of this escalation that leads ultim ately to worldwide ju d g m en t upon the nations and to the com ing of the kingdom of God and the Son of Man. Again we have the M arkan sequence, but now only a small am ount of close agreem ent with the M arkan wording (in v 20 the opening three words and the

1000

Luke 21:20-24

use o f έρήμωσις, “devastation”; in v 21 the opening clause; the whole of v 23). Scholarly opinion is split over w hether Luke has extensively rewritten (after the destruction of Jerusalem ?) or he is reflecting a second source. A second source view involving vv 20, 21 b c, 22, 23b, and possibly also v 24 as p art of a larger docu m en t including also vv 11b, 18, 26a, 28, and possibly vv 25a, 25b is favored in the survey at 21:5-6 above (see fu rth er there). Luke is likely to have intervened in the wording o f v 22b. V 24 is som ething of a pastiche of OT allusion; it is clear that it has reached its present form on the basis of the Septuagint, but it is not really possible to tell what L uke’s role m ight have been in its form ation. In any case, no n e o f the description in vv 20-24 warrants the suspicion that it has been form ulated in the light of the actual experience of A.D. 66-70. T he elaborate allusion to Scripture that is involved in both the M arkan form and the second form available to Luke (esp. if a form of v 24 predates Luke), com bined with the fact that the series of allusions is alm ost entirely different, indicates that we are dealing with highly interpreted accounts. T here is every likelihood that a core goes back to the historical Jesus, bu t this has undergone m ajor transform ation, in the context of scriptural m editation. No definite delin eation o f the underlying words of Jesus is possible (see fu rth er at 21:5-6). Comment R eport of wars, disasters in the wider world setting, and the experience of por tents now give way to the concrete threat of surrounding armies. The disciples are to flee the im pending doom of the city, aware that this is G od’s definitive ju d g m en t upon a history of disobedience to him. As in a previous time, G od’s historic People will experience his wrath in death and exile to slavery. But the gentile instru m ents o f G od’s ju d g m en t will themselves experience ju d g m en t in turn. 20 The opening “W hen you see” and the use of βρήμωσις, “devastation/desola tion,” are all that Luke and Mark have in com m on here. As was the case in 19:41-44, the vocabulary used in connection with the fall of Jerusalem can all be culled from LXX descriptions of earlier threat to Jerusalem (e.g., for the terms used in v 20, see Isa 29:3; Je r 41:1 [MT 34:1]; 51:6, 22 [MT 44:6, 22]). The disciple community will come face to face with the im m inent demise of Jerusalem (and thus the temple) in terms of the sight of an attacking army rather than in terms of a warrior messiah who urges them to the attack, saying the “the time has drawn n ear” (see v 8). In the early stages of the Rom an engagem ent with Jerusalem , the city was in fact effec tively isolated, hem m ed in by the army on every side (see Josephus, War4.486-90). T he tem ple focus of vv 5-6 has given way to a whole Jerusalem focus here. The M arkan equivalent (13:14) m aintained the tem ple focus but, with its Danielic allusion (“desolating sacrilege”; see Dan 12:11; cf. 9:27; 11:31), concerned itself with the desecration rath er than the destruction of the tem ple. The possibility is raised at 21:5-6 above that the Danielic allusions of the M arkan form m ight represent a (pre‫ )־‬Markan apocalyptic encoding rather than the m ore straightforward Lukan form being a secondary decoding (in light of the actual events of the w ar). Since for Mark the tem ple desecration implies disaster for the whole of Judea, the significance of the difference of focus should not be exaggerated. 21 T he clearest evidence of L uke’s use of a second source in this u n it comes from the conflation here between the final clause of Mark 13:14 (reproduced

Comment

1001

exactly), which has a whole Ju d ean perspective, and the second and third clauses of Luke 21:21 (not paralleled in Mark), in which the perspective returns to the Jerusalem perspective that was operative in v 20 (“in the m idst of h e r” can only be “in the m idst of Jerusalem ”; for a possible allusion to Je r 51:45 in v 21bc see at 21:9). From time im m em orial m ountains have been a place of retreat and refuge from a pressing enemy force (cf.Judg 1:34; 6:2; 1 Sam 23:19; 26:1; Je r 16:16; 50:6; Lam 4:19). A fortified city is a norm al place of refuge in time of war, bu t this city is destined to fall, so the norm al p attern of advice is reversed for those within and without the walls of the city. Cf. Jerem ia h ’s advice in Je r 21:8-10. After the earlier isolation of Jerusalem by the Roman forces, the news of N ero’s death and its afterm ath led to a delay in the prosecution of the war in Ju d ea and o f the assault on Jerusalem ( War 4.497-98, 501-2). This resulted in some relax ation of the stranglehold on the city (the activities of Simon described in War 4.503-76 imply that this is the case). T hough “wisdom after the event” is frequently claim ed as the basis for features of the Gospel account of Jerusalem ’s fall, the possibility that an opportunity m ight present itself to slip out of the city after an initial encirclem ent hardly requires hindsight to present itself. The same had been true of the Babylonian siege (Jer 34:21; 37:11 [Jer 52:7 even reports escape from the city (finally thwarted) while the city was encircled by the Babylonians]) and m ust have been a standard p art of the ebb and flow of war. T he relationship between this directive to flee and the flight of the Jerusalem Christians to Pella as reported by Eusebius (H.E. 3.5.3) remains uncertain despite extensive scholarly discussion (for bibliography see Form/Structure/Setting at 21:5-6). Did the flight occur at the beginning of the Jewish war, as suggested by Eusebius, or later? Did it occur at all? Did the tradition behind Mark 13/L uke 21 influence the oracle said to be the basis of the departure? The view that Mark 13 and Luke 21 d epend u pon a Jewish-Christian apocalyptic pam phlet is rejected at 21:5-6 above. 22 Luke has no parallel to Mark 13:15-16. He has used a version of this at 17:31 (taken from his M arkan source). In any case, though they make quite dif ferent points, there is too m uch structural similarity between these materials and what Luke has in v 21bc (but with the house in the form er taking the place of the city in the latter) to make a good literary sequence. V 22 has no M arkan parallel. “Days of vengeance” has its closest Septuagintal parallel in Hos 9:7. Also worth considering is J e r 51:6 (LXX 28:6), “time o f vengeance.” T hough it refers to Babylon rather than to Israel, it uses ‫נקמה‬, neqamah, which (despite the Septuagintal translators of Hos 9:7) is closer to the Greek έκδίκησίς than is the ‫שלם‬, sillum of Hos 9:7, and which follows im agery of fleeing from a doom ed city as does Luke 21:22. Je r 51:6 involves inflicting upon Babylon what she had earlier inflicted upon Jerusalem (cf. 50:15), and so an allusion to Je r 51:6 would prepare for the move from ju d g m en t upon Jerusalem by the Gentiles to ju d g m en t in turn upon the Gentiles, which we find in v 24 (see discussion below) and vv 25-26 (the wider perspective of ju d g m en t would seem to be already in view with the “all” of v 22b). T hough Luke introduces πάντα τά ye γραμμένα, “everything that is written,” at 18:31 and probably at 24:44, he does not elsewhere use the verb πίμπλάναί, “to fill/ fulfill,” in connection with the fulfillment of Scripture. We cannot be sure what Luke’s source read at this point. The vengeance to be exacted will be the culmination and completion of all G od’s acts and threats of judgm ent recorded in Scripture. It will be the final squaring of the accounts of justice for the whole course of history.

1002

Luke 21:20-24

23 Luke uses Markan m aterial and wording for v 23a. O n , “woe,” see at 6:24. In the Markan context the difficulty for p regnant and nursing wom en is likely to be focused on their inability to move with the haste necessitated by the situation. T here is less emphasis on haste in the Lukan context, where we should think m ore generally of wom en in such situations being less well equipped to handle extrem e hardship. Luke does n o t reproduce Mark 13:18, “pray that it may no t happen in winter.” Despite Fitzmyer’s confident assertion (1346), the omission probably has n o th ing to do with the fact that the siege lasted from April to late August: such knowledge would only m ean that Luke could have recorded the verse with an awareness that the prayer was duly offered and answered. R ather we should note that in Mark the transition from v 18 to v 19 is no t particularly sm ooth and would be no better with Luke 21:23b, which Luke will use in place of Mark 13:19. Luke displaces Mark 13:19, with its Danielic language (see Dan 12:1; but also Ezek 5:9; and cf. Je r 30:7), with v 23b, which is likely to be from his o th er source. T hough n o t in a form that is verbally close, the sentim ent expressed in v 23b on a national scale will be repeated on a worldwide scale (and in connection with the gentile nations) in v(v) (25b), 26a. Disaster will befall the land of Ju d ea as G od’s wrath is po u red o ut upon his People (the parallelism between the phrases of v 23b encourages the reading of τής γης as “the land [of Judah] ” rath er than “the ea rth ,” as does the appearance later [v 26a] in the wider gentile context of 7 7 7 ‫־‬ οικουμένη, “the [inhabited] w orld”). “T he P eople” have appeared in a positive sight elsewhere in this section (19:47-21:38), bu t Luke is aware that “the leaders of the P eople” (19:47) will eventually take (the m ost part of) the Jewish People with them into opposition to Jesus and the Christian m ovem ent (see esp. 23:13, 18, 23; and developm ents in Acts). 24 T here is no M arkan parallel to v 24. “They will fall by the m outh of the sword” is linguistically close to Sir 28:18: “Many have fallen by the m outh of the sword,” b u t if there is any link it is only a m atter of borrow ed diction. Je r 20:4-6 (“They will fall by the sword of their enem ies . . . you will go into captivity”) is m uch closer in general them e and also uses a no u n cognate with “will be taken captive” (21:7 has the im agery of “the m outh of the sword”). “To all the nations” is likely to be an allusion to D eut 28:64, which contem plates Israel, as a result of disobedience to the words of the law, being scattered am ong all the nations (cf. also Ezek 32:9). "Jerusalem will be tram pled u n d er foot by the nations” is prob ably an allusion to the LXX text of Zech 12:3 w here the p attern in vv 2-4 is of the nations plundering Jerusalem , only in tu rn to be sm itten by God (MT is m uch less close; cf. also Dan 8:13; Rev 11:2). T hough Josephus confirm s that in the war m any were p u t to the sword (War 6.271-73, 420 pu t the figure at 1,100,000, but ancient figures are notoriously unreliable) and many taken captive (War 7.118, 1 3 8 , 154, 420 have Jewish captives involved in Titus’ trium phal procession in Rome and p u t the nu m b er at 97,000), there is nothing here to raise suspicion of form u lation in the light of the actual experience of A.D. 66-70. T he final clause is norm ally referred to the time period in which the gentile nations have dom inance, or occasionally to the period of the gentile mission (e.g., Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 217-18; Wiefel, 353). But there is m uch to be said for taking καιροί εθνών, “times of [the] nations,” as referring to the period for a ju d g m en t upo n the gentile nations (cf. Wellhausen, 118) that corresponds to the

Explanation

1003

ju d g m en t upon Jerusalem : after the καιρός*, “tim e,” of Jerusalem (v 20; cf. v 8) com e the καιροί, “tim es,” of the nations (cf. C onzelm ann, Luke, 130: “the times of the Gentiles [v 24] have n o t yet com e”). For the sense required for 7τληρωθώσιυ (lit. “are fulfilled”) , cf. the use of the verb at Mark 1:15; some find a similar use of συμπληροϋυ at Luke 9:51, but it has n o t been taken so above. For the general thought, see also Ezek 30:3; J e r 27:7; and, perhaps, O bad 16. T he underlying p attern here of ju d g m en t upon Jeru sa lem /Ju d a h /Israe l followed by ju d g m en t u pon the instrum ents of their ju d g m en t may be found in Isa 10; 13-14; 33; 47; Je r 50-51; Dan 9:26-27; and cf. Ezek 38; H ab 1:1-2:3; 2 Apoc. Bar. 12:3-4. See fu rth er N olland (“L uke’s R eaders,” 227-30). Does the άχρι οι), “un til,” contem plate a future restoration of Jerusalem beyond the jud g m en t of the gentile nations (cf. Tiede, “W eeping,” 89; Chance, Jerusalem, 133-34)? Luke does n o t make use of Mark 13:20. Perhaps he does no t know what to make of the idea of shortening of the days (it has nothing to do in the first in stance with an im m inent Parousia). In any case his alternative to Mark 13:19 is n o t set in such extrem e language and so does n o t require the am elioration of fered here. As well, L uke’s developm ent in v 24 m eans that there is no longer a place for Mark 13:20: the action has moved on past that point already. By the end of v 24 the perspective has already moved beyond that of the de struction of Jerusalem and its tem ple. Despite the starting point in vv 5-7, the narrative has developed a m om entum of its own and would lack closure if it stopped at the p o int where the question of v 7 had received its answer. It has becom e clear that the answer to that question opens up a perspective on issues yet larger. Explanation V 20 picks up the story from v 11. The escalation from v 9 to vv 10-11 will continue after vv 20-24 in vv 25-26. The ju d g m en t of Jerusalem is a staging point along this path of escalation to worldwide ju d g m en t and the com ing of the king dom of God and the Son of Man. In the face of the threatening disaster, the disciples are to flee. They know that the gentile instrum ents of judgm ent cannot be resisted: this is G od’s ju d g m en t at the climax of a history of rebellion and disobedience. But in their tu rn the gentile instrum ents of ju d g m en t will themselves be judged. N ot raging wars at some distance bu t the encircling presence of gentile armies is what finally signals the im m inence of the tem ple’s doom (caught up in the wider doom of the city). Disciples in Ju d ea are to flee to the safety of the hills. And contrary to popular wisdom in war, those in the walled city of Jerusalem are to leave, and those in the fields outside the wall are not to return to the protection of the city: this city is doom ed; it can offer no protection. While it m ight seem too late to flee once the city is surrounded, in the ebb and flow of war it was to be anticipated that a siege m ight be m ounted and lifted a num ber of times before being successfully prosecuted. In the actual event, news of N ero’s death and the unsettled times that followed appear to have created the necessary respite. At various points in the history of Israel, and especially in the Babylonian cap tivity, God has acted in judgm ent. All of G od’s acts of ju d g m en t and threats of judgm ent, as recorded in Scripture, com e to their culm ination in the prospect of ju d g m en t held forth here. T here will now be a final squaring of the accounts of

1004

Luke 21:25-28

justice for the whole course of history (cf. 11:50-51). Pregnant and nursing women are additionally vulnerable and will therefore suffer m ore in the terrible times to come. T here is nothing abstract or spiritualized about the picture of ju d g m en t involved here: it is a m atter of hum an disaster in the course of hum an history. V 24 is a pastiche of allusions to OT descriptions of ju d g m en t upon Jerusalem (see esp. J e r 20:4-6; 28:64; and the Greek text of Zech 12:3). People will be pu t to the sword or taken captive as slaves to the whole range of gentile nations. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the period, confirm s that large num bers m et these fates in the war of A.D. 66-70. But this picture of ju d g m en t is only a staging post along the way as m atters continue to escalate. V 24 finishes with a m ention of “the times o f the nations” which, I have argued above, should be taken as a reference to the time for a tu rn of ju d g m en t for each one of the nations. Vv 2526 will take this th o ught further, but here we can note finally the pervasive OT p attern of ju d g m en t upon Jeru sa lem /Israe l/Ju d a h followed by ju d g m en t in turn u p o n the instrum ents of their ju d g m en t (e.g., Isa 10; Je r 50-52).

Judgment of the Nations, and the Coming of the Son of Man (21:25-28) Bibliography Gardiner, J. A. “Studies in Texts: Luke 21.28.” Th 59 (1956) 460-62. George, A. “La venue du Fils de 1’Hom m e: Lc 21,25-28, 34-36.” AsSeign n.s. 5 (1969) 71-78. Hartman, L. “La parousie du Fils de l'hom m e Mc 13, 24-32.” AsSeign n.s. 64 (1969) 47-57. Lauras, A. “Le com m entaire patristique de Lc. 21,25-33.” In Studia patristica 7. TU 92. Berlin: Akademie, 1966. 503-15. Varro, R. “Le Christ est notre avenir (Luc, 21, 25-33) .” AmCl 78 (1968) 659-62. ------------ , Becquet, G. and Beauvery, R. “Le Christ est notre avenir.” E V 90 (1970) 605-8.

And see at 21:5-6.

Translation 25 “There will be signs in the sun and the moon and the stars; and on the earth dis tress of nations in anxiety at the roaring and tossing of the sea, 26people fainting a with fear and foreboding at what is coming upon the world. For the powers of heaven will be shaken. 27Then they will see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great glory. 28When these things begin to happen, straighten yourselves up and raise your heads, because your deliverance is drawing near. ” Notes a Gr. άποψυχόντων (lit. “b reathing o u t/sto p p in g b re ath in g ” and so: “fainting” or “e xpiring”).

Comment

1005

Form/Structure/Setting Passing over Mark 13:21-23, Luke provides his parallel to Mark’s vv 24—27. He is dealing now with “the times of the nations,” which provide a worldwide and esca lated version of what he has anticipated in 21:20-24 in connection with Jerusalem . This will usher in the com ing of the Son of Man who will bring final deliverance. Luke 21:25a is clearly a version of Mark 13:24—25a, but on balance it seems more likely that Luke has drawn it from a second source (on the view that Luke had a second source for parts of this chapter see at 21:5-6). Luke 21:25b is unparalleled in Mark and is likely to be from the same source that continues in v 26a (which also lacks parallel in M ark). For v 26b Luke takes up the M arkan source and contin ues with it through v 27. But he then drops Mark 13:27 and concludes the unit in v 28 with fu rth er m aterial drawn from his second source (m aterial that perform s in th at source som ething like the role of Mark 13:26, b u t in rather m ore general terms; it is likely that the introduction to v 28 is a Lukan form ulation). As in 21:20-24, the elaborate patterns o f scriptural allusion suggest that we have materials that have been heavily interpreted by m eans of scriptural m edita tion in the process of transmission. Comment Beyond the destruction of Jerusalem comes a time of universal upheaval that will bring upon the nations their own experience of divine judgm ent. This will usher in the com ing of the Son of Man and the final deliverance, which he will bring. 25 Luke makes no use of Mark 13:21-23. It probably seems out of place and repetitive to him after vv 5-6. Luke has n o t used Mark 13:20, so the repetition here of “the elect” may also have discouraged him from using this piece. As well, Luke has used a version of v 21 already in 17:23. T here is an evident relationship between v 25 and v 11 (linked in chiastic pattern by reference to natural distur bance and signs from heaven). While v 25b goes entirely its own way, v 25a is clearly a version of what we find in Mark 13:24-25a. I think it m ost likely that a version of v 25 stood in L uke’s second source, bu t this rem ains less than certain (for a possible allusion to Je r 51:55 in v 25b and perhaps to v 48 in Luke 21:2526, see at 21:9). W hat Luke has in m ind for these signs is clearer from the Markan text, where there is an evident connection with OT texts in which the heavenly bodies provide their own dram atic accom panim ent to the execution of G od’s ju d g m en t u pon the nations (see Isa 13:10; 34:4; Ezek 32:7; Joel 3:3-4 [FT 2:3031] [Isa 13:10 is particularly echoed in Mark and is instructive for its setting in an oracle against Babylon; Joel 3:3-4 is in the setting of the com ing of the “Day of the L ord,” which will lead finally to the restoration of G od’s People and the ju d g m ent of the nations who have been the cause of their suffering]). V 25b may be dependent on the Greek text of Isa 24:19 for “on the earth distress of nations in anxiety” and on Ps 46:3 for “at the roaring of the sea and the waves” (as Fitzmyer, 1349). The picture is of people anticipating in terror the unleashing of the destructive forces of chaos. This sense of a dreaded future is developed further in v 26. 26 V 26a has no counterpart in Mark, bu t v 26b is clearly a slightly edited rendition of Mark 13:25b. T here may be some Lukan language in v 26a (esp. έπβρχομένων, “com ing u p o n ”; possibly οικουμένη, “[inhabited] w orld”), but in

1006

Luke 21:25-28

the absence of a close relationship with an OT text and in term s of fit, it seems best to think that Luke is following his second source here. We should note the ab-b‫־‬a p attern (heaven-earth-earth-heaven) that Luke has created in vv 25-26. T he same note of dreadful anticipation, but with quite different language, may be found in Rev 6:16. It is likely that from L uke’s point of view everything from the wars and uprisings of v 9 participates in a prelim inary way in the reality of that ju d g m en t o f God about to com e to full expression (cf. at v 10). The question now comes: how is the final climax of ju d g m en t represented in our text? The norm al answer given is that the ju d g m en t is symbolized by the com ing of the Son o f Man in v 27. But the picture in vv 34-36 is rath er that the climax of the worldwide ju d g m en t already in the unfolding of hum an history precedes the com ing o f the Son o f Man. And L uke’s positioning of v 28 tends to the same end. It would seem, then, th at Luke has either adopted the same strategy as that found in Rev 11:14-18 where we are taken to the brink of the final disaster (“w oe”) and then taken beyond to the new and positive situation of the rule of God, with only a glance back. Or, Luke intends the final disaster to be represented by the final clause of v 26: “For the powers of heaven will be shaken.” If, as seems likely, v 26b is based u pon a conflation of Isa 34:4 and Hag 2:6 (20), then it could function quite successfully as a symbol of the climactic ju d g m en t upon the nations, and the latter o f o u r two options may be the preferred one. 27 W hen this whole process has ru n its course , the Son of Man will appear as a figure o f power and glory. Luke reproduces Mark 13:27 in an only slightly ed ited form . O n “Son of M an,” see the “Son of M an” excursus and at 6:1-5. A future com ing o f the Son of Man is anticipated in 9:26 (see there); 12:40 (cf. v 8); 17:24, 26, 30; 18:8; 21:36. 21:27 is the first Lukan Son of Man saying where the Dan 7:13 lin k is c le a r (the c o m b in a tio n of “S o n of M a n ,” “c o m in g ,” a n d “i n / o n a c lo u d ” make the allusion clear, though Luke changes the M arkan “clouds” to singular where Dan 7:13 has the plural [“they will see” could be taken to correspond to “I saw” in Dan 7:13]). The Danielic Son of Man has ju d g m en t passed in his favor at the divine assize and receives from God glory and everlasting dom inion over the nations. 17:22-37 has set up the expectation that disciples will long for the com ing o f the Son o f Man. 28 Once again Luke drops a verse from Mark that speaks of the elect (Mark 13:27: the gathering of the elect by the angels at the directive of the freshly arrived Son of M an). Instead Luke continues with a verse likely to com e from his second source (the opening άρχομένων τούτων γίνεσθαί, “when these things begin to h a p p e n ,” is, however, likely to be Lukan, considering its vocabulary, gram m atical construction, and structural role in the chapter). Luke is imprecise about how far back one should take the referent of “these things.” This may be deliberate, since he will see deliverance as progressively closer the fu rth er the process of escalation has developed (of course v 27 is to be excluded, since the com ing of the Son of Man is immediately synonymous with the coming of the disciples’ deliverance). Again we m eet a paradoxical inversion: the sequence of future events Luke describes in the chapter is such as would naturally burden and oppress (despite elements of spe cial divine protection and directives for avoiding the disaster of Jerusalem, the disciples are to be seen as unavoidably caught up in the sufferings of these increasingly tur b u lent tim es), b u t the encouragem ent is to see the developing pattern of disasters as progressive assurances of the near approach of final deliverance.

Bibliography

1007

Explanation Luke deals now with “the times of the nations” with its worldwide version of a ju d g m en t for which that upon Jerusalem has been a microcosm. This universal ju d g m en t will usher in the com ing of the Son of Man to whom the disciples look for final deliverance. The “signs in the sun and the m oon and the stars” point us back to OT texts in which the heavenly bodies provide their own dram atic accom panim ent to the execution of God’s judgm ent upon the nations (see Isa 13:10; 34:4; Ezek 32:7; Joel 2:30-31). As in v 11 it is difficult to be sure how literally to take this, but there seems to be an escalation from v 11 to v 25. The people seem to be particularly aware of the threat posed by the sea (the sea is an ancient symbol of chaos; the text here may echo Ps 46:3). The picture is of people anticipating in terro r the unleashing of the destructive forces of chaos. This sense of a dreaded future is developed further in v 26. The world will be shaken up to such an extent that the very powers of heaven will be shaken (elem ents of Isa 34:4 and Hag 2:6 seem to be com bined here). W hen this whole process has ru n its course, the Son of Man will appear as a figure of power and glory. The language echoes that of Dan 7:13 where a “son of m an ” figure comes, has ju d g m en t passed in his favor at the divine assize, and receives from God glory and everlasting dom inion over the nations. This is a com ing for which disciples long. So, everything that brings it closer must be a cause of encouragem ent. Thus, as the disciples begin to witness the unfolding tale of woe that the Lukan Jesus has predicted in this chapter, indeed as they are themselves caught up in the times of turm oil and distress, their reaction should be exactly the opposite to that which would be natural u n d er such burdens: they should stand erect and raise their heads because their final deliverance draws near.

New Leaves Herald the Summer (21:29-33) Bibliography

Die Amen-WorteJesu. BZNW 39. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. 68-69. Dupont, J. “La parabole du figuier qui bourgeonne (Mc, XIII, 28-29 et p ar.).” RB 75 (1968) 526-48. Holman, C. L. “T he Idea of an Im m inent Parousia in the Synoptic Gospels.” StBibT 3 (1973) 15-31. Jeremias,J. Parables. 119-20. Julicher, A. Gleichnisreden. 2:3-11. Klauck, H.-J. Allegorie und Allegorese. 316-25. Kunzi, M. Das Naherwartungslogion Mk 9.1 par: Geschichte seiner Auslegung, mit einem Nachwort zur Auslegungsgeschichte von Markus 13, 30 par. Tubingen: Mohr, 1977. 213-24. Lovestam, E. “T he ή γενεά αυτή Eschatology in Mk 13,30 p arr.” In L 'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. J. L am brecht. G em bloux: D uculot, 1980. 403-13. Low, I. “Zum F eigengleichnis.” ZAW 11 (1910) 16768. Meinertz, M. “Dieses G eschlecht.” BZ1 (1957) 283-89. Schneider, G. Parusiegleichnisse. 55-61, 62-66. Schutz, R. “Das Feigengleichnis der Synoptikern.” ZAW 10 (1909) 333-34. ------------ . “Zum Feigengleichnis.” ZAW12 (1911) 88.

Berger, K.

And see at 21:5-6.

1008

Luke 21:29-33

Translation

29He told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they have already put forth their leaves, seeing it for yourselves, you know that summer is already near. 31In the same way also, you, when you see these [things] happening, will know a that the kingdom of God is near. 32Amen, Isay to you, that this generation will not have passed away before all [things] happen. 33Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. ” Notes a Gr. presen t tense. B D W Θ 579 etc. read γίΐ'ώσκβταί, “it is know n.”

Form/Structure/Setting Vv 29-33 provide support for v 28, though v 33 may take a fu rth er step and speak of the abiding significance of the words of Jesus even beyond the upheaval in heaven and earth that ushers in the kingdom of God. Luke continues to follow the Markan sequence, and there is no evidence of influence from any other source. Luke will make no use of Mark 13:32. As elsewhere in the chapter, the M arkan m aterial here seems to be composite. T he parable of the fig tree may no t have been originally applied to a warning o f future events. T he clearly com posite nature of the eschatological chapter and the likeness to Luke 12:54-56 raise the possibility that the original application was rath er to what was present in the m inistry of Jesus, as sign of the p re sen ce / nearness of the kingdom of God (see esp. D upont, RB 75 [1968] 536-46; it is no t impossible that a word-play between ‫ ק י צ‬, qayis, “sum m er,” and ‫ י ק צ‬qes, “e n d ,” was involved in the original application of the parable [cf. Amos 8:1-2, which makes use of the secondary m eaning for ‫ קי צ‬of “sum m er fru it”] ). T he present form ulation of Mark 13:30 is d ep en d en t on its place in the chap ter (“all these things”), but it is likely that it takes its inspiration from sayings of Jesus that em phasized the significance of his own generation (cf. 7:31-35; 11:2932, 49-51). Mark 13:31 is likely to have been added as a detached saying. It may represent a church form ulation of the reality of the authority experienced in the words of Jesus and evidently claim ed by the historical Jesus. Comment T he disturbing events are to function for the disciples as signs of the near ap proach of the kingdom of God (just as new growth on the different trees heralds the approach of sum m er). Jesus’ own generation will see it all. In this world in transition only the words of Jesus have perm anence. 29 T he parable and its explanation will provide support for the thrust of v 28. For M ark’s “From the fig tree learn the parable,” Luke writes “He told them a parable: Look at the fig tree and all the trees.” Luke’s generalization here is likely to correspond to his developm ent through the discourse of a parallelism between the Jewish fate and the fate of the gentile nations (I owe the suggestion that the

Comment

1009

fig tree and all the trees symbolize Israel and all the nations to the late Professor G. W. H. Lam pe). 30 For the first half of the verse Luke again provides his own wording: “when they have already p u t forth their leaves, seeing it for yourselves.” For the second half he simply adds a second “already” to what he has from his M arkan source. While em phasizing the totally adequate basis for knowing for oneself, the lan guage changes carry no significant change of m eaning. The parable may have been inspired by C ant 2:11-13. The fig tree is particularly fitting for making such a point because, unlike many Palestinian trees, it loses its leaves in winter and comes into leaf quite late in the spring. 31 H ere Luke changes only the final “at the gates” of Mark 13:29 to “the kingdom of G od” (this does, however, requires the gram m ar of the clause to be somewhat differently co n stru ed ). Mark has been accused of infelicity in his use of ούτως καί υμείς (lit. “in the same way also you”) to make the transition from parable to application (e.g., Dupont, R B 75 [1968] 532-33), but perhaps καί, “also,” should be read with ούτως, “in the same way,” and νμεΐς, “you,” seen no t as em phatic b ut simply as a m echanism for containing the “w hen” clause within the scope of the principal clause (and perhaps also encouraging the reading of the verb as a futuristic present rath er than as an im perative). From the happening of which things should one deduce the nearness of the kingdom of God? T hough the referent is often restricted to vv 25-26, the drift of the Lukan development thus far must surely encourage us to take a comprehensive view of “these things” (but with vv 27-28 excluded, since what they report is equiva lent to the com ing of the kingdom of God, and with a certain focus on the sequence of the ju d gm ent of Jerusalem and the judgm ent of the nations): through all the anticipated happenings the message is to be heard that the kingdom of God is near and becoming nearer. Zmijewski’s understanding (Eschatologiereden, 26872) is that the “nearness” here is not chronological but is making a statem ent that generalizes to wider dimensions of unfolding history the view that in the ministry of Jesus the kingdom of God was in the process of breaking in (cf. Luke 12:54-56). This involves, however, something of a m isunderstanding of Luke’s use of kingdom language in connection with the presence of Jesus; it is based on a partial misu n d erstan d in g of Luke 12:54-56, a text that, in any case, does n o t use kingdom of God language (see there); and it hardly does justice to the thoroughly chron ological natu re of developm ents in the chapter. As in 11:2; 14:15; 17:20; 19:11, Luke thinks here of the eschatological consum m ation of the kingdom of God. 32 Luke changes Mark little; most notably M ark’s “all these [things] ” becomes simply “all [things]” (Luke may have in m ind the “all” of v 22). O n the opening “am en ,” see at 4:24. Despite the series of attem pts to apply ή γενεά αύτη, “this gen eratio n ,” to som ething o ther than the generation of Jesus’ contem poraries, all the alternatives (the Jewish People; humanity; the generation of the end-time signs) are finally artificial and represent im position based upon some supposi tion b rought to the text (Luke uses “this g eneration” also in 7:31; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; Acts 2:40). This verse is a standing em barrassm ent to all attem pts to see the delay o f the Parousia as a m ajor Lukan preoccupation. T here is, by con trast, no suggestion that the verse is an em barrassm ent to Luke. As the prophets before him had regularly done, the Gospel Jesus presents as part of a single developm ent things that belong together in principle but turn

1010

Luke 21:29-33

out to be separated chronologically in a m anner that he did not anticipate. (Caird [Language and Imagery, 243-71] has argued forcefully that, at least in part, this involved a deliberate use in a m etaphorical m an n er of end-of-the-world language in connection with what the prophets well knew was n o t the end of the world. T he present and immediately future events were to be seen in the light of and som ehow as participating in the reality of w hat would one day be fully true eschatologically. His insights are p ertin en t to the present discussion but are not capable in themselves of elim inating the difficulty over timing.) The fundam en tal driving force for the sentim ent expressed in this verse is the conviction that Jesus’Jewish contem poraries in Palestine (“this g en eratio n ”) were to find them selves at a climax point in the purposes of God in ju d g m en t (cf. esp. 11:49-51), ju st as they had been experiencing a climax point of G od’s saving purposes in the m inistry of Jesus. As with the earlier prophets the anticipation of the future was first and form ost an interpretation, in the light of a knowledge of God, of the significance o f the present and of the nature of its developm ent out of the past. 33 H ere Luke reproduces the M arkan w ording unaltered. Should we corre late the passing away of heaven and earth with the upheavals envisaged in vv 25-26 (as Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 284)? We have a difficult choice, since to do so obliges us to take “my words” n o t in connection with the prediction of the future anticipated in Luke 21 but rath er in connection with the abiding significance of the teaching of Jesus (cf. 16:17, in connection with the abiding significance of the law). T he context does no t im mediately encourage this sense for “my words.” The alternative is to fail to make the correlation with vv 25-27, despite its contex tual appropriateness and to gain a m ore im m ediate sense for “my words” of “the words of this discourse.” T he closest OT parallels (Isa 40:8; Pss 102:25-27; 119:89, 160) m ight be considered to favor the form er option. Luke makes no use of Mark 13:32. Acts 1:7 may be in his eyes some kind of an equivalent. In any case Luke is likely to feel that Mark 13:32 could only detract from the force that he intends for the preceding verse. Explanation The parabolic teaching of vv 29-31 reinforces the teaching in v 28 about finding signs of the nearness of deliverance in the unfolding sequence of disasters. V 32 sets a limiting time fram e for the whole of the anticipated future. And v 33 points to the solid and abiding nature of the words of Jesus am idst all this sea of change. T he trees, with their cycle of seasonal new beginnings, are used as an illustra tion by Jesus to underline the p oint of v 28: as the new growth on the fig tree and the other trees points to the nearness of summer, so the disasters that befall Jerusa lem and then the nations of the world surely point to the nearness of the full end-tim e m anifestation of the kingdom of God. Many try to take “this gen eratio n ” to m ean som ething different to the genera tion of Jesus’ contem poraries b ut all the alternatives offered are finally unnatural, and are proposed as ways out of a problem rath er than as natural readings of the text. I cannot avoid the conclusion that the Lukan Jesus anticipated that all that he prophesied would ru n its course in a single generation. This probably should n o t disturb us unduly, since it is what we find again and again in the OT p ro p h ets. The prophets were aware that what they prophesied for their own generations

Bibliography

1011

was “of the stuff o f” end-time events. They considered that the soon-to-come events need ed to be seen in connection with G od’s ultim ate intervention in hum an af fairs. It is often quite unclear what distinction they were able to make between the working out of G od’s purposes in their own generation and the ultim ate work in g o u t o f G o d ’s p u rp o se s. T h ey m ay at tim es have d e lib e ra te ly u se d end-of-the-world language in a m etaphorical m anner in connection with what they well knew was not the end of the world; it is hard to be sure. In any case they p u t together, as though they would happen together, things that belong together in principle b u t tu rn out to be separated chronologically by large spans of time. T he Lukan Jesus has done the same. T he turm oil and upheaval through which the kingdom of God is ushered in will inevitably dislodge all the assum ptions and securities of ordinary life. Even the fixedness of heaven and earth can no longer be taken for granted. But through all the change there is one point of security: the p erm an en t and abiding signifi cance of the teaching of Jesus.

The Vigilant and Prayerful Will Stand before the Son of Man (21:34-36) Bibliography Aejmelaeus, L. Wachen vor dem Ende: Die traditionsgeschichtlichen Wurzeln von 1 Thess 5:1-11 und Luk 21:34-36. S chriften d er Finnischen E xegetischen G esellschaft 44. H elsinki: Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft, 1985. vi-157. Lovestam, E. Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. Lunds universitets arskrift 1/55.3. Lund: G leerup, 1963. 122-32. Ott, W. Gebet und Heil. 73-75. Schneider, G. “‘D er M e n sc h e n so h n ’ in d e r lu k a n isc h e n Christologie.” In Jesus und der Menschensohn, ed. R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg. F reib u rg / Basel/V ienna: H erder, 1975. 267-82, esp. 268-71. Schwarz, G. “μ η π ο τέ βαρηθωσα‫ ׳‬υμών oll καρδίαί.” BibNot 10 (1979) 40. Stout, J. C. “A grypnein—Luke 21:36.” BRev 3 (1918) 621-23. Todt, Η. E. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. New Testam ent Library. Phila delphia: Westminster, 1965. 94-98. And see at 21:5-6.

Translation 34 "Beware that your minds not be dulled by carousing, drunkenness, and the worries of life, so thata that day comes upon you suddenly, 35like a snare. Forb it will come upon all those who dwell on the face of all the earth. 36Stay awake at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things which are to happen, and to stand before the Son of Man. ” Notes aGr. καί (lit. “a n d ”).

1012

L uke 21:34-36

b“F or” is placed earlier by A C W Θ Ψ / 113‫ ־‬etc., which enables “like a snare” to be read as p art of the following sentence. This appears to be influenced by an awareness o f the allusion to Isa 24:17.

Form/Structure/Setting T he discourse finishes in vv 34-36 with an exhortation to the kind of vigilance that will enable the disciples to make their way safely through the com ing tum ult and then to stand secure before the Son of Man. Vv 34-36 are a Lukan replacem ent for Mark 13:33-37. Luke has m ade use (from a separate source) of a version of Mark 13:33-37 at 12:35-38 and does no t wish to be repetitive here. Some find a source behind Luke 21:34-36, but while Luke clearly draws on the tradition and on the parenetic language of his own church environm ent, it seems m ost likely that he has him self forged this concluding sec tion to Jesus’ words. Elem ents from Mark 13:33-37 have had some influence. Comment A bandonm ent to the cares and pleasures of life will blind one to the ever nearer approach of the climax of the eschatological developm ent. In order no t to be suddenly caught in the snare that this climax will be to all who are not ready, the disciple m ust be constantly vigilant and pray for strength to make it safely through the exigencies of that time to reach the place of safety before the Son of Man. 34 Luke prefers προσέχετε, “beware,” to M ark’s βλέπετε, “see.” The full Lukan form , προσέχετε έαυτοίς (lit. “beware with respect to yourselves”), is found also at 12:1 (contrast Mark 8:15); 17:3; Acts 5:35; 20:28. βαρηθώσίν ύμών αί καρδίαί (lit. “your hearts be weighed dow n”) could reflect the LXX idiom used in con nection with the hardening of the heart of the Pharaoh of Egypt (Exod 7:14 [with the present verb]; Exod 8:32 [LXX v 28]; 1 Kgdms 6:6; etc. [with the related verb, βαρύνει!/[), b u t the wider Hellenistic world spoke of being “heavy with w ine” (cf. Schwarz, BibNot 10 [1979] 40), and failure of alertness would seem to be m ore to the point here than hard-heartedness. Since Luke is about to draw on the imag ery of Isa 24:17 (see at v 35), it is not unlikely that the juxtaposition of “carousing” (κραιπάλη) and “drunkenness” (μέθη) is inspired by their juxtaposition in Isa 24:20 (LXX). If so, a m etaphorical use there has been displaced by a thoroughly literal one here (since the juxtaposition is a natural one and is evidenced elsewhere, the d ependence on Isa 24:20 rem ains uncertain), μέθη (in the plural) occurs in Pauline ethical exhortation in Rom 13:13; Gal 5:21. For μερίμναίς βίωτίκαϊς, “worries of life,” cf. μερίμνων . . . τον βίου, “worries of life,” in Luke 8:14, where the alternative genitive construction (του βίου, “of life”) allows “of life” to relate to each of a sequence of nouns. Luke frequently warns against preoccupation with, and unwillingness to part from, the goods of this life. T he use of “that day” here finds its closest points of com parison in 10:12; 17:31. Luke probably thinks here of the tim e of clim actic d estru c tio n th at antici pates an d leads to the arrival of the Son of Man. αιφνίδιος, “suddenly,” is used in a similar context in 1 Thess 5:2 (έφίστάναί, “com e u p o n ,” is found in 1 Thess 5:3). T he o nset o f the final p erio d will be sudden and u n ex p e cted to those whose m inds have been dulled by the way that they live out their lives. For the alert disciples, however, the developm ents traced in the present chapter will be

Explanation

1013

constant signs of the nearness of the end. T here is clearly a tension between the “apocalyptic” program with its unfolding times outlined in Luke 21 and the com ing that catches people by surprise, which we find in 12:35-40 and 17:20-21, 22-37. Luke wants to have it both ways, and in as m uch as he provides any reconciliation it is in term s of what we have here in 21:34. The signs are only signs to those disciples whose life of discipleship makes them alert to the nearness of the king dom o f God. 35 “Like a snare” com pletes the sense of v 34 bu t sits at the head of v 35 because of a reading (see Notes for the textual variant responsible) based upon the awareness that it begins the allusion to Isa 24:17, which will be carried on by “u pon all who dwell upon the face of all the e a rth ” (“the face of the e a rth ” is used by Luke again in Acts 17:26; it is a biblical idiom [Gen 41:56; D eut 7:6; Isa 23:17; etc.]). Isa 24 anticipates the desolation of earth and heaven in the com ing judgm ent. While “that day” will come upon all, it will com e as a trap or a snare only upo n those who are n o t ready for it. 36 άγρυπνβϊτβ, “stay awake,” echoes Mark 13:33 (cf. Eph 6:18; H eb 13:17), while “at all tim es” reflects the uncertain timing of the m aster’s re tu rn in the M arkan parable (the use of καιρός, “tim e,” perhaps com ing also from 13:33). L uke’s SeopevoL, “praying,” uses what is alm ost a distinctive Lukan verb for pray ing. O ne is probably to stay awake in order to pray (or at least praying is an im p o rtan t activity of the wakefulness), n o t by m eans of praying (as Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 289 n. 21). C onstant prayer is enjoined in 18:1, 7-8; Rom 12:12; 1 Thess 5:17. Prayer for strength to escape contains echoes of the situation of Luke 21:21, 23 and also possibly of the injunction to pray of Mark 13:18, which Luke did n o t use at that point. Luke does som ething similar at 17:34 (see there). In both cases there is a question about how precisely Luke intends the imagery of the language to be applied in a larger context, ταυτα 7τάντα, “all these [things],” recalls the language of v 12 while [ταυτα] . . . τά μέλλοντα γίνβσθαί, “[these (things)] . . . which are to h a p p e n ,” reaches back fu rth er to the initial question in v 7. “To stand before the Son of M an” is probably L uke’s own paraphrase and sum m ary of vv 27-28: it denotes the successful negotiation of the trials of the eschatological period and the safe arrival at the place of abiding security (standing before the Son of Man is an image of deliverance, no t an image of standing in a judicial dock [cf. 1 Apoc. Enoch 62:8, 13; 1QH 4:21-22]). Explanation T he answer o f Jesus to the disciples’ question in v 7 ends with an exhortation. It is a call to vigilance and prayer. W ithout a disciplined life of discipleship, what should be for the disciples a well-signposted developm ent pointing to the near approach of the end will com e as a sudden and unexpected snare. A bandonm ent to the cares and pleasures of life will blind one to the ever nearer approach of the climax of the end-tim e developm ent. For those so preoccupied, “that day” will come suddenly, and, coming, it will prove to be a snare that en traps. “T hat day” will be the developm ent to its climax of the time of turm oil and destruction that anticipates the arrival of the Son of Man. The text echoes the language of Isa 24:17 in pointing to the universal em brace of that com ing day, which will be the downfall of many.

1014

Luke 21:37-38

T he alternative approach to life is thought of as constant wakefulness (cf. Eph 6:18; H eb 13:17). And this constant wakefulness is to be used for prayer: prayer for strength to survive the period of strife in order to arrive safely at the place of abiding security with the freshly arrived Son of Man. As the discourse now comes to an end, some of the language of this verse deliberately echoes earlier phrases and ideas (see vv 7, 12, 21, 23, and 27-28).

Days in the Temple and Nights on the Mount o f Olives (21:37-38) Bibliography See at 21:5-6.

Translation

37By day he was in the temple teaching and by night, going out, he would spend the night on the mount called “Of Olives. ” 38All the People rose early in the morning [to come] to him in the temple, in order to listen to him.a Notes a f13 adds at this point Jo h n 7:53-8:11.

Form/Structure/Setting The Lukan section comes to an end with 21:37-38, which recalls the unit 19:4748 with which the section began. T he verses 21:37-38 are entirely a Lukan form ulation designed to ro u n d off the section and preparing (at one point) for what is to com e (see 22:39). The fragm ent Jo h n 7:53-8:11 has a notable similar ity in 8:2 to certain features of these Lukan verses, bu t this is unlikely to tell us anything about Lukan sources. Comment A rhythm o f daily teaching in the tem ple and nightly withdrawal out of the city, to the M ount o f Olives, was successful in sustaining a high level of interest am ong the historic People of God. 37 A part from word order ή ν . . . ev τω ίβρω διδάσκων, “he was in the tem ple teaching,” is repeated exactly from 19:47 (B T [071] etc. align the word orders), which also uses “day.” Luke establishes here the custom that he appeals to in 22:39. Though ηύλίζετο, “would spend the night,” does not necessarily imply sleep ing out in the open, the narrative in 22:39-53 provides some support for taking it

Explanation

1015

so here. Luke could base his statem ent about Jesus' activities in the evening on general pilgrim practice and m ore specifically on Mark 11:11-12, 19; 14:3, 26. Luke introduces the M ount of Olives here as he did in 19:19 (see there). 38 b λαός άπας , “all the P eople,” of 19:48 recurs here as πας 6 λαός (same m eaning), and the verb ά κ ο ύ β ίΐ “hear,” recurs as well. H ere the m ark of enthusi asm is getting up very early to hear him; there the im agery was “hanging upon his w ords.” T he use of όρθρίζβίν, “get up very early,” may rep resen t a Lukan Septuagintalism. Explanation Luke rounds off the section by retu rn in g to the motifs with which it began in 19:47-48. Jesus retained the interest and support of the historic People of God (but n o t their leaders) throughout his tem ple teaching. Pilgrims would regularly spend the n ight outside the city as Jesus did. His custom ary evening location on the M ount of Olives would later becom e the scene of his final prayer before his arrest (see 22:39-53).

The Passion N arrative

(22:1-23:56)

The foci of the passion narrative are the final Passover meal (with its intimately linked “farewell discourse”), the arrest and trial o f Jesus (prepared for in prayer on the M ount of Olives), and the crucifixion (with its appended burial n arra tive). At the instigation of Satan, the passion events are precipitated by Ju d as’ move to betray Jesus, bu t Jesus rem ains supremely in charge even as he goes to his death. T he disciples stumble, bu t do no t entirely fall away. Luke binds the passion narrative and the resurrection narrative very closely together.

Conspiracy to ArrestJesus

(22:1 -2)

Bibliography G e n e r a l P a s s io n N a r r a t iv e :

Aletti, J. N. “M ort de Jesus et theorie du recit.” RSR 73 (1985) 147-60. Allison, D. C. The End

of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection ofJesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Bammel, E., ed. The Trial offesus. FS C. F. D. Moule. SBT 2 /1 3 . L o n d o n / Naperville, IL: SCM /Allenson, 1970. Bartsch, H.-W. “Historische Erw agungen zur Leidens geschichte.” EvT 22 (1962) 449-59. ----------------. “Die Ideologiekritik des Evangeliums dargestellt an der Leidensgeschichte.” EvT 34 (1974) 176-95. Bastin, M. Jesus devant sa Passion. LD 92. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Beauchamp, P. “Narrativite biblique du recit de la passion.” RSR 73 (1985) 39-59. Bednarz, M. Ees elements parenetiques dans la desaription de la Passion chez les synoptiques. Rome: Pont. Univ. S. T hom ae de U rbe, 1973. Benoit, P. The Passion and Resurrection ofJesus. Tr. B. W eatherhead. New York: H erd er and H erder, 1969. Bertram, G. Die LeidengeschichteJesu und der Christuskult: Eine formgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FRLANT n.s. 15. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1922. Best, E. The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology. SNTSMS 2. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1990. xxiii-lxxiv. Biser, E. “Die alteste Passionsgeschichte.” GuL 56 (1983) 111-18. Bligh,J. “Typology in the Passion Narratives: Daniel, Elijah, M elchizedek.” HeyJ 6 (1965) 302-9. Borgen, P. J o h n and the Synoptics in the Passion Narrative.” NTS 5 (1958-59) 246-59. Bornhauser, K. The Death and Resurrection of Christ. Tr. A. Rumpus. London: Independen t Press, 1958. Bovon, F. Les derniers jours deJesus: Textes et evenements. Collection ‘Fleches.’ N euchatel/Paris: Delachaux et Niestle, 1974. Brown, R. E. A Crucified Christ in Holy Week: Essays on theFour Gospel Passion Narratives. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986. Bruce, F. F. “The Book of Zechariah and the Pas sion Narrative.” BJRL 43 (1960-61) 336-53. Buse, I. “St Jo h n and the Passion Narratives of St M atthew and St L uke.” NTS 7 (1960-61) 65-76. Carmichael, J. The Death ofJesus. New York: H arp er and Row, 1966. Catchpole, D. R. The Trial ofJesus. SPB 18. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Chabrol, C. “Analyse des ‘Textes’ des Passion.” In Erzahlende Semiotik nach Berichten derBibel. Munich: Kosel, 1973. 123-55. Chordat, J. L. Jesus devant sa mort. Lire la Bible. Paris: Cerf, 1970. Conzelmann, H. “Historie und Theologie in den synoptischen Passionsberichten.” In Zur Bedeutungdes TodesJesu: Exegetische Beitrage, ed. H. Conzelm ann et al. 3rd ed. Gutersloh: G. Mohn, 1968. 3 5 -5 3 .--------------- . “History and Theology in the Passion Narratives o f the Synoptic Gospels.” Int 24 (1970) 178-97. Cousin, H. Le prophete assassine: Histoire des textes

Bibliography

1017

evangelique de la Passion. Paris: Delarge, 1976. Crespy, G. “R echerche sur le signification politique de la m ort du Christ.” LumVie 20 (1971) 110-21. Culpepper, A. “The Passion and Resurrection in Mark.” RevExp 75 (1978) 483-600. Czerski, J. “Die Passion Christi in den synoptischen Evangelien im Lichte der historisch-literarischen Kritik.” CollTheol 46 (1976 Sonderheft) 81-96. Danker, F. W. “The Literary Unity of Mark 14:1-25.”JBL 85 (1966) 46772. Delling, G. Der Kreuztod Jesu in der urchristlichen Verkundigung. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1971. Delorme, J. “Semiotique du recit et recit de la passion.” RSR 73 (1985) 85-109. Dibelius, M. “Das historische Problem der Leidensgeschichte.” ZNW30 (1931) 193201.--------------- . “La signification religieuse des recits evangeliques de la passion.” RHPR13 (1933) 30-45. Dillon, R . J. “The Psalms of the Suffering Just in the Accounts of Jesus’ Passion.” Worship 61 (1987) 430-40. Donahue, J. R. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 10. Missoula: Scholars, 1973.--------------- . “Introduction: From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative.” In The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14:16, ed. W. H. Kelber. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. 1-20. Dormeyer, D. Die PassionJesu als Verhaltensmodell: Literarische und theologische Analyse der Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Markuspassion. NTAbh n.s. 11. Minister im W.: Aschendorff, 1974. Downing, J. "Jesus and M artyrdom. ”JTS 14 (1963) 279-93. Dungan, D. L. "Jesus and Violence.” In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church. FS W. R. Farmer, ed. E. P. Sanders. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1987. 135-62. Evans, C. F. “The Tradi tion of the Passion.” In Explorations in Theology. London: SCM, 1977. 2:3-17. . “The Event of the Passion.” In Explorations in Theology. London: SCM, 1977. 2:18-33. Feigel, F. K.

DerEinfluss des Weissagungsbeweises und anderer Motive auf die Leidensgeschichte: Ein Beitragzur Evangelien Kritik. Tubingen: Mohr, 1910. Finegan, J. Die Uberlieferung der Leidens- und Aufer stehungsgeschichteJesu. BZNW 15. Giessen: Topelm ann, 1934. . “A Q uest for the History behind the Passion. ”JBT 16 (1962) 102-4. Flesseman, E. van Leer. “Die In terp retatio n der Passionsgeschichte vom Alten Testam ent aus.” In Zur Bedeutung des Todes Jesu, ed. F. Viering. Gu tersloh: M ohn, 1967. 79-96. Flusser, D. Die letzten Tage Jesu in Jerusalem: Das Passionsgeschehen aus judischer Sicht. Bericht uber neueste Forschungsergebnisse. Lese-Zeichen. Tr. H. Zechner. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1982. Galvin, J. P. ‘Jesus’ A pproach to Death: An Examination of Some Recent Studies.” TS 41 (1980) 713-44. Garland, D. E. One Hundred Years of Study on the Passion Narratives. NABPR Bibliographic Series 3. Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1989. Geoltrain, P. “Les recits de la Passion dans les Synoptiques.” FV65 (1966) 41-49. Gese, H. “Psalm 22 u n d das N eue Testament: Der alteste Bericht vom Tode Jesus u n d die Entstehung des H errenm ahles.” ZTK 65 (1968) 1-22. Girard, R. “The Gospel Passion as Victim’s Story.” Cross Currents 36 (1986-87) 28-38. Goguel, M. ‘Juifs et Romains dans l’histoire de la passion.” RHR62 (1910) 165-82, 295-322. Gollwitzer, H. The Dying and Living Lord. London: SCM, 1960. Grappe, C. “Essai sur l’arriere-plan pascal des recits de la derniere nuit de Jesus.” RHPR 65 (1985) 105-25. Green, J. B. The Death ofJesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Pas sion Narrative. WUNT 2/33. Tubingen: Mohr, 1988. Guillet, J. “Les recits de la Passion.” LumVie 23 (1974) 6-17. Haulotte, E. “Du recit quadriform e de la Passion au concept de Croix.” RSR 73 (1985) 187-228. Hendrickx, H. The Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels. Revised ed. L ondon: C hapm an, 1984. Hillmann, W. Aufbau und Deutung der synoptischen

Leidensberichte: Ein Beitragzur Kompositionstechnik und Sinnbedeutungder drei alteren Evangelien. Freiburg im B.: Herder, 1941. Horbury, W. “The Passion Narratives and Historical Criticism.” Th 75 (1972) 58-71. Innitzer, T. Kommentar zur Ladens- und VerklarungsgeschichteJesu Christi. 4th ed. Vienna: H erder, 1948. Isaac, J. “Problem es de la Passion d ’apres deux etudes recentes.” RevueHistorique85 (1961) 119-38. Janssen, F. “Die synoptischen Passionsberichte: Ihre theologische K onzeption u n d literarische Kom position.” BibLeb 14 (1973) 40-57. Jeremias, J. The Eucharistic Words ofJesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. 89-96. Kelber, W. H. “Conclusion: From Passion Narrative to Gospel.” In The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 1416, ed. W. H. Kelber. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. 1 5 3 -8 0 .--------------- , ed. The Passion in Mark: Studies in Mark 14-16. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.-------------- , Koenkow, A., and Scroggs, R. “Reflections on the Question: Was T here a Pre-Markan Passion N arrative?” In SBL Seminar Papers 1971, ed. J. White et al. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1971. 2:503-85. Kertelge,

1018

Luke 22:1-2

K., ed. DerProzess gegenJesus: Historische Ruckfrage und theologischeDeutung. QD 112. F reib o u rg / Basel/V ienna: H erder, 1988. Kiehl, E. H. The Passion of Our Lord. G rand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990. Kremer, J. Das Argernis des Kreuzes: Line Hinfuhrung zum Verstehen der Leidensgeschichte. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969. Kummel, W. G. ‘Jesusforschung seit 1965: D er Prozess und der Kreuzestod Jesu.” TRu 45 (1980) 293-337. K urichianil, J. ‘Jesus’ Consciousness of His Passion and Death according to the Synoptic Gospels.” Biblebhashyam 9 (1983) 114-25. Lacomora, A., ed. The Language of the Cross. Chicago: Franciscan H erald Press, 1977. Lange, H. D. “The Relationship between Psalm 22 and the Passion Narrative.” CurTM 43 (1972) 610-21. Leenhardt, F. J. La mort et le testament deJesus. Essais bibliques 6. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1983. Lehmann, M. Synoptische Quellenanalyse und die Frage nach dem historischenJesus. BZNW 38. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Lentzen-Deis, F. “Passionsbericht als H andlungsmodell? U berlegungen zu Anstossen aus der ‘pragm atischen’ Sprachwissenschaft fur die exegetischen M ethoden.” In Der Prozess gegenJesus, ed. K . Kertelge. 191-232. Leon-Dufour, X. “A utour des recits de la Passion.” RSR 48 (1960) 1419-92. Limbeck, M., ed. Redaktion und Theologie des Passionsberichtes nach den Synoptikern. WF 481. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981. Linnemann, E. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte. FRLANT 102. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Lohfink, G. The Last Days ofJesus: An Enriching Portrayal of the Passion. Tr. S. Attanasio. N otre Dame: Ave Maria, 1984. Lohse, E. History of the Suffering and Death offesus Christ. Tr. O. Dietrich. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. Marin, L. The Semiotics of the Passion Narrative: Topics and Figures. PTMS 25. Tr. A. M. Joh n so n . Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980. Marshall, I. H. “The D eath of Jesus in R ecent New Testam ent Study.” WW3 (1983) 12-21. Mays, J. L. “Prayer and Christology: Psalm 22 as Perspective on the Passion.” TToday 42 (1985) 322-31. McCafferey, U. P. “Psalm Quotations in the Passion Narratives of the Gospels.” Neot 14 (1981) 73-89. Michl, J. “D er T o d Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach Schuld u n d Verantwortung eines Volkes.” MTZ 1 (1950) 5-15. Moberly, W. “Proclaiming Christ C rucifi ed: Some Reflections on the Use and Abuse of the Gospels.” Anvil5 (1988) 31-52. Moo, D. J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Navone, J., and Cooper, T. The Story of thePassion. Rome: Pontifica Universita Gregoriana, 1986. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative.” HTR73 (1980) 153-84. O’Collins, G. The Calvary Christ. Philadelphia/L ondon: W estminster/SCM , 1977. Oswald, J. “Die Beziehungen zwischen Psalm 22 u n d dem vorm arkinischen Passionsbericht.” ZKT 101 (1979) 53-66. Pesch, R. “Die U berlieferung der Passion Jesu.” In Ruckfrage nachJesus, ed. K Kertelge. QD 63. Freiburg: H erder, 1974. 148-73. -------------and Kratz, R. So liest man

synoptisch: Anleitung und Kommentar zum Studium der synoptischen Evangelien. VI und VII. Passionsgeschichte: Erster Teil und zweiter Teil. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1979-80. Prigent, P. “Les recits evangeliques de la Passion et l'utilisation des ‘Testimonia.’” RHR 161 (1962) 130-32. Radi, W. “Der T o d Jesu in der Darstellung der Evangelien.” TGl 72 (1982) 432-46. Ramsey, A. M. “The Narratives of the Passion.” SE 2 [=TU 87] (1964) 122-34. Ramsey, M. The Narratives of the Passion. Contem porary Studies in Theology 1. London: Mowbray, 1962. Richardson, P. “The Israel-Idea in the Passion Narratives.” In The Trial ofJesus, ed. E. Bammel. SBT 2/13. 110. Ricoeur, P. “Le recit interpretatif: Exegese et theologie dans le recits de la passion.” RSR 73 (1985) 17-38. Riedl, J. “Die evangelische L eidensgeschichte u n d ihre theologische Aussage.” BLit 41 (1968) 70-111. Rivken, E. What CrucifiedJesus? The Political Execution of a Charismatic. London: SCM, 1986. Rose, A. “L’influence des psaumes sur les announces et les recits de la Passion et de la Resurrectin dans les Evangiles.” OBL 4 (1962) 297-356. Ruppert, L.

Jesus als der leidende Gerechte? Der Weg Jesu im Lichte eines alt- und zwischentestaemtlichen Motivs. SBS 59. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM, 1985. 294-318. Schelkle, K. H. Die PassionJesu in der Verkundigung des Neuen Testaments: Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments. H eidelberg: Kerle, 1949. Schenk, W. Die Passionsbericht nach Markus: Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Passionstradition. Gutersloh: Mohn, 1974.------------ . “Der derzeigte Stand der Auslegung der Passionsgeschichte.” EvErz 36 (1984) 527-43. Schenke, L. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte des Markus: Tradition und Redaktion in Markus 14,1-42. FB 4. Wurzburg: Echter, 1971. ------------ .

Bibliography

1019

Dergekreuzigte Christus. SBS 69. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974. Schille, G. “Das Leiden des H errn: Die evangelische Passionstradition u nd ihr ‘Sitz im L eben.’” ZTK52 (1955) 161205. Schmid, J. “Die Darstellung der Passion Jesu in den Evangelien.” GuL 27 (1954) 6-15. Schmidt, K. L. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkntische Untersuchungen zur altesten Jesusuberlieferung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964-1919.------------ . “Die literarische Eigenart der Leidengeschichte Jesu.” CW 32 (1918) 114-16. Schneider, G. Die PassionJesu nach den drei alteren Evangelien. Biblische H andbibliothek 4. Munich: Kosel, 1973. ------------ . “Das Problem einer vorkanonischen Passionserzahlung. ” BZ 16 (1972) 222-44. Sloyan, G. S. Jesus on Trial: The Development of the Passion Narratives and Their Historical and Ecumenical Implications. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. Soards, M. L. “The Question of a PreMarkan Passion Narrative.” Biblebhashyam 11 (1985) 144-69. Stadelmann, L. I. J. “The Pass ion Narrative in the Synoptics as Structured on Ps 22(21).” PerTeo 15 (1983) 193-221. Suggs, M. J. “The Passion and Resurrection Narratives.” In Jesus and Man’s Hope, ed. D. G. Miller. Pittsburgh: Theological Seminary, 1971. 323-38. Taylor, V. Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan, 1949. 13, 44-62. Temple, S. “The Two Traditions of the Last Supper, Betrayal and Arrest.” NTS 7 (1960-61) 77-85. Trilling, W. “Die Passion Jesu in der Darstellung der synoptischen Evangelien.” Lebendiges Zeugnis 1 (1966) 28-46. Trocme, E. The Passion as Liturgy: A Study in the Origin of the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. London: SCM, 1983. Vanhoye, A. Structure and Theology of the Accounts of the Passion in the Synoptic Gospels. Tr. C. H. Giblin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1967.------------ . “Les recits de la Passion dans les evangiles synoptiques.” AsSeign 19 (1971) 38-67. Viering, E, ed. Das KreuzJesu Christi als Grund des Heils. Gutersloh: M ohn, 1967. Weber, H.-R. The Cross: Tradition and Interpretation. Tr. E. Jessett. G rand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. White, J. L. “The Way of the Cross: Was There a PreMarkan Passion Narrative?” Forum 3.2 (1987) 35-49. Wilson, W. R. The Execution offesus: A Judicial, Literary, and Historical Investigation. New York: Scribner’s, 1970. Wrege, Η. T. “Die Passionsgeschichte.” In Die Gestalt desEvangeliums. BET 11. F ran k fu rt/B ern /L as Vegas: Lang, 1978. 49-96. Zehrer, E Das Leiden Christi nach den vier Evangelien: Die wichtigsten Passionstexte und ihre hauptsachlichen Probleme. Vienna: Mayer, 1980. ------------ . “Sinn un d Probelematic der Schriftverwendung in der Passion.” TPQ121 (1973) 18-25.------------ . "Jesus, der leidende G erechte, in der Passion.” BLit 47 (1974) 104-11. L u k a n P a s s io n N a r r a t iv e :

Barr, A. “The Use and Disposal of the Marcan Source in Luke’s Passion Narrative.” ExpTim 55 (1943-44) 227-31. Beck, B. “‘Imitatio Christi’ and the Lukan Passion Narrative.” In Suf

fering and Martyrdom in the New Testament, ed. W. H orbury and B. McNeil. Cambridge: Univer sity Press, 1981. 28-47. Blevins, J. L. “The Passion Narrative: Luke 19:28-24:53.” RevExp 64 (1967) 513-22. Blinzler, J. “Passionsgeschehen u n d Passionsbericht des Lukasevangeliums.”

BK 24 (1969) 1-4. Brown, R. “T he Passion according to Luke.” Worship 60 (1986) 1-9. Buchele, A. Der TodJesu im Lukasevangelium. Carlson, R. P. “T he Role of the Jewish People in Luke’s Passion Narrative.” In SBL 1991 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 82-102. Cassidy, R. J. “Luke’s Audience, the Chief Priests and the Motive for Jesus’ D eath.” In Political Issues, ed. R. J. Cassidy and P. J. Scharper. 146-67. Chance, J. B. “The Jewish People and the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts: Some Implications of an Inconsistent Narrative Role.” In SBL 1991 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 50-81. Creed, J. M. “The Supposed ‘Proto-Luke’ Nar rative of the Trial before Pilate: A Rejoinder.” ExpTim 46 (1934-35) 378-79. Cribbs, F. L. “A Study of the Contacts T hat Exist between St. Luke and St. J o h n .” In SBL 1973 Seminar Papers, ed. G. W. MacRae. Cambridge, MA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. 2:1-93. Fransen, I. “Le baptem e de sang (Luc 22,1-23,56).” BVC25 (1959) 20-28. Gaston, L. “Anti-Judaism and the Passion in Luke and Acts.” In Anti-Judaism and Early Christianity: Vol. 1. Paul and the Gospels, ed. P. Richardson and D. Granskou. Waterloo: Laurier University, 1986. 127-53. Green, J. B. “T he D eath of Jesus, G od’s Servant.” In Reimaging, ed. D. D. Sylva. 1-28, 170-73. Hanson, R. P. C. “Does dikaios in Luke 23:47 Explode the Proto-Luke H ypothesis?” Hermathena 60

Luke 22:1-2

1020

(1942) 74-78. Hawkins, J. C. “St. L uke’s Passion Narrative Considered with Reference to the Synoptic Problem .” In Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, ed. W. Sanday. Oxford: Clarendon, 1911. 76-94.------------ . “St. Luke’s Passion Narrative Considered with Reference to the Synop tic Problem .” ExpTim 15 (1903-04) 122-26, 273-76. Jankowski, G. “Passah un d Passion: Die Einleitung der Passiongeschichte bei Lukas.” Texte undKontexte 13 (1982) 40-60. Kany, R. “Der lukanische Bericht von Tod u n d A uferstehung Jesu aus d er Sicht eines hellenistischen Romanlesers.” NovT 28 (1986) 75-90. Karris, R. J. Luke: Artist and Theologian. Kiddle, M. “The Passion Narrative in St Luke’s Gospel.” JTS36 (1935) 267-80. Klein, H. “Die lukanisch-jo h a n neische Passionstradition.” ZNW67 (1976) 155-86. LaVerdiere, E. A. “The Passion-Resurrection o f Jesus according to St. Luke.” ChicStud 25 (1986) 35-50. Matera, E Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies: Interpreting the Synoptists through TheirPassion Stories. Theological Inquiries. New York: Paulist, 1986. Esp. 150-220, 238-44. Monsarrat, V. “Le recit de la passion: un enseignement p our le disciple fidele (Luc 22-23).‫ ״‬FVS1 (1982) 40-47. Mowery, R. L. “The Divine H and and the Divine Plan in the Lukan Passion.” In SBL 1991 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 558-75. Neyrey, J. H. The Passion according to Luke: A Redaction Study ofLuke’s Soteriology. Theo logical Inquiries. New York: Paulist, 1985. Osty, E. “Les points de contact entre le recit de la Passion dans saint Luc et saint Jean.” RSR 39 (1951) 146-54. Perry, A. M. The Sources ofLuke’s Passion Narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1920.------------ . “Some O utstanding New Testam ent Problems: V. Luke’s Disputed Passion-Source.” ExpTim 46 (1934-35) 256-60.

Schneider, G. Verleugnung Verspottungund VerhorJesu nach Lukas, 22,54-71: Studien zur lukanischen Darstellung der Passion. SANT 22. Munich: Kosel, 1969. 11-72, 174-220. Schramm, T. MarkusStoff. 182-84. Soards, M. L. The Passion according toLuke: The Special Material ofLuke 22. JSNTSup 14. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. Stoger, A. “Eigenart und Botschaft der lukanischen Passionsgeschichte.”

BK24 (1969) 4-8. Sylva, D. D., ed. Reimaging the Death of the LukanJesus. Taylor, V. The Passion Narrative of St Luke: A Critical and Historical Investigation, ed. Ο. E. Evans. SNTSMS 19. Cambridge: University Press, 1972.------------ . “Sources of the Lukan Passion Narrative.” ExpTim 68 (1956-57) 95. Tiede, D. “The Death of Jesus and the Trial of Israel in Luke-Acts.” In SBL 1990 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990. 158-64. Tyson, J. B. The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1986. Voobus, A. The Prelude to the Lukan PassionNarrative: Tradition-, Redaction-, Cult-, Motif-Historical and Source-Critical Studies. Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 17. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968. Voss, G. Christologie. 99-130. Winter, P. “The Treatm ent of His Sources by the Third Evangelist in Luke xxi-xxiv.” ST 8 (1954) 138-72.------------ . “Sources of the Lucan Passion Narrative.” ExpTim 68 (1956-57) 95. S ig n if ic a n c e

of the

D eath

o f je s u s :

Aubry, J. “Valeur salvifique de la m ort et de la resurrection de Jesus.” AsSeign 24 (1969) 6681. Balentine, G. L. “Death of Jesus as a New Exodus.” RevExp 59 (1962) 27-41. Bartsch, H.-W. “Die B edeutung des S terbensjesu nach den Synoptikern.” TZ 20 (1964) 87-102. Beckmann, J. “Das H eilsbedeutung des Kreuzes Jesu.” In Freispruch und Freiheit. FS W. Kreck, ed. H. G. Geijer. Munich: Kosel, 1973. 19-32. Bleiben, T. E. “The Synoptists’ Interpretation of the Death of Christ.” ExpTim 54 (1942-43) 145-49. Buchele, A. Der TodJesu im Lukasevangelium. Conzelmann, H., ed. Zur Bedeutung des Todes Jesu: Exegetische Beitrage. Gutersloh: G. M ohn, 1967. Cousin, H. “Dieu a-t-il sacrifie son fils Jesus?” LumVie 29 (1980) 55-67. Davies, P. E. “Did Jesus Die as a Martyr-Prophet?” BR 2 (1957) 19-30.------------ . “Did Jesus Die as a Martyr-P rophet?” BR 19 (1974) 34-74. Delling, G. Der Kreuzestod Jesu in der urchristlichen Verkundigung. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1971. 75-97. Dupont, J. Le discours de Milet: Testament pastoral de Saint Paul (Actes 20, 18-36). LD 32. Paris: Cerf, 1962. 182-98. Garrett, S. R. “The M eaning of Jesus’ Death in Luke.” WW12 (1992) 11-16. George, A. “C om m ent Jesus at-il percu sa propre m ort?” LumVie 20 (1971) 3 4 -5 9 .------------ . “Le sens de la m ort de Jesus pour Luc.” RB80 (1973) 186-217. Grosch, H. “‘A ndere hat er g e re tte t.. .’: Exegetische un d didaktische Besinnung fiber zwei lukanische Passionstexte.” EvErz22 (1970) 233-47. Gubler, M.-L. Die Fruhesten Deutungen des Todes Jesu. F rib o u rg /G o ttin g e n : U niversitatsverlag/

Bibliography

1021

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Hengel, M. The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. 65-75.------------ . “Der stellvertretende Suhnetod Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des urchristlichen Kerygmas.” IKZCom9 (1980) 1-25, 13547. Kodell, J. “L uke’s Theology of the D eath o f Jesus.” In Sin, Salvation and the Spirit, ed. D. Durken. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979. 221-30. Leon-Dufour, X. Face a la mort:Jesus etPaul. Paris: Seuil, 1979.------------ . ‘Jesus’ U nderstanding of His D eath.” TD 24 (1976) 293-300. ------------ . “How Did Jesus See His D eath?” TD 29 (1981) 57-60. Lohse, E. Martyrer und Gottesknecht: Untersuchungen zur christlichen Verkundigung vom Suhntod Jesu Christi Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. 113-46. Moessner, D. P. “‘The Christ Must Suffer,’ The Church Must Suffer: Rethinking the Theology of the Cross in Luke-Acts.” In SBL 1990 Semi nar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990. 165-95. Morris, L. “The Cross in the Lukan Writings.” In The Cross in the New Testament. Exeter: Paternoster, n.d. 63-143. Paul, A. “Pluralite des interpretations theologiques de la m ort due Christ dans le Nouveau Testa m ent.” LumVie 20 (1971) 18-33. Roloff, J. “Anfange der soteriologischen D eutung des Todes Jesu (Mk. x. 45 u nd Lk. xxii 27).” NTS 19 (1972-73) 38-64. Schneider, G. Verleugnung,

Verspottung und VerhorJesu nach Lukas, 22,54-71: Studien zur lukanischen Darstellung der Passion. SANT 22. Munich: Kosel, 1969. 169-210.------------ . “Die theologische Sicht des Todes Jesu in den Kreuzigungsberichten der Evangelien.” TPQ126 (1978) 14-22. Schurmann, H. Jesu ureigener Tod. F reiburg im B.: H erder, 1975. 56-63, 66-96. ------------ . “Jesu ureigenes Todesverstandnis: Bemerkungen zur ‘implizierten Soteriologie’Jesu.” In Begegnungmit dem Wort, ed. J. Zmijewski and E. Nellessen. BBB 53. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1980. 272-309.------------ . "Jesu Todesverstandnis im Verstehenshorizont seiner Umwelt.” TGl 70 (1980) 141-60. Schutz, F.

Der leidende Christus: Die angefochtene Gemeinde und das Christuskerygma der lukanischen Schriften. BWANT 89. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969. Schwager, R. “Christ’s Death and the Prophetic Critique of Sacrifice.” Semeia 33 (1985) 109-23. Smith, R. H. “Paradise Today: Luke’s Passion Narrative.” CurTM 3 (1976) 323-36. Stalder, K. “Die H eilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu in den lukanischen Schriften.” IKZ 52 (1962) 222-42. Trilling, W. “Der Tod Jesu, Ende der alten Weltzeit.” In Christusverkundigung in den synoptischen Evangelien. Munich: Kosel, 1969. 191211. Untergassmair, F. G. Kreuzwegund Kreuzigung Jesu.------------ . “Thesen zur Sinndeutung des Todes Jesu in der lukanischen Passiongeschichte.” TGl 70 (1980) 180-93. Voss, G. Christologie. 99-130. Williams, S. K. Jesus’Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept. HDR 2. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975. Zehnle, R. “T he Salvific Character of Jesus’ Death in Lucan Soteriology.” TS30 (1969) 420-44. D a t in g

of the

La st Su p p e r /

the

C r u c if ix io n :

Benoit, P. “La date de la cene.” In Exegeseet theologie. Paris: Cerf, 1961. 1:255-61; ET: “The Date of the Last Supper.” In Jesus and the Gospel. Tr. B. W eatherhead. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973. T.87-93. Black, M. “The Arrest and Trial of Jesus and the Date of the Last Supper.” In New Testament Essays. FS T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester: Manches ter University, 1959. 19-33. Blinzler, J. “Q umran-Kalender un d Passionschronologie.” ZNW 49 (1958) 238-51. Braun, H. Qumran und dasNeue Testament. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1966. 2:29-54. Brown, R. E. “The Problem of Historicity in John .” In New Testament Essays. Milwaukee, WI: Bruce, 1965. 143-67, esp. 160-67. Carmignac, J. “C om m ent Jesus et ses contem porains pouvaient-ils celebrer la Paque a une date no officelle?” RevQ5 (1964-66) 59-79. Chwolson, D. Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes. Leipzig: H. Haessel, 1908. Daly, R. J. “The Eucharist and Redemption: The Last Supper and Jesus’ U nderstanding of His D eath.” BTB 11 (1981) 21-27. Delorme, J. "J esus a-t-il pris la derniere cene le mardi soir?” AmCl67 (1957) 218-23, 229-34. Dockx, S. “Le 14 Nisan de l’an 30.” In Chronologies neotestamentaires et vie de L’Egliseprimitive: Recherches exegetiques. Gembloux: Duculot, 1976. 21-29. ------------ . “Chronologie du dernier jo u r de la vie de Jesus.” In Chronologies neotestamentaires et vie de L’Eglise primitive: Recherches exegetiques. Gembloux: Duculot, 1976. 31-43. Dugmore, C. W. “A Note on the Quartodecimans.” In Studiapatristica IV. TU 79. Berlin: Akademie, 1961. 410-21. Fitzmyer,J. A.

1022

Luke 22:1-2

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study. SBLRBS 8. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990. 180-86. Fotheringham, J. K. “The Evidence of Astronomy and Technical Chronology for the Date of the Crucifixion. ”J TS 35 (1934) 146-62. Hoehner, H. W. "Jesus’ Last Supper.” In Essays. FS J. D. Pentecost, ed. S. D. Toussaint and C. H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody, 1986. 637 4 .------------ . “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ: Part IV. T he Day of Christ’s Cru cifixion.” BSac 131 (1974) 2 4 1 -6 4 . . “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ: P art V. T he Year of C hrist’s C rucifixion.” BSac 131 (1974) 332-48. Holscher, G. Die Hohenpriesterliste bei Josephus und die evangelische Chronologie. SAH 3. Heidelberg: C. Winters, 1940. Holzmeister, U. “N euere Arbeiten uber das Datum der Kreuzigung Christi.” Bib 13 (1932) 93-103. Humphreys, C. J., and Waddington, W. G. “Dating the Crucifixion.” Nature 306 (1983) 743-46. Husband, R. W. “The Year of the Crucifixion.” ΤΑΡΑ 46 (1915) 5-27. Jaubert, A. The Date of the Last Supper. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1965.------------ . “Le calendrier des Jubiles et de la secte de Qum ran: Ses origines bibliques.” V T 3 (1953) 250-64. ------------ . “La date de la derniere C ene.” R H R 146 (1954) 140-73.------------ . “Le calendrier desjubiles et lesjours liturgiques de la semaine.” VT7 (1957) 35-61.------------ . “Le mercredi ou Jesus fut livre.” NTS 14 (1967-68) 145-64. Maier, R L. “Sejanus, Pilate, and the Date of the Crucifixion.” CH37 (1968) 3-13. Mann, C. S. “The Chronology of the Passion and the Qumran Cal endar.” CQR 160 (1959) 446-56. Martin, E. L. The Year of Christ’s Crucifixion. Foundation for Biblical Research Exposition. Pasadena, CA: T he Foundation for Biblical Research, 1983. Mulder, H. "John xviii 28 and the Date of the Crucifixion.” In Miscellanea Neotestamentica, ed. T. Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn, and W. C. Van Unnik. NovTSup 48. Leiden: Brill, 1978. 87-106. Ogg, G. “The Chronology of the Last Supper.” In Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament, ed. D. E. Nineham et al. London: SCM, 1965.92-96. Ruckstuhl, E. Chronology of the Last Days ofJesus: A Critical Study. Tr. V. J. Drapela. New York: Desclee, 1965.------------ . “Zur Chronologie der Leidens geschichte Jesu.” SNTU 10 (1985) 27-61; reprinted in Jesus im Horizont derEvangelien. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbande 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. 1 0 1 -4 0 .------------ . “Zur Chronologie der Leidensgeschichte Jesu (II. Teil).” SNTU 11 (1986) 97-129; reprinted in Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien. S tuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbande 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. 141-76, with N achtrag 177-84. Schaumberger, J. “D er 14. Nisan als Kreuzigungstag und die Synoptiker.” Bib 9 (1928) 57-77. Skehan, P. W. “The Date of the Last Supper.” CBQ20 (1958) 192-99. Smith, B. D. “The Chronology of the Last Supper.” WTJ 53 (1991) 29-45. Strobel, A. Ursprung und Geschichte des fruhchristlichen Osterkalenders. TU 121. Berlin: Akademie, 1977. 1 0 9 -2 1 .------------ . “Der Term in des Todes Jesu: U berschau un d Losungsverschag u nter Einschluss des Q um rankalendars.” ZAW51 (1960) 69-101. Torrey, C. C. “The Date of the Crucifixion according to the Fourth Gospel.”JBL 50 (1931) 232-37, 2 3 7 -5 0 .------------ . “In the Fourth Gospel the Last Supper Was the Paschal Meal ”JQR 42 (1951-52) 237-50. Turner, Η. E. W. “T he Chronological Framework of the Ministry.” In Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament, ed. D. E. Nineham et al. Theological Collections 6. London: SPCK, 1965. 59-74, esp. 67-74. Walker, N. “The Dating of the Last Supper. ”JQR 47 (1957) 293-95.------------ . “Pauses in the Passion Story and Their Significance for Chronol ogy.” N ovT6 (1963) 16-19. . “Yet A nother Look at the Passion Chronology.” N ovT 6 (1963) 286-89. Walther,J. A. “The Chronology of the Passion W eek.”/5 L 77 (1958) 116-22. Zeitlin, S. “The Date of the Crucifixion according to the Fourth Gospel.” JBL51 (1932) 263-71. ------------ . “I. The Dates of the Birth and the Crucifixion ofJesus.” JQR55 (1964) 1-22. And see also at 22:14-20. Fo r

22:1-2:

Schenke, L. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte des Markus. 12-66. Schwarz, G. Jesus und Judas. 141-48. Segal, J. B. The Hebrew Passover: From the Earliest Times to A.D. 70. L ondon O riental Series 12. L ondon/N ew York: O xford University, 1963. Wambacq, B. N. “Pesah-Massot.” Bib 62 (1981) 499-518. Zerafa, P. “Passover and U nleavened B read.” A n g 41 (1964) 235-50.

Form/ Structure/Setting

1023

Translation 1The feast of Unleavened Bread was drawing near, which is called Passover. 2The chief priests and the scribes were [still] seeking [to work out] how they might do away with him. For they were afraid of the People. Notes T here are no significant textual variants.

Form/Structure/Setting I have followed the traditional sectioning here and separated the passion narrative (22:1-23:56) and the resurrection narrative (24:1-53), but in the Lukan telling there is m uch to com m end treating the final four chapters as a single major section. Note especially the way that 23:56 provides for a tighter continuity of action between the sections than is the case in Mark (where 15:47 to 16:1 already marks continuity); and the way in which the whole of chaps. 22-24 answers to the anticipation of 9:31,51; 13:32. 22:1-2 is effectively a reiteration of the preceding section 19:47-21:38, which echoes the generalizing sum m ary (19:47-48) that Luke provided at its beginning. The new elem ent here is the approach of Passover. T here is broad agreem ent that Luke uses only his Markan source (Mark 14:1-2). This in turn is best seen as originally belonging in a single unit with the account of Ju d as’ visit to the chief priests (Mark 14:10-11). For further discussion on the Markan source, see at 22:3-6. For the passion narrative Luke clearly makes use of his M arkan source, but there has been considerable debate about whether he had available a second con tinuous passion narrative (as distinct from access to isolated items of trad itio n ). As will em erge in the analysis of the separate units, I am convinced that Luke did have such a second source available to him. A second Lukan source first becomes visible in 22:15-20, is uncertain for vv 21-23, is clear for vv 24-30, 31-34, 35-38, likely for vv 39-46, 47-54a, 54b-62, clear for vv 63-64, likely for vv 66-71, 23:1-5, quite possible for vv 6-12, uncertain for vv 13-16, likely for vv 18-25, very likely for vv 26-32, likely for vv 33-34, unlikely for vv 35-38, very likely for vv 39-43, quite possible for vv 46-47 in the u n it vv 44-49, and possible for vv 50-56. While there is no guarantee that all of this came to Luke from a single source, the sheer quantity makes a second continuous passion narrative almost certain. In many cases the sec ond source would seem to have some link with Johannine tradition, but not in a m anner that provides support for literary dependence in one direction or the other. There has been considerable scholarly dispute over whether there was a preM arkan passion narrative, or w hether Mark is the first creator of such a narrative. If I am at all right about the second Lukan source here, then a pre-M arkan pas sion narrative becom es that m uch m ore likely. The question of a pre-Markan passion narrative is addressed m ost closely at 22:54b-62 below. T here I argue for the existence of a such a narrative, bu t w ithout a great deal of confidence about its scope (it m ust have included 14:1-2, 10-11 and a version of P eter’s denial in connection with a trial before the high priest; it may have included a prediction of the Petrine denial before 14:1-2 [with o th er materials?]; a trial before Pilate would have been part of the narrative; and once we have this m uch then a good deal m ore is necessary to com plete the narrative).

1024

L uke 22:12‫־‬

As will becom e clear below, I think that there is a good basis for affirm ing the fundam ental historicity of the passion narratives. Various tendencies are observ able in the reporting, and a certain am ount of pious imaginative writing has been the vehicle for registering the sense of significance that early Christians attrib u ted to these events. But the m ain lines are stable am ong the different strands of tradition, and a whole em erges that has a good m easure of historical credibility. There are a series of dating and timing problems to be raised in connection with the passion narrative. ( i) Because of the differing chronology of John and the Synop tics, there is the question of w hether the Last Supper was in fact a Passover meal, (ii) There is the problem of identifying the year in which the crucifixion of Jesus took place, (iii) And there are a variety of issues in connection with the sequence and timing of elements of the judicial process m ounted against Jesus. Com m ent will be offered here on the first two of these issues, while discussion on matters connected with the judicial process m ounted against Jesus will be found in connection with the units from 22:54. In contradistinction to the Synoptic picture, a series of verses in Jo h n suggest th at the final m eal of Jesus with his disciples took place before the Passover. The Jo h an n in e account gives the im pression, further, that Jesus’ execution had al ready taken place on Passover eve and that Jesus was already dying during the time th at the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the tem ple in prepara tion for the com ing Paschal m eal (John 13:1-2; 18:28; 19:14, 31-37 [the recent attem pt by B. D. Smith [WTJ 5 3 (1991) 29-45] to dem onstrate that the Jo h an n in e last Supper is after all a Passover m eal underlines the term inological looseness that was already possible in the first century, but fails to convince). Jerem ias (Euchanstic Words, 42-55, 81-82) has identified a series of features of the Jo h an n in e account that make best sense if the traditions behind the account were, despite the present Johannine chronology, originally traditions about a Passover meal. Some of these features prove no m ore than that the m eal was a special banquet and n ot simply a regular main meal of the day, but cumulatively Jerem ias’ case is at least strongly suggestive. The identification of the currency for some Palestinian Jews of Jesus’ period of a solar calendar of 364 days (exactly 52 weeks), differing from the official calendar, which was lunar in orientation and had only 354 days (in fact both calendars required periodic intercalated m onths [the one m uch m ore regularly than the other] to keep the seasons aligned with the calendar; the m anner of intercalation is only very im perfectly known) has suggested for some a calendrical solution to the tension between the Johannine and Synoptic accounts. The two calendars, naturally enough, produce different days for the feasts. Could it be that Jesus kept to the solar calendar, which though it had become rather sectarian by the time of Jesus (we know about it mostly from the Qum ran documents and Jubilees) , was evidently the more ancient calendar? According to this view Jesus kept Passover on the Tuesday evening and died on the Friday afternoon, which was the eve of official Passover (the most im portant advocates of this solution are Jaubert and Ruckstuhl). While by no means an impossible solution, there are significant problems with this suggestion. To m ention only two: (i) Is it really believable that the temple authorities of Jesus’ day permitted sacrifice of Passover lambs in the temple for a separate celebration of “Essene” Passover? (it) Given the sectarian vehemence with which calendrical differences were maintained, is it believable that Jesus’ adherence to a sectarian calendar has left no other marks on the Gospel tradition?

Form/Structure/Setting

1025

T here is som ething of a trail of other earlier calendrical solutions that have been proposed, but of the calendrical solutions offered, that involving the “Essene” calender is by far the least speculative and the best defended. While I rem ain unconvinced by the two Passovers solution, som ething that its p roponents focus u pon seems to me im portant to notice. The solar calendar pro duces a Tuesday evening Passover. Since the tradition is united that Jesus was arrested during the night following the Last Supper and was executed on the Friday, by this reckoning, two whole days are added to the canonical Gospel ver sion of the time that Jesus was kept in custody. Especially in connection with the Sanhedrin trial, it has long been recognized that there are difficulties in the M arkan chronology, which takes us from arrest late on Thursday night to crucifixion at 9 A.M. on Friday m orning (John’s ac count involves three m ore h o u rs). It is n o t difficult for proponents of the two Passover solution to ease these difficulties by extending the period in custody. Quite apart from the validity of their particular reconstructions, this raises the question of w hether the M arkan passion day is an artistic and theological day rath er than a historical and chronological day. In 1:21-38, Mark links a series of episodes into a twenty-four-hour chronology, apparently for the purpose of creating something like “a specimen day in the ministry for Jesus,” which is then generalized by the travel notice in v 39. There is an even greater deliberateness about the sequence of chronological markers in the Markan passion: 14:1: “two days before the Passover” (needed for the Bethany supper and the Last Supper; and also possibly for the sake of a seven-day scheme for Jesus’ time in Jerusalem); v 12: “on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb”; v 17: “when it was evening”; v 26: V h e n they had sung a hymn”; v 43: “immediately, while he was still speaking”; v 72: “immediately the cock crowed a second tim e”; 15:1: “as soon as it was m orning”; v 25: “it was the third hour when they cruci fied him ”; v 33: “when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour”; v 42: "When evening had come”; 16:1: V hen the sabbath was past.” With only a little filling in, we have at the center of this chronological sequence a twenty-four-hour Jewish day consisting of six hours for the Last Supper (three hours for the Supper with six hours for arrest and Jewish hearing would also be possible), three hours for the Gethsemane prayer (see 14:37 and 41), three hours for arrest and Jewish hearing, three hours for Pilate, three hours on the cross before the dark ness, with three further hours to die (so six hours, as, I am suggesting, is the time interval for the Passover m eal), three hours dead on the cross before a hurried burial so that he m ight not be left on the cross on the sabbath. (Schenk, Passionsbericht, 144, is mistaken in thinking that Mark presents days as running from m orning to evening: the texts he points to show no m ore than the obvious fact that the begin ning point for most public action on a new day could only be after the hours of darkness had passed.) Mark’s “passion day” looks suspiciously like a theological and artistic m ore than a historical and chronological day: the whole sweep of this cen trally im portant unfolding sequence of events has been located on the day of the feast of Passover. It would seem that the sequence of events is portrayed as consti tuting the new Passover redem ption precisely by m eans of the literary device of containing the events entirely within the time of the actual Passover festival. If this is at all correct, then the distinction between Mark and Jo h n becom es n o t a disagreem ent over the nature and sequence of historical events, bu t rather

1026

Luke 22:1-2

a difference of strategy about how to portray the connection between the death of Jesus and Passover redem ption. J o h n ’s arrangem ent creates a powerful con nection by m eans o f a tim ing coincidence (and o ther coincidences) between the execution of Jesus and the sacrificing of the Passover lamb; Mark has achieved the Passover connection in an o th er way. W hen it comes to historical reconstruction, it is likely that the synoptic Gospels are right in their identification of the Last Supper as a Passover meal (see above about the possible traces in the Jo h an n in e m aterials of an original Passover iden tiflcation for the meal, and see Jerem ias [Eucharistic Words, 41-55] for features of the M arkan account identifying the meal as a Passover meal, not deliberately, but incidentally by reflecting aspects of the customs that regulated Passover at that period [in myjudgm ent, Jerem ias’ cumulative case has survived the various attempts to discredit his argum ents]). However, where Jo h n has taken his literary freedom prim arily with the tim ing of the execution of Jesus, Mark has taken his with the nu m b er of events that he squeezes into the day of the Passover festival. We tu rn now to the question of the year in which these events m ost likely transpired. Luke seems to date the beginning of the m inistry of Jo h n the Baptist in A.D. 28-29 (see at 3:1). We can only guess at how long it was before Jesus came to Jo h n for baptism; and we do n o t know for certain the time fram e for the develop m en t of a separate m inistry for Jesus (the tim ing of the census of 2:2, com bined with the “about thirty” of 3:23, adds nothing by way of precision). U ncertainty continues as we try to estimate the length of Jesus’ public ministry: the Synoptic ministry could have all been in a single year; John reports a series of Jewish festivals that make three years a better estimate. The above discussion, unfortunately, re moves one of the few fixed points thought to have been available to determ ine the date of Jesus’ death. If my reconstruction is at all correct, then we can no longer be certain about the day on which Passover fell in that particular year. Jesus died on a Friday, b ut Passover probably came earlier in the week. Astronom ical calcu lations can identify, at least within a day or so, the day on which Passover is likely to have fallen in any particular year during the relevant period (if, as is norm ally assumed, observation, and n o t simply calculation, was the basis for declaring the beginning o f the new m onth [a table of dates for the new m oon at the beginning of the m onth Nisan, for the relevant period, based on astronom ical calculations may be consulted in Η. H. Goldstine, New and Full Moons 1001 B .C . to A .D . 1651 (Philadelphia: Am erican Philosophical Society, 1973) 86; this may be com pared with dates for Nisan 1 from R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chro nology 625 B .C .-A .D . 15 (Providence: Brown University, 1956) 86-87]). But if we do n o t know the day on which Passover fell that year, then we cannot elim inate years on the basis o f astronom ical calculation. We may think ourselves justified in elimi nating years in which Passover fell on, say, Thursday through Sunday, but given a day or so of uncertainty, this would definitely elim inate only A.D. 30 and 33, and even these elim inations can only be on a sliding scale of probabilities. We have no sufficient basis for estim ating how long or short a period Jesus would have need ed to be in custody before his execution (A.D. 28 and 32 would both be at tractive options, each extending the arrest period by a couple of days). The results of o u r inquiry m ust therefore be almost entirely negative: Jesus is likely to have died in the half decade A.D. 30-35, perhaps earlier in this period rath er than later, b u t it does n o t seem possible to be m ore precise.

Explanation

1027

Comment As Passover approaches there has been no change in the situation of the preceding section, in which the plans of the Jerusalem leadership are held in check by Jesus’ popularity with the People. 1 Only πάσχα , “Passover,” and a use of τά άζυμα , “the [feast of] U nleavened B read,” survives o f M ark’s wording (but Luke spells out “feast o f ”). Luke intro duces the language of approach (ήγγιζβν), which he m ade considerable use of in the section 18:35-19:46. Perhaps he intends with this to suggest that Passover represented some kind of climax point in connection with the thus far thwarted m achinations of the Jewish authorities. Otherwise, the juxtaposition o f vv 1 and 2 remains unm otivated and must be treated as a Markan relic that has lost its Markan motivation. Luke treats Passover and Unleavened Bread as interchangeable names for the Pilgrim feast. This is n o t strictly correct b u t can be well paralleled in Jew ish usage of the period (cf. B. D. Smith, WTJ 51 [1991] 32-39; Fitzmyer, 440). Passover is properly the feast prepared for by the slaughter of the lam b in the late afternoon of 14 Nisan and celebrated in family or wider groupings from af ter sunset (and thus by the norm al Jewish reckoning on 15 Nisan) with an elaborate meal built aro u n d the lamb. The Passover liturgy and detailed regulation went through various developm ents, and it is n o t always possible to be confident about the state of developm ent already in the lifetime of Jesus. U nleavened Bread is a week-long feast, p repared for with the removal of all leaven on 14 Nisan and con tinuing for a week in which all bread eaten was to be unleavened (see Exod 12; Lev 23:5-6; Num 28:16-17; D eut 16:1-8). 2 Luke begins his sentence with the M arkan wording (as far as “seeking”), b u t soon moves into fresh form ulation, retaining only πώς, “how,” γάρ , “fo r” (but with a different role), and a use of λαός , “P eople” (with a different case), of the actual M arkan language. Luke does no t carry over the M arkan emphasis on subterfuge (έυ δόλω) or on the problem of arresting Jesus at the time of the feast (έυ rrj eoprrj). For the final clause, Luke echoes language he has used in 20:19. In L uke’s hands the whole verse recalls 19:47b-48 (though he does n o t bo th er to add, as there, “along with the leaders of the P eople”). O nce again Luke makes the p oint that the positive attitude of the Jewish People com plicated the desired accom plishm ent o f the Jerusalem leadership to effect Jesus’ demise (the use of γάρ picks up on the earlier use of πώς) . Explanation T he whole scope of Jesus’ teaching m inistry in Jerusalem , with all its conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership, had done nothing to resolve the stalem ate from which L uke’s account begins in 19:47-48. Jesus’ popularity with the Jewish People still stands in the way of the Jewish leaders as they seek to have him destroyed. But now Passover is drawing near and m atters are due to come to a head. Luke identifies Passover (with its Passover lamb) and U nleavened Bread (with its week, starting with Passover, in which the Jewish People were required to keep totally separate from leaven and leavened b re a d ). These are technically distinct, b u t often in loose parlance equated.

1028

Betrayal by Judas

Luke 22:3-6

(22:3-6)

Bibliography Bacon, B. W. “W hat Did Jesus Betray?” HibJ 19 (1920-21) 476-93. Baumbach, G. ‘Judas— J u n ger u n d V errater Je su .” ZdZ 17 (1963) 91-98. Brown, S. Apostasy and Perseverance. 8 2 97. Buchheit, G. Judas Iskarioth (Legende— Geschichte— Deutung). Gu tersloh: Rufer, 1954. Cullmann, O. “Le douziem e ap o tre.” RHPR 42 (1962) 133-40 = “Die zwolfte A postel.” In Vortrage und Aufsatze 1925 bis 1962, ed. K. Frolich. T u bin g en /Z u rich : Mohr, 1966. 214-22. Enslin, M. S. “How the Story Grew: Judas in Fact and Fiction.” In Festschrift to Honor F. Wilber Gingrich, ed. E. H. Barth and E. E. Cocroft. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 123-41. Gartner, B. Iscariot. F acet Books. Biblical Series. Tr. V. I. G ru h m . P h ilad elp h ia: Fortress, 1971. Goldschmidt, H. L. “Das Judasbild im N euen Testam ent aus j u discher Sicht.” In Heilvoller Verrat? Judas im Neuen Testament, by H. L. G oldschm id t an d M. Lim beck. S tu ttg art: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. 9-36. Hein, K. "Judas Iscariot: Key to the Last-Supper Narratives?” NTS 17 (1970-71) 227-32. Klauck, H.-J. Judas—ein Junger ders Herrn. QD 111. F reiburg/B asel/V ienna: H erder, 1987. Lapide, P. E. “V errater o d er verraten? Judas in evangelischer u n d jiidischer Sicht.” LM 16 (1977) 75-79. Limbeck, M. “Das Judasbild im N euen Testament aus christlicher Sicht.” In Heilvoller Verrat?Judas im Neuen Testament, by H. L. G oldschm idt and M. Limbeck. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. 37-101. Luthi, K. “Das Problem des Judas Iskarioth—n eu u n tersu ch t.” M 1 6 (1956) 98-114. Morin, J.-A. “Les deux derniers des Douzes: Simon le Zelote et Judas Iskarioth.” RB 80 (1973) 332-58. Plath, M. “W arum h at die urchristliche G em einde au f die U b erlie fe ru n g d e r Ju d as E rzah lung W ert g elegt?” ZNW 17 (1916) 178-88. Popkes, W. Christus Traditus: Fine Untersuchung zum Begriff derDahingabe im Neuen Testament. ATANT 49. Zurich: Zwingli, 1967. 174-81. Preisker, H. “D er Verrat des Judas un d das A bendm ahl.” ZAW41 (1942) 151-55. Roquefort, D. "Judas: U ne figure de la perversion.” ETR 58 (1983) 501-13. Schenke, L. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte des Markus. 119-50. Schlager, G. “Die U ngeschichtlichkeit des Verraters Judas.” ZNW 15 (1914) 50-59. Schwarz, G. Jesus undJudas. Esp. 176-82. Smith, W. B. “Ju d as Iscariot.” HibJ 9 (1911) 532-35. Stein-Schneider, H. “A la rec h erch e du Ju d as h isto riq u e .” ETR 60 (1985) 403-24. Tarachow, S. “Ju d as, d e r g elieb te H e n k e r.” In Psychoanalytische Interpretationen biblisher Texte, ed. Y. Spiegel. Munich: Kaiser, 1972. 243—56. Vogler, W. Judas Iskarioth: Untersuchungung zu Tradition und Redaktion von Textes des Neuen

Testaments und ausserkanonischer Schriften. Theologische A rbeiten 42. Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1983. Wagner, H., ed. Judas Iskariot: Menschliches oder heilsgeschichtlichesDrama? Frankfurt: Knecht, 1985. Wrede, W. "Judas Ischarioth in d er urchristlichenU berlieferung.” In Vortrage und Studien. Tu bingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1907. 127-46. A nd see at 22:1-2.

Translation 3 Satan entered intoJudas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the Twelve, 4and he went and conferred with the chief priests and the officers about how he might deliver Jesusa up to them. 5They were glad and decided to give him money. 6He agreed and began to seek for an opportunity to deliver him up in the absence of a crowd. Notes a Gr.: “him.”

Comment

1029

Form/Structure/Setting T he impasse of 22:1-2 is broken by Judas Iscariot’s visit to the appropriate executive leaders of the Jewish establishm ent. Luke passes over the anointing in Mark 14:3-9, having used a related scene at 7:36-50 (see there; the omission is n o t likely to be for the sake of the anointing anticipated in 23:56-24:1). The omission restores what is likely to have been an original unity between Mark 14:1-2 and 10-11. The differences from Mark can for the most p art be reckoned to the Lukan pen, but “Satan entered in to ” is (apart from word order) found identically in Jo h n 13:27 and suggests that a further tradition shared between Luke and Jo h n has also left its mark. If it were to have been separately transmitted, the pre-Markan form of Mark 14:12 , 10-11 would need to have been completed with some account of the actual handing over. Perhaps the near repetition in v 43 of the words used to introduce Judas in v 10 marks the place where the source continues (Mark feels the need to repeat the in troduction because of the material intruded betw een). The present form of v 43 is form ulated in connection with the language of v 48, but a simpler form of it may have com pleted the betrayal account with something like “He came [answering to the “went” of v 10] with a crowd from the chief priests[, the scribes and the elders].” But this can be no more than a suggestion. An original form is unlikely to have had the “after two days” of v 1 (this timetable probably means no more than that Mark had a narrative need of a chronology that would allow him to report two main meals before the arrest; it may also contribute to a seven-day calendar for Jesus’ time in Jerusalem ). The final sentence of v 11 is also likely to be for the sake of Mark’s incor poration of this tradition into his larger narrative. If this reconstruction is along the right lines, we have a tradition in which the betrayal by Judas was arranged and executed in the im m ediate context of Passover. Judas precipitated official action because he provided a way in which Jesus could be arrested during the feast period w ithout the need to deal with a potenti ally ugly public scene. T hough such a narrative would have undo u b ted pastoral usefulness, its im m ediate role is to account for Jesus’ arrest precisely at Passover, and in this role it is likely to be historical. The attempts that have been made to rehabilitate Judas (recently notably that of Schwarz [Jesus und Judas\ ) are finally exercises in uncontrolled speculation. Likewise, the many attempts to identify the nature of Judas’ motivation in defecting from the in ner circle of Jesus’ disciples are, for lack of evidence, no more than imaginative exercises. Comment O nce the circle of confidence is broken through the defection of one of Jesus’ closest followers, popularity with the People will no longer be able to protect him from the efforts of the Jewish leadership: the final Satanic attack has begun. 3 Luke begins with a note drawn from an o th er tradition: “Satan entered into Ju d as” (cf. J o h n 13:27). O n the role of Satan here, cf. at 4:1-13. Satan is active in tem ptation, sin, and spiritual darkness. While he has not been absent during Jesus’ public ministry, the passion period is the oppo rtune time for a particular on slaught (cf. 22:31, 53). The idea of Satan entering a person is unusual but should n o t be confused with dem on possession. The language probably results from the

1030

Luke 22:3-6

application o f the category “spirit” to Satan, perhaps along the lines of the “two spirits” (good and evil) of the Q um ran docum ents (e.g., 1QS 3:13-4:25). Mart. Isa. 3:11 uses the related language “Beliar dwelt in the h eart of.” Cf. also Acts 5:3. τον καλούμενον, “called,” m ay be Lukan (cf. 9:10; Acts 1:23; 15:22), but the change from Mark to the declinable form for Iscariot (contrast Luke 6:16), which is the constant M atthean and Johannine usage (Mark has it at 14:43), may suggest that Luke’s second tradition is at work. Luke uses “num ber” quite a few times in Acts, so “of the num ber” may be his own contribution. For the name “Iscariot,” see at 6:16. Schwarz (Jesus undJudas, 7) provides a more complete list of the senses that have been proposed for the term (cf. also the listing in Vogler, Judas Iskarioth, 18-20) and defends (6-12), on the basis of conjectural emendation, yet another sense: “man of the city (i.e., Jerusalem).” 4 Luke uses the key elements of the Markan vocabulary here but freshly mints the verse. In particular he adds “and officials” (καί στρατηγοΐς ) , of whom only Luke in the NT speaks (apart from here and in v 52, Luke elsewhere uses the plural only of the magistrates of Philippi); and he takes up again the τό πώς + subjunctive form that he used in v 2, perhaps in order to suggest the correspondence between Judas’ proposal and that for which the Jewish leadership was seeking. Suggestions about identity of the temple (cf. v 52) officials range from temple police to accountants of the temple treasury. Whoever they were, their im portance here is surely related to their ability to set in m otion the arrest of Jesus rather than to their access to funds from the temple treasury to pay Judas for his betrayal! For “deliver him u p ,” see at 9:44. Ju d as’ act of delivering Jesus up takes its place in the m uch wider them e of the delivering up of Jesus (beyond the passion predictions see 20:20; 23:25; 24:7, 20; Acts 3:13). T hough παραδω never m eans “betray” as such, it is hard to avoid such an overtone here. Ju d as’ role unfolds in 22:6, 21-22, 47-48. The Lukan text makes no attem pt to explain what m otivated Judas—beyond the reference to Satan (v 3) and to the divine necessity (vv 2122) o f the delivering up (if no t of the role of Judas the individual in its execution). In J o h n 6:64-71 the connection is m ade with a failure of faith, and in 12:4-6 Ju d as’ avarice and dishonesty prepare for his role as betrayer. 5 More of Mark’s wording survives here. The major changes are Luke’s deletion o f “h earin g ” and his use of συνέθεντο, “agreed,” for M ark’s έπηγγείλαντο, “prom ised.” T he chief priests and officials sense that here is a way to move beyond their impasse. M att 26:15 has thirty pieces of silver as the am ount that changed hands. 6 Beyond some recasting, Luke adds significantly at the beginning and the end of the verse: έξωμολόγησεν, “agreed,” at the beginning raises the profile of the financial transaction in the delivering up of Jesus (the money was not simply a reward); άτερ όχλου αύτοΐς (lit. “apart from a crowd to them ”) at the end takes up the substance of the concern expressed by the leaders in Mark 14:1-2 (and passed over in Luke 22:1-2), to act surreptitiously and to keep the action against Jesus out of the view of the throngs of festival pilgrims. It also answers to the Lukan emphasis on the role of Jesus’ popularity with the public (“the People”; see at 19:48) in placing a check on the plans of the Jerusalem hierarchy. Luke uses arep “apart from,” again at v 35; it is not found elsewhere in the NT. Explanation At the initiative of Satan, the impasse of 22:1-2, which has been present since the beginning of Jesus’Jerusalem ministry, is broken. The leaders’ fear of the People

Translation

1031

can no longer protect Jesus once the inner circle of confidence is broken by the defection of Judas. Satan has not been inactive during the ministry of Jesus, but he concentrates his efforts in particularly opportune times (see 4:13). The passion period is such a time of special Satanic onslaught (see also 22:31, 53). Temptation, sin, and spiritual blindness are the particular currencies of Satan, and here Judas falls entirely under Satan’s spell. To the dilem m a of the Jewish leadership corresponds the offer of Judas. N atu rally they are delighted and quite ready to strike a financial deal with him. Ju d as’ access to knowledge about the private m ovem ents of Jesus m eant that he was well placed to find an occasion for bringing an arresting party into contact with Jesus at a time when this action could be kept from the public gaze. No doubt the public would find out in time, bu t the particular flashpoint situation created by the move to take Jesus into custody could be avoided. Keeping in m ind the wider Lukan narrative, one m ust no t forget that this de livering up of Jesus, though a betrayal, at the same time fulfills the divine intention (e.g., Acts 2:23) and is fully anticipated by Jesus himself (Luke 9:44; 22:21-22; etc.).

Arrangements for the Passover Meal

(22:7-13)

Bibliography “‘The First Day of U nleavened . . . ,’ Mt 26.17, Mk 14.12, Lk 22.7.” BT 35 (1984) 235-38. C h e n d e r l i n , F . “D istributed O bservance o f the Passover: A Prelim inary Test o f the H ypothesis.” Bib 57 (1976) 1-24, esp. 13-14. F o s t e r , J . “‘Go an d Make Ready’ (Luke xxii.8,John xiv.2).” ExpTim 63 (1951-52) 193. G r e e n , J . B . “P rep aratio n for Passover (Luke 22:7-13): A Q uestion of R edactional T ech n iq u e.” NovT 29 (1987) 305-19.

A r n o tt, A . G .

Les pericopes de l'entree a Jerusalem et de la preparation de la cene: Contribution a l’etude du probleme synoptique. E tudes Bibliques NS. Paris: G abalda, 1973. M a c M i l l a n , H . “T h e Man B earing a P itch er o f W ater: Luke xxii. 10.” ExpTim 3 (1891-92) 58-60. R o b b i n s , V . K . “Last Meal: P reparation, Betrayal, an d A bsence.” In The Passion in Mark,

J a co b , R .

ed. W. H. Kelber. 21-40, esp. 21-28. S a b b e , M . “The Footwashing in Jn 13 and Its Relation to the Synoptic Gospels.” ETL 58 (1982) 279-308. S c h e n k e , L . Studien zur Passionsgeschichte des Markus. 152-98. S c h u r m a n n , H . Quellenkritische Untersuchung. 1:75-104.--------- . “Der A bend m ahlsbericht Lk 22,7-38 als Gottesdienstordnung, G em eindeordnung, L ebensordnung.” In Ursprung und Gestalt. 108-50, esp. 1 4 5 -4 8 . --------- . Le recit de la derniere cene, Luc 22,7-38: Une regie de celebration eucharistique, une regie communautaire, une regie de vie. Le Puy: X. Mappus, 1966.--------- . “Der Dienst des Petrus und Johannes.” TT Z 60 (1951) 99-101; reprinted in Ursprung und Gestalt. 274-76. W a n k e , J . Beobachtungen zum Eucharistieverstandnis des Lukas auf Grund der lukanischen Mahlberichte. Erfurter theologische Schriften 8. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1973. 61-62. W i n t e r , R “Luke 22, 7-18.” Tox theologica 26 (1955-56) 88-91. And see at 22:1-2.

Translation 7 The day of Unleavened Bread came, in which it was necessary to slaughter the Passover [lamb]. 8He sent Peter and John saying, “Go and prepare for us the Passover, so that we

1032

Luke 22:7-13

might eat [it together]. ”9They said to him, “Where do you want us to prepare [it]?”10He said to them, “Look, as you go into the city someonea who is carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house into which he goes, 11and you are to say to the householder of the house, "The teacher says to you, “Where is thebguest room where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”' 12He will show you a large upstairs room already set out; prepare there.”13They went off and found [things] just as he had said to them, and they prepared the Passover. Notes a Gr. άνθρωπος', “p e rs o n /m a n .” b ‫ א‬C etc. have μου, “my,” bu t this is likely in ten d ed to conform the text to Mark.

Form/Structure/Setting The approaching feast day in 22:1 has arrived now, and Jesus initiates the arrang ing o f the Passover meal. V 14 is often included here but is better linked with vv 15-20 since it marks another coming of a time, beyond that specified in v 7. Also it makes a natural introductory setting for vv 15-20, which otherwise begins abruptly. The Markan sequence continues, and there is no adequate reason for postulating anything beyond a Markan source (see the detailed language analysis by Schurm ann in Untersuchung, 1:76-104). In the Markan telling there is a conscious paralleling of 14:12-16 and 11:1-6 (see, e.g., Robbins, “Last Meal,” 23-24) though clearly not to the point where the one account has created the other. (Luke appears to be conscious of this parallelism, at some points enhancing it [notably in v 13], but at others reduc ing the level of agreem ent [in v 8 both processes are evident].) It is not entirely clear w hether the Markan account thinks in terms of supernatural prescience or of prior arrangement. In either case, there is an emphasis on making arrangem ents discretely for the meal, in order, presumably, to ensure that Jesus’ whereabouts on that evening should not become publicly and therefore officially known. This latter aspect of the report constitutes its core, which with some credibility we may trace back to the his torical Jesus, as part of his strategy for avoiding arrest until after he had been able to share a final Passover celebration with his disciples (cf. Luke 22:15). It is, however, difficult to suggest in form-critical terms what form of this tradition could have been transm itted as an independent unit (Dormeyer [Passion, 91-93] argues for a “prophetic prediction of a sign,” appealing to 1 Sam 10:1-10; 1 Kgs 17:8-16; 2 Kgs 1:3-4, but his case is stronger for the related Mark 11:1-10 than for Mark 14:12-16). Comment Jesus assigns to leading figures am ong the Twelve the servant task of m aking arrangem ents for the Passover meal he plans to share with his disciples. Despite the loom ing th reat to his life, Jesus rem ains clearly in control of the situation. T he Passover arrangem ents are set in place in such a way that Jesus’ location on this crucial evening will no t be public knowledge. 7 The Markan content is freshly worded, partly for the sake of being able to speak of the day as having come, after speaking in v 1 of the feast drawing near (cf. Green, NovT 29 [1987] 310). Luke’s “the day of Unleavened Bread” (without Mark’s “first”) is misleading in two respects: Unleavened Bread was a seven-day feast, and (here Mark is equally misleading) it began strictly speaking on 15 Nisan, not 14 Nisan,

C om m en t

1033

which must be the date Luke has in mind, because that is when the lambs were sacrificed (see at 22:1). But the basis for loose reference to 14 Nisan as the begin ning of Unleavened Bread is already set in Exod 12:18 with its reference to eating unleavened bread on “the fourteenth day of the m onth at evening,” and is natural enough for a feast that required (in anticipation) the removal of all leaven on 14 Nisan. In War 5.99, Josephus speaks of the feast beginning on the fourteenth day of the m onth and, just as Luke does, uses “the day of Unleavened Bread” to describe it. There is some attractiveness in the view that Luke’s choice of an idiom using 6S6L, “it was necessary,” to speak of the slaughter of the Passover lamb is to be linked to his use of the same verb in the passion predictions (see 9:22; 17:25; 22:37; 24:7, 26; cf. Green, NovT 29 [1987] 312). But this is less than certain, [τό] πάσχα means, according to context, the Passover festival, the Passover meal, or the Passover lamb (here the last). Passover practice had evolved through various stages by the time of Jesus. A festival originally based in the hom e (cf. Exod 12) later becam e a temple-based festival (cf. D eut 16:7; 2 C hr 35:13-14). The practice of Jesus’ own day com bined elem ents of both: the lambs were slaughtered in the tem ple forecourts during the afternoon of 14 Nisan, bu t the m eal in the evening was held in family or wider groupings th roughout the city (see Jerem ias, Eucharistic Words, 42-43). 8-9 In editing his Markan source, Luke transfers the initiative from the disciples to Jesus: the general reference to the disciples disappears; their question to Jesus is postponed, and its content is partly reassigned to Jesus to become part of his direc tive (6τ0ίμάζ6 lv , “prepare,” is used in both). As well, Luke introduces Peter and John in place of the two anonymous disciples of Mark. Peter and John are significantly paired elsewhere in Luke-Acts (8:51; 9:28; Acts 1:13; 3:1, 3, 4; 4:13,19; 8:14), and Schurm ann (“Dienst,” 274-76) has argued forcefully that they are introduced here, from the perspective of a time period after the death of James (cf. Acts 12:2), as the senior leaders of the apostolic group, being directed by Jesus into a service role (cf. Luke 22:24-27). Also notable is Luke’s transformation of Mark’s "you [sing, (i.e., Jesus)] may eat” to “we may eat” (now on the lips of Jesus). Luke adds emphasis here to the note of meal fellowship with Jesus present in Mark already at 14:14, but in a less emphatic form. Luke adds “for us” to Mark’s “prepare,” taking the “for us” from Mark 14:15, which has “prepare for us” (having used “for us” here, he will not repeat it in v 12). 10 Mark’s “and he says to them ” becomes both “saying” in v 8 and “he said to them ” in v 10. Luke makes a series of changes of vocabulary and syntax in line with his own preferences. In the move from ύπάγβτε (lit. “depart”; Mark 14:13) to Ιδού είσελθόντων υμών (lit. “behold, as you en ter”) , Luke not only uses favored words but also recog nizes that after his earlier reconstruction an imperative at this point would be out of place. Mark’s “follow him and wherever he enters” seems rough to Luke, who smooths the logic of the development with his “follow him into the house into which he goes.” άνθρωπος may m ean “m an ” here (as, e.g., 16:19; 18:10) rath er than the m ore general “p erson.” However, the wider sense rem ains possible since the άνθρωπος meets the disciples rath er than vice versa, so that we do no t strictly need the m ore unusual sight of a m an carrying the water jar. This person turns up in front of the disciples at ju st the right time. Jesus is presented as in total control of the situation. It is less clear here than in 19:30-31 w hether prescience or prior ar rangem ent is intended. The m easure of parallelism stands in favor of the former. 11 Unlike Mark, Luke continues the imperatival force with a future verb (έρ εΐτε , “you will say”). Otherwise, L uke’s m ain changes are to add a pleonastic

1034

Luke 22:7-13

“of the ho u se” to οίκοδεσ πότη, which already means “m aster of a house” (for other Lukan pleonasms, cf. BDF 484), and to adjust the use of personal pronouns by adding “to you” to M ark’s “says” and taking away M ark’s “my” from “guest ro o m ” (the latter may n o t have seem ed quite appropriate, while the form er may simply be a Lukan “com pensation” for having rem oved the latte r). The water carriers’ role will be to get the disciples to the right house and there fore to the master of the right house. As in 19:31, the disciples are given precise words by Jesus to use as they carry out their orders. Here Jesus is to be identified as “the teacher.” O n Jesus as teacher, see at 7:40. The Lukan nuance, however, may be to point to Jesus as the one who has exercised the teaching ministry of 19:47-21:38: it is almost as if the householder were being expected to help secrete a fugitive. κατάλυμα is a flexible word for any kind of accommodation (see at 2:7 where the word is used of the place where Mary and Joseph failed to find accom m odation). 12 The main Lukan change is to drop the Markan ετοίμου, “prepared/ready”: no doubt it seemed confusing to follow this with a use of the cognate verb in connec tion with preparations yet to be made. All sorts of available spaces were set up for Passover groups. The άυάγαωυ here could be a rooftop but, because of the note of secrecy in the narrative, is more likely to be an upstairs room, έστρωμέυου is literally “spread out,” but here “set up for a banquet.” The householder will have such a room prepared for Passover use, but still available for Jesus and the disciple band. Given the imminence of the time of the Passover meal and the huge pressure on space generated by the requirem ent that the meal be eaten within the walls of Jerusa lem, this can only be by previous arrangem ent or by supernatural prom pting. T he whole procedure has been set up so that nothing will draw public atten tion to Jesus and the disciple group who will spend the Passover evening at this particular place. Not even the disciple band (and so not Judas) know where they will be m eeting. We are probably to understand that the room is not only fur nished b ut also provisioned for the feast, so that all the necessary preparation could be achieved without a good deal of com ing and going. 13 By simplifying, Luke produces a m ore com prehensive statem ent and one that also parallels 19:32 m ore closely. Jesus’ confidence is not at all misplaced: things are exactly as he said they would be. Despite the loom ing threat to his life, he is totally m aster of the situation. Explanation T he feast day, approaching in 22:1, has now come, and arrangem ents m ust be m ade. This Passover meal will be of particular significance to Jesus with his dis ciples, and Jesus will n o t have it disturbed. He knows that the hostile Jerusalem leadership is eager for an opportunity to grab him. Violation of the feast though it m ight be, the time when the pilgrim throng is dispersed into feasting Passover groups could be quite an opportunity. So Jesus supervises arrangem ents that will reduce to a m inim um the num ber of people who could know his w hereabouts on that fateful evening. Luke speaks about the feast in a rather loose and even confusing way, since Unleavened Bread technically started only after the onset of 15 Nisan in the evening and was a seven-day festival. But the day intended (14 Nisan) is clear. That Peter and Jo h n should be chosen for this menial role anticipates the emphasis that will come

Bibliography

1035

in 22:25-27. The necessity that took the lambs to slaughter on that day is parallel to the necessity that would take Jesus to death on the feast day to follow. Luke emphasizes the com ing Passover m eal as som ething Jesus and the dis ciples will share together. T he nature of the im portance of this final com m unal m eal will em erge in the account to follow. There is something of a cloak and dagger atmosphere generated by the procedure Jesus outlines. Luke does no t make clear w hether Jesus is exhibiting prescience and a supernatural ordering of affairs, or w hether we should understand that some prior arrangem ents have been p u t in place. In either case, Jesus shows that he rem ains m aster of the situation despite the m ounting threat to his life. The householder is being asked to cooperate in concealing one who had been exer cising a provocative teaching m inistry in the tem ple by day, and who was at this stage som ething of a fugitive by night. N ot even the disciple band itself (includ ing Judas) is to know ahead of time where they will be in the evening. We should probably understand that the room is not only appropriately furnished for the Passover banquet, but that it is also provisioned, so that preparation could be made there quiedy without the need for a lot of coming and going. Jesus has seen to it that his final evening with the disciples, spent in Passover celebration, will not be disturbed.

The Last Supper

(22:14-20)

Bibliography “Das A bendm ahl als O pferm ahl im N euen T estam ent.” NovT6 (1963) 128-52. “T he Last S upper Was a Passover M eal.” ExpTim 20 (1908-09) 377. A m p h o u x , C . - B . “Le d ern ie r repas de Jesus, Lc 2 2 /1 5 -2 0 par.” ETR56 (1981) 449-54. A u d e t , J . - P . “Esquisse historique du genre litteraire de la ‘b en e d ic tio n ’ juive et de l' ‘eu charistie’ ch retien n e.” RB 65 (1958) 371-99. B a c o n , B . W . “T he Lukan Tradition of the L o rd ’s Supper.” HTR 5 (1912) 322-48. B a d i a , L . F . The Dead Sea People’s Sacred Meal and Jesus’ Last Supper. W ashington, DC: University Press of America, 1979. B a h r , G . J . “T he Seder o f Passover and the Eucharistic W ords.” NovT12 (1970) 181-202. B a l e m b o , B . “Le p ro d u it de la vigne et le vin nouveau: Analyse exegetique de Mc 14,25.” RevAf Th 8 (1984) 5-16. B a m m e l , E . “p 6 4 ( 6 7 ) a n d the Last Supper. ”JTS 24 (1973) 189-90. B a r c l a y , W . The Lord’ s Supper. London: SCM, 1967. B a r r e t t , C . K. “Luke xxii.15: To Eat the Passover.” JTS 9 (1958) 305-7. B a r t h , M . Das Abendmahl: Pasamahl, Bundesmahl und Messiasmahl. T heologische S tudien 18. Z ollikon/Z urich: Evangelischer, 1945. --------- . Das Mahl des Herrn: Gemeinschaft mit Israel, mit Christus und unter den Gasten. N eukirchen Vluyn: N eukirchener, 1987. B e c k , N. A. “T he Last S upper as an Efficacious Symbolic A c t JBL ." 89 (1970) 192-98. B e n o i t , P . “T he Accounts of the Institution and W hat They Imply.” In The Euchanst in the New Testament, ed. J. D elorm e et al. 7 1 -1 0 1 .--------- . Jesus and the Gospel. Tr. B. W eatherhead. London: D arton, L ongm an an d Todd, 1973. 1:95-122. --------- . “Le recit de la C ene dans Lc XXII,15-20: Etude de critique textuelle et litteraire.” RB 48 (1939) 357-93. B e t z , J . Die Eucharistie in der Zeit der Griechischen Vater: I/1. F reiburg: H erd er, 1955. --------- . Die

A a le n , S .

A lle n , W . C .

Eucharistie in der Zeit der Griechischen Vater. II/1: Die Realprasenz des Leibes und Blutes Jesu im Abendmahl nach dem Neuen Testament. Freiburg: H erder, 1961. --------- . “Eucharistie als zentrales M ysterium.” In Mysterium salutis 4/2, ed. J. Feiner and M. Lohrer. Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1973. 186-209. --------- . “Die E ucharistie als sak ram en tale G egenw art des

1036

L uke 22:14-20

Heilsereignisses ‘J esus’ nach dem altesten A bendm ahlsberichte.” GuL 33 (1960) 166-75.

Black, M. “T he ‘F u lfilm en t’ in the K ingdom o f G o d .” E xpTim 57 (1945-46) 25-26. Blakiston, Η. E. D. “T he Lucan A ccount o f the Institution o f the L o rd ’s S upper." JT S 4 (1902-03) 548-55. Blank, J. “D er ‘esch ato lo g isch e A u sb lick ’ Mk 14,25 u n d seine B edeutung.” In Kontinuitat und Einheit. FS F. Mussner, ed. P. G. M uller and W. Stenger. F reiburg/B asel/V ienna: H erder, 1981. 500-518. Bligh, J. “Scriptural Inquiry: ‘Do this in com m em oration of m e.’” The Way 5 (1965) 154-59. Bosen, W. Jesusmahl, eu charistisches M ahl, Endzeitmahl: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Lukas. SBS 97. S tuttgart: K atholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. Bokser, B. M. “Was the Last S upper a Passover Seder?” BRev 3 (1987) 2433. Bonsirven, J. “H oc est corpum m eum : Recherches sur l’original ara m ee n .” Bib 29 (1948) 205-19. Bornkamm, G. Jesus of Nazareth. Tr. I. and F. McLuskey w ith J. M. Robinson. New York: H arper and Row, 1960. 1 6 0 -6 2 .--------- . “H erren m ah l u n d Kirche bei Paulus.” Z TK 53 (1956) 312-49. Box, G. H. “T he Jewish A ntecedents of the Eucharist. ” JTS 3 (19012) 3 5 7 -6 9 .--------- . “St Luke xxii 15,16.”JTS 10 (1908-9) 106-7. Burchard, C. “T he Im por tance of Joseph and A senath for the Study of the New Testament: A G eneral Survey and a Fresh Look at the L o rd ’s S upper.” N T S 33 (1987) 102-34. Burkitt, F. C. “T he Last S upper and the Paschal Meal .‫ ״‬JTS 17 (1915-16) 2 9 1 -9 7 .--------- and Brooke, A. E. “St Luke xxii 15,16: W hat Is the G eneral M eaning?” JTS 9 (1907-8) 569-72. Casey, M. “T he O riginal Aramaic Form of Jesus’ In terpretation of the Cup. ” JTS 41 (1990) 1-12. Christie, W. M. “Did Christ Eat the Passover with His Disciples? or, T he Synoptics versus J o h n ’s G ospel.” ExpTirn 43 (1931-32) 515-19. Cohn-Sherbok, D. “A Jewish N ote on TO ΠΟΤΗΡΙ ON ΤΗΣ ΕΥΑΟΓΙ Α Σ.” N TS 27 (1980-81) 704-9. Cooke, B. “Synoptic Presentation of the Eucharist as Covenant Sacrifice.” TS21 (1960) 1-44. Coppens, J. “Les soi-disant analogies juives de l’Eucharistie.” E T L 8 (1931) 238-48. Cullmann, O. “La signification de la Sainte-Cene dans le christianism e prim itif.” RHPR 16 (1936) 1 -2 2 .--------- and Leenhardt, F. J. Essays on the Last Supper. Ecum enical Studies in W orship 1. L ondon: L utterw orth, 1958. Dalman, G. Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels. New York: Ktav, 1971=1929. 86-184. Daly, R. “T he E ucha rist and R edem ption: T he Last S upper and Jesus’ U nderstanding of His D eath .” BTB 11 (1981) 21-27. David, J.-E. “To αϊμά μου τή ς διαθήκης Mt 26,28: U n faux p ro b lem e.” Bib 48 (1967) 291-92. Delling, G. “Das A bendm ahlsgechehen nach Paulus.” KD 10 (1964) 61-77. Delorme, J. “T he Last S upper and the Pasch in the New T estam ent.” In The Eucha rist in the New Testament, J. D elorm e et al. 2 1 -6 7 .--------- et al. The Eucharist in the New Testa ment. Tr. E. M. Stewart. B altim ore/D ublin: H elicon, 1964. Derrett, J. D. M. “T he U pper Room and the D ish.” HeyJ26 (1985) 373-82. Descamps, A. “Les origines de l’E ucharistie.” In Jesus et l'Eglise: Etudes d ’exegese et de theologie. BETL 77. Leuven: University P ress/P eeters, 1987. 455-96. Didier, J. D. “A P institution de l’Eucharistie, le Christ a-t-il Hit: ‘Ce Sang est verse?’ ou ‘sera verse’?” E V 81 (1971) 564-65. Dockx, S. “Le recit du repas pascal Marc 14,17-26.” Bib 46 (1965) 445-53. Dupont, J. “‘Ceci est m on corps,’ ‘Ceci est m on sang.’” N R T 80 (1958) 1025-41. Edanad, A. “Institution of the E ucharist according to the Synop tic Gospels.” Biblebhashyam 4 (1978) 322-32. Eisler, R. “Das letzte A bendm ahl [I].” ZNW 24 (1925) 161-92.--------- . “Das letzte A bendm ahl [II].” Z N W 25 (1926) 5-37. Emerton,J. A. “T he Aramaic U nderlying το αΐμά μου τή ς διαθήκης in Mk XIV. 24.” JTS n.s. 6 (1955) 238-40. --------- . “TO ΑΙΜΑ M OT ΤΗΣ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗΣ: T he Evidence of the Syriac Ver sions.” JTS n.s. 13 (1962) 1 1 1 -1 7 . . “Mark xiv. 24 and the Targum to the Psalter.” JT S n.s. 15 (1964) 58-59. Emminghaus, J. H. “S tam m en die E insetzungsw orte d e r Eucharistie von Jesus selber?” BibLeb 53 (1980) 36-38. Feeley-Harnik, G. The Lord’s Table: Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity. Symbol and C ulture. Philadelphia: University o f Pennsylvania, 1981. Feld, H. Das Verstandnis des Abendmahls. D arm stadt: W issenschaft liche B uchgesellschaft, 1976. Feneberg, R. Christliche Passafeier und Abendmahl: Eine biblisch-hermeneutische Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen Einsetzungsberichte. SANT 27. M unich: Kosel, 1971. Flusser, D. “T he Last S upper and the Essenes.” Immanuel 2 (1973) 23-27. Fuller, R. H. “T he D ouble O rigin of the E ucharist.” BR 8 (1963) 60-72. Galot, J. “E ucharistie et In c a rn a tio n .” N R T 105 (1983) 549-66. Gaugler, E. Das Abendmahl im

Bibliography

1037

Neuen Testament. ATANT 11. Basel: Zwingli, 1943. Goetz, K. G. “Z ur L o su n g d e r A bendm ahlsfrage.” TSK 108 (1937-38) 81-107. Gottlieb, H. “TO ΑΙΜΑ M OT ΤΗΣ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗΣ." ST14 (1960) 115-18. Gregg, D. W. A. Anamnesis in the Euchanst. Grove Litur gical Study 5. N ottingham : Grove Books, 1 976. . “H ebraic A ntecedents to the Eucharistic Anamenesis F o rm ula.” TynB 30 (1979) 165-68. Hagemeyer, O. “‘T ut dies zu m einem G edachtnis!’ (1 Kor 11,24f.; Lk 22,19).” In Praesentia Christi. FS J. Betz, ed. L. Lies. Du sseldorf: Patmos, 1984. 101-17. Hahn, F. “Die alttestam entlichen Motive in der urchristlichen A bendm ahlsuberlieferung.” E vT 27 (1967) 337-74. --------- . “Zum Stand der E rforschung des urchristlichen H errenm ahls.” E vT 35 (1975) 5 5 3 -6 3 .--------- . “Das A bendm ahl u n d Jesu Todesverstandnis.” TR 76 (1980) 265-72. Heawood, P. J. “T he Time of the Last Supper. ” JQR 42 (1951-52) 37-44. Higgins, A. J. B. The Lord's Supper in the New Testament. SBT. L ondon: SCM, 1956. --------- . “T he O rigins o f the E u ch arist.” N TS 1 (1954-55) 200-209. Holtzmann, O. “Zu Lukas 22,20.” ZAW 3 (1902) 359. Hook, N. The Eucharist in the New Testament. L ondon: E pw orth, 1 9 6 4 .--------- . “T he D om inical Cup Saying.” Th 77 (1974) 625-30. Hruby, K. “La paque juive du tem ps du Christi a la lum iere des docum ents de la litteratu re ra b b in iq u e .” OrSyr 6 (1961) 81-94. Hupfeld, R. Die Abendmahlfeier. Gu tersloh: Bertelsm ann, 1935. Huser, T. “Les recits de l’institution de la Cene: Dissemblances et traditions.” Hokhma 21 (1982) 28-50. Jeremias, J. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York: S cribner’s, 1971. 2 8 8 -9 2 .--------- . The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. --------- . “Zur Exegese d er A bend m ahlsw orte Je su .” E vT 7 (1947-48) 60-63. --------- . “This is My Body. . . .” ExpTim 83 (1972) 196-203. Johnson, P. F. “A Suggested U nderstanding of the Eucharistic W ords.” SE 7 [= TU 126] (1982) 265-70. Jones, D. R. “άνάμνησις in the LXX and the Interpretation of 1 Cor. XI.25.” JTS6 (1955) 183-91. Kasemann, E. “Das A bendm ahl im N euen Testa m e n t.” In Abendmahlsgemeinschaft? by H. Asmussen et al. M unich: Kaiser, 1938. 60-93. Kaestli, J.-D. L 'Eschatologie. 58-59. Kahlefeld, H. Das Abschiedsmahl Jesu und die Eucharistie der Kirche. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1980. Kennett, R. H. The Last Supper. Cambridge: Heffer, 1921. Kertelge, K. “Die soteriologischen Aussagen in d er urchristlichen A bendm ahlsu berlieferung u n d ihre Beziehung zum geschichtlichen Jesus.” 7 7 Z 81 (1972) 193-202. Kilmartin, E. J. The Euchanst in the Primitive Church. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965. Kilpatrick, G. D. “Eucharist as Sacrifice and Sacram ent in the New Testam ent.” In Neues Testament und Kirche. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg: H erder, 1974. 4 2 9 -33.--------- . “Living Issues in Biblical Scholarship: T he Last Supper.” ExpTim 64 (195253) 4-8 . Klauck, H.-J. Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult: Ein religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief. NTAbh n.s. 15. Mu nster: A schendorff, 1982. Knoch, O. ‘“ T ut das zu m einem G edachtnis!’ (Lk 22,30; 1 Kor 11,24f): Die Feier der Eucharistie in den urchristlichen G em einden.” In Freude am Gottesdienst. FS J. G. Ploger, ed. J. Schreiner. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. 31-42. Kodell, J. The Eucharist in the New Testa ment. Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament. W ilm ington, DE: Glazier, 1988. Kollmann, B. Ursprung und Gestalten der fruhchristlichen Mahlfeier. GTA 43. G ottingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1990. Kosmala, H. “Das tu t zu m einem G edachtnis.” N o v T 4 (1960-61) 81-94. Kuhn, K. G. “Die A bendm ahlw orte.” TLZ 75 (1950) 3 9 9 -4 0 8 .--------- . “T he L o rd ’s Supp er and the Com m unal Meal at Q u m ran .” In The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. K. Stendahl. New York: H arper and Row, 1957. 65-93. Kurz, W. S. Farewell Addresses in the New Testament. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990. 5 2 -7 0 .--------- . “Luke 22:14-38 and GrecoRom an and Biblical Farewell Addresses. ”JBL 104 (1985) 251-68. Lambert, J. C. “T he Passover an d the L o rd ’s S upper.” JT S 4 (1902-3) 184-93. Lapide, P. E. “D er mysteriose Mazzabrocken: Ging der Eucharistiefeier ein Pessachritus voraus?” L M 14 (1975) 120-24. Laurence, J. D. “T h e E u ch arist as th e Im ita tio n o f C h rist.” TS 47 (1986) 286-96. LaVerdiere, E. A. “A Discourse at the Last Supper.” BiTod 71 (1974) 1540-48.--------- . “T he Eucharist in L uke’s G ospel.” Emman 89 (1983) 446-49, 4 5 2 .--------- . “Do This in Rem em brance of M e.” Emman 90 (1984) 365-69. Leon-Dufour, X. "Jesus devant sa m o rt a la lum iere des textes de !’institution eucharistique et des discours d ’ad ieu .” In Jesus aux

1038

L uke 22:14-20

origines de la christologie, ed. J. D upont. BETL 40. G em bloux/L euven: D uculot/U niversity Press, 1975. 1 4 1 -6 8 .--------- . Le partage du pain eucharistique selon le Nouveau Testament. P arole de Dieu. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1982. 266-84.--------- . Sharing the Eucharistic Bread: The Witness of the New Testament. Tr. M. J. O ’Connell. New York: Paulist, 1987. Esp. 87-90, 23 0 -47. --------- . “‘Faites ceci en m em oire de m oi’: Luc 22,19-1 Corinthiens 11,25.” Christus 24 (1977) 2 0 0 -2 0 8 .--------- . “Das letzte M a h l Jesu u n d die testam entarische T radition nach Lk 22.” ZKT 103 (1981) 3 3 -5 5 .--------- . “‘Prenez! Ceci est m on corps p o u r vous.’” NRT 104 (1982) 223-40. Leenhardt, F. J. Le Sacrement de la sainte Cene. N euchatel/P aris: D elachaux et Niestle, 1948. Lietzmann, H. Mass and Lord's Supper. Tr. an d rev. R. D. R ichardson. L eiden: Brill, 1979. --------- . “J u dische Passahsitten u n d d er άφίκόμβνος: Kritische Randnotizen zu R. Eislers Aufsatz uber ‘Das letzte A bendm ahl.’” ZNW25 (1926) 15. Lindars, B. "Joseph and Asenath and the Eucharist.” In Scripture: Meaning and Method. FS A. T. Hanson, ed. B. P. Thom pson. Hull: University Press, 1987. 181-99. Loeschcke, G. “Zur Frage nach d er Einsetzung u n d H erk u n ft d er E ucharistie.” ZWT 54 (1912) 193-205. Loewe, H. “Die d o p p e lte W urzel des A ben d m ah les in Je su T isc h g em e in sc h aft.” In Abendmahl in der Tischgemeinschaft, ed. H. Loewe. Kassel: Stauda, 1971. 9-22. Lohmeyer, E. “Das A bendm ahl in der U rgem einde.” JBL 56 (1937) 2 1 7 -5 2 .--------- . “Vom urchristlichen A bendm ahl.” TRu n.s. 9 (1937) 168-227, 273-312; 10 (1938) 81-99. Loisy, A. “L e s origines de la cene eucharistique.” In Congres d’histoire du Christianisme. FS A. Loisy, ed. P.-L. Couchoud. A nnales d ’histoire du Christianisme 1. Paris: Rieder, 1928. 1:77-95. Lys, D. “Mon corps, s’est ceci (Notule sur Mt 26,26-28 et p ar.).” ET R 45 (1970) 389-90. Maccoby, H. “Paul and the Eucharist.” NTS 37 (1991) 247-67. Macina, M. “Fonction liturgique et eschatologique de l’anam nese eucharistique (Lc 22,19; 1Co 11,24.25).” EL 102 (1988) 3-25. Magne, J. M. “Les Paroles sur la coupe.” In Logia: Les paroles deJesus—The Sayings ofJesus, ed. J. Delobel. BETL 59. Leuven: University Press/P eeters, 1982. 485-90. Margerie, B. de. “‘Hoc facite in m eam co m m em orationem ’ (Lc 22,19b): Les exegesis des Peres prechalcedoniens (150-451).” Divinitas 28 (1984) 43-69, 137-49. Marmorstein, A. “Das letzte A bendm ahl u n d d er Sederabend.” ZAW25 (1926) 1-5. Marshall, I. H. Last Supper and Lord’s Supper. E x eter/G ran d Rapids: Paternoster/E erdm ans, 1981. Marxsen, W. The Beginnings of Christology: Together with the Lord’s Supper. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. 87-122. McCormick, S. The Lord’s Supper: A Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966. Meding, W. von. “1 K orinther 11,26: Vom geschichtlichen G rund des A bendm ahls.” EvT35 (1975) 544-52. Merklein, H. “Erwa gungen zur U berlieferungsgeschichte der neutestam entlichen A bendm ahlstraditionen.” BZ 21 (1977) 88-101, 235-44. Meyer, B. F. “T he Expiation M otif in the Eucharistic Words: A Key to the History of Jesus?” Greg 69 (1988) 461-87. Milligan, G. “T he Last Supper N ot a Paschal M eal.” ExpTim 20 (1908-9) 334. Monks, G. G. “T he Lucan A ccount o f the Last S upper.” JBT 44 (1925) 228-60. Nestle, E. “Zu Lukas 22,20.” ZAW3 (1902) 2 5 2 .--------- . “Zu Lc 22,20.” ZNW7 (1906) 256-57. Oesterley, W. Ο. E. TheJewish Background of the Chris tian Liturgy. Oxford: C larendon, 1925. Patsch, H. Abendmahl und historischerJesus. CTM 1. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1972. --------- . “A bendm ahlsterm inologie ausserhalb d er Einsetzungs berichte: Erw agungen zur T raditionsgeschichte der A bendm ahlsw orte.” ZAW 61 (1971) 210-31. Pesch, R. “Exkurs: Die A bendm ahlsu b erleiferu n g .” In Markusevangelium. 364-77. --------- . Wie Jesus das Abendmahl hielt: Der Grund der Eucharistie. Freiburg im B.: H erder, 1 9 7 7 .--------- . Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverstandnis. QD 80. Freiburg: H erder, 1978. --------- . “Das Evangelium in Jerusalem : ‘Mk. 14,12-26 als alteste U berlieferungsgut der U rgem einde.” In Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, ed. P. Stuhlm acher. Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1983. 1 1 3 - 5 5 .--------- . “T he Last S u p p er an d Je su s’ U n d ersta n d in g o f His D eath .” Biblebhashyam 3 (1977) 58-75. Petzer,J. H. “Luke 22:19b-20 and the Structure of the Passage.” NovT26 (1984) 249-52. Petzer, K. “Style and Text in the Lucan Narrative of the Institution of the L ord’s Supper (Luke 22.19b-20).” N TS37 (1991) 113-29. Preiss, T. “Was the Last S upper a Paschal Meal?” In Life in Christ. SBT 13. London: SCM, 1954. 81-96. Quesnell, Q. “T he W omen at L uke’s S upper.” In Political Issues, ed. R. J. Cassidy and P. J. Scharper. 59-79. Reumann, J. H. “T he Last and the L ord’s Supper.” LTSB 62 (1982) 17-39.

Bibliography

1039

--------- . “T he Problem of the L ord’s Supper as Matrix for A lbert Schweitzer’s ‘Q uest of the Historical Jesus.’” NTS27 (1980-81) 475-87. Richardson, R. D. “Supplem entary Essay: A F u rther Inquiry into Eucharistic Origins with Special Reference to New Testam ent Prob . “T he Place of Luke in lem s.” In Mass and Lord’s Supper, H. Lietzmann. 2 1 9 -6 9 7 . the Eucharistic T radition.” SU 1 [=TU 73] (1959) 663-75. Robinson, D. W. B. “T he Date and Significance of the Last Supper.” EvQ23 (1951) 126-33. Roustang, F. “La conversion eucharistique.” Christus 8 (1961) 438-53. Roy, J.-B. du. “Le d ern ie r repas de Jesus.” BVC 26 (1959) 44-52. Ruckstuhl, E. “N eue u n d alte Uberlegungen zu den A bendm ahlsw orten Je su .” SNTU 5 (1980) 79-106; rep rin te d in Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien. S tuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbande 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. 69-100. Saldarini, A. J. Jesus and Passover. New York: Paulist, 1984. Sandvik, B. Das Kommen des Herrn beimAbendmahl im Neuen Testament. ATANT 58. Zurich: Zwingli, 1970. Schelkle, K. H. “Das H erren m ah l.” In Rechtfertigung. FS E. Kasemann, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pohlm ann, and P. Stuhlmacher. Tubingen/G ottingen: Mohr-Siebeck/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. 385-402. Schenke, L. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte des Markus. 286-347. Schenker, A. Das Abendmahl Jesu als

Brennpunkt des Alten Testaments: Begegnung zwischen den beiden Testamenten: Ein bibeltheologische Skizze. Biblische Beitrage 13. Fribourg: Schweizerisches K atholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. Schermann, T. “Das ‘B ro tb re c h e n ’ im U rc h riste n tu m .” BZ 8 (1910) 33-52, 162-83. Schlosser, J. Le Regne deDieu dans les dits deJesus. Etudes Bibliques 2. Paris: Gabalda, 1980. 373-417. Schoffel, S. “O ffenbarung Gottes im h l. A bendm ahl.” Luthertum 48 (1937) 34046, 353-72; 49 (1938) 33-54. Schurmann, H. Quellenkritische Untersuchung: I. Teil.--------- . Quellenkritische Untersuchung: II. Teil. --------- . “Jesu A bendm ahlsw orte im Lichte seiner A b e n d m a h lsh a n d lu n g .” Ursprung und Gestalt. 1 0 0 - 1 0 7 .--------- . “Die Sem itism en im E insetzungs b e ric h t bei M arkus u n d bei L ukas.” ZKT 73 (1951) 7 2 - 7 7 .--------- . “Die G estalt der urchristlichen Eucharistiefeier.” MTZ 6 (1955) 107-31; rep rin ted in Ursprung und Gestalt, 77-99. --------- . “Abendmahl, letztes A. Jesu.” LTK 1 (1957) 26-31. Schwager, R. “G eht die Eucharistie auf Jesus zuruck?” Orientierung39 (1975) 220-23. Schwank, B. “Das ist m ein Leib, d e r fu r eu ch h in g e g eb e n w ird (Lk 2 2 ,1 9 ).” EuA 59 (1983) 279-90. Schweitzer, A. The Problem of the Lord’s Supper according to the Scholarly Research of the Nineteenth Century and the Historical Accounts: Volume 1. The Lord’s Supper in Relationship to the Life ofJesus and the History of the Early Church, ed. J. Reum ann. Tr. A. J. M attill, Jr. Macon, GA: M ercer University, 1982. Schweizer, E. The Lord’s Supper according to the New Testament. FBBS 18. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.--------- . “Das A bendm ahl eine Vergegewartigung des Todes Jesu oder ein eschatologisches Freudenm ahl?” TZ 2 (1946) 8 1 -1 0 0 .--------- . “Das H erre n m ahl im N euen T estam ent.” TLZ 79 (1954) 577-92. Seeberg, R. Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament. Berlin: Runge, 1905. Senn, F. C. “T he L o rd ’s Supper, N ot the Passover Seder.” Worship 60 (1986) 362-68. Smith, M. A. “T he Lukan Last S upper N arrative.” SE 6 [= TU 112] (1973) 502-9. Sparks, H. F. D. “St. L uke’s T ranspositions.” NTS 3 (1956-57) 219-23. Spitta, F. “Die urchristichen T raditionen u ber U rsprung u n d Sinn des A bendm ahls.” In Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1893. 1:207-337. Suffrin, A. E. “The Last Supper and the Passover.” ExpTim 29 (1917-18) 475-77. Sweetland, D. M. “T he L o rd ’s S upper and the Lukan Com m unity.” BTB 13 (1983) 23-27. Sykes, Μ. H. “T he Eucharist as ‘A nam nesis.’” ExpTim 71 (1959-60) 115-18. Theissen, G. “Social Integration and Sacram ental Activity: An Analysis of 1 Cor. 11:17-34.” In The Social Setting ofPauline Chnstianity: Essays on Corinth. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. 145-74. Thiele, E. R. “The Day and H our of Passover Observance in New Testam ent Times. ” ATR 28 (1946) 163-68. Turner, N. “T he Style of St M ark’s Eucharistic W ords.” JTS 8 (1957) 108-11. Voobus, A. “Kritische B eobachtungen uber die lukanische Darstellung des H erren m ah ls.” ZNW62 (1970) 102-10. Wagner, V. Der Bedeutungsw andel von berit hadasa bei der Ausge staltung der A bendm ahlw orte.” EvT 35 (1975) 538-44. Walther, G. Jesus, das Passalamm des Neuen Bundes. Gu tersloh: Bertelsm ann, 1950. Wanke, J. Beobachtungen zum Euchanstiever standnis des Lukas auf Grund der lukanischen Mahlberichte. E rfurter theologische Schriften 8. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1973. Wellhausen, J. “,Αρτον εκλασεν, Mc 14,22.” ZNW7 (1906) 182.

L uke 22:14-20

1040

Fides Sacramenti. FS P. Smulders, ed. H. J. A uf d er M aur et al. Assen: Van G orcum , 1981. 9-26. White, J. L. “Beware o f Leavened Bread: M arkan Im agery in the Last S upper.” Forum 3.4 Weren, W. “The L ord’s Supper: An Inquiry into the Coherence in Luke 22,14-18.” In

(1987) 49-63. Wilkens, H. “D ie Angange des H errenm ahls.” JLH 28 (1984) 55-65. Winnert, A. R. “T he Breaking of the Bread: Does It Symbolize the Passion?” ExpTim 88 (1977) 18182. Wojciechowski, M. “Le nazireat et la Passion (Mc 14,25a; 15,23).” Bib65 (1984) 94-96. Wrede, W. “Miscellen: 2. ‘70 αΐμά μου τής διαθήκης.’” ZNW1 (1900) 69-74. Zeitlin, S. “T he Tim e of the Passover M eal.” JQRn.s. 42 (1951-52) 4 5 -5 0 .--------- . “T he Last Supper as an O rdinary Meal in the Fourth G ospel.” JQR n.s. 42 (1951-52) 251-60. Ziesler, J. A. “T he Vow o f Abstinence: A N ote on Mark 15:25 and Parallels.” Colloquium 5 (1972) 12-14. --------- . “T he Vow of A bstinence A gain.” Colloquium6 (1973) 49-50. F o r T e x t C r it ic a l M a t t e r s

in

L u k e 22:19b-20:

Aland, K. “Die B edeutung des P75 fur den Text des N euen Testaments: Ein Beitrag zur

Frage der ‘W estern N on-Interpolations.’” In Studien zur Uberlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes. AzNTT 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967. 155-72, esp. 160, 164-65. Bate, Η. N. “T he ‘S horter Text’ of St Luke xxii 15-20."J TS 28 (1927) 362-68. Benoit, P. “Le r e c it de la cene dans Lc xxii, 15-20: Etude de critique textuelle det litteraire.” RB 48 (1939) 357-93. --------- . “Luc xxii, 19b-20.” JTS 49 (1948) 145-47. Burkitt, F. C. “O n Luke xxii 17-20.”JTS 28 (1 9 2 6 -2 7 ) 1 7 8 -8 1 . Chadwick, H. “T he S horter Text o f Luke XXII, 1 5 - 2 0 .” HTR 50 (1 9 5 7 ) 2 4 9 -5 8 . Cooper, J. C. “T he Problem of the Text in Luke 2 2 :1 9 -2 0 .” LQ 14 (1 9 6 2 ) 3 9 -4 8 . Eagar, A. R. “St. L uke’s A ccount of the Last Supper: A Critical N ote on the Second Sacram ent.” Exp 7.5 (1 9 0 8 ) 2 5 2 -6 2 , 3 4 3 -6 1 . Ehrman, B. D. “T he Cup, the Bread, and the Salvific Effect of Jesus’ D eath in Luke-Acts.” In SBL 1991 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 1 5 4 -6 4 . Fitzmyer, J. A. “Papyrus B odm er XIV: Some Features of O u r O ldest Text of L u k e.” CBQ 24 (1 9 6 2 ) 1 7 0 -7 9 , esp. 177. Harnack, A. von. “P roblem e im Texte d er Leidensgeschichte Jesu .” In Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche:

Vol. 1. Zur neutestamentlichen Textkritik. B e r lin /L ie p z ig : d e G ru y te r, 1901. 86—104. Jeremias, J. The Eucharistic Words ofJesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. 139-59. Kenyon, F. G., and Legg, S. C. E. “T he Textual D ata.” In The Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. R. Dunkerley. L ondon: S tudent Christian Movement, 1937. 271-86, esp. 285-86. Kilpatrick, G. D. “Luke xxii. 19b-20.” JTS47 (1946) 49-56. Metzger, B. M. Textual Commentary. 173-77. Parker, P. “T hree Variant Readings in Luke-Acts.”JBL 83 (1964) 165-70, esp. 165-67. Rese, M. “Zur Problem atik von Kurz- u n d L angtext in Luk. xxii. 17ff.” NTS22 (1975-76) 15-31. Schafer, K. T. “Zur Textgeschichte von Lk 22,19b.20.” Bib 33 (1952) 237-39. Schurmann, H. “Lk 22,19b-20 als urspru ngliche Textu b erlieferung.” Bib 32 (1951) 364-92, 522-41; rep rin ted in Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. 1 5 9 -9 2 .--------- . “Lk 22,42a das al teste Zeugnis fur Lk 22,20.” MTZ 3 (1952) 185-88; rep rin ted in Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. 193-97. Snodgrass, K. “‘W estern N o n -In te rp o la tio n s .’” JBL 91 (1972) 369 -7 9 . Throckmorton, B. H., Jr. “T he L onger Reading of Luke 22:19b-20.” ATR 30 (1948) 5 556. Voobus, A. “A New A pproach to the Problem of the Shorter and L onger Text in L uke.” NTS 15 (1968-69) 457-63. Westcott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A. The New Testament in the Origi nal Greek. C am bridge/L ondon: Macmillan, 1890, 1896. 2:63-64 (A ppendix). A nd see at 22:1-2.

Translation 14 When the hour had come, he reclined [at table], and the Apostles with him. 15Then he said to them, “How I have longed to eat this Passover [lamb] with you before I suffer!16For I say to you that I shall certainly nota eat it [again] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. ” 17And receiving a cup and giving thanks he said, “Take this and share [it] out

F orm / S tr u c tu re /S e ttin g

1041

among yourselves. 18Forb I say to you, from now on, I shall certainly not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19Then taking bread and giving thanks he broke [it] and gave [it] to them saying, “This is my body,c which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 20And [he did] the same with the cup after the meal, saying, “This [is] the new covenant [sealed] with my blood, which is poured out for you. ” Notes a T here is some dou b t here w hether we should read a double negative (ού μή) with P75vi d A B H L Θ, etc., or (as Mark 14:25) a triple negative ( ούκέτί ον μή) with C2 K P W Δ Π Ψ, etc. (this would add “any lo n g er” to the translation). T he form er is the m ore likely. b T he G reek γάρ is, for the sake o f the parallelism, represented by “fo r” here as in v 16; but here it does n o t carry the same inferential force, so could have been d ro p p ed in translation. c T he best texts and the overwhelm ing nu m b er o f texts support the full form of vv 19-20 as rep re sented in the translation above. However, D and some o f the O ld Latin texts (a, d, ff2, i, 1) om it the rest o f v 19 and all o f v 20. Some o th er O ld Latin texts and some Syriac and Coptic MSS reflect various attem pts to deal with either the problem of these two versions of the text or o f the app aren t cup bread-cup sequence: vv 17-18 are som etim es placed after the short form o f v 19; in syrc, a version of the missing p art o f v 19 has been added to this; in syrs, v 17 has been relocated to the m iddle of v 20, and v 18 has been delayed to the end o f v 20; vv 17-18 are missing altogether from l32 syrp copbo ms. Because o f the difficulty o f offering an adequate explanation for the deletion involved in the reading adopted by D etc. (it overcom es the “p ro b lem ” o f two cups by settling for a reversed ord er of cup and bread in which there are careful instructions b u t no interpretation for the cup, and a m inim a al interpretation o f the bread [this last feature has the virtue o f reproducing the M arkan in te rp re tation of the b re a d ], and it settles for this w hen the problem could be m uch better dealt with by the om ission of the cup of v 17), the argum ent of W estcott and H o rt (New Testament, 2:63-64), that the reading of D here should be p referred as an instance o f “W estern N on-Interpolation,” gained wide support (quite a n u m b er o f scholars were im pressed also by the fit betw een the short reading and L uke’s a p p aren t lack o f an ato n em en t theology in connection with the death of Jesus). In the last several decades, however, this support has been increasingly eroded, and a new consensus in favor of the longer reading has been em erging (in large p art because of the studies of Schu rm ann [Bib 32 (1951) 364-92, 522-41] a n d Jerem ias [Eucharistic Words, 139-59]). A m ong the many relevant consid erations we may note: (i) the value o f “W estern N on-Interpolations” has increasingly been seen to require dem onstration case by case; (ii) the structural unity o f vv 15-18, 19-20 counts strongly against seeing the longer form as resulting from a scribal addition; ( iii) Acts 20:28 counts against L uke’s deliberate omission from his traditions of m aterial giving a soteriological significance to Jesus’ death. Perhaps the best explanation o f the shorter text is still th at o f Jerem ias: “we have before us in v 19a the abbreviation of a liturgical text” (Eucharistic Words, 158). T he text belongs to a context w here it may be assum ed that everybody knows how to com plete the missing words. Jerem ias’ idea, however, that this abbreviation is for esoteric reasons (158-59, cf. 125-37) rem ains unconvincing.

Form/Structure/Setting With “when the ho u r had com e,” we reach the climax of the developm ent from v 1 to v 7 to v 14. A m arked sense of im pending destiny hangs over the meal, which Luke presents in two panels: the old Passover meal, characterized in vv 1518 and destined for fulfillment in the kingdom of God, gives way to the new Supper of the Lord, which is characterized in vv 19-20. Already in vv 14-20 em erges the farewell-discourse quality that will characterize the m aterial from here to v 38. Luke begins with a heavily recast version of Mark 14:17 (see Comment below). Luke transposes the forecast of betrayal, which comes next in the Markan meal account, to a position following the institution (see at 22:21-23; Luke may be influenced by tradition that he shares with Jo h n , who seems also to locate his parallel m ate rial after the m ain body of the m eal [Judas leaves the meal im mediately after]),

1042

Luke 22:14-20

and so moves at this point to the m ain meal account with its words of institution. L uke’s own institution narrative is strikingly different from that provided by Mark. A huge scholarly investm ent has been m ade in exam ining the different forms in which the institution has been preserved (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; 1 Cor 1 1 :2 3 2 6 ‫ ; ־‬and cf. 1 Cor 10:16-17; Jo h n 13-17; 6:25-59; Did. 9:1-5; Justin M artyr Apol. 1.66.3); in seeking to identify their relationships and to trace them to a com m on earliest source; and in attem pting to determ ine what part of these traditions may with any confidence be attributed to the historical Jesus. While elem ents of consensus are identifiable, despite the extended scholarly labor, there is no clear consensus in connection with very many of the fundam ental questions raised by the institution narratives (the broad, though hardly universal, accep tance o f Luke 22:19b-20 as an au th en tic p art o f the Lukan text is a happy exception [this m atter is discussed in Notes above]). No satisfactory review of the scholarly debate can be provided within the constraints of this present work: af ter identifying the distinctive features of the different accounts, I m ust be content here to take up briefly some of the m ain m atters in contention and to give my own judgm ents about the state of the discussion. J o h n ’s account of Jesus’ final m eal with his disciples is im mediately distinctive in describing Jesus washing the disciples’ feet rather than distributing interpreted food elem ents to the disciples. The o th er NT forms agree in the m ention of the taking of bread, the saying of grace over it (either βύλογήσας, “having blessed,” or εύχαριστήσας , “having given thanks”), the tearing apart of the loaf, the distri bution, and the equation of bread and body. They also agree in m entioning the (a) cup, the covenant, and “my b lo o d ”; in providing a second equation in con nection with the cup or its contents; and in identifying a m easure of parallelism between the treatm ent of the cup and that previously of the bread ( βύχαρίστήσας' ίδωκεν, “having given thanks he gave,” in Matthew and Mark; ώσαύτως, “in the same way,” in Luke and Paul). T he m ain differences between the accounts may be identified as follows. Only Luke and Paul have Jesus calling for future repetition of this activity (strictly, Luke’s account calls only for a repetition of the bread part; Paul has a second call in connection with the cup saying); these two are also alone in m entioning that the cup comes after a meal in between; these two agree fu rth er in having for the cup saying “this cup is the new covenant in my blo o d ” whereas the o ther forms have “this [namely the wine] is my blood of the covenant” (these alternative form s for the m ain p art of the cup saying involve three significant differences that w arrant separate identification: one equates the wine with som ething, the o th er the cup; in the one case the equation is m ade with blood, in the o th er case the equation is with a covenant; one talks about “the covenant” of Exod 24:8, the o ther about “the new covenant” of Je r 31:31-34); these two—Paul and Luke—also agree in including “for you” after “my body”; Paul does n o t have “gave to th em ” (”the disciples” in Matthew) in connection with the bread, n o r the “poured out for m any” (”for you” in Luke) of the o ther three accounts; Paul alone offers the ex planation “for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he com es”; Luke is alone in having “given” with the “for you” of the bread saying; only Matthew and Mark have a directive to take the bread; Matthew has for M ark’s rep o rt “they all drank from it” (which only he has) the directive “drink from it, all of you”; Matthew is also unique in having

F orm / S tr u c tu r e /S e ttin g

1043

“for the forgiveness of sins” attached to his wine saying, and, finally, in expanding the “take” of the bread saying with “eat”. If we widen the focus, then we need also to count am ong the differences the absence from Paul of any parallel to Mark 14:25 (Paul’s “until he com es” is hardly a true parallel) and the presence of Luke’s equivalent to Mark 14:25 before the giving of the bread and the wine, in the distinctive developm ent in 22:15-18 with which he opens the meal account. W ithin this distinctive Lukan block, v 17 offers a fu rth er cup saying, which begins with a unique δεξάμενος, “receiving,” rather than the λαβών, “taking,” of Matthew and Mark; has the εύχαρίστήσας, “having given thanks,” of the M atthean and M arkan cup saying; has a directive to “take” like the M atthean and M arkan bread saying (but here with an added “this”) ; but continues with an unparalleled “and divide it am ong yourselves,” which takes the place of the “gave” of the other forms; and finally is m ost notable for having no statem ent identifying the cup or its contents with blood or covenant. Schu rm an n ( Quellenkntische Untersuchung, 1:1-74) and Jerem ias (Eucharistic Words, 160-64) have persuaded many that Luke 22:15-18 reflects an old tradition from Jesus’ final Passover meal with his disciples. But the contrary view that Luke has spun vv 15-18 out of Mark 14:25 has also been widely canvassed (recently, e.g., Kollmann, Ursprung, 162-64, with the qualification that v 17 may be a rem nant of a eucharistic cup saying known to Luke). The detailed linguistic arguments remain indecisive, since they cannot satisfactorily incorporate Luke’s frequent practice of reproducing the substance of a source but using a good deal of his own language. The m ore general argum ents about Luke’s editorial procedure do, however, clearly favor a m ore extensive traditional base than that supplied by Mark 14:25. A satisfactory source for Luke would probably have had the following contours: (i) a minimal narrative setting, which has been displaced by Luke’s “and he said to them ” (v 15) ; (ii) Jesus’ statem ent of v 15, but without the dative intensifier επιθυμία (lit. “with desire”) and without the explanatory “before I suffer”; (iii) a statement like v 16, but possibly introducing the prospect of the kingdom of God (or some other form of eschatological language) in some m anner other than with πληρωθη έν, “is fulfilled in ”; (iv) the opening part of v 17 up to “said” (just possibly without “gave thanks”); (v) a form of v 18, but without the opening “for I say to you.” The scene painted in this reconstruction of the tradition available to Luke is of the beginning point of the last supper as a Passover meal, where Jesus expresses his satisfaction at the arrival of this Passover mealtime with his disciples, which he declares to be his last before the coming of the kingdom of God. As he opens the actual meal with the first cup of wine, Jesus reiterates his point, now in terms of this being the last occasion on which he will drink wine before the kingdom of God has dawned. The judgm ents involved in this reconstruction are given a measure of support in Comment below, but their full defense goes beyond the possible scope of the present work. If this reconstruction is at all correct, then we have a tradition in which Jesus expresses the anticipation of his own im m inent demise set in the context of a final Passover meal of Jesus with his disciples (see Comment on v 16 below for why this should n o t be taken as expressing an expectation of the im m inence of the kingdom of G o d ). The Passover setting is incidental to the reason for the preser vation of the m aterial bu t is integral to its verbal form . H ere is a significant supporting evidence for the Paschal nature of Jesus’ final meal with his disciples. (See fu rth er on the Paschal nature of the Last Supper at 22:1-2.)

1044

Luke 22:14-20

Beyond m inor expansions and verbal alterations, Luke has (i) enhanced the parallelism between Passover saying and wine saying; and (ii) he has introduced traditional elem ents of eucharistic language into v 17. In this way he makes it clear that he wishes vv 15-18 and vv 19-20 to be treated as two parallel panels, with each constructed in turn of two paralleled parts (cf. the form al structuring identified b y J. H. Petzer [NovT 26 (1984) 249-52]). It is likely, from the Chris tian L o rd ’s Supper perspective of Luke’s own church experience, that Luke uses vv 15-18 to characterize the Passover, after the p attern of the L o rd ’s Supper with its focus on bread and cup, as a m eal of lamb and cup (cf. Benoit [R B 48 (1939) 379-83]). I suspect he does so because he wants to present the L o rd ’s Supper as now eclipsing the old Passover. O n this Passover day, the one that Jesus had so longed to share with his disciples, a decisive turning point takes place. The com m em oration of the old redem ption out of Egypt prefigured the new redem ption to come with the kingdom of God. But with the death of Jesus the central role of redem ption out of Egypt is necessarily displaced. From now on it is to the cov en an t sealed in the blood of Jesus that believers look as they anticipate the future com ing of the kingdom of God. L uke’s Last Supper narrative, arranged as it is, docum ents the m om ent of transition from Passover as central point of com m em o ration to L o rd ’s Supper as central point of com m em oration. For vv 19-20 Luke clearly draws on a tradition that has a family likeness to that which we find in 1 Cor 11:23-26. Luke may be influenced by the Markan wording for the participial form of λαβών, “taking,” and for καί βδωκβν αύτόίς , “and he gave to th em ,” in v 19. This would also be possible for “poured out fo r” in v 20. But since o th er differences from the Pauline version stand in favor of the Lukan as the older form (in the case of “my” in v 20, where the developm ent would no t be from the Pauline form ) or are likely to represent differences developed in litur gical use rather than through Lukan editing (so the paralleling of “given for you” in v 19 with “poured out for you” in v 20 [though it could be said that Luke’s paral leled panels of paralleled items is enhanced by this developm ent]), it may be better to trace this commonality with Mark back to an earlier stage as well (if there is Markan influence, it is hard to see why Luke would not have included the Markan “take” as well, to enhance the parallel with v 17). This preference for seeing L uke’s edito rial intervention here as minimal finds a measure of support from the broad scholarly tendency to see reflected in the variety of wordings in our texts, in almost every case, difference of liturgical practice rather than Gospel redaction. (It is in connection with Matthew that this issue becomes pressing; in each case the variations from Mark make best sense in connection with liturgical practice, and notably in the case of “drink from it all of you” in place of M ark’s “they all drank from it.”) With some notable exceptions (e.g., Kollmann, Ursprung Maccoby, NTS 37 [1991] 247-67), the m ain drift of m ore recent scholarship has been to enhance confidence that in some form the words of institution go back to the historical Jesus. T hough n ot all of its elem ents are equally persuasive, I find telling the kind of argum ent m ounted by Schurm ann in “Jesu A bendm ahlsw orte.” S churm ann stresses the difficulty, given the failure of the proposed history-of-religions analo gies, of satisfactorily accounting for the em ergence of the L ord’s Supper, with its focus on bread and cup/w ine, apart from a specific origin with the historical Jesus, and builds from the actions of Jesus at the Last Supper to the necessity from the beginning of interpretive words that fall within certain param eters.

F o r m /S tr u c tu r e /S e ttin g

1045

Many proposals have been offered for the m ost original form for the words of institution. T he following are some of the key considerations brought to bear on the task of tracking back to an original form: (i) Significant features that are notably absent in one or m ore of our prim ary sources have a reduced claim to originality, since it is hard to produce satisfactory reasons for their omission (the meal between bread and cup is the obvious exception to this), (ii) Apparently originally sepa rated by a m eal (as reflected in Paul and Luke), the bread and cup saying (but especially the form er) would need to be independently intelligible, (iii) The loss of the intervening meal (no longer found in Mark or Matthew) is likely to have led to a greater conform ity of the bread and cup sayings to one an o th er and perhaps even op en ed up the possibility of interchange of features between the sayings. (iv) Imagery of drinking of blood, let alone hum an blood, comes across in a Jewish context as extrem ely harsh (cf. Jo h n 6:52-60). This concern has been used to argue for guaranteeing originality and conversely as pointing to a post-Jewish de velopment. (v) T he eschatological link with Je r 31:31-34 has been seen as m ore original than the cubic link with Exod 24:8. However, since the role of blood in those forms with a clear Jerem iah link (Luke and Paul) points secondarily to Exod 24:8, then the “new” covenant reference is likely to be the secondary development. (vi) Since Jesus’ words were presumably spoken in Aramaic, the original m ust be able to be ren d ered into Aramaic, which is idiomatic for the period. ( vii) If the Last Supper was a Passover meal, then the patterns of the Passover meal offer them selves both as constraint upon what would have been possible and as source of illumination for the likely sense of Jesus’ actions and words. ( viii) The link in LukeActs between Jesus’ meals in the Gospel and the “breaking of b re ad ” in Acts (see 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 27:35) represents an identifiable contributory stream into devel oping church com m unal meal practice. This link raises questions about the origins of the eucharist. In an extreme form, now largely discredited, this link offers itself as an authentic continuation of a practice inaugurated by the historical Jesus onto which has been secondarily grafted a cultic activity derived from mystery religion practice (see Lietzm ann, Mass and Lord’s Supper; the view survives in a m oderated form in Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, who argues for a continuous development from Jesus to Paul, with Mark 10:45 and a bread saying from the historical Jesus, to which has been added, after Easter, a cup saying with covenant martyr and sacrifi cial motifs, and which is then transform ed from being centered in eschatology into a cultic epiphany of the exalted Lord, and finally under mystery religion influence gains a massive sacramental realism). ( ix) In the nam e of coherence with what may be confidently assigned to the historical Jesus, the authenticity of covenant language in the words of institution has been placed in question, as indeed has the whole idea o f Jesus interpreting his com ing death as in any sense a m eans of atonem ent. For those who are p repared to trace a bread saying to the historical Jesus (and m ost scholars now a re ), there is a good m easure of consensus that, with or with o ut the verb, the original form will have been “This [is] my body, for you [or perhaps for m any].” The Lukan “given” would have developed to parallel the “p o u red o u t” of some forms of the cup saying, and the bare “This is my body” of the M arkan and M atthean form would have resulted from a m ovem ent of inter pretive elem ents to the end, at a time w hen the m eal no longer came between bread and cup (the contrary argum ent postulates a move of “for you” to the bread in connection with the practice of com m union in one k in d ). T hough “for m any”

1046

Luke 22:14-20

is clearly m ore Semitic, “for you” seems to me to be preferable since it fits better the intimacy of the occasion and the restricted num ber of the actual participants in the bread and wine. The reconstruction favored here, which includes “for you” w ithout L uke’s linking participle (”given”), has been often criticized (following D alm an, Jesus-Jeshua, 144-45) as involving the linking of the phrase “for you” in a m an n er scarcely possible in a Semitic original. However, the validity of this stric ture has been rightly questioned by Ruckstuhl (SNTU 5 [1980] 100 and n. 47), who draws in p art on OT and rabbinic parallels assembled by D. Daube ( Wine in the Bible, St. P aul’s Lecture [Oxford, 1974] 16). T here is n o t the same m easure of consensus concerning the Aramaic word m ost likely to stand behind the Greek σώμα, “body.” T he first of the alternatives is ‫גפ ה‬, gupa, which received its classic support from Dalm an (Jesus-Jeshua, 14143). T he term m eant originally “corpse” and then “body” as well, able even to connote the whole person. Fitzmyer (1399) has, however, disputed w hether a wider m eaning for the term was already possible at the time of Jesus. If he is right, then ‫ גפה‬is probably n o t Jesus’ original word, since “this is my corpse” has not been established in the scholarship as a live option for the sense of Jesus’ statem ent (though perhaps it deserves greater consideration). T he o th er m ain option is ‫ב שרה‬, bisra, which is the Aramaic equivalent to the Hebrew ‫ב שר‬, basar. The literal translation here is “flesh,” but, as has been pointed out, the Hebrew term , and therefore presum ably also the corresponding Ara maic term , can carry a wide range of connotations including that of “body” (Job 4:15; Ps 63:2[ET v 1]; Ezek 11:19; etc.) and even of “p erso n ” (Num 16:22; Isa 40:5-6; Ps 145:21; etc. [it is m oot, however, w hether this use of ‫ בשר‬to refer to persons could be applied to an individualized single person, rath er than collec tively or to an individual thought of as a sample m em ber of a collective]). T here has been some questioning of the likelihood of σώμα being used as translation for ‫ בשרה‬in the first century, though to this it m ust be said that (somewhat sur prisingly) σώμα represents ‫ בשר‬m ore frequently in the Septuagint than it represents any o th er Hebrew word. Admittedly, this is largely because of a large block of uses in Leviticus, concentrated in chap. 15; ‫ בשר‬is in any case many times m ore frequently represented by σάρξ, “flesh.” The argum ent as to the m ost likely Ara maic term here is n ot yet resolved. For the cup saying there is considerably less agreem ent. Some are only p re pared to trace a cup saying of the Mark 14:25 kind back to the historical Jesus. But m ost want as well to trace some form of equation statem ent back to the his torical Jesus. T he “p o u re d o u t,” though n o t w ithout supporters, is generally considered to be an interpretive developm ent. A few seek to support an original w ithout reference to “my blood,” but the reasons offered are hardly sufficient to overturn the uniform ity of the tradition at this point. O thers would rath er dis pense with the covenant language, but this is to reverse the likely move to increased parallelism between the sayings. T here is strong support both for the Markan “this is my blood o f the covenant” and for the Lukan “this cup is the new cov en an t in my b lood,” while Ruckstuhl (SNTU5 [1980] 96-105) has m ounted a not unattractive argum ent for a m ixed form: “this cup [is] my blood of the covenant.” The recent proposal by Casey (JTS 41 [1990] 1-12) to retrovert the M arkan form into Aramaic as ‫ דקימא הוא‬,‫ המי הנה‬, dmy dnh, dqym hw (lit. “my blood this, of the covenant it [is]”), has m uch to com m end it (Casey com pletes his retroversion

F o rm /S tr u c tu r e /S e ttin g

1047

with ‫ מתא שד על שגיאן‬, mfsd cl sg fn , “poured out for m any”), though his confi dence th at the alternative retroversion ‫ א ד ם קימי‬, Ddm qymy, “my covenant blood” (but lit. “blood of my covenant”) , would be taken by the Christian translator as referring to the blood of Jesus’ covenant rath er than G od’s (5) seems to me to be misplaced. The case for an original based upon the M arkan or Ruckstuhl’s mixed form , in my ju dgm ent, has m ore to com m end it than that based on the Lukan form. T he question of w hether the directive to repeat should be traced back to the Last Supper deserves separate attention. T hough its origin with the historical Jesus has been defended with considerable erudition, the majority view is rather to question w hether this aspect of the Last Supper should be attributed to the his torical Jesus. A decision here is linked with the concern to identify the correct context for these words: “Do this in rem em brance of m e.” Despite the explana tory dictum of Benoit that “one doesn’t recite a rubric, one executes it” (RB 48 [1939] 386), the absence of a corresponding elem ent in Mark and Matthew does count against its place in the historical Last Supper, since the call to do this in remembrance is m ore than simply a call to repeat. O n the o th er hand, the role of rem em brance in Passover/U nleavened Bread (cf. Exod 12:14; D eut 16:3) may be th ought to count in favor of a possible origin with Jesus. Jerem ias’ claim, on the basis of Palestinian m em orial form ulae, that we should understand βίς την έμήν άνάμνησιν ns “that God may rem em ber m e” is finally unconvincing because this is n o t the sense in which the Passover was a m em orial (Exod 12:14 has ]‫ לז כ רו‬, Izkkrwn, which translates literally into Greek as 6ίς άνάμνησιν, “for a m em orial”) , and Jerem ias cannot parallel the την 6μην, n o r find texts in which the m em orial takes the form of a meal. The parallelism with Hellenistic feasts in m em ory of the dead is m uch closer (see esp. Diogenes Laertius 10.16-22; Cicero, Fin. 2.101). However, one hardly needs anything as precise as this by way of background to ren d er intelligible, especially with the Passover m em orial connection readily available, the directive to carry out this ritual activity in order to recall Jesus, who, on the threshold of death, gave his disciples bread and wine, which he identified with him self given over to death. O n balance, it is m ost likely that the actual di rective is a later developm ent bu t that it accurately glosses, in the context of the ongoing life o f the early church, Jesus’ intention to establish his continuing place in the ongoing m eal fellowship he had instituted with his disciples. If we prefer to favor an origin with the historical Jesus, then we m ust say that this clause was displaced from those forms of the eucharistic liturgy that introduced a liturgical directive to take the offered bread: the imperative force of “do this” was trans ferred to “take.” It would seem that the original Passover m eal setting played little role in the ongoing liturgical use of the words of institution. The historical shape of the Passover meal is so little represented in our traditions that we can no longer be quite certain ju st how the loaf and cup of the institution related to the role of bread and wine in the Passover celebration. O ur attem pts to m ap the institution onto the Passover are inevitably ham pered as well by the degree to which we m ust rem ain uncertain about how m uch of the later rigid patterns for Passover were already cu rren t in Jesus’ day. The earliest Jewish texts are m. Pesah 10:1-9 and t. Pesah 10.1-14. T he texts indicate that the meal occurs after dark and the guests m ust recline to eat it. The basic outline for the meal that em erges is as follows:

1048

L uke 22:14-20

a. cup of wine with a benediction over the cup and the day b. dipping lettu ce/g re en herbs in a sauce as an appetizer c. sharing an unleavened loaf of bread (probably with its own benediction, d. e. f

g. h. i. j.

b u t this is n o t clear in these sources [further bread would be available as required through the course of the m eal]) cup o f wine (with benediction? [some reconstructions place this cup be fore the distribution of unleavened b re a d ]) main meal including the lamb and vegetables (and presumably the bitter herbs) questions an d answers ab o u t re d e m p tio n from Egypt, w hich involved in te rp e tin g various distinctive ele m e n ts o f th e m eal, especially th e unleavened bread and the lamb, but perhaps also the bitter herbs and later the fruit puree with the color and consistency of clay, and perhaps later still the sequence of cups (it is unclear w hether this was before, during, or after the m ain meal; it could even have been before the second cup) first p art of Hallel cup o f wine (with benediction for the meal) fu rth er drinking cup of wine with second p art of Hallel over it (or perhaps before it)

How do the loaf and cup of the institution relate to this pattern? In a broad way they clearly fit the pattern of elem ents of the m eal in terp reted in connection with G od’s saving intervention in the life of his People. Also, both the Passover practice that, according to Exod 12, reiterated the experience of the night in which the Israelites left Egypt and the L o rd ’s Supper practice that developed out of this Last Supper experience share the same pattern: the originating occasion anticipated the saving event, while the ongoing celebration looked back to the saving event. For a m ore specific correlation we alm ost certainly should identify the bread with the opening loaf of unleavened bread (the view that it should be seen as a loaf introduced at the “afters” stage of the m eal has difficulty with the natural sense of 1 Cor 11:25: “after the m eal,” which comes between bread and cup; an o th er “stand alone” loaf is difficult at any o th er stage of the m eal). The cup is m ore difficult. The first cup is ruled out simply on the basis of sequence with the bread (the cup of Luke 22:17 is likely to be in Luke’s source the first cup, b ut this identification is obscured by Luke in connection with the m ore com plex role he has for the c u p ). The second cup may suffer the same fate, but this is less certain. T he usual identification m ade is with the third cup, which came to be called “the cup of blessing” in Jewish Passover discussion (cf. 1 Cor 10:16). T here has, however, been some questioning regarding the early use of this con vention (perhaps the NT evidence tips the scales as to the early currency of this designation for the third c u p ). The fourth cup also has its supporters and cannot be decisively ru led out. It is reasonable to give preference to the third cup, but there is no place for confidence here. We probably should follow Schu rm ann (Quellenkritische Untersuchung, 1:60-62; cf. Bahr, NovT 12 [1970] 191-92) in see ing the shared cup of the Last Supper narrative as distinctive. The Jewish practice for Passover seems to have been the use of individual cups. O n occasion the host m ight send his own cup to a particular guest as a special m ark of h o n o r and as a m eans of bestowing a blessing, bu t each of the guests would drink from his own cup for the sequence of cups of wine that m arked the course of the meal.

C om m en t

1049

A nu m b er of studies have highlighted the relationship between Luke 22:1438 and the testam entary genre that seems to be reflected in both biblical and Greco-Roman sources (see esp. Leon-Dufour, Z K T 103 [1981] 33-55; Kurz, Farewell Addresses, 52-70; id., JBL 104 [1985] 251-68; N elson, “L eadership and Discipleship,” 105-30). The genre is a relatively loose one, bu t its existence may help to account for the way in which Luke and Jo h n have each gathered together m aterial at this p o int to create a m ajor “farewell speech” for Jesus. It may also throw some light on the degree to which these speeches deal with “transfer ar rangem ents” in the face of Jesus’ im m inent departure from his disciples. Comment Jesus has successfully evaded the grasp of his enem ies for long enough to share this fateful farewell m eal with his Apostles. The redem ption celebrated in Pass over also patterns the ultim ate redem ption to come; this meal will be Jesus’ last participation in Passover before it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God. Along side this Passover meal of interpreted elem ents Jesus places a new liturgical pattern in which bread and cup are identified with Jesus him self as given over to death to seal the new covenant. In this liturgical action Jesus assigns to, and indeed in a proleptic m an n er confers upon, his own the benefits of his com ing death. In the early church in the repetition of this same liturgical action, the exalted Lord will continue to make him self known and confer the benefits of his Paschal death. 14 Luke heavily reform ulates Mark 14:17 (see the analysis of Schu rm ann, Quellenkritische Untersuchung, 1:104-10; bu t Jerem ias, Euchanstic Words, 99 n . 1, thinks that the lack of specific verbal agreem ent points rather to a second source). ore έγένετο ή ώρα, “when the h o u r had com e,” com pletes the sequence from “the feast was drawing n e a r” (v 1) to “the day of U nleavened Bread cam e” (v 7). Luke conflates the com ing with the taking of places at the table, which Mark reports separately in 14:18 (Luke’s verb here is also found at 11:37; 14:10; 17:7: in the context of a Passover meal the verb will m ean “recline,” but it is likely to have been used m ore broadly of being at table, w ithout regard for the particular posture). Luke prefers “Apostles” (on Apostles, see at 6:12-16), the term he will dom inantly use in Acts in connection with the post-resurrection role of the Twelve, to M ark’s “the Twelve” (in chaps. 22-24, Luke uses “the Twelve” only in connec tion with Ju d as’s p art in that num ber). T he construction here with συν αύτω, “with h im ,” is rem iniscent of 8:1, bu t here “reclined” will apply to the Apostles as well as to Jesus. 15 Lukan intervention in this verse is likely to include (following Schu rm ann, Quellenkritische Untersuchung, 1:3-14) the use of ττρός, “to,” after a verb of saying, the use o f the cognate dative επιθυμία (lit. “with desire”) as an intensifier (fol lowing LXX idiom; see esp. Gen 31:30), and the addition of the explanatory προ του μ ε 77αθεΐν, “before I suffer” (linking back to the earlier passion predictions). T he o th er language here is n o t notably un-Lukan bu t does n o t always exhibit Luke’s favored patterns. T here is no call for taking the desire expressed here, either in L uke’s source or in the present Gospel text, as a desire that is destined to rem ain unfulfilled (as Jerem ias, Euchanstic Words, 208; and o th ers). The context is rather the threat to Jesus’ freedom, which has been building since chap. 19: despite the ugly situation

1050

Luke 22:14-20

that has been developing, Jesus has successfully m ade his way to this final Pass over with his Apostles (cf. esp. at 22:1-2, 3-6, 7-13). τούτο τό πάσχα here could be either the Passover meal or the Paschal lam b (or the one as the symbolic cen ter of the o th e r). Because of the way that Luke structures the parallelism between vv 15-18 and 19-20, we should, for Luke’s finished text, understand the refer ence as to the lamb itself. “Before I suffer,” while it links back to the passion predictions (9:22; 17:25), now focuses Jesus’ suffering narrowly on his fate in Jerusalem , which was no t yet the case in the earlier texts (but cf. 24:26, 46). The m ention o f Jesus’ suffering here already prepares for a parallelism between the role o f the (sacrificial) blood of the Paschal lam b in Egypt and the new covenant in Jesu s’ blood of v 20. It is of a piece with this that Jesus will go to his suffering fate before Passover day has ru n its course (see fu rth er in Form/Structure/Setting for 22:1-2). 16 T he language here is significantly paralleled in v 18 (note the shared “for I say to you;” the paralleling of “eat” and “d rin k ”; the com m on use of the em phatic negative future with ού μή, 6ως, “u n til,” and “kingdom of G od”) , which in tu rn is clearly a version of what is also preserved in Mark 14:25. The m ost likely L ukan co n trib u tio n to the language h ere is πληρωθή, “it is fu lfilled ” (see Schu rm ann, Quellenkntische Untersuchung., 1:14—2 3 ), bu t he may also be respon sible for the presence here of “in the kingdom of G od” (to enhance the parallelism of vv 15-16 and 17-18). Again, the language is nowhere notably u n -Lukan, bu t it does at points involve idiom that cannot be shown to com e spontaneously from Luke’s pen and that is not paralleled in Mark 14:25. This is no vow of abstinence (cf. at v 15) but a prophetic anticipation. But exactly what is anticipated as sufficiently near at h and as to make this Jesus’ last Passover meal? Since the note of finality seems to apply restrictedly to Jesus, and n o t to the whole Apostolic group (nor to all the Jewish People), the reference can hardly be to the im pending arrival of the kingdom of God (as often and recently Maccoby [NTS 37 (1991) 258-60]). The referent may dep en d on p re cisely how we should take “fulfilled” in the phrase “fulfilled in the kingdom of G od.” Does Luke have in m ind Jesus’ Paschal death, by m eans of which God will seal the new covenant (cf. the Exodus language at 9:31)? Does he have in m ind the L o rd ’s Supper as practiced in Luke’s church, which looks back to this last Passover m eal and to the death of Jesus prefigured in it (see the schematic rela tionship between vv 15-18 and 19-20 as discussed in Form/Structure/Settingabove)? T he fo rm er o f these does not finally do justice to the anticipation of Jesus’ future eating (άως δτου , “u n til”). The latter only does so if Luke envisages Jesus as an eating participant in the ch u rch ’s eucharistic celebration. But while Luke clearly thinks in term s of Jesus as m aking him self known to Christians in the L o rd ’s Sup p er (see at 9:16; 24:30-31), there is no indication that he is conceived of as an eating com panion. As attractive as these options may appear in the Lukan fram e, it seem s we m u st be c o n te n t to see h e re sim ply th e a n tic ip a tio n o f th e eschatological ban q uet of the kingdom of God (it is likely that already in the time o f Jesus, Passover did n o t only look back to redem ption from Egypt bu t also on to eschatological redem ption to com e— this is clear enough for the post-NT p e rio d ). If, then, the fulfillm ent of the Passover is understood to be the eschatological ban q u et of the kingdom of God, but what Jesus anticipates as im pending is not

C om m en t

1051

the arrival o f the kingdom of God (see above), then it m ust be his own death (and thus removal from the hum an scene) that he anticipates. This is already the m ost likely sense for the tradition that Luke incorporates, and in the Lukan fram e it is quite clear that Jesus’ removal from the hum an scene subsequent to death plays an im portant role in the structuring of his thought about the significance of the m inistry o f Jesus. 17 T he Lukan role in the language here is likely to be m ore significant. In its present wording, v 17 is strongly rem iniscent o f eucharistic language, and, within that, it m ust be considered striking that apart from the opening δεξάμενος, “re ceiving,” and the closing δίαμερίσατε εις εαυτούς , “share [it] am ong yourselves,” all the language can be exactly m atched from either the bread or the cup section in M ark 14:22-23. Even these novel pieces have a eucharistic tone to them : δεξάμενος , “receiving,” is no m ore than a synonym for the usual λαβών, “taking,” of the institution accounts; and δίαμερίσατε εις εαυτούς , “share [it] am ong yourselves,” has m uch the same sense as the M atthean πίετε εξ αύτοϋ πάντες, “drink from it all o f you.” It would seem that Luke has wanted to have a statem ent here that sounds like it comes from a eucharistic liturgy, and that he has created one largely on the basis of Mark 14:22-23 b u t has introduced as well either other eucharistic language known to him or a paraphrase of such language. Since, how ever, this verse is the one in vv 15-18 that has been m ost confidently identified as having pre-Lukan content (beyond the clear relationship of v 18 to Mark 14:25), we should pause before attributing the whole here to Luke. The pre-Lukan unit that I am supporting for vv 15-18 would need to have had som ething at this point. It may be th at it was the eucharistic potential of an original that read “and receiv ing a cup he said” (perhaps already with εύχαρίστήσας, “giving thanks” [or, better, with εύλογήσας , “saying a blessing,” which Luke changes to εύχαρίστήσας for the sake of the parallelism with vv 19-20 to com e]) that provided Luke with his op portunity here. W hat is Luke doing? Fashioning a eucharistic cup report, b u t one that has no message about the link between the cup and Jesus? Its presence certainly enhances the parallelism between vv 15-18 and vv 19-20: a partaking of lamb and cup in one kind of eucharist is set in parallel with a partaking of bread and cup in ano th er kind of eucharist. It has been suggested in Form/Structure/Setting above that in vv 15-18 Luke is characterizing the Passover m eal from the perspective of the Christian eucharist as an old and now eclipsed version of the L ord’s Supper. While the cup reference here was probably originally to the first Passover cup, the Lukan developm ent prevents us from identifying it historically with one of the four stan dard Passover cups. 18 This is clearly a version of the same tradition as preserved in Mark 14:25. The Markan verse owes its present location to the cup verse that precedes it. There is, however, a certain awkwardness involved in moving from the the contents of the cup as “my blood of the covenant” in v 24 to “the fruit of the vine” in v 25 (cf. Leon-Dufour, “Jesus devant sa m ort,” 147). V 25 would be better served by a link back to a cup statem ent uncom plicated by the eucharistic content of v 24. This is what, I have suggested above, was available in L uke’s source at this point. For the w ording o f v 18, Luke would seem to be responsible for άπό του νύν, “from now o n .” The M arkan “when I drink it new in the kingdom of G od” is likely to be m ore original than L uke’s “the kingdom of God com es,” but it rem ains unclear

1052

Luke 22:14-20

how m uch o f the relationship of parallelism, chiasm, and assonance with the end o f v 16 is Lukan and how m uch pre-Lukan. If we assume considerable Lukan responsibility, then Luke is also likely to be responsible here for the repetition of “for I say to you” from v 16 (the “am en, I say to you” of Mark 14:25 is probably a rem n an t of what in Luke is v 16, perhaps with the “am en ” added to make the saying m ore freestanding when it was cut down from its extended form; in L uke’s v 18 γάρ, “for,” cannot be given a fully satisfactory sense [see below] and is best taken as present for form al structural reasons rath er than to indicate the precise sense link; the original form of v 17 suggested above requires an earlier form here w ithout “for I say to you”) . In the context narrowly of vv 17-18 in their present form , it would be easy to use the connecting γάρ (lit. “for,” bu t som etimes with merely connective force) to make v 18 into a vow of abstinence. But this is unlikely, given the discussion above o f the paralleled vv 15-16. “Fruit of the vine” is Septuagintal idiom (Deut 22:9; Isa 32:12), b u t it is also found in m. Ber. 6:1 in a blessing over wine. “Drink fro m ” (rather than simply “d rin k ”) is no t com m on in either Greek or the Semitic languages, b u t it does occur in both. V 18 anticipates Jesus’ im pending death in m uch the same m anner as v 16. While the wine in view will be that of Passover, the saying here actually implies that Jesus’ end will com e before there is occasion for him to have an o th er festive m eal of any kind. O n the com ing of the kingdom of God, see at 11:2. 19 T he relationship between the Lukan and o th er forms of the institution is discussed in Form/Structure/Setting above. O n the formulaic nature of the sequence λαβών . . . εύχαριστήσας εκλασεν καί εδωκεν, “taking . . . [after] giving thanks he broke and gave,” see at 9:10-17. The piling up of verbs evokes solem n eucharistic practice. Jesus takes up the unleavened Passover loaf and utters the blessing with which the Passover m eal began. For the use of άρτος of the unleavened Passover loaf, cf. the LXX text of Exod 29:2; Lev 2:4; Num 6:19; etc., as well as Philo, Spec, leg. 2.158; Josephus, Ant. 3.142. T he εύλογήσας (lit. “having blessed”) of the M atthean and Markan forms (these have ενχαρίστήσας [lit. “having given thanks”] in connection with the cup) is a m ore natural rendering of the blessing of God that characterized the Jewish saying of grace. But the em phasis on thanksgiving has its own secure place in Palestinian Judaism and is notable in the language of the Q um ran thanksgiving hymns (1QH ). The use here in Luke of εύχαρίστήσας may reflect a Christian em phasis on partaking of the eucharist with thanksgiving (cf. 1 Tim 4:4-5 in a wider context). Given the use in the NT of κλάν, “break,” exclusively for the breaking of bread at meals, there is no reason to suspect any symbolism here of the breaking of the body of Jesus (though adm ittedly all the uses are either liturgical or quasi-liturgical; m ore im portant is the place of the tearing apart o f the unleavened loaf clearly evidenced in later Jewish Paschal prac tice [and indeed the place of breaking of bread in o th er Jewish m eals]). For a discussion of the m ost likely original wording of the bread saying, see Form/Structure/Setting above. O ne of the questions that faces us as we seek to u n derstand the equation of bread and body is that of how close a parallelism at various stages in the developm ent of the tradition should be drawn between the “body” o f the bread word and the “b lo o d ” of the cup word, and in particular w hether a m easure of synthetic parallelism between the statem ents should be traced back to the historical Jesus. It makes best sense of later developm ents to

Comment

1053

assume that a considerable parallelism was sensed from the beginning and was foundational to the further developm ent of the parallelism, especially as the bread and cup were b ro ught together from the positions at either end of a meal. In particular, it seems unlikely that we can deny to “my body” a link with Jesus’ im pending en co u n ter with death when the link between the prospect of death and the “b lo o d ” of the cup word is evident. R ather less certain is w hether “body” and “b lood” in the institution narrative should be read in relation to the fixed pairing of these term s in some way. “Flesh” (Greek: σάρξ) and “blo o d ” are regularly paired as the constituent parts of the hum an constitution (Sir 14:18; 17:31; 1 Enoch 15:4; Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16; H eb 2:14). T he pairing of “body” and “b lood” in this way is less com m on (but see Philo, Quis rer. div. 54). Ezek 39:17-18 (cf. 32:5-6) brings us closer to the death-facing context of the Last Supper, where “flesh” and “blood” are the con stituent parts of hum an bodies as consum ed by wild creatures. The use of σώμα, “body,” rath er than σάρξ, “flesh,” in our institution narratives counts against what would otherwise be the considerable attractiveness of this as background. Despite the claim b y Jeremias (Eucharistic Words, 200, 221-22), though we do get repeated reference to the separation of the “blo o d ” from the sacrificial “flesh,” and we do get reference to the disposal of the sacrificial anim al having to do with what is done respectively to the “blo o d ” and to the “flesh” (sometimes “body” in Philo), we do n ot seem to get the actual use of “flesh” and “b lood” as paired term s in connection with sacrificial language. If the pairing of the term s was intended to relate to this sort of sacrificial imagery, then it would be far preferable for the “b lo o d ” to be m entioned first. I conclude that it is m ore likely that “body” and “b lo o d ” each point independently to the com ing death of Jesus, rather than pointing to it as a fixed pair. We probably should not finally try to escape the cannibalistic imagery of the words of institution (cf. Jo h n 6:53-58). It is notable that the Markan pattern for the cup has the words of interpretation com ing after the consum ption of the wine. This is likely to be an original historical feature, which was un d erstan d ably m odified o ut of a natural concern that the participants eat with a clear consciousness of the significance of this bread and wine. T hough none of the present accounts allow us to read this sequence for the bread statem ent, there may be some trace rem aining of a m ore original order in parallel to the Markan sequence for the cup: in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, the giving of the bread is m en tio n ed before the words of interpretation (Paul does no t specify the giv ing). Only Luke specifically corrects the tim e sequence by using a p resen t participle “saying” to introduce the words of interpretation in place of the aorist finite verbs of the other accounts (“and said”). Mark and Matthew achieve the same correction despite the sequence “gave and said” for Mark and “having given, he said” for Matthew; they begin the words with a directive to take the bread. It seems to me m ost likely that u n d er this cannibalistic imagery Jesus assigns to his disciples the benefit of his com ing death; and that he makes known what he is doing only after they have consum ed the bread that transm its the assignm ent to them . Except for P eter’s objection and the subsequent need for some explana tion, the dynamic is n o t dissimilar in Jo h n 13:1-17. Beyond the language of assignment, it may no t be out of place to speak in term s of a proleptic transmis sion of the benefit.

1054

Luke 22:14-20

In the eucharistic practice of the church, the ignorant passivity of the original beneficiaries is no longer appropriate, and so the bread is equated with the body of Jesus prior to consum ption. By providing “given” to go with “for you,” in con scious parallelism to the “poured out for you” of the com ing cup words, the Lukan text makes explicit the connection between “body” and approaching death. In Thucydides, History 2.43.2; Libanus, Declam. 24.3, “give o n e ’s body” is an image of dying in battle for the sake of o n e ’s people. For com m ent on “do this in rem em brance of m e,” see Form/Structure/Setting above. T he L o rd ’s Supper of the ch u rch ’s practice provides a setting in which Jesus as present can confer upon his own the benefits of his life and of his death. 20 Luke keeps the reference to the meal that separates the giving of the bread from the giving of the cup. T here is some awkwardness in establishing the relationship between the meal here and the Passover description in vv 15-18. L uke’s retention of this meal reference despite the difficulties it creates for his structuring of vv 15-20 may indicate that the eucharistic practice he was familiar with had retained this p attern (cf. T heissen’s criticism [“Social Integration,” 14574] of the com m on view that the C orinthian church practice involved a meal p rior to the liturgical sharing of bread and wine). The content of ώσαύτως, “in the same way,” needs a certain am ount of adjustm ent as we move from bread to cup. A single cup is no doubt im plied, but no t as clearly as in Matthew and Mark. We have n o ted above in Form/Structure/Setting how this represents a striking de parture from standard Passover practice: Jesus is actually sharing his own personal cup with the disciples present, rath er than having them drink from their indi vidual cups, as will have been the case for the o th er cups of wine in the Passover sequence (though in v 17 Luke has, with his echoing of eucharistic language, also introduced this sharing of the c u p ). T he move from wine (or cup) as blood to cup as a covenant may point to an em phasis on participation in the eucharistic cup as a new covenant responsibility (cf. the role of circumcision in Gen 17:10 and of sabbath in Exod 31:16). W here in the Last Supper the initiative lay entirely with Jesus (cf. the suggestions m ade above about the words of interpretation originally following the consum ption of the bread and the wine), in the L ord’s Supper the believing com m unity also m ust bear some of the responsibility. New covenant benefits are passed to those who share in the covenant cup. W here in the earlier form the covenant allusion has been to Exod 24:8 (“the blood of the covenant”), now the im m ediate allusion is to the “new covenant” of Je r 31:31-34, a covenant based on a new activity of God beyond Sinai, in which he will bestow forgiveness and bring in n er renewal. The underlying allusion to Exod 24:8 rem ains since the new covenant is said to be έυ τω α ϊμα τί μου, which presumably m eans “[sealed] with my blood.” τό υπέρ ύμώυ έκχυυυόμουου (lit. “the for you poured o u t”) is a neat parallel to τό υπέρ ύμέου δίδόμβυου (lit. “the for you given”) in the bread word, bu t where there is a suit able grammatically m atching im m ediate antecedent in v 19, here the im m ediate anteced en t is dative. While some have tried to make gram m atical sense of this situation, it is perhaps best to see here instead the ungram m atical product of the m eeting of liturgical innovation with liturgical conservatism and delight in tight form al parallelism. Despite the grammar, it m ust be the blood and no t the cup that is p o u red out. While the blood of sacrificial animals (as well as o th er wild animals to be eaten) was poured out, “po u r out the blo o d ” is also an OT way of

Explanation

1055

speaking about the im position of violent death (Gen 9:6; Ezek 18:10; Isa 59:7), w hether judicially or out of evil intent. While it is hard to rule out allusion to the sacrificial practice (έν τω α ϊμα τί μου, “[sealed] with my blood,” ensures the presence of sacrificial imagery), Jesus’ blood was not literally poured out as would be that of a sacrificial animal, so the prim ary imagery may be that of violent death. In the context of the prospect of Jesus’ absence, through the interpreted loaf and cup the Apostolic band is assured that they are no t about to lose all that they have gained through their contact with Jesus. O n the contrary, as Jesus’ m inistry reached its culm ination in death, that new thing God has been doing in Jesus will becom e their secure possession in a fresh way. The Lord who is to be exalted beyond death will be present through the receiving of the bread and the cup; he will make him self known there through that m edium and will confer the new covenant blessings upon those who belong to him. Explanation The climactic h o u r of Passover celebration now arrives (see vv 1 and 7). Jesus has been concerned to avoid capture before this Passover meal. He will now for the last time take part in the Passover meal which, as it celebrates redem ption from Egypt, also anticipates final redem ption of his People by God. H e will as well institute a new liturgical pattern in which bread and wine are offered as the body of Jesus and the covenant sealed with his blood. With this liturgical pattern, that which was achieved by Jesus’ path of obedience to rejection and death in Jerusalem will be conferred, proleptically here for the Apostolic band, and with reference back to the cross in the ch u rch ’s later practice. Despite a solid shared core, at least in the first three Gospels, there is a surpris ing variety in the detail from one Gospel to an o th er as to the precise words and actions of Jesus at the Last Supper. Most notable of all is the distinctiveness of the Jo h an n in e account, which locates the Last Supper m eal twenty-four hours before the Passover meal and has Jesus dead and buried before the Passover meal. Jo h n has a footwashing with interpretation, b u t no action with bread and cup. T here is a strong rem inder here that the Gospels use their narrative techniques n ot only to rep o rt historical events but also to in terp ret the significance of Jesus and his ministry. Jo h n has used the idea of Jesus’ flesh and blood as food and drink in connection with the discourse after the feeding of the five thousand (John 6) and feels no need to repeat it here. While the o ther Gospels draw the link between Jesus’ death and the Passover by having both the m eal and Jesus’ death on the festival day of Passover, Jo h n stresses ju st the same link by having Jesus dying on the cross as the lambs for Passover are being slaughtered in the tem ple. Historically the Last Supper probably was the Passover meal. The loaf of bread is likely to have been that which opened the m ain part of the Passover meal. The identity o f the cup is less certain. The best choice would seem to be the third cup, which concluded the m ain part of the meal. But we should no t make any thing of these identifications in our present Gospel texts, since the Passover identity of these elem ents is obscured, rath er than built upon, in the Gospel narratives. T hough some scholars are skeptical about tracing the saying about bread and wine (or cup) back to the historical Jesus, there has been a growing scholarly

1056

Luke 22:14-20

confidence that in some form the words do go back to Jesus. A reasonable guess as to the m ost original form s m ight be: “this is my body, for you”; “this [or this cup] is my covenant b lood” (the verbs may no t have been present in the Aramaic originals). In the transmission and use of these words, interpretation has been built into the words by expanding and modifying them in various ways. The dif ferent form s we have in the synoptic Gospels and in 1 Cor 11 all probably reflect form s in use in the com m union practice of different churches. Some ancient texts of the Gospel of Luke are missing the part of v 19 that comes after “this is my body,” and all of v 20. Were these p art of Luke’s original? M uch d oubt was expressed in the earlier part of this century about the place of these verse in L uke’s text, bu t in recent decades there has been growing confi dence that they are properly p art of Luke’s text. An econom ical scribe probably stopped after “this is my body” as an abbreviation, because he assum ed that his readers would all know how to supply the missing words. With the whole o f vv 19-20 in the text, a clear structuring of vv 15-18 and 1920 is evident. A sequence of lamb and cup is set in parallel with a sequence of bread and cup. To the definite paralleling of the lamb and cup sections with each o th er corresponds the paralleling of the bread and cup sections with each other. T he cup in v 17 is described in a way that, while mostly distinctive from the lan guage o f vv 19-20, clearly echoes eucharistic language as do those verses. As the Passover meal (lamb) is shared, Jesus expresses his gratification at be ing able to share it with his Apostles. His words are prophetic of his com ing death and removal from his intim ate band, bu t they also point to the com ing of the kingdom of God, which will bring that full redem ption only foreshadowed by the Passover redem ption from Egypt. Jesus’ point is reiterated as he takes a cup. While th e w in e in view will b e th a t d r u n k a t Passover, th e saying h e r e ac tu a lly im p lie s

th at Jesus’ en d will come before there is occasion for him to have an o th er festive m eal of any kind. Probably, historically, the cup here is the first cup of the Passover m eal (or possibly the second). But in Luke’s account, because the cup is given eucharistic features and lam b and cup in vv 15-18 are set in parallel with bread and cup in vv 19-20, the cup can no longer be m eant to identify a particular cup in the Passover seq u en ce. R ather, Passover lam b an d cup are m e a n t in vv 15-18 to characterize the Passover meal, ju st as bread and cup are m eant in vv 19-20 to characterize the ch u rch ’s eucharistic celebration. This curious way of describing the Passover meal comes from seeing it through the eyes of the Christian eucharist: it is viewed as an old and now eclipsed version of the L ord’s Supper. T he piling up of verbs in the opening part of v 19 evokes the solem n ritual of eucharistic practice. The use of “giving thanks” rather than the “blessing (of G od),” which would be m ore natural for Jewish Passover, may reflect a Christian em pha sis on partaking o f the eucharist with thanksgiving (cf. Acts 2:46). T he bread is identified with the body of Jesus given up to death for the sake of Jesus’ followers. The imagery is provocatively cannibalistic. Jesus assigns, and even in a proleptic m an n er may be said to be transm itting, to his disciples the benefits o f his com ing passion. From its location in time on the o ther side of the cross, the church will engage in a liturgical repetition of Jesus’ action. In this way, that Jesus who is no longer present in his historical m inistry will make him self known and confer ever afresh to the disciple com m unity the benefits of his passion.

Bibliography

1057

T he reiterated action will bring into the present what m ight otherwise be lost in the mists of the past. The m em orial pattern of the Passover is now to be ex ploited in a new way in connection with the salvation achievem ent of Jesus. A lthough the course of the meal comes between bread and cup, the two are deliberately set in parallel. T hough it is clearer in v 17, we should understand that in v 20 as well Jesus departs from the norm al Passover practice and shares his own cup with the assembled group. Normally each would have had his own indi vidual cup for the Passover liturgy. This distinctive action can be related to a Jewish practice in which the host m ight share his cup with a particular guest as a way of h o n oring and bestowing a blessing on that individual. T he language of cup as covenant may be to em phasize that participation in the eucharistic cup is a new covenant responsibility (cf. the role of circumcision in Gen 17:10 and o f sabbath in Exod 31:16). W here in the M arkan form the cov en an t allusion had been to Exod 24:8 (“the blood of the covenant”), now the im m ediate allusion is to the “new covenant” of Jer 31:31-34, a covenant based on a new activity of God beyond Sinai, in which he will bestow forgiveness and bring in n er renewal. Since, however, the new covenant is said to be “[sealed] with my blood,” the underlying allusion to Exod 24:8, with its sealing of the Sinai cov en an t in blood, remains. “P oured o u t for you” may point to the way in which the blood of sacrificial animals was po u red out. However, because the blood of Jesus was n o t literally drained, and since to “pour out the b lood” is an OT m anner of speaking about the causing of violent death (Gen 9:6; Ezek 18:10; Isa 59:7), the im agery may as well, or instead, be that of im pending violent death. T hough Jesus may be about to leave the disciple band, they are no t about to lose what they have gained through him. Instead, Jesus’ death will secure for them in a new way what they have begun to experience through their link with him.

Jesus’Awareness of His Betrayal

(22:21-23)

1058

Luke 22:21-23

Last S upper Discourse in Luke 22:21-38.” Forum 3.3 (1987) 70-95. Taylor, V. The Passion Narrative of St Luke. 59-61. Vogler, W. Judas Iskarioth. 43-47, 79-81. A nd see at 22:1-2, 22:14-20, and esp. 22:3-6.

Translation

21“But see! The hand of the one who delivers me up [is] on the table with me. 22For the Son of Man goes in accord with what has been determined, but woe to that person through whom he is delivered up. ”23They began to ask one another which of them it might be who would do this. Notes T here are only m inor textual variants.

Form/Structure/Setting Jesus’ an n o u n cem ent of his awareness of the presence of his betrayer am ong his m ost intim ate circle of followers comes with a chilling shock after the tender intimacy of vv 14—20. The discussion that the an n ouncem ent sets off am ong the Apostles provides the transition to the dispute to com e in v 24. Luke has delayed this unit from its M arkan position before the institution nar rative. T he Markan equivalent here (Mark 14:18-21) is rath er m ore extensive than the Lukan rendering. W ithout close verbal agreem ent, Luke 22:21 has an evident relationship to the tradition reflected in Mark 14:18b, 20. Luke 22:22 is quite close to Mark 14:21, but it has divine determ ination rath er than attestation in Scripture providing the sense of necessity. It also lacks the final statem ent of the M arkan form as well as one of the references to the Son of Man. Luke 22:23, which reports the disciples’ response, shares the word ήρξαντο, “they began,” with M ark’s version o f the same (Mark 14:19) but otherwise has nothing in com m on with the M arkan version. To dispute the consensus view that Luke uses only his M arkan source here are the possible coincidence with Jo h n in locating the m en tion of the betrayal after the meal (Judas leaves the table im mediately thereafter, and there is no fu rth er m ention of the meal) and the evident coincidence with Jo h n (cf. Jo h n 13:22) in locating the im m ediate response of the disciples in an interaction with one an o th er rather than, as in Mark, in an interaction individu ally with Jesus (cf. Cribbs, “A Study of the C ontacts,” 52). R ehkopf’s elaborate case (Die Lukanische Sonderquelle, 7-30) for a totally separate Lukan source here is accepted by Taylor (Passion Narrative, 59-61) for vv 21 and 23 (but not for v 22). Access to additional tradition here for Luke is a real possibility bu t has not been definitely dem onstrated, since the distinctives of the Lukan account can all be given satisfactory redactional explanations. T he M arkan redactional contribution to Mark 14:18-21 has been variously judged. The m inim al view as to the traditional content is that of Schenke ( Studien, 199-285), who allows only a reduced version of v 21 to M ark’s source (Schenke argues for an original form that parallels that of Luke 17:1-2 [a form that I have argued above is a Lukan creation]). Dormeyer (PassionJesu, 302-17) offers pertinent

Comment

1059

criticism of Schenke’s approach (on Mark 14:18-21, see esp. 308-15). D orm eyer’s own view (94-100) denies only v 21 to M arkan tradition (along with “the one who eats with m e” from v 18 and “one of the twelve” from v 20). D orm eyer offers the m ore satisfying account of vv 18-20, bu t for v 21 his case is strongest with respect to denying any original unity between vv 18-20 and v 21 (from vv 18-20, Vogler [Judas, 43-47] allows to tradition only v 18bc but considers v 21 to have been incorporated as a separate piece of trad itio n ). The case for M arkan intervention in v 21 is strongest for “as it is written concerning him .” (Schenk [Passionsbericht, 188-89] offers the interesting suggestion that only the final statem ent in v 21 is n o t redactional and that it linked originally to v 20b; Robbins, “Last M eal,” 33-34 would allow the woe clause as well, bu t no link to v 20b.) Though Mark 14:18-20 has about it the air of dramatic literary construction (esp. the role of v 19?), there seems to be no adequate reason for denying to the historical Jesus a saying about anticipating denial from am ong his own intimate band (though allusion to Ps 41:9 is not impossible, this text has certainly not been responsible for the creation of the tradition). There is, however, no denying the fit of such a saying within the concerns of the early church. The case for early church developm ent of v 21 is stronger, but, with the possible exception of the kind of appeal to Scripture involved here, all the elements reflect motifs found in sayings of the historical Jesus. Comment This present revelation of a betrayer within the closest circle of Jesus’ follow ers stands in sharp contrast to the preceding scene in which, against a background of a pre-existing intim ate link with him, Jesus has intensified the bonds of inti macy by assigning to these his closest followers the benefits of his com ing death. And he has done so in a m anner that, by speaking of new covenant com m itm ent between God and his People sealed with the blood of Jesus, has placed its own focus on issues of pledged loyalty. 21 Only “with m e” and a use of 77‫־‬αραδιδόναι (lit. “to h and over”) reflect the language of the M arkan parallel. M ark’s form requires a meal in progress, bu t in Luke the eating seems to have concluded. The contrast expressed by πλήν (here a strong form of adversative “b u t”) is the stark antithesis between this announce m ent of betrayal by one of the Twelve and the intim ate scene that preceded. For the reader, του παραδιδόντος, “the one who delivers u p ,” links back to v 4 (see there and at 9:44). H ere there is clearly no sense that God is the one who delivers Jesus up (but cf. at v 22). The phrase έπ i τής‫ ״‬τραπέζης (lit. “upon the table”) will recur in v 30 in the context of messianic banquet imagery. This link could be to strengthen the sense that the Last Supper is som ething of a proleptic messi anic banquet. 22 M uch o f the language here is in com m on with Mark 14:21. Luke has πορεύεται, “goes,” for M ark’s υπάγει (lit. “departs”). H e has κατά τό ώρισμένος, “in accord with what has been determ in ed ,” for M ark’s καθώς γέγρα πται περί αυτού, "just as it stands written concerning him .” Luke links the woe clause with ano th er πλήν, “b u t,” for M ark’s colorless δε, “a n d /b u t” (and thus repeats the πλήν ούαί, “b u t woe,” that he has used at 6:24; 17:1). Jesus is Son of Man in his suffering here as in the classic passion predictions (see at 9:21-22). Luke will take up the scriptural necessity for Jesus’s death in

1060

Luke 22:21-23

24:25-26 and esp. 44-46. H ere he will content him self m ore imprecisely (but m ore personally) with the determ ination in the will of God (the same verb is used by Luke in connection with the will of God in Acts 2:23; 10:42; 17:26, 31) that stands b ehind Jesus’ passage through suffering to glory. T he hum an role of betrayer is in no way excused by the fact that his betraying activity forwards the divine purpose. T he betrayer retains full responsibility for the enorm ity of his act. Unless the language is loose, ου (lit. “through w hom ,” bu t norm ally trans lated here “by w hom ”) may point to the am bivalent nature of the delivering up o f Jesus: Jesus is delivered up by God, by m eans of Judas. 23 T hough Mark also reports a response by the disciples, his comes rath er earlier, and the two form s are linked only by a shared use of ήρξαυτο, “they began .” T he language has a num ber of Lukan features: especially the use of to (lit. “th e ”) to introduce an indirect question for which the optative of the verb is used. Albeit in a rath er artificial m anner, the discussion back and forth here prepares for the dispute of v 24. Christians had to com e to term s with and be w arned about the possibility o f betrayal by one who is intim ately linked with Jesus through the eucharistic life of the church. Explanation T here is a dram atic change of tone from the warm intimacy of vv 14-20 as Jesus reveals his awareness of the presence of his betrayer. T hough in some sense the Last Supper is a brave anticipation by Jesus with his disciples of the com ing messianic banquet of the kingdom of God, the presence of the betrayer at the table highlights the need for the future fulfillment, which will be spoken of in v 30. The Son of Man language here rem inds us that Jesus has been speaking of a com ing time of suffering for him self u n d er this title since 9:21-22. T he cryptic language of necessity is now replaced by reference to what has been determ in ed (by G od). Later there will be a stress on how the Scriptures foretold this fate (see 24:25-26, 44-46). “Goes” is probably designed to em brace both the suffering fate and its role for Jesus as gateway to glory at the right h and of God. As m uch as Jesus’ path to the cross m ight be fixed in the purpose of God, there is no excuse to be m ade for the betrayer. He bears full responsibility for the breach o f trust and intimacy and the total failure of loyalty that his betrayal in volves. H um an responsibility and divine sovereignty are not to be played off against each other. T he role of betrayer cannot, however, be left com fortably with Judas. The u n resolved questioning of the Apostles in v 23 leaves each of us to face the possibility o f being one who betrays Jesus, though linked intim ately to him through the com m union fellowship of the church.

Bibliography

1061

The Great Are to Serve, While Those Who Have Shared Jesus’ Trials Will Gain Royal Stature (22:24-30) Bibliography Arens, E. The ΗΛΘΟΝ-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition. OBO 10. F reib u rg /G o ttin g e n : Universit’atsverlag/V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1976. 117-61. Bammel, E. “Das Ende von Q .” In Verborum veritas. FS G. Stahlin, ed. O. Bocher and K. Haacker. W uppertal: Brockhaus, 1970. 3 9 -5 0 .--------- . “Das ‘Testam ent’ Jesu (Luk 22.27ff.).” In Jesu Nachfolger: Nachfolge uberlieferungen in der Zeit desfruhen Christentums. Studia Delitzschiana 3 /1 . H eidelberg: Lam b ert Schneider, 1988. 74-83. Broer, I. “Das Ringen der G em einde um Israel: Exegetischer Versuch uber Mt 19,28.” In Jesus und der Menschensohn, FS A. Vogtle, ed. R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg. Freiburg/B asel/V ienna: H erder, 1975. 148-65. Brown, S. Apostasy and Perseverance. 62-63. Clark, K. W. “T he m eaning of [κατα] κυριεύει v.‫ ״‬In Studies in New Testa ment Language and Text. FS G. D. Kilpatrick, ed. J. K. Elliott. NovTSup 44. Leiden: Brill, 1976. 100-105. Crossan, J. D. In Fragments. 202-4, 285-95. Danker, F. W. “T he E ndan gered Benefactor in Luke-Acts.” In SBL Seminar Papers 1981, ed. K. H. Richards. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981. 39-48. Dupont, J. “Le logion des douze trones (Mt 19,28; Lc 22,28-30).” Bib 45 (1964) 355-92. Feuillet, A. “Le logion sur la ra n con .” RSPT 51 (1967) 365-402. --------- . “Le trio m p h e esch a to lo g iq u e de Je su s d ’ap res q u elq u es tex tes isoles des Evangiles.” NRT 71 (1949) 701-22; 80 (1958) 6-28, esp. 715-22. Fleddermann, H. “The End of Q .” In SBL 1990 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990. 1-10. George, A. “La royaute de Jesus selon l’evangile de Luc.” ScEccl 14 (1962) 57-69. Guillet, J. “Luc 22,29: U ne fo rm u le johannique dans l’evangile de Luc?” RSR69 (1981) 113-22. Hoffmann, P., and Eid, V. Jesus von Nazareth und eine christliche Moral: Sittliche Perspektive der Verkundigung Jesu. QD 66. Freiburg: H erder, 1975. 186-230. Jeremias, J. “Das Losegeld fur V iele.” In Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. 216-29. Jouon, P. “Notes philologiques sur les evangiles.” RSR 18 (1928) 345-59, esp. 355. Kertelge, K. “D er dienende M enschensohn (Mk 10,45).” In Jesus und der Menschensohn. FS A. Vogtle, ed. R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg. Freiburg: H erder, 1975. 225-39. Kollmann, B. Ursprungund Gestalten derfruhchristlichen Mahlfeier. 176-80. Lohfink, G. Die Sammlung Israels. 79-84. Lull, D. “T he Servant-Benefactor as a M odel of Greatness (Luke 22:24-30).” NovT 28 (1986) 289-305. Moulder, W. J. “T he O ld Testam ent Backg ro u nd and the Interpretation of Mark x. 45.” NTS 24 (1977-78) 120-27. Nelson, P. K. “Leadership and Discipleship.” Ph.D. diss., Trinity College, Bristol, 1991. --------- . “T he Flow of T h ought in Luke 22.24-27.” JSN T 43 (1991) 113-23. Page, S. Η. T. “T he A uthen ticity of the Ransom Logion (Mark 10:45b).” In Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R. T. France and D. W enham. Gospel Perspectives 1. Sheffield: JSOT, 1980. 137-61. Rasmussen, L. “Luke 22:24-27.” Int 37 (1983) 73-76. Rickards, R. R. “Luke 22:25: They Are Called ‘Friends of the People.’” BT 28 (1977) 445-46. Roloff, J. Apostolat. 184-88. --------- . “Anfange der soteriologischen D eutung des Todes Jesu (Mk. x. 45 u n d Lk. xxii. 27).” N T S 19 (1972-73) 38-64. Schlosser,J . “L a genese de Luc, XXII, 25-27.” R B 89 (1982) 52-70. Schurmann, H. “Der A bendm ahlsbericht Lk 22,7-38 als G ottesdienstordnung, Ge m eindeordnung, L ebensordnung.” In Ursprungund Gestalt. 108-50, esp. 1 3 6 -4 0 . . Quellenkritische Untersuchung. 3:36-99. Schulz, A. Nachfolgen und Nachahmen. SANT 6. Munich: Kosel, 1962. 119-21. Schulz, S. Q: Die Spruchquelle. 330-36. Stuhlmacher, P. “Existenzstellvertretung fur die Vielen: Mk 10,45 (Mt 20,28). In Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments, FS C. W esterm ann, ed. R. Albertz et al. G ottingen/N eu k irch en : N eukirchener, 1980. 412-

1062

Luke 22:24-30

27. Tannehill, R. “A Study in the Theology of Luke-Acts. ” ATR 43 (1961) 195-203. Tiede,

D. L. “T he Kings of the Gentiles and the L eader W ho Serves: Luke 22:24-30.” WW 12 (1992) 23-28. Voobus, A. Prelude to the Lukan Passion Narrative. 29-40. A nd see at 22:1-2 and 22:14-20.

Translation 24A contention alsoa aroseb among them about which of them would seem to be the greatest. 25He said to them, "The kings of the nations exercise their lordship over them and those in authority over them have themselves called benefactors. 26It is not to be this way with you! Rather let the greatest among you become like thec youngest and the one who leads like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who reclines [at table] or the one who serves?Is it not the one who reclines?But in your midst I am like the one who serves. 28But you are those who have stuck with me in my trials. 29Just as my father has conferred royal rule upon me, I also confer [it]d upon you,e 30that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit upon thrones judging the twelve tubes of Israel.” Notes a Missing from ‫ א‬it etc. b Gr. έγενετο (lit. “h a p p e n e d ”). c T he article is missing from P75 and some o th er texts, while D reads μικρότερος, “sm allest” (lit. “sm aller”) . d For ease o f translation, the Gr. o rd e r o f clauses is here reversed. e T he lack o f a specified object is m ade good here with διαθήκην, “covenant,” by A Θ 579 etc. 579 follows this through by displacing βασιλείαν, “royal ru le ,” with a second use o f “covenant.”

Form/Structure/Setting T he search for the betrayer in their m idst gives way to a dispute over the iden tity o f the greatest am ong them (the sequencing of discussion of betrayal and dispute over greatness m irrors that in 9:43b-45, 46-48). Luke uses this as the setting for Jesus’ teaching in which he calls the great to hum ble service and prom ises future exaltation to those who have identified themselves with him in the trials o f his own hum iliation. T he farewell speech continues here, in the meal setting that Luke has pro vided for it. T he m aterial in the o th er Gospels that m ost nearly parallels Luke 22:24-27 (Mark 10:41-45; M att 20:24-28; 23:11) has nothing of L uke’s link with Jesus’ final meal with his disciples. Only Jo h n 13:1-20 suggests that some impulse from the tradition may have spurred Luke to locate the m aterial here (on the links here with Jo h n , see Nelson, “Leadership and Discipleship,” 175-77). T here can be little doubt that Luke 22:24-27 is a version o f the same tradition as Mark 10:41-45 (note especially the degree of structural parallelism ). Much m ore uncertain, however, is w hether Luke’s M arkan source is the basis for his own version. T he strongest case for a separate source can be m ade in the case of v 27 (see, e.g., Schlosser [RB 89 (1982) 52-70], who allows a separate source for this verse alone). T here is also, however, considerable force in Schu rm a n n ’s view ( Quellenkritische Untersuchung, 3:72-78) that Matt 23:11 is the im m ediate parallel for Luke 22:26: in Matt 23:11 and Luke 22:26 the already great are addressed,

Form/Structure/Setting

1063

while in Mark 10:43-44 a path to greatness is identified for aspirants. If Luke 22:26 and 27 are both traditional, then either Luke has, by displacing Markan elem ents, incorporated these verses into a Markan structure, or his source here already had the same basic structure as the M arkan account. While some Markan influence cannot be ruled out, the latter seems to be altogether m ore likely. At the same time, there are good reasons for identifying some of the language as Lukan (see Comment below ). If there are two basically in d ep en d en t sources, then the question of greater originality at once arises. It is likely that some of the features that are least origi nal re p resen t Lukan editing (esp. in v 25), b u t that b eh in d this the greater originality is to be shared between the two sources (Mark for v 26, with its alter native vision of greatness; bu t Luke for v 27, with the Semitism of its mashal form and double question). It is likely that v 27 par. Mark 10:45 was not an original unit with the preceding. W hether the “I” form or the “Son of M an” form is m ore original in v 27 is hard to determ ine, since developm ents in the tradition moved in both directions. The originality of Mark 10:45b with its ransom language remains hotly disputed. O n the whole, those who see it as a secondary developm ent, elucidating the service of the Son of Man in light of developing church understanding of the passion, seem to have the better part of the argum ent; bu t the debate here is n o t yet finished. For vv 28-30 Luke uses m aterial that has a partial parallel in Matt 19:28 (mainly parallelling v 30b). D upont ( Bib 45 [1964] 359-60) and others argue that L uke’s vv 29-30a constitute a separate unit of tradition, secondarily incorporated at this point. The case is no t persuasive, however, because a satisfactory thought unity for this tradition has no t been established. This view also fails to reckon with the correspondence between M atthew’s throne for the Son of Man and thrones for th e Twelve an d L u k e’s kingdom s fo r the o n e an d the o th e r (see below ). Schiirm ann earlier ( Quellenkritische Untersuchung, 3:36-54) had identified v 30a as a seco n d ary ex p an sio n . T his seem s th e m ore likely o p tio n ; an d while Schu rm ann considered the expansion pre-Lukan, m ore probable on the basis of the language is L uke’s own intervention (cf. Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle, 231 n. 67). In v 29 Luke does seem, however, to be reflecting tradition. In particular Guillet (RSR 69 [1981] 113-22), drawing on the analysis of t h e Johannine pat tern by O. de D inechin (“καθώς: La similitude dans l’evangile selon saint Je a n ,” RSR 58 [1970] 195-236), has noted the frequent occurrences in the Gospel of Jo h n of variants of the p attern here: “as the father . . . to me, so I . . . to you.” The same pattern is found in Rev 2:26-27; cf. 3:21. As so often with the Luke-John links, the link is tantalizing but provides nothing precise for source analysis. We m ust ask, Has Luke inserted a piece of tradition at v 29, or did he receive his form of vv 28-30 with v 29 already included? Com ing to our aid here is the recognition that M atthew’s attribution of thrones to both the Son of Man and to the disciples has its analogue in L uke’s attribution of a kingdom to each. This makes it m uch m ore likely that v 29 was already an integral p art of what Luke received. V 28 is mostly w ithout parallel in Matthew (“followed m e ” and “stuck with m e” are some what equivalent) and is probably best understood as a Lukan displacem ent of an original introduction rath er m ore like the M atthean form (perhaps w ithout the “am en ”). Because of the ju d g m en t that Luke has used a source that he does not have in com m on with Matthew, less precision is possible about the line between

1064

Luke 22:24-30

Lukan tradition and redaction. In any case, it seems best to consider the M atthean form as close to the m ost primitive form (“in the reg en eratio n ” would seem to have no precise Semitic equivalent, but equivalent Semitic new-creation language is readily available [cf. the use of ‫הדשה עשות‬, cswt hdsh, “renew al”]; there is some possibility of a M atthean contribution to the language in which the Son of Man is introduced here). The issues involved in historical evaluation here are com plex, linked as they are to discussion of the historicity of Jesus’ call of the Twelve and of his use of various classes of Son of Man language. While the saying certainly could be an early church developm ent, I find the argum ents that have been m o u n ted against its historicity far from persuasive. We m ust look to Luke for the juxtaposition of vv 24-27 and 28-30. Comment Jesus intervenes in the dispute of the Twelve over greatness with his call for the great am ong the disciple band to give themselves up to serving roles. This “hum iliating” posture dem anded of the great is not, however, the end of the story: those who have stood by Jesus in the trials of his own hum iliation will be given a share in his own com ing royal rule. 24 T he co n ten t here, though little of the exact language, closely parallels 9:46. T he slight tension between the nature of the dispute (who is greatest) and the response of Jesus (how the great are to behave) may count in favor of Lukan form ulation. The most Lukan features are the opening έ γ ιν ε το δε, “it h ap p en ed ,” and the use o f to (lit. “th e ”) to introduce an indirect question (note το τ ις [lit. “the w ho”] in v 23 as here). The use of δοκεΐ, “seem s,” may be influenced by the use of the same verb in Mark 10:42. Luke may introduce the language of appearances precisely because the com ing directive and attention to the exam ple of Jesus tend toward the confusion of appearances. It is probably unwise to propose a specific psychological developm ent from the inquiry of v 23 to the contention o f v 24. Presumably the contention involves personal bids for preem inence, no t ju st differences of opinions about third parties! The translation of μείζω ν (lit. “g reater”) here as “greatest” obscures the fact that the same word appears here and in vv 26, 27. 25 T he verbal agreem ent with Mark 10:42 is very slight, but the structural agreem ent is notable. All the language differences would be consistent with Lukan alteration o f his M arkan source, but at the same time none of the language is notably Lukan. T he m ore Hellenistic flavor of the language may be attributable to Luke. T he p oint of the first image is that the gentile rulers “make their politi cal pow er fe lt” (Fitzmyer, 1416). “B en efacto r” was an honorific title in the Greco-Roman world given to princes, to Rom an em perors, and to the gods. In the h o n o r culture of that world, public recognition in various forms was a re q u ired re tu rn for generosity to those who in any sense were clients of the benefactor. (See F. W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field [St. Louis, MO: Clayton, 1982] ;J. H. Elliott, “P atron age and Clientism in Early Christian Society,” Forum 3.4 [1987] 39-48.) καλούνται could be taken in various ways: if passive, “are called”; if m iddle, “call themselves,” “let themselves be called,” or “have themselves called.” T he last probably pro vides the best fit here.

Comment

1065

26 Again there is only m odest verbal agreem ent with Mark, and here the structural parallelism, while still evident, is less close. W here in Mark the con cern is about becom ing great, in Luke the concern is about the great becom ing like m uch less exalted figures (as in Matt 23:11). ηγούμενος, “one who leads,” may be Lukan. “The youngest” and “the one who serves” are probably to be re lated chiastically to “exercise lordship” and “have themselves called benefactors.” If this is so, th en to “becom e like the youngest” will have to do with the forgoing o f status dem ands, since youngsters have no status that m ight require any kind of recognition. This sort of status is to be forgone, and “the one who leads” is no t to press his authority upon those whom he leads; he is rath er to behave as one who serves them (the im agery of service at table here will be reinforced by the use of language in connection with being the table servant in v 27). T hough taken literally, the clause about the greatest would apply only to a single person; that about the one who leads indicates clearly that no such lim itation is intended. We should note, however, that in the first instance the text is about how the m em bers of the Apostolic band should relate to one another, and n o t about how they as the great ones and leaders should relate to the Christian com m unity they are to lead. 27 T he language overlap with Mark reaches a low point here: yap, “for,” to link with the preceding and (rather different kinds of) use of the verb διακουεΐυ, “to serve.” άνάκεισθαι, “to recline [at table],” occurs only here in Luke-Acts. μείζωυ is “g reater” here, where it has been “greatest” in vv 24, 26. T he developm ent here takes up in term s of literal table service the servant reference of v 26b. In v 26 the behavior com m ended is such as will confuse appearances (cf. at v 24); that con fusion of appearances becom es explicit here with the double question, which insists u pon an answer that the Apostles are aware m ust be wrong if applied to Jesus on the basis of his self-description in the final clause of the verse, ευ μέσω νμώυ είμι, “I am in the m idst of you,” puts the focus upon how Jesus behaves in his dealings with the Twelve. In the present context there is likely to be a refer ence to what has recently taken place in vv 19-20. It is best to carry the comparative force of ώς forward from the two instances in v 26 and to translate, as there, “like the one who serves” (“as the table servant” n o t only fails to pick up on the link from v 26; it also plays havoc with the role of Jesus, who clearly presides as head over the Last S u p p er). An eschatological use of the table-service image is found at 12:37. 28 νμεΐς' δε, “but you,” is probably m eant to take us back to v 24 with its dispute over who was great. T hough the desire to appear as great ones has reared its head, this is n o t the whole story. These people are the same as those who have stuck with Jesus along the lowly road of his trials (though it has had a num ber of supporters, there is no real credibility to the view of C onzelm ann [Luke, 80-81, 83] that the perseverance here begins only with the fresh initiative of Satan in 22:3). While perseverance is an im portant m atter in the Lukan fram e (cf. at 8:15 and note the way that in the passion narrative Luke softens the Markan emphasis upon the aban d o n m ent of Jesus by the Twelve), the emphasis here is likely to fall m ore u pon “in my trials” (ευ τοΐς πειρασμοί?: the singular is translated as “temptation ” at 4:13, “trial” in 8:13, and “that which is a trial” in 11:3; 22:40, 46), with the language of trials itself understood in close connection with “like a servant” of v 27. (For the link between πειρασμός, “trial,” and the com m itm ent in vv 2527 to being “like a servant” and no t like “the kings of the nations,” cf. at 4:1-13,

1066

Luke 22:24-30

where the linking of these ideas [but not the precise language] is set in the con text of Satanic tem ptation of Jesus to depart from the divinely ordained pattern for his ministry.) It would n o t be inappropriate to com b through the Gospel nar rative and p o in t to the adversities experienced by Jesus in com pany with the Twelve, b ut these need then to be seen in connection with that orientation of his m inistry to which he com m itted him self against the pressure of Satanic tem pta tion in 4:1-13 and to which he rem ained true despite the ensuing difficulties. In connection with the m ovem ent from trials to royal rule for the disciples, it is also relevant to call to m ind L uke’s preoccupation with the idea that Jesus can achieve heavenly glory only through suffering (see esp. 24:26; and for a wider applica tion, Acts 14:22; cf. Lohfink, Sammlung; 82). 29 For the appointed royal destiny of Jesus, cf. at 1:32-33; 19:11-28, 29-40; 23:42. Since the understanding of this royal destiny of Jesus is oriented to the future, it is hardly appropriate to draw in here, as some wish to, the horizon of Jesus’ im pending death and to take διατίθεμαι as “I bequeath [as in a will or last testam en t].” T hough the verb can bear such a sense, its parallel use in connec tion with God here hardly encourages us to move in such a direction. The m ore general sense “co n fer” is to be preferred. It seems best to take βασιλείαν (tr. here as “royal ru le,” b u t elsewhere as “kingdom ” or “kingship”) as supplying the ob je c t for both acts of conferral (the alternative is to make the eating and drinking along with the sitting and judging that which Jesus confers; however, this is less satisfactory in relation to the use of καθώς, ‘ju st as,” and it does no t fully bring to expression the parallelism of Jesus’ situation with that of the Twelve, a feature here whose im portance is confirm ed by the presence of “th ro n e ” and “th ro n es” in the M atthean form of this tradition). “Royal ru le ” is preferred as the transla tion for βασιλείαν here, since v 30 makes clear that what is involved for the Twelve is m ore a participation in Jesus’ rule than any kind of in d ep en d en t regal status or rule. For Jesus’ speaking of God as “my Father,” cf. 10:22; 24:49. Despite the various attem pts that have been m ade to find here a ruling role for the Twelve in the life of the early church, the eschatological orientation, in this context, of the rule of Jesus requires the same for the rule of the Twelve. 12:32, while n o t u n re lated, is m ore general and sees the prom ised βασιλεία , “kingdom /kingship/royal ru le,” as possession rath er than as activity. 30 T he opening ϊνα clause here is better taken as explanatory than as ex pressing purpose (to receive royal rule for the purpose of eating and drinking at Jesus’ table is hardly intelligible). Luke also pairs eating and drinking at 5:30, 33; 7:33, 34; 10:7; 12:19; etc. The shared use of “table” in vv 21 and 30 establishes a link between the Last Supper and the future meal envisaged here. Note the spa tial use of “kingdom ” here (contrast v 29). The fundam ental im agery is of the eschatological ban q uet of G od’s People (cf. 13:29; 14:15; etc.), bu t the appeal to it here functions m ore to establish close linkage to Jesus as foundational for the role of the Twelve in v 30b to follow. This is likely to be L uke’s m ain contribution to the traditional materials he works with here. Luke is likely to be responsible for removing “twelve” from before “th ro n es” (cf. Matt 19:28). This is better seen as a simple econom y of language than as co n cern ed to avoid the idea that Judas will have a throne (Luke will consider that a th ro n e is designated for Judas, or rath er for the slot that Judas occupies, which will be later filled by Matthias [Acts 1:15-26]). The m ention of “th ro n es”

Explanation

1067

follows nicely from the bestowal of royal rule, but κρίνοντες, ‘judging,” is less ex pected. W hat does Luke have in m ind here? And do we need to reckon here with the possibility that the Lukan sense and that of the earlier tradition ru n in differ en t directions? T he verb κρίνε lv is capable of a wide range of m eanings, all having to do in some way with the exercise of discrim ination. Very often it has judicial overtones, and sometimes the im plication is that the ju d g m en t to be m ade is one of condem nation. At times the m eaning even becom es “to execute the sentence of ju d g m en t u p o n ” (this is m ore com m on in the case of the cognate n oun). In an o th er direction, the m eaning may reach “to govern” (this seems likely in 4 Kgdms 15:5; Ps 2:10, where it is based on the broader sense of the Hebrew ‫ שפט‬, spt; it is possible in Wis 3:8 and has been claim ed for 1 Macc 9:73; Pss. Sol. 17:26, 29). In Matthew it seems clear enough that the Twelve are to function as “asses sors for the sovereign Ju d g e ” (D upont, Bib 4b [1964] 378), and this is likely to be close to the original sense of the tradition. In Luke, however, a wider sense, though certainly n o t w ithout a judicial com ponent, seems to be altogether m ore likely, since in this case the activity takes place as p art of “royal ru le .” We may want to think in term s of the judicial function of OT kings (e.g., 2 Sam 15:1-6; 1 Kgs 3:16-28) or of the broad sense of judging associated with the judges raised up by God (e.g., Ju d g 3:9, 15; 6:11-18). T hat the activity of judging here, for the Twelve, is directed toward the twelve tribes o f Israel is to be understood in close connection with Jesus having m ade them collaborators with him self in the proclam ation of the good news (cf. Dupont, Bib 4b [1964] 388). T he num ber of the Apostles already signified the claim upon all Israel of the message Jesus had come to proclaim. T he singling out of Israel here is in no sense anti-Jewish: it is only a particular expression of the central place of Israel in the purposes of God (cf. Isa 5:1-6; Amos 3:2; etc.). Explanation Discussion about the identity of the betrayer moves on to a contention over which o f them was the greatest. To this, Jesus responds with his challenge to the great to behave like table servants. Despite the outbreak here of the desire to seem great, Jesus takes the larger view and, commending the Twelve for sticking with him through the “hum iliation” of his own trials, promises them a share in his coming royal rule. T he Twelve show here their interest in appearing great in the eyes of others. As in 9:46, concern for greatness follows incongruously from disclosure of be trayal. Jesus’ intervention makes no attem pt to answer the question. It simply challenges the great to particular patterns of behavior. Jesus clarifies his in ten t by pointing first to the way that gentile rulers make their power felt by those over whom they rule, and then to the way that authority figures use generosity to justify their dem and for social recognition: they insist on being glorified as public benefactors. Am ong the Twelve, things are to be quite different. Instead o f dem anding public honor, the greatest is to behave as though he h ad the status only of the youngest m em ber of the group (in a culture where age was a status scale); the leader, instead of m aking his power felt, is to behave as one whose role is to serve the needs of the others. T here is a clear call for reversal here, as v 27 recognizes with its appeal to table imagery: the one reclining at table to be served the meal is self-evidently greater

1068

Luke 22:31-34

than the one who is his table servant. But Jesus identifies the practice of his m in istry as that of being like a table servant. So soon after vv 19-20 we cannot avoid calling to m ind here that the extent of Jesus’ self-giving service reached to the p oint of giving up his life for his own. H ere is a great one who does no t take advantage o f his greatness for him self and who thereby confuses the categories by which we are hum anly accustom ed to m easure significance. Jesus’ teaching in vv 25-27 has implicitly been critical of the Apostolic band. But those same m en who are caught up in a petty rivalry over stature are the m en who have stood by Jesus, not only in his popularity and achievem ents but also in those buffetings that could have placed in question the path of hum ility upon which he believed him self called to walk (in 4:1-13 Jesus experienced as Satanic tem ptation— the same Greek word as used for “trial” h ere— the attractions of fered by a m ore self-promoting m anner of carrying out his m inistry). In that sense they have already com e with Jesus as he acted the part of the table servant. T he Lukan Jesus does n o t see the table-servant pattern as the whole story. His own destined path was one of hum ble service that would take him to death. But death itself would be a gateway to exalted glory (see 24:26). The p attern here is th at the great b en d low ultimately to be raised by God to even greater heights. Jesus knows him self to be in line for royal rule (see the parable in 19:11-28). He prom ises to those who have shared his lowly path a share as well in that future royal rule. T he end-tim e future is pictured as a never-ending banquet, at table with Jesus in his kingdom . It is in connection with being m eal com panions of Jesus, and n o t at all as free agents, that the Twelve get to sit upon royal thrones and are given a part in exercising ju d g m en t in connection with Israel. T he scope o f the judging activity of the Twelve is said to be the twelve tribes of Israel. This fits with Jesus’ symbolism in choosing Twelve in the first place, which signified the claim upon all Israel of the message he came to proclaim and in whose proclam ation he m ade the Twelve collaborators. W hen a worldwide per spective for the gospel em erges, this becomes, in Paul, “Do you n o t know that the saints will ju d g e the world?” Such prom ises are designed to strengthen the h and of disciples who need encouragem ent along the path of lowly service; for they will find themselves at the mercy of those who show no respect for the divinely ordained nature of this following in the footsteps of a Christ who went to his glory through suffering. T he lower disciples are called upon to stoop, the higher they can be expected to be raised in the future kingdom of God.

Satanic Sifting and Denial of Jesus

(22:31-34)

Bibliography Argyle, A. W. “Luke xxii. 31f.” ExpTim 64 (1952-53) 222. Botha, F. J. “‘Umas in Luke xxii. 31.” ExpTim 64 (1952-53) 125. Brown, R. E. et al., eds. Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative

Notes

1069

Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. Minneapolis, M N /N ew York: A ugsburg/ Paulist, 1973. 119-25. Brunei, G. “Et aussitot le coq ch an ta.” CCER 108 (1979) 9-12. Claudel, G. La confession dePierre: Trajectoire d’unepericope evangelique. Paris: Gabalda, 1988. 409-32. Cullmann, O. “L’A potre Pierre instrum ent du diable et in stru m en t de Dieu: La place de Matt. 16:16-19 dans la tradition prim itive.” In New Testament Studies. FS T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins. M anchester: University Press, 1959. 94-105. Dietrich, W. Das Petrusbild der lukanischen Schriften. BWANT 94. Stuttgart: K ohlham m er, 1972. 116-39, 15457. Dreyfus, P. “La prim aute de P ierre a la lum iere de la theologie biblique du reste d ’Israel.” Istinia 2 (1955) 338-46, esp. 342-44. Feldkamper, L. Der betendeJesus als Heilsmittler nach Lukas. V eroffentlichungen des M issionspriestersem inars 29. St. Augustin bei Bonn: Steyler, 1978. 206-23. Foerster, W. “Lukas 22,31f.” ZNW 46 (1955) 129-33. Fridrichsen, A. “Scholia in Novum Testam entum : 1. Luk. 22:31.” SEA 12 (1947) 124-31. Gundry, R. H. “T he Narrative Framework of Mt 16,17-19: A Critique of C ullm ann’s H ypothesis.” NovT7 (1964-65) 1-9. Klein, G. “Die V erleugnung des Petrus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche U n tersuchung.” ZTK58 (1961) 285-328; rep rin ted with supplem ent in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament. BEvT 50. M unich: Kaiser, 1969. 4 99 8 .--------- . “Die B erufung des P etrus.” ZNW 58 (1967) 1-44, esp. 39-44; rep rin ted with supplem ent in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament. BEvT 50. M unich: Kaiser, 1969. 11-48. Lattey, C. “A N ote on Cockcrow.” S c r 6 (1953) 6‫־‬55. Lee, R. E. “Luke xxii. 32.” ExpTim 38 (1926-27) 233-34. Lehmann, M. Synoptische Quellenanalyse. 103-6. Linnemann, E. Studien. 70-108. --------- . “Die V erleugnung des P etrus.” ZTK63 (1966) 1-32. Ott, W. Gebetund Heil. 75-81. Refoule, F. “Prim aute de Pierre dans les evangiles.” RSR 38 (1964) 1-41, esp. 21-25. Schneider, G. “‘Starke deine B ru d er!’ (Lc 22,32): Die Aufgabe des Petrus nach Lukas.” Catholica 30 (1976) 200-206. Schurmann, H. Quellenkritische Untersuchung. 3:21-35, 99-116. --------- . “D er A bendm ahlsbericht Lk 22,7-38 als G ottesdienstordnung, G em eindeordnung, L eben so rd n u n g .” In Ursprungund Gestalt. 108-51, esp. 128-31, 143-45. Sutcliffe, E. F. “‘Et tu aliquando conversus,’ St. Luke 22,32.” CBQ 15 (1953) 305-10. Thompson, J. “T he Odyssey of a Disciple (Luke 22,3134).” RestQ23 (1980) 7 7 -8 1 . Thompson,P. “Epistrepho (L u k e xxii. 32).”ExpTim38 (192627) 468. Tobin, W. J. “T he Petrine Primacy: Evidence of the Gospels.” LVit 23 (1968) 27-70. Walter, N. “Die V erleugnung des P etrus.” TVers 8 (1977) 45-61, esp. 50-53. Wickert, U. “U nd wenn du derm aleinst dich bekehrst, so Starke deine B ruder.” Catholica 30 (1976) 269-94. Wilcox, M. “T he Denial Sequence in Mark xiv. 26-31, 66-72.” NTS 17 (1970-71) 426-36. And see at 22:1-2.

Translation 31a “Simon, Simon! Look out! Satan has asked for you all,b to sift you like wheat. 32But I have prayed for you that yourfaith might not give out. You, for your part, when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” 33Peterc said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” But Jesusd said, “I tell you, Peter, a cock will not crow this day before you have denied three times that you know me.” Notes a ‫ א‬A D W Θ Ψ etc. m ark a fresh beginning here with είπ εν δε δ κύριος, “T he L ord said.” This could be original. b “All” is added here to indicate that “you” is p l. (it is sing. in v 32). c Gr. ό δε, “h e .” d Gr. ό δε, “h e .”

1070

Luke 22:31-34

Form/Structure/Setting Those who have stuck with Jesus through his trials have been prom ised future exaltation, but there stands before them a difficult time of Satanic sifting, to which Jesus addresses his attention here. The Petrine denial anticipated here is reported in 22:54-62. T he m aterials o f 22:31-32 have no parallel in Mark or Matthew. Luke uses these verses rath er than the m aterial in Mark 14:27 to anticipate the com ing time o f crisis for the disciple band. T here is broad scholarly agreem ent that Luke is n o t creating freely here bu t drawing on a distinctive source (or sources). W hat has proved m ore difficult, given the considerable level of apparent Lukan in tru sion, is to find agreem ent about the scope of the original tradition. Some have argued for a fusion here of a tradition underlying v 31 (with plural υμάς , “you”) with a separate tradition behind v 32 (with singular συ, “you,” and perhaps inc luding “Simon, Sim on” from v 31), bu t this seems to leave v 32 w ithout adequate m otivation. Most identify ποτέ έπιστρέφας, “when you have tu rn ed back,” as a Lukan expansion, introducing an explicit anticipation of the Petrine denials to come. This may indeed be correct, but if the final clause of v 32 reflects tradition (see below), then som ething is needed at this point to move the time fram e on, either into the period of sifting, or beyond. It is actually the preceding ϊυα clause, “that your faith may no t give o u t,” that can be m ore confidently identified as both Lukan in its present form and as not needed for the basic structural logic of the traditional piece Luke has used. This clause may be Luke’s own elucidation o f the prayer o f Jesus. Finally, it is hard to conceive of a form of the tradition that singled P eter o ut for special prayer bu t contained no rationale for that in term s o f a special role for him. It seems best to conclude then that, while a consider able p art o f the language and some part of the thought here are likely to be distinctly Lukan, the tradition Luke used already had som ething in the place oc cupied by each o f the phrases and clauses that m ark the unfolding th o u g h t sequence o f vv 31-32, with the sole exception of the clause that elucidates the con ten t of Jesus’ prayer for Peter. It is doubtful w hether we should find here a tradition that would exclude any place for P eter’s denial of Jesus (as B ultm ann, History, 267; and argued at length by Klein, Rekonstruktion und Interpretation, 49-98). N ot that L in n em an n ’s alternat iv e is convincing ( Studien, 70-108), when she locates the origin of the tradition in an early church prophecy anticipating a com ing time of trial (one could do a little b etter by taking the alleged prophecy as com m enting on a present time of trial; th en n othing would be needed in the “when you have tu rn ed back” slot). D ietrich seeks to save the day here with his claim (Petrusbild, 130-33) th at the use o f έκλβίπβιυ, “give o u t,” rath er than, say, παύβσθαί, “cease,” encourages us to think already in term s of the prospect of a progressive weakening of faith, caus ing Jesus to pray that the process may no t reach a term inus in which no faith remains. This would m ean that it is n o t only ποτέ έπίστρέφας, “when you have tu rn ed back,” that allows a place for Peter to have experienced difficulty with faith. Dietrich may indeed be right, bu t since the clause using έκλβίπβίυ, “give o u t,” is likely to be a Lukan addition, this is finally of no help. It is actually the probable absence o f this clause from the original tradition that destroys the co gency of Klein’s position.

Form/Structure/Setting

1071

Given the difficulty of determ ining how great Luke’s contribution to the sense (as distinct from the wording) of Luke 22:31-32 is, we can only speak quite gen erally of the thrust of the prior tradition. It does, however, seem reasonable to m aintain that Luke’s tradition here anticipated, with the im agery of sifting, a time of Satanic trial for Jesus’ disciple band, which would be of lim ited duration. T he expectation is that the disciples would by and large make their way success fully through this time, though they would n o t be unscathed by the experience. P eter’s path through the time of difficulty would be helped by the prayer of Jesus, so that he would come out the o th er side of the experience with in n er resources that could be of particular help to others who had been m ore traum atized by the experience. (Alternatively, and perhaps better, Peter may have been called upon to strengthen the others during the period of trial, so that he, with the help of Jesus’ prayer, and they, with his help, will make their way successfully, though not necessarily w ithout difficulty, through this time of trial.) Schurm ann is likely to be right (“A bendm ahlsbericht,” 130-31) to suggest that the m aterial here was transm itted in the early church in connection with its chal lenge to church leaders: sustained by the Lord in the m idst of trials, they are to lend strength to their fellow Christians. In connection with the historical Jesus, some have had difficulty with Jesus’ confidence here in the power of his prayer, but this seems to me to involve unw arranted caution, given Jesus’ confidence of his authority in o th er respects. O thers have difficulty with any kind of prophetic precision, bu t there is little pre cision here: one m ight even suspect that the disciples were m uch less caught up in the crisis that involved Jesus’ death than he here anticipates. Yet others insist on reserving Petrine priority for the post-Easter situation. This is perhaps a m ore significant cause for reservation, but the Petrine post-resurrection priority is fi nally best understood as built upon an existing pre-resurrection prom inence in the disciple band. Admittedly the textual base for having the historical Jesus reinforce this prom inence is very limited, but we m ight n o t reasonably have expected m ore, since only the horizon of Jesus’ departure brings to the fore the issue of leadership in the disciple band. The shared m otif of Luke 22:31-32 and Matt 16:18-19, of some kind of pri macy for Peter (Refoule [RSR38 (1964) 22] and others exaggerate the degree of structural parallelism ), provides no adequate basis for m aking a source link be tween these materials or claiming that they necessarily belong together historically (against C ullm ann, “L’A potre P ie rre ”; etc.; b u t there is m uch to be said for C ullm ann’s desire to relocate the m aterial of M att 16:18-19 to the end of the m inistry of Jesus). The passion setting provided by Luke for the tradition is apt, given what appears to be the background assum ption that Jesus will no longer be present with the disciples. The passion setting also fits well the sense of im pend ing crisis conveyed by the im agery of sifting. T he materials in Luke 22:33-34 are mostly taken to be a rewriting of Mark 14:29-31. T here are, however, ju st enough coincidences with Jo h n 13:37-38 to raise the question of a second source here as well (apart from the content links, there is also the agreem ent in locating the m aterial at the meal rath er than on the M ount of Olives). This m aterial cannot have been transm itted apart from a knowledge of the denial story, bu t that is n o t quite the same thing as insisting that it needs to have been linked to it in a connected narrative. (The denial story,

1072

Luke 22:31-34

however, would be quite a different account w ithout the cockcrow, which in tu rn probably requires that an account of Jesus’ prediction was linked with it from the beginning. (See fu rther at 22:54b-62.) A version of P eter’s protestation and Jesus’ prediction could have been transm itted independently in the early church in con nection with its usefulness as a “cautionary tale.” Comment Jesus warns of an im m inent time of Satanic sifting. T hrough his prayer for Peter, and through the strengthening role for which it prepares him, the disciple band will, however, make their way beyond the dam aging reversals of that period and on into a new place of stability. Nevertheless, despite all his protestations of loyalty to death, even Peter stands on the threshold of sham eful acts of denial. 31 N one of the language here is notably Lukan. “Sim on” is likely to be tradi tional, since its presence breaks Luke’s pattern of using “Sim on” before the calling in 6:14 and “P eter” after (the pattern is also broken at 24:34). In the whole Gos pel Jesus addresses Simon Peter by nam e only here (as Simon [rep ea te d ]) and in v 34 (as P eter). For the passion period as a tim e of particular Satanic attack, cf. at v 3. While Simon is addressed, it is clear that Satan has the whole band of disciples in view. “Asked for you all” makes best sense in connection with the kind o f image o f Satan that is found in Jo b 1-2: Satan needs G od’s perm ission to bring the kind o f difficulties upon people that, he (Satan) hopes, will reveal their lack of integrity in their devotion to God. As in Job, God is understood to have given his perm ission for the trial. T he im agery of sieving is used of this trial: the Satanic attack will sort between the wheat and the rubbish (since a double siev ing process was used, it is uncertain w hether the grain should be pictured as retained by the sieve or as let through). T he sifting image may be d ep e n d en t u p o n Amos 9:9. 32 U n lik e v 31, th e la n g u a g e h e re is q u ite L u k an (cf. S chu rm a n n , Quellenkritische Untersuchung, 3:105-12). Over against Satan’s m alevolent purpose is set the intervention of Jesus. Jesus addresses him self in two stages to the testing situation to confront all: prayer for Peter, and a directive for Peter to give aid in tu rn to the others (note the correlation of έγώ δέ, “I,” and καί συ , “you, for your p a rt”). T he co ntent of Jesus’ prayer is that P eter’s faith should no t be drained away to nothing by the Satanic onslaught (the verb έκλείπβίυ, “to give o u t/fa il,” is used o f the ru n n in g out of m oney in 16:9). The spelling out here is likely to be a Lukan developm ent (the difficulty that Schurm ann [Quellenkritische Untersuchung, 3:106] and Jerem ias [Sprache, 58] have with Luke using a non-final iva is un rea sonable in light of 21:36 [with the same verb]). The survival of P eter’s faith can be contrasted with the unhappy outcom e of a time of trial, which is envisaged in 8:13. Presumably, in Luke’s understanding, preservation of a residual faith makes possible P eter’s retu rn after his denial of Jesus (the presence of ποτέ , “at some time or oth er,” makes it unlikely that έπιστρέφας should be taken either as a Semitism to be translated “again” [so: “strengthen your brothers again” (cf. 3 Kgdms 19:6; N eh 9:28; etc.)] or as a transitive use of the verb [so: “convert and strengthen your b ro th ers”] ). We are no t to understand that the others have suf fered a total failure of faith but only that they are likely n o t to have fared as well as P e te r a n d th a t they n e e d h e lp an d e n c o u ra g e m e n t a fte r th e trau m a .

Explanation

1073

“S trengthen your bro th ers” uses language that has its natural hom e in the ac count Luke gives in Acts of the life of the early church (for “brothers,” cf. Acts 1:15; 9:30; 15:23; etc.; for “strengthen,” cf. 18:23 [but also Luke 9:51; 16:26 for this verb ]). Luke probably has no very precise idea about how Peter actually ful filled this role, beyond its general accord with his sense of the central place of Peter in the disciple band. 33 T he language here is certainly n o t borrow ed from Mark (cf. Mark 14:29, 31), b u t n eith er is it strikingly Lukan; Lukan language is likely for “L ord” (cf. at 5:12) a n d p o ssib le fo r “to go to p riso n a n d to d e a th ” (cf. S chu rm a n n , Quellenkritische Untersuchung, 3:31). T here is probably a deliberate echo in Acts 21:13, which suggests that though P eter’s protestation proves false in the im m e diate context, Luke considered it valid in connection with the post-Easter Peter. Peter is im prisoned in Acts 5:18; 12:3. His death is no t reported. For the sent i m ent here, cf. Mark 10:38-39; and esp. Jo h n 13:37. In the present Lukan sequence, v 33 is motivated either by the announcem ent of Jesus’ prayer or by the clear im plication that P eter will fail (and thus need to turn back). This is slightly artifi cial. In earlier in d ep en d en t transmission of the pericope, the motivation would be the m ore general sense of threat that characterized the passion period. 34 The language here is m uch closer to Mark 14:30, and some influence from the M arkan source is likely. But the absence of “this very n ig h t” and of “twice” and the move from an infinitive construction to the use of a future negative con struction for “crow,” followed by βως, “un til,” provide suggestive links with Jo h n 13:38. Luke will have contributed the vocative “P eter” (to balance the use of Simon in v 31; cf. Claudel, Pierre, 423 and n. 203) and the final eiSevaL, “to know” (prob ably to weaken the correspondence with Luke 12:9 [cf. the Lukan addition in v 32 about P eter’s faith no t giving out]). According to m. Bab. Qam. 7:7, it was forbidden to raise chickens in Jerusalem because of the holy things, but this is likely to be later idealization. T hough the first light norm ally sets the cocks crowing, one m ight have h eard the first cock crow at any time from 2:30 A.M. onward. Explanation Despite the promise of future exaltation, a difficult time of Satanic sifting stands before the Apostolic band. Jesus makes provision for this through his prayer for Peter, and through the strengthening role that he prescribes for Peter. In this way, the disciple band will successfully make their way beyond the dam aging re versals of th at period and on into a new place o f stability. Nevertheless, despite his protestations of being ready for anything, even P eter stands on the threshold of sham eful acts of denial. Satan’s asking for the Apostles is rath er like what happens with Job in Job 1-2. Satan hopes to bring them to destruction by showing their lack of integrity in their devotion to God. The trial by ordeal that he plans is pictured with the imag ery o f a sieve, probably one that holds back the rubbish and lets through the wheat. As in Job, Satan is allowed to have his way within the constraints that God im poses. Jesus strengthens P eter’s han d in the situation by praying for him and gives him in tu rn the task of strengthening the others. Peter is no t kept from stum bling by Jesus’ prayer, but he is kept from having his faith quite disappear.

1074

Luke 22:35-38

Peter is able, therefore, to bounce back from his failure. T hough Luke does not provide m aterial on how the o ther Apostles fared, we are probably to understand that they fared no better than Peter, and perhaps worse. Nevertheless, Satan’s intentions for them too are thwarted: after Peter had bounced back from his own failure, he was able to help the others. No d oubt Luke believed that there were patterns here with a relevance for Christians in the early church when they were coping with their own periods of intense trial. He uses for P eter’s task language that he will later use in Acts in connection with life in the early church. Peter reacts by protesting his loyalty unto death. In the longer term , this will be true o f Peter, b ut for now the words prove empty. Before the dawn has come, Peter will have insisted, in a threefold denial, that he does n o t so m uch as know Jesus. T he shock o f the com ing denial is somewhat softened for us by Jesus’ pre diction. T here is a cautionary tale here for others as well.

New Rules for a Time of Crisis

(22:35-38)

Bibliography Bartsch, H.-W. “Jesu Schwertwort, Lukas xxii.35-38: U berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studie.”

NTS 20 (1973-74) 190-203.-------- . “T he Sword Word of Jesus (Luke 22:35-38).” BLT 19 (1974) 149-56. Cullmann, O. Jesus and the Revolutionaries. New York: H arp er and Row, 1970. 47-50. Derrett, J. D. M. “H istory and the Two Swords.” In Studies in the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1982. 3:200-214. Finlayson, S. K. “T he Enigm a o f the Swords.” ExpTim 50 (1938-39) 563. Gillman, J. “A Tem ptation to Violence: T he Two Swords in Lk 22:35-38.”

LS 9 (1982) 142-53. Hahn, F. Titles. 153-55. Hall, S. G. “Swords o f O ffence.” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 499-502. Hobhouse, S. “‘And H e that H ath No Sword, Let H im . . . Buy O n e ’ (Luke xxii.35-38).” ExpTim 30 (1918-19) 278-80. Jones, D. L. “T he Title Pais in LukeActs.” In SBL Seminar Papers 1982, ed. K. H. Richards. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982. 217-26. Lampe, G. W. H. ‫״‬T h e Two Swords.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: University Press, 1984. 335-52. Larkin, W. J. “L uke’s Use of th e O ld T estam e n t as Key to H is S oteriology.” JETS 20 (1977) 32 5 -3 5 . Lecler, J. “L’A rgum ent des deux glaives (Luc xxii,38) dans les controverses politiques au moyen ag e .” RSR 21 (1931) 299-339; 22 (1932) 151-77, 280-303. Lehmann, M. Synoptische Quellenanalyse. 148-52. McDowell, E. A. “Exegetical N otes.” RevExp 38 (1941) 44-48. Minear, P. S. “A N ote on Luke xxii 36.” NovT 7 (1964-65) 128-34. Napier, T. M. “T he Enigm a of the Swords.” ExpTim 49 (1937-38) 4 6 7 -7 0 .--------- . “‘T he Enigm a of the Two Swords’ (Luke xxii. 35 -3 8 ).” ExpTim 51 (1939-40) 204. Reinach, S. “Les deux epees.” RevArch 4 /1 9 (1912) 4 3 5 .--------- . “Encore les deux epees.” RevArch 5 /1 0 (1919) 370-71.

Schlatter, A. Die beiden Schwerter: Lukas 22,35-38: Ein Stuck aus der besonderen Quelle des Lukas. BFCT 20/6. Gu tersloh: Bertelsm ann, 1916. Schurmann, H. “D er A bendm ahlsbericht Lk 22,7-38 als G ottesdienstordnung, G em eindeordnung, L eb en so rd n u n g .” In Ursprung und Gestalt. 108-50, esp. 1 3 1 -3 6 .--------- . Quellenkritische Untersuchung. 3:116-39. Schwarz, G. “κύριε ίδον μαχαίραη ωδε δυο A BibNot 8 (1979) 22. Western, W. “T he Enigm a of the Swords.” ExpTim 50 (1938-39) 3 7 7 .--------- . “T he Enigm a o f the Swords, St. Luke xxii, 38.”ExpTim 52 (1940-41) 357. Wright, R. F. “Studies in Texts.” Th 44 (1942) 296-300. And see at 22:1-2.

Comment

1075

Translation

35He said to them, “When I sent you without purse, or bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing!”36He said to them, “But now let the one who has a purse take it, and the same with a bag. And the one who does not have [a sword], let him sell his cloak and buy onea37For I tell you that there must befulfilled in me this that stands written: And he was counted with lawless people.’For what concerns me is coming to an end.”38They said, “Lord, look! Here are two swords.”He said, “Enough of that!” Notes a Gr. μ ά χα ιρα ν , “sword,” which has been used earlier in the translation (see Comment).

Form/Structure/Setting The meal scene in the upstairs room comes to an end with the present antici pation of the time of crisis that is to engulf not only Jesus but also his closest followers. Luke 22:35-38 is no t paralleled in the other Gospels and has been variously judged as coming from his distinctive source material, as being based on fragments of tradition, or as being simply a Lukan creation. Source judgm ents are tied up in tu rn with the varying senses that have been given to the pericope, both in its Lukan fram e and as an in d ep en d en t piece of tradition. Based on the discussion below, it seems best to attribute to Luke (beyond language touches) only the in troduction of the OT quotation. While v 38 is likely to be pre-Lukan, there is a real possibility that it form ed no original part of the episode. Instead, it may have been added at some point to make it clear that the disciples prior to the passion had found it impossible to engage seriously with Jesus’ anticipation of the passion and the prospect that they might be profoundly caught up in the associated turmoil. The basic material here will have been transmitted partly as a passion prediction of a different kind and partly as teaching relevant to the Christian mission in times of particular crisis (to be set in a dialectical tension with the teaching of Luke 10:4). Comment In the time of Satanic sifting about to begin, the com fortable optimism of Luke 10:4 about G od’s provision for his m essengers will no longer be applicable. The cycle of Jesus’ ministry is reaching its end, with all that implies about m eeting his end in the form of a violent, crim inal’s death. The Apostles ought not to think that they will be spared some passing through the fire. 35 O f the language, only the use of ούθβίς for “anything” (actually the nega tive, since Greek negatives do not cancel) and possibly arep, “without,” look Lukan. T he term s used here actually echo 10:4 (the sending of the Seventy) rath er than the sending out of the Twelve in 9:1-6. This is either Lukan carelessness, or it reflects dependence on a source in which this language had been associated with the sending out of the Twelve (see source discussion at 10:1-16). T hough the missioning disciples had by no m eans found universal acceptance, there had not been lacking those who would give them welcome and provide for their needs.

1076

Luke 22:35-38

36 N one of the language here is significantly Lukan. Despite the parallelism of form , it is unlikely that we should treat in parallel o βχων (lit. “the one hav in g ”) and o μή βχων (lit. “the one no t having”). R ather we should reach to the end o f the sentence for the understood object of μή βχων, to get the sense “the one n o t having one (i.e., a sword).” W hat is this new situation that has arisen, and does it ren d er the earlier mission instructions perm anently out of date? It seems hardly likely that these would have received such em phasis in Luke’s ac count, if he saw them as relevant only to two brief rounds of mission endeavor. They also have such links with o th er of Jesus’ teaching about trust in God that it seems unlikely that total abrogation is intended. (The same may be said for the contrast between the role for the sword com m ended here and Jesus’ com m enda tion elsewhere o f nonviolence.) T he im m ediate Lukan fram e for this new instruction is surely the sifting by Satan th at has been announced in v 35. As with Job, this involved the tem porary removal o f the accustom ed experience of G od’s care and protection. It is unlikely that the Lukan Jesus expected any literal im plem entation of the new directive that he offers here. It is rather a symbolic depiction that difficulties of a kind not h ith erto experienced were to be the lot of the disciple band in this period of Satanic trial. No d oubt Luke believed there would be other periods of Satanic trial in the early church, beyond that associated with the passion of Jesus. And Jesus’ words would have a pertinence to these as well. Indeed they would have a p ertinence to mission practice in those times. But such trial is episodic, rath er than continual. So the earlier mission charges should be understood as still of relevance. O utside the Lukan frame, less certainty is possible, but any tradition here clearly assumes a passion setting and is best taken in som ething like the Lukan m anner. T he directive to buy a sword deserves a m easure of separate consideration. Lined up as it is with purse, bag, and sandals, we can elim inate at once any idea that zealot sympathies are com ing to expression with the com m endation of the sword. T he sword is thought of as part of the equipm ent required for the self-s ufficiency of any traveller in the Rom an world. N othing m ore than protection of o n e ’s person is in view. Similarly there can be no thought that the swords m ight be used to make a defense of Jesus (as Gillmann, LS 9 [1982] 142-53) or m ight be for use in an anticipated eschatological arm ed struggle (as Bartsch, NTS 20 [1 9 7 3 -7 4 ] 190-203). 37 T he extent of Lukan language becomes rath er m ore notable here ( τούτο 7 0 ‫ ־‬γβγραμμβνον, “this that stands w ritten,” and δβΐ τβλβσθήναί βν βμοί, “m ust be fulfilled in m e,” are almost certainly Lukan; 7 7 0‫־‬τβρί βμον, “what concerns m e,” may be Lukan, b u t Luke uses the phrase elsewhere in the plural [ ‫ ־‬rath er than 7 0 ‫)] ־‬. T he language of necessity of 9:22; etc. is now com bined with the fulfillm ent of Scripture language of 18:31 (cf. th e re ). The introduction of the quotation with 7 0 ‫( ־‬lit. “th e ”) may be a Lukan touch: in Luke it only occurs here to introduce a quotation, b u t Luke is fond of introducing indirect speech (and esp. questions) in this way. T he citation from Isa 53:12 is strikingly brief. It differs from the Septuagint in having μβτά , “w ith” (corresponding m ore closely with the MT ‫ א ת ״‬, ‫כ‬£ bu t Q um ran MSS read ‫ ל‬, l, so μβτά may simply reflect yet an o th er reading cu rren t in the early church), in place of βν τοΐς (lit. “in th e ”). Despite the elaborate attem pts that

Explanation

1077

have been m ade to show that the disciples (with their swords) fulfill the p art of the “lawless peo p le,” or that this role falls to the two thieves, it seems best to take the quotation as concerned only to evoke m ore generally the prospect o f the violent fate anticipated for the figure in Isa 52-53. The level of Lukan language and the fact that in the Gospel tradition this is the only place where Jesus quotes, rath er than alludes to, Isa 53 makes it hard to resist the suggestion that Luke is responsible for the m aterial here: he has probably drawn on the early ch u rch ’s growing use of Isa 53, in order to cast light (cf. Lam pe, “Two Swords,” 340-41) on the rath er cryptic “what concerns me is com ing to an e n d ” to follow (for the translation of τέλος έχει as “is com ing to an e n d ,” cf. Mark 3:26). The use of τέλος , “e n d ,” here should, at least in the Lukan fram e, be related to that of τελείούμαι , “I am finished,” in 13:32. But in the im m ediate context it is the pros pect of Jesus’ death that comes to the fore. (It fits the context less well to take τέλος narrowly as “goal”; to link τέλος with the cognate τελεσθήναί, “fulfilled,” and to translate “fulfillm ent,” while initially attractive, makes the text repetitive and does less than justice to the γάρ , “for.”) “The reason why the disciples m ust be ready for the worst is that their Master also faces the worst” (Marshall, 825). 38 01 δε είπαν, “they said,” κύριε, “L ord,” and Ιδού, “look,” Ικανόν (lit. “suffi cien t”) could all be Lukan, and the question m ust be raised w hether Luke has provided this verse as a bridge to vv 49-51. Against this possibility, however, m ust be set the unlikelihood of Luke, against his clear tendency, actually creating ma terial here that is critical of the disciples, and also the fact that L uke’s intrusion into v 37 (see above) obscures rath er than enhances the thought flow on into v 38. T he wording of v 36 has assum ed that some will already have swords. H ere that assum ption is seen to have been true. The concern has, however, never re ally been with the acquiring of swords (or purses or knapsacks), but with the need for the disciples to cope with hitherto unexperienced and therefore yet unex pected difficulty. The Apostles seem to settle for the detail (having swords) without any real readiness to grapple with what the call to have swords m eans for them . Jesus’ reply Ικανόν έστίν (lit. “it is e n o u g h ”) probably m eans that, because of the obtuseness of the disciples, he has had enough of this conversation. (It would be ju st possible to take the answer as transitional to the departure in v 39 and relate it to the whole body of “table-talk” that Luke has brought together in the Last Supper setting: “we have talked enough; it is now time to go.”) A nother sugges tion relates to seeing the disciples as fulfilling the role of the “lawless peo p le” (“two swords with us will make us look like brigands”). Several other less likely suggestions have also been offered.) Explanation T he leave-taking conversation at the Passover m eal comes to an end with a warning that the crisis that is about to engulf Jesus will bring hard times for the Apostolic band as well. In the time of Satanic sifting about to begin, the confi d en t assurance about G od’s provision for his messengers m irrored in Luke 10:4 will no longer be applicable in the same way. T he messengers of the kingdom had experienced G od’s amazing provision when they had been sent out w ithout resources. But now they m ust confront a new situation. Now they are told they m ust take purse and bag, and if they do no t

1078

Luke 22:39-46

have swords already, they should sell their cloaks to buy them . They had known before that they were being sent o ut as vulnerable sheep in the m idst of ferocious wolves (Luke 10:3). But defenseless and resourceless though they were, in the providence of God they found themselves to be in perfect safety and fully pro vided for. Now, however, they could no longer take for granted such a privileged passage. To take up ideas from the discussion of vv 31-34, in the com ing sifting by Satan it will be rath er like it had been for Job, when he found him self cruelly buffeted by life as Satan probed for any weak spot. W here the behavior called for earlier had symbolized G od’s provision of all else when they focused on the king dom of God (12:31), now they were to behave as people who should expect to make their way in life with considerable difficulty. In the first instance, the Lukan Jesus is speaking of the situation for the Apostles during the passion period, so it is unlikely that he expected any literal im plem en tation o f the new directive that he offered. But C hristian mission takes place between the poles of providential provision and protection and Satanic sifting. And so both the challenge of Luke 10:4 and the w arning of 22:36 are p ertin en t to the mission practice of the Christian church. For the same juxtaposition of apparently contradictory views, com pare 21:16-19 and the discussion there. T he difficulties to confront the Apostles are in some way an extension of the difficulties that are about to confront Jesus himself. He is to fulfill in his own person the scriptural image of the rejected servant of God. In particular he is to be labeled a crim inal and suffer a crim inal’s violent fate. T he role of Jesus is di vinely determ ined, and he will soon have seen it all through to the end— an end that includes his own violent death. T he disciples m ust be ready for the worst because their Master also faces the worst. As Jesus prepares the Apostles for the way in which they will be affected as he is engulfed by his com ing fate, he has little concern with purses, knapsacks, or swords as such. T he Apostles, however, with an obtuseness that we have seen be fore, seem to settle for the detail (having swords) w ithout any real readiness to grapple with what the call to have swords m eans to them . So Jesus cuts the con versation off at this point and brings to an end the interchange that has m arked the time spent together in this last Passover meal.

Praying to Be Spared Trial

(22:39-46)

Bibliography Ambruster, C. J. “T he Messianic Significance of the Agony in the G ard en .” Scr 16 (1964) 111-19. Aschermann, H. “Zum A goniegebet Jesu, Lc. XXII, 43sq.” ThViat 5 (1953-54) 143-49. Baarda, T. “Luke 22:42-47a: T he E m peror Julian as a Witness to the Text o f L uke.” N o vT 30 (1988) 289-96. Barbour, R. S. “G ethsem ane in the Tradition o f the Passion.” NTS 16 (1969-70) 231-51. Bate, Η. N. “Luke xxii 40.” JTS 36 (1935) 76-77. Beck, B. “G ethsem ane in the Four Gospels.” EpR 15 (1988) 57-65. Benoit, P. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. New York: H erd er and H erder, 1969. 1-23. Bishop, E. F. F. “A S tone’s Throw .” ExpTim 53 (1941-42) 270-71. Black, M. “T he Cup M etaphor in Mark xiv. 36.” ExpTim 59 (1947-48)

Bibliography

1079

195. Blaising, C. A. “Gethsemane: A Prayer of Faith.” JETS 22 (1979) 333-43. Bobichon, M. “L’agonie, tentation du Seigneur.” BTS99 (1968) 2-5. Boman, T. “Der G ebetskam pf Jesu.” NTS 10 (1963-64) 261-73. Braumann, G. “Leidenskelch u n d T odestaufe.” ZNW 56 (1965) 178-83. Brongers, H. A. “D er Z ornesbecher.” OTS 15 (1969) 177-92. Brown, R. E. “Jo h n and the Synoptic Gospels: A C om parison.” In New Testament Essays. L ondon: Chapm an, 1967(= 1965). 192-213, esp. 1 9 2 -9 8 .--------- . “T he Lukan A uthorship of Luke 22:43-44.” In SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 154-64. Brun, L. “Engel u n d Blutschweiss Lc 22:43-44.” ZNW 32 (1933) 265-76. Cranfield, C. E. B. “T he Cup M etaphor in Mark 14:36 and Parallels.” ExpTim 59 (1947-48) 137-38. Cullmann, O. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? The Witness of the New Testament. London: Epworth, 1958. 21-27. Daube, D. “Two Incidents after the Last Supper.” In The New Testament and RabbinicJuda ism. 330-35, esp. 3 3 2 -3 5 . . “A Prayer P attern in Judaism .” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 539-45. Dibelius, M. “G ethsem ane.” CrQ 12 (1935) 254-65; rep rin ted in Botschaft und Geschichte, ed. G. Bornkam m . T ubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1953. 1:258-71. Dormeyer, D. Pas sion Jesu. 124—37. Duplacy, J. “La prehistoire du texte en Luc 22:43-44.” In New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. FS B. M. Metzger, ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981. 77-86. Ehrman, B., and Plunkett, M. “T he Angel o f the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43-44.” CBQ45 (1983) 401-16. Eltester, W. “‘Freund, wozu du gekom m en bist’ (Mt. xxvi 50).” In Neotestamentica et patristica. FS O. Cullm ann, ed. W. C. van U nnik. NovTSup 6. Leiden: Brill, 1962. 70-91. Feldkamper, L. Der betendeJesus als Heilsmittler nach Lukas. V eroffentlichungen des M issionspriestersem inars 29. St. Augustin b ei B onn: Steyler, 1978. 224-50. Feldmeier, R. Die Krisis des Gottessohnes: Die Gethsemaneerzahlung als Schlussel des Markuspassion. WUNT 2 /2 1 . T ubingen: Mohr, 1987.

Feuillet, A. L'Agonie de Gethsemani: Enquete exegetique et theologique suivie dune etude du Mystere

deJesus’de Pascal. Paris: Gabalda, 1977. 1 3 -1 4 1 .--------- . “Le recit lucanien de l’agonie de Gethsem ani (L c xxii. 39-46).” NTS22 (1975-76) 397-417. Fitzmyer,J. A. “P apyrus Bodm er XIV: Some Features of O ur O ldest Text of L uke.” CBQ 24 (1962) 170-79, esp. 177-79. Green, J. B. "Jesus on the M ount of Olives (Luke 22,39-46): T radition and Theology.” JSNT26 (1986) 29-48. Hering, J. “Zwei exegetische Problem e in der Perikope von Jesus in G eth sem an e (M arkus XIV 32-42; M atthaus XXVI 36-46; Lukas XXII 4 0 -4 6 ).” In Neotestamentica et patristica. FS O. Cullm ann, ed. W. C. van Unnik. NovTSup 6. Leiden: Brill, 1962. 64-69. --------- . “Simples rem arques sur la p riere a G ethsem ane: M atthieu 26.36-46; Marc 14.32-42; Luc 22.40-46.” RHPR39 (1959) 97-102. Holleran, J. W. TheSynop tic Gethsemane: A Critical Study. AnGreg 191. Rome: G regorian University, 1973. Indemans, J. Η. H. A. “Das Lukas-Evangelium XXII,45.” SO 32 (1956) 81-83. Johnson, S. L., Jr. “The Agony of Christ.” BSac 124 (1967) 303-13. Kelber, W. H. “T he H o u r of the Son of Man and the T em ptation of the Disciples (Mark 14:32-42).” In The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16, ed. W. H. Kelber. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. 4 1 -6 0 .--------- . “Mark 14,3242: Gethsem ane: Passion Christology and Discipleship Failure.” ZNW 63 (1972) 166-87. Kenny, A. “T he Transfiguration and the Agony in the G arden.” CBQ 19 (1957) 444-52. Kiley, M. "‘Lord, Save My Life’ (Ps 116:4) as G enerative Text for Jesus’ G ethsem ane Prayer (Mark 14:36a).” CBQ48 (1986) 655-59. Kuhn, K. G. "Jesus in G ethsem ane.” EvT 12 (195253) 260-85. Larkin, W. J. “T he O ld Testam ent Background o f Luke xxii. 43-44.” NTS 25 (1978-79) 250-54. Leon-Dufour, X. "Jesus face a la m o rt m enacan te.” NRT 100 (1978) 802-21. --------- . “Jesus a G ethsem ani: Essai de lecture sy n ch ro n iq u e.” ScEs 31 (1979) 251-68. Lescow, T. “Jesus in G eth sem an e.” EvT 26 (1966) 141-59. -------- . “Jesus in G ethsem ane bei Lukas u n d im H ebraerbrief. ” ZNW 58 (1967) 215-39. Linnemann, E. Studien. 11-40, 178-79. Lods, M. “Climat de bataille a G ethsem ane.” ETR 60 (1985) 42529. Lohse, E. Suffering and Death. 55-68. Mitton, C. L. “T he Will of God: 1. In the Synoptic T radition of the Words of Jesus.” ExpTim 72 (1960-61) 68-71. Moffatt, J. “Exegetica: Luke xxii. 44.” Exp 8 /7 (1914) 90-92. Mohn, W. “G ethsem ane (Mk 14,32-42).” ZNW 64 (1973) 194-208. Neyrey, J. H. “T he Absence of Jesus’ Emotions: T he Lucan Redaction o f Lk 22,39-46.” Bib 61 (1980) 153-71. Ott, W. Gebet und Heil. 82-90. Paton, W. R. “Agonia

1080

Luke 22:39-46

(Agony).” CRev 27 (1913) 194. Pelce, F. "Jesus a G ethsem ani: Rem arques com paratives sur les trois recits evangeliques.” F V 65 (1966) 89-99. Radl, W. Paulus und Jesus. 159-68. Robinson, B. P. “Gethsem ane: T he Synoptic and the Jo h a n n in e Viewpoints.” CQR 167 (1966) 4-11. Schenk, W. Passionsbericht. 193-206. Schenke, L. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte des Markus. 461-560. Schneider, G. “Engel u n d Blutschweiss (Lk 22, 43-44): ‘Redaktionsgeschichte’ im Dienste der Textkritik.” BZ 20 (1976) 112-16. Schurmann, H. “Lk 22,42a das alteste Zeugnis fur Lk 22,20?” MTZ 3 (1952) 185-88; rep rin ted in Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. 193-97. Schwarz, G. Jesus undJudas. 59-65. Skard, E. “Kleine Beitrage zum Corpus hellenisticum NT.” SO 30 (1953) 100-103. Smith, H. “Acts xx. 8 and Luke xxii. 43.” ExpTim 16 (1904-5) 478. Soding, T. “G ebet u n d G ebetsm ahnung Jesu in Getsemani: Eine redaktionskritische Auslegung von Mk 14,32-42.” BZ 31 (1987) 76-100. Soards, M. L. O n U nderstanding Luke 22.39.” B T 36 (1985) 336-37. Stanley, D. M. Jesus in Gethsemane: The Early Church Reflects on the Sufferings ofJesus. Ramsey, NJ: Paulist, 1980. Strobel, A. “Die Psalm engrundlage der Gethsemane: Parallel Hbr, V,7ff.” ZNW45 (1954) 252-66. Szarek, G. “A Critique of K elber’s ‘T he H our of the Son of Man and the Tem ptation o f the Disciples.’” In SBL 1976 Abstracts and Seminar Papers, ed. G. MacRae. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976. 111-18. Torris, J. “L’agonie Jesus (Marc 14,32-42): Intention, sources, historicite.” PenHom 17 (1973) 75-77. Tostengard, S. “Luke 22:39-46.” Int (1980) 283-88. Tremel, Y.-B. “L’Agonie de Jesus.” LumVie 13 (1964) 79-103. Unnik, W. C. van. “Alles ist dir m oglich (Mk 14,36).” In Verborum Veritas, ed. O. B ocher an d K. H aacker. 27-36. Vanhoye, A. “L’agnoisse du C hrist.” Christus 18 (1971) 382-89. A nd see at 22:1-2. Translation

39Then Jesus went out and made his way, as was [his] custom, to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples tooafollowed him. 40Coming to the place, he said to them, “Pray not to enter into [what will be a] trial [to you]." 41Then he withdrewfrom them about a stone's throw and knelt down and began to pray,b 42saying, “Father, if you will, takec this cup away from me. Yet not my will, but yours be done!”d 45When he arose from prayer he came to the disciples and found them sleeping from grief. 46He said to them, “Why are you sleeping?Rise and pray that you may not enter into [what will be a] trial [to you].” Notes a O m itted by B 69 983 1342 etc. b R eading the im pf.: the aorist is read by P75 ‫ א‬T 579 892 etc. c An infinitive form (77αρενέγκαι o r παρενεγκεΐν) is re ad h e re by (‫ ) א‬L f 13 579 etc.; A W T 1006 etc. T he clause would then need to be taken elliptically, and the transition to the following clause becom es difficult. d Vv 43-44 (ώφθη δε αύτω ά γγελο ς ά π ' ούρανον έι‫׳‬ισχύων α ύ τ ό ν και γενόμενος εν άγων ία έκτενέστερον προσηύχετο ‫ ־‬καί έγέν ετο δ ίόρώς αυτού ώσεί θρόμβοι α ίμ ατος καταβαίνοντες επί την γην, “T here appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in conflict he prayed yet m ore earnestly; and his perspiration was like drops of blood, falling down upon the gro u n d .‫)״‬ are missing from p 69vid1‫ ׳‬75 ‫ א‬A B T W etc. and are obelisked in o th er texts. However, the tradition here was certainly known by the time o f Justin Martyr (see D ial 103.8). T he argum ents for and against inclusion are finely balanced. Both addition and removal are explicable in term s of argum ents over Christology. M uch of the language is quite in line with Lukan use, b u t at the same time the m aterial has an em otional tone that is otherwise quite absent from the Lukan account of the G ethsem ane scene (contrast M ark). The chiasmic structure of the Lukan account (without vv 43-44; see below) counts against the verses, but n o t absolutely, since Luke appears to have inherited the chiasm and has (slightly) dis turbed it in o th er ways. After an earlier move in critical opinion toward accepting the verses, the m ore

Form/Structure/Setting

1081

re ce n t tren d has been to question their presence in the original text of Luke. I have excluded them prim arily on the basis o f the em otional tone o f the verses and secondarily on the basis o f the chiasm.

Form/Structure/Setting The com ing time of crisis anticipated in vv 35-38 provides the context for Jesus’ urging o f the disciples to pray that they m ight be spared great trial and for Jesus’ own prayer. But G od’s own will rem ains the supremely im portant consideration. With the conclusion of the discourse m aterial that he has gathered into his account of the Last Supper, Luke now returns to the M arkan sequence (having reported Jesus’ anticipation of Peter’s denial already in vv 33-34, Luke passes over the material of Mark 14:27-31). Though there is a good level of basic agreement, the Lukan version of this episode is strikingly different from the Markan. Despite detailed discussion, no consensus has em erged as to w hether Luke has severely edited his Markan source or is dependent upon another source here (perhaps with some secondary dependence on Mark and certainly with some editing of his ow n). E hrm an and Plunkett (CBQ 45 [1983] 413; and noted also by M. Galizzi [Gesu nel Getsemani (Zurich: Pas, 1972) 137-38] and Stanley [Jesus] 206, 213) have drawn attention to the very clearly chiasmic structure of L uke’s account (v 39 is intro ductory; v 40 corresponds to vv 45c-46 [from “and fo u n d ”]; v 41a [to “stones throw ”] corresponds to v 45b [“com ing to the disciples”] ; v 41b [“and knelt down and prayed”] corresponds to v 45a; v 42 is the centerpiece [I have moved “and prayed” back one place from its position in E h rm an ’s and P lunkett’s version of the chiasm ]). Is it possible to determ ine w hether this chiasm is pre-Lukan or a Lukan creation on the basis of Markan material? There is one place in the structure where the chiasm would be better for staying closer to the Markan material: Mark’s “he fell on the ground and prayed” offers a better counterpart to “[he] rose from prayer” in v 45a than does Luke’s θβις τά γόνατα προσηύχετο (lit. “having placed the knees he prayed”) . Since ecs' τά γόνατα is clearly Lukan (cf. Acts 7:60; 9:40; 20:36; 21:5), we have here a modest argum ent in favor of a pre-Lukan chiasm. The same kind of argum ent may be relevant in connection with Luke’s use of άπεσπάσθη, “withdrew,” in v 41 [cf. Acts 20:30; 21:1], where Mark’s τροελθών, “went ahead,” corresponds better to έλθών 77ρός, “came to,” in v 45. There are also a few places where the chiasm would be sharper without either (i) Markan language that Luke may have secondarily added into another tradition (so: τί καθεύδετε, “why are you sleeping” [Mark actually has to Simon: “are you asleep?”]; possibly the whole content reported for Jesus’ prayer, since it neither aligns Jesus’ prayer closely with that which he asks of the disciples nor categorically distinguishes his prayer [but note John 18:11 for evidence of a wider currency for a cup saying]; and another possible m inor instance in the use of a ϊνα clause in v 46) or (it) lan guage that has a high likelihood of being Lukan addition or alteration (so: από τής λύπης, “from grief” [here Luke is likely to be influenced by the circle of traditions that he shares with Jo h n (cf. John 16:6, 20-22), as for “as was his custom” in v 39 (cf. John 18:2) ]; and possibly some of the m ovement between finite verbs and participles). T hough n o t in large num bers, there are also language features that, while not simply reproduced from Mark, do not represent natural Lukan choice of language (notably the absence of προς after verbs of saying). (The small num ber of agree m ents between Luke and Matthew against Mark, to which Feuillet [Agonie, 66-67] makes appeal, does n o t seem to be sufficient to w arrant a source hypothesis.)

1082

Luke 22:3946‫־‬

Cumulatively these observations make it seem m ore likely that Luke has a chiastically form ed second source here, which he reproduces with m inor alter ations (except for the possibility that the wording of Jesus’ prayer is based on the Markan source). This second source had a developed focus on the need to pray when facing the prospect of severe trial. Luke has preferred this source because o f its compactness, coherence, and conform ity to his interests. T he M arkan parallel here, which has influenced Luke’s account in m ore mi nor ways (apart from the prayer, if that has been added), has been subject to many attem pts at deconstruction. As it stands, it is no t a well-unified account (despite the contrary view of Lohmeyer, Markus, 313-21; and m ore recently Feldmeier, Krisis, 70-112) and so invites attention to its tradition history. T he scholarly discussion has not, however, produced a consensus. The range of opinion is indicated from the following (far from com plete) list of views. Kuhn (EvT 12 [1952-53] 260-85) has attracted a measure of support for his view that Mark has conflated two Gethsemane stories into one. Linnem ann [Studien, 11-40, 178-79] defends a three-stage devel opm ent from a single original source (including vv 32, 35, 37a, 39a, 40ab, 41a, 40c, 41b), with each stage adding a fu rth er focus to the developing account. Kelber (ZNW 63 [1972] 166-87) has m ade Mark responsible for everything, except per haps a tradition of a Gethsem ane lam ent and prayer. More recently Soding (BZ 31 [1987] 76-100) has jo in ed the ranks o f those who opt for a two-stage develop m en t with a substantial pre-Markan source, to which Mark has m ade considerable additions (Soding’s version has vv 32a, 34, 35a, 36-37, 39, 40ab, 41a, 42 as preMarkan; this is n o t too different from Schenke’s earlier version [ Studien, 472-540] o f the pre-M arkan source, which differs in including only part of vv 32a and 41a, in including vv 33b and 38b, and in excluding vv 39 and 40a but is rath er m ore generous than the view of M ohn [ZNW 64 (1973) 194-208], who allows only vv 32, 35, 37a, 41b to be pre-M arkan). T he Lukan source identified above has some m odest bearing on the question of M arkan sources as well, bu t the m ajor p art of the M arkan source question rem ains beyond the scope of the present work. T he fundam ental historicity of the tradition here is supported by the addi tional, clearly in d ependent, traditions in H eb 5:7 and Jo h n 12:27; 18:11. The attem pts to generate the fundam ental im pulse for the account out of reflection on OT lam ent psalms is n o t at all convincing (see the argum ents of Bom an [NTS 10 (1963-64) 261-73] against Dibelius [CrQ 12 (1935) 254-65]). In particular, what apparently expresses the desire to avoid what Jesus had previously understood to be the distinctive will of God for him self gains high marks in favor of historicity, from application of the criterion of dissimilarity. In fact, it is my im pression that scholarship has n o t to any satisfactory degree com e to term s with the difficulty of fitting the cup saying into the Gospel portrayal of Jesus. T he diffi culty, I would suggest, is such that there may be those who would want to move in exactly the opposite direction and deny historicity on the basis of lack of coher ence with what is otherwise known of the historical Jesus. Comment While the disciples are challenged to pray that they m ight be spared the b ru n t o f the troubles to come bu t cannot rise to the occasion, Jesus wrestles in prayer with a conflict that appears to have opened up between his own will and what he

Comment

1083

had understood to be his F ather’s will. He first asks for the removal of the threat ening disaster; b u t then he reaffirm s his com m itm ent to G od’s will as suprem e over his own. 39 It is likely that Luke fuses together here part of Mark 14:26 (M ark’s “they went o ut to the M ount of Olives” becom es “going out [singular] . . . to the M ount of Olives”; Luke drops the M arkan m ention of the singing of the last p art of the Hallel) with the introductory piece of his distinctive source (“and his disciples too followed h im ” would seem to be from this source). The language κατά το έθος, “as was his custom ,” is likely to be Lukan (cf. at 1:9) and is to be read in connection with 21:37, bu t at the same time Luke is reflecting at this point a traditional elem ent (cf. Jo h n 18:2). Reflecting a source usage and not his own norm al diction, Luke will m ean by “disciples” here the Eleven (as with each of the synoptic Gospels, Luke does n o t rep o rt the departure of Judas; that Judas has left the disciple band only becom es evident with his arrival in com pany with the group who were to arrest Jesus). It is hard to be sure w hether we should make anything of the fact that the disciples “followed” Jesus here (cf. at 5:11). Solidar ity with Jesus is clearly im portant in the M arkan account, b u t n o t so here, despite the m easure of parallelism between the prayer of Jesus him self and the prayer to which he calls the disciples. 40 γενόμενος επί, “com ing to,” may be Lukan (cf. 24:22; Acts 21:35). The use of τον τόπον , “the place,” is n o t fully prepared for by the present form of v 39, which may suggest that Luke has dropped from his source som ething that may have provided a m ore adequate antecedent. In line with the understanding of the final clause of the L ord’s Prayer proposed at 11:4 (see there), I take the directive here as for prayer that in the com ing crisis the disciples may be spared troubles that take them beyond their capacity to cope. O thers take είσελθεΐν εις πειρασμόν as “to succumb to [the power of] tem ptation.” Many leave the issue of the precise sense w ithout com m ent. 41 The unstressed καί αντός (lit. “and h e ”) may be Lukan, as are αποσπάν, “withdraw,” and θεί ς τά γόνατα, “knelt dow n” (see Form/Structure/Setting). Jesus is to pray and the disciples are to pray, bu t there is a clear distinction to be made. In Acts, kneeling is identified as the prayer posture only on occasions where the context suggests that there m ight be a particular intensity to the prayer. 42 The address is 7τάτερ, “Father,” as in Luke 11:2 (see th ere ). If Mark is Luke’s source here, he has d ropped “Abba” and used the true vocative for “F ather” rather than the nom inative with article as in Mark, εί βούλει, “if you will,” may repre sent a Lukan abbreviation and alteration of Mark 14:35b (the rare Attic form for the second person singular would reflect L uke’s literary aspirations; the Markan form has a certain tension between “if it is possible” in v 35b and “all things are possible for you” in v 36). Again, if Mark is the source for the statem ent about the will o f God, Luke has preferred to link with πλήν, “b u t/o n ly /y et/n ev e rth eless” (as often), and has form ulated the clause in a m ore abstract m anner (cf. Acts 21:14; since the wording is so close to that of a clause of the M atthean form of the L o rd ’s Prayer [Matt 6:10], we m ust also reckon with the possibility that Luke is reflecting the language of his second source here). It is very difficult to bring together the confidence of Jesus about the nature of the will of God, which is sustained through the Gospel narrative, and the present request for the removal of the cup, if God should will. This difficulty is no t m uch

1084

Luke 22:39-46

eased by taking el βούλεί idiomatically as m eaning som ething like “please” (as, e.g., Fitzmyer, 1436). T he words are clearly spoken in relation to a sense of im mi n e n t crisis. “This cu p ” is to be seen in connection with OT language where the drinking o f the cup is an image for being overtaken by disaster, a disaster that is u n derstood as flowing from the wrath of God bu t as at times enveloping the in no cen t along with the guilty (see Ps 75:9; Isa 51:17, 22; Je r 25:15; 49:12; Lam 4:21; the im agery in Ps 11:6, while still used in connection with the experience of G od’s ju d g m en t, is rath er m ore like a “cup of destiny,” which could have positive or negative contents). The “cu p ” here is n o t unlike the “baptism ” of Luke 12:50. Jesus prays th at he m ight n o t after all be engulfed by the im pending disaster. The text certainly makes it quite clear that Jesus, in setting his face to go to Jerusalem (9:51), was n o t in any sense m otivated by a death wish; it also underlines the enorm ity o f what he was facing. W hatever we make of the request for the removal of the cup, what stands fi nally as fundam ental for Jesus is the will of God his Father; to this he commits himself. Over against his own will, which has com e to expression in the initial request, he sets this m ore basic com m itm ent. [43-44 T he role of an angel, the use of a striking simile, and a “physical manifestation at [an] extram undane event” (Green, JSNT 26 [1986] 36) are all congenial to Luke; ώφθη δε αύτω άγγελος , “there appeared to him an angel,” appears identically in 1:11 (and cf. Acts 7:30), and the language o f vv 43-44 is, while not strikingly Lukan, generally such that Luke could have penned. N onetheless, as indicated in Notes above, I think these verses are a later insertion into the text. Presumably the angel is strengthening Jesus for the battle in prayer, which is involved in the need to align his own will with that of his Father. The F ath er’s will is clearly n o t for the cup to be taken away. Jesus’ prayer reaches such an intensity as he works this m atter through that he drips with perspiration from the exertion and em otional strain.] 45 Jesus retu rn s from prayer to find that the disciples are n o t at prayer but sleeping. Luke explains and, in part, excuses their sleep, by adding that it was “from g rie f’ (cf. the end of 9:33): the sense of im pending tragedy has brought them to em otional exhaustion. 46 T he change of verb for “sleep” from v 45 to v 46 may be an indication that Luke is drawing “why are you sleeping?” from his M arkan source. Jesus renews his call o f v 40 that his disciples should pray that they m ight n o t be called to en ter into a sphere of such difficulty that it would prove a threatening trial to them . Explanation T he scene moves from the U pper Room to the M ount of Olives. Against the background of the im pending time of crisis that has com e into focus in vv 35-38, Jesus’ disciples are challenged to pray to be spared the buffeting of the troubles to come. Jesus for his part wrestles in prayer with the question of his own destiny: his desire is that God should withdraw what he (Jesus) has, up to this point, been declaring as necessary in the plan and purpose of God for himself; but what is G od’s desire? To this Jesus commits him self afresh as param ount. In line with the p attern identified in 21:37, Jesus and his disciple band now head for the M ount of Olives, to the place where they had in recent days been

Bibliography

1085

staying overnight. T hough it is not said, Judas m ust be understood to have slipped off as they m ade this short journey. O n arrival, Jesus challenges the disciples to pray about what will befall them in the com ing crisis. In particular, he tells them to pray to be spared trial (m uch in the m anner of the petition in the L ord’s Prayer in 11:4 b u t now in connection with a specific time of anticipated crisis). Jesus withdraws out of earshot, bu t n o t out of sight, and engages in his own prayer struggle. He kneels to pray: in Acts kneeling is identified as the prayer posture only on occasions where the context suggests that a particular intensity of prayer m ight be appropriate. His prayer begins from his own sense of intim ate link to God as Father. A gap seems to have opened up between his own will and what he has thus far understood to be his F ather’s will. Jesus’ prayer is concerned to bridge that gap. First he prays that the loom ing disaster not fall upon him (the im agery of drinking from a cup is used in the OT for being overtaken by the doom of G od’s ju d g m e n t). W hatever we m ight try to make of this puzzling devel opm ent, it makes quite clear that no death wish had set Jesus on the path to his fate in Jerusalem , and it underlines the enorm ity of what Jesus had to face. But Jesus’ prayer does n o t stop here. W hat stands finally as fundam ental for Jesus is the will of God his Father; to this he commits him self afresh. Over against his own will, which has come to expression in the initial request, he sets this m ore basic com m itm ent. T hough the text does n o t develop the point, it is the will of Jesus that needs to fall into line. Vv 43 and 44, which are found at this point in some Greek texts, are not likely to be an original part of the Gospel of Luke (for their sense, see Comment above). W hen Jesus rises from prayer and comes back to the disciples, he finds them not at prayer but sleeping: the sense of im pending doom has caused them such grief that they have become emotionally exhausted. Nevertheless, Jesus renews his urgent insistence th at the disciples should pray: how m uch m ore im portant it is to pray that they be spared when their hum an resources are so obviously limited.

The Arrest of Jesus

(22:47-54a)

Bibliography Benoit, P. The Passion and Resurrection ofJesus. New York: H erd er and H erder, 1969. 2 5 -4 8 . Black, M. “T he A rrest and Trial of Jesus and the Date of the Last Supper.” In New Testa

ment Essays. FS T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins. M anchester: M anchester University, 1959. 1 9 -3 3 . Busse, U . Wunder. 3 3 5 -3 6 . Dauer, A. Die Passionsgeschichte imJohannesevangelium: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh 18,1-19,30. SANT 30. M unich: Kosel, 1972. 4 9 -6 1 . Dibelius, M. "Judas u n d d er Judaskuss.” In Botschaft und Geschichte, ed. G. B ornkam m . 1 :2 7 2 -7 7 . Doeve, J. W. “Die G efan g e n n ah m e Jesu in Gethsemane: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche U ntersuchung.” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 4 5 8 -8 0 . Dormeyer, D. Die PassionJesu. 13 8 -4 6 . Hall, S. G . “Swords of O ffence.” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 4 9 9 -5 0 2 . Jouon, P. “Luc 2 2 ,5 0 -5 1 : τό ους, τονώ τίον.‫ ״‬RSR 24 (1934) 4 7 3 -7 4 . Linnemann, E. Studien. 4 1 -6 9 . Peri, I. “Der W eggefahrte.” ZNW 78 (1 9 8 7 ) 1 2 7 -3 1 . Radl, W. Paulus und

1086

Luke 22:47-54a

Jesus. 169-221. Rehkopf, F. Die lukanische Sonderquelle: Ihr Umfang und Sprachgebrauch. WUNT 5. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1959. 31-82. Rice, G. E. “T he Role o f the Populace in the Passion Narrative of Luke in Codex Bezae.” AUSS 19 (1981) 147-53. Rostovtzeff, M. “0£$‫י‬ δζξών άποτέμνβίν” ZAW 33 (1934) 196-99. Sabbe, M. “T he A rrest of Jesus in Jn 18,1-11 and Its Relation to the Synoptic Gospels: A Critical Evaluation of A. D auer’s Hypothesis.” In L’Evangile deJean: Sources, redaction, theologie. BETL 44. Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1977. 203-34. Schenk, W. Passionsbericht. 206-15. Schneider, G. Passion Jesu. 43-55. ------------ . “Die Verhaftung Jesu: Traditionsgeschichte von Mk 14,43-52.” ZNW 63 (1972) 188-209. Schwarz, G. Jesus undJudas. 189-96. Vogler, W. Judas Iskarioth. 47-51, 81-85. A nd see at 22:1-2, 3-6.

Translation

47While he was still speaking, a crowd [appeared]a and the one calledJudas, one of the Twelve, was coming on ahead of them. He drew near to Jesus in order to kiss him. 48But Jesus said to him, "Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss ?”49Those about him, seeing what was going to happen, said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword ?” 50A certain one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51Jesus responded, “Allow even this!”And touching the ear, he healed it. 52Jesus said to the chief priests, temple officers, and elders who had come uponb him, “Why did you come out with swords and clubs, as against a robber? 53Day after day, as I was with you in the temple, you did not stretch out your hands against me. But this is your hour, and [the timefor] the power of darkness.” 54Arresting him, they took [him off] and brought [him] into the house of the high priest. Notes a Lit. “behold, a crow d.” 700 892 etc. read 77‫׳‬ρός‫״‬, “to .”

b‫ א‬G Η Δ

Form/Structure/Setting T he crisis for which Jesus has been preparing the disciples (and himself) now breaks even as Jesus continues to urge the necessity to pray to be spared a great ordeal: the betrayer comes with those who will arrest Jesus (the unit is mostly taken as finishing with v 53, but only v 54a provides closure to the scene). Luke again follows the M arkan sequence here, and despite the detailed argu m entation of Rehkopf (Die lukanische Sonderquelle, 31-82), there is little to stand against the view that Luke is primarily editing his M arkan source. T here are, how ever, a nu m b er of indications that Luke may have had access to o th er traditions as well. L uke’s account has a series of links with Jo h n (some with 18:1-12, and some o f a b roader kind): in a Jo h an n in e m an n er Jesus is notably in control of the situation; opposed to Jesus stand, at this significant “hour,” the powers of “dark ness” (cf. D auer [Die Passionsgeschichte, 60]); as in Jo h n the ear that is rem oved is the tight ear, as in Jo h n the arrest is kept back to the end, and there is no flight of the disciples; and note also the link observed with Jo h n 18:2 at Luke 22:39. A series o f links with Matthew may also have source implications: in both, Jesus is

Comment

1087

m entioned by nam e at the approach of Judas, and he responds verbally to the approach (' Ι ησούς [δε] εΐπεν αύτω, "Jesus said to him ,” is com m on; Jo h n also has Jesus m entioned by nam e at this stage and has Jesus speak, bu t w ithout a distinguished approach by Judas); both Matthew and Luke use πατάσσείν, “to strike,” o f the use of the sword; both rep o rt negative responses by Jesus to the use of the sword (as does Jo h n ). Various studies have pointed to a series of difficulties in the M arkan text that seem to point to its com posite nature (see, e.g., Schneider, ZNW 63 [1972] 19192; Linnem ann, Studien, 41-42). There is, however, no real consensus on the source im plications of these difficulties (Linnem ann, 41-69, identifies vv 43b, 48, 49b as one source, vv 44-46 as the continuation of a source that begins with vv 1-2, 1011a, and vv 47, 50, 51-52 as fragm ents of a narrative about arm ed opposition and the flight of the disciples at the arrest of Jesus; Dormeyer, Passion Jesu, 138-46, identifies vv 34b, 46, 50-52 as constituting M ark’s source; Schneider, ZNW 63 [1972] 188-209, finds the basic source in vv 43bc-46, 53a; Vogler, Judas, 47-51, argues for an original with only vv 43bc, 46). L innem ann is surely right to think in term s of conflation of sources, but Schneider offers on the whole a m ore con vincing delim itation of the m ost extensively preserved of the sources. This will have originally been a continuation from the m aterial of Mark 14:1-2, 10-11 (see at 22:3-6, where there is also a suggestion about the original wording of Mark 14:43, which has been expanded by Mark to make the present account relatively independent; οι παραδίδούς αυτόν [lit. “the one who betrays h im ”] in v 44 is also likely to be a M arkan expansion). T he nocturnal betrayal and arrest of Jesus are undoubtedly historical (cf. 1 Cor 11:23), whatever we may make of the particular variations in the accounts that have been preserved. The account of the betrayal and arrest only makes sense in connection with a larger passion tradition, but that is n o t quite the same thing as saying that it was necessarily form ulated as part of a consecutive passion narrative. Comment Even as he is betrayed and arrested, Jesus is m aster of the situation, labeling the perfidy of Ju d as’ action, checking the impulsive behavior of his disciples, and interpreting and even perm itting the arrest. 47 Luke creates dram a with Ιδού (lit. “b eh o ld ”) rather than with M ark’s ευθύς, “immediately.” L uke’s crowd simply “tu rn u p ,” since Luke gives the verb to Ju d as’ position at their head (cf. Acts 1:16) rath er than to his (and so their) com ing (M ark’s verb will be taken up in v 52). Jerem ias may be right ( Sprache, 295, 20) that the use of καί here is a Hebraism and would n o t appear in a sentence freely p en n ed by Luke. If so, there is a trace here of a second source. Luke adds 0 λεγόμενος (lit. “the one called”) to M ark’s reintroduction of “Judas, one of the Twelve,” thus making it m ore of an echo of his own version of v 3 (where he added τον καλούμενον, “the one called,” to the Markan phrase). Luke drops the m ention of weapons here (Mark has it twice), as he does M ark’s indication of whom the crowd comes from (he will add a version of this at v 52). He also drops out the re p o rt of the prearranged sign (he will represent its substance in Jesus’ reply to

1088

Luke 22:47-54a

Judas’ approach). Luke prefers ήγγισευ, “drew near,” for the approach of Judas to Jesus and, contrary to his m ain tendency with verbs, reduces M ark’s verb for “kiss” from a com pound to a simple form (perhaps for the sake of the noun form to come in v 48). Luke drops M ark’s ραββί, “rabbi” (as he does consistently). T he crisis falls even as Jesus continues to reinforce his exhortation to the dis ciples. The fresh introduction of Judas helps to com pensate for the lack o f any indication that Judas had left the disciple band. In L uke’s text we do no t know at this p o in t anything of the com position of the crowd, b u t from their leader we are in a position to guess their intention. We can contrast Ju d as’ drawing near to Jesus with the very different kinds of drawing near to Jesus of 15:1; 18:40. Luke leaves uncertain w hether Judas was allowed to kiss Jesus or was prevented from it, blocked by Jesus’ response. 48 This verse has no counterpart in Mark. The image of betrayal that it cre ates stands as o n e o f the m ost pow erful ever to have g rip p e d th e h u m an im agination. It is n o t unlikely that for the Son of Man language here Luke draws u p o n Mark 14:41, of which he m ade no use in the preceding episode. 49 D ropping Mark 14:46, Luke defers the actual arrest to v 54. The present verse is also distinctly Lukan and is likely to be his own creation: it picks up on v 38 and draws on v 50 to com e (for 01 περί αύτόυ, “those about h im ,” cf. Acts 21:8; for ίδόυτες, “seeing,” cf. Luke 18:15; κύριε , “L ord,” is com m on in Luke as is the direct question introduced by εί [lit. “i f "] ). The superficial understanding exhibited by the disciples in v 38 now becom es a rath er pathetic m isapplication of his teaching. 50 T he question is asked, but only rhetorically, since no time is allowed for an answer. After “those about h im ” in v 49, M ark’s “those standing a ro u n d ” is not needed. Luke drops the drawing of the sword, probably because the “indecent haste” of the action is clearer w ithout it. T he verb used for “struck” is different from the M arkan choice (but is found at Mark 14:27), and “the e a r” has becom e “the right e a r” (different word for ear). The action exhibits courage and dedica tion to Jesus (cf. Mark 10:39a) but is practically unrealistic and insensitive to Jesus’ own views on the matter. It is perhaps best to understand “the slave of the high priest” here as the personal representative o f the high priest and, in that capacity, the leader of the band sent with Judas to arrest Jesus (cf. Schneider, ZNW 63 [1972] 202). 51 Mark reports no response by Jesus to this developm ent. Matthew, Jo h n , and Luke all have responses (with notable com m on elem ents between Matthew and Jo h n ). Luke has the briefest of responses and supplem ents this by reporting the healing of the ear (which he alone has). άποκριθείς εΐπεν (lit. “having an swered he said”) is Lukan (cf. at 1:19, and for the sense here, cf. 7:40; but it is also available at Mark 14:48) as is έάτε (cf. Jerem ias, Sprache, 295). For “e a r” here, Luke switches to the word used in the M atthean account. T he sense of έάτε έως τούτου (lit. “[you p l.] let [h im /it be] up to /a s far a s/ until this”) rem ains uncertain. Is “this” the sword stroke, the im m inent arrest, or the whole “disaster” befalling the m inistry of Jesus, beginning with the prospect o f arrest? Perhaps the last, with the im plication that this whole developm ent is to be accepted as the will of God. The healing of the ear fits L uke’s image of Jesus as healer (Luke has eleven of the sixteen synoptic Gospel uses of the verb ίάσθαί, “to h ea l”) .

Explanation

1089

52 Having used άποκριθείς (lit. “having answ ered”) in v 51, Luke drops it here; he introduces προς, “to ,” after a verb of saying; he uses the verb passed over in v 47 to clarify the change from addressing Judas to addressing the arresting crowd as a whole; and he com pensates here for his failure to rep o rt the com posi tion of the crowd in v 47 (where M ark’s crowd came from “the chief priests, scribes, and elders,” Luke’s consists of “chief priests, tem ple officers [cf. v 4], and elders” [this represents m ore directly the action of the leaders to achieve Jesus’ arrest (cf. 19:47; 20:1, 19)]). The wording of Mark 14:48b is reproduced exactly apart from the final σνλλαβεΐν με, “to arrest m e” (Luke keeps this verb for v 54). As in Luke 10:30, ληστής is likely to be used here of the kind of robber who would waylay people traveling in a country area. T hough the word can m ean “revolu tionary,” it is unlikely to have any political overtones here. Jesus is being sought as though he were a violent fugitive from justice. 53 The m ain Lukan touches here are the subordination of the first clause by m eans of a genitive absolute construction, the dropping of “teaching” as the spe cific con ten t o f Jesus’ activity in the tem ple (for Luke this is already m ore than clear), and the change from M ark’s ούκ έκρατήσατέ pe, “did no t arrest m e,” to έξετείνατε τάς χεΐρας ε π ’ εμέ (lit. “did not stretch out the hands upon m e”), with its echo of 20:19 (but with a different verb). Luke’s final clause is distinctive (but for “hour,” cf. Mark 14:35, 41). Jesus points to a notable mismatch between his daily public appearances in the tem ple and this nocturnal pursuit of him now as though he were a danger ous fugitive from justice. This challenges the probity of an arrest that could not be m ade in the light of day and in the presence of the general populace who at festival time milled in large num bers around the tem ple area. The darkness of the night is a cloak for the evil of the action. “Darkness,” “pow er” (as used here), and “Satan” (as used in 22:3) are drawn together in Acts 26:18. It is the “h o u r” of the Jewish leadership precisely because its m em bers have becom e in this action instrum ents of Satan against Jesus. In this hour, designated in the purposes of God, the Satanic assault is perm itted. 54a T he co n tent here is substantially that of Mark 14:53a, but Luke has de layed the arrest to this point and uses M ark’s verb from v 48 to refer to it. He expands M ark’s άπήγαγον . . . προς, “they took away . . . to,” into ήγαγον καί είσήγαγον εις την οικίαν, “they took and brought into the house [of]” (“the house” here is in line with “courtyard” to come in v 55). Jesus submits to arrest because he now knows that it is his F ather’s will for him at this time to be delivered over to the dark powers.

Explanation As the call to prayer is still being repeated, the time of crisis Jesus has been anticipating begins to em erge in the form of a well-armed crowd with Judas at its head. But even as he is betrayed and arrested, Jesus m aintains his poise and dom i nates the scene as he dramatically labels the perfidy of Ju d as’ action, checks the impulsive behavior of his disciples, and interprets and even gives perm ission for his own arrest. Only now do we realize that at some point Judas has slipped away in order to be able to im plem ent his evil plans. At the head of the crowd, he comes forward

1090

Luke 22:54b-62

to greet Jesus with a kiss. But Jesus sees at once what is h appening and points up the poignancy involved in using the greeting of love as the m eans of betrayal. T he disciples also realize what is afoot, and their response is to try to fight their way out o f the situation: they want to defend Jesus from this arm ed crowd. The superficial understanding exhibited by the disciples in v 38 of Jesus’ teach ing (vv 35-37) about the new situation that was about to confront them now becom es a rath er pathetic m isapplication of his teaching. T he disciples ask, but do n o t wait for an answer: they think they know. T heir action shows courage and loyalty to Jesus (cf. Mark 10:39a) bu t is practically unrealistic and contrary to all that he has taught them about the harsh but necessary future that lay ahead. (We are probably to u nderstand that the slave of the high priest was his personal rep resentative and, therefore, the leader of the arresting party. The disciple involved would have been trying to do rath er m ore than slice off an ear.) Jesus reacts to this impulsive action by directing them no t to interfere: they m ust allow this to happen, because it fulfills the plan and purpose of God. He reverses this misstep by healing the ear: even at this late stage Jesus is still the great healer. Jesus then turns his attention to the crowd. As Luke tells it, this crowd consists o f m em bers of the Jewish leadership: chief priests, tem ple officials, and elders. These are the people who found themselves so im potent in relation to Jesus as he taught in the tem ple (see 19:47; 20:1, 19). Jesus points to an obvious contra diction between his daily public appearances in the tem ple and this nocturnal pursuit of him now as though he were a dangerous fugitive from justice. Is it not an im plicit admission that som ething is wrong with their view of justice when they have to proceed in this way to arrest him? Thus far the crowd has done nothing. Judas and the disciples have played mi n o r roles, b u t the action has been dom inated by Jesus. Jesus finishes here by interpreting this nocturnal visit as the onset of the divinely ordained hour in which those who have come to arrest Jesus act as representatives of the ultim ate dark ness, Satan himself. As the episode reaches its end, Jesus submits to arrest w ithout struggle and is taken off to the house of the high priest.

The Denials of Peter

(22:54b-62)

Bibliography Benoit, P. The Passion and Resurrection ofJesus. New York: H erd er and H erder, 1969. 49-72. Birdsall, J. N. “τό ρήμα ώς- eineu αύτω ό Ιησούς': Mark xiv. 72.” NovT 2 (1957) 272-75. Boomershine, T. E. “P eter’s Denial as Polemic or Confession: T he Im plications of M edia Criticism for Biblical H erm eneutics.” Semeia 39 (1987) 47-68. Boyd, W. J. P. “P ete r’s D eni als: Mark xiv.68; Luke xxii.57.” ExpTim 67 (1955-56) 341. Braumann, G. “Markus 5, 2-5 u n d Markus 14, 55-64.” ZNW 52 (1961) 273-78. Brunet, G. “Et aussitot le coq ch an ta.” CCER 27 (1979) 9-12. Bussby, F. “St. Mark 14:72: An Aramaic M istranslation?” BJRL 21

Bibliography

1091

(1937) 273-74. Catchpole, D. The Trial of Jesus. SPB 18. Leiden: Brill, 1971. 160-74. Crossan, J. D. The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco: H arp er and Row, 1988. Danson, J. M. “T he Fall of St. Peter.” ExpTim 19 (1907-8) 307-8. Dassman, E. “Die Szene Christus: Petrus m it der H a h n .” In Pietas. FS B. Kotting, ed. E. Dassman and K. S. Frank. JAC 8. Minister: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1980. 510-11. Daube, D. “L im itations on Self-Sacrifice in Jewish Law an d T ra d itio n .” Th 72 (1969) 291-304. Delorme, J. “Le proces de Jesus ou la parole risquee (Lc 22,54-23,25).” RSR 69 (1981) 123-46. Derrett, J. D. M. “T he Reason for the Cock-Crowings.” N TS 29 (1983) 142-44. Dewey, K. E. “P eter’s Curse and Cursed Peter (Mark 14:53-54, 6 6 -7 2 ).” In The Passion in Mark, ed. W. H. Kelber. 96-114. Dietrich, W. Das Petrusbild der lukanischen Schriften. 139-57. Ernst, J. “Noch einmal: Die V erleugnung Jesu durch P etrus.” In Petrus und Papst, ed. A. B ran denburg and H. J. U rban. Minister: A schendorff, 1977. 43-62. ------------ . “Noch einmal: Die V erleugnung Jesu durch P etrus.” Catholica 30 (1976) 207-26. Evans, C. A. “‘Peter W arming H im self’: T he Problem of an Editorial ‘Seam .' ”JBL 101 (1982) 245-49. Fortna, R. “Jesus and Peter at the H igh Priest’s House: A Test Case for the Q uestion of the Relation between M ark’s and J o h n ’s Gospels.” NTS 24 (1978) 371-83. Fox, R. “P eter’s Denial in M ark’s G ospel.” BiTod 25 (1987) 298-303. Gardiner, W. D. “T he Denial of St. Peter. ‫ ״‬ExpTim 26 (1914-15) 424-26. Garritt, C. E. “St. P eter’s Denials.” ExpTim 48 (193637) 43-44. Genest, O. Le Christ de la passion: Perspective structurale: Analyse de M c 14,5315,47, des paralleles bibliques et extra-bibliques. R echerches 21. T ournai/M ontreal: D esclee/ Rellarm in, 1978. Gerhardsson, B. “Confession and Denial before Men: O bservations on Matt. 26:57-27:2.” JSN T (1981) 46-66. Gewalt, D. “Die V erleugnung des P etru s.” In Theologische Versuche, ed. J. Rogge and G. Schille. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1977. 4 5 - 6 2 .------------ . “Die V erleugnung des P etrus.” LingBib 43 (1978) 113-44. Goguel, M. “Did Peter Deny His Lord? A C onjecture.” H TR 25 (1932) 1-27. Guyot, G. H. “Peter De nies His L ord.” CBQ 4 (1942) 111-18. James, J. C. “T he Dialect o f P eter’s D enial.” ExpTim 19 (1907-8) 524. Klein, G. “Die V erleugnung des Petrus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche U ntersuchung.” Z T K 58 (1961) 285-328. Kosmala, H. “T he Time of the Cock-Crow.” A STI 2 (1963) 118-20.------------ . “T he Time of the Cock-Crow (II).” A S T I6 (1967-68) 132-34. Kosnetter, J. “Zur Geschichtlichkeit der V erleugnung Petri.” In Dienst an der Lehre: Studien zur heutigen Philosophie und Theologie. FS F. K. Konig. W iener Beitrage zur T heologie 10. Vienna: H erder, 1965. 127-43. Krieger, N. “K necht des H ohenpriesters.” NovT 2 (195758) 73-74. Lampe, G. W. H. “St. P eter’s D enial.” BJRL 55 (1972-73) 346-68. LaVerdiere, E. A. “Peter Broke Down and Began to Cry.” Emman 92 (1986) 70-73. Lee, G. M. “Mark 14,72: έπίβαλών ίκλαι,εν.” Bib 53 (1972) 411-12. Lehmann, M. Synoptische Quellenanalyse. 106-12. Linnemann, E. Studien. 7 0 -1 0 8 . ------------ . “Die V erleugnung des P etrus.” Z T K 63 (1966) 1-32. Masson, C. “Le reniem ent de Pierre: Q uelques aspects de la form ation d ’une trad ition.” RHPR 37 (1957) 24-35. Mayo, C. H. “St. P eter’s Token of the Cock Crow.‫ ״‬JTS 22 (1921) 367-70. McEleney, N. J. “P ete r’s Denials- How Many? To W hom ?” CBQ 52 (1990) 467-72. Merkel, H. “P eter’s Curse.” In The Trial of Jesus. FS C. F. D. Moule, ed. E. Bammel. SBT 2/13. L ondon: SCM, 66-71. Murray, G. “Saint P eter’s D enials.” DR 103 (1985) 296-98. Pesch, R. “Die V erleugnung des Petrus: Eine Studie zu Mk 14,54.66-72 (und Mk 14,26-31).” In Neues Testament und Kirche. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg im B.: H erder, 1974. 42-62. Ramsay, W. M. “T he Denials o f Peter.” ExpTim 27 (1915-16) 296-301, 360-63, 410-13, 471-72, 540-42; 28 (1916-17) 276-81. Rothenaicher, F. “Zu Mk. 14,70 u n d Mt. 26,73.” BZ 23 (1935-36) 192-93. Schneider, G. Verleugnung, Verspottung und VerhorJesu nach Lukas, 22,54-71: Studien zur lukanischen Darstellung der Pas sion. SANT 22. Munich: Kosel, 1969. Esp. 73-96. Schwank, B. “Petrus verleugnet Jesus.” SeinSend 29 (1964) 51-65. Seitz, O. J. F. “P eter’s ‘Profanity’: Mark xiv. 71 in the Light of Matthew xvi. 22.” S E 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 516-19. Smith, P. V. “St. P eter’s T hreefold Denial of O ur L ord.” Th 17 (1928) 341-48. Soards, M. L. “ ‘A nd the Lord T u rn ed and Looked Straight at P eter’: U nderstanding Luke 22,61.” Bib 67 (1986) 518-19. Thomson, J. R. “Saint

1092

Luke 22:54b-62

P ete r’s Denials.” ExpTim 47 (1935-36) 381-82. Walter, N. “Die V erleugnung des P etrus.” TVers 8 (1977) 45-61. Wenham, J. W. “How Many Cock-Crowings? T he Problem of H arm on istic Text-Variants.” N T S 25 (1978-79) 523-25. Wilcox, M. “The D enial Sequence in Mark xiv. 26-31, 66-72.” N TS 17 (1970-71) 426-36. Zeck, P. R. “Fall u n d W iederaufstehen eines J u ngers: Passionsbetrachtung zu Mk 14,66-72.” BibLeb 7 (1966) 51-57. A nd see at 22:1-2, 31-34.

Translation 54bPeter was following at a distance. 55[Some people] had lit a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat together around it; Peter sat down in the midsta of them. 56Seeing him sitting at the fire, and staring at him, a certain servant girl said, “Surely b this fellow was with him!”57But he denied [it], saying, “Woman, I do not know him!” 58Af ter a little while a different person saw him and said, “Surely you are one of them!”But Peter said, “Man, I am not!”59When about an hour had passed a certain other person kept up the insistence, saying, “In truth, surely this [fellow] was with him! For he is a Galilean.”60But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are saying.”Immediately, while he was still speaking, a cock crowed. 61Then the Lord turned and looked [intently] at Peter, c and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows this day, you will deny me three times.”62He went outside and wept bitterly.d Notes a ‫ א‬A W Θ Ψ f 13 etc. have έν μέσω here as for “in the m iddle” earlier in the verse, b u t the alterna tive construction with μ έσ ο ς is m ore likely to be original. b Treating the opening καί as a sentence adverb. c P69 seems to have αντω, “at h im .” d V 62 is missing from 0171vid it. If it is not original, then Luke has no equivalent to the final clause o f Mark 14:72. Since he uses the verb κλαία.κ, “w eep,” on nine o th er occasions in the Gospel, it is hard to see why he would want to om it the clause containing it here, especially w hen the clause offers such a forceful conclusion to the episode.

Form/Structure/Setting T he spotlight moves from Jesus to Peter, who follows from afar but fails to own his link with Jesus when questioned in the courtyard of the high priest’s house. Jesus’ prophecy is thus fulfilled, and the cock crow and the look from Jesus drive hom e to Peter the full enorm ity of his denial. T he sequence continues to parallel Mark, though Luke offers no equivalent to M ark’s rep o rt of the fleeing of all the disciples or of “a certain young m an ” whom those who arrested Jesus tried also to take into custody. Also, having intro d u ced Peter, Luke continues im m ediately with the denials ra th e r than first rep o rtin g a hearing before the high priest (Luke’s version of this en counter is delayed until daybreak). It is relatively easy to account for m ost of the Lukan text as redaction of Mark 14:54, 66-72. T here is, however, one good reason for thinking that this solution may be too simple. In Notes above, Luke 22:62 is accepted as part of L uke’s text. If this is right, then, since the wording is identical to Matt 26:75, the presence of this verse guarantees that Luke (and Matthew) had access to a separate account

Form/Structure/Setting

1093

of the denials of Peter. This raises the possibility that Luke 22:61a is also depen dent upon this source. Thus we cannot rule out the possibility that other distinctive features in L uke’s version of the individual denials are to be traced back to his second source (Matthew stays rath er closer to Mark, so there is no possibility of characterizing the second source on the basis of shared features between Mat thew and L u k e). A m odest com m onality between the second denials in Luke and Jo h n is worth reporting: καί σύ έκ\έζ\ . . . 61 . . . ούκ βίμι (lit. “also you from am ong . . . are . . . I am n o t”) . This is too m eager a base, taken alone, for specu lation on source links between Jo h n and Luke here. For fu rth er detail favoring a second Lukan source, see Comment below. Pesch (“V erleugnung,” 44-52) offers a powerful case for seeing Mark 14:54, 66-72 as a highly integrated p art of the passion narrative, with links also to pre passion features of the Gospel of Mark. But Pesch rath er too easily deduces from this the existence of the account in a pre-Markan passion account. Dewey (“P eter’s C urse,” 96-108), by contrast, envisages largely M arkan form ulation with a tradi tional base only in vv 53a, 54, 66b, 67b, 68, 72b,d (Dewey appears to have been unaware of Pesch’s study and so offers no response to Pesch’s account of the links that even some of these verses have to o th er texts in M ark). If we can assume here Jo h an n in e independence of Mark (see Jo h n 18:15-27; cf. Fortna, NTS 24 [1978] 371-83), then both a threefold denial and an intercala tion of the account of P eter’s denial within that of the high priest’s questioning of Jesus m ust be pre-Markan. Jo h an n in e independence of Mark for the intercala tion is seen to be m ore likely from the observations of Evans (JBL 101 [1982] 245-49), who shows that Jo h n 18:18c and 25a look m uch m ore like an artificial seam, resum ing a text after an intrusion, than does the corresponding Mark 14:54 and 67a (in oth er words, dependence, if it exists, should be of Mark on John!). O n the o th er side of the debate, v 68b would serve very well as a conclusion for a denial tradition (esp. if we include “and a cock crowed”). This would supp o rt an analysis of the threefold denial as a M arkan developm ent (so Dewey; M asson’s attem pt [RHPR 37 (1957) 27-29] to explain the situation in term s of a conflation of two denial accounts stumbles over the difficulty of requiring of vv 69-72 a sense of com pleteness and relative independence as a unit of tradition). Perhaps Mark is responsible for the formulation of the second and third denials b u t makes his expansion on the basis of a firm tradition that the denial was threefold (cf. Mark 14:30). Thus he sees him self as making good a defect in the account available to him of the actual denial (this would m ean that Mark did not receive the traditions that he uses in 14:27-31 and 53-72 from an already unified source). Apart from a use of πάλιν, “again” (in Mark’s second and J o h n ’s third denial), and 6κ[έξ\ . . . el (lit. “out of . . . you are”; in Mark’s third and J o h n ’s first and sec ond denials), unless we count a use of “this m an ” in quite a different way in Jo h n 18:17 and Mark 14:71, the shared content between Jo h n and Mark here is re stricted to m aterial in Mark 14:54, 66-68 (v 72 adds βύθύς, “immediately,” to the shared content, but given Mark’s extravagant use of this term, I make nothing of the agreem ent). Either John could have independently followed the same impulse as we are considering for Mark, or the source that he used already had a triple denial (the Luke Jo h n link noted above, if significant, would favor the latter). Mark may be responsible for the m aterial in v 72 about Peter rem em bering, but the final clause of v 72 will be traditional (cf. Luke 22:62; Matt 26:75c).

1094

Luke 22:54b-62

T he tradition available to Mark could no t sensibly have been transm itted with out an account o f the arrest of Jesus (which in tu rn entails a version of Mark 14:1-2, 10-11), and (because the intercalation is pre-M arkan) the tradition unit already included an account of a hearing before the high priest. Such a sequence guarantees the existence of a pre-M arkan passion narrative, whatever difficulties there may be in ascertaining its exact scope. Did this pre-M arkan source already include an account of Jesus’ prediction of P eter’s denial? The denial account seems to require it, bu t there seems to be no place for it after Mark 14:1. Perhaps it belonged to a body of m aterial placed before Mark 14:1, which had Jesus an ticipating the com ing events. T he shared intercalation m eans that the Jo h an n in e and M arkan traditions are n o t from totally in d ep en d en t streams; and though we have an o th er source re flected in Matthew and Luke, so little of it has been preserved that we can know n o thing about its ultim ate relationship to the M arkan stream of tradition. But even if the tradition base is narrow, despite some attem pts to discredit the claim to h isto ricity o f th e P etrin e denials (e.g., Klein, ZTK 58 [1961] 285-328; L innem ann, ZTK 63 [1966] 1-32), the burden of p ro o f rem ains strongly upon those who would want to deny the historicity of a tradition whose origin and pres ervation make little sense in the developing church, if n o t based on a concern with historical m em ory (cf. Pesch, “V erleugnung,” 42-62; B oom ershine, Semeia 39 [1987] 47-68, is surely right that the portrayal of Peter is sym pathetic and not polem ical). Comment T he recently confident P eter cannot, once Jesus has been arrested, m aintain his allegiance to his m aster in the face of even the challenge m ounted by a few nameless people o f no particular significance who are sitting around a fire in the courtyard o f the high priest’s house. But a cockcrow and a look from the captive Jesus show up P eter’s denial for what it is, and his bitter tears are the turning p o in t for the reassertion of his loyalty. 54b Mark’s καί, “and,” becomes δέ, “a n d /b u t”; the aorist “followed” is changed to the im perfect “was following,” and the linked “h im ” d ropped as redundant, as is the re d u n d an t ־‬These words are missing from D and a few o th er texts. k D e have “we.”

1198

L uke 24:13-35

I Missing from D. m P7 5reads β α σ ιλεία ν, “kingdom .” II Perfect tense rath er than aorist in P 75B. ° D it econom ize by dropping ε σ τ ίν κα ί (lit. “it is . . . a n d ”). P O m itted by D and a range of o th er texts. 0i Gr. καί έ γ έ ν ε τ ο (lit. “and it h a p p e n e d ”). r D e econom ize by dropping “with th em .” s Missing from D. 1 T he syntax and tense sequence o f the set of verbs here is lit. “having taken he blessed and having broken he was giving.” u D c e m ake the connection betw een the giving o f the bread and the open in g o f the eyes by adding λαβόντω ν αυτώ ν το ν ά ρ το ν ά π ’ αύτον, “when they took the bread from h im .” v D has difficulty with the idiom here and reads κ εκ α λύ μ μ εν η (dropping the following “within u s” as do P 75B c e etc.). So: “Were n o t our hearts veiled.” vvD c e sa add λυπούμενοί, “grieving.” x D has the Em m aus disciples doing the “saying.”

Form/Structure/Setting Luke emphasizes the Easter Day timing, as well, of this new episode now to be reported. In vv 22-24, the travelers will recapitulate the events of vv 1-12, ju st as in v 35 they will recapitulate their own experience in the transition to the following episode. For the elaborate chiastic structuring that Luke gives to chap. 24 (centering on the Emmaus account), see at 24:1-12. Only Luke provides an account of the experience of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Some of the motifs here are, however, present in o ther resurrection appearance accounts, notably in Jo h n (delayed recognition: Jo h n 20:14-16 [cf. 21:7, 12]; meal: Jo h n 21:12-13 [cf. Luke 24:41-43; Acts 10:41]; the idea that Jesus would disappear is not explicit elsewhere, bu t the tem porary duration of each of the appearances is regularly assumed; interpretation of Scripture recurs in Luke 24:44-48 and is also to be related to the Jo h an n in e m otif of post-resurrection understanding of the way that Scripture applied to Jesus [John 2:17-22; 12:14-16: 20:9; and cf. 14:26]). T here has been extensive scholarly discussion of the question of Lukan source (s) here, with no consensus in sight. Four main views are regularly canvassed: (?) Luke has rep roduced the story as he received it with only m inor change of substance b u t with significant verbal alteration (earlier views that saw m ost of the wording as completely p re L u k an cannot survive the careful analysis of the Lukan Ianguage in the pericope; the com bination of Lukan language and overloaded account makes even the m odification of this represented in the first view a diffi cult o p tio n ); ( i i) Luke received from tradition a version that focused on the risen C hrist’s interpretation of the OT, to which he has added the m otif of Jesus being m ade known in the breaking of the bread; ( i i i ) reversing the preceding view, the in terpretation of Scripture is L uke’s addition to the story; and ( i v ) Luke has only scraps o f tradition, and the story is to be seen as essentially his own free creation. To proceed from this situation, one m ight ask w hether Luke is entirely respon sible for the chiastic structuring of the m aterials of chap. 24 (see at 24:1-12), or w hether he may have developed an existing chiasm. Since vv 22-24 are clearly designed to link the Emmaus account with the empty tom b account, these verses are best taken as Lukan resume. T heir removal does not, however, destroy the chiasm: w ithout them , vv 19b-21 and vv 25-27 becom e the paralleled pieces in

Form/Structure/Setting

1199

the center of the chiasm, and probably v 21 should be separated as the m ore original center piece (“this is the third day”). It would seem highly likely that Luke will be responsible for the outer reaches of the chiasm (vv 36-46 [48] set in parallel to vv 4 b -7 [8 ]; vv 33b-34 set in parallel with vv 9 c-1 2 ). Luke has been content to m ark these parallels in such a way as to leave considerable latitude for preserving existing traditions or developing re d actio n al in terests of im p o rtan ce to him self. P erhaps the sam e is tru e for developm ents within the h eart of the chiasm. The parallelism between vv 17-19a and 28-30 has been identified above (see at 24:1-12) as the least transparent part of the structure. Does this m ean that it is a Lukan developm ent? Certainly vv 17-19a make very little contribution to the account and could have been form u lated to make a space for the introduction of vv 28-30 (an earlier form m ight have had vv 15b-16 set in parallel to vv 28a, 31; 19b-21 will always have needed some brief introduction [perhaps som ething like “he said, ‘W hat are you discuss m g?’ The one nam ed Cleopas said, ‘Do you not know about Jesus of Nazareth, that . . and this is probably reflected in expanded form in vv 17-19a). This possibility finds fu rth er support from the way in which vv 41-43 (where there is fish after the bread of v 30, which contributes to the link between v 29-30 and 9:10-17) seem to overload vv 36-43. Discussion at 9:10-17 suggests the redactional im portance for Luke of a link between the identity of Jesus and the feeding of the five thousand (as set in parallel with the eucharistic breaking of bread). It would seem, then, that a credible account can be offered of an Emmaus story with a chiastic structure, which Luke has incorporated into his chapter by extending the chiasm in both directions, and which he has expanded both for the sake of tying the account into his own story line and in order to recenter the chiasm on the Christian proclam ation of the fact of Jesus’ resurrection. Apart from considerations arising from the chiastic structure, perhaps the strong est argum ent against free Lukan formulation is provided by the impression created in vv 36-43 that the experience of vv 34—35 has made not a scrap of difference to the gathered disciples (cf. Fiedler, “Gegenwart,” 125). The contribution of detailed language scrutiny to the case against free Lukan com position will be noted in Comment below. Such free composition would also be quite different from the pattern of Lukan com positional procedures that has em erged through the course of the commentary. So far as the choice between focus on the breaking of bread and on the interpretation of Scripture is concerned, it must be admitted that the latter is ju st as m uch a Lukan m otif as the former. But Luke is rarely an innovator, and most of his motifs are given to him from the tradition (though I am arguing that vv 28b-30 are a Lukan expansion, the measure of similarity to the beach breakfast in Jo h n 21 shows that Luke will have had to some degree a traditional basis for his developm ent [it is also likely that Acts 1:4 and esp. 10:41 are m ore than echoes of Luke’s expansion in Luke 24:28b-30]). The view that takes the breaking of bread m otif as original is left still with some overload from the tension between the eucharistic emphasis of vv 30-31 and the “entertaining angels unawares” emphasis inv v 28-29; however, if the interpretation of Scripture m otif is what Luke intended, vv 28-29 provide Luke with an attractive way of splicing the domestic meal scene (needed for the breaking of bread) into the journey narrative that he inherited. The range of the resurrection accounts suggests that the tradition set a certain value on accounts that provided contrasting settings for Jesus’ appearances. The

1200

Luke 24:13-35

present account will have contributed an appearance of Jesus to people who were on a journey. The account reflects the early Christian conviction that it was only through enco u n ter with the risen Lord that the key was given for understanding that the passion and resurrection/exaltation were already witnessed to by the Scriptures. From the beginning, the Emmaus story was probably told in connec tion with a Christian com m unity that located its center of origin in Jerusalem (the re tu rn to Jerusalem in the story will have im plied from the beginning the reporting of the experience to the m other com m unity). The account was never designed with any apologetic concern to “prove” the resurrection. T he account in Acts 8 of the m eeting of Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch has been deliberately m odeled quite closely on the Emmaus account (noted by many, b u t see esp. Gibbs, BangFFl [1975] 17-30; Lindijer, “Creative E ncounters,” 2:7785), but this tells us m ore about Luke’s view that the life of Jesus was to be m irrored in the life of the early church than it does about how to handle the Emmaus account itself (though the parallelism is to be located both in similarity of substance and in redactional detail, it would seem that at points the similarity is closer for L uke’s source than for the present text of Luke 24:13-35 [this ju d g m en t de pends u pon not finding a genuine parallel between the breaking of bread in the one and the baptism in the o th e r]). Comment T he cam era moves from a m using Peter to u nnam ed traveling disciples. Jesus m eets them incognito and elicits from them a brief career statem ent for the his torical Jesus, which ends by balancing the terrible bruising of their hopes in connection with Jesus against the puzzling state of affairs that had been reached by v 12. Jesus rebukes the disciples’ unbelief in the prophets and explains from the Scriptures the path through suffering to glory that the Christ was destined to take. As the jo u rn ey comes to its end, the disciples press hospitality on the incognito Jesus and discover in the breaking of the bread that they have, unawares, en tertain ed their risen Lord. Now they have the clue to the power of his biblical exposition! They rush back to Jerusalem with the news, only to be greeted by news of an appearance to Peter. 13 Various idioms here look Lukan {καί Ιδού [lit. “and behold”] , έν αντη τη ημέρα, “in that very h o ur,” η όνομα [lit. “to which a n am e”], and the periphrastic tense). Though έν αυτή τη ημέρα is a Lukan linkage, the story will always have been set on the third day (see v 21b and discussion in Form/Structure/Setting above). See at v 18 below for the view that “two” here is a Lukan touch: the original would have envis aged a larger group. The presence of “two” may link with the them e of legal witness, as in v 4 (cf. at 10:1). For the antecedent of “of th em ” we m ust reach back to v 9b, since Cleopas is not one of the Apostles of vv 10-11. The text offers no motivation for the journey. As normally understood, it is a puzzling journey on Easter day for people aware of the happenings reported in vv 22-24, who would need some very specific motivation for leaving the scene before every attem pt had been m ade to unravel the mystery (the level of credibility becomes less the farther Emmaus is believed to be from Jerusalem ), but vv 22-24 are probably not an original part of the story. In any case, see below for the possibility that the journey to Emmaus was simply for overnight accom m odation for the rem aining days of Unleavened Bread.

Comment

1201

T here have been three sites identified as Emmaus. ( i) T here was an Emmaus about twenty miles west-northwest of Jerusalem , which is m entioned in 1 Macc 3:40, 57; 4:3; etc. and also referred to by Josephus (War 2.63; Ant . 17.282; etc.). Its nam e later becam e Nicopolis, bu t the m odern nam e of the village is cAmwas, which is an Arabic rendering of the Greek for Emmaus. (ii) A nother Emmaus was also known to Josephus (War 7.217). This one was about three and a half miles northw est of Jerusalem . Its m odern nam e is Kuoniyeh. It lay on the site of an cien t M ozah (Josh 18:26). (iii) T he C rusaders identified the village of elQ ubeibeh as the Gospel Emmaus. It is about 7.1 miles from Jerusalem , on the road to Lydda. T hough m odern Arabs refer to the place as cAmwas, this practice would seem to have no antiquity. (For fu rth er details on the sites, see Fitzmyer, 1561-62.) Luke’s “sixty stadia” fits the third option (a stadion is 607 fe et), but for lack of ancient support, this option m ust be ju d g ed a C rusader identification of convenience. T he second site seems the m ost likely, with L uke’s text to be explained either as intending to m ean “sixty stadia ro u n d trip ” or as reflecting a confusion between the round-trip distance and the actual distance. It is possible that some of those who were cram m ed into (greater-)Jerusalem to m eet the Passover re q u irem en t th at they reside th ere for Passover m oved away from the crowding for the rem aining days of Unleavened Bread. 14 Most of the language here has a Lukan cast (unstressed καί αύτοί [lit. “and they”]; προς with a verb of speaking; όμίλοΐη, “talk”; and generalizing use of πας o, “all th e ”) . In L uke’s finished version, the scope of what they are discussing is represented in vv 19-24. 15 Again the language here is strongly Lukan (καί έγένβτο έν τω . . . καί αύτος [lit. “and it h appened in the . . . and h e ”]; opiXeln again; έγγίζβίν, “draw n e a r” [but see at v 28 for the likelihood that this verb is pre-Lukan h e re ]). The opening clause is a storyteller’s repetition. Presumably, Jesus is assumed either to be moving away from Jerusalem , as were the disciples, or (as v 28b m ight suggest) to be already on his way hom e after Passover. 16 Luke is fond of the articular infinitive and has m ost of those NT uses of έπίγίνώσκβίκ for which the sense is “recognize.” The failure to recognize Jesus here is norm ally attributed to divine intention but also occasionally to the state of h eart of the disciples. I think it m ore likely that this is a Satanic blinding (but n o t without link to the state of m ind of the disciples), which will be overcome by the victorious Jesus (cf. at 18:34). T here is no reason to think of Jesus being in “an o th er fo rm ,” as in the later ending of Mark (16:12), but there is a m otif link with o th er resurrection accounts in which the identity of Jesus was no t obvious at once (see Form,/Structure,/Setting^ 24:1-12). Connections are often drawn between Jesus’ appearance here and Greco-Roman stories of gods turning up in hum an form and n ot being immediately recognizable (see, e.g., Bultm ann, History, 286 η. 1; also note Homer, Odyssey 1.320; and for the Jewish side, see Tob 5:4-5; cf. also at v 29), b ut the stories have only a quite lim ited similarity to L uke’s narrafive. More to the point m ight be D odd’s com parison with άπαγπώρίσίς, “the term applied by ancient literary critics to the recognition-scene which was so often the crucial point of a Greek dram a” (“A ppearances,” 14). 17 T hough only the uses of προς with a verb of saying are notably Lukan, the whole verse could well have been pen n ed by Luke (cf. Jerem ias, Sprache, 314). This third m ention of the conversational exchange should probably be ju d g ed to

1202

1Luke 24:13-35

overload the narrative. The gloom of the disciples corresponds to the bruising of their hopes caused by the turn of events that they will rep o rt in v 20. N either the empty tom b n o r the w om en’s rep o rt of the angels’ message has been able to lighten the gloom (vv 22-24). 18 The most notable elements of Lukan language here are όνόμan, “by nam e,” ττρόζ' with a verb of speaking, τά γενόμενα, “what had happened,” and εν ταίς ήμερα 1s' ταϋταίς, “in these days.” Only Κλεοπάς, “Cleopas,” and ούκ εγνως , “did [here: do] you n o t know” (possibly, but no t necessarily, with the preceding paratactic καί [lit. “a n d ”]), are likely to stem from L uke’s source. T hough it can m ean either, here παροικείς almost certainly m eans “you are a visitor to ” and not “you are a resident of.” There is a nice irony in the disciples accusing Jesus of being one who does not know when it is they who do not know who is talking with them or that the resurrection has taken place (cf. D ’Arc, LVit 32 [1977] 148). Note Luke’s interest elsewhere in m aking the point that the events concerning Jesus are well known and therefore available for public scrutiny (cf., e.g., at 4:14b). Why is Cleopas singled out for m ention by name? The point has been m ade that it would be m ore natural if Cleopas were to be singled out from a larger group than from a group of only two, and on this basis, Luke’s “two” in v 13 falls u n d er suspicion of being redactional. This is certainly possible, but one cannot rule out the highlighting o f Cleopas because he had some particular im portance for those who shaped and repeated the account (an im portance no longer evident to Luke, for whom the nam e only enhances the value of this testimony to the resurrection). 19 Lukan language is evident in τά περί, “the things co n cern in g ,” άνήρ προφήτης (lit. “a m an a p ro p h e t”), δυνατός εν , “mighty in ” (“mighty in deed and w ord” is echoed in S tephen’s description of Moses as “mighty in [his] words and works” [Acts 7:22]), εναντίον , “before,” and παντός του λαού, “all the P eople” (cf. Jerem ias, Sprache, 315). Ναζαρηνου, “of N azareth,” is the only clearly traditional elem ent (cf. at 18:37). The opening τά περί, to be m atched by a closing use of the expression in v 27, will be a Lukan enhancem ent of the chiastic structure. L u k e’s source probably only identified Jesus at this p o in t as “Jesus of N azareth.” O n L uke’s treatm ent of the prophetic identity of Jesus, see at 4:24; 7:16; 9:19. T he affirm ation of Jesus as a p ro p h et is in L uke’s eyes correct (here even God sees it that way) but in need of supplem entation. For the affirmative attitude of “all the P eople” to Jesus, cf. 7:29; 18:43; 19:48; 21:38. For com parable brief description of the career of Jesus, cf. Acts 2:22; 10:37-38. 20 Only 01 άρχοντες, “the rulers,” and the use of τε . . . καί to link clauses seem Lukan here (even U0ur rulers” m ight be traditional, bu t with the juxtaposition of “chief priests and rulers,” it could be Lukan [cf. 23:13]). The failure to m ention any role for Pilate and the Romans is often taken as anti-Semitic, but the passage emphasizes the role of the Jewish leadership because of its significance both for theology and for apologetics. In the Lukan organization of the chapter, there is an intended echo here (with v 21b) of v 7. 21 συν πάσιν τούτοις, “besides all this,” and, possibly, άγει (lit. “it leads”) are the features m ost likely to be Lukan. Luke has a certain appreciation for traditional phraseology like that used in “the one who is to redeem Israel” (cf. 2:25, 38; 23:51; Acts 1:6) bu t should no t for that reason be m ade responsible for the language here, άλλά γε καί, “in d eed ,” is not found elsewhere in Luke’s writings, n o r is άφ ’ου, “since” (cf. the use of άφ ,ής, “since” in Luke 7:45; Acts 20:18; 24:11).

Comment

1203

For “red eem ,” see discussion at 1:68; 2:38. God is redeem er in Isa 41:14; 43:14; 44:22-24; Pss. Sol 9:1; and cf. 1 Macc 4:11: “will know that there is one who redeem s . . . Israel.” The disciples’ hopes would appear to have been dashed by the tragic outcom e of Jesus’ ministry. Luke has probably obscured an original double sense for the reference to the third day: the speaker intends to indicate that the stranger should have heard about the execution of Jesus in this length of time; in the earlier form of the chiastic structure of the story, the third-day reference is the center point, which affirms the possibility of encountering the risen Jesus. T he disciples will becom e aware of their participation in such an encounter as the story unfolds. Luke’s added “besides all this” underlines the allusion to resurrection hope (cf. vv 7, 46). W hat seems to be an im personal use of a yet here has no t been paralleled (Luke has the only oth er NT use of άγειν in a time expression in Acts 19:38), but the alternative, to translate “he [Jesus] spends this third day,” makes for a logical transition that is too awkward to be likely. 22 The language here is all quite naturally seen as Lukan, with the possible exception of άλλά καί (lit. “but even”; cf. Jerem ias, Sprache, 316). As a Lukan resum e of vv 1-11, vv 22-23 help to link the Emmaus account with its Lukan setting and, with v 24, provide a new centerpiece with a surrounding set of paralleled elem ents to place at the h eart of the chiastic structure. Probably, in L uke’s m ind, vv 22-24 also function to bring the sum m ary of vv 19-20 up to date, bu t in doing so they confuse the question of the state of m ind of Cleopas and his associate: w hat are we to u n d e rsta n d th a t they m ake o f these reports? T h o u g h “astonished u s” makes a m uch m ore positive im pression (for the idiom, cf. Acts 8:9, 11), it is L uke’s counterpart to v 11. 23 Again, the language here would all be quite natural for Luke (for οπτασίαν έωρακέναί, “to have seen a vision,” see 1:22; cf. Acts 26:19; for ζην, “that he is alive,” see at v 5; “m e n ” in v 4 becom e “angels” here, as happens inversely in Acts 10:3, 7, 22, cf. v 30). To say that Jesus is alive is to proclaim the Easter gospel. This centerpiece of Luke’s chiasm picks up a m otif from v 5-6a, the other half of which will be picked up in v 34. 24 O nce m ore the language is best considered as a Lukan reiteration of v 12. T he only question is w hether the plural here is simply an indefinite form influenced by the plural form for the action of the wom en in v 22-23 or reflects a tradition that this visit involved m ore than Peter. The first aorist form είπον, “said,” may support a tradition being involved here, since Luke elsewhere (forty-nine times in Luke-Acts) uses the second aorist form el παν. O n the other hand, the careful parallelism (for the sake of the chiasm) between v 24 and vv 22-23 counts in the oth er direction. The sequence of key words is: - certain - us - to the tomb - found [negated]■ went

certain ‫ ־‬us - to the tomb - found

saying - seen said - saw [negated].

T he lack of any actual sighting of Jesus leaves the disciples uncertain about what has really happened. 25 Unstressed καί αύτός (lit. “and h e ”) , the use of πρός with a verb of saying, and πάσιν, “all,” will all be Lukan, but πίστεύείν επί + dative, “believe (in ),” is

1204

Luke 24:13-35

n o t Lukan idiom (cf. Acts 9:42; 11:17; 16:31; 22:19), nor is the way that the dative 7 7 7 καρδία (lit. “with respect to the h e a rt”) is used. The point of this statem ent only becomes fully clear in what follows, but already we can see that the view is b ein g ex pressed th a t the devastation felt by the disciples, as well as th e ir unreadiness to go anywhere with the reports of the em pty tom b and the vision of angels, reflects an unbelieving attitude. In particular, it shows that things would have been different if their starting point had been a thoroughgoing belief in all the evidence of the Scriptures. In 18:31-33, Luke has already claim ed a scriptural witness to the passion and resurrection of Jesus, and he will com e back to the p oint in vv 44-47. 26 Closest to “to suffer these things” is “to suffer many things” in 9:22; 17:25. These also share the language of necessity of the present verse (a particular Lukan preoccupation [cf. at 9:21-22]). Closest to “en ter into his glory” here are the uses o f “glory” in 9:31-32; cf. also 9:26; 21:27; Acts 22:11. Despite the Lukan links, the wording is probably m ore traditional than Lukan, since (i) the thought developm ent of the account requires som ething equivalent at this stage (after v 25, vv 26-27 need to m ention the suffering of the redem ptive figure [the actual word “C hrist” may be Lukan] and the outcom e of the suffering, as well as the interpretation of Scripture); and (ii) “glory” is not the word that Luke would most naturally have pen n ed at this point. See discussion at 6:1-5 on the relationship between the use of “Son of M an” and “C hrist” in connection with the suffering of Jesus: from this point on, Luke will use “C hrist” when referring to the suffering of Jesus. Is “glory” here a refer ence to the resurrection, as is som etimes suggested, and not to exaltation to heaven? Certainly the closest parallels to 24:26 as a whole all refer to the resur rection, and such a reference here would be quite convenient for systematizing L uke’s teaching. But L uke’s other uses of “glory” hardly support such a sense, and no external parallels have been offered to lend support to such an understanding of “glory.” In the Lukan frame, “glory” can only be the glory of exaltation to the right han d of God. A second question here is w hether the text reflects a view in which Jesus is u n derstood as being raised from death im mediately to heaven. Since it is only in Luke and Jo h n that there is any clear chronological distinction between resur rection and ascension (John 20:17), one cannot entirely elim inate the possibility that, in the earlier tradition, the use of glory here reflected a view that Jesus was raised from death immediately to heaven. It is, however, doubtful that the ap pearance to the Emmaus disciples should be viewed as an appearance from heaven, as opposed to the com m on picture that em erges from the Gospel resurrection appearances (cf. at 24:1-12 [apart from the case of Paul, there is nothing in the appearances tradition that encourages a reading in term s of appearances from heaven]). And the way in which resurrection m ight seem to be resurrection to heaven in Acts 2:24-35 (but surely is not!) should rem ind us that once one moves outside a concern about resurrection appearances the NT interest in resurrection is largely in connection with the exaltation of Jesus (Paul has additional interests, b u t these are not relevant here). A third question is, Are we to understand that Jesus here has already entered into his glory (as, e.g., Fitzmyer, 1538-39, 1566)? In light of the discussion of resurrection appearances at 2 4 :1-12,1 think not. The passion is here the gateway

Comment

1205

to glory, as implicitly in 9:51, but this does no t necessarily affirm that the whole process has already been com pleted. Again, the com m on picture appealed to above is relevant, and Luke’s ascension accounts have a m ore satisfactory logic to them if Jesus has n o t been appearing from heaven for the resurrection appearances. T he entenng into his glory here has its counterpart in the coming of the Son of Man in his glory anticipated in 9:26 (cf. going away to receive kingly power and then retu rn in g of 19:12). 27 Most of the language here is likely to be Lukan (cf. Jerem ias, Sprache, 317), b u t probably διηρμήνενσεν, “in terp reted ,” is traditional (Luke uses διανοίγείν, “o p en ,” in related contexts [w 31, 32, 45; Acts 17:3]). The phrase “Moses and all the p ro p h ets” reflects a traditional coupling of the law and the prophets (cf. IQS 1:3; 4QDibHam 3:12; Matt 11:13; Jo h n 1:45), but in the NT it is a notably Lukan linkage (cf. Luke 16:31; Acts 26:22; 28:23). Presumably after beginning with Moses and the prophets, Jesus goes on to the Writings, which form the other traditional section of the Scriptures (or possibly we should com plete the set with the Psalms, as in Luke 24:44). The text reflects an early Christian conviction that the Scrip tures witness pervasively to the Christ and, in particular, to the way in which the career of Jesus had unfolded. Such a view has not been generated inductively from a detailed study of the OT. It is a m ore global p h enom enon and involves a particular herm eneutical approach. As we see from OT texts appealed to in Acts, the view is supported by exegesis of chosen texts that were seen to anticipate the shape of Jesus’ career (and in particular his death and resu rrec tio n /ex a lta tio n ). 28 Despite being a word favored by Luke, the use of έγγίζειν, “draw near,” probably originally echoed that in v 15 as part of the chiastic structuring (supp o rted by the use of [σνν\ πορεύεσθαί, “go [w ith]”), but it no longer plays this role for Luke, for whom the departure of Jesus (now well separated) has this role. The final clause is likely to be a Lukan expansion, which will continue in vv 29-30. For Jesus’ making as if to go on further, cf. Gen 18:3; 19:2. This prepares for the hospitality m otif in v 29. 29 All of the language here can well have come from L uke’s pen, and quite a bit is strikingly Lukan (see Jerem ias, Sprache, 318; but Luke’s preference for μένείν παρά for “rem ain with” is hardly clear in the m anner claim ed by Jerem ias). For “they u rg ed ,” cf. Acts 16:15 (a cognate verb is used in Gen 19:3). κέκλίκεν ήδη ή ημέρα (lit. “already the day has declined”) echoes ή δέ ημέρα ήρξατο κλίνε lv (lit. “the day began to decline”) of 9:12, preparing for the echoing of the feeding of the five thousand to come in v 30. The A text of Judg 19:9, where it is also a m atter of overnight hospitality, is very close to Luke’s language here, with εις εσπέραν κέκλίκεν ή ημέρα (lit. “the day has declined into evening”) for Luke’s προς εσπέραν έστίν καί κέκλίκεν ήδη ή ήμέρα (lit. “it is towards evening and the day is already far spent”). In Jewish custom, the m ain meal of the day seems to have been in the late afternoon (see Jerem ias, Euchanstic Words, 44-45 [Bibliography for 22:15-20]). In the ancient world, hospitality to strangers ranked high as a religious virtue. Both the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds affirm ed this virtue with stories about hospitality extended to incognito gods or angels (see Ovid, Metamorphoses, 8.618-724; H eb 13:2; note the com m ents on Gen 18 in Philo, Con cerning Abraham 107-13; Josephus, Ant. 1.196; b. Quidd. 32b). Since the invitation pressed upon Jesus happens in the setting of the “entertaining angels unaw ares”

1206

Luke 24:13-35

motif, there is no basis for m aking a connection with an invocation for the risen Lord to be present in the eucharistic celebration. 30 T he stronger language links here are with 9:15-16 rath er than with 22:19, b u t since 9:16 was itself concerned to evoke the Last Supper, and via that, the eucharistic practice of the early church (see at 9:10-17), one should not make too sharp a distinction. Note the way in which Jesus, though the guest, takes upon him self the role of host. The relevant elem ents of v 30 are taken up in chiastic m an n er in the reiteration in v 35. T here is no sense in which Luke is claiming that Jesus celebrated the eucharist with these disciples; rather, Luke wants to make the point that the Christians of his day were able to have the living Lord m ade known to them in the eucharist celebration in a m anner that was at least analogous to the experience of the Emmaus disciples. There is a m easure of parallelism between the bread here and the fish in vv 42-43; the two together take up the bread and fish of the feeding of the five thousand (cf. Dussaut, RB 94 [1987] 210- 11). 31 Much of the language here seems Lukan (cf. Jerem ias, Sprache, 318-19),

b u t the m ain co ntent will be traditional, being the necessary co u n terp art to v 16. T he exposition of Scripture and the breaking of the bread together create the appropriate conditions for Jesus to break through the Satanic blinding that has kept the disciples from perceiving that it was Jesus who was with them . The tem porary nature of the presence of Jesus with the disciples may have been im plied rath er than stated in an earlier form (see discussion of resurrection appearances at 24:1-12). For Luke, the disappearance is the counterpart to the arrival in v 15. Luke marks com parable departures in 1:38; 2:15; 9:33; Acts 10:7; 12:10; cf. 1:9; Luke 4:13. O f particular note is the removal of Philip in Acts 8:39: “the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no m o re.” 32 T he chiasm requires a conversation between the disciples at this point, b u t since the language here is notably Lukan (cf. Jerem ias, Sprache, 319), there is no way o f telling w hether Luke has displaced or simply rew orded an original. T hough long considered unidiom atic Greek, the im agery of a burning heart has been paralleled in PGM7A72 (see BAGD 396). In the Lukan text, this verse keeps the focus on the exposition of Scripture being lost once the new em phasis on the breaking of bread has been added. Note in Acts 17:2-3 the com ing together of the opening of the Scriptures (as here) and the necessity of Jesus’ suffering (as in v 26). It is h ard to be sure what “on the way” is m eant to evoke (repeated in v 35); it is unlikely to have anything to do with the path of discipleship as a “way”; perhaps it is m eant to echo Jesus’ teaching activity “on the way” to Jerusalem (cf. 9:57). 33 This verse represents a high concentration of Lukan language (cf. Jeremias, Sprache, 319), b u t there needs to be a retu rn to Jerusalem to balance the depar ture from Jerusalem in v 13. Perhaps the original had a bare retu rn statem ent (see the end of Form/Structure/Setting above). The present departure statem ent corresponds to those of vv 9 and 52. The departure is m ade m ore urgent by Luke’s desire to contain the action of Luke 24 within the scope of Easter Day. The m en tion of the Eleven and their associates and the reporting in vv 34-35 to follow form the co u n terp art (in L uke’s version of the chiastic structure) to vv 9b-12. For Luke, the Apostolic band and those with them function to guarantee the transfer of the knowledge and significance of all that pertains to Jesus into the life of the church.

E x p la n a tio n

1207

34 For the sake of the priority of Peter (cf. at 5:1-11; 22:31-34), Luke needs to in te rru p t what would be the natural flow on to v 35 (cf. in Acts the placing of the Cornelius episode prior to 11:19-21; cf. 8:4-8). T hough the appearance to Peter had kerygmatic im portance in the early church (1 Cor 15:5), apparently no narrative account of it had been preserved. To cover this lack, Luke rather cleverly makes use of a narrative setting in which resum e reporting is the appro priate form. Claudel ( Confession, 142-43) has suggested with some plausibility that Luke is responsible for the change from “C ephas” to “Sim on” here: according to Claudel, Luke 6:14 sets up a language p attern in which “Sim on” will be the appropriate word when “the Twelve” are being talked about (and so, correspondingly, when “the Eleven” are spoken of), while “P eter” will be the term to use when the re lated expression is “the Apostles” (this fits 24:9-12, where “Apostles” is found in v 10). T he place of Peter in the chiastic pairing of vv 33b-35 and vv 9b-12 may be highlighted by a m inor chiasm between v 34b and v 12 (cf. Dussaut, RB 94 [1987] 210). Luke may also be responsible for “the L ord.” 35 This verse is a straightforw ard Lukan resum e of the preceding narrative. Luke is concerned to sustain a twin focus: the scriptural exposition “on the way” and “the breaking of the b read .” This latter phrase will recur in Acts 2:42 and in a related verbal form in Acts 2:46; 20:7, 11; and cf. 27:35. If it is no t already clear from Acts itself, then the present verse, with its links back through v 30 to the Last Supper and the feeding of the five thousand, makes it quite clear that Luke uses this language to speak of the eucharistic practice of the early church.

Explanation Still on Easter Day, the focus moves from a m using Peter to two disciples setting off for the village of Emmaus. In an elaborate structuring of the chapter, which is built around the Emmaus account, Luke organizes everything in a concentric p attern of paralleled elem ents. L uke’s telling of the whole story centers on the words of v 23: “who said that he is alive.” (For the disciples who make this report, there is no such emphasis, because they do not yet know the truth of this central affirm ation.) The risen Jesus who m eets them incognito explains to them his path through suffering and to glory from the Scriptures. Invited to stay the night, he acts the host and breaks bread for them . Both activities make a deep im pression that results in the disciples’ recognition of Jesus. They take the news back to Jerusalem , where already the re p o rt of an appearance to Peter has been circulated. Sixty stadia should probably be taken as the round-trip distance, m aking Emmaus about three and a half miles away. The disciples m ight be intending to lodge there for the rest of the Feast of U nleavened Bread, now that the main Passover celebration was over. They are leaving Jerusalem , but their thoughts are dom inated by what has so recently transpired in the city. Jesus joins the disciples as they walk along, bu t they do not realize that it is he. W hat keeps them from recognizing him? Quite a num ber of suggestions have been offered, b u t in L uke’s Gospel, the blinding effect of Satan probably pro vides the best explanation (see at 18:34). With a two-pronged strategy, Jesus will break through this blindness.

1208

Luke 24:13-35

As Jesus converses with the disciples, a nice irony emerges: the disciples point to the ap p aren t ignorance of this m an about Jesus, being quite ignorant them selves that they are speaking to none o th er than this same Jesus. Jesus gets the disciples to tell their story. T he elem ents of their story echo the way in which the early preachers of the gospel outlined the career of Jesus. In their story we should note the em phasis on the public nature of the events, which are therefore well known and open to public scrutiny, and the focus on the responsibility of the Jewish leadership (and not the Jewish People, who consider Jesus to be a prophet) for the execution of Jesus. The disciples, however, cannot yet tell the whole story. T he execution of Jesus has cast them into deep gloom, with all their hopes shat tered, and the reports of the wom en and m en who had visited the tom b have done no m ore than suspend them in a state of confusion and uncertainty. How does Jesus respond to such a scenario? He starts with a rebuke. T here is a guilty elem ent to the blindness of these disciples. In particular, the disciples have n o t responded in a believing m anner to the witness of the OT Scriptures. From the prophets, they should have learned that it was necessary for the Christ to reach his glorious destiny by way of suffering. This glorious destiny has been in view since 9:51. Jesus will reach it in 24:53. So endow ed with glory, he will be able to retu rn as the glorious Son of Man (see 9:26 and 19:12). (No do u b t the disciples should have known all this, but it is no t so obviously found in the OT. Easter faith gives a particular focus to the reading of the OT, and from this perspective one can see how the OT interprets and anticipates what was to be the destiny of Jesus.) Jesus proceeds to make good the deficit in the disciples’ understanding of the Scriptures (how the early church used the Scriptures to point to the resurrection/ glorification of Jesus is well illustrated in Acts). From v 32, we learn that not only were their m inds inform ed, bu t their hearts were also touched. Perhaps now they would be ready for faith in the scriptural witness to the destiny of Jesus as the Christ. T he disciples press hospitality upon Jesus in a way that rem inds one of the hospitality extended to angels in Gen 18:3; 19:2. In the logic of their urging, we already get an echo from the feeding of the five thousand (9:10-17; see v 12), which is to be an im portant background for v 30. In Jewish custom, apart from special occasions, the m ain m eal of the day seems to have been in the late afternoon. In the ancient world, hospitality to strangers ranked high as a religious virtue, and there were various stories, Jewish and otherwise, about “entertaining angels [or gods] unaw ares” (H eb 13:2). In this case, the disciples will find their hospitality well rewarded! T hough the guest, Jesus plays host. As he breaks the bread, he is recognized. W hat he does with the bread is rep o rted in words that echo Luke 9:16 and then secondarily 22:19. There is no sense in which Luke is claiming that Jesus celebrated a com m union service with these disciples; rather, Luke wants to make the point that the Christians of his day were able to have the living Lord m ade known to them in their “breaking of b re ad ” in a m anner that was at least analogous to the experience o f the Emmaus disciples. Earlier in the Gospel, the feeding miracle had had m uch the same effect for Peter and the others (see at 9:10-17 and then vv 18-20; the link of the bread with the feeding m iracle is strengthened by the m ention of fish in vv 42-43). As with the o th er encounters with the risen Lord, this one soon comes to an end, bu t its effect is perm anent.

T ra n sla tio n

1209

T he disciples th ought they had gone hom e for the evening, but their previous plans no longer seem ed appropriate. They m ust retu rn to Jerusalem and share the good news! But they find that the good news has ru n ahead of them . Peter, too, has m et with the risen Lord (curiously, the Gospels have no actual account of a private m eeting with Peter, though Paul puts this at the head of his list in 1 Cor 15:5). Because of the foundational role of Peter, Luke feels that it is im por tant to make clear that the gathered disciples receive P eter’s rep o rt before they receive the re p o rt from the Em maus disciples. T he foundations for the early ch u rch ’s preaching of the resurrection are being gradually developed.

Jesus Appears to the Disciples inJerusalem

(24:36M3)

Bibliography Bishop, E. F. E “With Saint Luke in Jerusalem from Easter Day till P entecost.” ExpTim 56 (1944-45) 192-94, 220-23. Boismard, M.-E. “Le realisme des recits evangeliques.” LumVie 107 (1972) 31-41. Chevallier, M.-A. Pentecotes’ lucaniennes et ‘pentecotes’johanniques. (24,36-49).” RSR 69 (1981) 301-13. Dauer, A. Johannes und Lukas: Untersuchungen zu den

johanneisch-lukanischen Parallel-Perikopen Joh 4,46-54/Lk 7,1-10; Joh 12,1-8/Lk 7,36-50, 10,38-42; Joh 20,19-29/Lk 24,36-49. FB 50. W urzburg: Echter, 1984. 207-88. Dillon, R. J. From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24. AnBib 82. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978. 157-203. George, A. “Les recits d ’apparitions aux Onze a partir de Luc 24, 36-53.” In La resurrection du Christ et Vexegese moderne, ed. P. de Surgy et al. LD 50. Paris: Cerf, 1969. 75-104. Guillaume, J.-M. Luc interprete des anciennes traditions sur la resurrection deJesus. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1979. 163-201. Kilpatrick, G. D. “Luke 24:4243.” NovT 28 (1986) 306-8. Neirynck, F. “Lc 24,36-43: Un recit lu canien.” In A cause de VEvangile, ed. F. Refoule. 655-80. Nestle, E. “T he H oneycom b in Luke xxiv.” ExpTim 22 (1910-11) 567-68. O’Collins, G. “D idJesus Eat the Fish (Luke 24:42-43)?” Greg69 (1988) 65-76. Rigaux, B. Dieu Va ressuscite: Exegese et theologie biblique. Gembloux: Duculot, 1973. 258-63, 274-76. Varro, R. “Presence du Ressuscite et mission de l’Eglise (Lc 24,39,47).” AmCl 80 (1970) 196-200. And see at 24:1-12.

Translation 36 While they were [still] saying these things, Jesus himself stood in their midst dand said to them, “Peace to you. ”a 37Startledf and frightened, they thought they were seeing a spirit.0 38So he said to them, “Why are you disturbed and why do doubts arise in your hearts?d 39See my hands and myefeet: that it is I myself. Touch me{ and see. For a spirit does not have fleshg and bones as you see that I have. ” 40hWhen he had said this, he showed them [his] hands and [his] feet. 41 While they still disbelieved from joy and [continned] to wonder, he said to them/ “Have you anything here to eat ?”42They gave him a piece of broiledfishj 43and he took it and ate it in front of them}

Luke 24:36-43

1210 Notes

a a O m itted by D it, and often considered secondary by earlier scholarship because o f the verbal identity with Jo h n 20:19. But the Jo h a n n in e links are still notable w ithout all the disputed pieces; P 75 supports the otherw ise solid testim ony in favor o f the longer reading; the greeting plays a part in the p attern of e n co u n ter with angels that is probably otherw ise reflected in the account. T he recent consensus favors the originality of the longer reading. T he addition o f εγώ ε ίμ ί, μ ή φοβεΐσθε, “It is I; do n o t be afraid,” in G P ( W 579) and some o f the versions represents an exploitation o f the Jo h a n n in e link in connection with a recognition of a certain similarity betw een the e n co u n ter with Jesus here and in the walking on the water o f Jo h n 6:16-21 (see v 20). b Reading π το η θ έ ν τες . P 75B etc. read θ ροηθ έντες and ‫ א‬W read φ ο β η θέυτες, but there is no signifi cant change o f sense. c D has φ ά ν τα σ μ α , “a p p aritio n /g h o st.” d T he original here is likely to have the idiom atic use of the sing., which has been “co rre c te d ” to the pi. by ‫ א‬A L W Θ Ψ etc. e T here is no second “my” in P 75L W Θ etc. f “M e” is missing from D W Θ etc. g I n a ra th e r unusual usage, the pi. is read here by P 75‫( א‬D), to m atch the pi. “b ones.” h D it sys,c om it the verse. Considerations from Note a are p e rtin en t here as well, and see discussion at Dillon ('Eye-Witnesses, 183-84). 1 “To th e m ” is om itted by D lat. j T he addition here of καί άπό μ ε λ ισ σ ιο ύ κηρίου, “and some honeycom b,” in Θ Ψ / u3 etc. finds some echo in some later eucharistic practice. Kilpatrick (N o vT 28 [1986] 306-7) has recently defended the longer text here on the basis of the role o f honeycom b in Joseph and Asenath. k A few MSS com plete the m eal fellowship here by having Jesus give the rest of the fish to the g athered disciples (K Θ Π / 13 etc. and versions).

Form,/Structure/Setting After the bridging piece provided by vv 33b-35, Luke continues to em phasize the tight interconnectedness of the units of this section by having the new developm ent reported here break into the reporting of v 35. For the chiastic structuring of the whole chapter, see at 24:1-12 (in this structure, vv 36-46[48] stand parallei to vv 4b -7 [8 ]). T he appearance scene (w 36-53) clearly has a relationship to the tradition beh in d Matt 28:16-20 and Jo h n 20:19-23 (not to m ention Acts 1:6-8). General discussion about the nature of the tradition is provided at 24:1-12. T he immediate source question here is that posed by the evidently rath er closer relationship between Luke 24:36-41 and Jo h n 20:19-20 (the link between Luke 24:47-49 and Jo h n 20:21-23 will be discussed with the next u n it). The closeness of the link can be seen by setting in parallel the relevant parts of the respective Greek texts (John and then Luke): b Ιησούς έστη βίς τό μέσον καί λέγει αύτοΐς * αύτός έστη εν μέσω καί λέγει αύτοΐς ‫־‬ ειρήνη ύ μ ϊν καί τούτο είπών έδείξεν τάς ειρήνη ύ μ ϊν καί τούτο είπών έδείξεν αύτοΐς τάς χεΐρας καί τήν πλευράν αύτοΐς · έχάρησαν χεΐρας καί τούς πόδας * άπό τής χαράς

While there has been no significant m odern support for the view that Luke had access to the Johannine text, there has been recent strong support from Dauer

F o rm /S tru d u r e /S e ttin g

1211

(Johannes und Lukas, 207-88) and Neirynck (“Lc 2 4 , 3 0 6 5 5 - 8 0 ”,43‫ ) ־‬for the view that J o h n is here d ep en d en t (directly or indirectly) upon the Lukan text. The nub of the argum ent is that features that are identifiably redactional in the Lukan text are also to be found in the Jo h an n in e rendering. Neirynck argues that, in fact, all o f the shared features in the respective narratives result from Lukan redaction. In the exam ination of the Lukan language reported below, it becomes clear that, while there is evidence of considerable Lukan redaction, it is not dem onstrable that any of the features shared between the Lukan and Jo h an n in e text form part of L uke’s developm ent of the text. T here is a certain am ount that could be Lukan (the first three words of v 40 and the greeting in v 36—if it were a deliberate Lukan echo of Luke 10:5), and to that degree it cannot be dem onstrated th at J o h n did n o t use Luke. But a shared earlier source seems to me altogether m ore likely. W hat can we say about the nature of L uke’s source? Naturally, m ore than language analysis is required for source judgm ents here. The text does seem to have some relationship to the OT patterns used for reporting encounters with angelic figures (see at vv 36, 37 below). Though this is a pattern that Luke makes use of elsewhere, he does not seem to be responsible for its presence here. A part from a certain am ount of Lukan reform ulation, the bridging supplied by v 36a and the probable Lukan expansion in the final clause of v 39 (possibly along with “touch me and see” from the m iddle of that verse) seem to be the only places in vv 36-40 where Luke is n o t m ore or less reproducing tradition. Major intervention begins in v 41, where the joy is likely to echo tradition, while the unbelief and the wondering are used to hold back until later a full response to Jesus’ self-revelation. The jo in t role of vv 30 and 42-43 in alluding to the feeding m iracle have al ready been discussed (see at v 30). The link between vv 42-43 and 9:10-17 is confirm ed in the Comment below by the considerable range of correspondences noted there. T hat 24:28b-30 was seen above to be a Lukan expansion does not require that the same ju d g m en t be m ade for vv 4 lb -4 3 , bu t it does oblige us to consider this possibility. Since it is hard to see a significance for the links with the feeding m iracle outside the connection with v 30, and since nothing viable is left of vv 4 lb -4 3 if we try to subtract the allusions to 9:10-17, we are, I think, forced to identify 24:41 b-43 as a Lukan expansion. (As we saw with vv 28b-30, this does n o t necessarily m ean that Luke had no basis in the tradition for the develop m ent. T he fish breakfast in Jo h n 21 can hardly be taken as a developm ent from Luke 24:41 b-43, yet it shares with Luke 24:41 b-43 the eating of fish while the risen Jesus is with the disciples [judging from the charcoal fire of Jo h n 21:9, the fish is broiled as in Luke 24:42], as well as the allusion to the feeding of the five thousand [John 21:9, 13]. Despite considerable imaginative developm ent, there seems to be some com m on core of tradition involved here.) It is suggested in the Comment below that there has been some pre-Lukan de velopm ent in the pericope, to reinforce its effectiveness in apologetic defense of the resurrection of Jesus. Luke may have carried this tendency a step further, but his m ajor intervention has been in connection with his concern about how the living Christ may continue to be known in the ongoing life of the church. T here are a nu m ber of similarities between the present pericope and the walk ing on the water in Mark 6:45-51 (unexpected appearance, fear [using ταράσσει ] , the idea on the part of the disciples that they m ight be seeing a ghost, use of εγώ

1212

Luke 24:3643‫־‬

είμ ι , “it is I ”), a pericope that Luke has no t reproduced. While these similarities are striking, all but the idea of a ghost and the use of εγώ είμι are com m on to “su p ern atu ral” appearances. Moreover, the explanation of inexplicable p henom e n a in te rm s o f g h o sts is a u n iv e rsa l p h e n o m e n o n , as is th e ro le fo r self-identification. Despite the notable similarity, there is no t likely to be any tra dition link between the accounts. Comment The conviction of vv 34-35 is now provided with fresh foundations as Jesus appears to the gathered disciples, demonstrates that he is not a ghost, and eats some fish be fore them in an act that echoes the place of the fish in the feeding of the five thousand. 36 T he transitional ταΰτα δέ αυτών λαλούντων, “while they were [still] say ing these things,” is clearly Lukan (cf. at 22:60); its role is to encourage the reader to see vv 36-43 as fu rth er confirm ing the Easter conviction of vv 33-35. 6στη, “stood,” may have a link with the use of this verb in connection with the appear ance o f angels in the LXX (see Gen 18:2; Dan 8:15; 12:5; 1 C hr 21:15-16; Tob 5:4[S]; cf. Num 22:22-24; the link could be m ade m ore confidently if there were an associated verb of seeing or appearing, but the link is found in Acts 10:30 w ithout such a verb, and possibly also in Luke 1:11). Luke is no t likely to be responsible for the historic present: λέγε 1 (lit. “he says”) . There may be a link between ειρήνη νμΐν, “peace to you,” and the directive to the itinerant m issionary in Luke 10:5 to im part peace to the house that he enters (see there [the language is tradi tional rather than Lukan]). Dillon (Eye-Witnesses, 186-93) argues the case at length, pointing to the additional shared motifs of eating the food set before one and proclam ation. T he linkages suggested by Dillon are both attractive and sugges tive but, beyond the greeting of peace, rem ain too imprecise to carry conviction. T he greeting of peace itself is questionable as a key identifying link because it is a standard Jewish greeting and is also a greeting used in OT encounters with an gelic figures (see Dan 10:19; cf. Ju d g 6:23). 37 7ττοηθέντες δέ καί έμφοβοι (lit. “having been terrified and [being] fear fu l”) is Lukan language (cf. Dauer, Johannes und Lukas, 262-63). However, the difficulty of such a reaction after vv 34-35 makes it unlikely that Luke has intro duced the fear m otif here. The fear language could be a fu rth er link with the pattern o f an angelic visitation (cf. Luke 1:12, 30; 2:9; 24:5; Acts 10:4; Dan 8:17; Tob 12:16), b ut the continuation of the verse takes us in a rath er different direc tion. Perhaps we have here an adaptation of the “angelophany” form to the needs o f an account whose central concern m ust be with the identification of the one appearing as the risen Jesus. The use of the angelic visitation p attern could lend a certain sense of the supernatural to the account. In vv 44-49, the p attern will be suitably carried forward with the words of Jesus (which have their counterpart in the messages brought by angelic figures). The words έμφοβοι γενόμενοι (lit. “becom ing fearful”) will be intended to echo έμφοβων γενομένων (lit. “becom ing fearful”) in v 5, reinforcing the natural parallelism between the two episodes (in this light, the fact that έστη, “stood,” in v 36 is cognate with έπέστησαν, “ap p eared ,” gains a significance not previously evident, as does the similarity between είπαν προς αύτάς, “said to th em ,” and λέγει αύτοΐς, “says to th em ,” in the same verses and the question form shared between vv 5 and 38).

C om m ent

1213

W hat does Luke m ean here by 77νεύμα, “spirit”? Probably we need to go to the world of m edium s and the consulting of the dead to understand the role of “spirit” here (cf. 1 Sam 28:3-19; Isa 8:19; 19:3; 29:4). T hough the dead were essentially tied to their graves, it was considered possible at times to call up the dead in the form o f ghostly apparitions. O ne ought, however, not to think of these appari tions as being in any proper sense the person: it was m ore like some sort of residue of what had been the life of the person. This was possible, b u t strictly forbidden in the law (Lev 19:31; 20:6; D eut 18:11). The defilem ent of the grave attached to these specters and calling them up involved m eddling in things with which the living have no right to be involved. Calling up the spirits of the dead represented an attem pt to reinstate a past upon which God in his inscrutable purposes had closed the door. In (later?) popular thought it becam e possible to im agine these disem bodied specters as occasionally loose about the earth (see b. Ber. 18b; already in 4 Ezra 7:80 there is quite a Hellenistic separation of the body and the spirit, with the attribution of a separate existence to the spirit in the interm ediate state; and cf . Jub. 23:31). A second but rather less likely possibility is to see the “spirit” as a dem on mimicking the form of Jesus. 38 εΐπεν αύτοΐς, “said to th em ,” lacks the Lukan use of 7τρός. Only in 1:12 does Luke have ταράσσει v, “trouble,” with a com parable sense, and even there its role is different (see at v 37). Luke may be partly responsible for the diction in διά τι διαλογισμοί άναβαίνουσιν εν τρ καρδία υμών, “why do doubts arise in your hearts” (as Oauer, Johannes und Lukas, 264-66). However, Luke does not use διαλογισμός elsewhere to m ean “do u b t,” and only one of his twenty-eight uses of άναβαίνειν (here: “arise”) is com parable to the use here; at m ost Luke will have m odified the wording of a source. The disciples here are just as “foolish [and] slow of heart to believe” (v 25) as ever the Emmaus disciples were. 39 If anything is Lukan here, it is likely to be the final clause, “as you see that I have” (for the traditional nature of the content of v 39, see Dauer ,Johannes und Lukas, 266-68; b u t for the opposite view, see Neirynck, “Lc 24,36-43,” 668). The verse may, however, show the marks of earlier developm ent. The opening part of the verse (to “It is I”) could sustain the thought developm ent by itself. “A spirit does n o t have flesh and bones” would be an accurate and understandable explanatory developm ent (cf. “spirits have no h air” in Midr. Ruth 3:9). Finally, “touch me and see” (slightly awkward after the earlier use of “see”) could represent a developm ent designed to provide assurance that no “visual deception” was involved. This last developm ent could possibly be set to the account of Luke, who does have an o th er (rather different) use of ψρλαφάν, “touch,” in Acts 17:27. Given the loose and rather full clothing characteristic of ancient Palestine, apart from the face, the h an d s/fo rearm s (χεΐρας could be either) and the feet are the visible parts of a hum an body (John’s “h an d s/fo rearm s” and “side,” with their concern for the w ound marks, are likely to represent a later use of this tradition). So it is here that the pro p er solidity (“flesh”) and rigidity (“bones”) of the hum an body becom e evident. T here is really no sign here of anti-gnostic or anti-docetic polemic. The central affirm ation is “It is I myself.” Everything else is designed to support this affirm ation. The point is n o t to affirm a particular kind of resurrection: in the logic of the account, a spectral appearance would be no resurrection at all! In this context, there is an incidental (but not unintended) affirm ation of the inalienable materiality of the hum an body (resurrected or n o t).

1214

Luke 24:36-43

I cannot avoid the im pression that the extensive scholarly difficulty with this par ticular resurrection account betrays an underlying tendency to be scandalized by materiality. A ncient Hellenistic dualism lives on! 40 και τούτο elπών, “and saying this,” is a thoroughly Lukan tu rn of phrase (cf. Dauer, Johannes und Lukas, 269; but only in Acts does a Lukan use of this idiom actually em erge), but it is even m ore obviously a Jo h an n in e idiom (9:6; 11:28; 13:21; 18:1, 22, 38; 20:14, 20, 22; 21:19). δεικνύναι, “show,” is clearly Lukan only in 20:24, which is an insufficient basis for declaring it Lukan here. It is quite possible that v 40 form ed no p art of the m ost original form of this account. The verse simply adds additional emphasis by m aking the inspection of hands/forearm s and feet a m atter of deliberate display by Jesus. 41 T he dative after εΐπεν, “said,” and the NT hapax βρώσιμον (lit. “[some thing] eatable”) are insufficient to provide assurance of a source form behind the heavy concentration of Lukan language here (seejerem ias, Sprache, 321; Dauer, Johannes und Lukas, 271-74). However, there will have needed to be a response statem ent at this point in L uke’s source, άπιστούντων αύτών άπό τής χαράς (lit. “they being unbelieving from jo y ”) is notably parallel to the Lukan form ulation in 22:45: κοιμωμένους αύτούς άπό τής λύπης (lit. “them being asleep from g rie f’). From the rem arkable juxtaposition of unbelief and joy, one m ight already suspect that some kind of conflation is involved. Since the unbelief and the wondering both echo the state of m ind of the disciple band as reported by Luke in vv 11-12, and since these open up the space for the developm ent to follow (which is u n d er suspicion o f being a Lukan developm ent), we should probably identify the note o f joy as the original elem ent preserved by Luke here (this elem ent is also found in the Jo h an n in e text at this point). T here is a certain (inverse) corresp o n d en ce betw een the req u est for food h ere an d the offer o f hospitality (including food) in v 29. βρώσιμον is cognate with the word used for “fo o d ” at 9:13 (βρώματα ). 42 έπιδιδόναι, “give,” is a verb favored by Luke, and it is the verb used at v 30 in the meal scene recalls the feeding miracle in 9:10-17. It has already been sug gested that “fish” here has its counterpart in the “b re ad ” of v 30, and so together they correspond to the bread and fish of 9:13, 16 (see at 24:30). οπτός , “broiled,” is not found elsewhere in NT or LXX. μέρος is found only here in the NT with the sense “piece”; though the Greek word is quite different, in light of the other links, an echo of κλασμάτων, “fragm ents/pieces,” in 9:17 may be intended. 43 ενώπιον, “before,” is a favored Lukan word, while λαβών (lit. “having taken”) and έφαγεν , “he ate,” are likely here to echo Luke 9:16-17. T he role that we should ascribe to vv 4 lb -4 3 depends partly upon where in the account Luke would have us understand that the disciples were able to move on to a full belief in the resurrected Lord. Is it after v 43? This view gives weight to the έτι, “still,” at the beginning of v 41 and to the participial construction to which it is linked: the eating resolves the residual doubt. But w ithout denying the im portance of the eating, two factors count in favor of an alternative view. ( i) In the Lukan Emmaus account, the com bined effect of the exposition of Scripture and the breaking of bread creates an awareness of the reality of the presence of the risen Lord. Vv 44-49 contain strong echoes of the scriptural exposition of w 25-27, which suggests that here too the exposition of Scripture contributes to the disciples’ moving on from their state of (partial) doubt in v 41. (ii) In v 52,

E x p la n a tio n

1215

the (qualified) joy of v 41 is taken up again as an unqualified “great joy” (and note that here the disciples are said for the first time to worship Jesus). In light of these considerations, it seems better to see that Luke is reiterating and expand ing the Emmaus pattern: beyond the partial belief achieved by v 41 through the display of hands and feet, here the com bined effect of the meal, the teach in g / scriptural exposition, and the experience of the ascension of Jesus brings to maturity faith in the resurrection of Jesus. If the role of vv 4 lb -4 3 is to be seen primarily in this framework, then we ought n o t to provide any strong link between the eating and the concern about w hether the appearance is that of a specter. Eating cannot of itself “prove”Jesus’ genuine m aterial hum anity (the angelic figures representing the presence of the Lord in Gen 18 m anage quite a substantial meal [and. cf. 19:3], while in Tobit the angel Raphael gave every appearance of eating and drinking [see Tob 12:19]). Rather, as in the feeding o f the five thousand and as for the Emmaus disciples, Jesus is m ade known for who he is in the meal setting. Since there is no specific way in which the eating of a piece of broiled fish could achieve such a revelation, we should allow the account to function symbolically. T hrough it, Luke expresses a eucharistic theology. Explanation To the empty tomb, the angelic witness, the experience of the Emmaus dis ciples, and the rep o rt of the experience of Peter, Luke now adds an encounter by the gathered disciples with the risen Lord. Jesus dem onstrates that he is no specter and, by eating some fish, provides for L uke’s narrative the other half (with verse 30) of the link back to the feeding of the five thousand, that event in his earthly ministry through which the disciple band came to recognize (up to a point) Jesus’ true identity. O ccurring while the reporting is still going on, this new developm ent is m eant to be taken as fu rth er confirm ation of the tru th of the Easter conviction. Luke will tell this story of Jesus’ appearance in language that occasionally evokes OT accounts of the appearance of angelic figures. In this way, Luke probably under lines th e “su p e rn a tu ra l” n atu re o f w hat is being ex p e rien ce d and perhaps encourages us to see Jesus speaking as the m outhpiece of God in m uch the way the angel Gabriel did in chap. 1. In the larger Lukan structuring, there is a delib erate paralleling of the w om en’s experience with the angels at the tom b with this present en co u n ter with the risen Lord. Jesus’ greeting is one of peace, bu t the disciples feel anything but peaceful about the encounter. They are thoroughly rattled and quite un p rep ared to see this figure as the risen Lord Jesus. They think rath er of the sort of apparitions and voices associated with the calling up of the dead by m ediums. The disciples are ju st as “foolish [and] slow of h eart to believe” as ever the Emmaus disciples (v 25) had been. Jesus challenges the disciples about this and moves to overcome their doubts. Jesus begins by affirming his own identity: “It is I myself.” But this is not enough. The disciples have seen Jesus’ face. Given the loose and rath er full clothing characteristic of ancient Palestine, the lower arms and the feet are the other visible parts of a hum an body. An exam ination of these parts should show that Jesus is

1216

Luke 24:44-49

no specter b u t has the solidity (“flesh”) and the rigidity (“b ones”) of a proper hum an body. (No doubt in the interests of Christian apologetics, the account is fashioned to underline heavily the visual and tactile evidence for this appearance n o t being a m ere specter.) Jesus’ efforts are partly successful: joy replaces fear; but there is still unbelief and wondering. T he risen Lord is not yet fully known for who he is. As for the Emmaus disciples, Luke tells us that it was in the breaking of bread that things finally came together. T he eating of the fish here is the o th er half of the allusion to the feeding of the five thousand that was noted in the discussion of the Emmaus meal. (Note the vocabulary links through vv 41-43.) In a rath er m ore indirect way than was the case in the Emmaus account, Luke is pointing to the way in which, for the early church, the risen Lord continued to be m ade known for who he really was in the com m union practice of the church. In vv 36-53, Luke is concerned to reiterate and expand the Emmaus pattern: partial belief is achieved through the display of hands and feet in v 39 and by Jesus’ participation in the m eal in vv 40-47. Yet to com e is the place given to teach ing/scriptural exposition in verses 44-49; finally, the disciples experience the ascension of Jesus in vv 50-53. Only then is faith in the resurrection of Jesus b ro u g h t to its maturity. T hough the disciples’ disbelief is reprehensible, for Luke there is clearly an apologetic value in the disciples’ difficulty to reach a secure knowledge of the resurrected Lord. T he difficulties involved may point as well to the immensity and the mystery being encountered here for the first time in hum an history.

Jesus Instructs and Expounds Scripture

(24:44-49)

Bibliography Basset, J.-C. “D ernieres paroles du ressuscite et mission de l’Eglise au jo u rd ’hui (A propos de Mt 28,18-20 et paralleles). RTP 114 (1982) 349-67. Benoit, P. The Passion and Resurrection ofJesus. 313-42. Bockel, P. “Luc 24,45: ‘II leur ouvrit l’esprit a !’intelligence des ecritures.’” BTS 36 (1961) 2-3. Dillon, R. J. From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradi-

tion and Composition in Luke 24. AnBib 82. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978. 2 0 3 -2 0 .------------ . “Easter Revelation and Mission P rogram in Luke 24:46-48.” In Sin, Salvation, and the Spirit: Commemorating the Fiftieth Year of the Liturgical Press, ed. D. D urken. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979. 240-70. Domer, M. Das Heil Gottes. 99-106. Duesberg, H. “He O pened T heir Minds to U nderstand the Scriptures.” Concil30 (1968) 111-21. Dumm, D. R. “Luke 24:44-49 and Hospitality.” In Sin, Salvation, and the Spidt: Commemorating the Fiftieth Year of the Liturgical Press, ed. D. D urken. Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 1979. 231-39. Dupont, J. “La portee christologique de Γ evangelisation des nations d ’apres Luc 24,47.” In Neues Testament und Kirche. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg im B.: H erder, 1974. 125-43. ------------ . “La mission de Paul d ’apres Actes 26.16-23 et la mission des apotres d ’apres Luc 24.44-49 et Actes 1.8.” In Paul and Paulinism. FS C. K. Barrett, ed. M. D. H ooker and S. G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982. 290-301. Ernst, J. “Schriftauslegung

F o rm /S tru d u r e /S e ttin g

1217

u n d Auferstehungsglaube bei Lukas.” TGI60 (1970) 360-74; rep rin ted in Schriftauslegung, ed. J. Ernst. M unich: Schoningh, 1972. 177-92. George, A. “L’Intelligence des ecritures (Luc 24,44-53).” BVC 18 (1957) 65-71. Hubbard, B. J. “Com m issioning Stories in LukeActs: A Study o f T h e ir A n teced en ts, F orm an d C o n te n t.” Semeia 8 (1977) 103-26. Kingsbury, J. D. “Luke 24:44-49.” Int 35 (1981) 170-74. Kiimmel, W. G. Promise and Fulfilment. 105. Legrand, L. “T he Missionary C om m and of the Risen Christ: I. Mission and R esurrection.” ITS 23 (1986) 290-309. Prast, F. Presbyter und Evangelium in nachapostolischer Zeit: Die Abschiedsrede des Paulus in Milet (Apg. 20,17—38) im Rahmen der lukanischen Konzeption der Evangeliumsverkundigung. FB 29. Stuttgart: K atholisches Bibelwerk, 1979. 281-84. Schneider, G. “D er M issionsauftrag Jesu in der D arstellung d er Evangelien.” In Lukas, Theologe der Heilsgeschichte. 184-205. Sieber, J. H. “T he Spirit as the ‘Promise o f My F ath e r’ in Luke 24:49.” In Sin, Salvation, and the Spirit: Commemorating the Fiftieth Year of the Liturgical Press, ed. D. D urken. Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 1979. 271-78. A nd see at 24:1-12, 36-43.

Translation

44He said to them, “These are mya words which I spoke to you while I was still with you: Tt is necessary for everything written in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms concerning me to befulfilled. ’”45Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures:46he said to them, “This is what stands written: the Christ is to suffer, and to risefrom the dead b on the third day; 47and repentance for the forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning0from Jerusalem. 48You [are]4 witnesses of these things. 49eI am sending the promise of my Fatherf upon you: you are to wait in the city until you are clothed with powerfrom heaven. ” Notes a “My” is missing from ‫ א‬W Θ / u3 etc. b “From the d e a d ” is missing from D sa. c In P 75 A C3 W / 1,13 etc., the hanging nom inative participle άρξάμενοί, “begin n in g ,” becom es άρξάμβνον, to agree with 6θνη, “nations.” T he genitive form in D Ac etc. is m ore difficult to explain, as is the masc. nom inative sing, in Θ Ψ 565 etc. d T he verb έ σ τ έ , “a re,” is supplied b y ^ Α 6 ί \ ν Θ Ψ etc. e Ιδού (lit. “b e h o ld ”) is left untranslated. It is missing from P 75‫ א‬D L 33 lat etc. and may n o t be original. f “T he F a th er” is missing from D e (so: “my prom ise”).

Form/Structure/Setting T he en co u n ter with the risen Lord continues here, with final teaching and instruction. Vv 44-46 take us again over terrain familiar to us from vv 6-7 and 26-27, b u t vv 47-49 move into new territory with their mission emphasis. See fu rth er at 24:1-12 on the larger structure of the chapter. T here is quite a broadly based consensus that for this u n it we are very m uch in Luke’s hands (see Dauer, Johannes und Lukas, 275-83; Guillaume, Luc interprete, 181-87). N ot that this m eans that Luke lacked a significant foundation in the tradition for what he attributes to the risen Lord here. Luke could draw on the tradition in the Emmaus account at vv 26-27 (see there). Luke had the passion predictions to draw upon. T he idea that the pre-passion Jesus had seen his destiny being

1218

Luke 24:44-49

governed, at least in part, by the need to fulfill Scripture, although distinctly imp o rta n t for Luke, is n o t u n iq u e to him (Luke in tro d u ce d it into a passion prediction at 18:31, but Mark before him has such an idea at 9:12; 14:21, 49; the early ch u rch ’s use o f Scripture was strongly m arked by this id e a ). Luke had available the m aterial o f Mark 13:10, which he passed over in chap. 21. Beyond these obvious sources, there is the evident relationship between m aterials here and in appearance accounts in Matthew and J o h n (see at 24:1-12 for a listing of the shared featu res). T he uniquely Lukan content (as distinct from form ulation and differences at the level o f detail) may be reduced to (i) the idea that the preaching to all na tions was anticipated in the Scriptures and (ii) the call to sit tight in Jerusalem until the prom ised power from on high should arrive (I have subsum ed here “beginning from Jerusalem ” from v 48). Point i is a pervasively present conviction through the pages o f Acts, which comes into particular focus in Acts 15:15-18 (and cf. esp. 13:47). O ne m ight suspect that if the mission to the Gentiles had been as patently obvious to the earliest disciple group as this instruction from the risen Lord should have m ade it, then the problem s leading up to the m eeting of Acts 15 would n o t have occurred in the way they did. T here can be little doubt that L uke’s version of the risen L ord’s teaching here compresses together things that only over a period of time were clearly recognized to be the will of the risen Christ. Point ii is a feature of L uke’s particular schematic way of linking the mission of Jesus and that o f the early church. T he sense that Jesus is no longer to be with the disciples hovers over these verses. W hen this is seen in connection with the links between the blessing of v 50 and the farewell blessings of Abraham and Moses (see below at vv 50-53), it becomes evident that Luke has shaped these verses with the testam entary genre in mind: this is to be seen as com parable to the final discourse before death of a great m an with his family/followers (Tob 12 probably exhibits an adaptation of this genre in connection with the return of the angel Raphael to heaven; Tob 12 also shares with Luke 24 the m otif of the revelation of the unknown identity of the central figure). Comment Jesus’ final conversation with his disciples before his departure to heaven reiterates the conviction that the pattern of his destiny is preset by the testimony of Scripture. Set there, too, is the need for the com ing mission of the church, as the disciples bear their witness to what they have seen and heard. For this they will be em pow ered by the Spirit of God, to be sent to them by the exalted Jesus. 44 All the language here fits Lukan diction. Luke puts down a m arker at 18:31 (and cf. 22:37), which prepares for the present reference back to “while I was still with you.” The risen Lord repeats the message of the pre-passion Jesus, but now his message strikes hom e. The incognito risen Lord had delivered m uch the same message to the Em m aus disciples (cf. 24:27 and see there). Note the deliberate language links between vv 25-27 and v 44 (“he said to them . . . spoke . . . it is [was] necessary . . . Moses . . . a l l . . . the prophets . . . the Scriptures, ταϊς γραφαις [the things having been written, τά γβγραμμένα ] . . . concerning himself [me] ”). Except for the position of “all” (actually m ultiple present in vv 25-27) and “the Scriptures,” even the word order is the same (in v 44, “all” comes before

Comment

1219

“Moses,” and the participial equivalent for “the Scriptures” comes in between— Luke will use “the Scriptures” in v 45; if we take this as the equivalent, then the verbal sequence will have the inversion of two pairs in what is otherwise a parallel sequence [including v 45 draws in the similarity of idea between “interpreted to th em ” in v 27 and “opened their m inds” in v 45]). There is also a verbal linkage here with vv 6-7. In com m on is “spoke to you yet being . . . it is necessary,” which can be supplem ented from v 46 with “to rise on the third day.” In the Lukan chiasmic structuring of the chapter, this contributes to the parallelism between vv 4 b -7 (8) and 36-46(8). 45 T he language is Lukan, echoing v 32 in both thought and language (see th e re ). The idiom (to open the heart) in Acts 16:14 is notably similar to the opening o f the m ind here, but the sense is rath er different. The activity involved will be the same as that in v 27. 46 ούτως γέγραπταί (lit. “thus it has been w ritten”) is found only here, but Luke uses καθώς or ώς γέγραπταί, ‘ju st as” or “as it has been w ritten,” in 2:23; 3:4; Acts 7:42; 13:33; 15:15. παθεΐν τον Χριστόν (lit. “the Christ to suffer”) is repeated from v 26. καί άναστήναί . . . τη τρίτη ήμερα , “to rise on the third day,” repeats the wording of v 7 (but with the verb brought forw ard). Luke has not previously used εκ νεκρών (lit. “out of dead [ones] ”) in connection with the res urrection of Jesus. He has used the phrase of the possibility of Jesus being Jo h n the Baptist raised from the dead (9:7) and in other discussions of resurrection (16:31; 20:35). In the Acts preaching, the phrase will be regularly used with reference to the resurrection of Jesus; it was clearly part of the standard kerygmatic language of the early church. 47 T hough various attem pts have been m ade to take it in o th er ways, the only natural way to take the infinitive κηρυχθήναί, “to be preach ed ,” is in parallel with the previous infinitives: this activity too has been anticipated in the Scrip tures (cf. Acts 13:47; 15:15-18). There is m uch to be said for the well-canvassed view that Luke is making use here of the content of Mark 13:10, which he passed over in chap. 21 (Mark 13:10 has κηρνχθήναί, “to be p reach ed ,” and εις πάντα τά έθνη, “to all the nations”; Luke has preferred over M ark’s τό εύαγγέλιον , “the gospel” [which Luke never uses in the Gospel (twice in Acts)] his own summary of the gospel message [“repentance for the forgiveness of sins”; the phrase is found in 3:3 (see discussion there) in connection with J o h n ’s preaching, and Acts 5:31 is closely related ]). T hough Mark 13:10 is likely to be the im m ediate source, Matt 28:19 suggests that, in taking Mark 13:10 into a post-resurrection appearance setting, Luke was responding to an im pulse already available to him in the tradition. L uke’s interest in the universality of the Christian message was m arked as early as 2:32 (see there). O f the senses that επί τω όνόματί αυτού , “in his nam e,” can take (cf. at 9:48a), best here is “by people acting as my representatives” (this finds support from Acts 26:22-23 [which is notably parallel to Luke 24:44-47], where the resurrected Christ proclaims “to the People and to the nations”) ; also just possible would be a sense based on com parison with Acts 10:43 (where, however, διά του ονόματος, “through his n am e” is used): “in my n am e” would link with “forgiveness of sins,” the point being that forgiveness of sins through Jesus is being offered. The Jerusalem beginning will be reinforced in v 49b (cf. the Galilean begin ing for Jesus’ m inistry in 23:5). It will be elaborated at Acts 1:8 (on the role of

1220

L uke 24:44-49

this Jerusalem beginning, see discussion at 24:1-12 on L uke’s location of the res u rrection appearances in Jerusalem ). 48 T he language here is cryptic. From the im m ediate context, we can infer that the disciples are directed to witness because they have experienced and are therefore in a position to testify about (i) the pre-passion teaching o f Jesus with its em phasis on the fulfillm ent of Scripture with reference to himself; (ii) the post-resurrection illum ination o f the Scriptures by the risen Lord; (iii) the pas sion events themselves; ( iv) the reality of Jesus’ resurrected state; (v) the need for universal proclam ation of the message of forgiveness in Jesus’ nam e (though to include it technically transcends the logic of the language, it is difficult to see how engagem ent in proclam ation can be excluded from the witness intended); and (vi) the need to begin this proclam ation in Jerusalem . In the Acts 1:8 paral lei (and cf. v 22), the Apostles are to be “my [Jesus’] witnesses,” but the wider group in view in Luke 24 makes it clear that the role of the Apostles, though central, is in no way m eant to exclude or excuse the wider disciple com m unity from the witnessing task (cf. the relationship between 9:1-6 and 10:1-20; the view o f Plevnick [CBQ 49 (1987) 90-103], that the role of those with the Eleven in Luke 24 is to be a pool out of which Ju d as’ replacem ent can be chosen, is m uch too restricted ). As the witnessing takes place in Acts, its central focus is on the resurrection, b u t also included are the passion events and even the pre-passion m inistry o f Jesus (1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31). 49 It is likely that Luke intends a certain echoing here of the infancy m ateri als (esp. chap. 1) with which he began his Gospel (“I send,” as the angel Gabriel had been sent in 1:26; anticipation of “the prom ise,” as the infancy events them selves had been in fulfillm ent of the covenant prom ise [1:54-55; 70, 72-73]; an outworking o f the fa th e r/so n relationship, as in 1:32, 35; action focused in the holy city, Jerusalem ; endow m ent with “power,” as in 1:17 [and cf. v 35]; “from heaven,” as was the sunrise of 1:78 [cf. the cognate term “m ost h ig h ” in 1:32, 35, 76; 2:14]). H ere we stand on a m ajor threshold, as was the case in the anticipa tory aspects of chaps. 1-2. This echoing of the beginning at the end will also be n o ted at 24:50-53 (see at v 50). Luke will use the striking idiom “prom ise o f m y /th e F ath er” again in Acts 1:4 (even m ore striking when prefaced with “I [Jesus] am sending”) . T here (v 5) it is explained in term s of the Spirit, with reference to the contrast between the bap tism Jo h n was able to offer and baptism with the Spirit of God (cf. Luke 3:16). T he logic o f the wait in Jerusalem (which takes us past the ascension) is clarified in Acts 2:33: Jesus sends the Spirit from his place of exaltation at the right hand o f God. T he language o f prom ise is applied to the Spirit also in Gal 3:14; Eph 1:13. In m ind are texts like Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 39:29; Joel 2:28 (quoted in Acts 2:17). In the context o f Luke 24:44-49, the Spirit is anticipated distinctly as em pow erm ent for the witnessing task that lies ahead. This prospect of em pow erm ent has its co u n terp art in the power o f the Spirit that undergirded Jesus’ own m inis try (cf. 4:14; 5:17). T he Pentecostal em pow ering of the disciple band has been prefigured in the “pow er” given in 9:1 (as the preaching to com e has in 9:2): in an anticipatory m anner, the disciples have already participated in the m inistry of Jesus (9:1-6; 10:1-20); they will in the future carry his m inistry forw ard when he sits exalted at the right h and of God. T he directive given here already implies Jesus’ im m inent departure, to be rep o rted in vv 50-53. T hough this is clearer in

Explanation

1221

Acts 1, in light of the translation to heaven to follow, we should probably see a link here with the transmission of the Spirit from Elijah to Elisha in 2 Kgs 2:9-10. Explanation Much o f this un it has a familiar ring, as the risen Lord uses his final o p portu nity for instruction to reiterate the conviction that the passion and resurrection fulfilled the m andate of Scripture. But there is also a less familiar them e, as vv 47-49 open up what will be the preoccupation of the Book of Acts. T he risen Lord points to the identity between his pre-passion teaching and the events o f the passion and resurrection and what he now as the risen Lord still wants to affirm. M uch of this content has already appeared in a post-resurrection setting in discussion with the Emmaus disciples (vv 25-27), and the angels at the tom b (vv 6-7) have shown some of the same preoccupation. T he scriptural need for the preaching of the gospel to all nations is a note that has n o t been clearly sounded before, though Luke has shown his interest in the universal claim of the gospel from as early as 2:32. W here do the Scriptures pre diet this preaching to the nations? Acts 13:47 and 15:15-18 provide some clue to the identity of these Scriptures. Preaching to the nations is indicated as the next stage of the career of the Christ: it is to be carried on by people representing the Christ and, as we will see in a m om ent, em pow ered by him. The close identifica tion between the Christ and those who speak in his nam e is evident from the language of Acts 26:22-23 (cf. 9:4-5). T he message can be sum m arized as a call for repentance with a view to the forgiveness o f sins. In L uke’s account, this was already Jo h n the Baptist’s message (see 3:3), but the story of salvation has developed since then: distinct to the present call to repentance and offer of forgiveness is the foundation in the death and resur rection of Jesus (the offer of the Spirit will also emerge as a new development). A Jerusalem beginning is im portant in the Lukan symbolism: though it is for all the world, the gospel em erges from the very heartland of Jewish faith. The pattern will be elaborated at Acts 1:8. T he wording here introduces the witness role of the disciples in a very cryptic m anner. We m ust draw its content first out of the im m ediate context (vv 36-47), then o ut of the earlier Gospel m aterial where the disciples experienced the prepassion m inistry o f Jesus, and finally out of the Acts story to come, in which we see this witnessing role actually worked out. As will becom e clear in Acts 1, the Apostles have a central role in witness, bu t witnessing is a task they share with many others in the Christian community. T he logic of witness in the Christian life is th at each witnesses to his or h er own gift. Supportive of the witnessing task is the promise of the Holy Spirit in v 49. Various OT texts anticipated an end-time outpouring of the Spirit of God; Jesus goes to exal tation in heaven to send this prom ised outpouring of the Spirit (see Acts 2:33). As in Jo h n 16:7, Jesus must go to his exalted destiny before the Spirit can be given. However, though the giving of the Spirit needs to wait for Jesus’ exaltation, the prom ise of power here has n o t lacked anticipations in the time of the minis try o f Jesus. Jesus has him self been em pow ered by the Spirit for his m inistry (see 4:14; 5:17); and Jesus has in turn given power to his disciple band, who have been sent o u t to speak and act in his nam e (see 9:1-6; 10:1-20).

L uke 24:5053‫־‬

1222

O n the threshold of the post-Easter mission of the church, Luke chooses lan guage for v 49 that has quite a num ber of echoes from chap. 1, where, at a previous threshold, the im m inent com ing o f the Christ as a hum an baby was anticipated.

Jesus Ascends to Heaven

(24:50—53)

Bibliography G eneral

on the

A s c e n s io n :

“T he A scension.” E xpT im 66 (1954-55) 240-42. B a i r d , W . “Ascension and Resurrection: An Intersection of Luke and P aul.” In Texts an d Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible an d Early Church Fathers. San Antonio: Trinity University, 1980. 3-18. B e l s e r , J . E . H istory o f the Passion, Death, an d Glorification o f O ur Saviour, Jesus Christ. A dapted by E A. Merks. St. Louis: B. H erder, 1929. 644-58. B e n o i t , P . “T he A scension.” In Jesus and the Gospel New York: H erder and H erder, 1973. 1:209-53. B e r t r a m , G . “Die H im m elfah rt Jesu vom Kreuz aus u n d der Glaube an seine A uferstehung.” In Festgabe fu r A d o lf Deissm ann zum 60. Geburtstag 7. November 1926. T ubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1927. 1 8 7 -2 1 7 .------------ . “Der religionsgeschichtliche H intergrung des Begriffs der ‘E rh o h u n g ’ in der Septuaginta.” ZAW 68 (1956) 57-71. B o c k , E. “Von d er H im m elfahrt im A lten u n d N euen T estam en t.” Christengemeinschaft 4 (1927) 45-50. B o u w m a n , G . “Die E rhohung Jesu in d er lukanischen T heologie.” B Z 14 (1970) 257-63. D a v i e s , J . G . H e Ascended into Heaven: A Study in the H is tory o f Doctrine. L ondon: L utterw orth, 1958. D e v o r , R . C. “T he Ascension of Christ and the Dissension of the C h u rch .” Encounter 33 (1972) 340-58. D o n n e , B . K . Christ Ascended. Exeter: Paternoster, 1983. F l i c o t e a u x , E. “La glorieuse ascension.” VSpir 76 (1947) 66475. H a r o u t u n i a n , J . “T he D octrine of the Ascension: A Study of the New Testam ent Teach in g .” In t 10 (1956) 270-81. H o l z m e i s t e r , U. “D er Tag der H im m elfahrt des H e r rn ” Z K T b b (1931) 44-82. J a n s e n , J . F . “The Ascension, the C hurch, and Theology.” TToday 16 (1959) 17-29. K e r n , W . “Das F o rtg e h e n Je su u n d das K om m en des G eistes o d e r C hristi H im m elfahrt.” GuL 41 (1968) 85-90. K r e t s c h m a r , G . “H im m elfahrt u n d P fm gsten.” ZKG 66 (1954-55) 209-53. L a k e , K . “N ote III: T he A scension.” In Beginnings o f Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes-Jackson an d K. Lake. R e p rin ted . G ran d Rapids: Baker, 1979. 5:16-22. L a r r a n a g a , V . L Ascension de Notre-Seigneur dans le N ouveau Testament. Scripti pontificii instituti biblici. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1938. L e o n - D u f o u r , X . Resurrection an d the Message o f Easter. New York: H olt, R inehart and W inston, 1974. 80-94. L o h f i n k , G . “D er historische Ansatz der H im m elfahrt C hristi.” Catholica 17 (1963) 44-84. M a n n , C. S. “T he New Testa m en t and the L o rd ’s Ascension.” C Q R 158 (1957) 452-65. M c N a m a r a , M . “The Ascension and the Exaltation o f Christ in the Fourth G ospel.” Scr 19 (1967) 65-73. M e t z g e r , B . M . “T he Ascension of Jesus C hrist.” In H istorical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Chris tian. NTTS 8. G rand Rapids, MI: Eerclmans, 1968. 77-87. . “T he M eaning of C hrist’s A scension.” In Search the Scriptures: New Testament Studies. FS R. T. Stamm, ed. J. M. Meyers et al. Gettysburg Theological Studies 3. Leiden: Brill, 1969. 118-28. M i l l i g a n , W . The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood o f O ur Lord. L ondon: M acmillan, 1901. 1-60. M i q u e l , P . “Le mystere de L’Ascension.” Q L P 40 (1959) 105-26. M o u l e , C. F . D . “T he A scension— Acts i.9.” E xpTim 68 (1957) 205-9. R a m s e y , A . M . “W hat Was the A scension?” In Historicity an d Chronology in the New Testament, ed. D. E. N ineham . L ondon: SPCK, 1965. 135-44. R u c k s t u h l , E . “A uferstehung, E rhohung u nd H im m elfah rt Jesu.” In Jesus im H orizont der A r g y le , A . W .

Bibliography

1223

Evangelien. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbande 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. 185-218. Schelkle, K. H. “Christi H im m elfahrt.” GuL 41 (1968) 81-85. Schillebeeckx, E. “A scension an d P en te co st.” Worship 35 (1960-61) 336-63. Schmitt, A. E n tru cku n g — Aufnahm e — Himmelfahrt: Untersuchungen zu einem Vorstellungsbereich im Alten Testament. FB 10. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974. Seidensticker, P., ed. Zeitgenossische Texte zu r Osterbotschaft der Evangelien. SBS 27. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967. 65-68. Selwyn, E. G. O u r L o rd ’s A scension.” Th 12 (1926) 241-44. Toon, P. The Ascension o f O ur Lord. New York: Nelson, 1984. Vogtle, A. “‘E rhoht zur R echten G ottes’: B raucht der O sterglaube die Krucken des antiken W eltbildes?” Orientierung 45 (1981) 78-80. Wilson, S. G. “T he

Ascension: A Critique and an In terp retatio n .” ZAW59 (1968) 269-81. F o r 2 4 :5 0 -5 3 :

Bacon, B. W. “T he Ascension in Luke and Acts.” Exp 7 /7 (1909) 245-61. Bouwman, G. “Die E rh o h u n g je su in der lukanischen T heologie.” BZ 14 (1970) 257-63. Creed, J. M. “The Text and In terpretation of Acts 1:1-2.” JT S 35 (1934) 176-82. Davies, J. G. “The P refigurem ent of the Ascension in the T hird Gospel. ”JT S 6 (1955) 229-33. Dillon, R. J. From Eye-Witnesses to M inisters o f the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24. AnBib 82. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978. 170-82, 184, 220-25. Enslin, M. S. “T he Ascension Story.” JBL 47 (1928) 60-73. Epp, E. J. “T he Ascension in the Textual Tradition of Luke-Acts.” In New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance fo r Exegesis. FS B. M. Metzger, ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee. Oxford: C larendon, 1981. 131-45. Fitzmyer, J. A. “T he Ascension o f Christ and P entecost.” 7N45 (1984) 409-40. Franklin, E. “T he Ascension and the Eschatology of Luke-Acts.” SJT 23 (1970) 191-200. Fridrichsen, A. “Die H im m elfahrt bei Lukas.” TBl 6 (1927) 337-41. Guillaume, J.-M. L uc interprete des anciennes traditions sur la resurrection de Jesus. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1979. 203-74. Hahn, F. “Die H im m elfahrt Jesu: Ein Gesprach m it G erhard L ohfink.” Bib 55 (1974) 418-26. Houlden, L. “Beyond Belief: Preaching the Ascension (II).” T h94 (1991) 173-80. LaVerdiere, E. A. “The Ascension of the Risen L ord.” BiTod 95 (1978) 1553-59. Leaney, A. R. C. “Why T here Were Forty Days between the Res u rrection and the Ascension in Acts 1,3.” SE 4 [= TU 102] (1968) 417-19. Lohfink, G. Die H im m elfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- un d Erhohungstexten bei Lukas. SANT

26. Munich: Kosel, 1971. Esp. 1 4 7 -7 6 .------------ . “‘Was steht ihr da u n d schauet’ (Apg 1, 11): Die Himmelfahrts- u n d lukanischen Geschichtswerk.” B K 2 0 (1965) 43-48. Lowther Clarke, W. K. “St Luke and the Pseudepigrapha: Two Parallels.” JT S 15 (1914) 597-99. MacRae, G. W. “W hom Heaven Must Receive until the T im e.” I n t2 1 (1973) 151-65. Made, J. F. “T he Ascension in Luke-Acts.” TynB 37 (1986) 29-59. Menoud, P.-H. “P en d an t q uarante jou rs (Actes 1:3).” In Neotestamentica et Patristica. FS O. Cullm ann, ed. W. C. van Unnik. NovTSup 6. Leiden: Brill, 1962. 1 4 8 -5 6 .------------ . “Rem arques sur les textes de l’ascension dans Luc-Actes.” In Neutestamentliche Studien. FS R. Bultm ann, ed. W. Eltester. BZNW 21. Berlin: T opelm ann, 1954. 148-56; ET = O b serv atio n s on the Ascension N arra tives in Luke-Acts.” In Jesus Christ and the Faith: A Collection o f Studies by P. H. Menoud. PTMS 18. Tr. E. M. Paul. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978. 107-20. Michaelis, W. Die Erscheinungen des A u ferstan den en . Basel: M ajer, 1944. 8 9 - 9 1 . ----------------------. “Z ur U b e rlie fe ru n g d e r H im m elfahrtsgeschichte.” TBl 4: (1925) 101-9. Palatty, P. “T he Ascension of Christ in LkActs: A Study of the Texts.” Biblebhashyam 12 (1986) 1 6 6 -8 1 .------------ . “T he Ascension of Christ in Lk-Acts (An exegetical critical study of Lk 24, 50-53 and Acts 1, 2-3, 9 -1 1 .” Biblebhashyam 12 (1986) 100-117. Parsons, M. C. “Narrative Closure and O penness in the Plot of the T hird Gospel: T he Sense of an Ending in Luke 24:50-53.” In SBL 1 9 8 6 Seminar Papers , ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1986. 2 0 1 -2 3 .------------ . The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension N arratives in Context. JSN TSup 21. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. --------------------- . “T he Text of Acts 1:2 R econsidered.” CBQ 50 (1988) 58-71. Plooij, D. The Ascension in the W estern ’ Textual Tradition. M ededelingen d er koninklijke Akadem ie van W etenschappen, Afd. L etterkunde, Deel 67, ser. A /2. Amsterdam: N oord-H ollandische

1224

L uke 24:5053‫־‬

Uitg., 1929. 39-60. S c h i l l e , G . “Die H im m elfahrt.” ZNWbl (1966) 183-99. S c h l i e r , H . ‘Jesu H im m e lfah rt n ach d en lu k anischen S ch riften .” GuL 34 (1961) 91-99; re p rin te d in Besinnung a u f das Neue Testament: Exegetische Aufsatze und Vortragell. Freiburg: H erder, 1964. 227-41; French version Essais sur le Nouveau Testament. LD 46. Paris: Cerf, 1968. 263-78. S c h n i d e r , F. “Die H im m elfahrt Jesu: Ende od er Anfang? Zum Verstandnis des lukanischen D oppelw erkes.” In Kontinuitat u n d Einheit. FS F. Mussner, ed. P.-G. M uller and W. Stenger. Freiburg: H erder, 1981. 158-72. S t e m p v o o r t , P . A . v a n . “T he In terp retatio n of the Ascen sion in Luke and Acts.” N TS 5 (1958-59) 30-42. W e i n e r t , F. D. “T he M eaning o f the Tem ple in Luke-Acts.” BTB 11 (1981) 85-89. W o o l s e y , T . D. “T he E nd o f L uke’s Gospel and the B eginning o f the Acts: Two Studies.” BSac 39 (1882) 593-619. W u l f , F. “‘U nd sie k eh rten m it grosser Freude nach Jerusalem zuru ck’ (Lk 24,52).” GuL 27 (1954) 81-83. A nd see at 24:1-12, 13-35, 36-43, 44-49.

Translation 50He led them out to near Bethany and he lifted up hisa hands and blessed them. 51What happened was that as he was blessing them he was parted from them and was earned up into heaven.b 52They worshiped hint and [then] returned to Jerusalem with greatdjoy. 53They spent their time continually in the temple e blessing God.f Notes a “H is” is missing from D W f f 2. b καί άνεφέρετο ε ις τον ούρανόν, “and was carried up into heaven,” is missing from ‫ א‬D it sys. This and the corresponding lack in D it sy5o f προσκυνήσαντες αυτόν, “w orshiped h im ,” from v 52 has attracted a great deal o f discussion. W ith the exception o f the study by Parsons (Departure, 29-52), the consensus o f m ore recen t scholarship is strongly in favor o f the authenticity o f these phrases (after an earlier tendency to follow the shorter W estern readings h e re ). Parsons makes his attem pt to identify the christological tendenz o f Ρ75 carry ra th e r too m uch o f the argum ent. His case is actually u n d e rm in ed by his own exegetical analysis o f the verses, in which he has to make a virtue out of L uke’s failure to m ention specifically the ascension to heaven that the earlier developm ent of the Gospel would have led the read er to expect (see esp. 106-10). T he shorter readings are best seen (i) as sm oothing ou t the tension betw een an Easter Day ascension in Luke and one forty days later in Acts (the Gospel scene is reduced to a tem porary dep artu re) and (ii) as a continuation of the policy o f the W estern text to abbreviate where possible in chap. 24 (the features that m ark the account as an ascension are n o t need ed here because there is a very clear ascension account in Acts 1). c See Note b. d “G reat” is missing from B. e T he tem ple location has been dro p p ed by A. f A concluding αμήν, “am en ,” is provided by A B C2 Θ Ψ / 13 etc.

Form/Structure/Setting By m eans o f the change of location, the final verses of the Gospel are m arked off a little from the earlier parts of the appearance account (v v 3 6 - 4 9 ) for which they provide the conclusion. This final unit is both the conclusion of the resur rection appearance account and the conclusion of the Gospel as a whole. As already with v 49, links are drawn between vv 5 0 - 5 3 and the infancy m aterials with which Luke began his Gospel. Luke will provide an o th er m ore elaborate account of the ascension in Acts 1:9-12, which he locates on the M ount of Olives, no t on Easter day bu t forty days

Form/Structure/Setting

1225

after the resurrection. T hough there is n o t the slightest external evidence (but note the odd transition to Acts 1:6, both in the way that back reference to the first volume gives way to the beginning of Luke’s narrative sequence for volume two and in the way that the location of the scene in vv 6-11 turns out in v 12 to have been the M ount of Olives and not Jerusalem itself, as would have been natu rally assum ed), there was a period of popularity for the view that there had been considerable later interpolation involved at the end of the Gospel a n d /o r at the beginning of Acts in the form ation of our present texts. The most extrem e form of this view suggested that both Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:1-5 were later insertions, probably to provide a term ination for the Gospel and a beginning for Acts when what was said to have been originally one continuous work was split into two. None of the interpolation theories has received any significant recent support. More sophisticated analyses of Lukan redaction have shown that there is no reason to suggest that the texts as we now have them are artificially dislocated in any way. Just as an artistic and theological logic com pletes the Gospel story on Easter Day (Grass [ Ostergeschehen, 44] is quite right to ask what m ore could be said by the risen Lord after v 49), so in Acts the forty days is likely to have a symbolic rath er than a chronological significance. Luke is concerned to affirm the risen L o rd ’s confirm ation of the teaching of the historical Jesus (now intelligible to the disciples in a new way). He also has a period of time (fifty days) to fill before the feast of Pentecost to which the giving of the Spirit is tied in his traditions (Wil son, ZNW 59 [1968] 270-72). The num ber forty has an illustrious history: the flood lasted forty days (Gen 7:17); Moses was on M ount Sinai for forty days (Exod 24:18; 34:28); Israel w andered for forty years (Exod 16:35), as Elijah did for forty days (1 Kgs 19:8); Ezra’s dictation to restore the destroyed Scriptures took forty days ( 4 Ezra 14:23, 36, 42-45); Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness (Luke 4:2); closest of all, B aruch was given forty days for the instruction of the people before his translation to heaven (2 Apoc. Bar. 76:1-5). It is very difficult to decide what Luke m ight have had in the way of sources for the form ation o f his ascension accounts. In the NT, Luke is quite alone in provid ing such an account (the longer ending of Mark [16:19] has an ascension, but the text does n o t specify the presence of the disciples; Gos. Pet. 55-56 has an unwitnessed ascension rep o rted to the wom en by the angel at the empty to m b ). T he language is heavily Lukan in both of his accounts, and a good proportion of the con ten t flows directly out of L uke’s use of the p attern for reporting transla tions to heaven (particularly those o f Enoch and Elijah, but with some relationship to the corresponding Hellenistic genre). W hen the dependence on Sir 50:20-22 is added, and the deliberate links with Luke 2, precious little rem ains to be drawn from an ascension tradition for Luke 50:50-53. O n the oth er hand, there are very definite links with Matt 28:16-20, which rem ind us of the way in which Luke roots even his m ost creative writing in the tradition. Luke has certainly no t invented the idea of Jesus’ ascension to heaven (see Jo h n 20:17; Eph 4:10; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:22; H eb 4:14; 6:19: 9:24), no r is he alone in drawing a distinction between resurrection and ascension (John 20:17). The idea that there was some kind of withdrawal of the resurrected Jesus would seem to be involved in the time-limited period of resurrection appearances implied in 1 Cor 15:8. But Luke is unique in providing an ascension narrative in which disciples experience the final departure of Jesus for heaven. Since the resurrection

1226

Luke 24:50-53

appearances are all experiences of a lim ited time of en co u n ter with the risen Lord, it may be that in order to provide a narrative that brings to expression the shared Christian conviction of Jesus’ ascension to heaven, Luke has developed this feature (arrival and departure) in connection with a knowledge that the ap pearances were all within a strictly lim ited period of time. For the account in Acts, Luke may have had m ore from the tradition; we cannot tell. T he texts th at speak of the ascension o f Jesus norm ally imply that this ascen sion is an exaltation. T here are other NT texts that deal with the exaltation without any ascension language (notably Phil 2:9-11), but when the contexts are taken into account, an ascension is always im plied (e.g., Acts 2:33; 5:31). W hat, how ever, o f the possibility that we m ight have an ascension that was no t an exaltation? This possibility has been proposed as representing L uke’s understanding of the ascension, and it has gained considerable support (e.g., Benoit, “A scension,” 1:243-55; Ruckstuhl, “Auferstehung,” 205-9; Fitzmyer, TS45 [1984] 421-25; Maile, TynB37 [1986] 38-58). According to this view, the appearances of Jesus have all been from heaven, and the ascension is simply the end-point of the sequence of appearances (which provides additional assurance to the disciples that Jesus had been translated to heaven at the time of the resurrection, where he now goes at the end o f this final appearance). In the discussion at 24:1-12, it was argued that the case of Paul has had an inappropriate influence on the scholarly attem pt to reconstruct the earliest traditions of resurrection appearances. In my judgm ent, the understanding of Lukan ascension being considered here is ultim ately u n d er the control of the same m ethodological erro r (see also at v 26). To make the ascension the assurance of Jesus’ exaltation, but n o t the event of exaltation, has the appearance of being a contrived solution. (There is, of course, no doubt that for Paul the resurrection of Jesus entails his exaltation, and even his ascension to heaven [1 Thess 1:10; Rom 1:4; cf. Eph 1:20; Phil 3:20-21]. Indeed, the same is true for Luke, if we may ju d g e from Acts 2:32-33; 5:30-32; and 13:30-37, where “raised” [έγβίρβίν in v 30, b u t άνίστάναί in b oth vv 33 and 34] seems to do double duty for resurrection and exaltation. But it is quite an o th er m atter w hether even for Paul this entailm ent m eant that resurrection was resurrection to heavenly exaltation. Paul appears n o t to have ever had cause to reflect on this matter, bu t those aspects of his theology of resur rection that draw strong links between the resurrection of Jesus and either the p resent life or the future resurrection of the believer would seem, in my ju d g m ent, to be b etter served if Paul did no t take Jesus’ resurrection as resurrection to heavenly exaltation. As divine affirm ation, the resurrection inevitably draws a m easure o f exaltation to itself, but this is in the first instance a visible-in-this-world exaltation and n o t an exaltation to heaven [see esp. Rom 1:4].) Comment T he ascension of Jesus to heaven brings to a culm ination that sequence of experiences through which the risen Jesus brings his disciples to a clear and defi nite faith in him self as the resurrected Lord, one who is due nothing less than the reverence o f worship. Secure in the blessing of Christ and with great joy, the disciples obediently return to Jerusalem . As they await the promise, they give them selves to fervent worship of God in the tem ple.

Comment

1227

50 έζηγαγευ, “he led them out,” is likely to be Lukan diction (it may go back to προάγει , “he will go before,” in Mark 16:7; there is likely, as well, to be a tradi tion link to M att 28:16, where Jesus is also responsible for the location). εως, “u n til,” with a following preposition is Lukan (cf. Acts 17:14; 21:5; 26:11). 6ως προς is best taken to m ean “to near Bethany” (cf. Lohfink, Himmelfahrt, 166-67). Bethany is on the southeastern slopes of the M ount of Olives. In Acts 1:12, the ascension will be located on the M ount of Olives. The two nam es are linked al ready at Luke 19:29. While the M ount of Olives location could be symbolic (see Matt 28:16; Mark 13:3; cf. 1 Sam 15:30, 32; Ezek 11:23; Zech 14:4), the (near) Bethany location would seem to require some basis in tradition (though there are some points of genuine likeness, it is eisegesis to make a “trium phal exit” out of the similarities with 19:28-29, 37-38, as Parsons does [Departure, 104]). Many writers have drawn attention to the close parallelism between a series of elem ents in vv 50-53 and in Sir 50:20-22. In Ben Sirach the blessing of the People by the high priest Simon comes at the end of a panegyric that lists in historical sequence the exploits of the great ones of Israel’s history. The blessing scene, as used by Ben Sirach, has a concluding function in his book, as the parallel scene does in L uke’s (cf. Lohfink, Himmelfahrt, 169). The two texts exhibit the follow ing parallels (Luke, then Ben Sirach): έπάρος τά ς χ εΐρ α ς αύτου εύλόγησευ . . . έπήρευ χ εΐρ α ς αύτου . . . όουυαι. εύλογίαυ . . . προσκυυήσαυτες . . . εύλογούυτες του θεόυ προσκυυήσεί . . . εύλογήσατε του θεόυ having lifted up his hands he blessed . . . he lifted up his hands . . . to give a blessing . . . having w orshiped . . . [in] worship . . .

blessing God bless God

This degree of parallelism can hardly be accidental, especially when the whole OT can yield only one text that can parallel the raising of hands here for blessing (Lev 9:22 has καί έξάρας . . . τάς χεΐρας . . . εύλόγησευ αύτους , “and having lifted up the hands . . . he blessed th em ”; this is probably the m odel for Ben Sirach and may have been recognized as such by Luke, since the Lukan text is at a couple of points closer to the LXX text of Lev 9:22). Luke is likely to have found fu rth er encouragem ent from the final blessings of Abraham (Gen 49) and Moses (Deut 33; in 2 Enoch 56:1; 57:2; 64:4 the p attern of final blessing before death has been secondarily adapted to the situation of the translation of Enoch to heaven; som ething very similar is happening here in Luke, but there is not likely to be any direct lin k ). Luke passed over the blessing of children from Mark 10:16; he may have wanted to save this m otif for the present climactic point. Luke has no interest in a priestly Christology: the link with Ben Sirach em pha sizes the stature of Jesus in Luke’s eyes and allows Luke to form ulate an effective climax and conclusion; it also allows Luke to exploit the link with the farewell blessings o f A braham and Moses; finally (as we will see in the following paragraph), it allows Luke to forge a link with chap. 2. Luke likely intends a link

1228

Luke 24:50-53

between Jesus’ capacity to bless here and the achievem ent of his passion and res urrection, b u t this is no t m ade precise in a n y way (but cf. Acts 3:26). It is likely that the series of links with chap. 1 noted for v 49 (see there) has its co u n terp art in a series of links for vv 50-53 with chap. 2 (the threshold is crossed from anticipation to fulfillm ent). H ere there is “he blessed th em ,” which is found in 2:34 o f Sim eon’s blessing of Mary and Joseph; in v 51 there will be the lan guage shared with 2:15: καί έγέν ετο . . . δίέστη[άπηλθον\ ά π ’ αύτών . . . ε ις τον ούρανόν (lit. “and it h appened . . . he parted [they departed] from them . . . into heaven”); in v 52 and 2:45, “they re tu rn ed to Jeru salem ” is com m on, while “great jo y ” is shared between v 52 and the message o f the angels in 2:10; in v 53, “in the tem ple blessing G od” has its counterpart with Simeon, who came “into the tem ple” and “blessed G od” (2:27-28; “continually” in v 53 may have its co u n terp art in 2:37 in Anna, “who did no t leave the tem ple”). This series o f correspondences makes it m ore likely in any particular case that the form ulation is Lukan. 51 T he έγένετο (lit. “it h a p p e n e d ”) construction is typically Lukan. δ ιέσ τη , “he p a rte d /d e p a rte d /w e n t away,” is likely to be Lukan (see Lohfink, Himmelfahrt, 170: Luke has the o ther NT uses of the verb; he uses the related ε π έ σ τη , “he a p p e a re d /tu rn e d u p /a p p ro a c h e d /sto o d near or by,” for the beginning of ap pearances o f supernatural figures), άναφέφειν, “take u p ,” is found frequently in Hellenistic accounts of journeys to heaven and translation accounts (Lohfink, Himmelfahrt, 42, 171). T hough briefly expressed, the translation to heaven here is the goal toward which the Gospel account has been heading since 9:51 (cf. 9:26, 32; 19:12; 22:69; 24:26; and discussion there). This departure to heaven will be presented in a m ore elaborate m an n er in Acts 1:9-11 (as there are strong links between the Acts version and the translation of Elijah in 2 Kgs 2 [cf. Sir 48:9, 12; 1 Macc 2:58], there is som ething to be said for seeing a link here with the m uch m ore briefly rep o rted accounts of the translation of Enoch in Gen 5:24; Sir 44:16; 49:14 [the LXX verbs here are, however, άναλαμβάνειν, “to be take u p ,” and μ ετα τίθ ένα ί, “to tran sp o se/tran slate”; cf. H eb 11:5]). 52 T he worship of Jesus here is one of a num ber of links between M att 28:1620 and Luke 24:36-53 (with Acts 1:6-11), which suggest some shared underlying tradition (see fu rth er at 24:1-12). Unlike his M arkan source, Luke has n o t used 7τροσκυνεΐν, “w orship,” earlier for response to Jesus (see Lohfink, Himmelfahrt, 171-72). This and the link with Sir 50:21 (where the worship is obviously directed to God) suggest that Luke intends to suggest that Jesus is at this point the object of religious reverence in a m anner that was n o t previously the case. T he depar ture o f the angel of the Lord in Ju d g 13:20 also leads to worship (“fell on their faces to the g ro u n d ”). The same pattern, and with use of 7τροσκυνεΐν, is found in accounts o f translations to heaven from the Greco-Roman sphere (Sophocles, Oedipus Coloneus 1654; Plutarch, Romulus 27.8-9; Lucian, De morte Peregrini 39 [sometimes apotheosis takes place at the m om ent of translation; som etimes the translation makes clear that it is a god who has been en c o u n te re d ]). The re tu rn o f the disciples here has its counterpart in the retu rn o f the wom en in v 9 and of the Emmaus disciples in v 33. T he re tu rn here marks obedience to the directive of v 49. See discussion at 24:43 for the role of the worship and great joy in m arking the em ergence of a clear and unqualified faith in the resurrection of Jesus. W ith the com ing of the Spirit, all will be in place for the beginning of

Explanation

1229

the mission task outlined in vv 47-48. The ascension to heaven concludes the earthly work o f Jesus; the sending of the Spirit will begin his work from heaven (cf. Lohfin k, Himmelfahrt, 252; Schnider, “H im m elfahrt,” 168-69). 53 The paraphrastic tense, the use of διά παντός, “continually,” and the temple focus are thoroughly Lukan (cf. Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42). T he tem ple focus of the infancy narrative will be repeated for the beginning of the Christian mission to all nations. Explanation Luke’s second and final resurrection appearance comes to an end with Jesus’ ascension to heaven. The change of scene to near Bethany marks off the final verses as a fitting conclusion and climax for the whole book. The self-identifica tion, the showing o f limbs, the eating o f fish, the reiteratio n of pre-passion teaching, the exposition of Scriptures, and now the experience of the ascension have worked together to build a firm foundation for resurrection faith. Now the disciples can wait in the tem ple in joy and confidence, in an attitude of worship, for the fulfillm ent of the F ather’s promise. For the telling o f this little episode, Luke draws on a num ber of patterns. Most extensively he draws upon a description in Sir 50:20-22 of a scene in which the high priest Simon blesses the People of God. The writer of Ben Sirach had used it to bring to a climax and conclusion his account of great heros of the faith; but Luke has a greater hero to p u t in this climactic spot, whose blessing m eans m uch m ore than th at of the Jewish high priest ever could! Luke has also been inspired by the OT scenes in which A braham and Moses (Gen 49; D eut 33) provide final instruction and blessing before their deaths. O f course, Jesus’ d ep arture is of quite a different kind, and that takes us on to the third pattern upo n which Luke is dependent. This is the p attern used to describe the translations to heaven of figures like Enoch and Elijah. The translation of Enoch is rep o rted in Gen 5:24 and that of Elijah in 2 Kgs 2. O th er early Jewish texts had accounts of the same translations and added other figures to the list of those so translated. T hough this translation clearly had its own unique features, this is the kind of experience that Luke understood Jesus to have undergone at the ascension. In addition to following these models, Luke desires to have his readers find echoes o f chap. 2 of the infancy narrative in this final episode of the Gospel (see Comment for details). Luke will provide a second account of the ascension of Jesus with rath er m ore elaboration in Acts 1. It is notable that Luke sets the Gospel version on the eve of Easter Day, while the Acts version comes forty days after the day of the resurrec tion. In both cases it would seem that Luke is motivated by symbolic rath er than chronological concerns. In the Gospel, he is making clear that the resurrection already entails the glory of ascension to the right hand of God. In Acts, he is concerned to affirm the risen L o rd ’s confirm ation of the teaching of the histori cal Jesus (now intelligible to the disciples in a new way). Forty is an im portant biblical num ber, one that finds fresh use in Jewish tradition. As a ro u n d num ber, it suits quite well L uke’s narrative need to bridge between the resurrection and the com ing of the Spirit at Pentecost (fifty days after Passover).

1230

L uke 24:50-53

T hough briefly expressed, the translation to heaven is the goal toward which the Gospel account has been heading since 9:51. It leads to the full possession of the glory glimpsed in 9:32 (cf. 24:26), the same glory with which he will com e as Son of Man (9:26). It is the departure to a far country to receive kingly power that was spoken of in a parable at 19:12. It is the destiny Jesus announced for him self at 22:69. After all the doubts and uncertainties, the disciples reach a m ature faith in the resurrected one at the point where he is parted from them by ascension. The disciples are filled with joy, and Jesus is treated as an appropriate object of reli gious reverence for the first time in the Gospel of Luke. The disciples now know what they need to know to carry forward the mission entrusted to them as wit nesses. T he disciples’ retu rn to Jerusalem marks their obedience to the directive of v 49. M ore deeply than ever com m itted to their ancestral faith, they worship fer vently in the tem ple while they await the prom ise of the Father, which will trigger the next stage of their activity. The ascension of Jesus to heaven has concluded his earthly work; the sending of the Spirit will begin his work from heaven, to be carried out through his disciples.

-Bibliographical Addenda for Volume

For

35a

1:1-4:

Creech, R. R. “T he Most Excellent N arratee: T he Significance o f T heophilus in LukeActs.” In With Steadfast Purpose: Essays on Acts. FS H. J. Flanders, Jr., ed. N. H. Keathley. Waco, TX: Baylor University, 1990. 107-26. Kurz, W. S. “N arrative A pproaches to LukeActs.” Bib 68 (1987) 195-220. O Fearghail, F. A Study of the Role ofLk 1:1-4:44 in the Compo sition of Luke’s Two-Volume Work. AnBib 126. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991. Omanson, R. L. “A N ote on Luke 1.1-4.” BT 30 (1979) 446-47. Plessis, I. J. du. O n c e More: T he Purpose of L uke’s P rologue.” NovT (1974) 259-71. G en er a l

for

1:5-2:52:

Beauduin, A. “T he Infancy Narratives, a Confession of Faith: Texts from Luke 1.” LVit 39 (1984) 167-77. Benoit, P. Les recits evangeliques de l'enfance deJesus. Exegese et Theologie IV. Paris: Cerf, 1982. 63-94. Bovon, F. “Die G eburt u n d die K indheit Je su .” BK 42 (1987) 162-70. Busse, U. “Das ‘E vangelium ’ des Lukas: Die F unktion d er V orgeschichte im lukanischen D oppelw erk.” In Der Treue Gottes trauen, ed. C. Bussmann and W. Radi. 16 179. Carroll, J. T. Response to the End of History. 37-53. Crouch, J. E. “How Early Christians Viewed the Birth of Jesus.” BRev 7 (1991) 34-38. Drewermann, E. Dein Name ist wie der

Geschmack des Lebens: Tiefenpsychologische Deutung der Kindsheitsgeschichte nach dem Lukasevangelium. Freiburg: H erder, 1987. Ernst, J. “Lukanische K indheitserzahlung.” In Johannes der Taufer: Interpetation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichten. Beihefte ZNW 53. B erlin/N ew York: de Gruyter, 1989. 113-39. Fiedler, P. “G eschichten als T heologie u n d Verkundigung: Die Prologe des M atthaus u n d Lukas-Evangeluims.” In Zur Theologie der Kindheitsgeschichten: Der heutige Stand der Exegese, ed. R. Pesch. M unich: Schnell, 1981. 11-26. Gollner, R. “Die lukanische K indheitsgeschichte im R e lig io n su n te rric h t.” LebSeel 34 (1980) 270-75. Gueuret, A. “Luc 1-2, analyse sem iotique.” SemiotBib 25 (1982) 35-42. Higgins, A. J. B. “Luke 1-2 in T atian’s D iatessaron.”JBL 103 (1984) 193-222. Horsley, R. A. The Liberation of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives in Social Context. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Irigoin, J. “La com position rythm ique des cantiques de L uc.” RB 98 (1991) 5-50. Jankowski, G. “In je n e n Tagen: D er politische K ontext zu Lukas 1-2 .” TK 12 (1981) 5-17. Kassel, M. “Weibliche Aspekte im lukanischen K indheitsevangelium .” Diakonia 15 (1984) 391-97.

Kaut, T. Befreier und befreites Volk: Traditions-und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu

Magnifikat und Benediktus im Kontext der vorlukanischen Kindheitsgeschichte. A thenaum s M onografien, Theologie: BBB 77. Frankfurt: H ain, 1990. Mather, P. B. “T he Search for the Living Text of the Lukan Infancy N arrative.” In The Living Text. FS E. W. Saunders, ed. D. E. G roh and R. Jewett. W ashington: University Press of America, 1985. 123-40. McHugh, J. “A New A pproach to the Infancy Narratives.” Marianum 40 (1978) 277-87. Moloney, F. J. The Living Voice of the Gospel: The Gospels Today. New York/M ahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1986. 93113. Mulhaupt, E. D. Martin Luthers Evangelien-Auslegung: I. Die Weihnachts-und Vorgeschichten bei Matthaus und Lukas. G ottingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1984. Neumann, J. “T he Child in the First Two Chapters of the Gospel of L uke.” In Proceedings of the Second Interna tional Symposium on Medicine in Bible and Talmud, ed. S. S. Kottek. Jerusalem : Israel Institute of Medical History, 1985. 164-72. Panier, L. “La nom ination du Fils de D ieu.” SemiotBib 59 (1990) 35-41. Pesch, R., ed. Zur Theologie der Kindheitsgeschichten: Der heutige Stand derExegese. Munich: Schnell, 1981. Resenhofft, W. Die Apostelgeschichte im Wortlaut ihrer beiden Urquellen: Rekonstruktion des Buchleins von der Geburt Johannes des Taufers Lk 1-2. E u ro p aisch e

1232

Bibliographical A ddenda for V olume 35a

H o ch sc h u lsc h rifte n X X III/3 9 . B e rn /F ra n k fu rt am M.: Lang, 1974. Reuss, J. “Ein u n b ekannter K om m entar zum 1. Kapitel des Lukasevangelium s.” Bib 58 (1977) 224-30. Ryckmans, J. “Un parallele sud-arabe a l'imposition du nom de Jean-Baptiste et de Jesus.” In Al-Hudhud. FS M. H ofner, ed. R. G. Stiegmer. Graz: Franzens-Univ., 1981. 283-94. Sabourin, L. “Recent Views on L uke’s Infancy N arratives.” RSB 1 (1981) 18-25. Schaberg, J. The Illegitimacy ofJesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives. New York: C rossroad/C ontinuum , 1990. Shuler, P. “Luke 1-2.” In SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 82-97. Stahlin, W. “Die B edeutung d er K indheitsgeschichten Je su .” In Wissen und Weisheit. Stuttgart: Evang. Verlagswerk, 1973. 65-73. Tyson, J. B. “T he Birth Narratives and the Beginning of L uke’s G ospel.” Semeia 52 (1990) 103-20. For 1 :5 -2 5 :

Brown, R. E. “T he A nnunciation to Zechariah, the Birth o f the Baptist, and the Benedictus (Luke 1:5-25, 57 -8 0 ).” Worship 62 (1988) 482-96. Buth, R. “W hat Is the Priest Doing? Com m on Sense and C ulture.”JerPeisp 4 (1991) 12-13. O Fearghail, F “T he Im itation of the Septuagint in L uke’s Infancy N arrative.” ProcIBA 12 (1989) 58-78. -------------. “T he Literary Forms of Lk 1,5-25 and 1,26-38.” Marianum 43 (1981) 321-44. Schwarz, G. “ΕΞ ΕΦΗΜΕΡΙΑΣ AΒΙΑ? (Lukas 1,5).” BibNot 53 (1990) 30-31. F or 1 :2 6 -3 8 :

Bacinoni, V. "Jesus et sa m ere d ’apres les recits lucaniens de l’enfance et d ’apre S. Je a n .” AuCoeurAfr 15 (1975) 175-81. Benson, G. P. ‘Virgin Birth, Virgin C onception.” ExpTim 98 (1986-87) 139-40. Bostock, G. ‘Virgin Birth or H um an Conception?” ExpTim 97 (1985-86) 260-63. — — — . “Divine Birth, H um an C onception." ExpTim98 (1986-87) 331-33. Brown, R. E. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection ofJesus. L ondon/D ublin: Chapm an, 1973. ------------ . “The Annunciation to Mary, the Visitation and the Magnificat (Luke 1,26-56).” Worship 62 (1988) 249-59. Butting, K. “Eine Freundin Gottes: Luk. 1,26-56.” TK 21 (1984) 42-49. Buzzetti, C. “Καχαριτωμέιτ! ‘favoured’ (Lk 1:28), and the Italian Com m on Language New Testament (“Parola del Signore”).” BT 33 (1982) 243. Conrad, E. W. “The A nnuncia tion of B irth and the Birth o f the M essiah.” CBQ 47 (1985) 656-63. Della Corte, E. “Keχαριτωμένη (Lc 1,28): Crux interpretum .” Marianum 52 (1990) 101-48. Faber van der Meulen, Η. E. “Zum judischen u nd hellenistischen H in terg ru n d von Lukas 1,31.” In Wort in derZeit. FS K. H. Rengstorf, ed. W. Haubeck and M. Bachm ann. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 10822. Fuller, R. H. “A Note on Luke 1:28 and 38.” In The Nezv Testament Age. FS B. Reicke, ed. W. C. W einrich. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1984. 201-6. Grelot, P. Evangiles et histoire. Introduction a la Bible. Nouvelle edition. Le Nouveau Testam ent 6. Paris: Desclee, 1986. 187-224. Laurentin, R. “Analyse sem iotique des evangiles de Marie [1 -2 ].” EphMar 32 (1982) 5 3 80. Legrand, L. L'Aannonce ά Marie (Lc 1,26-38): Une apocalypse aux origines de Vevangile. LD 106. Paris: Cerf, 1981.------------ . “The Angel Gabriel and Politics: Messianism and Christology.” ITS 26 (1989) 1-21. Meynet, R. “Dieu d o nne son Nom a Jesus: ,Analyse rh etorique de Lc 1,26-55 et de 1 Sam 2,1-10.” Bib 66 (1985) 39-72. Middleton, D. F. “The Story of Mary: Luke’s Version.” NB 70 (1989) 555-64. Miranda, J. P. “Empfangnis u n d G eburt Christi.” TK 8 (1980) 45-61. O Fearghail, F. “The Literary Forms of Lk 1:5-25 and 1:26-38.” Marianum 43 (1981) 321-44. Potterie, I. de la. “La m ere de Jesus et la conception virginale du Fils de D ieu.” Marianum 40 (1978) 4 1 -9 0 .------------ . “L,’annonce a M arie.” In Marie dans le mystere de I’alliance. Collection ‘Jesus-Christ” 34. Paris: Desclee, 1988. 39-69. Ryckmans, J. “Un parallele sud-arabe a !’imposition du nom de Jean-Baptiste et de Jesus.” In Al-Hudhud. FS M. Hofner, ed. R. G. Stiegmer. Graz: FranzensdJniv., 1981. 283-94. Sabourin, L. “Two Lukan Texts (1:35; 3 :2 2 ).” RSB 1 (1981) 29-33. Stock, K. “Von G ott b e ru fe n u n d von d en M en sch en seliggepriesen: Die Gestalt Marias in Lukas 1,26-56.” GuL 64 (1991) 52-63. Wilckens, U.

Bibliographical Addenda fo r Volume 33a

1233

“Em pfangen vom H eiligen Geist aus der Jungfrau Maria, Lk 1,26-38.” In Zur Theologie der Kindheitsgeschichten: Der heutige Stand derExegese, ed. R. Pesch. Munich: Schnell, 1981. 49-73. Zeller, D. “Die A nkundigung der G eburt: W andlungen ein er G attung.” In Zur Theologie der Kindheitsgeschichten: Der heutige Stand derExegese, ed. R. Pesch. Munich: Schnell, 1981. 27-48. For 1 :4 6 -5 5 :

Bemile, P. The Magnificat within the Context and Framework of Lukan Theology: An Exegetical

Theological Study of Luke 1:46-33. Regensburger Studien zur Theologie 34. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1986. Brown, R. E. “T he A nnunciation to Mary, the Visitation and the M agnificat (Luke 1,26-56).” Worships (1988) 249-59. Coste, R. LeMagnificat ou la revolution deDieu. Paris: Nouvelle Cite, 1987. Delorme, J. “Le Magnificat: La form e et le sens.” In La vie de la parole. FS P. Grelot, ed. H. Cazelles. Paris: Desclee, 1987. 1 7 5-94.------------ . “Le m onde, la logique et le sens du Magnificat.” SemiotBib 53 (1989) 1-17. Gueuret, A. “Sur Luc 1,46-55: C om m ent peut-on etre am ene a penser q u ’Elisabeth est ‘sem io tiq u em en f celle qui a prononce le Cantique en Lc 1,46?” BulCPE, Supplement April (1977) 3-11. Kirchschlager, W. Der Lobgesang Mariens: Das Magnifikat. Freiburg/Sw itzerland: Kanisius, 1984. Lohfink, G. “D er Lobpreis als A ntwort au f Gottes T aten.” In Gottes Taten gehen wetter. Freiburg: H erder, 1985. 79-90. Marshall, I. H. “The Interpretation of the Magnificat.” In Der Treue Gottes trauen, ed. C. Bussmann and W. Radi. 181-96. Morry, M. F. “The Magnificat: Reflections.” MarStud 38 (1987) 63-77. Muller, G. “Evangelische M arienverehrung: L uthers A uslegung des Magnifikat.” Luther 59 (1988) 2-13. Obbard, E. R. Magnificat: TheJourney and the Song. New York/M ahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1985. Reiterer, F. V. “Die F unktion des alttestam entlichen H in tergrundes fur das Verstandnis der T heologie des M agnificat.” HD 41 (1987) 129-54. Robinson, B. P. “Musings on the M agnificat.” Pnests and People 1 (1987-88) 332-35. Rouillard, P. “‘Magnificat.’” Catholicisme 8 (1977) 163-64. Schlosser, J. “Marie et la priere de l’Eglise d ’apres Lc 1,48 et Ac 1,14.” Manales 39 (1982) 13-22. Scholer, D. M. “T he Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55): Reflections on Its H ermeneutical History.” In Conflict and Context: Hermeneutics in theAmericas, ed. M. L. Branson and C. R. Padilla. G rand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. 210-19. Treves, M. “La Magnificat et le Benedictus.” CCER 27 (1979) 105-10. Zorrilla, C. H. “The Magnificat: Song of Justice.” In Conflict and Context: Hermeneutics in the Americas, ed. M. L. Branson and C. R. Padilla. G rand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. 220-37. F or 1 :6 7 -8 0 :

Carter, W. “Zechariah and the Benedictus (Luke 1,68-79): Practising W hat H e Preaches.”

Bib 69 (1988) 239-47. Schwartz, D. R. O n Q uirinius, Jo h n the Baptist, the Benedictus, Melchizedek, Q um ran and E phesus.” Rev(2 1 3 (1988) 635-46. Treves, M. “Le Magnificat et le Benedictus (Lc 1.46-55,68-79).” CCER 27 (1979) 105-10. G eneral

fo r

2 :1 -2 1 :

Aus, R. D. “Die W iehnachtsgeschichte im Lichte judisch er T raditionen vom Mose-Kind u n d Hirten-Messias (Lukas 2,1-20).” In Wiehnachtsgeschichte, BarmherzigerSamariter, Verloren Sohn: Studien zu ihremjiidischen Hintergrund. ANTZ 2. Berlin: Institut Kirche u n d Ju d en tu m , 1988. 11-58. Brenner, A. “Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive Patterns within the ‘Birth of the H e ro ’ Paradigm [1,8-2,7].” VT 36 (1986) 257-73. Buby, B. “T he Biblical Prayer o f M ary (Lk 2:19,51).” RevRel 39 (1980) 577-81. Chevallier, M.‫־‬A. “L’analyse litteraire des textes du Nouveau T estam ent.” RHPR57 (1977) 367-78. Conrad, E. W. “The A nnunciation of Birth and the Birth of the Messiah.” CBQ47 (1985) 656-63. Globe, A. “Some D octrinal Variants in Matthew 1 and Luke 2, and the Authority of the Neutral Text.” CRQ42 (1980) 52-72. HoUenweger, W. J. Besuch bei Lukas: 4 narrative Exegesen zu 2 Mose 14,

1234

Bibliographical Addenda for V olume 35a

Lukas 2,1-14, 2 Kor 6,4-11 und Lukas 19,1-10. T rak tate 64. M unich: Kaiser, 1981. Kellermann, U. Gottes neuer Mensch: Exegetische Meditation der Weihnachtsgeschichte Lk 2,1-20. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. Kerr, A. J. “No room in the katalum a.” ExpTim 103 (1991) 15-16. Kilpatrick, G. D. “Luke 2:4-5 and Leviticus 25:10.” ZNW80 (1989) 264-65. Lambrecht, J. “T he Child in the Manger: A M editation on Luke 2:1-20.” LS 5 (1974-75) 331-35. Lauverjat, M. “Luc 2: Une simple approche.” SemiotBib 27 (1982) 31-47. Merklein, H. “Ereignis u n d Legende: Zur theologischen Aussage der lukanischen W eihnachtsgeschichte Lk 2,1-20.” LebSeel 31 (1980) 258-64. Morris, R. L. B. “Why Αύγουστος'? A N ote to Luke 2.1.”NTS38 (1992) 142-44. Must, H. “A Diatessaric R endering in Luke 2.7.”NTS32 (1986) 136-43. Nelson, R. D. “David: A Model for Mary in Luke?” BTB 18 (1988) 138-42. Olley, J. W. “God on the Move: A F urther Look at Kataluma in L uke.” ExpTim 103 (1992) 300301. Pesch, R. “Das W eihnachtsevangelium (Lk 2,1-21): Literarische Kunst. Politische Im plikationen.” In Zur Theologie der Kindheitsgeschichten: Der heutige Stand der Exegese, ed. R. Pesch. M unich: Schnell, 1981. Richards, H. J. The First Christmas: What Really Happened? Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1986. Safrai, S. “No Room in the In n ?” JerPersp 4 (1991) 8. Schungel-Straumann, H. “Casar oder Christus? Christologische u n d politische A nliegen im W eihnachtsevangelium des Lukas [2,1-20].” KatBl 101 (1976) 796-803. Steffen, U. Die Weihnachtsgeschichte des Lukas. ARH-Taschenbuch 43. H am burg: A gentur des R auhen Hauses, 1978. Tenune, J. M. “T he S hepherd s’ Role.” BiT0d29 (1991) 376-78. Thorley, J. “W hen Was Jesus B orn?” GR 28 (1981) 81-89. Trudinger, L. P. “‘No Room in the In n ’: A N ote on Luke 2:7.” ExpTim 102 (1991) 172-73. Wolff, A. M. “D er Kaiser u n d das Kind: Ein Auslegung von Luk 2,1-10.” TK12 (1981) 18-31. For 2 :1 -2 1 (O

n the

C e n s u s ):

Buchheit, V. Hippolyt, Origenes undAmbrosius uberden Census August!. FS T. Klauser. Jah rb u ch fiir Antike u n d C hristentum . Erganzungsband 11. M unster: A schendorff, 1984. 50-56. Daoust, J. “Le recensem ent de Q uirinius.” EV 94 (1984) 366-67. Schwartz, D. R. O n O uirinius, lo h n the Baptist, the Benedictus, M elchizedek, Q um ran and Ephesus.” RevQ 13 (1988) 635-46. For 2 :1 -2 1 (O

n the

G l o r ia [ 2 : 1 4 ] ) :

Dodd, C. H. “New Testament Translation Problem s.” BT 28 (1977) 101-16. Kilpatrick, R. S. “The Greek Syntax of Luke 2.14.” NTS34 (1988) 472-75. Muller, T. O bservations on Some New Testament Texts Based on Generative-transformational Grammar.” BT 29 (1978) 117-20. G en er a l

for 2 :2 2 - 4 0 :

Coackley, J. T. “T he O ld Man Simeon (Lk 2.25) in Syriac T radition.” OCP47 (1981) 189212. Elliot, J. K. “A n n a’s Age (Luke 2 :36-37).” NovT 30 (1988) 100-102. Meuser, E., Feneberg, W., Knoch, O., and Pesch, R. “Beitrage zu einem Text des N euen Testam ents (Lk 2,35).” GuL 57 (1984) 214-20. Poirot, D. “Le renco n tre dans le Tem ple (Luc 2,223 8).” Carmel 30 (1983) 83-92. Quesnel, M. ‘Jesus p ro p h ete revele par les p ro p h ete s.” Cahiers Evangile 50 (1984) 6-9. Robert, R. “C om m et com prendre ‘leur purification’ en Luc 11,22?” RevThom 90 (1990) 449-55. Sudbrack, J. “Gesetz u n d Geist: Jesu D arstellung im T e m p el.” GuL 48 (1975) 462-66. L uke 2 : 2 2 - 4 0 ( O

n the

N

unc

D im it t is )

Buth, R. “W hat Kind of Blessing Is T hat }”JerPersp 3 (1990) 7-10. Jorgensen, P. H. “Das alte u n d das neue Israel: Der Lobgesang Simeons— Lk 2,25-35.” Friedlsr 59 (1976) 147-59.

Bibliographical Addenda fo r Volume 35a

1235

Radi, W. Paulus und Jesus im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Untersuchungen zu Parallelmotiven im

Lukasevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte. Europaische H ochschulschriften X X III/49. B ern /F ran k fu rt am M.: Lang, 1975. 69-81. Rouillard, P. ‘“N unc dim ittis.’” Catholicisme 9 (1982) 1446-47. For 2 :4 1 -5 2 :

Buby, B. “The Biblical Prayer o f Mary (Lk 2:19,51).” RevRel39 (1980) 477-81. Delebecque, E. “N ote sur Lc 2,41-52.” BBude (1973) 75-83. Harris, S. M. “My F ath er’s H ouse.” ExpTim 94 (1982-83) 84-85. Legrand, L. “D eux voyages: Lc 2, 41-50; 24, 13-33.” A cause de I’Evangile, ed. F. Refoule. 409-30. Ostier, E. L. “Luc 2,41-52: Le peuple juif, famille de Jesus.” Sens 34 (1983) 121-23. Vales, F. “‘Go for Yourself.’” BiTod 29 (1991) 310-11. For 3 :1 -6 :

Bachmann, M. “Johan n es der T aufer bei Lukas: N achzugler o d er Vorlaufer.” In Wort in der

Zeit. FS K. H. Rengstorf, ed. W. H aubeck and M. Bachm ann. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 123-55. Barth, G. Die Taufe infruhchnstlicher Zeit. Neukirchen: N eukirchener, 1981.17-43. Dobbeler, S. von. Das Gencht und dasErbarmen Gottes: Die BotschaftJohannes des Taufers und ihre Rezeption

bei denJohannesjungern im Rahmen der Theologiegeschichte des Fruhjudentums. A nthenaum Monografien BBB 70. Frankfurt am M.: Athenaum, 1988. Ernst, ].Johannes der Taufer, Interpretation— Geschichte— Wirkungsgeschichte. BZNW 53. B erlin/N ew York: de Gruyter, 1 9 8 9 .------------ . “O ffnet die T iiren zum Erloser: Jo h an n es der Taufer— seine Rolle in d er H eilgeschichte.” TGI 74 (1984) 137-65. Fuchs, A. “Die LJberschneidung von Mk u n d ‘Q’ nach B. H. Streeter u n d E. P. Sanders uns ihre wahre B edeutung (Mk 1,1-8 p ar.).” In Wort in der Zeit. FS K. H. Rengstorf, ed. W. H aubeck and M. Bachm ann. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 28-81. Luz, U. “Q 3 4.” In SBL Seminar Papers 1984, ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1984. 375-76. Murphy-O’Connor, J. “Jo h n the Baptist and Jesus: History and H ypothesis.” NTS 36 (1990) 359-74. Neirynck, F. “U ne nouvelle theorie synoptique (A propos de Me.,1,2-6 et par.): Notes critiques.” In Jean et les Synoptiques: Examen critique de Vexegese de M.-E. Boismard, in collaboration with J. D elobel et al. BETL 49. Leuven: University Press, 1979. 294-311. Reicke, B. “T he Historical Setting of J o h n ’s Baptism .” In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church. FS W. R. Farmer, ed. E. P. Sanders. M acon, GA: Mercer, 1987. 209-24. Robinson, J. M. “T he Preaching o f John: Work Sheets for the Reconstruction o f Q .” In SBL Seminar Papers 1984, ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1984. 305-46. Webb, R. L ,John the Baptizer. JSNTSup 62. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. For 3 :7 -1 8 :

Charles, J. D. “T he ‘Com ing O n e ’/ ‘Stronger O n e ’ and His Baptism: M att 3:11-12, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16-17.” Pneuma 11 (1989) 37-50. Chevalier, M.-A. “L’Apologie du Baptem e d ’Eau a la Fin du Prem ier Siecle: Introduction Secondaire de l’Etiologie dans les Recits du Baptem e de Jesus.” NTS 32 (1986) 528-43. Fleddermann, H. “Jo h n and the Com ing O ne (Matt 3:11-12//L uke 3:16-17).” In SBL Seminar Papers 1984, ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1984. 3 7 7 -8 4 .------------ . “T he Beginning of Q [3,7-9.16-17].” In SBL Seminar Papers 1983, ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1985. 153-59. Hollenbach, P. “Social Aspects of Jo h n the B aptizer’s Preaching Mission in the C ontext o f Palestinian Judaism .” ANRW2.19A (1979) 850-75. Kazmierski, C. R. “T he Stones o f Abraham : Jo h n the Baptist and the E nd of Torah (Matt 3,7-10 par. Luke 3 ,7 -9 ).” Bib 68 (1987) 22-40. Scheffler, E. H. “T he Social Ethics of the Lukan Baptist (Lk 3:10-14).” Neot 24 (1990) 2 136. Webb, R. L. “T he Activity of Jo h n the Baptist’s Expected Figure at the T hreshing Floor (Matthew 3.2 = Luke 3.17).”/SA^T43 (1991) 103-11.

1236

Bibliographical A ddenda for V olume 35a

For 3 : 2 1 2 2 ‫ ־‬:

Allison, D. C. “T he Baptism of Jesus and a New D ead Sea Scroll.” BAR 18 (1992) 58-60. Busse, I. “T he M arkan A ccount o f the Baptism o f Jesus and Isa. 63 ”JTS 7 (1956) 74-75. Chevallier, M.-A. “L’analyse litteraire des textes du N ouveau T estam ent.” RHPR 57 (1977) 367-78. Cranfield, C. E. B. “T he Baptism of O ur Lord: A Study of St. Mark 1:9-11.” SJT8 (1955) 53-63. Feldkamper, L. Der betendeJesus als Heilsmittler nach Lukas. Veroffentlichungen des Missionspriesterseminars 29. St. Augustin bei Bonn: Steyler Verlag, 1978. 31-50. Grelot, P. Evangiles et histoire. Introduction a la Bible. Nouvelle edition. Le N ouveau Testam ent 6. Paris: Desclee, 1986. 225-58. Jankowski, G. “Messiastaufe: Markus 1, M atthaus 3, Lukas 3: Die Taufe des Messias im J o rd a n .” TK35 (1987) 17-44. Marchadour, A. “Au com m encem ent, le baptem e, les tentations.” Cahier Evangile 50 (1984) 10-17. Porsch, F. “Erw ahlt u n d erprobt: Die Taufe u n d Versuchung Je su .” In Das Zeugnis des Lukas: Impulse fur das Lesejahr C, ed. P.-G. Mhller. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985. 36-43. Ruckstuhl, R. ‘Jesus als G ottesohn im Spiegel des m arkinischen T aufberichts.” In Jesus im Honzont der Evangelien. Stuttgarter Biblische A ufsatzbande 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. 9-47. Sabourin, L. “Two Lukan Texts (1:35; 3:2).” RSB 1 (1981) 29-33. Telfer, W. “T he Form of the Dove. ”JTS 29 (1926) 238-42. F or 3 :2 3 -3 8 :

Bauckham, R. “More on Kainam the Son of A rpachshad in L uke’s Genealogy.” ETL 67 (1991) 95-103. Birdsall, J. N. “Some Names in the Lukan Genealogy of Jesus in the Armenian Biblical T radition.” In Armenian and Biblical Studies, ed. Μ. E. Stone. Jerusalem : St. Jam es, 1976. 13-16. Feuillet, A. O b serv atio n s sur les deux genealogies de Jesus-Christ de saint M atthieu (1,1-17) et de saint Luc (3,23-28).” F T 98 (1988) 605-8. Johnson, M. D.

The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. SNTSMS 8. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1989. Nettelhorst, R. P. “T he Genealogy of Jesus.”JETS 31 (1988) 169-72. Plum, K. F. “Genealogy as Theology.” Scandinavian Journal of the OT no. 1 (1989) 66-92. Steyn, G. J. “T he O ccurrence of ‘K ainam ’ in L uke’s Genealogy: Evidence o f Septuagintal Influence?” ETL 65 (1989) 409-11. For 4 :1 -1 3 :

Brawley, R. L. “Canon and Community: Intertextuality, Canon, Interpretation, Christology, Theology, and Persuasive Rhetoric in Luke 4:1-13.” In SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 419-34. Davidson, J. A. “T he Testing ofJesus.” Fv/?7m 94 (1982-83) 113-15. Eitrem, S. E. Die Versuchung Christi. Oslo: G rondahl, 1924. Fuchs, A. “Versuchung Jesu .” SNTU 9 (1984) 95-159. Garrett, S. R. The Demise of the Devil 38-43. Hester, D. C. “Luke 4:1-13.” 772/31 (1977) 53-59. Lovreglio, J. “U n d isaccord en tre les Synoptiques du a une e rreu r de traduction.” BBude 4 /3 4 (1975) 549-54. Marchadour, A. “Au com m encem ent, le baptem e, les tentations.” Cahier Evangile 50 (1984) 10-17. Porsch, R. “Erw ahlt u n d erprobt: Die Taufe u n d Versuchung Je su .” In Das Zeugnis des Lukas: Impulsefur das Lesejahr C, ed. P.-G. Miiller. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985. 36-43. Stegner, W. R. “T he Tem ptation Narrative: A Study in the Use of Scripture by Early Jewish Christians.” BR 35 (1990) 5-17. Wimmer, J. F. Fasting in the New Testament. 31-51. Yates, R. ‘Jesus and the Dem onic in the Synoptic Gospels.” ITQ 44 (1977) 39-57. Zeller, D. “Die V ersuchungen Jesu in der L ogienquelle.” TTZ 89 (1980) 61-73. For 4 :1 4 -1 5 :

Samain, E. “L’evangile de Luc: Un tem oignage ecclesial et m issionnaire— Lc 1,1—4; 4,14— 15.” AsSeignM (1973) 60-73.

Bibliographical Addenda fo r Volume 35a

F or

1237

4:16-30:

Abraham, Μ. V. “G ood News to the Poor in L uke’s G ospel.” Biblebhashyam 14 (1988) 6577, esp. 70-73. Aletti, J.-N. “Jesus a N azareth (Lc 4, 16-30): P ro p h e tie , E critu re et typologie.” In A cause de l’Evangile, ed. R. Refoule. 4 3 1 -5 2 .------------ . L ’art de raconter Jesus Chnst: L ’ecHture narrative de Tevangile de Luc. Paris: Seuil, 1989. Esp. 39-61. Baarda, T. “‘T he Flying Jesus’: Luke 4:29-30 in the Syriac D atessaron.” VC 40 (1986) 313-41. Bauer, D. “Das fangt ja gut an! Die A b lehnungjesu in seiner H eim at (Lk 4,16-30).” In Das Zeugnis des Lukas: Impulse fur das Lesejahr C, ed. P.-G. Miiller. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985. 46-53. Bock, D. L. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern. Esp. 105-11. Bostock, G. ‘Jesus as the New Elisha.” ExpTim 92 (1980-81) 39-41. Brawley, R. L. Luke-Acts and the Jews. Esp. 6-27. Casalis, G. “U n nouvel an. Luc 4 /1 6 -2 1 .” ETR 56 (1981) 148-58. Chevalon, M. “A propos de N azareth.” CCER 32 (1984) 75-76. Derrett, J. D. M. “T he ‘N azarenes’ in Luke (Luke 4:16-30).” In New Resolutions. 111-22. Dietrich, W. ‘“ . . . den A rm en das Evangelium zu v erkunden’: Vom befreieneden Sinn biblischer Gesetze.” TZ 41 (1985) 3143. Dupont, J. ‘Jesus annonce la bonne nouvelle aux pauvres.” In Associazione biblica italiana, Evangelizare pauperibus. Atti della XXIV settim ana biblica. Brescia: Paideia, 1978. 127-89; rep rinted in Etudes. 2:23-85. Finkel, A. “La predication de Jesus a la synagogue un jo u r de Shabbat: Luc 4,16-28.” SIDJC 1 7/3 (1984) 4-12. Frankemolle, H. Evangelium: Begriff und Gattung—Ein Forschungsbencht. SBB 15. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. 46-49. Glockner, R. Die Verkiindigung des Heils beim Evangelisten Lukas. W alberberger Studien 9. Mainz: Grimewald, 1975. 124-32. Hamm, D. “Sight to the Blind: Vision as M etaphor in Luke.” Bib 67 (1986) 457-77. Johnson, L. T. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. SBLDS 39. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977. 91-96. Kavunkal, J. ‘Jubilee the Framework of Evangelization.” Vidyajyoti 52 (1988) 181-90. Kehnscherper, G. Von Jeremia zu Jesus von

Nazareth: Die Ausrufung des Halljahres und das Kommen des Reiches Gottes: Eine sozialethische Untersuchung zu Lk 4,16-30. Greifswald, 1973. Kilgallen, J. J. “Provocation in Luke 4:23-24.” Bib 70 (1989) 511-16. Kingsbury, J. D. Jesus CJmst in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Proclamation Com m entaries. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. 109-13. Kliesch, K. “‘Den A rm en eine gute N achricht’: Die Botschaft des Lukas.” In Das Zeugnis des Lukas, ed. P.-G. Muller. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985. 10-17. Koet, B. J. “‘Today this Scripture has b een fulfilled in your ears’: Jesus’ E xplanation of Scripture in Luke 4,16-30.” In Five Studies. 24-55. Kolasny, J. “An Exam ple of Rhetorical Criticism: Luke 4:16—30.” In New Views on Luke and Acts, ed. E. Richard. 67-77. Lee, G. Μ. “Πάντως ‘Perhaps.’” ZNW64 (1973) 15 2 .------------ . “F u rther on Πάντως ‘P erhaps.’” NovT 19 (1977) 240. Miller, D. G. “Luke 4:22-30.” Int 40 (1986) 53-58. Monshouwer, D. “The Reading of the P rophet in the Synagogue at Nazareth.” Bib 72 (1991) 90-99. Muhlack, G. Die Parallelen von Lukas-Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte. Theologie u n d W irklichkeit 8. B e rn /F ran k fu rt am M.: Lang, 1979. 117-25. Prast, F. Pres-

byter und Evangelium in nachapostolischer Zeit: Die Abschiedsrede des Paulus in Milet (Apg. 20,1738) im Rahmen der lukanischen Konzeption der Evangeliumsverkundigung. FB 29. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1979. 265-78. Radl, W. Paulus und Jesus im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Untersuchungen zu Parallelmotiven im Lukasevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte. Europaische H ochschulschriften X X III/49. B e rn /F ran k fu rt am M.: Lang, 1975. 82-100. Reicke, B. "Jesus in Nazareth: Lk 4,16-30.” In Das Wort und die Worter. FS G. Friedrich, ed. H. Balz and S. Schulz. Stuttgart: Kohlham mer, 1973. 47-55. Reid, D. P. “Jesus’ R eturn to N azareth.” BiTod 23 (1985) 39-43. Ringe, S. H. Jesus, Liberation and the Biblical Jubilee: Images for Ethics and Chnstology. Overtures to Biblical Theology 19. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Esp. 36-45, 1039 . ----------- . “Luke 4:16-44: A P ortrait of Jesus as H erald of G od’s Ju b ilee.” ProcGLBS 1 (1981) 73-84. Sabourin, L. “‘Evangelize the P oor’ (Lk 4:18).” RSB 1 (1981) 101-9. Sanders, J. T. “T he Jewish People in Luke-Acts.” In SBL Seminar Papers 1982, ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1982. 164-68. Schmitt, J. “L’oracle d ’is 61:lss et sa relecture par Jesus.” RSR 54 (1980) 97-108. Schreck, C. J. “T he N azareth Pericope: Luke 4,16-30 in

1238

Bibliographical Addenda

for

Volume 35a

Recent Study.” In L'Evangile de Luc (1989), ed. F. Neirynck. 399-471. Schwarz, G. ‘Versuch einer W iederherstellung des geistigen Eigentums je su .” BibNot53 (1990) 32-37. Shin, G. K.-S.

Die Ausrufung des endgultigenJubeljahres durchJesus in Nazaret: Eine historisch-kntische Studie zu Lk 4, 16-30. Europaische H ochschulschriften, Reihe 23. Theologie 378. B e rn /F ra n k fu rt/ New York/Paris: Lang, 1989. Siker, J. S. ‘“First to the G entiles’: A Literary Analysis of Luke 4:16-30." JBL 111 (1982) 73-90. Walker, T. V. “Luke 4:16-30.” ReuExp 85 (1988) 321-24. For

4:31-37:

Arens, E. The ΗΛΘΟΝ-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition. OBO 10. F re ib u rg /G o ttin g e n : U niversit’atsverlag/V andenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1976. 209-21. Busse, U. “M etaphorik in neutestam entlichen W undergeschichten Mk 1,21-28; Jo h 9,1-41.” In Metaphorik und Mythos imNeuen Testament, ed. K. Kertelge. QD 126. F reiburg/B asel/V ienna: H erder, 1990. 11034. Rice, G. E. “Luke 4:31-44: Release for the Captives.” AUSS 20 (1982) 23-28. For

4:42-44:

Arens, E. The ΗΛΘΟΝ-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition. OBO 10. F re ib u rg /G o ttin g e n : U niversit’atsverlag/V andenhoeck 8c R uprecht, 1976. 194-209. Murray, G. “Did Luke Use Mark?” DR 104 (1986) 268-71. F or 5 :1 -1 1 :

Albrecht, E. Zeugnis durch Wort und Verhalten, untersucht an ausgewahlten Texten des Neuen Testaments. T heologische D issertationen 13. Basel: R einhardt, 1977. 67-90. Claudel, G. La confession de Pierre: Trajectoire d’une pe ricope evangelique. Paris: Gabalda, 1988. 111-32. Coulot, C. Jesus et le disciple: Etude sur l’autorite messianique de Jesus. Etudes bibliques NS 8. Paris: Gabalda, 1987. 168-93. Pope, A. “M ore on Luke 5.8.” BT 41 (1990) 442-43. Rice, G. E. “L u k e’s T hem atic Use of the Call to D iscipleship.” AUSS 19 (1981) 51-58. Rollin, B. ‘“Q uittant tout, ils le suivirent’ (Lc 5,11).” Via consacree 53 (1981) 104-15. Schlichting, W. “‘A uf dein W o rt h in ’ (Lukas 5,1 -1 1 ).” ΤΒ17 (1986) 113-17. F o r 5 :1 2 -1 6 :

Busse, U. Wunder. 103-14. Elliott, J. K. “T he H ealing of the L eper in the Synoptic Parallels.” TZ 34 (1978) 175-76. Feldkamper, L. Der betende Jesus als Heilsmittler nach Lukas. V ero ffentlichungen des M issionspriestersem inars 29. St. A ugustin bei Bonn: Steyler Verlag, 1978. 51-83. Hulse, E. V. “T he N ature of Biblical ‘Leprosy’ and the Use of Alter native M edical Term s in M odern T ranslations o f the B ible.” PEQ 107 (1975) 87-105. Kazmierski, C. R. “Evangelist and Leper: A Socio-Cultural Study o f Mark 1, 40-45.” NTS 38 (1992) 37-50. For

5:17-26:

Bock, D. L. “T he Son of Man in Luke 5:24.” BulBR 1 (1991) 109-21. Busse, U. Wunder. 115-34. Fiedler, P. Jesus und die Sunder. 107-12. Fuchs, A. “O ffen e P ro b le m e d e r Synoptikerforschung: Zur G eschichte d er Perikope Mk 2,1-12 par Mt 9,1-8 par Lk 5,1726.” SNTU15 (1990) 73-99. Meynet, R. “‘Crie d e joie, sterile!”’ Christus 33 (1986) 481-89. Schwarz, G. “ΑΠΕΣΤΕΓΑΣΑΝ ΤΗΝ ΣΤΕΓΗΝ? (M arkus 2,4c).” BibNot 54 (1990) 41. Stegemann, E. “From Criticism to Enmity: An In terpretatio n o f Mark 2 :l-3 :6 .” In God of the Lowly: Socio-Histoncal Interpretation of the Bible, ed. W. S chottroff and W. Stegem ann. Tr. M. J. O ’C onnell. M aryknoll, NY: O rbis, 1984. 104-17. Trautmann, M. Zeichenhafte

Bibliographical Addenda fo r Volume 35a

1239

HandlungenJesu: Ein Beitrag zurFrage nach dem geschichtlichenJesus. FB 37. W urzburg: Echter, 1980. 234-57. F or 5 :2 7 -3 2 :

Arens, E. The ΗΛΘΟΝ-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition. OBO 10 F re ib u rg /G o ttin g e n : Universit’atsverlag/V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1976. 28-63. Cousar, C. B. “Luke 5:29-35.” Int 40 (1986) 58-63. Fiedler, P. Jesus und die Sunder. 119-29. Trautmann, M. Zeichenhafte

HandlungenJesu: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem geschichtlichenJesus. FB 37. W urzburg: Echter, 1980. 132-66. For 5 :3 3 -3 9 :

Mead, A. H. "O l d and New Wine: St. Luke 5:39.” ExpTim 99 (1987-88) 234-35. Wimmer, F. Fasting in the New Testament. 85-101.

J.

For 6 :1 -5 :

Delobel, J. “Luke 6, 5 in Codex Bezae: T he Man W ho W orked on Sabbath.” A cause de I’Evangile, ed. R. Refoule. 453-78. Isaac, E. “A nother N ote on Luke 6:1. ”JBL 100 (1981) 96-97. Klinghardt, M. Gesetz und Volk Gottes. 225-29. Robbins, V. K. “Plucking Grain on the S abbath.” In Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels. B. L. Mack an d V. K. Robbins. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1989. Safrai, S. “Sabbath Breakers?”JerPersp 3 (1990) 3-5. Schottroff, L., and Stegemann, W. “T he Sabbath Was Made for Man: T he In terp retatio n o f Mark 2:2328.” In God of the Lowly: Socio-Historical Interpretation of the Bible, ed. W. Schottroff and W. Stegem ann. Tr. M. J. O ’Connell. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984. 118-28. Skeat, T. C. “T he ‘Second-First’ Sabbath (Luke 6:1): T he Final S olution.” NovT 30 (1988) 103-6. Vouga, F. “Jesus et la loi selon la tradition synoptique.” In Le monde de la Bible. Geneve: Labor et fides, 1988. 49-52. For 6 :6 -1 1 :

Busse, U. Wunder. 135-41. Klinghardt, M. Gesetz und Volk Gottes. 229-332. Lee, J. A. L. “A Non-Aramaism in Luke 6:7.” NovT 33 (1991) 28-34. Trautmann, M. Zeichenhafte Handlungen

Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem geschichtlichenJesus. FB 37. W urzburg: Echter, 1980. 278318. Vouga, F. "Jesus et la loi selon la tradition synoptique.” In Le monde de la Bible. Geneve: Labor et fides, 1988. 64-67. For 6 :1 2 -1 6 :

Beutler, J. “Lk 6,16: Punkt oder Komma?” BZ 35 (1991) 231-33. Feldkamper, L. Der betende Jesus als Heilsmittler nach Lukas. V eroffentlichungen des M issionspriesterseminars 29. St. Augustin bei Bonn: Steyler Verlag, 1978. 84-104. Haacker, K. “Verwendung u nd Vermeidung des Apostelbegriffs im lukanischen Werk.” NovT 30 (1988) 9-38. Kirchschlager, W. Jesu exorzistisches Wirken. 221-27. Schwarz, G. “Φίλιππον καί Βαρθολομαίον,?” BibNot 56 (1991) 26-30. Trautmann, M. Zeichenhafte Handlungen Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem geschichtlichenJesus. FB 37. W urzburg: Echter, 1980. 167-233. G en era l

for 6 :1 7 - 4 9 :

Berner, U. Die Bergpredigt: Rezeption und Auslegung im 20. Jahrhundert. G ottinger theologische A rb eiten 12. G ottingen: V an denhoeck & R u p rech t, 1979. Egger, W. “F ak to ren d er

1240

Bibliographical A ddenda for V olume 35a

T extkonstitution in der B ergpredigt.” Laurentianum 19 (1978) 177-98. Hartin, P. J. ‘Jam es and the Q Serm on on the M o u n t/P la in .” In SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. 44057. Hendrickx, H. Sermon on the Mount. Rev. ed. L o n d o n /S an Francisco: C h a p m a n /H arp er and Row, 1984. Lambrecht, J. The Sermon on the Mount: Proclamation and Exhortation. G ood News Studies 14. W ilmington, DE: Glazier, 1985. Luz, U. “Serm on on the M ount/P lain: R econstruction of Q(M t) and Q (L k).‫ ״‬In SBL Seminar Papers 1984, ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1984. 473-79. Robinson, J. M. “T he Serm on on the M ount/P lain: Work Sheets for the Reconstruction of Q .” In SBL Seminar Papers 1983, ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1983. 451-54. Schweizer, E. Die Bergpredigt. Kleine VandenhoeckReihe 1481. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Strecker, G. The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary. Nashville, TN: A bingdon, 1988. Vaage, L. E. “Com posite Texts and O ral Myths: T he Case of the ‘S erm on’ (6:20b-49).” In SBL 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull. 424—39. Worden, R. D. “T he Q Serm on on the M ount/P lain: Variants and R econstruction.” In SBL Seminar Papers 1983, ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1983. 455-71. For

6:20-26:

Boring, Μ. E. “T he Historical-Critical M ethod’s ‘Criteria o f A uthenticity’: T he Beatitudes in Q and Thom as as a Test Case.” Semeia 44 (1988) 9-44 (revised version o f Forum 1.4 [1985] 3-38). Broer, I. Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt: Studien zu ihren Uberlieferung und Interpretation. BBB 61. Konigstein-Bonn: H anstein, 1986. Brooke, G. J. “T he W isdom of M atthew’s Beatitudes ( 4 Q Beat and Mt. 5:3-12).” ScrB 19 (1989) 35-41. Cousin, H. “Les yeux leves sur ses disciples, Jesus d isa it. . .” VSpir 147 (1992) 5-18. Dupont, J. Le message des beatitudes. Cahiers Evangile 24. Paris: Service biblique Evangile, Cerf, 1978.------------ . “Les beatitudes, le coeur du message de Jesus.” In Jesus aujourd’hui: Historiens et exegetes a RadioCanada II. Vie, Message et personnalite. M ontreal/P aris: B ellarm in/F leurus, 1980. 75-84. ------------ . “H eureux les pauvres.” Enjeux 2 (1979) 3-8. Hamm, M. D. The Beatitudes in Context: What Luke and Matthew Meant. Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament. W ilm ington, DE: Glazier, 1990. Jacob, G. “Die Proclam ation der m essianischen G em einde: Zur Auslegung d er M akarismen in der B ergpredigt.” TVers 12 (1981) 47-75. Kahler, G. C. “Studien zur F o rm -u n d T raditionsgeschichte d er biblischen M akarism en.” TLZ 101 (1976) 77-80. Kieffer, R. “W isdom and Blessing in the Beatitudes of St M atthew and St L uke.” SE 6 [= TU 112] (1973) 291-95. Meadors, G. T. “T he ‘P o o r’ in the Beatitudes of Matthew and L uke.” GTJ6 (1985) 305-14. Schlosser, J. Le regne de Dieu. 2:423-50. Schmitt, J. “L’oracle d ’is 6 1 :lss e t sa re le c tu re p a r J e s u s .” RSR 54 (1980) 9 7 -1 0 8 . Stenger, W. “Die Seligpreisungen der G eschm ahten (Mt 5,11-12; Lk 6,22-23).” Kairos 28 (1986) 33-60. Vaage, L. E. “T he Woes in Q (and M atthew and L uke).” In SBL Seminar Papers 1988, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988. 582-607. For

6:27-38:

Bivin, D. “A Measure of Humility. ” JerPersp 4 (1991) 13-14. Dupont, J. “La transm ission des paroles de Jesus sur la lam pe et la lam pe et la m esure dans Marc 4,21-25 et dans la tradition Q. In Logia, ed. J. Delobel. 201-36. Fee, G. D. “A Text-critical Look at the Synoptic Problem .” NovT22 (1980) 12-28. Feidler, P. Jesus und die Sunder. 185-95. Fuchs, J. “Die schwierige G oldene Regel.” StimmZeit209 (1991) 773-81. Gill, D. “Socrates and Jesus on N on-Retaliation and Love of Enem ies.” Horizons 18 (1991) 246-62. Hoffmann, P. “Tradition u n d Situation: Zur ‘V erbindlichkeit’ des Gebots der Feindesliebe in d er synoptischen Uberlieferung u n d in der gegenw artigen Friedensdiskussion.” In Ethik im Neuen Testament, ed. K . Kertelge. QD 102. Freiburg: Herder, 1984. 50-118. Horsley, R. “Ethics and Exegesis: Love Your Enem ies and the D octrine o f N on-Violence.”JAAR 54 (1985) 3-31. Huber, W.

Bibliographical Addenda fo r Volume 33a

1241

“Feindschaft u n d Feindesliebe: N odzen zum Problem des ‘Feindes’ in der T heologie.” 7FF. 26 (1982) 128-58. Jahnke, V. J. ‘“Love Your E nem ies’: T he Value o f New Perspecdves.” CurTM 15 (1988) 267-73. K lassen, W. Love ofEnemies. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. K osch, D. Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes: Untersuchungen zurRezeption der Stellung Jesu zur Tora in Q. Novum T estam entum et O rbis A ntiquus 12. F rib o u rg /G o ttin g en : U niversitatsverlag/V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1989. 213-426. L egasse, S. Et qui est mon prochain?' Etude sur Vobjet de I’agape dans le Nouveau Testament. LD 136. Paris: Cerf, 1989. L o h fin k , G . “D er ekklesiale Sitz im Leben der A ufforderung Jesu zum Gewaltverzicht (Mt 5 ,3 9 b -4 2 /L k 6 ,29f).” TQ 162 (1982) 236-53. M e rk e lb a c h , R . “U b e r ein e Stelle im Evangelium des Lukas.” GBZKA 1 (1973) 171-75. N eiryn ck, R . “Paul and the Sayings of

Jesus.” In L 'apotre Paul: Personnalite, style et conception du ministere, ed. A. Vanhoye. BETL 73. Leuven: University P ress/Peeters, 1986. 295-303. R icoeur, P. “T he G olden Rule: Exegeti cal and Theological Perplexities.” NTS 36 (1990) 392-97. Schm idt, T. E. “Burden, Barrier, Blasphemy: Wealth in Matt 6:33, Luke 14:33, and Luke 16:15.” TJ9 (1988) 171-89. Schwarz, G . “αγαπατβ τους οχθρους υμών: Mt 5,44a/L k 6,27a (35a).” BibNot 12 (1980) 32-34. Strecker, G . “Die A ntithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt 5,21-48 p a r).” ZAW69 (1978) 36-72. T h e isse n , G . “Gewaltsverzicht u n d Feindesliebe (Mt 5 ,3 8 -4 8 /L k 6,27-38) u n d deren sozialgeschichtlichen H in te rg ru n d .” In Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. WUNT 19. Tubingen: Mohr, 1979. 160-97. For

6:39-49:

M eynet, R . “H istoire de l’analyse rhetorique en exegese biblique.” Rhetorica 8 (1990) 291-

320. F or

7:1-10:

B rod ie, T. “N ot Q but Elijah: T he Saving of the C en tu rio n ’s Servant (Luke 77:1-10) as an

Internalization of the Saving of the Widow and H er Child (1 Kgs 17:1-16).” IBS 14 (1992) 54-71. B u sse, U. Wunder. 141-60. G atzw e iler, K . “L’exegese historico-critique: U ne guerison a C apharnaum —Mt 8,5-13; Lc 7,1-10; Jn 4,46-54.” FoiTemps 9 (1979) 297-315. H a a p a , E. “Z ur S elb stein sc h atzu n g des H a u p tm a n n s von K ap h a rn a u m im Lukasevangelium .” In Glaube und Crerechtigkeit. FS R. Gyllenberg, ed. J. K iilunen et al. Helsinki: Vammalan Kirjapaino, 1983. 69-76. Ju d ge, P. J. “Luke 7,1-10: Sources and Red action.” In L ’Evangile de Luc (1989), ed. F. Neirynck. 473-89. M uhlack, G . Die Parallelen von Lukas-Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte. T heologie u n d W irklichkeit 8. B e rn /F ran k fu rt am M.: Lang, 1979. 39-54. N eiryn ck, F. "Jo h n 4,46-54: Signs Source a n d /o r Synoptic Gospels.” ETL 60 (1984) 25-44. Ravens, D. A . S. “T he Setting of L uke’s Account of the Anoint ing: Luke 7.2-8.3.” NTS 34 (1988) 282-92. Weiser, A . Eine Heilung und ihr dreifacher Bericht (Matthaus 8 ,5 - 1 3 ; Lukas 7 , 1 - 1 0 ; Johannes 4 , 4 3 - 3 4 ) . W erkstatt Bibelauslegung. Bilder, Interpretationen, Texte. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. 64-69. F o r 7:11-17:

Wunder. 161-75. D e m e l, S. “Je su U m gan g m it F rau en n ach d em Lukasevangelium.” BibNot 57 (1991) 52-95, esp. 52-59. H arris, M. J. 'The Dead Are Restored to Life’: Miracles of Revivification in the Gospels, ed. D. W enham and C. Blomberg. Gospel Perspec tives VI. Sheffield: JSO T Press, 1986. 295-326. K lein, H . Barmherzigkeit gegenuber den Elenden und Geachteten: Studien zur Botschaft des lukanischen Sondergutes. Biblisch-theologische Studien 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: N eukirchener Verlag, 1987. 33-38. K luge, J. Die Auferstehung des

B u sse , U.

Junglings zu Nain ’ oder 'Der Auferstehungsglaube und die Frage nach Leben und Tod ’. Zwei Unterrichtsmodelle zu Lk 7 , 1 1 - 1 7 , ed. R. K akuschke. A u fersteh u n g —Tod u n d L eben.

1242

Bibliographical A ddenda for V olume 35a

G ottingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1978. 202-20. Muhlack, G. Die Parallelen von LukasEvangelium und Apostelgeschichte. T heologie u n d W irklichkeit 8. B e rn /F ran k fu rt am M.: Lang, 1979. 55-71. Petzke, G. “H istorizitat u n d B edeutsam keit von W underberichten: M oglichkeiten u n d G renzen des religionsgeschichtlichen Vergleichs.” In Neues Testament und christlicheExistenz. FS H. Braun, ed. H. D. Betz. Tubingen: Mohr, 1973. 367-85. Rochais, G. Les recits de resurrection des morts dans le Nouveau Testament. SNTSMS 40. Cambridge: U ni versity Press, 1981. 18-38. Schnyder, C. “Zum Leben befreit: Jesus erw eckt den einzigen Sohn einer Witwe vom Tode (Lukas 7,11-17)—Eine T otenerw eckung.” In Wunder Jesu, ed. A. Steiner. Basel: Reinhardt, 1978. 78-88. For

7:18-23:

Busse, U. Wunder. 176-85. Cameron, R. ‘“W hat Have You Come O u t to See?’ Characterization o f J o h n an d Jesus in the G ospels.” Semeia 49 (1990) 35-69. Edwards, R. A. “M atthew’s Use of Q in C hapter Eleven.” In Logia, ed. J. Delobel. 263-69. George, A. “Pa-

roles de Jesus sur ses miracles (Mt 11,5.21; 12,27.28 et par.).” In Jesus aux origines de la chirstologie, ed. J. D upont et al. Gembloux: Duculot, 1975. 283-302. Habandi, P. “Eine wieder aktuelle Frage: Zu Lukas 7,18ff.: ‘Bist du es, der kom m en soli, o d er sollen wir auf einen an d ern w arten?” ’ ZMR 6 (1980) 195-98. Kirchschlager, W. Jesu exorzistisches Wirken. 229-36. Mearns, C. “Realized Eschatology in Q? A Consideration o f the Sayings in Luke 7.22, 11.20 and 16.16.” SJT 40 (1987) 189-210. Neilsen, Η. K. Heilung und Verku ndigung. 57-65. Wink, W. "Jesus’ Reply to John: Matt 1 1 :2 -6 //Luke 7:18-23.” Forum 5.1 (1989) 12128. Witherington, B. III. ‘Jesus and the Baptist: Two o f a Kind?” In SBL Seminar Papers 1988, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988. 225-44. F or

7:24-28:

Schlosser, J. Le regne de Dieu dans les dits de Jesus. Etudes Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1980.

2:155-78. For

7:29-35:

Cotter, W. J. “The Parable of the Children in the M arketplace, Q (Lk) 7:31-35: An Exami nation of the Parable’s Images and Significance.” N ovT 29 (1987) 289-304.- - - - - - - - . “Child ren Sitting in the Agora: Q (Luke) 7:31-35.” Forum 5.2 (1989) 63-82. Domer, M. Das Heil Gottes: Studien zur Theologie des lukanischen Doppelwerkes. BBB 51. K oln/B onn: H anstein, 1978. 15-18. Ernst, J. “D er S p ru ch von d en ‘fro m m e n ’ S iin d ern u n d d en ‘u n fro m m e n ’ G erichten (Lk 7,29f): G eschichte der D eutung eines um strittenen L ogions.” In Der Treue Gottes trauen, ed. C. Bussmann and W. Radi. 197-228. Fiedler, P. Jesus und die Sunder. 13647. Franzmann, M. “O f Food, Bodies and the Boundless Reign o f God in the Synoptic Gospels.” Pacifica 5 (1992) 17-31. Magass, W. “Zum Verstandnis des Gleichnisses von den spielenden K indern (Mt 11,1 6 -1 9 ).” LingBib 45 (1979) 59-70. Noorda, S.J. “Who Is Who? Lukas 7,29-35.” Segmenten (Amsterdam) (O ctober 1981) 35-63. Plessis, I. J. du. “Contextual Aid for an Identity Crisis: An A ttem pt to In terp ret Luke 7:35.” In A South African Per spective on the New Testament. FS B. M. Metzger, ed. J. H. Petzer and P. J. H artin. Leiden: Brill, 1986.112-27. Siburt, C. “The Game of Rejecting God, Luke 7:31-35.” RestQ\9 (1976) 207-10. Wimmer, J. F. Fasting in the New Testament. 102-10. For

7:36-50:

Bailey, K. E. Through Peasant Eyes. 1-21. Coakley, J. T. “T he A nointing at Bethany and the Priority of J o h n .” JBL 107 (1988) 241-56. Demel, S. “Jesu U m gang m it Frauen nach dem

Bibliographical Addenda fo r Volume 35a

1243

Lukasevangelium .” BibNot 57 (1991) 52-95, esp. 60-67. Dupont, J. “Jesus et la pecheresse (Lc 7,36-50).” ComLit65 (1983) 11-17 . Ferry, B.-M. “La pecheresse p ard o n n ee (Lc 7, 3 650): Pourquoi verse-t-elle des pleurs?” EV99 (1989) 174-76. Fiedler, P. Jesus und die Sunder. 112-16, 241-48. Guillet, J. “‘Tes peches sont p ard o n n es’ (Me 2,5 et Lc 7,48).” In De la Torah au Messie. FS H. Cazelles, ed. M. Carrez, J. Dore, and P. Grelot. Paris: Desclee, 1981. 425-29. Heininger, B. Metaphorik, Erzahlstruktur und szenisch-dramatische Gestaltung in den Sondergutgleichnissen bei Lukas. NTAbh n.s. 24. M unster: A schendorff, 1991. 83-98. Hofius, O. “Fusswaschung als Erweis der Liebe: Sprachliche u n d sachliche A nm erkungen zu Lk 7,44b.” ZNW81 (1990) 171-77. Kilgallen, J. J. “A Proposal for In terp retin g Luke 7,36-50.” Bib 72 (1991) 305-30. Leroy, H. “V ergebung u n d G em einde nach Lk 7,36-50.” In Wort Gottes in derZeit. FS K. H. Schelkle, ed. H. Feld a n d j. Nolte. Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1973. 8 594. Resseguie, J. L. “A utom atization and Defam iliarization in Luke 7:36-50.” LitTheol 5 (1991) 137-50. Robbins, V. K. “Using a Socio-Rhetorical Poetics to Develop a U nified M ethod: T he Woman Who A nointed Jesus as a Test Case.” In SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. 302-19. Sabbe, M. “T he Footwashing in Jn 13 an d Its Relation to the Synoptic Gospels.” ETL 58 (1982) 279-308. Salingardes, P.-M. “‘Tu vois cette fem m e?’Jesus et la pecheresse pard o n n e (Luc 7,36-50).” Carmel30 (1983) 106-11. Schafer, K. Zu Gast bei Simon: Eine biblische Geschichte langsam gelesen [7,36-50]. Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1973. Schulz, F. “‘D iscubuif Jesus.’”/ L / / 25 (1981) 27-48. For 8 :1 -3 :

Demel, S. “Jesu U m gang m it Frauen nach dem Lukasevangelium .” BibNot 57 (1991) 5 295, esp. 67-73. Sim, D. C. “T he W omen Followers of Jesus: T he Im plications of Luke 8:13.” HeyJbO (1989) 51-62. For 8 :4 -8 :

Dumezil, G. La parabole du semeur et la parabole de Vallumeur defeu. FS A.-J. Festugiere, ed. E. Lucchesi and H. D. Saffrey. Cahiers d ’orientalism e 10. Geneve: Cramer, 1984. 107-12. Garnet, P. “T he Parable of the Sower: How the M ultitudes U nderstood It.” In Spirit within Structure. FS G. Jo h n sto n , ed. E. J. Furcha. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1983. 39-54. Lindemann, A. “Die E rzahlung von Sam ann u n d der Saat (Mk 4,3-8) u n d ihre Auslegung als allegorisches G leichnis.” WD 21 (1991) 115-31. Ramaroson, L. “‘Parole-sem ence’ ou ‘Peuple-sem ance’ dans la parabole du Sem eur?” ScEs 40 (1988) 91-101. Smith, Μ. H. “Kinship Is Relative: Mark 3:31-35 and Parallels.” Forum 6.1 (1990) 80-94. For 8 :2 2 -2 5 :

Busse, U. Wunder. 196-205. Fuchs, A. “Die ‘Seesturm perikope’ Mk 4:35-41 p arr im Wandel der urkirchlichen Verkiindigung.” SNTUlb (1990) 101-33. Klauck, H.-J. Allegorieund Allegorese

in synoptischen Gkichnistexten. NTAbh 13. 2nd ed. Munster: Aschendorff, 1986. 200-209. For 8 :2 6 -3 9 :

Annen, F. “Die D am o n e n a u stre ib u n g e n Je su in d e n sy n o p tisch en E v an g e lie n .” In Theologisches jahrbuch 1981, ed. W. Ernst. Leipzig: St. B enno, 1981. 94-123. Busse, U. Wunder. 205-19. Karris, R. J. “Luke 8:26-39: Jesus, the Pigs, and H um an T ransform ation.”

NTR4 (1991) 39-51. For 8 :4 0 -5 6 :

Busse, U. Wunder. 219-31. Dambrine, L. “G u eriso n d e la fem m e h em o rro i'sse et resu rrection de la fille de J a ’ire: U n aspect de la lecture d ’u n texte— Marc 5, 21-43;

1244

Bibliographical A ddenda for V olume 35a

M atthieu 9, 18-26; Luc 8, 40-56.” In Reconnaissance a Suzanne de Dietrich. CBFV. Paris: Foi et Vie, 1971. 75-81. Genest, O. “De la fllle a la fem m e a la fille (Luc 8,4 0 -5 6 ).” In DeJesus et desfemmes: Lectures semiotiques. Recherches NS 14. M ontreal, Bellarm in; Paris: Cerf, 1987. 105-20. Muhlack, G. Die Parallelen von Lukas-Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte. T heologie u n d W irklichkeit 8. B e rn /F ran k fu rt am M.: Lang, 1979. 55-71. Reiser, M. “Die blutfliissige Frau: Weisen der V ergegenwartigung biblischer Texte am Beispiel von Mk 5,25-34.” EuA 68 (1992) 48-56. Rochais, G. Les recits de resurrection des morts dans le Nouveau Testament. SNTSMS 40. Cambridge: University Press, 1981. 48-50, 74-87. Suhl, A. “Die W under Jesu: Ereignis u n d U berlieferung.” In Der Wunderbegriff im Neuen Testament, ed. A. Suhl. WF 295. D armstadt: W issenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980. 464-509. Trummer, P. Die blutende Frau: Wunderheilung im Neuen Testament. F ribourg/B asel/V ienna: H erder, 1991. For 9 :1 -6 :

Tuckett, C. M. “Paul and the Synoptic Mission D iscourse.” ETL 60 (1984) 375-81. For 9 :7 -9 :

N eirynck, F. “Marc 6,14-16 et par.” ETL 65 (1989) 105-9. Ravens, D. A. S. “Luke 9.7-62 and the Prophetic Role of Jesus.” NTS 36 (1990) 119-29. For 9 :1 0 -1 7 :

Bammel, E. “T he Feeding o f the M ultitude.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: University Press, 1984. 211-40. Boismard, M.-E. “T he Two-Source T heory at an Im passe.” NTS 26 (1979-80) 1-17. Busse, U. Wunder. 23248. Cangh, J.-M. van. La multiplication des pains et Veucharistie. LD 86. Paris: Cerf, 1975. Grelot, P. Evangiles et histoire. Introduction a la Bible. Nouvelle edition. Le N ouveau Testam en t 6. Paris: Desclee, 1986. 160-86. Magne, J. M. “Le pain de la m ultiplication des pains et des disciples d ’Emmaiis com me preuve de Forigine gnostique des sacrements, de l’Eglise et du Sauveur.” SE 6 [= TU 112] (1973) 3 4 1 -4 7 .------------ . “Le processus de judaisation au tem oignage des reecritures du recit de la m ultiplication des pains.” AugR 28 (1988) 27383. Muhlack, G. Die Parallelen von Lukas-Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte. Theologie und W irklichkeit 8. B e rn /F ran k fu rt am M.: Lang, 1979. 75-88. Potterie, I. de la. “T he Multiplication of the Loaves in the Life of Jesus.” Tr. E. G. Mathews, Jr. Communio/IntCathRe 16 (1989) 499-516. Seethaler, A. “Die B rotverm ehrung— ein K irchenspiegel?” BZ 34 (1990) 108-12. For 9 :1 8 -2 0 :

Claudel, G. La confession de Pierre: Trajectoire dune pericope evangelique. Etudes bibliques NS 10. Paris: Gabalda, 1988. 167-246. Feldkamper, L. DerbetendeJesus als Heilsmittler nach Lukas. V eroffentlichungen des M issionspriesterseminars 29. St. Augustin bei Bonn: Steyler Verlag, 1978. 105-24.

Index of Authors

2 indicates volume 35 b

A a le n , S. xxxvi2, 633, 640, 1035 A a rd e , A. G. v a n xxxvi2, 696, 94 6 A b el, E. L. 1 6 6 ,9 5 5 A b el, O . 752 A b o g u n r in , S. O . 218 A b o u -C h a a r, K. 304 A b r a h a m , Μ. V. xxxvi2 A b ra h a m s , I. 955 A b ra m o w sk i, L. 1153 A c h te m e ie r, P .J. 1, 3, 159, 174, 208, 403, 897, 898 A d a m , A. K. M. 6 4 9 ,7 6 7 A d a m a n tiu s 424 A d a m s, J. E. 1194 A d e s ,J . I. xxxvi2 A e jm e la e u s , L. 1011 A e lia n 916 A fk in so n , C. W. 2 4 0 ,2 4 8 A gnew , F. H . 2 6 2 ,7 6 7 A g o u rid e s , S. 277, 3 0 7 -8 A h e r n , B. M. 3 4 9 ,9 0 2 A ic h e r, G. 888 A ic h in g e r, H . 2 5 1 ,5 0 5 - 6 A ik e n , W. 729 A la n d , K. xxxv, xxx ix , 880, 1040 A lb e rtz , M. 1168 A lb e rtz , R. 1 8 8 ,2 2 9 ,2 3 1 ,2 3 6 A letti, J.-N . 908, 1016, 1194 A le x a n d e r, L. 3 - 4 A le x a n d re , M . 823 A llard , M. 3 6 ,5 1 A llen , D. 1168 A llen , H . J . 849 A llen , J . E. 1113 A llen , P. M. S. 849 A llen , W. G. 1 0 3 5 ,1 1 9 4 A llg eier, A. 36 A llis, Ο . T. 729 A lliso n , D. C. xxxvi2, x l2, 567, 655, 657, 673, 731, 737, 1016 A lo n , A. 689 A lsu p , J . E. 1 1 6 8 ,1 1 8 1 ,1 1 8 4 A lth a u s , P. 1168 A lth e im , F. 1149 A m b ru s te r, C .J . 1078 A m e lin g , W. 682 A m p h o u x , C.-B. 607, 1035, 1173 A n d e r s o n , C. P. 1 1 0 0 ,1 1 6 8 A n d e r s o n , F. C. 804 A n d e r s o n , H . 188, 1168 A n d e r s o n , J . C. 13 A n d rie s s e n , P. 113 A n n a n d , R. 1194 A n n e n , F. 4 0 2 -3 , 405, 4 0 8 -1 0 , 412 A p u le iu s 755, 1137 A rai, S. 1 A r b e itm a n , Y. 262 A re n s , E. 339, 532, 706, 9 02, 1061 A rgyle, A. W. 1, 126, 174, 308, 1068, 1222 A r is to p h a n e s 798 A risto tle 1 8 ,2 9 9 A r n d t, W. 1194 A r n o ld , M. 1140 A r n o tt, A. G. 1031

A r n o tt, W. 792 A rv e d s o n , T. 476, 487, 567, 573 A s a n te , E. 1 A s c h e r m a n n , H . 1078 A shby, E. 854 A s h to n , J . 607 A stin g , R. 1, 195 A u b ry , J . 1020 A u d e t, J.-P. 13, 18, 36, 5 0 -5 1 , 251 A u er, J . 36 A u ffre t, P. 8 1 ,8 3 A u g s te n , M. 598 A u n e , D. E. xxxvi2 A u re lio , T. xxxvi2 A us, R. D. 5 8 6 ,7 7 7 A u stin , M . R. 7 Avi-Y onah, M. 36, 49 A y to u n , R. A. 1 3 ,4 4 ,5 9 , 8 6 B a a rd a , T. 36, 682, 1078 B a a rlin k , H . 188, 919, 927 B a a s la n d , E. 1 B a c h m a n n , Μ. 1, xlv2, 811, 821 B a c o n , B. W. 3, 273, 487, 567, 649, 652, 9 8 1 ,1 0 2 8 , 1035, 1223 B a d c o c k , F .J. 487 B a d h a m , F. P. 16 B a d ia , L. F. 136, 1035 B aer, H . v o n 1, 13, 44 B e h a ’t, D. 1161 B ahr, G. J . 607, 1035, 1048 Bailey, D. M. 586, 592, 595 Bailey, J . A. 1,9 1 9 , 1 1 1 3 -1 5 , 1134, 1173 Bailey, K. E. 1, 60, 64, 93, 105, 525, 530, 538, 621, 6 2 4 -2 7 , 6 3 0 -3 1 , 6 8 2 ,7 5 2 , 7 6 7 -6 8 , 774, 777, 7 8 3 -8 5 , 792, 796, 798, 800, 840, 8 6 4 -6 5 , 872, 8 7 5 -7 6 , 883 Baily, M. 93 B a ird , J . A. 1 B a ird , Μ. M. 402 B a ird , W. 1 1 7 3 ,1 2 2 2 B a ja rd , J . 188, 195, 198 B ajsic, A. 1 1 1 3 ,1 1 2 8 ,1 1 3 0 B aker, A. 598, 607, 609 B aker, J . 1, 752 B alch , D. L. xxxvi2 B a ld e n s p e rg e r, G. 1173 B a ld u c e lli, R. 7 B a le m b o , B. 1035 B a le n tin e , G. L. 1020 B a lla rd , E 849 B a lla rd , P. 752 B a lte n sw e ile r, H . 487, 491, 498, 522, 524, 812 B altzer, K. 1, 737 B a m m e l, E. 1, 145, 196, 251, xxxvi2, 812, 945, 1016, 1035, 1061, 1100, 1103, 1 1 1 3 ,1 1 4 0 -4 1 , 1148 B a n d s tra , A. J. 607 B an k s, R .J . 812 B a rb o u r, R. S. 1078 Barclay, W. xlix, 981, 1035 B a rd e n h e w e r, O . 36, 60 Barkay, G. 1161 B a r n a rd , L. W. 145 B a rn e s, T. D. 100

B a r n e tt, P. W. 94, 101, 633, 649, 811 B a rn ic k i, R. 919 B a rn s , T. 60 B arr, A. 1019 B arr, D. L. xxxi, 1 B a r ra c lo u g h , R. 1 B a rre l, E. V. xxxiv2 B a rre ll, K. G. xxxiv2 B a r re tt, C. K. 1, 36, 44, 47, 136, 157, 175, 262, 424, 933, 955, 960, 994, 1035 B a rta , K .A . 1168 B a rth , G. 834 B a rth , H .-M . 607 B a rth , K. 3 6 ,8 2 3 B a rth , M. 792, 1035 B a rto n , G. A. 457 B a rts c h , H.-W . 1, 60, 240, 273, 286, 291, 300, 3 0 7 -8 , 310, xxxvi2, 715, 726, 981, 1013, 1016, 1020, 1074, 1076, 1 1 0 0 ,1 1 2 8 , 1168 B a rts d o rf, I. W. 277 B a sse t,J.-C . 1216 B a stian , H . 621 B a s d n , M. 1016 B a te , Η . N. 1 0 4 0 ,1 0 7 8 B ater, R. R. 1174 B atiffo l, P. 823 B a u c k h a m , R. 468, 4 7 0 -7 1 , 473, 696, 9 9 ,8 2 3 B a u c k h a m , R .J . 933 B a u d le r, G. 1 3 ,7 9 2 B a u e r, J . B. 1, 3, 6, 36, 466, 474, 483, 908 B a u e r, W. 2 9 1 ,9 1 9 ,9 2 4 B a u e r n fe in d , Ο . 1, 203, 207, 214, 402, 411, 678 B a u m a n n 1107 B a u m b a c h , G. 1 ,961, 1028 B a u m g a rte n , J. 251, 256, 1140 B aur, W. 682 B a v e rsto c k , A. H . 792 Bayer, H . F. 1 ,4 6 1 -6 2 B e a m es, F. 792 B e a rd sle e , W. A. 1, 474, 483 B e a re, F. W. 1, 251, 253, 424, xxxvii, 752 B earsley, P. J. 36 B easley-M urray, G. R. 1, 136, 157, 676, 849, 880, 981, 985 B e a u c a m p , E. 277 B e a u c h a m p , P. 1016 B eau v ery , R. 586, 593, 633, 1004 B eavis, M. A. 792, 1100 B eck, B. E. 1, 1019, 1078 B eck, N. A. 1035 B ecker, J . 1,3 2 5 B ecker, U. 433 B e c k m a n n ,J . 1020 B eck w ith , R. T. 93, 240 B e c q ,J . 263, 1113 B e c q u e t, G. 1004 B e d n a rz , M. 1016 B e h m ,J . M. 1,2 1 3 B e iln e r, W. li, 229, 240, 659 B elser, J . E. 188, 1222 B e n -C h o rin , S. 1100 B e n g e r, E. L. 516 B e n is ch , M. 291 B e n ja m in , D. C. 864

1246 B e n k o , S. 36, 60 B e n n e tt, W .J ., J r. 457 B e n o it, P li, 13, 16, 2 1 -2 2 , 26, 3 2 -3 4 , 36, 83, 89, 9 3 -9 4 , 105, 113, 117, 191, 251, xxxvii2, 5 2 5 ,6 5 5 ,1 0 1 6 ,1 0 2 1 ,1 0 3 5 ,1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 4 ,1 0 4 7 ,1 0 7 8 ,1 0 8 5 ,1 0 9 0 ,1 0 9 7 -9 8 , 1 1 00,1107,1113,1134,1139,1153,1161, 1168, 1174, 1194, 1216, 1222, 1226 B e r c h m a n s .J . li B e r g e n ,P v a n 752, 9 1 9 ,9 5 5 B e rg e r, K. li, 114, 4 50, xxxvii2, 457, 461, 480, 578, 581, 621, 625, 674, 8 8 3 -8 6 , 892, 9 0 0 , 1007, 1149, 1168 B e rg e r, P -R . 96, 102 B e rg q u is t, J . A. li B erkey, R. F. 633 B e r n a d ic o u , P. J . 1 1 ,5 2 5 ,7 4 4 B e r n a d in e , J . B. 48 7 , 49 6 B e r r o u a r d , M.-F. 812 B e rry , D. L. xxxvii2 B e r th o le t, A. 2 3 4 B e r tr a m , G. 1 9 8 ,1 0 1 6 ,1 2 2 2 B e r tr a n d , D. 673 B e sn ier, R. 1113 B est, E. 145, 152, 402, 883, 1016 B est, T. F. 48 7 B etz, H . D. 897, 1194 B etz, J . 1035 B etz, O . li, 38, 136, 158, 218, 655, 657, 6 96, 704, 777, 785, 811, 843, 1100 B evan, T .W . 349 B everly, H . 60 B e y d o n , F. 598 Beyer, K. li, 336, 696, 703, 8 4 0 -4 1 B ia n c h i, U . 962 B ic k e rm a n n , E. 1100, 1113, 1174 B ie n e c k .J . 567 B igo, P 792 B ih ler, J . 983 B ille rb e c k , P 188, 194 B in d e m a n n , W. 609, 864 B in d e r, H . 5 8 6 ,5 9 0 B irc h , V. 659 B ird sa ll, J . N. 682, 1090, 1096 B iser, E. 586, 1016 B is h o p , E. F. F. 93, 96, 188, 586, 768, 8 2 3 ,9 1 9 , 1078, 1196, 1209 B ivin, D. 747 Bizer, C. 902 B jo rk , G. 205 B lack, C. C. 981 B lack, M . xliii, li, 148, 192, 226, 277, 285, 309, 3 4 3 -4 5 , 468, 516, 545, 5 54, 609, 6 4 7 -4 8 , 706, 744, 854, 868, 945, 1021, 1036, 1078, 1085 B la c k m a n , E. C. li Blair, H .J . 538 B laisin g , C. A. 1079 B la k is to n , Η . E. D. 1036 B la n k ,J . 94 5 , 1036 B laser, P 263 Blass, F. li, 3, 7, 977 B lathw ayt, T. D. 1149 B le c k m a n n , E. 9 4 B le ib e n , T. E. 1020 B le n k in s o p p , J 919 B levins, J . L. 1019 B lig h ,J . 1 0 1 6 ,1 0 3 6 ,1 1 5 3 B linzler, J . 93, 105, 201, 263, 392, 394, 4 29, 487, 525, 715, 717, 737, 742, 759, 777, 792, 843, 846, 1019, 1021, 1100, 1113, 1120, 1128, 1139, 1161 B lo c h , R. 18 B lock, D. L. li B lo m b e rg , C. L. li, 525, 5 2 9 -3 1 , 699, 874

Index

of

A uthors

B o b ic h o n , M . 1079 B o c h e r, O . li, 16, 136, 213, 340, 345, xxxvii2, 633, 637 B o ck , D. L. xxxvii2 B ock, E. 1222 B o ck el, P 1216 B o c k m u e h l, Μ. N . A. 812 B o d e , E. L. 1174 B o e rs, H . 586 B o g a e rt, P -M . 60 B o h e m e n , N . v an 424 B o h l, F. 872 B o is m a rd , M .-E. xxxvii, 560, 565, 191, 2 2 4 ,3 1 2 , 1209 B o k el, P 1194 B o k le n , E. 96 B okser, B. M. 1036 B o llc e s te in , H . 298 B o m a n , T. 1 0 7 9 ,1 0 8 2 ,1 1 5 3 B o n n a r d , P -E . xxxvii2, 767 B o n n a r d ie r e , A.-M . d e la 598 B o n s irv e n .J . 649, 812, 1036 B o n u s , A. 1 8 8 ,2 7 4 ,1 1 9 4 Bony, P 532 B oo b v er, G. H . 229, 231, 433, 437, 487 B o o m e rs h in e , T. E. 1090, 1094 B o o th , R. P 659, 663 B o rg , M. J . li B o rg e n , P li, 1016 B o rin g , Μ. E. li, 277, 567, 674, 676, 731 B o r n h a u s e r , K. 13, 37, 49, 57, 166, 251, 777, 823, 840, 864, 1016, 1120, 1161 B o r n k a m m , G. 316, 474, 5 0 5 -7 , 578, 582, 6 2 1 ,9 4 5 ,9 5 5 , 1036 B o rs c h , F. H . 468, 855, 1103 B o rse , U . 1194 B o s e n , W. 1036 B o s lo o p e r, T. 36, 43 B o so ld , I. 545 B ossuyt, P xxxiv2 B o th a , J . 696 B o th a , F .J. 1068 B o u c h e r, M. xlv, li B o u lo g n e , C.-D. 1149 B o u m a n , G. 349, 352, 359 B o u m a n , H . 157 B o u ra ssa , B. 37 B o u rg o in , H . 609, 615 B o u rs, J . 843 B o u ttie r, M. li B o u w m a n , G. li, 908, 1 2 2 2 -2 3 B o v e r.J . M. 1 2 6 ,1 3 3 B o v o n , F. li, xxxiv2, xxxviii2, 767, 1016 B o w en , C. R. 649, 652, 726, 1194 B ow ker, J . 233, 368, 378, 382, 468, 586 B o w m a n , J . W. 2 7 7 ,6 4 9 B ox, G. H . 1 3 ,1 0 3 6 B oyd, W. F. 792 B oyd, W. J . P. 823, 1090 Boys, M. G. li B radley, W. P 487, 496 B r a n d e n b u r g , H . 777 B r a n d e n b u rg e r , E. 981 B ra n d le , M. 1 1 6 1 ,1 1 7 3 -7 4 B r a n d o n , S. G. F. 933, 955, 959, 985, 1 1 0 1 ,1 1 2 8 B ra n d t, W. 655 B ra n s c o m b , H . 229 B ra tc h e r, R. G. 47, 188, xxxiv2, 1153 B raum ann, G. li, 240,277,349, 351, 360, 777, 786, 811, 981, 999, 1079, 1090, 1113 B ra u n , F.-M. 609, 933, 1161 B ra u n , H . v o n li, 13, 136, 157, 478, 586, 5 9 5 ,8 4 9 , 1021 B r a u n e rt, H . 94, 99, 101

B rawley, R. L. xxxiii, li, 188, xxxviii2 B re e c h , E. li B re e c h , J . li, 792 B re n n e r, A. 13 B r e ts c h e r, P. G. 157, 1 6 2 -6 3 , 304, 792, 849 B r i e n d ,J . 1161 B r ig h tm a n , F. E. 908 B rin d le , W. A. 94, 101, 536 B r in k m a n n , B. 37, 41 B risto l, L. O . 981 B ro c k , S. P. 433 B ro c k e , M. 6 0 7 -8 B ro d ie , L. T. 1 3 ,1 9 B ro d ie , T. L. 319, 349, 352, 532, 538 B r o d m a n n , B. 37 B ro e r, I. 777, 1061, 1161, 1163, 1168, 1174 B ro m b o sz c z , T. 919 B ro n g e rs , H . A. 1079 B ro o k e , A. E. 1036 B ro o k e , G. 240 B r o o te n , B .J . 316, 366 B ro w n , C. 792 B ro w n , F. B. li B ro w n , R. E. xliii, li, 13, 1 9 -2 0 , 22, 26, 30, 3 2 -3 3 , 37, 4 2 -4 3 , 4 5 -4 7 , 56, 62, 64, 6 7 -6 8 , 7 8 -7 9 , 86, 93, 1 0 3 -4 , 106, 1 0 8 -9 , 113, 116, 119, 1 2 1 -2 2 , 126, 145, 277, 3 8 1 -8 2 , 392, 395, 447, 607, 6 16-18, 647, 8 8 0 ,9 0 0 , 9 4 5 ,1 0 1 6 ,1 0 1 9 , 1021, 1068, 1079, 1161, 1164, 1168 B ro w n , S. li, 3, 5, 7, 145, 151, 175, 673, 1028, 1061 B ro w n le e , W. H . 145, 152 B ro x , N. li, 627 B ru c e , F, F. lii, x x xviii9 4 5 ,872 ,468 ,’‫־‬, 9 5 5 ,9 5 8 , 1016 B r u e g g e m a n n , W. 136 B r u g g e n , J . v an 607 B r u n , L. 188, 193, 199, 218, 221, 1079, 1169 B r u n e i, G. 1069 B r u n e rs , W. lii, 8 4 3 -4 5 B r u n e t, G. 1090 B ru n k , G. R. 1194 B r u n n e r- T r a u t, E. 37 B r u n o t, A. 1194 B r u s to n , C. 706 B ru ts c h e c k , I. 598, 6 0 1 -5 B ru y n e , D. d e 823 B ry a n t, Η . E. 633 B d a s o n , K. 578 B u c h a n , W. M. 607 B u c h a n a n , G. y > \ 2 5 1 ,9 3 3 B u c h e le , A. lii, 188, 457, 487, 511, 525, 894, 1 0 1 9 -2 0 , 1113 B u c h s e l, F. 1101 B u c h h e it. G. 1028 B u ck , E. 1120 B u h lm a n n , W. 1139 B ulst, W. 1161 B u ltm a n n , R. xlvi, lii, 147, 152, 159, 177, 1 9 3 -9 4 , 236, 242, 256, 314, 321, 3 2 6 -2 8 , 345, 3 5 1 -5 2 , 368, 375, 393, 3 9 7 -9 8 , 438, 447, 449, 4 6 0 -6 1 , 471, 478, 480, 506, 540, 574, 578, 580, 583, 601, 752, 826, 840, 845, 853, 865, 872, 881, 942, 963, 985, 1070, 1143, 1201 B undy, W. E. lii, 186, 221. 234, 865 B u n n , L. H . 737 B u r c h a rd , C. 93, 578, 5 8 1 -8 2 , 1036 B iirg e n e r, K. 1169 B u rg e r, C. 1 6 6 , 8 9 7 ,9 1 9 ,9 6 9

Index o f Authors B u rk ill, T. A. 402, 408, 1101, 1113 B u rk itt, F. C. 60, 157, 239, 402, 945, 1036, 1040, 1161 B u rn , A. E. 1194 B u r r id g e , R. A. xxxviii B u rro w s, E. 13, 19, 29, 33, 62 B use, I. 4 3 3 ,4 3 5 ,9 3 3 , 1016 Bussby, F. 768, 1090 B u ssc h e , H . van d e n 607, 933 B usse, U . lii, 188, 195, 197, 2 0 0 -2 0 1 , 203, 2 0 5 -6 , 2 1 0 -1 4 , 216, 225, xxxiv2, 505, 633, 721, 8 4 3 -4 4 , 897, 1085 B u s s m a n n , C. xxxviii2 B u th , R. 6 0 ,9 1 9 ,9 2 5 B u tle r, B. C. 516 Buzy, D. lii, 203, 349, 621, 768, 864 B y rn e , B. 792 B y rn e , M . 93 Byskov, M. 166 C a b a n is, A. 37 C a d b u ry , H . J . xxxv, xxxvii, lii, 3 - 4 , 6 -7 , 9 - 1 1 , 93, 161, 166, 185, 192, 205, 211, 214, 216, 221, 424, 428, x x x ix 2, 6 55, 823, 849 C a d o u x , A. T. lii, 312, 525, 655 C a d r o n , F. H . 823 C a e m m e re r, R. R. 793 C a ird , G. B. xlix, 232, 424, x x x ix 2, 487, 641, 713, 799, 1010 C a ld e c o tt, A. 933 C all a n , T. 3 C a lm e t, A. 532 C a m b e , M. lii, 37, 5 0 -5 1 , 199 C a m e ro n , R S. 6 0 7 ,8 1 1 C a m p b e ll, J . Y. 633 C a m p e n h a u s e n , H . v o n 3, 5, 37, 263, 1174 C a n d lis h , R. 908 C a n g h , J.-M . van 433, 4 3 7 -3 8 , 442, 633, 639 C a n tin a t, J. 7 6 7 -6 8 , 823, 1101, 1113, 1 1 3 9 ,1 1 6 9 C a n tre ll, R. A. 715 C a ra g o u n is , C. C. 150, 468, 513, 538 C a rle , P.-L. 13 C a rls o n , R. P. 1019 C a rls to n , C. E. lii, 368, 487, 493, 777, 780, 7 8 2 -8 3 , 786, 789, 945 C a rm ic h a e l, J . 933, 1016 C a r m ig n a c ,J . 37, 47, 53, 607, 609, 614,

1021 C a rn le y , P. 1169 C a rro ll, J . T. x x x ix 2, 682, 696, 849, 855, 9 0 8 ,9 8 1 , 1125, 1134, 1149 C a rtlid g e , D. x x x ix 2 C a r to n , G. 1 5 8 ,1 6 1 ,9 6 2 C a se tti, P. x x x ix 2 Casey, M. 251, 468, 4 7 0 -7 1 , 473, 538, 5 4 0 -4 1 , 1036, 1046 Casey, R M. 674 C a s p a ri, A. 883 C assidy, R .J . lii, 955, 1019, 1101, 1125 C a stel, F. 598 C a stelli, E. 955 C a tc h p o le , D. R. 273, 545, 6 2 1 -2 2 , 673, 6 8 9 -9 2 , 8 1 1 -1 2 , 814, 834, 836, 838, 849, 858, 8 6 4 -6 5 , 870, 919, 9 2 2 -2 4 , 933, 935, 1016, 1091, 1098, 1101, 1103, 1109, 1115 C ave, C. H . lii, 188, 194, 402, 407, 823 C azelles, H . 37 C e rfa u x , L. 263, 377, 378, 3 8 1 -8 3 , 385, 387, 424, 433, 538, 567, 570, 586, 777, 872

C e ro k e , C. P. 37, 229, 231, 236 C e r te a u , M . d e 1194 C h a b ro l, C. 1016 C h a d w ic k , H . 1040 C h a fin s , T. L. 1161 C h a m b lin , K. 811 C h a m p io n ,J . 586 C h a n c e , J . B. xxx ix , 1003, 1019 C h a p m a n , J . 567, 659 C h a r e tte , B. 545 C h a rle s , R. H . 704 C h a rle s w o rth , C. E. 1194 C h a rle s w o rth , J . H . lii, 181, x x x ix 2, 1140 C h a rlie r, C. 175, 560, 567 C h a r p e n tie r, E. 349, x x x ix 2, 9 62, 1194 C h a r u e , A. 114 C h av el, C. B. 1128 C h e n d e r lin , F. 1031 C h e v allier, M.-A. lii, 157, 188, x x x ix 2, 1209 C h ilto n , B. D. lii, 188, 195, 198, 474, 481, 487, 633, 689, 731, 811, 9 69, 971 C h o r d a t J . L. 1016 C h rist, F. lii, 340, 567, 659 C h ris te n s e n , J . 1057 C h ristie , W. M. 1036 C h ro n is , H . L. 1 1 5 3 ,1 1 5 7 C h w o ls o n , D. 1021 C ic e ro 295, 299, 477, 523, 1047 C la p p , R. G. 402 C la rk , K. W. 633, 726, 728, 1061 C la rk , W. R. 1169 C la rk e , A. K. 696 C la u d e l, G. 457, 1069, 1073, 1174, 1185, 1 1 8 8 ,1 1 9 4 , 1207 C lavier, H . 433, 793 C lin e s, D. J . A. x x x ix C lo e te , G. D. 777 C lu cas, R. S. 586 C o a k le y ,J . T. 598 C o c a g n a c , A.-M. 902 C o g g in s, R .J . 536 C o h e n , B. 251 C o h e n , D. 1101 C o h n , H . 1101, 1128 C o h n , M. 263 C o h n -S h e rb o k , D. M. 251, 256, 962, 1036 C o in e r, H . G. 812 C o la n i, T. 9 8 4 -8 5 C o le , E. R. 3 7 ,5 0 C o le lla , P. 804 C o le m a n , N .-D . 760 C o lin ,J . 1 1 1 3 ,1 1 2 8 C h ile , R. 823 C o llie , N . E. W. 696 C o l li n s ,J .J . 3 7 ,4 6 8 C o llin s, R. F. 157, 1 6 0 -6 1 , 607 C o llin s, R. L. 793 C o llis o n ,J . G. F. x x x ix C o lp e , C. 468, 472, 479, 674, 855 C o ls o n , F. H . 3 C o m b e r, J . A. 545 C o m b rin k , H . J . B. 188, 195, 198, 696 C om iskey, J . P. 793 C o m p s to n , H . F. B. 804 C o m p to n , J . E. 777 C o n r a d , E. W. 13 C o n z e lm a n n , H . x xxii, lii, 19, 139, 142, 151, 156, 158, 163, 178, 186, 192, 196, 1 9 8 -9 9 , 216, 221, 363, 367, 3 9 3 -9 4 , 440, 525, 527, 737, 843, 846, 850, 858, 908, 981, 9 99, 1003, 1016, 1020, 1065, 1113, 1139, 1153 C o o k , C. x x x ix 2

1247 C o o k , D. E. Hi C o o k , E. J . 525 C o o k e , B. 1036 C o o k e , F. A. 933 C o o k e , R. A. 586 C o o p e r, J . C. 1040 C o o p e r, T. 1018 C o p e , L. x x x ix 2 C o p e s ta k e , D. R. 673 C o p p e n s , J . 13, 468, 474, 673, 1036 C o rb in , M. 447, 453, 647, 1120 C o rb ish le y , T. 9 4 ,9 9 - 1 0 0 C o rle tt, T. 777 C o r r e n s , D. 649, 659 C o rte s , J . B. 126, 133, 811, 821, 8 7 2 -7 3 C o sg ro v e , C. H . lii C o tte r, A. C. 981 C o u ffig n a l, R. 777 C o u lo t, C. 2 1 8 ,5 3 8 ,8 8 3 C o u n e , M. 4 8 7 ,4 9 3 ,4 9 9 C o u ro y e r, B. 1 2 6 ,2 9 1 ,3 0 1 ,6 3 3 C o u r th ia l, R 368 C o u sa r, C. B. 981 C o u s in , H . 1 0 1 6 ,1 0 2 0 ,1 1 6 1 C o u tts ,J . 793, 796 C o x E vans, L. E. 1161 C r a d d o c k , F. B. xxxiv2 C ra ffe rt, R F. 1169 C r a g h a n , J . F. 37, 325, 3 2 8 -2 9 , 402 C ra ig , K. M. 633 C ra ig , W. L. 1 1 6 9 ,1 1 7 4 C r a n fie ld , C. E. B. lii, 231, 237, 368, 382, 407, 586, 864, 981, 1079, 1169 C ra tc h le y , W .J . 402 C ra w fo rd , R. G. 777 C re e d , J . M . xlix, 136, 160, 1 9 8 -9 9 , 201, 208, 212, 343, 638, 1019, 1113, 1222 C r e h a n , J . H . lii, 1194 C re m e r, F. G. 2 4 0 ,2 4 3 C respy, G. 586, 1017 C rib b s, F. L. xxxix, 1019, 1057 C ro c k e tt, L. C. 188, 194 C r o n in , H . S. 1161 C r o s s a n ,J . D. xliii, xlv, xlvii, lii, 368, 371, 373, 393, x l2, 586, 5 9 0 -9 1 , 726, 777, 880 , 911, 919 , 945 , 1061, 1091, 1169, 1174, 1186 C ro w e, J . 1140 C ro w fo o t, J . W. 1196 C r u m p , D. M. liii, 560 C sanyi, D. A. 598 C u llm a n n , O . liii, 179, 263, 447, 567, 760, 880, 969, 1028, 1036, 1069, 1071, 1074, 1079 C u lp e p p e r, R. A. liii, 1017 C u m m in g s , C. 1194 C u m m in g s , J . T. 415 C u r r ie , S. D. 488 C u rtis , K. R G . 1174 C u tle r, A. 113 C z e rs k i.J . 1017 D a a le n , D. H . van 962 D a b b ,J . Η . M. 229 D a b e c k , R 488 D ab ro w sk i, E. 4 8 8 ,1 1 0 1 D a g ro n , A. 834 D a h l, N . A. liii, 136, 139, 141, 368, 726, 1194 D a h u n s i, E .J . 188 D a lm a n , G. liii, 234, 336, 368, 371, 607, 6 14, 6 1 7 -1 8 , 6 89, 850, 1036, 1046, 1140 Daly, R .J . 1 0 2 1 ,1 0 3 6 D a m m e rs , A. H . 349, 351, 1141

1248 D anby, H . 817, 1101 D 'A n g e lo , M. R. x l2, 812 D a n ie l, C. 333, 586, 673, 718 D a n ie lo u , J . 13, 93, 277, 586, 590 D a n k e r, F. W. xlix, liii, 224, 337, x l2, 642, 811, 1017, 1061, 1064 D a n s o n , J . M. 1091 D 'a r c ,J ., Sr. xxxiv2, 1194 D arr, J . A. xl D a s s m a n , E. 1091 D a u b e , D. liii, 37, 232, 251, 277, 349, xl2, 621, 682, 777, 782, 793, 797, 812, 864, 969, 9 7 1 , 1046, 1079, 1091, 1 1 4 1 ,1 1 5 3 D a u e r, A. 312, 349, x l2, 598, 1 0 8 5 -8 6 , 1 2 0 9 -1 0 , 1 2 1 2 -1 4 , 1217 D a u tz e n b e r g , G. 259, 261, 474, 478, 4 8 3 -8 4 D auvillier, J . 7 7 7 ,9 0 2 ,9 0 8 D avid, J.-E . 1036 D a v id so n , J . A. 5 9 8 ,7 9 3 D avies, A. T. 1101 D avies, J . G. 60, 488, 532, 1 2 2 2 -2 3 D avies, J . H . 13, 137, 526, 528 D avies, P. E. 1020 D avies, M. liv2 D avies, S. L. 1128 D avies, T. L. 919 D avies, W. D. liii, 157, x l2, 535, 56 7 Davis, C. X , III 13 D av iso n , A. 1140 Dawsey, J . M . liii, 13, x l2, 526, 933 D e a n , R. J . xxxiv2 D e a tric k , E. P. 7 6 0 ,7 6 5 D e b r u n n e r , A. 609, 615 D e g e n h a r d t, H.-J. liii, 277, 424, 682, 692, 747, 793, 804, 809, 823, 883, 977 D e h a n d s c h u tte r, B. x l2, 945 D e ic h g ra b e r, R. 96, 109 D e k k e rs , R. 1113 D e la to u c h e , P. 81 D e lb ru e c k , R. 1120 D e lc o r, M. 849 D e le b e c q u e , E. xxxiv2, liii, 3 - 4 , 10, 37, 60, 97, 102, 133, 251, 255, 4 24, x l2, 545, 609, 627, 655, 657, 793, 838 D e L e e rs , S. V. 1194 D e llin g , G. 6, 37, 706, 708, 812, 8 6 4 -6 5 , 867, 1017, 1020, 1036, 1169 D e lo b e l, J . liii, 1 8 4 -8 7 , 349, 3 5 3 -5 5 , 357 D e lo rm e , J . liii, 218, 222, 224, 1017, 1021, 1036, 1091, 1101, 1174, 1187 D e lto m b e , F. 218 D e lz a n t, A. 1194 D e m a n n , P. 1141 D e m e l, S. x l2, 598, 1134, 1137, 1153, 1160 D e m in g , W. 834 D e M o o r,J . C. 607 D e m o p h ilu s 807 D e m o s th e n e s 298 D e n a u x , A. 578, 731, 733, 737 D e n is , A.-M . 4 3 3 ,4 8 8 D e n k , J . 888 D e n n e y , J . 674, 715, 759 D e n n is o n , C. G. 157 D e r r e tt, J . D. M. 13, 25, 9 3 -9 4 , 105, 218, 2 2 2 -2 3 , 291, 312, 317, 349, 433, xl2, 488, 538, 578, 586, 621, 6 2 4 -2 5 , 655, 659, 667, 682, 689, 693, 706, 721, 724, 731, 737, 744. 752, 7 5 8 -5 9 , 768, 775, 777, 793, 7 9 8 -9 9 , 812, 823, 829, 834, 837, 840, 864, 868, 880, 902, 905, 908, 915, 9 19, 9 25, 933, 936, 945, 950, 955, 9 74, 9 76, 1036, 1074,

Index

of

Authors

1091, 1101, 1113, 1149, 1151, 1169 D e r r id a , J . xlvii D e s c a m p s , A.-T. x l2, 516, 768, 804, 812, 821, 1036, 1169 D e sc h ry v er, R. 864, 867 D e s r e m a u x .J . 1194 D e ssa u , H . 94 D e te rin g , P E . 696 D e u ts c h , C. 567 D e v e n isc h , P E. 1169 D eville, R. 93 D e v o ld e re , M. 3 Dew ailly, L.-M . 607 D ew ar, F. 981 Dewey, A. J . 696, 812, 8 1 5 - 1 6 Dewey, K. E. 1 0 9 1 ,1 0 9 3 D h a n is , E. 1 1 6 1 ,1 1 6 9 ,1 1 7 4 D ia m o n d , G. liii D ib e liu s , M. liii, 5, 13, 2 0 -2 1 , 4 3 -4 4 , 49, 63, 77, 79, 105, 236, 323, 325, 3 3 3 34, 338, 340, 346, 352, 393, 438, 510, 601, 738, 1017, 1079, 1082, 1085, 1120 D id ie r .J . D. 1036 D id ier, M . 368, 382, 726, 908, 911 D ie m , H . 273 D ie te rle , C. xxxiv2 D ie tric h , W. liii, 205, 209, 211, 218, 2 2 2 23, 263, 269, 447, 453, 488, 491, 1 0 6 9 -7 0 , 1091 D ie tz fe lb in g e r, C. 368, 375, 721, 744 D ie z in g e r, W. 578, 581 D ig n a th , W. 1 4 ,4 8 8 D ih le , A. liii, 291, 298 D illisto n e , F. W. 240 D illo n , R .J . liii, 3, 14, 545, 689, 1017, 1 1 7 3 -7 4 , 1 1 9 0 -9 1 , 1 1 9 4 ,1 2 0 9 -1 0 , 1212, 1216, 1223 D in e c h in , O . d e 1063 D in k ier, E. 447, 4 49, 474, 4 7 6 -7 7 D io C assius 270, 1148 D io d o r u s S ic u lu s 1152 D io g e n e s L a e rtiu s 223, 692 D io n y siu s o f H a lic a rn a s s u s 9, 867 D io s c o rid e s 6 D itte n b e rg e r , W. 133 D o b le , P. 1 7 5 ,1 8 0 D o ck x , S. 1 0 2 1 ,1 0 3 6 D o d d , C. H . xxxviii, xlvi, liii, 37, 47, 277, 368, 388, 493, 554, 591, 633, 806, 850, 9 08, 9 2 9 -3 0 , 945, 9 9 9 , 1169, 1 1 8 0 ,1 2 0 1 D o d e r le i n .J . 126, 131 D o e rr, F. 1101 D o e v e .J . W. 9 6 ,9 1 9 ,9 3 3 D o m b o is, H . 945 D o m e r, M. liii, 3, 157, 186, 188, 196, 342, 1173, 1194, 1216 D o m e ris , W. R. liii D o m in ic , A. P 752 D o n a h u e , 1. R. 150, x li2, 468, 812, 1017,

1101 D o n c o e u r, P 368, 371, 474 D o n n e , B. K. 1222 D o n o h u e , J .J . 3 4 9 ,3 5 8 D o r a n , R. 945, 953 D o rm e y e r, D. 752, 1017, 1032, 1 0 5 8 -5 9 , 1079, 1085, 1087, 1155 D o r n e ic h , M. 607 D o rn s e iff, F. 609 D o w n , M .J . 812 D ow ney, G. 586 D o w n in g , F. G. liii, x li2, 633, 872, 962, 966 D o w n in g , J . 1017

D oyle, A. D. 1113 D r a n e .J . YV. 1169 D ra z in , I. x li2 D re h e r, A. 599 D re h e r, B. 872 D re x le r, H . 349, 3 5 4 -5 5 , 359, 793 D rev er, A. J . G. 14 D rey fu s, F. 5 8 6 ,9 6 2 ,9 6 7 D reyfus, P. 1069 D river, G. R. 1153, 1156 D ru ry , J . liii, 368, 371, xxxiv2, 526, 902, 945 D 'S a, T. x li2 D s c h u ln ig g , P. x li2, 777 D u ,J . L e 777 D u B u it, F. M. 908 D u b b e r s te in , W. H . 1026 D u b l i n ,J . 349 D u b o is , J.-D . liii, 3, 16 D u ff, P B. 920 D u e s b e rg , H . 1216 D u g m o r e , C. W. 1021 D u m a is , M. liii, 777 D u m m , D, R. 1216 D u n g a n , D. L. x x x ix 2, x li2, 811, 1017 D u n k e l, F. 368 D u n k e rle y , R. 2 4 0 ,8 2 3 D u n n , J . D. G. liii, 145, 1 5 2 -5 3 , 157, 193, 3 2 7 -2 8 , 333, x li2, 633, 1169 D u lin g , D. C. 900 D uplacv, J . liii, 229, 304, 308, 310, 834, 1 0 7 9 ,1 1 0 1 , 1104 D u p la n tie r, J .-P . 946, D u p o n t, J . liii, 3, 5, 60, 64, 7 1 -7 2 , 126, 130, 157, 175, 1 7 7 -7 8 , 199, 229, 240, 242, 2 4 9 -5 0 , 263, 269, 277, 2 8 0 -8 8 , 291, 297, 300, 307, 325, 3 3 0 -3 1 , 333, 349, 353, 3 5 8 -5 9 , 368, 3 7 3 -7 4 , 3 8 5 88, 3 9 0 -9 1 , x li2, 466, 567, 572, 599, 605, 627, 631, 655, 657, 673, 683. 689, 726, 728, 7 3 1 -3 2 , 735, 759, 764, 7 6 7 -6 8 , 771, 777, 793, 8 0 4 -5 , 807, 812, 823, 827, 830, 8 40, 883, 897, 902, 906, 908, 9 1 1 , 9 20, 9 2 9 -3 0 , 932, 981, 983, 9 87, 9 9 4 -9 6 , 1 0 0 7 -9 , 1020, 1036, 1061, 1063, 1067, 1103, 1149, 1177, 1194, 1216 D u p o n t-S o m m e r, A. 204, 328, 388, 391 D u q u o c , C. 175 D u r a n d , A. 60 D u s s a u t, L. 1174, 1 1 7 7 -7 8 , 1191, 1 2 0 6 -7 D u tto n , F G. 793 D u v ig n a u , P 1196 E agar, A. R. 1040 E a rl, D. 10 E a s to n , B. C. 850 E a s to n , B. S. xlix, liv, 222, 633, 981 E b e l, B. 902 E b e lin g , H .J . xlvi, 240. 447, 1101 E b e rt, H . 1169 E b e rtz , Μ. N. liv E ck, E. v an 9 4 6 E c k a rd t, A. R. 1169 E c k h a rt, M. 599 E d a n a d , A. 1036 Eddy, G. T. 1169 E d g a r, S. L. 175 E d lu n d , C. 655 E d m o n d s , H . 902 E d m o n d s , P 607 E d s m a n , C.-M . 145 E d w ard s, D. 37 E d w ard s, D. R. x li2 E d w ard s, O . C ., J r. x li2

Index o f Authors E d w ard s, R. A. 545, 567, 649 E g e lk ra u t, H . L. 526 E h e s te r, W. 1079 E h r h a rd t, A. liv, 340, 1184, 1195 E h r h a rd t, A. T. 538 E h r h a rd t, E. liv E h r m a n , A. 263 E h r m a n , B. D. 1040, 1079, 1081 E ib a c h , U . 682 E ic h h o lz , G. liv, 273, 349, x li2, 586, 597, 682, 752, 759, 777, 8 24, 840 E id , V. 1061 E isler, R. 1036 E itre m , S. 178 E ld e re n , B. van 586 E ld e r S e n e c a 1137 E lia d e , M. 824 E lias, J . W. 188 E llic o tt, C .J . 1174 E llin g w o rth , P. 93, 696 E llio tt, J . H . xli2, 1064 E llio tt, J . K. 126, 128, 130, 349, 608 Ellis, E. E. xlix, liv, 145, 149, 198, 200, 367, 429, x li2, 659, 809, 962, 967, 1149 E lte ster, W. liv, 188, 1 9 2 -9 3 , 195, 198 E m e r t o n ,J . A. 1036 E m m in g h a u s , J . H . 142, 1036 E n g e lb re c h t, J . 1174 E n s lin , M. S. liv, 37, 526, 5 32, 586, 843, 9 0 8 ,1 0 2 8 ,1 1 0 1 , 1223 E n tre v e r n e s G r o u p , T h e 586, 767 E p ic te tu s 295, 4 7 7 -7 8 , 695, 7 6 2 -6 3 , 807, 821 E p ic u ru s 129 E p p , E .J . 1223 E p p s te in , V. 933, 9 3 5 -3 6 E rb , P. C. 599 E r d m a n n , G. 14, 18, 21 E rn s t, J . xlix, liv, 342, 578, 7 4 4 -4 5 , 1091, 1173, 1216 E sler, P. F. liv E ssam e, W. G. 3 6 8 ,3 7 2 Essig, K.-G. 793 E stes, D. F. 981 E u le n s te in , R. 96, 586 E u r ip id e s 556, 807, 1137 E u s e b iu s 181, 298, 985, 1001, 1148 Evans, C. A. liv, 368, xxxiv2, x lii2, 532, 9 33, 1091, 1093, 1138 E vans, C. F. 94, xxxiv2, 526, 529, 785, 8 24, 1017, 1169 E vans, Ο . E. 674 Evely, L. 488 E y n d e , P. van d e n 586 F aessler, M. 1153 Fahy, T. 3 7 ,9 2 0 F a lc o n e , S. A. 609 Faley, R .J . 777 Farley, F. A. 737 F a rm e r, G. 263 F a r m e r , W. R. x x x , liv, 4 5 7 , 4 5 9 , 511, 7 1 5 -1 6 , 767, 894, 920, 117 4 F a rra r, A. M. 433 F a rre ll, Η . K. 526 F a rre r, A. M. 166 F a rris , S. G. 1 4 ,2 2 ,5 9 F asch er, E. 1 7 5 ,4 7 4 Fassl, P. 792 F ee, G. D. 5 9 9 -6 0 0 F e e le y -H a rn ik , G. 1036 Feeny, P. 226 F eig el, F. K. 1017

F e ld , H . 1036 F e ld k a m p e r, L. liv, 4 88, 567, 608, 1069, 1079, 1140, 1153 F e ld m e ie r, R. 1079, 1082 F e n a sse , J.-M . 37, 203 F e n e b e rg , R. 1036 F e u ille t, A. 3, 8, 14, 25, 96, 113, 121, 157, 161, 175, 1 7 7 -7 8 , 180, 229, 240, 243, 248, 252, 340, 349, 353, 358, 457, 463, 488, 500, 532, 5 67, 586, 706, 7 9 2 -9 3 , 8 24, 849, 853, 872, 981, 986, 1061, 1079, 1081, 1103, 1140, 1174, 1195 F e u te r, K. 1101 F ic h tn e r, J . A. 1195 F ie b ig , P. liv, 2 9 1 ,6 0 8 F ie d le r, P. xlii2, 608, 633, 752, 768, 777, 785, 872, 902, 9 08, 9 1 1 , 1169, 1195, 1199 F ie d le r, W. liv, 398 F ie ld , F. 1 2 6 ,1 3 1 F ig u e ra s , P. 113, 116 F ilm er, W. E. 100 F ilso n , F. V. 526 F in e g a n , J . liv, 139, 593, 1017, 1113, 1 1 2 8 ,1 1 3 4 , 1140, 1161 F in k e l, A. 1 8 8 ,1 9 4 F in la y so n , S. K. 368, 759, 1074 F irth , C. B. 793 F irth , H . 793 F isch er, H . 1140 F ish er, L. R. 897 F ish er, N . F. x lii2 F itzer, G. 674 F itzm yer, J . A. viii, xxvii, xlix, liv, 5 - 6 , 10, 23, 28, 31, 37, 42, 51, 54, 66, 7 8 -7 9 , 96, 1 0 2 ,1 0 9 - 1 0 ,1 1 7 , 123, 131, 1 3 8 40, 146, 153, 156, 1 6 2 -6 3 , 170, 173, 1 7 7 -7 8 , 181, 1 9 3 -9 5 , 204, 213, 220, 222, 224, 226, 2 3 6 -3 7 , 260, 2 6 3 -6 4 , 270, 275, 284, 286, 3 0 7 -8 , 318, 322, 3 2 8 -3 0 , 3 3 5 -3 7 , 3 4 2 -4 3 , 345, 352, 357, 379, 3 9 4 -9 6 , 399, 4 0 7 -8 , 426, 429, 438, x lii2, 4 6 5 -6 8 , 470, 477, 5 0 9 -1 0 , 5 40, 543, 556, 571, 5 9 2 -9 3 , 595, 603, 613, 615, 6 17, 623, 626, 631, 637, 639, 651, 6 54, 657, 6 6 4 -6 5 , 669, 677, 686, 692, 709, 714, 7 1 7 -1 8 , 724, 7 4 0 -4 2 , 755, 757, 783, 786, 793, 799, 801, 8 0 5 -6 , 812, 821, 829, 841, 8 4 5 -4 6 , 8 51, 875, 878, 881, 895, 9 04, 906, 914, 923, 926, 9 31, 941, 950, 9 5 8 -5 9 , 9 6 6 -6 7 , 969, 9 7 9 , 9 9 0 , 1021, 1027, 1040, 1046, 1064, 1079, 1084, 1094, 1132, 1137, 1140, 1151, 1156, 1159, 1164, 1169, 1201, 1204, 1223, 1226 F la n a g a n , N . M . 37, 122, x lii2 F le d d e r m a n n , H . 516, 673, 696, 726, 1061 F le n d e r, H . liv, 9 20, 981, 1101 F le ss e m a n , E. van L e e r 1017 F le tc h e r, D. R. 474, 759, 793 Flew, A. G. N . 1170 F lic o te a u x , E. 1222 F lin d e rs P e trie , W. M. 615 F lo o d , E. 59 F low ers, H .J . 145 F liickiger, F. 9 8 1 ,9 8 5 - 8 6 ,9 9 9 F lusser, D. 96, 102, 240, 250, 277, 532, 793, 804, 1017, 1036, 1098, 1101, 1103, 1134, 1141 F o ak es-Jack so n , F. J . liv F o c a n t, G. x lii2, 793 F o e rste r, W. 178, 609, 908, 1069

1249 F o h re r, G. 966 F o rd , D. 981 F o r d ,J . M. liv, 1 4 ,3 7 ,4 7 , 1128 F o rd , M . 424 F o re s te d , J . T. 6 0 , 6 8 - 6 9 , 7 2 F o rs te r, M. 93 F o r tn a , R. 1 0 9 1 ,1 0 9 3 F o ssio n , A. 793 F o s te r,J . 1031 F o th e rin g h a m , J . K. 1022 F o u c a u lt, J.-A. d e 609 F o u lo n -P ig a n io l, C. L. 1113, 1125 F o x , R. 1091 F r a e n k e l, E. 6 F ra in e , J . d e 60 F ra n c e , R. T. liv, 312, 9 69, 981, 1101 F ra n c is , F. O . liv F r a n k e m o lle , H . liv, 277, 567, 9 4 6 F ra n k lin , E. liv, 1223 F ra n s e n , I. 526, 1019, 1140 F ra y n , R. S. 920 F re d rik s e n , R 933 F re e d , E. D. 8 6 4 ,8 6 6 ,8 6 8 - 6 9 , 920 F re ire , C. E. liv, 37, 184, 186, 189, 191, 1 9 6 -9 7 , 207 F re n z , A. 920 F r e u d e n b e r g , W. 1169 F r e u d e n b e r g e r, R. 608 Frey, J.-B . 93 F re y n e , S. 263, x lii2, 1169 F ric k e , W. 1101 F ric k e l, J . 239 F rid r ic h s e n , A. liv, 14, 55, 81, 175, 178, 263, 326, 333, 474, 482, 621, 626, 644, 674, 865, 1069, 1223 F r ie d r ic h , G. 196, 433, 532, 534, 969, 971 F r ie d r ic h s e n , T. A. x lii2, 457 F ro st, M. 312 F ry e, R. M. xlii2 F u c h s , A. xlvi, liv, 209, 488, 633, 897, 99 4 F u c h s , E. liv, 578, 689, 752, 777, 793 F u lfo rd , F. W. 1 1 3 ,7 3 7 F u ller, D. P. 1169 F u ller, G. C. 981 F u ller, R. C. 349 F u lle r, R. H . lv, 37, 474, 578, 706, 1036, 1169 F u n k , R. W. xliii, lv, 81, 277, 291, x liii2, 586, 588, 5 9 0 -9 1 , 595, 726, 7 2 9 -3 0 , 777 F u rn e ss , J . M. 586 F u r n is h , V. P. 2 7 3 ,5 7 8 F u sc o , V. 3 7 7 -7 8 , x liii2 F iirst, H . 888 Fyot, J.-L . 793 G a e c h te r, P. lv, 37, 49, 56, 793, 800, 1161, 1175 G ag er, J . G. xliii2 G agg, R. P. 9 6 9 ,9 7 1 G a id e , G. 682, 1195 G a lb ia ti, E. 93, 113 G alizzi, M. 1081 G a lo t, J . 3 7 , 8 8 3 ,8 8 7 - 8 8 G alv in , J . P. 1 0 1 7 ,1 1 6 9 G a n d e r, G. 7 9 3 ,1 1 6 9 G a n g e r, G. 340, 343 G a n n e , P 908 G a n toy, R. 1169 G a rd n e r-S m ith , P. 1169 G a rd in e r, J . A. 1004 G a rd in e r, W. D. 1091 G a r la n d , D. E. 659, 1017 G a r la n d , J . M. 902

1250 G a r n e t, P. 157 G arn sey , P 1113 G a r r e tt, S. R. x liii2, 488, 560, 633, 655, 1020 G a r r itt, C. E. 1091 G a rtn e r, B. E. lv, 193, 1028 G a s q u e , W. W. lv G asse, W. 52 6 G a s to n , L. lv, 14, 633, 637, 929, 1019 G a tti, F .M . 1 2 6 ,1 3 3 ,8 1 1 ,8 2 1 G atzw eiler, K. 608 G a u g le r, E. 1036 G a u lt, J . A. xliii2 G a v e n ta , B. R. lv G avin, F .G . 263 G e d d e r t, T. J . 981 G e e rin g , L. 1169 G e ig e r, R. lv, 849, 981 G eisler, N . L. 1169 G e ld e n h u y s , N . xlix, 200 G e n e s t, O . 1091 G e n in a s c a ,J . 218 G e o ltr a in , P 1017 G e o rg e , A. lv, 14, 26, 93, 189, 198, 201, 211, 273, 277, 304, 312, 315, 3 1 7 -1 8 , 3 2 1 -2 2 , 333, 368, 474, 483, 488, 499, 545, 548, 555, 599, 601, 605, 633, 639, 689, 697, 706, 710, 768, 824, 835, 8 64, 920, 1004, 1020, 1061, 1 1 4 9 ,1 2 0 9 ,1 2 1 7 G e rb e r, M. 4 9 2 ,4 9 8 G e r h a rd s s o n , B. lv, 175, 177, 1 7 9 -8 1 , 263, 266, 368, 3 8 2 -8 3 , xliii2, 586, 590, 1091 G e rits, H . 1174 G e ro , S. 157 G e r s te n b e r g e r , E. 278 G e r tn e r , M . 81 G e rv a is ,J . 381 G e se , H . 37, 468, 1017 G ew alt, D. lv, 5 86, 1091 G ew iess, J . 37, 53 G eyer, H .-G . 1169 G eyser, A. S. 81, 136 G ib b s, J . M . lv, 1195, 1200 G ib e rt, P 3, 1169 G ib le t, J . 2 6 3 , 5 6 7 ,6 7 4 ,7 7 7 ,9 9 4 G ib lin , C. H . lv, 93, 108, 767, 920, 946, 95 6 , 9 5 9 ,9 9 9 , 1134 G ib s o n , G. S. 777 G ib s o n , M . D. 793 G ie s e n , H . 7 3 1 ,8 1 1 G ie t, S. lv, 156 G ilb e rt, A. H . x liii2, 737 G iles, K. lv, xliii2 G ill, D. 5 2 6 ,5 2 8 G illie ro n , B. 1195 G illie so n , T. 599 G illm a n ,J . xliii2, 1074, 1076 G ilm o u r, S. M . x lix G ils, F. lv, 157, 189, 196, 199, 252, 319, 4 2 9 ,4 5 7 , 1195 G ira rd , L. 526 G ira rd , R. 1017 G i r o u d ,J .‫־‬C. 94 6 G la sso n , T. F. 145, 516, 850, 981, 1103 G la u e , P. 744 G le n , J . S. lv G le n d e n n in g , F. J . 175 G lo b e , A. 93 G lo c k n e r, R. lv, 3, 14, 721, 8 4 3 -4 6 G lo m b itz a , O . lv, 126, xliv2, 474, 476, 538, 540, 542, 649, 749, 824, 828, 843 G lover, W. W. lv

Index

of A uthors

G n ilk a ,J . lv, 81, 8 9 -9 0 , 136, 138, 141, 2 16, 229, 240, 368, 377, 380, 384, 388, xliv2, 9 2 9 , 1101 G o d e t, F. viii, xlix , 21 G o e tz , K. G. 93, 1037 G o e tz e , A. 96 G o g u e l, M . 1 8 9 , 2 1 8 ,4 3 0 ,8 8 8 ,1 0 1 7 , 1091, 1101, 1169 G o ld b e rg , A. 1103 G o ld s c h m id t, H . L. 1028 G o ld s m ith , D. 627 G o ld s tin e , Η . H . 1026 G o le n v a u x , C. 777 G o llin g e r, H . 697 G ollw itzer, H . 586, 590, 1017, 1173 G o m a Civit, I. 60 G o o d , R. S. 240, 2 4 9 -5 0 G o o d e n o u g h , E. R. 349 G o o d in g , D. xlix G o o d m a n , A. E. 1153 G o o d m a n , F. W. 14 G o o d m a n , M. 1116 G o o d m a n , R 126 G o o d s p e e d , E. J . 3 , 5 G o p p e lt, L. 447, 457, 777, 956, 1170 G o r d o n , C. H . 3 7 ,1 6 6 G o r d o n , J . C. 586 G o r r in g e , T. 682 G o th a rd , D. 37 G o ttlie b , H . 1037 G o u d o e v e r, J . v a n lv G o u g h , I. F. 759 G o u ld , E. P. 435 G o u ld e r, M. D. viii, xxxvii, xlvii, lv, 14, 19, 22, 26, 194, 370, xxxiv2, 526, 5 2 9 -3 0 , 534, 540, 5 8 8 -8 9 , 601, 608, 611, 684, 754, 796, 911, 1161, 1165, 1175 G o u rg u e s , M . 586, 777 G ow ler, D. B. xliv2 G ra b e r, O . 37 G ra d w o h l, R. 236 G r a h a m , E. 175 G r a n a ta , G. 726 G ra n t, C. 424 G ra n t, F. C. 3 7 ,4 1 , 1101 G ra n t, J . 793 G r a n t, R. M. 1 3 6 ,1 1 0 1 G r a p p e , C. 1017 G rass, H . 466, 1161, 1170, 1225 G rasser, E. lv, 608, 611, 633, 697, 731, 737, 850, 8 6 4 -6 5 , 908, 981, 9 9 4 G rassi, J . A. 252, xliv2, 1195 Gray, A. 94 6 Gray, B. C. 985 G ra y s to n , K. 368, 981, 9 8 5 -8 6 , 1175 G ra y s to n e , G. 37, 706 G re g g , D. W. A. 1037 G r e e n , Η . B. 633 G r e e n , J . B. xliv2, 721, 1017, 1019, 1 0 3 1 33, 1079, 1084, 1098, 1109, 1117, 1127, 1136, 1153, 1158 G re e n , L. C. 872 G re e n , Μ. P. 47 4 G re e v e n , H . 6 2 3 ,7 6 8 ,8 1 2 ,9 4 1 G re lo t, P. lv, 37, 44, 114, 560, 565, 6 0 8 -9 , 6 1 4 -1 7 , 706, 709, 778, 781, 995, 1 1 4 9 ,1 1 7 0 G r e n s te d , L. W. 824 G re s s m a n n , H . 93, 405, 760, 824, 826, 94 6 G riffith , F. L. 826 G riffith T h o m a s , W. H . 793 G riffith s, J . G. 474, 850 G rigsby, B. 60

G rim m , W. 278, 567, 571, 575, 706, 731, 37, 850 G rin d le y , B. W. 902 G ro a g , E. 95 G ro b e l, K. 1 4 5 ,1 5 1 ,8 2 4 G ro ff, K. I. 1175 G ro g a n , G. W. 113 G r o lle n b e rg , L. 2 1 8 ,2 2 3 G ro o t, A. d e 113 G ro s L o u is, R. R. 14 G ro s c h , H . 1020 G roves, W. L. 488 G r u b b , E. 349 G r u n d m a n n , W. viii, xlix, lv, 6, 149, 186, 194, 198, 211, 216, 222, 236, 257, 273, 3 0 6 -8 , 340, 346, 357, 366, 408, 4 2 7 -2 8 , 444, 483, 5 2 6 -2 7 , 567, 8 6 6 G ryglew icz, G. 60, 83 G u b le r, M .-L. 1020 G u e lic h , R .A . 2 7 3 ,3 0 0 ,8 1 2 G u e n th e r, H . O . 8 5 5 ,8 5 7 G u e u r e t, A. 1 4 ,1 7 5 ,8 7 2 G u ild in g , A. 1 8 9 ,1 9 4 G u illa u m e , J.-M . 1173, 1175, 1177, 1195, 1209, 1217, 1223 G u ille b a n d , Η . E. 526 G u ille t, J . 60, 93, xliv2, 946, 1017, 1061, 1063, 1170 G u lie lm o , A. d e 1195 G u n d ry , R. H . lvi, 22, 962, 1069, 1098 G u n k e l, H . 14, 52, 60, 64, 73, 88 G u n th e r, J .J . 985 G u rn e y , T. A. 114 G u tb r o d , K. 1170 G u t t g e m a n n s , E. lvi, 3, 621, 774, 1175 G u tw e n g e r, E. 1170 Guy, H . 38 G u y o t, G. H . 1091 H a a c k e r, K. 95, xxxvii2, xliv2, 6 2 1 -2 2 , 6 2 5 ,8 1 2 H a a s, L. 19 H a a s, N . 1140 H a b e r m a s , G. R. 1170 H a c h lili, R. 1 1 6 1 ,1 1 6 5 H a d id a n , D. Y. lvi H a e n c h e n , E. xxxv, lvi, 3 -5 , 1 4 7 -4 8 , 189, 192, 194, 196, 2 0 4 -5 , 211, 218, 253, 312, 317, 409, 447, 457, 476, 593, 659, 726, 752, 754, 894, 897, 920, 9 3 3 ,9 4 1 ,9 4 6 , 956, 962 H a e u s le r, B 920 H a fe r, R .A . 82 4 H a g e n m e y e r, O . 560, 1037 H a g g e n m iille r, O . 81 H a h n , F. lvi, 157, 196, 240, 2 4 2 -4 3 , 249, 309, 325, 328, 349, 368, 388, 424, 449, 551, 568, 574, 655, 658, 674, 752, 8 3 5 -3 6 , 902, 920, 934, 970, 981, 1036, 1074, 1195, 1223 H a la s, R. B. 263 H a ll, S. G. 488, 1074, 1085 H a llb a c k , G. 982 H a lle u x , A. d e x l2 H a l p e rin , D. J . 1140 H a m e l, E. 60, 72 H a m ilto n , G. J . 578 H a m ilto n , N . Q . 934, 1175 H a m ly n , F. C. 126 H a m m , D. lvi, 902 H a m m , M. D. 7 2 1 -2 2 H a m m a n , A. 145 H a m m e r, R. A. lvi H a m m e rto n -K e lly , R. G. 633, 6 3 9 -4 0 H a m p , V. 60

Index o f Authors H a m p d e n -C o o k , E. 793 H a m p e l, V. 468 H a n f o r d , W. R. lvi H an ley , E. A. 982 H a n n , R. R. 93 H a n s a c k , E. 96 H a n s o n , R. P. C. 809, 824, 1019, 1154 H a r d e r, G. 982 H a r e , D. R. A. 468 H a -R e u b e n i, E. 689 H arlo w , V. E. 1120 H a r n a c k , A. v o n lvi, 38, 41, 60, 68, 96, 102, 185, 568, 608, 1040 H a r n is c h , W. xliii, lvi, 697, 8 64, 868 H a r r ie ,J . 93 H a r r in g t o n , W. J . xlix, 38, 113, 767, 778, 812 H a rris , J . R. 61 H a rris , M .J . 1170 H a rris , R. 1154 H a r r is o n , E. F. 1113 H a r r is o n , S .J . 1140 H a r o u tu n i a n , J . 1222 H a r t, H . St. J . 9 5 6 ,9 5 9 H a r t, J . H . A. 752 H a r tin , P. J. 697 H a r d , D. '850 H a i ti, V. 1 6 6 ,1 6 9 H a r tm a n , L. lvi, 157, 982, 985, 994, 99 6 H arvey, A. E. 159, lxv2, 545, 553, 920, 934 H arvey, N. P. 1170 H a s la m , J. A. G. 312 H asler, V. lvi, 337, 752 H a s tin g s , A. lvi, 363 H a tc h , W. Η . P. 113 H a u b e c k , W. xlv2 H a u b s t, R. 126 H a u c k , F. xlix, 408, 609, 760 H a u d e b e r t, P. 8 1 1 -1 2 H a u e rw a s , S. lvi H a u fe , G. 674, 1101 H a u g g , D. 3 8 ,3 6 8 ,3 7 1 H a u lo tte , E. 1017 H a u p t, P. 60, 824 H aw k in s, J . C. lvi, 185, 526, 1020 H a w th o rn , T. 402 H a w th o r n e , G. F. 850 H ay, D. M. 969, 1103 Hay, L. S. 229 H ay es, }. H . 1170 H ayles, D .J . 95 H ealey, J . F. 689 H e a r d , W. xlv2 H e a te r, H . 166 H e a w o o d , P. J . 1037 H e b b e lth w a ite , P. 1 1 7 3 ,1 1 7 5 H ed ley , P. L. 304 H e e r, J . M. 166 H e g e s ip p u s 181 H e h n , J. 38 H e id la n d , H . W. 150 H e il, J . P. 1 1 0 1 ,1 1 1 3 H e im b ro c k , H . G. 872 H e im le r, A. 872 H e in , K. 1028 H e i n e m a n n , J . lvi, 194, 608, 611, 613 H e i n e n , H . 608 H e in in g e r , B. xlv2, 621, 6 8 3 -8 4 , 715, 719, 759, 761, 774, 778, 781, 784, 793, 796, 8 0 1 ,8 2 4 , 840, 864, 872 H e is in g , A. 433, 436, 438, 442 H e lm s , R. 1170 H e m e r, C. xlv2, 609, 6 1 5 -1 6 H e m m e r d in g e r , B. 609 H e m p e l, J . 759

H e m p e lm a n n , H . 1170 H e n a u t , B .W . 568 H e n d ric k s , W. L. 797 H e n d r ic k x , H . 1 0 1 7 ,1 1 7 0 H e n d r ik s e n , W. xxxiv2 H e n g e l, M. lvi, 93, 95, 105, 218, 223, 3 6 3 -6 6 , 424, 477, 538, 540, 5 4 2 -4 3 , 8 72, 946, 9 5 0 , 1021, 1140, 1145, 1 1 7 0 ,1 1 7 5 H e n n e c k e , E. lvi, 18 H e n n e n , B. 96 H e n n i g ,J . 609 H e n n s s , W. 349, 354, 356 H e n ry , D. M . 1141 H e n z e , C. M. 599 H e r b e r t , A. G. 38 H e r b e r t , G. H . 433 H e r in g ,J . 850, 1079 H e rk lo tz , F. 8 8 8 ,9 2 0 H e r m a n n , I. 587, 633 H e r o d o tu s 266, 298, 343, 708 H e rra n y , A. A. 113 H e r r m a n n ,J . 793 H e rtz s c h , K. P. 726 H e s io d 5 4 3 ,9 9 2 H e s te r, J . D. 94 6 H e u tg e r, N . lvi, 355, 532, 587, 5 96, 843 H e w itt, J . W. 1140 H e z s e r C. 946 H ic k lin g , C .J . A. 7 6 7 ,7 9 2 H icks, J . M. 864 H ie rs , R. H . lvi, 333, 433, 437, 442, 804, 8 50, 9 3 4 H ig g in s, A. J . B. lvi, 3, 95, 101, 254, xlv2, 468, 472, 674, 855, 1037 H ilg e n fe ld , A. 14 H ilg e rt, E. 2 1 8 ,2 2 2 ,3 9 5 H ilk e rt, M. C. 1195 H ill, D. 1 8 9 ,1 9 3 ,1 9 5 ,2 0 1 ,1 1 0 1 H ill, E. xlv2 H illm a n n , J . 14 H illm a n n , W. 1017 H ills, J .V . 560 H i m m e r m a n n , D .J . 278 H in n e b u s c h , P. xlv2 H i n t z e n ,J . 824 H in z , C. 252 H ip p o ly tu s , 959 H iro is h i, N . 778 H irs c h , E. lvi, 222, 778, 957, 1170 H irs c h , S. 3 2 5 ,4 8 8 H je rl-H a n s e n , B. 627, 631 H o b a r t, W. K. xxvi, lvi H o b b ie , F. W. 902 H o b b s , H . xxxiv2 H o b h o u s e , S. 1074 H o c k , R. F. 824, 826, 829 H o d g e s , Z. C. 312, 1170, 1175 H o d g s o n , R. 14 H o e h n e r , H . W. lvi, 139, 429, 737, 1022,

1120 H o e n ig , S. B. 126 H o e r b e r, R. 872 H o f, O . 804 H o f f m a n n , J . C. lvi H o f f m a n n , P. lvi, 175, 3 2 5 -2 8 , 333, 336, 340, 343, 457, 4 6 0 -6 1 , 480, 545, 5 4 7 -4 8 , 562, 568, 570, 574, 68 9, 731, 7 3 3 -3 5 , 737, 739, 8 1 1 -1 2 , 1061 H o fiu s, O . 7 7 8 ,7 8 0 ,7 8 4 H o g g , C. F. 312 H o ld c ro f t, I. T. 908 H o lle n b a c h , P. H . lvi H o lle n w e g e r, W. J . 902 H o lle r, J . 488

1251 H o lle r a n , J . W. 8 7 2 ,1 0 7 9 H o lm a n , C. L. 4 74, 1007 H o ls c h e r, G. 982, 1022 H o ls t, R. 3 4 9 ,6 7 4 ,9 9 9 H o ls te in , H . 840 H o ltz , T. lvii, 177 H o ltz m a n n , H . J . lvii H o ltz m a n n , O . 1 0 3 7 ,1 1 6 1 H o lz m e is te r, U . 166, 1 6 9 -7 0 , 189, 349, 488, 1022, 1101, 1154, 1222 H o m e r, 1201 5 4 1 ,8 4 1 H o m m e l, H . 5 3 8 ,7 5 9 ,7 6 2 H o n e y m a n , A. M. 804, 812 H o o d , R .T . 1 6 6 ,1 6 9 ,1 7 3 H o o k , N . 1037 H o o k e , S. H . 312, 1170 H o o k e r, M. D. lvii, 229, 252, 468, 472, 488, 982 H o o ley , B. A. 793 H o p e , L. P. 1149 H o p p e , R. 7 7 8 ,7 8 5 ,1 1 9 5 H o rb u ry , W. 468, 1017, 1101 H o r m a n ,J . 2 6 8 ,3 7 3 H o r n , F. W. xlv2, 580, 682, 685, 793, 7 9 6 -97, 802, 805, 824, 82 6 H orsley, R. A. xlv2 H o rs t, P. W. van d e r 126 H o r t, F. J. A. lix, 1 0 40-41 H o r v a th , T. 1113 H o s p o d a r, B. 60, 66 H o u ld e n , J . L. lvii, 1223 H o u s e , P. xlv2 H o w a rd , V. 457 H o w e , E. M. 1170 H o w to n ,J . 649 H o y t, T. 278 H ru b y , K. 578, 1037 H u b a u t, M. 946 H u b b a r d , B .J . lvii, 22, 24, xlv2, 1217 H u b n e r, H . 252, 259, 261, 1170 H u d s o n , E. C. 95 H u d s o n , J. T. 849 H u f f a rd , E. W. 621 H u f f m a n , N . A. lvii, 1195 H u g h e s , G .J . 1170 H u h n , K. 86 4 H u ie , W. P. 824 H u ll, J . M. lvii H u ltg re n , A. J . lvii, 252, 609 H u m a n e y , R. L. 38 H u m b e r t , P. 38 H u m m e l, R. 637 H u m p h re y s , C .J . 1022 H u n k i n ,J . W. lvii, 18 H u n te r, A. M. lvii, 568, 726 H u n z in g e r, C .-H . 96, 109, 726, 728, 759, 763 H u p f e ld , R. 1037 H u s b a n d , R. W. 1 0 2 2 ,1 1 0 1 H u s e r, T. 1037 H u t t e r m a n n , F. 793 H u t t o n , W. R. 545, 554 H u u h t a n e n , P. 883 H y ld a h l, N . 1 7 5 ,1 8 1 H y n e k , R .W . 1161 Ie rs e l, B. M. F. van 126, 128, 130, 175, 177, 239, 243, 245, 433, 437, 568, 570, 946, 969 I m b e r t, J . 1101 I m s c h o o t, P. van 145 I n d e m a n s , J . Η . H . A. 1079 I n g h o lt, H . 263 In n itz e r, T. 1017 Instinsky, H . U . 95

1252 I re la n d , D .J . 7 9 3 ,7 9 6 I r g o i n ,J . 61 I r m s c h e r ,J . 1113 Isaac, J . 1017 Isaacs, Μ. E. 38 Isa k sso n , A. 813 Iso c ra te s 298 Iw a n d , H .J . 673 J a c k , J . W. 9 5 ,9 2 0 J a c k s o n , C. 1161 J a c k s o n , D. xlv2 J a c o b , R. 9 2 0 , 1031 J a c o b e , F. 60 J a c o b s o n , A. D. 545 J a co b y , A. 81 J a c q u e m in , P.-E. 61, 6 5 -6 6 , 278, 647 J a lla n d , T. G. 793 J a m e s , J . C. 1091 J a n k o w s k i, G. 1020 J a n s e n , J . 126 J a n s e n , J . F. 1222 J a n s s e n , F. 1017 J a n z e n ,J . G. 962 J a rv is , P. G. 759 J a u b e r t , A. 1 0 2 2 ,1 0 2 4 ,1 1 0 1 J e ff o r d , C. N . 855, 857 J e ffrey , F. 599 J e h le , F. 726 J e llic o e , S. xlv2, 545 J e llo u s c h e k , C. J . 38 J e n k in s , L. H . 433 J e n s , W. 587 J e n s e n , H .J . L. 8 2 4 J e n s e n ,J . 813 J e re m ia s , J . xlv, lvii, 17, 27, 32, 65, 7 8 -8 0 , 93, 96, 108, 113, 1 1 7 -1 8 , 136, 139, 157, 159, 1 6 2 -6 3 , 166, 168, 1 7 1 -7 2 , 175, 189, 1 9 4 -9 5 , 198, 239, 243, 246, 248, 265, 273, 2 9 6 -9 7 , 310, 312, 317, 328, 330, 3 4 3 -4 4 , 346, 349, 353, 3 5 5 -5 7 , 368, 372, 375, 377, 380, 388, 3 9 0 - 9 1 ,4 0 9 - 1 0 , 4 5 7 ,4 6 0 - 6 1 ,4 6 6 , 468, 470, 479, 498, 536, 545, 5 5 0 -5 1 , 568, 570, 5 74, 592, 596, 608, 613, 621, 626, 630, 6 4 4 -4 5 , 660, 667, 6 8 3 -8 4 , 697, 708, 713, 715, 726, 737, 7 4 6 -4 7 , 752, 760, 7 6 7 -6 8 , 771, 778, 780, 782, 793, 7 9 7 -9 8 , 805, 827, 840, 8 50, 8 6 4 -6 5 , 872, 880, 882, 904, 909, 9 11, 934, 946, 948, 976, 1007, 1017, 1 0 2 4 -2 6 , 1033, 1037, 1 0 4 0 -4 1 , 1043, 1047, 1049, 1053, 1061, 1072, 1 0 8 7 88, 1101, 1140, 1150, 1152, 1170, 1 2 0 1 -3 , 1 2 0 5 -6 , 1214 J e r v e l l,J . x xxii, lvii, 93, 110, 179, xlvi2 J o h n , Μ. P. 113 J o h n s o n , A. F. 621, 625 J o h n s o n , C. H . 920 J o h n s o n , E. S .,Jr. 8 9 7 -9 8 J o h n s o n , L. T. lvii, xxxiv2, xlvi2, 909, 911, 1175 J o h n s o n , M. D. 166, 169, 1 7 1 -7 2 J o h n s o n , P. F. 1037 J o h n s o n , S. E. 715 J o h n s o n , S. L. 175, 488, 920, 1079 J o h n s o n , T. A. 95 J o h n s to n , R. M. lvii, x lix 2 J o n e s , A. 3 8 ,9 8 2 J o n e s , C. P. M . lvii J o n e s , D. L. xlvi2, 93, 1074 J o n e s , D. R. 60, 88, 1037 J o n e s , G. V. lvii, 778 J o n e s , I. H . 1170 J o n e s , P. R. 5 8 7 ,7 7 8

Index

of

Authors

J o n g e , M. d e lvii, 93, 107, 1 2 6 -3 2 , 193, 4 5 0 ,1 1 0 1 , 1154 J o r n s , K. P. lvii J o s e p h u s 5 - 7 , 9 - 1 0 , 28, 32, 65, 79, 100, 103, 122, 129, 131, 1 3 8 -4 0 , 147, 156, 168, 181, 194, 204, 221, 234, 316, 326, 329, 440, 523, 534, 536, 571, 581, 593, 637, 639, 7 1 7 -1 8 , 730, 746, 763, 7 9 8 -9 9 , 807, 815, 821, 867, 877, 905, 911, 9 14, 9 1 6 -1 7 , 9 3 0 -3 2 , 958, 964, 967, 9 7 8 -7 9 , 988, 9 9 2 -9 3 , 1000, 1002, 1004, 1032, 1052, 1116, 1 1 1 8 19, 1 1 2 3 -2 4 , 1130, 1136, 1156, 1191, 1 2 0 1 ,1 2 0 5 J o u o n , P. 61, 73, 114, 349, 353, 6 8 2 -8 3 , 697, 8 24, 850, 909, 1061, 1085, 1120 J u d g e , E. A. lvii J u e l, D. lvii, 1101 J u lic h e r, A. xliii, lvii, 240, 242, 249, 344, 354, 369, 3 8 2 -8 3 , 590, 621, 625, 655, 747, 752, 760, 778, 793, 824, 840, 864, 872, 9 0 9 ,9 1 1 ,9 4 6 , 1007 J ttn g e l, E. lvii, 587, 591, 778, 793 J u s te r ,J . 1 1 0 1 ,1 1 1 3 K aestli, J.-D . xlvi2, 706, 811, 850, 909, 9 8 2 ,1 0 3 7 K afka, G. 834 K ahl, B. 3 K a h le fe ld , H . lvii, 273, 278, 1037 K ah ler, M. xlvi, 528 K a h n ,J . G. 715 K a in o , K. L. 9 4 6 K a lle n b u s c h , F. 38 K a llilk u z h u p p il, J . 982 K a m la h , E. 6 9 7 ,9 0 9 K a m p h a u s , F. 768 K a m p lin g , R. lvii K a n n e n g ie s s e r, C. 793 Kany, R. 1020 K a p la n , C. 166 K a ria m a d a m , P. 5 26, 902 K arris, R. J. lvii, 61, xxxiv2, xlvi2, 1020, 1154, 1195 K a s e m a n n , E. lvii, 159, 4 80, 633, 636, 6 3 8 -3 9 , 1037 K aser, W. 2 5 2 ,1 1 3 4 K asper, W. 1170 K assel, M. 14 K a s te re n , J . v a n 82 K astin g , H . 263 K astn er, K. 587, 1113 K ate, R. T e n . 609 K a tte n b u s c h , F. 474 K a u fm a n n , L. 1 4 ,9 3 K ayam a, H . 488 Kealv, S. P. xlix K eathley. N. H . xlvi2 K eck, F.' 9 7 4 -7 5 , 982, 9 9 6 K eck, L. E. lvii, 157, 161, 274 K ee, H . G. 203, 207, 240, xlvi2, 488 K egel, G 1170 K elb er, W. H . 481, 1017, 1079, 1082 K e lln e r, W. lvii Kelly, H . A. 175 Kelly, J . F. lvii Kellv, J. G. lvii K e m m e r, A. 599 K e m p th o r n e , R. 1101, 1103 K e n d a ll, D. 11 7 0 -7 1 K e n n a r d , J . S. 920, 9 56, 1161 K e n n e d y , C. A. 433, 437, 442 K e n n e d y , H . A. A. 389 K e n n e tt, R. H . 1037 K enny, A. xlvi2, 488, 491, 1079

K e n y o n , F. G. 1040 K e n y o n , K. M. 1161 K e rn , W. 1222 K err, A. J . 9 0 2 ,9 0 6 K err, F. 1170 K e rte lg e , K. lvii, 203, 207, 209, 229, 333, 398, 4 0 2 -3 , 405, 407, 410, 4 1 5 -1 7 , 421, 897, 1017, 1037, 1061, 1102 K essler, H . 1173 K e tte r, P. 175 K evers, P. 578, 897 K id d le, M. 1020 K ieffer, R. 587 K ie h l, E. H . 1018 K iilu n e n ,J . 578 Kiley, M. 1079 K ilg allen , J . J . 126, 349, xxxiv2, xlvii2, 5 9 9 ,8 1 3 , 8 4 1 ,9 6 2 ,9 6 5 K illebrew , A. 1 1 6 1 ,1 1 6 5 K ille r m a n n , S. 1154 K ilm a rtin , E .J . 1037 K ilp atric k , G. D. 114, 120, 164, 342, xlvii2, 752, 9 94, 1037, 1040, 1154, 1 1 5 8 ,1 2 0 9 -1 0 K ilp atric k , R. S. 96 K im , S. 4 6 9 ,9 4 6 K ing, A. 793 K ing, G. B. 304, 689 K ing, N. Q . lvii K ing, P .J. 16 K in g sb u ry , J . D. lvii, xlvii2, 469, 1217 K ip g e n , K. 93 K irc h s c h la g e r, W. lviii, 14, 93, 203, 2 0 9 12, 214, 274, 3 9 9 -4 0 0 , 402, 424, 505, 522, 560, 634, 721 K irk ,J . A. 175, 189, xxxv2 K issinger, W. S. lviii, 273 K iste m a k er, S .J. lviii, 608 K laiber, W. 14 K la p p e rt, B. 1170 K lasson, W. 545 K lauck, H.-J. xliii, lviii, 229, 236, 2 3 9 -4 0 , 3 6 9 -7 1 , 376, 389, 396, 634, 946, 1007, 1028, 1037, 1045 K le in , A. F .J. xlvii‫־‬ K le in , G. 3, 5 - 7 , 9, 218, 220, 263, 268, 660, 706. 710 -1 4 , 1 0 69-70, 1 0 9 1 ,1 0 9 4 K lein , H . lviii, 721, 744, 872, 902, 1020,

1120 K lein , P. 278 K le in , W. W. 189 K leist, J . A. 4 0 2 ,4 0 8 K le m m , H . G. xliv, 538, 587 K lijn, A. F .J. 5 6 8 ,8 8 3 K lin g h a rd t, M. lviii, 581, 587, 809, 812, 8 1 5 ,8 1 8 ,8 8 3 K lo e p fe r, R. 778 K l o p p e n b o rg , J. S. 278, 568, 570, 572, 634, 673, 793, 7 9 7 -9 9 , 801, 855 K lo s te r m a n n , E. xlix, lviii, 205, 234, 270. 1137 K lotzli, E. 778 K n a c k s te d t, J . 433, 435 K n ig h t, G. A. F. 38 K n o c a e rt, A. 599, 604 K n o c h , O . 1037 K n o x , W. L. lviii, 793 K o c h , G. 1170 K o c h , R. l\lii K o c h , W. 1102 K o d e ll,J . lviii, 189, xxxiv2, xlvii2, 5 1 6 -1 7 , 526, 528, 8 72, 9 3 9 -4 0 , 1021, 1037. 1125 K o e n ig , J . lviii K oenkow , A. 1017

Index o f Authors K o ester, C. 985 K o ester, H . 89, xlvii2 K oet, B.-J. 189, xlvii2, 1195 K ogel, J . 778 K ogler, F. 726 K o h le r, K. 2 7 8 ,8 2 4 K o h le r, L. 760 K o llm a n n , B. 697, 699, 1037, 1 0 4 3 -4 4 , 1061 K o lp in g , A. 1 1 0 2 ,1 1 7 0 K o n ig , E. 16 K o o lm eiste r, R. 474 K o o n tz , J . V. G. 61 K o p a s ,J . lviii K o p ler, L. 568 K o p p , C. 60 K osch, D. 6 6 0 ,8 1 1 K o sm ala, H . 381, 793, 1037, 1091, 1102 K o s n e tte r ,J . 157, 1091 K o ssen , Η . B. 767, 769 R oster, Η . M . 3 8 ,5 8 1 K o stlin , H .A . 61 K ow alski, T. W. 2 1 2 ,2 1 4 K ra e lin g , C. H . 145, 152, 327, 627, 630 K rafft, E. 1 4 ,6 9 K ra m e r, M. 304, 309, 369, 3 7 5 -7 6 , 378, 380, 382, 3 8 9 -9 0 , 760, 794, 796 K ratz, R. 396, 920, 1018, 1170 K ratz, R. G. 608 K raybill, D. B. lviii K re d e l, E. M. 263 K reitzer, L. 824 K re m e r ,J . lviii, xxxiv2, 824, 9 41, 1018, 1170, 1175, 1195 K re ts c h m a r, G. 1222 K retzer, A. 813 K re u z e r, S. 752 K re y e n b u h l, J . 396, 399, 415, 417 K rieg e r, N . 333, 336, 1091 K ristjan sso n , M. A. 633 K ru g e r, G. 794 K ru se , H . 175, 178, 560, 634, 778 K u g e lm a n , R. 38 K u h n , G. 166, 168, 1 7 1 -7 2 K u h n , H.-W . 240, 2 5 2 -5 3 , 369, 920, 924, 1140 K u h n , K.-G. 608, 617, 1037, 1079, 1082 K tih sc h e lm , R. lviii, 660, 674, 680, 737, 994, 996 K tim m e l, W. G. xxvii, lviii, 192, 325, 327, 330, xlvii2, 474, 479, 634, 660, 674, 737, 811, 850, 855, 946, 982, 1018, 1217 K u n s tlin g e r, D. 824 K unzi, M. 1007 K u ric h ia n il, J . 175, 1018 K urz, W. S. lviii, 166, xlvii2, 1037, 1049 Ki 1r z in g e r,J . 3, 10 K u sch , H . 96, 108 Kuss, O . 6 0 8 ,7 0 6 ,7 2 6 K u v en , C. 538 K v alb ein , H . 824 K w aak, H . v an d e r 737 L a c a n , M.-F. xlvii, 599 L a c h s, S. T. 145, xxxiv2 L a c o m o ra , A. 1018 L a c o s te , J.-Y . 1170 Lacy, J . A. 1175 L a d d , G. E. lviii, 1170 L a d e u z e , P 61 L a fo n , G. 1 7 5 ,8 3 5 L a g ra n g e , M.-J. xlix, 30, 38, 78, 95, 101, 113, 150, 1 9 9 -2 0 0 , 222, 349, 500, 5 1 3 ,9 8 2

L a k e , K. liv, 263, 1171, 1222 L a la n d , E. 5 9 9 ,6 0 1 ,6 0 4 L a lib e r te ,J . 369 L a m a rc h e , P 2 0 9 -1 0 , 239, 245, 402, 409, 4 1 1 ,1 1 0 3 , 1154 L a m b e r t, J . C. 1037 L a m b e r t, W. G. 294 L a m b e rtz , M . 166 L a m b re c h t, J . lviii, 273, 291, 325, 393, 474, 478, 479, 481, 587, 674, 767, 894. 909, 911, 915, 9 82, 9 8 5 -8 6 , 1171 L a m p e , G. W. H . lviii, 1009, 1074, 1077, 1 0 9 1 ,1 1 7 1 L a m p e , P 377 L a n d e rs d o r f e r , S. 38 L a n d e s , G. M. 466 L a n e , W. L. lviii, 143, xlviii2 L a n g , B. 5 4 5 ,5 5 2 L a n g , H . 273 L a n g e , H . D. 1018 L a n g e , J . 1154 L a p id e , P 608, 1028, 1037, 1102, 1171 L a p o in te , R. 526 L a r e n , D .J . M. 349 L a rk in , W .J . 1 0 7 4 ,1 0 7 9 L a r ra n a g a , V. 1222 L a rso n , B. xxxiv2 L a s s e r r e ,J . 715 L a te g a n , B. C. lviii, 697 L attey, C. 349, 1069 L a ttk e , G. 38 L a u fe n , R. lviii, 145, 389, 476, 478, 483, 545, 555, 634, 637, 644, 673, 677, 7 2 6 -2 8 , 760, 811, 813, 855, 858 L a u ra s , A. 1004 L a u r e n c e , J . D. 1037 L a u r e n tin , R. 14, 22, 2 9 -3 0 , 5 0 -5 1 , 6 2 63, 1 0 5 -6 , 116, 118, 122, 126, 1 2 8 -3 2 L a u v e ria t, M . 14 L a V e rd ie re , E. lviii, 38, 93, xxxv2, 532, 599, 902, 977, 1020, 1037, 1057, 1091, 1173, 1195, 1223 L eaney, A. R. C. xlix, 14, 49, 66, 195, 206, 211, 218, 342, 516, 520, 608, 610, 855, 1173, 1195, 1223 L e b o u rlie r, J. 850 L e c le r, J . 1074 L e e , G. M. 95, 166, 977, 1091, 1141, 1195 L e e , R. E. 1069 L e e n h a r d t , F .J. 402, 587, 1018, 1036, 1038 L e fo rt, L. T. 824 L e g a rd 427 L e g a re , C. 349 L eg a sse , S. lviii, 157, 278, 340, 3 4 4 -4 7 , 5 1 6 -1 7 , 568, 570, 572, 5 78, 634, 641, 660, 668, 7 0 6 -7 , 731, 768, 8 8 0 -8 1 , 883, 1102, 1107, 1154 L e g a u lt, A. 157, 349, 352, 354, 1171 L eg g , S. C. E. 1040 L e g r a n d , L. lviii, 38, 42, 49, 93, 424, xlviii2, 760, 888, 1171, 1195, 1217 L e h m a n n , K. 466, 737, 1171, 1195 L e h m a n n , M. 737, 1018, 1069, 1074, 1091 L e h m a n n , R. 888 L e ip o ld t, J . 1171 L e ise g a n g , H . 38, 278 L e itz m a n n , H . 1102 L e iv esta d , R. 340, 469 L elo ir, L. 1149 L e m c io , E. E. xlviii2, 752

1253 L e m o n o n .J . P. 1128 L e M o y n e , J . 9 6 2 ,9 6 5 L e n g le .J . 1102 L e n s k i, R. C. H . xlix L e n tz e n -D e is, F.-L. 157, 161, 1018, 1102 L e n w o o d , F. 794 L e o n -D u fo u r, X. lviii, 3, 2 0 9 -1 0 , 369, 382, 396, 3 9 9 -4 0 1 , 488, 493, 505, 855, 9 3 4 , 9 4 6 , 1018, 1021, 1037, 1049, 1079, 1154, 1171, 1177, 1 1 8 0 8 1 ,1 2 2 2 L 'E p a tte n ie r , C. 731 L e p e rs , E. 1173 L e rle , E. 166 Lescow , T. 1079 L eser, P. 538 L e s te r-G a rla n d , L. V. 433 L evin, S. 38 L ev iso n , N. 621 Levy, J . lviii, 248 Levy, J.-P h . 794 Lew is, A. S. 1149 Lewis, F .W . 5 6 0 ,8 5 0 Lewis, J .J . 608 Lewis, J . P. 860 L ib a n iu s 807, 1054 L ieb o w itz, H . 1 1 6 1 ,1 1 6 5 L ie fe ld , W. L. xxxv2, 488, 1195 L ie tz m a n n , H . 1038, 1045, 1106, 1113 L ifshitz, B. 316 L ig h tfo o t, R. H . lviii, 93 4 L ig n e e , H . 545 L im b e c k , M. 1018, 1028 L in d a rs , B. lviii, 254, 263, xlviii2, 4 6 9 -7 1 , 674, 794, 8 8 0 -8 1 , 946, 9 6 9 -7 0 , 1038, 1140 L i n d e b o o m , G. A. lviii L in d e m a n n , A. lix, 252 L in d e n , P van xxxv2 L in d e sk o g , G. lix, 389, 516, 1102, 1154 L in d ije r, C. H . 1 1 9 5 ,1 2 0 0 L indsey, R. L. lix L i n n e m a n n , E. lix, 369, 3 7 1 -7 2 , 383, xlviii2, 587, 683, 752, 756, 758, 768, 771, 778, 864, 866, 872, 876, 1018, 1 0 6 9 -7 0 , 1079, 1082, 1085, 1087, 1091, 1094, 1102, 1140, 1155, 1157 L in s k e n s ,J . 291 L in to n , O . lix, 340, 3 4 3 -4 4 , 634, 638, 1103 L ip in sk i, E. 1195 L ittle , J. C. lix L ju n g v ik , H . 4 2 9 ,8 6 4 ,8 7 0 L o a d e r, W. 794, 796 L o c h m a n ,J . M. 608 L o d d e r, W. 95 L o d s, M . 1079 L o e s c h c k e , G1 1038 L o ew e, H . M .J . 956, 1038 L o ew e, W. P 902 L o h fin k , G. lix, 195, 263, 578, 726, 778, 813, 1018, 1061, 1066, 1128, 1171, 1 2 2 2 -2 3 , 1 2 2 7 -2 9 L o h m e y e r, E. lix, 136, 145, 175, 206, 236, 369, 410, 462, 488, 492, 507, 608, 613, 934, 946, 9 63, 1038, 1082 L o h s e , E. lix, 3, 163, 252, 263, xlviii2, 526, 535, 721, 744, 9 20, 969, 1018, 1 0 2 1 ,1 0 7 9 , 1102, 1173 Loisy, A. viii, xlix, lix, 140, 147, 1 9 2 -9 5 , 2 0 1 ,2 2 0 , 2 2 2 ,5 0 0 , 1038 L o n in g , K. 349, 3 5 1 -5 3 , 357, 359, 902 L o n g s taff, T. R. W. 1171 L o o s, H . van d e r lix, 211, 230, 312, 319, 396, 415, 505

1254 L o r e n z e n , T. 8 2 4 ,8 7 2 , 1171 L o re n z m e ie r, T. 634 L otz, J . B. 599 Louw , J . P. 349, 4 02, 538, 599, 760 L o v e rin g , E. H ., J r. xlviii2 L o v e sta m , E. lix, 163, 674, 679, 697, 969, 1007, 1011 Low, I. 1007 L ow e, M . 9 4 6 L o w th e r C la rk e , W. K. 560, 1154, 1223 L u c e , Η . K. xlix L u c ia n 6, 204, 831, 1137, 1184, 1228 L u c k , U . lix, 883, 886 L u c k , W. 568 L iid e m a n n , G. 985 L u h r m a n n , D. 2 91, 333, xlviii2, 545, 548, 5 68, 634, 651, 8 3 4 -3 6 , 855, 860, 1103 L u k e , K. 96 L u ll, D. J . xlviii2, 1061 L u n n y , W. J . 1171 L u n t, R. G. 794 L u o m a n e n , P. xlviii2 L u ria , S. 538 L u th i, W. 9 0 9 ,1 0 2 8 L uz, U . lix, 233, 545, 634 L y o n n e t, S. 38, 50 Lys, D. 1038 Lysias 296 M a ase w erd , T. 840 M aass, F. 794 M accoby, H . 660, 664, 1038, 1044, 1050, 1128 M a cin a , M . 1038 M a c D o n a ld , D. 673 M acG illivray, D. 834 M a cG reg o r, H . C. lx M a cG reg o r, W. M . 1150 M a c h e n ,J . G. 14, 26, 30, 38, 41, 46, 50, 60, 117 M ack, B. L. xlviii2 M ackay, W. M . 92 0 M a c K in n o n , D. M. 1171 M ackow ski, R. M. 1196 M a c L a u re n , E. C. B. 634, 637 M acM illa n , H . 1031 M acN e ill, H . L. 14 M a cR a e, G. W. xlviii2, 813, 1150, 1223 M a d d o x , R. xlviii2, 982 M agass, W. lix, 599, 621, 683, 747, 778, 873 M a g n e ,J . 608, 1038, 1195 M a h n k e , H . 175 M ah o n ey , A. 813 M a h o n ey , M. 99 4 M a h o n ey , R. P. 1175 M ah r, F. 873 M aier, G. 6 8 2 ,6 8 5 M aier, P. L. 1 0 2 2 ,1 1 1 3 M a d e, J . F. 1223, 1226 M a ilh e t, J . 1161 M a illo t, A. 38, 189, 794 M ain v ille, O . x lix 2 M aisch , I. 2 3 0 -3 2 M a iw o rm .J . 794 M a lb o n , E. S. 1 1 ,2 3 9 ,9 7 7 M a lin a , B. J . x lix 2, 813, 818 M aloney, F .J. x lix 2 Maly, E. H . x lix 2 M a n e k , J . lix, 218, 2 2 2 -2 3 , 274, 488 M a n g a tt, G. lix, 189, 1175 M a n n , C. S. 14, 794, 1022, 1154 M a n n ,J . 5 8 7 ,5 9 3 M a n n s, F. 126, 349, 909, 962, 1195

Index

of

A uthors

M a n s io n ,J . 3 M a n so n , T. W. lix, 145, 427, 469, 548, 555, 580, 630, 667, 731, 760, 763, 855, 865, 934, 982 M a n so n , W. xlix, lix, 231, 989 M a n u s, C. U . 1120 M a rc h a d o u r, A. 824 M a rc h e l, W. 6 0 8 ,6 1 3 M a rc io n 424, 825 M a re , W. H . 726 M a rg e rie , B. d e 1038 M a ria d a s a n , V. 92 0 , 922 M a rin , L. lix, 1018, 1113 M a rm o rs te in , A. 1038 M a r q u a r d t,J . 95 M a rr o n , Η . I. 5 M a rs c h , E. 778 M a rs h a ll, H . S. 794 M a rsh a ll, I. H . viii, xxvii, xlix, lix, 3, 11, 142, 156, 158, 172, 187, 1 9 2 -9 4 , 201, 2 0 5 -6 , 2 1 1 -1 2 , 228, 307, 328, 334, 336, 343, 346, 357, 3 66, 369, 382, 392, 397, 443, x lix 2, 459, 469, 505, 526, 543, 555, 562, 568, 572, 576, 612, 623, 625, 630, 639, 660, 6 7 3 -7 4 , 7 0 8 -9 , 714, 724, 770, 794, 801, 881, 906, 923, 943, 9 63, 9 73, 1018, 1038, 1077, 1147, 1151, 1155, 1173, 1191 M a rtin , A. D. 4 0 2 ,6 2 1 M a rtin , B. 614 M a rtin , E. L. 95, 101, 1022 M a rtin , F. 145 M a rtin , G. C. 1150 M a rtin ,J . 745 M a rtin , R. A. lix, 15 M a rtin , R. P. lix, 312, 314 M a rty ,J . 60 M a rty n , J . L. lvii M a rx , W. G. lix, 3 M a rx s e n , W. lix, 159, 415, 417, 982, 1038, 1171 M arz, C.-P. lix, 203, 349, 369, 381, 393, 697, 7 0 6 -7 , 7 1 0 -1 1 , 713, 920 M a so n , A. J . 793 M a sso n , C. lix, 189, 193, 201, 402, 488, 4 9 2 ,1 0 9 1 , 1093, 1162 M a sso n , J . 166 M asso n , W .J . 587 M a stin , B. A. 920 M a te ra , F .J. x lix 2, 1020, 1102, 1114, 1 1 5 4 ,1 1 5 5 , 1 1 5 8 -5 9 M a ts o n , M. A. 93 4 M a tth e w s, A. J. 2 1 8 ,2 2 2 ,7 2 6 M a tth e y ,J . lix M a ttill, A. J ., J r. lix, 304, 325, 338, 587 M a tu ra , T. 752 M a u re r, C. 385 M au ser, U . W. 1 4 3 ,4 8 8 M a u s s h a rd t, M. 779 May, D. M. 888 May, E. 274 M ayer, A. 95 M ayer-M aly, T. 1114, 1125, 1130 M ayo, C. H . 1091 M ayr, I. 7 2 6 ,7 2 9 M ay s,J. L. 1018 M c A rth u r, Η . K. 7 2 6 ,7 2 8 M c A rth u r, K. H . x lix 2, 466 M c B irn ie , W. S. 1162 M c B rid e , D. xxxv2, x lix 2 M cC afferey, U. P. 1018 M c C a n e , B. R. 538 M c C au g h ey , J . D. 608, 752 M c C au g h ey , T. 349, 360 M cC o o l, F .J. 369

M cC ow n, C. C. 82, 234, 278, 5 2 6 -2 7 M c C u llo c h W. 909 M c C o rm ic k , S. 1038 M cC urley, F .,Jr. 488, 495 M c D e rm o tt, J . M . 474, 4 7 9 -8 0 , 674 M cD ow ell, E. A. x lix 2, 849, 1074 M c E a c h e rn , V. E. x lix 2 M cE leney, N .J . 278, 1091 M c F a y d e n ,J . F. 794 M cG au g h y , L. C. 9 0 9 M c G ra th , R. H . 61 M c G u c k in , J . A. 488 M c H u g h , J. 3 8 ,4 6 ,1 1 7 1 M c L a re n , J . S. x lix 2, 1102, 1106, 1116 M c L o u g h lin , S. lix M c N a m a ra , E. A. 94, 6 4 7 -4 8 M c N a m a ra , M. 1222 M cN eil, B. 469 M c P o lin ,J . lix M c R u e r,J . C. 1102 M e ad , R. T. 230 M e a g h e r, G. 1 5 ,2 2 M e a la n d , D. L. 689 M e a rn s , C. 6 3 4 ,8 1 1 M e c h ie , S. 760 M e d in g , W. v o n 1038 M e e c h a m , H . G. 350, 864 M ees, M. 304, 689, 731 M e etis, X. d e 744—45, 750 M e ik le ,J . 920 M e in e rtz , M. 3 4 3 ,1 0 0 7 M e issn e r, S. R. d e 1195 M e lb o u r n e , B. L. x lix 2 M e llo n , C. lx M eltzer, H . 843 M e n d n e r, S. 9 3 4 M e n ez e s , F. 189 M e n k e n , M .J .J . 5 8 7 ,5 9 4 M e n o u d , R -H . lx, l2, 7 6 0 , 7 9 4 ,8 1 1 ,8 2 1 , 1 1 9 5 ,1 2 2 3 M e n tz , H . xxxv2 M e n zie s, R. P. I2 M e rc u rio , R. 240, 1162 M e rk , O . lx, 216 M e rk e l, H . 1091 M e rk e lb a c h , R. 794 M e rk le in , H . 873, 1038 M e rrill, E. H . 649 M e rritt, R. L. 1 1 2 8 ,1 1 3 0 M e rte n s , H . 568 M e tz g e r, B. Μ. I2, 471, 545, 549, 609, 941, 1040, 1222 M e tz g e r, E. 252 M eyer, A. lx, 175, 4 0 9 -1 0 M eyer, B. F. lx, 94, 447, l2, 689, 694, 1038 M eyer, D. 855 M eyer, E. lx M eyer, F. E. 1102 M eyer, R. 233, 962, 98 3 M e y n et, R. lx, 61, xxxv2, Γ6 4 6 ,642 ,634 ,‫׳־‬, ' 767, 897, 909, 1 1 7 7 -7 8 , 1196 M ic h a e l, J . H . 650, 652, 1196 M ic h a e lis, C. 2 7 8 ,9 6 9 M ic h a e lis, W. lx, 136, 1 3 8 -3 9 , 170, 465, 4 74, 563, 5 76, 640, 726, 880, 1171, 1223 M ic h a e ls, J. R. 1154 M ic h a lcz v k ,J . J. lx M ic h e l, A. 126 M ic h e l, O . 38, 150, 158, 457, 578, 797, 834, 9 2 0 ,9 2 4 , 976, 1162, 1165 M ic h e l, R. 113 M ic h ie ls, R. lx M ic h l, J . 189, 1018 M id d le to n , R. D. 814

Index o f Authors M ieses, M . 824 M ie sn e r, D. R. 189 M ilavec, A. 94 6 M ild e n b e rg e r, F. 1173 M ilik, J . T. 471 M iller, D. G. xxxv2 M iller, D. L. 1 0 9 8 -9 9 M iller, J . S. 578 M iller, M. 1 8 9 ,1 9 7 M iller, Μ . Η . I2 M iller, P. D. 189 M iller, R. J . I2, 608, 660, 737, 7 39, 9 3 4 M iller, W. D. 794 M illig a n , G. lx, 207, 1038 M illig a n , W. 1222 M ills, Μ. E. I2 M ilo t, L. 721 M in e a r, P. S. lx, 15, 19, 273, 283, 526, 8 4 0 -4 1 , 8 8 3 -8 4 , 1074 M iq u e l, P. 1222 M irro , J . A. 897 M itc h e ll, A. C. 902 M itto n , C. L. 333, 630, 6 73, 1079 M iyoshi, M . 38, 113, 118, l2, 526 , 5 4 2 -4 3 , 554, 558, 5 6 2 -6 5 , 571 M oberly, W. 1018 M o e h rin g , H . R. 95 M o e ssn e r, D. P. lx, 424, 526, 1021 M o ffa tt, J . lx, 4, 834, 840, 1079, 1141 M o h n , W. 1079, 1082 M o lin a , J.-P. 794 M o lito r,J . 689 M o lle r-C h ris te n s e n , V. 1141 M o m m s e n , T. 95 M o n k s, G. G. 1038 M o n lo u b o u , L. lx, 61 M o n n ie r ,J . 768 M o n s a rra t, V. 1020 M o n selew sk i, W. 587 M o n te fio re , H . W. 433, 436, 94 6 M o n tg o m e ry , J . A. 689 M o o , D .J . 1018 M o o re , A. L. 474 M o o re , F .J. 794 M o o re , S. D. I2, 1171 M o o re , T. V. 7 6 0 ,7 6 3 M o o re , W. E. 811 M o ra , V. 6 5 0 ,6 5 2 M o rg a n , C. S. 252 M o rg e n th a le r, R. lx, 9 8 ,1 7 5 , 180, 192, 530 M o rin , J.-A. 1028 M o rris, L. xlix, lx, 194, 1021 M o rto n , A. Q . lx M o s b e c h , H . 263 M o sca to , M. lx M oser, J . 1171 M ost, W. I2 M o ttu , H . 873 M otyer, S. 1154 M o u ld e r, I. 291 M o u ld e r, W .J . 1061 M o u le , C . F. D. lx, 5 5 ,1 1 3 , 377, 380, 3 8 2 -8 3 , xxxvi2, 469, 608, 618, 649, 685, 1171, 1181, 1222 M o u lto n , Η . K. 673 M o u lto n , J . H . lx, 207 M o u lto n , W .J . 488 M o u n c e , R. H . 273 M o u s o n ,J . 239, 246, 1196 M ow ery, R. L. 1020 M o x n e s, H . lx, l2, 660, 747, 794, 809 M o x o n , C. 6 5 0 ,6 5 2 M u d d im a n , I. B. 240, 2 43, 1175, 1177, 1185 M u d is o M b a M u n d la , J . G. 962

M u e lle r, J . R. 813 M u e lle r, T. 96 M u g ler, C. 657 M u h la c k , G. lx M u ld e r, H . lx, 3, 1022 M iiller, C. 609 M u ller, D. 850 M iiller, Η . P. 488, 492, 496 M uller, K. 9 6 2 ,1 1 0 2 ,1 1 0 6 ,1 1 2 0 ,1 1 2 2 - 2 4 M iiller, M. 469 M iiller, P.-G. xlix, lx, 3 M u ller, U . B. 469, 471, 488, 560, 5 6 3 -6 4 M u llin s, T.Y. 1 5 ,2 2 ,2 4 M u n c k , J . 263 M u n d le , W. 447 M u n o z Iglesias, S. 15 M u rm e ls te in , B. 252 M u rp h y , F. X. 95 M u rp h y , R. G. 1196 M u rp h y -O ’C o n n o r , J . 488 M u rray , G. 650, 794, 883, 977, 1091 M ussies, G. 941, 943 M u ssn e r, F. 3, 9, 38, 57, 61, 70, 203, 297, 224, 340, 3 4 4 -4 6 , li2, 546, 5 48, 587, 647, 650, 726, 7 3 1 -3 2 , 735, 8 50, 946, 1171 M yre, A. 813 N a g e l, W. 2 4 0 ,6 6 0 ,6 6 4 N a p ie r, T. M. 1074 N a u c k , W. 76, 278, 760, 1175, 1187 N a v e h .J . 1141 N a v o n e , J . lx, 526, 747, 752, 1018 N e a le , D. A. li2 N e b e , G. li2 N egoita ,A. 673 N e il, W. 369 N e iry n c k , F. lx, 15, 38, 94, 2 0 6 -7 , 211, 2 1 5 -1 6 , 224, 227, 2 3 0 -3 1 , 235, 237, 2 5 2 -5 3 , 256, 433, 4 41, li2, 457, 488, 491, 516, 546, 634, 638, 744, 982, 9 8 5 ,1 0 9 8 -9 9 , 1175, 1185, 1209, 1 2 1 1 ,1 2 1 3 N e lle s s e n , E. 15 N e ls o n , P. K. li2, 1049, 1 0 6 1 -6 2 N e m b a c h , U . 813 N e s b itt, C. F. 350 N e s tle , E. x x x ix , lxi, 9 4 - 9 5 , 103, 145, 166, 189, 192, 274, 41, 946, 1038, 1150, 1154, 1196, 1209 N e u g e b a u e r, F. 1 7 5 ,2 9 1 ,9 7 0 ,9 7 2 N e u h a u s le r, E. 252, 278, 840, 843, 909 N e u s n e r, J . 233, li2, 660, 664, 934 N evius, R. C. lxi, 60 N ew ell, J . E. 94 6 N ew ell, R. R. 946 N eyrey, }. H . li2, 1020, 1079, 1134, 1136, 1 1 5 2 ,1 1 7 1 N ic h o m a c h u s 9 N ic k e ls b u rg , G. W. E. lxi, 1018 N ic k le n , T. 850 N ic o l, W. 982 N ic o la s ,J.-H . 599 N ie b u h r, K.-W. 778 N ie ls e n , Η . K. li2, 546, 548, 560, 568, 6 3 4 -3 5 , 6 4 0 -4 1 N ie m a n d , C. 488 N i e m a n n , F.-J. 1075 N issen , A. 2 9 1 ,5 7 8 ,5 8 2 N iv e n , W. D . 673 N o a c k , B. 850 N o c k , A. D. 5 N o d e t, E. lxi N o e l, T. 747

1255 N o l l a n d .J . L. xxxii, lxi, 11, 120, 187, 189, 191, 195, 1 9 8 -9 9 , 417, 516, 519, 623, 735, 923, 982, 98 8 , 991, 1003 N o lle , L. 166, 1 6 9 -7 1 , 599 N o o n a n , J . T .,J r. 794 N o o r d a , S .J . 189 N o r d e n , E. 4, 15, 5 6 8 -6 9 , 573 N o r th , B. 824 N o r w o o d , F. A. 752 N o ts c h e r, F. 689 N u tta ll, G. F. lxi N u tz e l, J . M . li2, 4 89, 492, 568, 767, 770, 772, 786, 873, 1171, 1173 N y b e rg , H . S. 644 O a k m a n , D. E. 587, 634 O b a c h , R. E. xxxv2 O b e r lin n e r, L. 457, 1175 O ’B rie n , P. T. lxi O ’C o llin s, G. 1018, 1 1 7 0 -7 1 , 1209 O ’Day, G. 61 O e p k e , A. 1 4 1 ,1 5 2 ,5 1 9 O e sterley , W. Ο . E. lxi, 794, 1038 O ’F e a rg h a il, F. 189, li2 O ’F ly n n , J. A. 982 O g g , G. 95, 166, 526, 1022 O ’G rady, J . F. 1171 O ’H a g a n , A. 5 4 6 ,5 5 2 O ’H a n l o n ,J . 9 0 3 - 4 O ’H a r a ,J . 240 O ’L eary , A. 526 O liver, Η . H . 15, 19 O ls th o o r n , M. F. 689 O m a n s o n , R. 824 O ’M e ara , T. F. 1102 O m m e r e n , N. M. van li2 O ’N e ill, F. W. S. 793 O ’N e ill, J . C. lxi, 96, 200, 674, 1171 O p p e r m a n n , R. 1175 O ’Rahilly, A. 599, 1141, 1162 O r c h a r d , B. 6 0 9 ,9 4 6 O r c h a r d , J. B. li2 O r c h a r d , R. K. 350, 354, 616 O r ig e n 407, 615 O r le tt, R. 1196 O ’R ou rk e, J .J . lxi, 778, 780, 783, 813 O s b o r n , R. T. 778 O s b o r n e , G. R. lxi, 1140, 1171 O s e i-B o n su , J . 824 O sie k , C. 1171 O s te n -S a c k e n , P. v o n d e r 526, 528 Osty, E. xlix, 1020 O sw ald , J . 1018 O ’T o o le , R. F. lxi, 4 2 4 -2 5 , li2, 7 2 1 ,9 0 3 , 1 1 7 3 ,1 2 2 0 O tt, W. lxi, 608, 610, 6 2 1 -2 2 , 6 2 6 -2 7 , 631, 8 6 4 -6 5 , 867, 1011, 1079 O tte y ,J . L. 94 O v e rs tre e t, R. L. 166, 1114 O v id 298, 1205 P a c k e tt, E. B. 731 P a g e , S. Η . T. 1061 P alatty, P. 1223 P a lm e r, H . 752 P a m m e n t, M. 489 P a n ie r, L. 1 7 5 ,9 0 9 ,9 4 6 P a n n e n b e r g , W. 1171 P a ra m o , S. d e l 38 P a rg ite r, F. E. 794 P a rk e r, P. 1 0 4 0 ,1 1 2 0 P a rk e r, R. A. 1026 P a r r o t t, D. M . 794 P a r ro tt, R. 731 P a rsc h , P. 982

1256 P a rso n s , M. C. lii2, 1174, 1 2 2 3 -2 4 , 1227 P a te rs o n , W. P. 794 P a to n , W. R. 1 0 7 9 ,1 1 4 0 P a tsc h , H . 4 5 7 ,9 2 0 , 1038 P a tte , D. xlvi, lxi, 587, 778, 880 P a tte r s o n , S .J . 7 0 6 -7 P a tto n , C. S. 273 P atzia, A. G. 145 P a u l, A. 897, 920, 1021 P a u l, G. 794 P a u l, S. M. 5 60, 566 P a u ls e n , H . 864, 1175 P a u lu s, C. 1101 P a u lu s, Η . E. G. 435 Pauly, D. 794 P a u tre l, R. 8 0 4 Paw likow ski, J . T. 1102 P ax, E. 1 5 , 9 4 ,4 0 2 ,8 2 4 P a y n e , P. B. lxi, 369, 3 7 1 -7 2 , 3 8 1 -8 3 P e a rc e , K3 1 9 ,8 2 4 ‫״‬ P e d e rs e n , S. 489, 492, 946, 999 P e e l, M . L. 1171 P e g g , H . 627 P eifer, C .J . 650 P e lce , F. 1080 P e lle tie r, A. 1 1 5 4 ,1 1 7 1 P e n n i n g d e V ries, P. 778 Percy, E. lxi, 175, 273, 642, 850, 8 80 Percy, J . 655 P e ri, I. 1085 P e rk in s , P. lxi, 5 87, 752, 768, 778, 794, 8 64, 873, 1171 P e rle s , F. 5 3 8 ,7 6 0 P e r n o t, H . lxi, 1 5 ,2 9 1 ,6 6 0 P e r r e t t, J . 1172 P e r rin , N . xliii, lxi, 469, 474, 511, 634, 752, 760, 767, 8 1 1 ,8 5 0 , 864, 1103, 1 1 0 8 ,1 1 7 2 , 1175 P e r ro t, C. 15, 19, 189, 982, 1196 P e rry , A. M. 1020 P e rry , J . M. 457, 466 P e rry , M. C. 1172 P e rv o , R. I. lii2 P e s c h , R. lxi, 126, 1 3 0 -3 1 , 2 0 9 -1 1 , 218, 220, 2 2 2 -2 7 , 239, 2 4 2 -4 3 , 247, 333, 396, 4 0 2 -5 , 407, 4 1 5 -1 6 , 419, 447, 4 4 9 -5 1 , lii2, 4 5 7 -5 8 , 469, 471, 474, 523, 689, 778, 813, 8 4 4 -4 5 , 855, 873, 92 0 , 934, 9 82, 1018, 1038, 1057, 1 0 9 1 ,1 0 9 3 -9 4 , 1 1 0 2 -4 , 1108, 1 1 6 2 6 3 ,1 1 7 2 - 7 3 , 1186 P e s c h , W. 660, 689, 840, 909 P e te r s e n , N. R. lii2 P e te r s o n , E. 396 P e te r s o n , W. L. 7 6 8 -6 9 P e tte m , M . 433 P e tu c h o w s k i,J . J. 608 P etzer, J . H . 1 0 3 8 ,1 0 4 4 P e tzk e , G. 319, 321, lii2, 9 5 6 9 5 9 ,5 7 ‫־‬ P fa ttis c h , J . M. 252 P h e lp s, A. St. 599 P h illip s, C. A. 278, 578 P h ilo 43, 45, 54, 173, 295, 298, 57 4, 581, 7 1 7 -1 8 , 755, 763, 821, 886, 916, 966, 9 88, 1052, 1124, 1205 P h ilo n e n k o , M . 655 P h ilo s tra tu s 204, 320, 398, 595, 1 1 8 3 -8 4 P ickar, C. H . 794 P ie p e r, K. 92 0 P ig a n io l, A. 982 P ilg rim , W. E. lxi, lii2 P ip e r, J . 291 P ip e r, J . S. 579 P ip e r, O . A. 4, 38 P ip e r, R. A. lii2, 627, 630, 760

Index

of

Authors

P i r o t ,J . 7 7 8 ,7 9 4 P ittn e r, B. lii2 P la ss m a n n , T. 60 P la th , M . 1028 P la to 2 9 5 ,6 5 7 ,8 3 1 ,9 1 6 P la tt, E. E. 350 Plessis, I .J . d u 3 , 6 9 7 ,7 9 4 P le v n ik , J . 1 1 0 3 ,1 1 7 4 -7 5 P lin y 718 P liny th e E ld e r 354 P lo o ij, D. 158, 1223 Plooy, G. P. V. d u lxi, lii2 P liim a c h e r, E. lxi P lu m m e r, A. xlix, 21, 148, 172, 201, 211, 222, 350, 395, 644 P lu n k e tt, M . 1079, 1071 P lu ta r c h 18, 43, 45, 131, 199, 307, 482, 541, 556, 783, 807, 8 2 1 ,8 6 8 , 1228 P ly m ale, S. F. lii2 P o b e e , J . 1154 P o e n s g e n , H . 778 P o h lm a n n , W. 7 7 8 ,7 8 2 P o k o rn y , P. 175, 1 7 9 -8 0 , lii2 P o lla rd , S. 726 P o ly b iu s 138, 144 P o n t h o t J . 1 1 7 2 ,1 1 7 4 P o p e , A. M. 4 P o p k e s , W. 457, 608, 1028 P o r p h y ry 398 P o rte fa ix , L. lii2 P o rte r, S. E. 608, 794, 8 0 0 -8 0 1 , 806 P o r to n , G. G. 19 P o t in ,J . 4 1 5 ,4 2 2 , 1196 P o tte r ie , I. d e la lxi, 38, 158, 189, 196, 4 3 3 , 9 0 9 ,9 1 1 ,9 1 4 ,9 1 7 P o u s s e t, E. 752 P ow ell, J. E. 1154 P ow ell, M. A. lii2 P ow ell, W. 1 7 5 ,8 2 4 ,8 5 5 P ow er, E. 1 0 1 ,1 3 2 P ow er, M. A. 126 P ra e d e r, M. lxi P ra st, F. 697, 811, 840, 1217 P ra t, F. 350 P re is e n d a n z , K. 573 P re isk e r, H . 794, 1028 P reiss, T. 1038 P r e u s c h e n , E. 94, 189 P re v allet, E. M. 184, 189 P ric e , J . L. 778 P r ig e n t, P. 1018 P rio r, M. lxi P ro c to r, K. S. 850 P ro o s t, K .F . 850 P ry o r, J . W. 568 P s e u d o -M e n a n d e r 298 P s e u d o -P h ilip o f M a c e d o n ia 298 P u b liu s S yrus 298 P u m m e r, R. 536 P u rv is, J. D. 536 Q u e c k e , H . 38 Q u e rd ra y , G. 175 Q u e s n e ll, Q . 1038 Q u in tilia n 785 R ad , G. v o n 96 R a d c liffe , T. 1196 R a d e r m a c h e r, L. 126 R a d e r m a k e rs , J . xxxiv2 R adi, W. lxi, xxxviii2, 532, 721, 752, 1018, 1080, 1085, 1102, 1104, 1114, 1120, 1154 R agg, L. xxxv2 R a h n e r, H . 396

R a is a n e n , H . 38, 4 1 -4 2 , 44, 57. 67, 110. 117, 130 R a m a ro s o n , L. 350, 358, 587, 609, 767 R a m lo t, M .-L. 1 6 6 ,1 7 2 R am say, W. M . lxi, 95, 100, 977, 1091 R am sey, A. M. 489, 499, 1018, 1172, 1222 R am sey, G. W. 767 R am sey, M. 1018 R asco, E. 767 R a s m u ss e n , L. 1061 R au , E. 778 R au , G. 1 1 2 5 ,1 1 2 7 R a u s c h ,J . 291 R avens, D. A. S. lxi, 350, 903 R e b e ll, W. 475 R ees, W. 95 R e e se , T. lxi R e fo u le , F. liii2, 1069, 1071 R e g a rd , P.-F. 1141 R e h k o p f, F. lxi, 1 0 5 7 -5 8 , 1086 R e ib l, M . 1175 R e ic k e, B. lxi, 113, 145, 184, 191, 194, 2 0 0 -2 0 1 , 2 18, 222, 230, 240, 5 2 6 -2 7 , 587, 674, 697, 929, 994, 999 R e id , B. E. liii2 R e id , B. O . 489 R e id , D. P. 189 R e id , J . 683, 1141, 1196 R e ilin g ,J . lxi R e in a c h , S. 1074 R e is e n e r, E. 9 4 R e isn er, R. 1162 R e itz e l, F. X. lxi R e n g s to rf, K. H . xlix, 94, 187, 194, 2 0 0 201, 211, 266, 310, 513, 778, 974, 976, 1172 R e n i e J . E. 1 2 6 ,8 2 4 R e n s b u rg , J . J . J. v a n 697 R e p lo h , K.-G. 505, 507 R e rs c h , A. 15 R ese, M . lxii, 118, 143, 189, 1 9 6 -9 7 , 7 3 7 38, 920, 947, 9 6 9 , 1040, 1103, 1154 R e s e n h o fft, W. 752, 909, 911 R e s s e q u ie , J . L. 526, 529 R e u m a n n .J . H . 1 0 3 8 ,1 1 4 0 R ezevskis (R e s ew s k i), J . 278 R ice, E. xxx v 2 R ice, E. P. 189 R ice, G. 1174 R ice, G. E. 166, 189, 240, 660, 1086 R ic h , A. T. 230 R ic h a rd , E. lxii, liii2 R ic h a rd s , H .J . 813 R ic h a rd s , K. H . lxii R ic h a rd s , R. R. 622, 778, 1061 R ic h a rd s , W. L. 546, 778 R ic h a rd s o n , A. 320, 433 R ic h a rd s o n , C. C. 92 0 R ic h a rd s o n , P. 568, 934, 1018 R ic h a rd s o n , R. D. 1039 R ic h e s, J . liii2 R ic o e u r, P. xliii, xliv, xlvi, lxii. 1018 R id d le , D. W. lxii, 369 R ie b le , M. 94 R ie d l, J . 1 5 , 9 4 ,6 4 7 ,1 0 1 8 .1 1 9 6 R ie n e c k e r, F. xlix R ie s e n fe ld , H . lxii, 7, 175, 475, 489, 689, 8 5 0 ,8 5 2 - 5 3 , 864 R ie sn er, R. lxii R iet, S. van 608 R iga, P .J. 883, 1172 R ig a u x , B. lxii, 175, 263, 855. 962, 982, 1172, 1174, 1196, 1209 R igg, H .A . 1128 R ig g e n b a c h , E. 794, 840

Index o f Authors R illiet, F. 920 R im m e r, N . 824 R in a ld i, G . 599 R in g e , S. H . 4 8 9 ,4 9 9 - 5 0 0 R in g e h a u s e n , G. 880 R in g g re n , H . lxii Rist, M. 5 6 8 ,9 5 6 R itt, H . 1 1 0 2 ,1 1 7 5 R iv k en , E. 1 0 1 8 ,1 1 0 5 R o a rc k , D. M. 982 R o b b in s , J . 778 R o b b in s , V. K. 4 - 5 , 2 73, 415, xlviii2, liii2, 516, 518, 634, 880, 8 9 7 -8 8 , 1 0 3 1 -3 2 , 1057, 1059, 1114, 1140 R o b e rt, A. 25 R o b e rts , C. H . 8 5 0 ,8 5 3 R o b e rts , J . 1172 R o b e rts , T. A. 706 R o b e rts o n , A. T. lxii, 4, 191 R o b e rts o n , G. R 864 R o b e rts o n , J . A. 526, 864 R o b e rts o n , M. J., I ll xlviii2 R o b e rts o n , W. C ., Jr. 526 R o b illia r d ,J . A. 778 R o b in s o n , B .R 1 0 8 0 ,1 1 9 6 R o b in s o n , D. F. 433 R o b in s o n , D. W. B. lxii, 1039 R o b in s o n , J . A. T. lxii, 136, 145, 175, 178, 180, 3 2 8 ,9 4 7 , 1172 R o b in s o n , J . M. lxii, 207, 546, 571, 634, 673, 8 5 0 -5 1 R o b in s o n , W. C., Jr. lxii, 369, 374, 384, 9 2 9 ,9 8 2 , 1114, 1172 R o c q u e fo rt, D. 1028 R o d d 639 R o d e n b u s c h , E. 792 R o d rig u e z , G. R 189 R o g e rs, A. D. 252 R o h d e ,J . lxii R o h r, J . 982 R o lla n d , R lxii, 230, 240, 634 R o lo ff, J . lxii, 159, 240, 2 42, 2 5 2 -5 3 , 2 5 7 -5 9 , 261, 263, 4 1 5 -1 7 , 420, liii2, 458, 505, 507, 522, 548, 7 2 3 -2 4 , 744, 844, 8 9 7 ,9 3 4 , 941, 1021, 1061 R oos, A. G. 95 R o o s e n , A. 4 8 9 ,5 9 9 R o p e s, J . H . 4 ,9 6 . 102 R osaz, M. 731 R ose, A. 1018 R o s e n b la tt, M .-E. liii2 R o s e n b la tt, S. 1102, 1140 R o s e n k ra n z , G. 779 R osica, T. M. 1196 R oss, J . M. 532, 536, 920, 1175 R o ssm iller, C. J. 15 R o sto v tzeff, M. 1086 R o th , C. 263 R o th e n a ic h e r, F. 1091 R o u illa rd , R. 903 R o u ille r, G. 767 R o u lin , R 1 5 8 ,1 6 1 ,6 3 4 ,6 7 4 R o u s s e a u , F. 82, 9 82, 1177, 1196 R o u s s e a u , J . 697 R o u s ta n g , F. 1039 Rowley, Η . H . 136 R oy,J.-B . d u 1039 R o y c e ,J. R. 587 R ubsys, A. L. 779 R u ck er, A. 794 R u c k s tu h l, E. 813, 1022, 1024, 1039, 1 0 4 6 -4 7 , 1172, 1222, 1226 R u d b e rg , G. 1 0 9 8 ,1 1 0 2 R u d d ic k , C. T , J r. 15, 19 R u e g g , U . 538

R u g e r, H . R 291, 301, 804, 806 R u n n a lls , D. R. liii2, 934 R u p p e r t, L. 4 65, 1018 R u s c h e , H . 96, 1196 R ussel, R. 1172 R ussell, H . G. lxii R ussell, W. lxii R iistow, A. 850, 853 R y an , E. A. 61 R yan, R. 363 R y d e r S m ith , C. 655 R yrie, C. G. 225 S a b b e , M. 158, 160, 175, 489, 492, 568, 1 0 3 1 ,1 0 8 6 , 1103 S a b o u rin , L. xlix, 813 S a b u g a l, S. 609 S afrai, S. 804 S a h lin , H . lxii, 4, 15, 2 7 -2 8 , 3 1 -3 2 , 4 8 49, 51, 66, 68, 80, 88, 136, 140, 145, 1 4 7 -4 9 , 1 6 0 ,1 6 7 , 291, 304, 340, 402, 865 Salazar, A. M. 15 S a ld a rin i, A. J . liii2, 1039 S alin , E. 9 3 4 ,9 5 6 S a lo m , A. R 903 S a m a in , E. 4, 189, 1 9 8 -9 9 , 526, 792, 794 S a m u e l, O . 920 S a n d , A. 660 S a n d e rs , E. R lxii, 209, liv2, 93 4 , 936, 1018, 1106 S a n d e rs , H . A. 166 S a n d e rs , J . A. lxii, 189, 1 9 3 -9 4 , 200, 350, 752, 754 S a n d e rs , J . N . 350 S a n d e rs , J . T. lxii, liv2, 7 7 9 -8 1 , 90 9 , 9 1 4 S a n d e rs o n , M . L. 14, 22, 26 S a n d m e l, S. 1102 S a n d o li, S. d e 1196 S an d v ik , B. 1039 S a tak e , A. 911 S ato, M . liv2 S au er, J . 291 S a u n d e rs , D .J . 447 Sawyer, J . F. A. 1154 Sawyer, R. D. 1196 S axer, V. lxii, 350 Sayce, A. H . 615 S caria, K .J. 568 S c h a b e rg , J . liv2, 458 S c h a fe r, K. T. 240, 244, 249, 1040 S c h a lit, A. 95, 100 S c h a lle r, B. 8 1 3 ,8 1 9 S c h a rp e r, R J . lii S c h a u m b e rg e r, J . 1022 S c h e ffler, E. H . 697, 1196 S c h e itlin , K. 587 S c h e lk le , K. H . liv, 38, 377, 477, 482, 1018, 1039, 1172, 1222 S c h e n k , W. lxii, 505, 507, 1018, 1025, 1057, 1059, 1080, 1086 S c h e n k e , L. lxii, 209, 3 9 6 -9 9 , 433, 436, 4 3 8 -4 0 , 445, 458, 505, 5 0 7 -8 , 1018, 1022, 1028, 1031, 1039, 1 0 5 7 -5 9 , 1080, 1082, 1175, 1187 S c h e n k e r, A. 1039 S c h e rm a n n , T. 1039 S c h e u lle r, A. 175 S c h ie rs e , F .J. 1 5 ,3 9 ,4 7 5 S c h ild e n b e rg e r , J . 920 S c h ille , G. 263, 396, 398, 1019, 1223 S c h ille b e e c k x , E. 469, 1172, 1222 S c h illin g , F. A. 880 S c h in ze r, R. 1102 S c h ip p e rs , R. 67 4

1257 S c h iro c k , R. 634 S c h lag e r, G 1028 S c h la tte r, A. v o n viii, xlix, lxii, 4, 8, 28, 34, 136, 139, 151, 200, 337, 345, 1074 S c h le ie rm a c h e r, F. 185 S ch lier, H . 91, 158, 599, 752, 1172, 1223 S c h lo g l, N . 804 S ch lo sser, J . lxii, 475, 5 2 2 -2 3 , 608, 634, 689, 731, 811, 834, 837, 855, 860, 873, 9 83, 1039, 1 0 6 1 -6 2 S c h m al, G. 1 2 6 ,2 6 3 S c h m a u c h , W. lxii S c h m e ic h e l, W. 189 S c h m id , J . xlix, lxii, 201, 236, 840, 883, 894, 1019 S c h m id , W. 609 S c h m id t, D. D. liv2, 1114, 1118 S c h m id t, K. L. lxii, 189, 194, 205, 526, 7 3 9 ,1 0 1 9 , 1097 S c h m id t, R 61 S c h m id t, T. E. lxii, 534, 760, 809 S c h m id t, W. 768 S c h m ie d , A. 1172 S c h m ie d e l, R W. 568 S c h m ith a ls , W. xlix, lxii, 94, 107, 263, 396, 4 1 5 -1 6 , 489, 599 S c h m itt, A. 1222 S c h m itt, G. 6 5 0 ,6 5 2 S c h m itt,J . 1 1 7 2 ,1 1 7 4 S c h m itz , S. 873 S c h n a c k e n b u r g , R. lxiii, 61, 175, 263, 312, 429, 432, liv2, 469, 4 7 1 ,5 1 6 -1 7 , 7 3 7 ,8 1 1 ,8 4 9 , 851 S c h n e id e r, C. 1154 S c h n e id e r, G. xlix, lxiii, 4, 10, 39, 133, 198, 291, 294, 304, 3 8 9 - 9 1 ,3 9 4 , liv2, 579, 608, 610, 694, 697, 699, 813, 8 1 7 -1 8 , 855, 865, 894, 903, 909, 970, 1007, 1011, 1 0 1 9 -2 1 , 1069, 1 0 8 6 -8 8 , 1091, 1 0 9 5 -9 6 , 1100, 1102, 1107, 1109, 1114, 1117, 1127, 1140, 1150, 1217 S c h n e id e r ,J . 4 7 5 ,5 2 6 S c h n e ll, C. W. 697, 1172 S c h n id e r, F. lxiii, 48, 196, 200, 320, 737, 739, 768, 779, 824, 873, 934, 1172, 1177, 1196, 1223, 1229 S c h n ie w in d , J. 779, 920 S c h o e d e l, W. R. 947 S c h o ffe l, S. 1039 S ch o lz, G. 587, 824 S c h o o n h e im , R L. 61, 71 S c h o tt, E. 424 S c h o ttro ff, L. lxiii, 61, 7 1 -7 2 , 278, 291, 2 9 5 -9 6 , 752, 779, 781, 784, 8 7 3 -7 4 , 876 S c h ra g e , W. liv, 94, 307, 947, 956 S c h ra m m , T. lxiii, 185, 2 0 3 -4 , 2 0 7 -8 , 210, 215, 2 2 5 -2 6 , 2 3 0 - 3 1 ,2 3 4 , 240, 350, 3 6 9 -7 0 , 389, 393, 397, 435, 491, 880, 883, 897, 920, 929, 934, 941, 9 4 7 , 95 6 , 9 6 2 , 9 8 2 , 1020 S c h r e c k e n b u r g , H . liv2 S c h re ib e r, J . 1 1 3 4 ,1 1 5 5 ,1 1 6 2 S c h re in e r, J . 158 S c h re n k , G. 466, 572, 811, 868 S chrey, Η . H . 850 S c h ro e d e r, E. H . liv2 S c h ro e d e r, H .-H . liv2 S c h ro e r, S. 608 S c h u b e rt, K. 8 1 3 ,9 6 2 , 1102, 1172 S c h u b e rt, R 1173 S c h u lle r, E. 613 S c h u ltz e , B. 726

1258 S c h u lz, A. 239, 475, 482, 538, 1061 S c h u lz, S. lxiii, 4, 1 4 6 -4 8 , 176, 278, 291, 304, 312, 316, 318, 325, 3 2 7 -2 9 , 333, 340, 546, 548, 568, 570, 634, 650, 655, 660, 663, 665, 6 6 8 -6 9 , 697, 706, 726, 731, 737, 752, 760, 769, 804, 8 3 4 -3 5 , 8 5 5 ,9 0 9 , 1061, 1063 S c h u m a c h e r, R. 568 S c h u re r, E. lxiii, 95, 9 9 -1 0 1 , 1 3 9 -4 0 , 194, 234, 466, 7 1 7 ,1 1 0 5 S c h u r h a m m e r , G. 824 S c h iir m a n n , H . viii, xlix, lxiii, 4 - 5 , 7 -1 1 , 15, 18, 25, 2 9 -3 0 , 39, 46, 49, 51, 57, 6 3 -6 4 , 66, 6 9 -7 0 , 74, 80, 88, 94, 1 0 5 -6 , 108, 1 1 9 -2 1 , 133, 1 3 9 -4 0 , 142, 1 4 7 -4 9 , 151, 1 5 3 -5 4 , 1 6 0 -6 1 , 163, 171, 177, 180, 1 8 4 -8 6 , 1 9 0 -9 2 , 196, 1 9 8 -2 0 1 , 2 0 4 -7 , 2 1 1 -1 3 , 2 1 5 16, 218, 224, 2 2 6 -2 8 , 2 3 1 -3 3 , 2 3 6 -3 7 , 245, 247, 257, 261, 2 6 3 -6 4 , 2 6 9 -7 0 , 273, 275, 2 8 3 -8 4 , 286, 288, 294, 3 0 0 -3 0 1 , 3 0 5 -1 0 , 322, 3 2 9 -3 0 , 3 3 6 -3 7 , 3 4 2 -4 3 , 346, 3 5 6 -5 8 , 364, 367, 369, 373, 375, 383, 386, 391, 3 9 4 -9 5 , 397, 4 0 8 -9 , 411, 4 1 6 -1 7 , 4 1 9 -2 2 , 424, 4 2 7 -2 8 , 431, 436, 438, 4 4 0 -4 3 , 4 52, 458, 464, 4 7 7 -7 9 , 481, 4 8 3 -8 4 , 486, 510, 514, 520, 525, 538, 548, 608, 628, 660, 6 6 2 -6 3 , 669, 674, 697, 707, 7 1 3 -1 4 , 809, 8 1 2 -1 4 , 1021, 1 0 3 1 -3 3 , 1 0 3 9 -4 1 , 1 0 4 3 -4 4 , 1 0 4 8 50, 1057, 1 0 6 1 -6 3 , 1069, 1 0 7 1 -7 3 , 1074, 1080, 1102 S c h iis s le r F io re n z a , E. 599, 6 0 2 -3 , 721 S ch iitz, F. lxiii, 1021 S ch iitz, R. 1007 S chw ager, R. 1 0 2 1 ,1 0 3 9 S c h w a n k , B. 39, 90 3 , 1039, 1091 S c h w a n k l, O . 962 S chw arz, G. 96, 102, 145, 2 1 5 -1 6 , 278, 281, 291, 410, lv2, 4 7 5 -7 6 , 482 , 538, 5 46, 568, 660, 683, 689, 7 1 5 -1 6 , 721, 731, 760, 794, 812, 903, 1011, 1012, 1 0 2 9 -3 0 , 1057, 1074, 1080, 1086, 1196 S ch w eitzer, A. 4 3 5 - 3 6 ,1 0 3 9 S chw eizer, E. xlix, lxiii, 15, 84, 86, 162, 197, 278, 280, 369, lv2, 483, 7 7 9 -8 1 , 8 1 2 ,9 6 6 , 1039, 1101, 1172 S chw eizer, FI. 87 3 S c h w e n k e , F. 655 S c o b e l, G. 779 S c o b ie, C. 136 S c o tt, B. B. xliii, lxiii, 779, 794 S c o tt, J . A. lxiii S c o tt, Μ. P. 647 S c o tt, R .B .Y . 1 6 ,7 9 4 S cro g g s, R. lv2, 1017, 1175 S cu k a, R. F. 1172 S e b a s tia n , T. 1172 S e b o th o m a , W. 697 S e c c o m b e , D. P. lxiii, 61, 190, 278, 287, 682, 689, 794, 824 S e e b e rg , R. 1039 Seeley, D. 760 S e e th a le r, P. 158, 166 S eg al, J . B. 1022 S e g b ro e c k , F. van lv2 S e id e lin , P. 1 7 6 ,6 5 0 ,6 5 3 S e id e n s tic k e r, P. 1172, 1222 S e ifrid , M. A. lv2 S eitz, O . J . F. 145, 291, 660, 1091 S e k e le s, E. 1141 Sellew , P. 697, 706, 1057

Index

of A uthors

S e llin , G. lxiii, 526, 528, 5 8 7 -9 2 , 596, 684 Selw yn, E. G. 1 1 7 2 ,1 2 2 2 S e n e c a 2 9 4 -9 5 , 2 9 7 -3 0 0 S e n g , E. W. 6 8 3 -8 4 S e n n , F. C. 1039 S e u to n iu s 99, 1148 S ev en , F. 587 S ev rin , J . -M. 94 7 S e x tu s E m p iric u s 695 S e y n a e v e ,J . 731, 760 S h a e , C. S. 9 4 1 -4 3 Shaw, A. 433 Shaw, R. H . 9 8 2 S h e a rm a n , T. G. 609 S heeley, S. M . lv2 S h e e rin , D. 774 S h e lto n , J. B. lv2 S h e r id a n , M. lxiii S h e rlo c k , W. 190 S h e rw in -W h ite , A. N . 95, 99, 1114, 1118 S h illito , E. 747 S h u le r, P. L. lv2 S id er, J. W. lxiii S ieb er, J . -H . 1217 S ie g e rt, F. lxiii S ie g m a n , E. F. 312, 377 S im o n , J . 82 S im o n , L. 608, 977 S im o n , M . 985 S im o n s, J . 1162 S im p s o n , J . G. 909 S im s o n , P. lxiii, 744 S iotis, M. A. lxiii S iv ern s, L. E. lv2 S jo b e rg , E. 236, 655, 659 S k e h a n , P .W . 1022 S le d d , A. 850 S lo a n , R. B. lxiv, 190 S lo m a n , S. 278 S loyan, G. S. 1 0 1 9 ,1 1 2 8 Sm alley, S. S. lxiv S m a llw o o d , E. M. 95 S m it S ib in g a , J . 779 S m it, D .J . 697, 777, 1172 S m ith , A. G. 850 S m ith , B. D. 1022, 1024, 1027 S m ith , B. T. B. lxiv, 794, 796 S m ith , C. W. F. 2 1 8 ,2 2 3 S m ith , D. E. lvi2 S m ith , D. M. 3 9 ,1 3 6 ,9 2 0 S m ith , D. T. 813 S m ith , H . 1080 S m ith , J . H . 726 S m ith , J . J . 1 1 7 2 ,1 1 7 5 S m ith , M. 2 7 1 ,3 4 0 S m ith , M . A. 1039 S m ith , Μ. H . 538 S m ith , P.V . 1091 S m ith , R. F. 1196 S m ith , R. H . lxiv, 95, 1021, 1 1 5 0 -5 1 , 1162, 1172, 1175 S m ith , W. B. 1028 S m itm a n s , A. 60, 697 S m o th e rs , E. R. 96, 126 S m y th , K. 96 S m y th -F lo re n tin , F. 176 S n a p e , H . C. lxiv S n e e d , R. 8 5 0 ,8 5 2 S n e e n , D .J . 4 S n o d g ra ss , K. R. lxiv, 947, 1040 Snoy, S. 794 S o a rd s, M . L. 1 0 1 9 -2 0 , 1080, 1091, 1098, 1120, 1 1 2 2 -2 3 , 1134, 1140 S o a re s P r a b h u , G. M . 39, 41

S o b a lla , G. 608 S o b o s a n ,J . G. 39, 1102, 1114 S o c ra te s 2 95, 763 S o d in g , T. 9 3 4 , 1080, 1082, 1102 S o lag es, B. d e 15 Sol ta u , W. 767 S o n g e r, H . S. 15 S o p h o c le s 101, 1228 S o u c e k , J . B. 689, 760 S o u te r, A. 920 S ow ers, S. 985 S p a d a fo ra , F. 126 S p a rk s, H . F. D. lxiv, 312, 1039 S p e n c e r, F. S. 587 S p e rb e r, D. 977 S p icq , C. lxiv, 291, 587, 865, 867, 909 S p in e to li, O . d a 166 S p itta , F. 15, 6 0 -6 1 , 67, 6 9 -7 0 , 333, 424, 560, 563, 883, 920, 982 S p re n g e r, G. 369 S p rin g e r, J . F. 6 0 ,6 5 S p ro u le , J . A. 726 S t a d e lm a n n , L. I. J. 1019 S ta d e n , P. van 697 S tag g , F. 526 S ta h lin , G. 865, 1172 S ta ld e r, K. lxiv, 1021 S ta llm a n n , M. 3 9 6 ,4 1 5 S ta n d a e r t, B. lvi2, 530, 650 S ta n d e n , A. O . 8 2 4 S tanley, D. M. 39, 60, 920, 108 0 -8 1 S ta rc k v ,J. 5 3 2 ,6 0 9 ,6 1 5 - 1 6 S ta ro b in s k i, J . 402 S ta u ffe r, E. 95, 99, 434, 436, 956, 1176 S teck , Ο . H . 660, 669, 737, 739 S te ele , E. S. 660 S te e le ,J . 794 S te g e m a n n , W. lxiii, lvi2 S te g n e r, W. R. 158, 176, 4 3 4 -3 5 , 579 S te in , R. H . lxiv, 4, lvi2, 489, 493, 587, 724, 760, 762, 1176 S te in e r, A. 721 S te in h a u s e r, M . G. 240, 278, 538, 689, 7 9 4 ,8 9 7 - 8 8 S te in m e tz , F. J. 126 S te in m e tz e r, F. X. 95 S te in -S c h n e id e r, H . 1028 S te in s e ife r, B. 1172 S te m p v o o rt, P. A. van 15, 1224 S te n d a h l, K. lxiv, 7, 138, 177 S te n g e r, W. 8 1 3 ,8 2 4 ,9 3 4 , 1172, 1177, 1196 S t e n n in g ,J . F. lxiv, 196 S te rlin g , G. E. lvi2 S te rn , J . B. 579 S tev en s, B. A. 190 S te v e n s o n , M. 599 S te w a rt, R. A. lxiv, 1103 S tey n , G. J . lvi2 S tick ler, Η . E. 779 S to ck , A. 9 5 6 ,1 1 7 2 S to ck , K. 3 9 , 4 1 ,5 0 , 5 7 ,8 1 3 S to ck , W. 909 S to g er, A. lxiv, xxxv2, lvi2, 527, 568, 747, 7 5 2 ,1 0 2 0 , 1196 S to ld t, Η . -H. 1176 S toll, R. F. 94, xxx v 2, 794 S t o n e h o u s e , N . B. lxiv, 4, 7, 176, 190, 527 S to tz e r, H . 721 S to u t, J . C. 1011 S tra b o 1 0 0 ,5 9 3 S tr a t h m a n n 198 S tra u ss, D. F. lxiv, 99, 101, 176, 326, 435, 569

Index o f Authors S trav in sk as, P. M . J . 1196 S tra w so n , W. 962 S tre c k e r, G. 278, 458, 460, 462, 579 S tre e te r, B. H . 440, 610, 1120 S tritzky, M .-B. v o n 608 S tro b e l, A. lxiv, 39, 49, 66, 190, 193, 197, 3 2 5 -2 7 , 329, 538, 697, 850, 852, 862, 1022, 1080, 1103, 1114, 1130, 1150 S tro m m e l, E. 142 S tro n s ta d , R. lxiv S tru n k , R. 779 S tu h lm a c h e r, P. lxiv, 190, 196, 3 2 5 -2 6 , 328, lvi2, 1061, 1172 S tu rc h , R. L. 190 S u d b r a c k ,J . 599, 840 S u d e r, R. N . 158 S u ffrin , A. E. 1039 S uggs, M. J. lxiv, 338, 340, 346, 568, 737, 1019' S u g irth a ra ja h , R. S. 977 S iih l, A. 225, 252, 257, 962, 970 S u m m e rs , R. xxxv2 S u n d w a ll,J . lxiv, 416 Surgy, P. d e 1172 S u tc liffe , E. F. lxiv, 136, 752, 1069 Suys, E. 381 S u zu k i, S. 587 Sw aeles, R. lxiv, 94, 322, 752 Sw ain, L. 1172 S w an sto n , H . 176, 1196 S w e e tla n d , D. M. 587, 599, 673, 680, 1039 Swezey, C. M. 883 Sybel, L. v o n 350 Sykes, Μ. H . 1039 Sylva, D. D. lxiv, 126, lvi2, 1020, 1154, 1157, 1159 S ym e, R. 95 S ynge, F. C. 2 4 0 ,2 4 8 Syx, R. 634 S z a re k , G. 1080 S z im o n d e s z , L. 369, 726 T a c itu s 9 9 ,9 9 2 , 1137 T a e g e r,J.-W . lxiv, lvi2 T agaw a, K. 9 5 6 ,9 5 9 ,9 8 2 T a lb e rt, C. H . xlix, lxiv, 15, 1 7 -1 8 , 99, 206, 212, lvi2, 5 27, 530, 722, 1174 T a n g h e , V. 8 2 4 ,8 2 7 - 2 8 T a n n e h ill, R. C. lxiv, 61, 64, 190, 1 9 3 -9 4 , 196, 1 9 8 -9 9 , 201, 291, 304, lvii2, 538, 541, 543, 546, 601, 689, 692, 706, 711, 855, 860, 1062 T a rac h o w , S. 1028 T a relli, C. C. 682 T a r r e c h , A. P. 9 0 9 ,9 1 1 T a tu m , W. B. 15, 54 T au ssig , H . 608 T aylor, A. B. 176 T aylor, C. 909 T aylor, L. V. 95 T aylor, T. M. 137 T aylor, V. lxiv, 39, 42, 259, 430, 458, 601, 982, 999, 1 0 1 9 -2 0 , 1057, 1140, 1150, 1154 T e e p le , Η . M. 1172 T e lfo rd , W. R. 715 T e m p le , P .J. 1 2 6 ,1 3 1 ,1 9 0 T e m p le , S. 1019 T e m p le to n , D. 608 T e n n ey , M. C. lxv T e r e n c e 755 T e r-M in assian tz , E. 61 T e r n a n t, P. 3 2 0 , 5 8 7 ,5 9 0 ,7 1 5 T e r tu llia n xxxv, 101, 1187

T e S e lle , S. M . xliii, lxv T h a c k e ra y , H . St. J . 7 6 0 ,7 6 4 T h e is s e n , G. lxv, lvii2, 697, 1039, 1054 T h e o b a ld , M. lxv, 2 1 8 -1 9 , 225, 231 T h e o c ritu s 841 T h e o lo g is c h e F a k u lta t B asel 609 T h e o p h r a s tu s 718, 728 T h e r ia u lt, J.-Y. lxv T h e v e n o t, X. 1196 T h ib a u t, R. 126, 133, 650 T h ie le , E. R. 1039 T h i e n e m a n n , T. 656 T h ie rin g , B. 1 9 0 ,1 9 4 ,8 1 1 T h ie s s e n , H . C. 909 T h im m e s , P. L. 579 T h is e lto n , A. C. lxv, lvii2 T h is s e n , W. 230 T h o m a s , J. 138 T h o m a s , K .J . 5 7 9 ,8 8 3 T h o m p s o n , G. Η . P. xlix , 176 T h o m p s o n , J . 1069 T h o m p s o n , P. J . 15, 22, 166 T h o m p s o n , P. 1069 T h o m p s o n , W. G. Iviii T h o m s o n , J. R. 1091 T h o m s o n , P. 909 T h o r le y ,J . 95 T h ra ll, Μ. E. lvii2, 4 8 9 -9 0 , 493, 499, 649, 741, 1172 T h r o c k m o r to n , B. H ., J r. 1040 T h u c y d id e s 138, 144, 9 92, 1054, 1156 T h iis in g , W. 546 T h y e n , H . 137, 142, 147, 151, 236 T ie d e , D . L. lxv, 190, 196, 199, xxxv2, lvii2, 532, 737, 931, 982, 1003, 1020, 1062 T illa rd , J . M. R. 883 T illb o rg , S. v an 6 0 9 ,6 1 1 ,6 9 7 T illm a n n , F. 794 T insley, E .J . xliii, xlix, lxv T itle , E. xxxv2 T o b in , W .J . 1069 T o d t, Η . E. lxv, 230, 2 5 4 -5 5 , 4 69, 650, 674, 697, 855, 1011 T o lb e rt, M. lxv T o lb e rt, M. A. xlv, lxv, 779 T ooley, W. lvii2 T o o n , P. 1222 T o p e l, L. J . 274, 609, 769, 794 T o r ra n c e , T. F. 1 3 7 ,4 8 9 T o rre y , C. C. lxv, 60, 65, 80, 88, 264, 271, 407, 664, 876, 1022 T o r ris ,J . 1080 T o s a to , A. 813 T o s te n g a rd , S. 1080 T o y n b e e , A. J . 5 T o d t, Η . E. lxv, 230, 2 5 4 -5 5 , 46 9 , 650, 674, 697, 855 T r a u ,J . M . 768 T r a u tm a n n , M. 634, 721, 744, 920, 93 4 T r e m e l, B. 4 8 9 ,4 9 2 T re m e l, Y.-B. 1080 T r e s m o n ta n t, C. xxxv2 T r e u , U . 145 T rillin g , W. 145, 2 6 4 -6 5 , 752, 768, 834, 883, 897, 947, 1019, 1021, 1103, 1 1 4 0 ,1 1 5 0 , 1154 T rim a ille , M . 947, 949 T rite s , A. 489 T ro a d e c , H .-G . 3 3 3 ,2 5 2 T ro c m e , E. lxv, 4, 190, 197, 475, 934, 1019 T r o m p f , G. W. 527 T ro s se n , C. 252 T ro w itz sc h , M. 962

1259 T r u d in g e r , L. P. 190, 240, 587, 591, 824 T su c h iy a , H . 15 T u c k e tt, C. M. lxv, 190, 204, 230, 237, 278, 416, lvii2, 4 6 9 , 622 T u r n e r, C. H . 1 5 8 ,1 6 4 T u r n e r , Η . E. W. 39, 95, 1022, 1173 T u r n e r, M. lxv, lvii2, 819 T u r n e r, N . lxv, 15, 2 1 -2 2 , 101, 417, 1039 T y so n , J . B. lxv, Iviii2, 737, 1020, 1103,

1120 T z a fe ris , V. 1141 U h s a d e l, W. 9 2 9 U lp ia n 101 U n n ik , W. C. van viii, lxv, 4 - 5 , 7 -9 , 39, 50, 94, 110, 196, 2 9 1 ,2 9 8 , 1080, 1098 U n te rg a s s m a ir, F. G. Iviii2, 1021, 1134, 1137 U p r ic h a r d , R. E. H . 158 U ro , R. 546 U s e n e r, H . 15 V aage, L. E. Iviii2 V aganay, L. 389, 5 05, 516 V a le n d n , P. 1103 V a le riu s M a x im u s 807 V a n h o y e , A. 8 2 - 8 3 ,1 0 1 9 ,1 0 8 0 V ara, J . 630 V arela, A. T. 113 V a rro 371 V a rro , R. 8 9 4 , 1004, 1209 V aux, R. d e 169 Vaw ter, B. 8 1 3 ,8 2 0 V e ld h u iz e n , A. van 94 V elte, D. 794 V encovsky,J. 402 V en etz, H.-J. 546, 550, 579, 599 V e rh e u l, A. 264 V e rh e y d e n ,J . 9 8 2 ,9 8 5 V e rm e s, G. lxv, 18, 162, 345, 466, 4 6 9 -7 1 V e rrall, A. W. 7 3 7 ,1 1 2 1 V erw ey en , H . 39 V esco,J.-L . Iviii2 V ia, D. 0 . , J r . xliii, xlvi, lxv, 601, 753, 7 7 9 ,8 6 5 - 6 6 V ia, E .J . Iviii2, 599, 1103 V ia rd , A. 920 V ic e n t, A. 3 9 ,5 5 V ie lh a u e r, P. xxxvi, 21, 82, 89, 232, Iviii2, 469, 480, 609, 855, 920, 983 V ie rin g , F. 1019 V in c e n t, H . 660 V in c e n t, J .J . lxv V in c e n t, L.-H . 114, 1162, 1196 V in e , V. E. 753 V iney, D .W . 1173 V irgil 1156 V is s er’t H o o ft, W. A. 920 V io let, B. 1 9 0 ,1 9 2 ,1 9 5 ,1 9 8 V ogel, H.-J. 779 V ogels, H . 39, 41 V ogels, H .J . 113 V ogels, W. 61, 320, 8 24, 903 V o g e lste in , H . 264 V ogler, W. 1 0 2 8 ,1 0 3 0 ,1 0 5 8 ,1 0 8 6 - 8 7 V ogt, E. 96, 252, 873, 876 V o g t,J. 1140 V ogt, P. 1 6 6 ,1 7 1 V o g tle, A. lxv, 4 - 5 , 15, 39, 57, 94, 158, 162, 325, 327, 331, 447, 475, 609, 616, 618, 650, 653, 7 0 6 -7 , 753, 795, 1173, 1222 V o lc k a ert, J . 795 V o lk e l, M. lxv, 4, 10, 187, 214, 325, 873

1260 V olkl, R. 95 6 V o llen w e id e r, S. 560 V o lter, D. 1 5 ,9 8 2 V o o b u s , A. 1020, 1 0 3 9 -4 0 , 1062 V orster, W. S. 1172 Voss, G. lxv, 15, 39, 55, 158, 176, 1 9 8 2 0 0 ,4 8 9 , 102 0 -2 1 Votaw, C. W. lviii2 V ouga, F. 579 V riez e n , T. C. lviii2 W aal, C. van d e r lxv W a b n itz , A. 850 W a d d in g to n , W. G. 1022 W a elk e n s, R. 767 W a g e m a n n ,J . 264 W a g g ett, P. N . 850 W a g n er, G. lxvi, 934 W a g n er, H . 1028 W a g n er, V. 1039 W ag n er, W. 883 W a h lb e rg , R. C. 647 W a in w rig h t, A. W. lxvi, 999 W alaskay, P. W. lxvi, lviii2, 1103 W alker, D. A. 1176 W alker, Μ . B. 369 W alker, N. 96, 458, 1022 W alker, W. O . lviii2, 469, 1196 W all, R. W. 599, 6 34, 639, 642 W allace, R. W. 1176 W aller, W. 729 W allis, E. E. lviii2 W alls, A. F. 7 7 4 ,7 7 6 W alter, N . 883, 982, 1069, 1092 W a lth e r, G. 1039 W a lth e r, J . A. 1022 W a lth e r, Ο . K. 1196 W a lv o o rd ,J . F. 983 W a m b a c q , B. N . 1022 W a n k e, 1. lviii2, 4 34, 4 41, 1031, 1039, 1196 W a n sb ro u g h , H . lxvi, 61, lviii2, 1114, 1140 W a n se y ,J. C. 795 W a re , R. C. 1173 W a rd , A. M. 840 W a rd , R. A. 7 0 6 ,8 8 3 W a rfie ld , B. B. 865 W atk in s, R. 126 W a tso n , F. lxvi, 1173 W a tso n , N . M. 903 W eath erly , J . A. lviii2 W eb er, H .-R . 1019 W eber, S. 795 W eber, W. 96 W eb ster, C. A. 3 0 4 ,6 5 1 W e d er, H . xliii, lix, lxvi, 369, 546, 697, 753, 774, 779, 795, 865, 909, 911, 947 W e e d e n , T .J . 489, 495, 1140 W e g en a s t, K. 2 5 2 ,7 5 3 W e g n er, U . 312 W e h n e r t ,J . lviii2 W e h rli, E. S. 824 W eir, T. H . 9 62, 1174 W e in e rt, F. D. lxvi, 126, 131, 737, 742, 9 0 9 ,9 1 1 , 1224 W e ise n g o ff, J . P. 1150 W eiser, A. lix 2, 697, 6 9 9 -7 0 0 , 7 0 3 -4 , 721, 7 5 3 ,8 4 0 - 4 1 ,9 0 9 , 9 1 1 ,9 4 7 W eiss, J . 4 3 5 ,5 6 8 ,8 8 3 W eiss, K. 865

Index

of

Authors

W eisse, C. H . 435 W eissk o p f, R. 682 W e llh a u s e n ,J . x lix , 140, 185, 192, 199, 351, 435, 1002, 1039 W e n d lin g , E. 312, 315, 333 W en g st, K. 1173 W e n h a m , D. 3 7 7 ,3 8 1 - 8 2 ,5 1 6 - 1 7 ,6 9 7 , 8 5 0 ,9 8 3 - 8 4 W e n h a m , J . W. 252, lix2, 5 27, 883, 1092 W e n d in g , J . L. xx x i, 1 W e rb e c k ,J . 1168 W e re n , W. 1040 W e rn le , P. lxvi, 213 W e sc o tt, B. F. lix 2, 1 0 4 0 -4 1 W e s te rm a n n , C. 94, 108, lix 2, 1140 W e ste rn , W. 1074 W e tts te in , J . J . lxvi, 244, 807 W e y m a n n , V. 903 W h ita k e r, D. 1176 W h ite , J . L. 1019, 1040 W h ite , K. D. 3 6 9 ,3 7 1 - 7 2 W h ite , L. M . 634 W h ite , R. C. 9 03, 90 6 W ib b in g , S. 2 3 0 ,2 4 0 W ic k e rt, U . 1069 W ickes, D. R. 527 W ic k h a m , E. S. G. 58 7 W ic k in g s, H . F. 15 W ie b e , P. H . 813 W iefel, W. xx x v 2, 1002 W ifs tra n d , A. 865 W ijn g a a rd s , J . N . M . 4, 475, 813 W ik g re n , A. 8 5 0 ,8 5 3 W ilc k e n s, U . lxvi, 17, 96, 196, 3 5 0 -5 1 , 354, 3 5 6 -5 7 , 3 5 9 -6 0 , 1173, 1176 W ilco x , M. lxvi, 1069, 1092 W ild , R. A. 660 W ild e r, A. xliii, xliv, lxvi, 369, 371, 375, 629, 1174 W iles, M. 9 6 2 ,9 6 6 W ilk e n s, H . 1040 W ilk en s, W. lxvi, 137, 176, 424, 523, 1174 W ilk in so n , F. H . 587 W ilk in so n , J . 505, 721, 724, 1141 W illa e rt, B. 44 7 W illco c k , J . 1 6 6 ,9 0 3 W illiam s, C. S. C. lxvi W illiam s, E. 522 W illiam s, F. E. 795 W illiam s, G. O . 158 W illiam s, J . G. lix 2, 674 W illiam s, W. H . 4 89, 1154 W illis, G. G. 609 W 'ilshire, L. E. lxvi W ilso n , P S . 795 W ilso n , R. M. lxvi, 15 W ilso n , R. R. 166, 169 W ilso n , S. G. lxvi, lix 2, 1222, 1225 W ils o n , W. R. 1019 W im m e r, J . F. lix 2, 873 W im m e re r, R. 609 W in a n d y , J . 1 1 4 ,3 5 0 ,3 5 9 W in d e n , H . W. 1172 W in d e n g r e n . G. 1196 W in d is c h , H . 2 7 4 ,3 7 7 W in k , W. lxvi, 16, 21, 140, 587, 811 W in n e r t, A. R. 1040 W in sta n le y , E. W. 855 W in te r, P. 16, 2 1 -2 2 , 24, 2 7 -2 8 , 3 0 -3 1 , 29, 60, 7 1 , 1 0 7 ,1 1 4 ,1 2 1 ,1 2 6 , 568,

575, 1020, 1031, 1101, 1103, 1114, 1 1 2 8 -2 9 , 1140, 1162 W in te rb o th a m , R. 350, 909 W is e m a n , T. P. 96 W ith e rin g to n , B. 363, 3 6 6 -6 7 , 812 W ittig , S. lxvi W o b b e ,J . 96 W o jciech o w sk i, M. 1040 W o jc ik ,J . lix 2 W olfe, C. 251 W olfe, K. R. lxvi W o lp e rt, W. 2 9 1 ,5 7 9 W o o d , H . G. 350, 711 W o o d , I. F. 61 W oolsey, T. D. 1224 W o sch itz, K. M. 1172 W o u d e , A. S. van d e r lvii, 193, 450 W re d e , W. 230, 232, 447, 460, 970, 1028, 1040 W re g e , H.-T. 274, 299, 632, 674, 681, 689, 813, 1019 W re n , M. lxvi W rig h t, A. G. 19, 795, 977, 979 W rig h t, R. F. 1074 W u e lln e r, W. H . 219, 2 2 2 -2 3 , 673, 697 W ulf, F. 94, 1196, 1224 W u lf.W . 1150 W firth w e in , E. 141 W u rz in g e r, A. 609 X e n o p h o n 1 2 9 , 2 9 8 ,4 8 3 ,7 5 1 ,9 5 8 Y adin. Y. lxvi, 193, 1 1 4 0 -4 1 , 1145 Y a m a u ch i, E. M. 609 Y a rn o ld , E. lxvi Yates, J . E. 6 3 4 ,5 3 9 Yates, T. 1154 Y oder, J . H . lxvi, 190, 197, 489 Y oung, F. W. 715 Y ou n g , N . H . 579, 587, 873 Z a h n , T. vo n xlix, lxvi, 10, 26, 79, 96, 1 9 8 -9 9 , 201, 402 Z a u n e r, W. 779 Z eck, P. R. 1092 Z e d d a , S. 3 8 1 ,3 8 6 Z e h n le , R. 1021 Z e h re r, F. 1 0 1 9 ,1 1 7 3 Z e ilin g e r, F lix 2 Z e itlin , S. 717, 1022, 1040, 1103, 1105 Z eller, D. lxvi, 340, 650, 653, 731, 735, 7 3 8 -3 9 , 742 Z e rafa , P. 1022 Z e rw ick , M. lxvi, 39, 211, 527, 563, 588, 734, 909, 911 Zias, J . 1141 Z ie n e r, G. 434 Z iesler, J . A. lxvi, 240, 489, 499, 1040 Z ille so n , K. 219 Z im m e rli, W. 278, 883 Z im m e rm a n n , A. F. lxvi, 307 Z im m e rm a n n , H . 2 2 5 -2 6 , 228, 239, 389, 475, 538, 588, 590, 647, 7 2 6 -2 7 , 753, 795, 865, 870, 873, 894 Z in g g , P lxvi, 82, 90, 369 Z m ijew ski, J . 835, 849, 855, 983, 990, 996, 1002, 1 0 0 9 -1 0 , 1013 Z o re ll, F. 61 Z u g ib e , F T . 1140 Z u n tz , G. 312

Index of Principal Topics

A b r a h a m 2 7 -2 8 , 32, 3 5 -3 6 , 5 6 -5 7 , 59, 65, 73, 76, 85, 87, 92, 148, 154, 1 6 8 69, 172, 174, 213, 724, 8 2 9 -3 2 , 906, 1 2 1 8 ,1 2 2 7 , 1229 A d a m 55, 164, 167, 168, 1 7 2 -7 4 , 1 7 8 -7 9 , 182 A d u lte r y 8 1 6 -2 3 A g rip p a 1122 A n g e ls 19, 28, 32, 36, 40, 48, 51, 53, 58, 68, 74, 80, 9 8 -9 9 , 1 0 6 -0 9 , 112, 4 7 9 80, 679, 776, 829, 927, 9 6 5 -6 6 , 968, 1006, 1084, 1168, 1 1 7 8 -7 9 , 1 1 8 5 -8 6 , 1 1 8 8 -8 9 , 1190, 1 1 9 2 -9 4 , 1 2 0 2 -0 4 , 1 2 1 1 ,1 2 1 5 ,1 2 2 0 - 2 1 , 1228 A n o in t 354 A n ta g o n is tic 1104 A n ti-S e m itis m 233 A p o c a ly p tic 19, 28, 33, 149, 151, 1 5 4 -5 5 , 1 5 9 -6 0 , 163, 165, 207, 2 5 4 -5 5 , 327, 378, 383, 471, 641, 653, 668, 709, 7 3 3 ,9 8 5 , 1013, 1157, 1186 A p o llo n iu s o f T y a n a 3 2 0 -2 1 , 398 A p o lo g e tic 26, 57 A p o stle s, th e T w elve xxxiv, x li-x lii, 7, 9, 218, 221, 224, 244, 2 6 4 -7 2 , 275, 277, 306, 322, 324, 3 6 3 -6 6 , 397, 399, 401, 403, 406, 413, 416, 418, 420, 422, 4 2 5 -3 2 , 436, 4 3 8 -4 1 , 444, 446, 668, 8 3 8 -3 9 , 1049, 1050, 1056, 1060, 1 0 6 7 ,1 0 7 3 , 1075, 1 0 7 7 -7 8 A p o s to lic b a n d 1065 A ra m a ic 21, 42, 52, 148, 163, 171, 174, 192, 194, 2 7 0 -7 1 , 308, 330, 343, 3 4 5 -4 7 , 357, 366, 380, 383, 390, 407, 409, 422, 4 6 9 -7 1 , 554, 563, 611, 6 1 6 -1 7 , 640, 718, 755, 852, 876 A sc e n s io n 4 9 0 -9 1 , 494, 500, 503, 974, 1 2 0 4 ,1 2 1 5 -1 6 , 1 2 2 5 -2 6 , 1 2 2 9 -3 0 A t o n e m e n t 1045 A u th o rity xlii, 1 4 2 -4 3 , 159, 2 0 4 -0 5 , 2 0 8 09, 2 1 1 -1 2 , 222, 224, 232, 258, 309, 313, 317, 359, 4 0 0 -0 1 , 406, 413, 426, 925 B a b y lo n 1001 B a n q u e t 7 3 4 -3 6 , 7 4 7 - 5 1 ,7 5 3 - 5 5 B a p tis m 7, 12, 1 3 7 -3 8 , 1 4 0 -4 4 , 1 4 7 -4 8 , 1 5 0 -5 6 , 1 5 8 -6 2 , 165, 171, 176, 182, 196, 235, 269, 314, 358, 412, 463, 7 0 7 -0 8 B a ra b b a s 1 1 2 9 -3 3 B a rtim a e u s 898 B e a titu d e s xli, 194, 2 7 9 -9 0 , 327, 331, 333 B e th a n y 923 B e tra y a l 131, 515, 1 0 2 9 -3 0 , 1041, 1058, 1 0 6 0 ,1 0 8 7 -9 0 , 1127 B la s p h em y 2 3 5 -3 6 , 239, 359, 679, 681-8 2 , 1 0 9 9 -1 1 0 0 B lessin g 552, 554, 645, 751, 758, 1179, 1 2 2 6 -2 7 , 1229 B lo o d 1042, 1045, 1047, 1050, 1054, 1059 B re a d 1042 B u rial 1 1 6 3 -6 5 , 1167, 1186, 1188, 1192 C a e s a r 956 C all, to fo llo w C h ris t 544

C a n tic le s 2 0 -2 2 , 6 2 -6 3 , 8 3 -8 5 , 9 1 -9 2 , 116 C a p e r n a u m xli, 1 8 4 -8 7 , 1 9 1 -9 2 , 195, 1 9 7 -9 8 , 2 00, 202, 2 0 4 -0 5 , 2 0 8 -0 9 , 2 1 3 -1 7 , 233, 315, 318, 322, 324, 549, 5 5 6 -5 7 , 560 C e le b ra tio n 786, 788, 7 9 0 -9 1 C h ild , c h ild r e n , little o n e s 25, 31, 148, 3 3 5 ,3 3 7 - 3 9 , 3 4 1 -4 4 , 3 4 6 -4 8 , 360, 5 0 8 -1 1 , 5 1 8 -2 1 , 595, 629, 631 , 7 4 2 43, 789, 8 8 0 -8 2 , 932, 965 C h ild r e n o f G o d 610, 619 C h risto lo g y 8, 132, 133, 1 5 9 -6 0 , 165, 171, 182, 1 9 5 -9 6 , 2 1 8 -1 9 , 221, 235, 2 39, 253, 255, 2 5 7 -5 8 , 269, 2 7 3 -7 4 , 323, 330, 337, 3 9 8 -9 9 , 435, 439, 441, 4 4 3 -4 4 , 448, 451, 465, 467, 550, 613 B e lo v e d 1 6 5 ,9 5 1 C h o s e n (o n e ) 453, 501, 504, 1 1 4 6 -4 7 , 1149 C o m in g O n e 89, 143, 151, 3 2 7 -2 8 Jesus 918, 9 2 2 -2 3 , 927, 931, 938, 941, 997, 1072, 1114 J e s u s as a ro y al fig u re xxxiv, 106, 107, 450 L o rd xxvii, 27, 97, 1 4 3 -4 4 , 160, 260, 309, 324, 360, 4 1 2 -1 3 , 426, 450, 453, 549, 562, 604, 705, 724, 838, 925, 1184 L o r d o f th e h a rv e s t 550 M a n o f D e stin y 515 M essiah xlii, 41, 52, 56, 65, 83, 86, 89, 97, 104, 107, 112, 1 1 9 -2 0 , 1 2 4 -2 5 , 1 5 1 -5 2 , 155, 1 6 3 -6 5 , 179, 196, 214, 2 5 4 -5 5 , 283, 315, 326, 328, 3 6 3 -6 4 , 432, 444, 4 4 7 -5 4 , 482, 742, 744, 826, 833, 856, 862, 971, 973, 984, 991, 1 1 0 7 - 08, 1111, 1 Π 3 , 1 1 1 9 -2 0 , 1 1 0 8 - 10, 1118, 1120, 1146, 1184, 1187, 1204, 1208, 1221, 1226 S o n xli, 52, 56, 5 8 -5 9 , 163, 1 7 0 -7 1 , 179, 4 0 8 ,4 4 8 ,4 9 2 S o n o f D avid (D avidic M e ssia h ) 23, 52, 84, 150, 162, 450, 899, 900, 901, 971 S o n o f G o d 25, 4 1 -4 2 , 4 4 -4 8 , 52, 5 4 55, 5 8 -5 9 , 1 3 2 -3 3 , 135, 158, 163, 167, 171, 1 7 3 -7 4 , 177, 179, 1 8 1 -8 2 , 214, 411, 496, 5 6 9 -7 0 , 5 7 3 -7 6 , 954, 971 S o n o f M a n xli, 2 3 1 -3 3 , 237, 239, 241, 2 5 4 -5 5 , 258, 274, 2 8 4 -8 6 , 290, 294, 301, 328, 345, 348, 448, 451, 459, 460, 465, 4 6 7 -7 2 , 473, 479, 480, 486, 512, 515, 6 5 3 -5 4 , 675, 679, 700, 835, 8 4 9 -5 1 , 8 5 6 -5 8 , 863, 8 6 5 -6 6 , 870, 8 9 5 -9 6 , 9 0 3 -0 4 , 9 07, 918, 939, 971, 9 7 4 , 983, 987, 9 88, 9 9 9 , 1003, 1 0 0 5 07, 1 0 1 2 -1 4 , 1059, 1 0 6 3 -6 4 , 1 1 0 7 -1 0 , 1112, 1188, 1190, 1193, 1204, 1208, 1210, 1212, 1230, 1259 S u ffe rin g S e r v a n t 467 T e a c h e r 356, 421 C h u r c h , e a rly 550, 613, 728, 935, 1071, 1 0 7 3 -7 4 , 1076, 1078 C o m m is s io n in g f o rm 24, 35 C o m p a s sio n 5 0 8 -0 9 , 5 9 2 -9 7 , 688, 784, 790 C o n fe s sio n 785, 790, 879

C o v e n a n t 1042, 1 0 5 4 -5 5 , 1057, 1059, 1 1 5 7 ,1 2 2 0 C r e a tio n 929 C ro ss 4 6 3 , 476, 477, 4 82, 4 83, 490, 504, 525, 529, 861, 1060, 1 1 3 6 -3 7 , 1142, 1 1 4 4 ,1 1 4 5 -4 9 , 1 1 5 5 ,1 1 5 9 , 1164 C ro ss b e a rin g 483, 7 6 1 -6 6 C ro w d (s) 28, 35, 1 4 7 -4 8 , 1 5 0 -5 1 , 154, 2 2 0 -2 1 , 224, 228, 233, 238, 245, 2 7 5 -2 7 6 , 279, 281, 288, 309, 313, 318, 322, 3 2 4 -3 6 , 339, 370, 373, 375, 3 9 4 -9 5 , 412, 414, 4 1 8 -2 1 , 423, 4 3 5 36, 4 3 9 -4 3 , 4 4 5 -4 7 , 4 5 1 -5 2 , 677, 712, 7 2 4 -2 5 C ru c ifix io n , cro ss 131, 139, 180, 214, 244, 254, 4 2 2 -2 3 , 449, 477, 513, 1015, 1023, 1132, 1136, 1 1 4 2 -4 5 , 1148, 1 1 5 5 -5 6 , 1 1 6 0 -6 1 , 1 1 6 4 -6 5 , 1 1 8 2 ,1 1 8 8 D a rk n e s s 1188 D avid 48, 52, 5 7 -5 8 , 66, 73, 75, 86, 9 1 92, 98, 104, 1 0 6 -0 7 , 109, 111, 1 6 8 -6 9 , 1 7 1 -7 2 , 174, 2 5 7 -5 8 , 453, 9 0 6 ,9 1 3 , 9 7 3 -7 4 D e a th 484, 5 3 4 -3 5 , 542, 687, 806, 829, 831, 964, 9 9 7 -9 8 , 1045, 1047, 1 0 4 9 53, 1 0 5 6 -5 7 , 1059, 1068, 1073, 1075, 1077, 1105, 1183, 1221 D e a th , b e y o n d 422, 967, 1204 D e a th o f J e s u s 918, 927, 929, 964, 9 7 3 74, 1026, 1044, 1053, 1135, 1 1 3 7 -3 9 , 1145, 1 1 5 2 -5 3 , 1 1 5 6 -5 8 , 1 1 6 0 -6 1 , 1 1 6 3 -6 4 , 1184 D e liv e ra n c e 1005 D e m o n s , d e m o n ic 142, 1 7 7 -7 8 , 185, 2 0 6 -2 0 7 , 209, 212, 214, 329, 345, 4 0 4 -0 5 , 4 0 8 -1 1 , 4 1 3 -1 4 , 426, 5 0 6 11, 522, 564, 566, 6 3 5 -3 7 , 6 4 2 -4 3 , 6 4 5 -4 7 , 723 D e n ia l 1081, 1 0 9 3 -9 7 D e s tru c tio n o f T e m p le / J e r u s a l e m x x x v iii-x x x ix , 316, 990, 991, 993 D iscip les, d isc ip le s h ip xxiv, xli, 151, 211, 2 20, 2 2 2 -2 3 , 2 4 1 -4 7 , 2 4 9 -5 0 , 2 5 5 58, 260, 265, 269, 2 7 3 -7 7 , 279, 2 8 1 -8 2 , 284, 286, 288, 290, 294, 297, 300, 302, 3 0 6 -1 0 , 318, 322, 3 2 5 -2 9 , 332, 355, 3 7 9 -8 0 , 389, 3 9 6 -4 0 1 , 404, 412, 414, 420, 435, 437, 4 3 9 -4 7 , 4 5 0 -5 4 , 476, 4 8 1 -8 2 , 485, 4 9 6 -9 8 , 500, 502, 504, 507, 509, 5 1 4 -1 5 , 5 1 8 19, 521, 5 2 4 -2 5 , 527, 539, 5 4 3 -4 4 , 548, 550, 566, 5 7 6 -7 7 , 6 0 3 -0 4 , 607, 612, 619, 675, 677, 681, 690, 7 0 1 -0 2 , 705, 761, 7 6 3 -6 6 , 844, 848, 881, 885, 896, 914, 922, 9 2 4 -2 5 , 9 2 7 -2 9 , 931, 9 75, 977, 9 8 6 -8 8 , 9 9 0 , 9 9 2 -9 3 , 9 9 5 98, 1000, 1003, 1 0 0 6 -0 8 , 1 0 1 2 -1 3 , 1 0 2 4 ,1 0 3 2 ,1 0 3 4 - 3 5 ,1 0 4 3 - 4 4 , 1058, 1062, 1064, 1066, 1068, 1070, 1072, 1077, 1 0 8 3 -8 5 , 1 0 8 7 -8 8 , 1090, 1110, 1136, 1168, 1 1 7 8 -7 9 , 1 1 8 1 -8 3 , 1 1 8 7 -8 8 , 1 1 9 0 -9 1 , 1193, 1 1 9 8 -1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 2 -0 4 , 1 2 0 6 -1 2 , 1 2 1 4 -1 6 , 1218, 1 2 2 0 -2 1 , 1 2 2 5 -2 6 , 1 2 2 8 -2 9 D iv o rce 8 1 7 -2 3

1262 E ld e rs 963 E lija h , E lish a 17, 31, 36, 177, 194, 201, 203, 226, 322, 324, 330, 337, 352, 398, 430, 4 3 2 -3 3 , 442, 444, 491, 4 9 7 -9 9 , 5 0 2 -0 3 , 5 3 3 -3 7 , 539, 543, 545, 552, 559, 829, 833, 845, 978, 1117, 1143, 1155, 1183, 1189, 1221, 1 2 2 5 ,1 2 2 8 -2 9 E s c h a to lo g ic a l j u d g m e n t 91 7 E s c h a to lo g ic a l u r g e n c y 905 E s c h a to lo g y xxxviii, 7, 13, 19, 2 4 -2 5 , 2 9 32, 3 5 -3 6 , 41, 45, 48, 54, 5 8 -5 9 , 6 3 -6 4 , 68, 70, 71, 7 4 -7 6 , 8 3 -8 5 , 8 8 89, 91, 98, 103, 1 0 6 -0 7 , 1 1 1 -1 2 , 116, 118, 1 4 0 -4 2 , 146, 1 4 9 -5 0 , 1 5 2 -5 5 , 1 9 3 ,1 9 6 -9 9 , 210, 2 3 6 -3 7 , 239, 244, 248, 250, 275, 280, 2 8 2 -8 4 , 286, 292, 294, 313, 315, 318, 3 2 2 -3 2 3 , 3 2 7 -3 9 , 3 4 2 -4 3 , 3 4 5 -4 6 , 348, 352, 3 5 8 -6 1 , 375, 378, 383, 390, 4 08, 4 2 0 -2 2 , 427, 4 3 2 , 435, 438, 4 4 2 -4 4 , 4 5 0 -4 5 1 , 453, 563, 571, 576, 616, 6 36, 654, 702, 7 0 7 -0 9 , 728, 732, 742, 751, 753, 866, 869, 957, 9 8 4 , 9 97, 1010, 1 0 1 2 -1 3 , 1045, 1050, 1066, 1108, 1118, 1152, 1156 E te rn a l life 8 83, 892 E u c h a ris t 437, 4 4 1 -4 3 , 446, 1 0 5 1 -5 2 , 1054, 1056, 1060, 1206, 1215 E x a lta tio n 1062, 1070 E x e c u tio n o f j e s u s 9 4 0 , 952 E x o d u s 71, 7 5 -7 6 , 161, 280, 437, 442, 4 4 4 -4 5 , 5 0 3 -0 4 , 510 E x o rc is m 197, 2 0 4 -0 5 , 2 0 7 -2 1 4 , 216, 2 7 6 -7 7 , 329, 363, 366, 399, 4 0 4 -0 5 , 4 0 8 -0 9 , 4 2 5 -2 6 , 5 0 7 -1 1 , 5 2 3 -2 5 , 562, 564, 6 3 6 -4 3 , 646 F a ith a n d h is to r y 1 1 -1 2 F a ith , b e lie v in g ix, xxviii, x x x ii-x x x iii, xxxviii, x x x ix , xlvi, 6, 1 1 -1 2 , 25, 33, 57, 59, 6 7 -6 8 , 74, 79, 81, 116, 159, 202, 210, 214, 220, 234, 238, 286, 297, 302, 314, 3 1 8 -1 9 , 3 5 9 -6 0 , 385, 392, 3 9 4 ,3 9 8 -4 0 0 , 4 02, 413, 4 1 5 -1 8 , 4 2 0 -2 1 , 423, 436, 444, 446, 449, 451, 453, 6 9 3 -9 5 , 789, 834, 8 3 7 -3 9 , 844, 848, 866, 870, 877, 8 9 9 -9 0 1 , 972, 1 0 7 2 -7 3 , 1190, 1216, 1230 F a ith fu ln e s s 71, 109, 178, 228, 789 Fam ily, J e s u s ’ fam ily xlii, 116, 122, 132, 134, 3 9 3 -9 5 , 540, 574, 577, 7 0 9 -1 0 , 7 6 1 -6 6 , 7 8 5 -8 7 , 830, 833, 891, 998 F a s tin g xli, 1 2 2 -2 3 , 129, 2 4 1 -4 4 , 2 4 6 -4 8 , 287, 876, 879 F e a r 29, 35, 40, 49, 51, 58, 67, 7 1 -7 2 , 76, 8 0 -8 1 , 106, 208, 224, 238, 295, 323, 379, 4 0 0 -0 1 , 412, 414, 501, 6 9 4 -9 6 , 1216 F e a st o f T a b e rn a c le s 4 9 1 -9 2 , 501, 504 F ire 149, 1 5 1 -5 5 , 463, 7 0 8 -1 0 F o rg iv e n e s s xli, 8 4 -8 5 , 89, 9 1 -9 2 , 137, 1 4 1 -4 4 , 148, 150, 154, 160, 197, 202, 227, 2 3 2 -3 3 , 2 3 5 -3 9 , 297, 301, 348, 3 5 1 -5 4 , 356, 3 5 8 -6 2 , 6 1 7 -1 8 , 6 2 0 21, 6 76, 680, 8 3 7 -3 9 , 1144, 1 1 4 8 -4 9 , 1 1 8 0 ,1 2 1 9 -2 0 F ru it, fru itf u ln e s s 1 4 8 -4 9 , 154, 306, 3 0 8 09, 311, 374, 3 8 6 -8 8 , 3 9 1 -9 2 , 7 1 8 -1 9 F u lfillm e n t ( o f S c r ip tu re ) 7, 33, 137, 198, 380 G a lile e xli, 23, 25, 40, 49, 57, 116, 128, 139, 1 8 4 -8 6 , 188, 195, 202, 205, 208,

Index

of

Principal T opics

216, 234, 322, 3 2 4 -2 5 , 366, 370, 406, 413, 436, 440, 541, 558, 1123, 1125, 1 1 6 1 ,1 1 8 1 ,1 1 8 8 , 1190, 1192 G e h e n n a , 678 G e n e r a tio n (th is) xlii, 3 4 1 -4 3 , 3 4 7 -4 8 G e n tile s x xxii, xxxiv, xxxvii, 73, 12, 124, 138, 141, 150, 195, 201, 203, 222, 2 7 6 -7 7 , 299, 3 1 4 -1 9 , 351, 401, 406, 411, 4 1 2 -1 5 , 652, 665, 670, 7 3 5 ,7 5 9 , 820, 895, 935, 1001, 1218 G e th s e m a n e 4 9 1 ,5 0 3 , 1082 G lo rific a tio n o f j e s u s 4 9 4 -9 5 , 5 0 3 -0 4 , 537 G lo rify in g G o d 110, 238, 3 2 3 -2 4 , 342, 901 G lo ry 54, 59, 98 , 102, 103, 106, 108, 110, 112, 120, 124, 144, 180, 182, 239, 254, 280, 461, 472, 473, 479, 484, 485, 490, 494, 496, 513, 518, 847, 96 6 , 97 3 , 1 0 0 6 -0 7 , 1060, 1066, 1068, 1139, 1157, 1179, 1 2 0 4 -0 5 , 1 2 0 7 -0 8 , 1230 G n o s tic is m 573 G o d 9 0 1 , 906, 91 1 , 912, 9 1 4 , 9 18, 927, 9 4 4 , 959, 96 0 , 961, 9 65, 9 74, 989, 1072, 1 1 1 0 -1 2 , 1138, 1151, 1156, 1160, 1184, 1203, 1220 G o d ’s p r e s e n c e 4 9 4 G o d , th e F a t h e r xli, 45, 128, 1 3 1 -3 2 , 134, 179, 309, 4 64, 4 67, 4 84, 4 9 7 -9 8 , 51 4 , 547, 558, 5 66, 5 7 2 -7 3 , 576, 6 1 2 -1 3 , 619, 6 2 2 -2 3 , 6 2 6 -2 7 , 629, 6 3 1 -3 2 , 664, 678, 691, 6 9 3 -9 4 , 7 7 0 71, 781, 7 8 8 -8 9 , 807, 8 3 2 -3 3 , 8 6 7 -7 1 , 878, 8 8 5 -8 8 , 955, 1066, 1083, 1085, 1137, 1139, 1146, 1148, 1 1 5 8 -6 0 , 1184, 1229, 1230 G o d - f ig u r e 9 49, 9 5 0 , 95 4 G o o d n e s s 88 7 G ra c e 51, 123, 125, 198, 199, 202, 316, 319, 327, 3 3 1 -3 2 , 348, 352, 359, 362, 379, 387, 734, 736, 8 7 7 -7 9 G r a titu d e 844 G r e a tn e s s 35, 99, 222, 334, 5 1 9 - 2 0 G r e e d 688 H a d e s 557, 827, 8 2 9 -3 0 , 832, 1153 H a r v e s t 551 H e a lin g x li-x lii, 197, 2 1 0 -1 4 , 216, 219, 2 2 5 -3 2 , 2 3 7 -3 9 , 253, 2 5 9 -6 2 , 276, 280, 313, 3 1 8 -2 1 , 326, 329, 332, 363, 364, 3 6 6 -6 7 , 399, 412, 4 1 7 -2 0 , 4 2 5 26, 4 2 8 -2 9 , 441, 5 0 6 -1 1 , 553, 559, 562, 7 2 2 -2 5 , 7 4 5 -4 7 , 845, 899, 1088, 1 0 9 0 ,1 1 8 5 , 1221 H e a r t 71, 80, 89, 110, 122, 125, 148, 1 5 3 -5 4 , 205, 235, 257, 294, 300, 302, 3 0 8 ,3 1 1 ,3 8 2 , 3 8 5 ,3 8 7 - 8 8 , 392 H e a v e n 92, 9 7 - 9 8 , 102, 1 0 8 -0 9 , 141, 155, 1 5 9 -6 3 , 182, 237, 285, 287, 309, 370, 374, 443, 566, 6 79, 6 91, 694, 784, 829, 8 3 1 -3 2 , 888, 927, 9 6 5 -6 6 , 9 6 8 , 979, 1157, 1 1 7 8 -7 9 , 1183, 1 2 0 4 -0 5 , 1 2 2 0 -2 1 , 1 2 2 5 -2 6 , 1 2 2 8 30 H e r o d 7 3 9 - 4 1 ,7 4 3 H e r o d A n tip a s 101, 139, 140, 150, 1 5 6 57, 159, 3 1 6 -1 7 326, 3 6 6 -6 7 , 4 3 0 -3 3 , 445, 453, 913, 9 1 7 -1 8 , 1099, 1104, 1 1 2 1 -2 7 , 1129 H is to ric a l J e s u s , h isto ric ity xxviii, x lv iixlviii, 46, 48, 105, 159, 193, 195, 232, 253, 255, 321, 3 2 6 -2 7 , 334, 341, 345, 352, 366, 390, 393, 413, 4 1 6 -1 7 , 435, 445, 449, 4 59, 460, 478, 479, 480,

4 85, 540, 554, 570, 582, 611, 613, 616, 629, 635, 640, 645, 648, 656, 662, 676, 684, 699, 739, 750, 762, 769, 801, 8 1 5 -1 6 , 836, 845, 856, 869, 874, 890, 90 4 , 911, 9 4 2 , 9 49, 9 63, 970, 97 2 , 975, 978, 9 86, 9 95, 1000, 1008, 1032, 1042, 1044, 1047, 1052, 1055, 1059, 1071, 1082, 1181, 1190, 1200, 1225, 1229 H o ly S p irit 23, 3 0 -3 1 , 35, 4 1 -4 2 , 4 4 -4 5 , 47, 5 4 -5 6 , 5 8 -5 9 , 66, 75, 85, 91, 1 1 8 -1 9 , 122, 1 2 4 -2 5 , 135, 1 4 2 -4 4 , 147, 1 5 1 -5 3 , 155, 158, 1 6 0 -6 3 , 165, 1 6 7 -6 8 , 1 7 0 -7 1 , 173, 1 7 7 -7 8 , 182, 1 8 4 -8 8 , 1 9 6 -9 7 , 202, 2 0 8 -0 9 , 269, 272, 322, 450, 1180, 1190, 1221 H o s p ita lity 211, 352, 354, 357, 425, 4 2 7 29, 435, 4 3 9 -4 3 , 446, 5 2 0 -2 1 , 5 3 4 -3 5 , 549, 553, 559, 6 0 1 -0 4 , 6 2 4 27, 751, 799, 905, 976, 1205, 1208, 1214 H u m ility 749, 8 8 1 -8 2 , 884, 1062, 1064 H y p o c ris y 275, 3 0 6 -0 7 , 309, 311, 6 7 6 77, 681, 7 1 1 -1 2 , 714, 7 2 S -2 5 , 876 Im m o rta lity 96 6 I n s tr u c tio n 508 Isa ia h 931 Isra e l x xxii, 19, 28, 31, 3 5 -3 6 , 46, 65, 69, 7 1 -7 3 , 76, 88, 103, 1 0 7 -0 8 , 116, 1 2 0 -2 1 , 1 2 3 -2 5 , 141, 1 4 8 -4 9 , 151, 155, 162, 164, 170, 174, 178, 1 8 1 -8 2 , 192, 195, 201, 203, 227, 229, 255, 287, 3 1 4 -1 5 , 318, 343, 445, 447, 449, 510, 551, 565, 636, 642, 644, 696, 733, 7 3 5 -3 6 , 784, 869 J a m e s 211, 2 2 3 -2 4 , 2 6 4 -6 5 , 270, 418, 4 2 1 -2 2 , 426, 496, 534, 536, 906, 913, 9 36, 9 50, 954, 973, 1001, 1003, 1009, 1 0 6 7 -6 8 , 1225 J e r e m ia h 930, 931, 937, 986, 9 8 8 -8 9 , 1139 J e r i c h o 593, 8 9 8 -9 9 , 901, 9 0 3 -0 4 , 913 J e r u s a le m xxxviii, 40, 49, 104, 111, 1 1 6 18, 1 2 2 -2 5 , 1 2 8 -2 9 , 1 3 3 -3 5 , 144, 172, 179, 1 8 1 -8 3 , 2 0 0 -0 3 , 234, 431, 448, 453, 458, 461, 482, 501, 503, 525, 558, 718, 733, 7 3 8 -3 9 , 762, 853, 861, 895, 899, 9 0 2 -0 4 , 907, 910, 9 1 2 -1 3 , 9 1 7 -1 8 , 9 2 1 -2 4 , 9 2 6 -2 8 , 9 3 0 -3 4 , 9 3 7 -3 9 , 94 1 , 95 4 , 98 5 , 9 8 6 89, 99 1 , 9 9 3 -9 4 , 9 9 9 -1 0 0 6 , 1104, 1119, 1 1 2 2 -2 3 , 1 1 2 5 -2 6 , 1145, 1160, 1 1 7 7 -7 9 , 1181, 1185, 1188, 1192, 1 2 0 0 -0 1 , 1206, 1209, 1 2 1 8 -2 1 , 1 2 2 5 -2 6 J e s u s ’ s u ffe rin g s 1050, 1066 J e w ish c re d e n tia ls o f C h ris tia n ity xxxix, 123, 188 Je w ish le a d e r s 316, 342, 347, 885 J e w ish P e o p le 515, 559, 735, 742 Je w ish p ie ty 17, 19, 23, 26, 34, 40, 1 2 3 24, 139 J e w ish p r a y e r 6 1 1 ,6 1 3 - 1 4 Je w ish tr a d itio n 467, 472, 4 9 8 -9 9 , 542. 544, 549, 555, 563, 5 8 1 -8 2 , 585, 6 6 7 -6 9 , 671, 727, 739, 742, 773, 785, 8 2 6 ,8 2 9 ,8 3 1 - 3 2 , 8 6 0 -6 2 Jew s, J e w ish x x x ii-x x x iii, xxxv, x x x v iix x x ix , xli, xliv, 4, 10, 13, 1 7 -1 9 , 2 4 -2 5 , 32, 34, 36, 4 0 -4 2 , 4 4 -4 7 , 49, 5 2 -5 3 , 5 7 -5 9 , 66, 73, 76, 79, 85. 91, 9 9 ,1 0 1 ,1 0 4 , 1 1 5 ,1 1 7 -1 8 , 1 2 0 -2 4 , 1 2 9 -3 0 , 132, 1 3 8 -3 9 , 1 4 4 -4 5 , 1 4 7 -4 8 ,

Index of Principal Topics 150, 162, 165, 1 7 3 -7 4 , 179, 181, 192, 1 9 5 -9 7 , 1 9 9 -2 0 3 , 212, 222, 226, 2 3 2 -3 3 , 2 36, 2 6 6 -6 7 , 270, 2 7 6 -7 7 , 2 7 9 -8 0 , 282, 2 8 5 -8 6 , 2 8 8 -9 0 , 2 9 8 300, 3 0 2 -0 4 , 307, 3 1 4 -1 9 , 3 2 1 -2 5 , 3 2 8 -2 9 , 3 3 2 -3 3 , 3 3 8 -3 9 , 3 4 6 -4 7 , 3 5 4 -5 5 , 3 7 5 -7 6 , 379, 382, 398, 401, 4 07, 4 1 2 -1 4 , 4 19, 4 2 2 -2 3 , 430, 437, 441, 449, 451, 453, 936, 938, 941, 961, 9 6 7 -6 8 , 972, 9 79, 995, 1106, 1112 J o b 1073, 1076, 1078 J o h n ( th e A p o s tle ) 211, 2 2 3 -2 4 , 2 6 4 -6 5 , 270, 418, 4 2 1 -2 2 , 426, 4 93, 496, 5 2 3 -2 5 , 534, 536, 1025, 1 0 3 3 -3 4 , 1041, 1 1 0 4 -0 5 , 1107, 1116, 1124, 1126, 1210 J o h n ( th e B a p tist) x li-x lii, 7, 1 2 -1 3 , 1 7 26, 2 9 -3 2 , 3 4 -3 5 , 40, 57, 60, 6 6 -6 8 , 7 4 -7 5 , 77, 7 9 -8 1 , 8 3 -8 5 , 9 1 -9 2 , 98, 103, 110, 1 1 5 -1 6 , 1 2 3 -2 4 , 1 3 7 -4 4 , 1 4 6 -5 2 , 1 5 4 -6 0 , 2 4 2 -4 3 , 247, 2 4 9 50, 269, 3 1 3 -1 5 , 318, 3 2 0 -2 2 , 324, 3 2 6 -4 2 , 3 4 4 -4 8 , 3 5 1 -5 4 , 3 5 8 -6 1 , 4 1 2 ,4 3 0 - 3 3 , 499, 520, 5 3 5 ,6 1 2 ,6 1 9 , 637, 8 1 4 -1 5 , 822, 831, 9 4 2 -4 5 , 972, 1 0 2 6 ,1 0 5 5 ,1 2 1 9 , 1221 J o s e p h ( F a th e r o f je s u s ) 1228 J o s e p h o f A r im a th e a 1 1 6 3 -6 6 , 1187 J o u r n e y 898 J o u r n e y to J e r u s a le m 4 6 7 ,5 2 7 - 3 7 ,5 4 1 , 544, 602, 741 Joy, re jo ic in g , c e le b r a tio n 13, 18, 2 3 -2 4 , 30, 3 4 -3 5 , 4 9 -5 0 , 58, 63, 65, 6 7 -6 8 , 74, 78, 8 1 ,1 0 6 - 0 7 ,1 1 2 ,1 2 1 , 125, 155, 2 4 4 -4 5 , 2 4 7 -4 8 , 2 5 0 -5 1 , 279, 284, 286, 289, 330, 3 4 4 -4 5 , 348, 385, 388, 436, 769, 7 7 2 -7 6 , 780, 7 8 6 -8 9 , 1179, 1214, 1216, 1226, 1230 J u d a h 973 J u d a s 271, 1023, 1 0 2 9 -3 1 , 1060, 1085, 1 0 8 7 -9 0 J u d g e 8 6 7 -7 1 J u d g in g 3 0 7 -0 8 , 1067 J u d g m e n t 483, 536, 557, 564, 653, 675, 687, 699, 7 0 7 -1 0 , 7 1 6 -1 9 , 829, 869 J u d g m e n t , day o f 556 J u d g m e n t o f G o d , e s c h a to lo g ic a l j u d g m e n t xxxviii, 31, 1 4 1 -4 2 , 150, 280, 306, 310, 332, 481, 555, 5 5 8 -5 9 , 614, 651, 6 5 4 -5 5 , 668, 676, 6 7 8 -7 9 , 681, 686, 705, 7 1 2 -1 5 , 718, 7 4 2 -4 3 , 8 6 0 -6 3 , 9 3 2 -3 3 , 958, 967, 969, 974, 97 7 , 9 8 6 -8 8 , 992, 9 9 5 -9 6 , 9 9 8 -1 0 0 5 , 1007, 1009, 1010, 1013, 1067, 1138, 1 1 3 9 ,1 1 5 6 ,1 1 5 7 J u d ic ia l a u th o r ity —J e w ish a n d R o m a n 297 J u s tic e 8 6 7 -8 7 1 , 1153 K ing 926, 92 7 K in g d o m o f G o d xlii, xlv, 52, 1 4 2 -4 4 , 193, 212, 2 1 5 -1 7 , 226, 243, 2 8 1 -8 3 , 2 8 7 -9 0 , 313, 335, 3 3 7 -3 9 , 341, 344, 347, 364, 3 6 7 -6 8 , 370, 373, 376, 3 7 9 -8 0 , 3 9 1 -9 2 , 396, 4 2 5 -2 6 , 4 2 8 29, 436, 439, 441, 445, 481, 483, 4 8 5 -8 6 , 502, 506, 5 4 0 -4 2 , 554, 561, 572, 5 7 5 -7 6 , 602, 6 0 5 -0 6 , 6 1 4 -1 6 , 620, 636, 6 4 0 -4 4 , 6 4 6 -4 7 , 6 5 1 -5 4 , 691, 6 9 4 -9 6 , 7 0 1 -0 3 , 718, 7 2 8 -3 0 , 7 3 2 -3 6 , 7 4 5 -4 8 , 7 5 4 -5 6 , 763, 773, 7 9 5 -9 6 , 807, 8 1 4 -1 5 , 8 2 0 -2 3 , 8 3 4 35, 847, 8 4 9 -5 4 , 872, 874, 8 8 1 -8 2 , 8 8 4 -9 2 , 905, 907, 9 08, 9 1 1 -1 3 , 918, 935, 936, 939, 972, 983, 988, 999,

1 0 0 3 ,1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 0 -1 1 , 1 0 4 3 -4 4 , 1 0 4 9 -5 2 , 1056, 1060, 1078, 1164 K n o w le d g e 669 L a st S u p p e r 1 0 2 3 -2 5 , 1 0 4 4 -4 5 , 1 0 4 7 -4 8 , 1051, 1 0 5 3 -5 6 , 1 0 5 9 -6 0 , 1 0 6 5 -6 6 , 1 1 7 7 -7 8 , 1206 Law, c o m m a n d m e n ts 27, 79, 81, 105, 113, 1 1 6 -1 7 , 119, 1 2 3 -2 4 , 147, 149, 154, 174, 225, 2 2 8 -2 9 , 257, 375, 379, 499, 580, 5 8 2 -8 5 , 590, 5 9 3 -9 5 , 6 6 5 66, 671, 704, 782, 7 9 5 -9 6 , 802, 8 1 7 -2 3 , 8 2 6 -2 7 , 831, 833, 845, 876, 8 8 4 -8 6 , 906, 936, 944, 961, 1106, 1112, 1165, 1213, 1205 L aw yers 6 6 2 -6 3 , 6 6 6 -6 7 L e a d e rs 927, 9 3 9 -4 0 , 942, 944, 948, 952, 1 0 2 9 -3 0 , 1 0 3 4 ,1 1 0 4 , 1109, 1110, 1 1 1 2 ,1 1 1 6 -1 9 , 1121, 1 1 2 5 -2 8 , 1130, 1 1 3 3 ,1 1 3 8 ,1 1 6 4 ,1 2 0 2 ,1 2 0 8 L eprosy, le p e r s 2 2 6 -2 9 , 3 2 9 -3 0 , 8 4 5 -4 8 L iberty, re le a s e 1 9 7 ,2 1 1 ,2 4 1 ,7 2 4 - 2 5 L ife, e te r n a l life xlii, 219, 221, 324, 3 8 7 88, 392, 394, 4 1 7 -1 8 , 4 2 1 -2 2 , 6 8 1 -8 2 , 6 8 4 -8 8 , 6 9 1 -9 5 , 763, 861 L ig h t 90 , 92, 120, 124, 2 41, 391, 394, 6 5 7 -5 9 , 663, 677, 701, 705 L ove ( o f G o d , n e ig h b o r , e n e m y ) xli, 149, 2 6 1 -6 2 , 273, 2 7 5 -7 6 , 2 9 3 -9 6 , 2 9 8 -3 0 3 , 3 0 5 -0 7 , 3 0 9 -1 1 , 331, 333, 3 5 8 ,5 7 8 ,5 8 0 - 8 5 , 5 9 0 -9 8 , 6 0 1 -0 3 , 605, 807, 1144 L oyalty 4 86, 8 4 1 -4 3 L u k e a n d P a u l xxxv, xxxvi, 1042 M agic 1 7 8 ,3 9 8 ,4 1 7 ,4 2 3 M a rk 1025, 1042 M a rria g e 26, 49, 58, 104, 122, 1 7 2 -7 4 , 248, 250, 419, 8 1 6 -2 3 , 9 6 4 -6 5 , 968 M a ry ( m o t h e r o f J e s u s ) xlii, 18, 23, 26, 29, 3 3 -3 4 , 4 0 -4 2 , 4 5 -5 1 , 5 3 -6 0 , 6 3 65, 6 7 -7 1 , 7 4 -8 0 , 8 3 -8 4 , 92, 9 7 -9 9 , 1 0 1 -0 6 , 1 0 9 -1 2 , 1 1 5 - 1 7 ,1 1 9 ,1 2 1 2 2 ,1 2 4 - 2 5 , 1 2 8 -3 0 , 1 3 2 -3 5 , 171, 1 7 3 ,3 9 3 -9 5 , 6 4 9 ,1 2 2 8 M a tth e w 1042 M eals, b a n q u e ts , e a tin g a n d d r in k i n g xli, 179, 242, 2 4 5 -4 7 , 250, 252, 3 4 5 -4 6 , 3 4 8 ,3 5 3 - 5 4 , 43 5 , 4 37, 4 3 9 , 4 4 1 -4 3 , 446, 745, 747, 750, 753 M eals, M essianic B a n q u e t 4 3 6 -3 7 , 444—46 M ercy 830, 845, 848, 8 7 7 -7 9 , 901 M e s s e n g e r 5 5 3 -5 4 , 559, 605, 95 4 M e ssia n ic c o n s c io u s n e s s 159, 901, 922, 1118 M e ssia n ic id e n tity 465 M e ta p h o r 657, 659, 6 6 4 M in is try o f J e s u s 480, 481, 496, 506, 5 5 4 -5 5 , 559, 564, 567, 6 40, 6 4 5 -4 7 , 6 5 2 -5 4 , 6 5 6 -5 9 , 676, 680, 693, 696, 709, 712, 7 2 8 -3 0 , 739, 743, 7 5 5 -5 9 , 770, 772, 789, 8 0 2 -0 3 , 808, 831, 839, 853, 858, 9 0 4 , 9 2 2 -2 3 , 9 2 6 , 9 2 8 , 930, 9 3 2 -3 5 , 938, 940, 9 4 9 -5 0 , 9 5 7 , 972, 997, 1 0 0 8 -1 0 , 1027, 1066, 1075, 1107, 1124, 1203, 1 2 1 9 -2 0 M ira c le s 507, 556, 637, 1123, 1208, 1210, 1214 M issio n 1 9 5 -9 6 , 316, 5 3 3 -3 5 , 5 37, 5 4 7 53, 5 58, 5 6 1 -6 2 , 5 66, 602, 1076, 1 0 7 8 -8 0 , 1182, 1193, 1 2 1 7 -1 8 M is u n d e r s ta n d in g 635 M o c k in g 1099, 1100 M oney, m ea n s, possessions, property, riches 365, 367, 9 1 8 -1 9 , 935, 9 57, 1030

1263 M o n e y c h a n g e rs 9 1 6 M oses 51, 79, 430, 444, 491, 4 9 7 -9 8 , 5 0 2 -0 4 , 5 11, 575, 616, 685, 688, 829, 931, 9 6 8 , 1183, 1205, 1 2 1 8 -1 9 , 1225, 1227, 1229 M o u n t o f O lives 9 2 3 ,1 0 8 4 M o u r n i n g 1 1 5 9 ,1 1 6 1 M ystery, s e c r e t 3 7 8 -7 9 , 391, 3 9 3 -9 4 , 417, 423, 432 N a m e (in th e n a m e of) 120, 124 N a tu re xliv, 102 N a tu re M ira c le s 397 N a z a re th , N a z a r e n e xli, 40, 49, 97, 104, 111, 123, 125, 1 2 8 -2 9 , 133, 181, 1 8 4 -8 5 , 1 8 7 -8 8 , 1 9 1 -9 5 , 198, 2 0 0 05, 207, 209, 2 1 5 -1 7 , 4 2 5 -2 6 N e ig h b o r 714, 827, 977 N ew C o v e n a n t 1050 O b e d i e n c e 834, 843, 886, 9 5 8 -5 9 , 1139 O ld T e s ta m e n t, q u o t a t i o n 29, 69, 280, 443 O ld T e s ta m e n t, r e f e r e n c e 652 O p p o s itio n to J e s u s 1 2 1 -2 2 , 125, 157 O r ig in a l T r a d itio n 1070 P a ra b le s , s im ilitu d e s x lii-x lv iii, 199, 2 4 8 49, 251, 306, 3 0 9 -1 0 , 341, 343, 347, 351, 3 5 5 -5 8 , 360, 3 7 0 -7 6 , 3 7 8 -8 0 , 3 8 2 -8 7 , 392, 435, 531, 5 8 9 -9 1 , 596, 622, 700, 718, 769, 796, 874, 910, 9 3 8 ,9 4 9 P a ra d is e 1 1 5 2 -5 4 P a ro u s ia 398, 550, 7 0 0 -0 4 , 859 Passion p re d ic tio n s 254, 435, 4 6 0 -6 4 , 476, 512, 514, 544, 1050, 1128, 1142, 1221 P a sso v er 1015, 1 0 2 4 -2 7 , 1029, 1 0 3 2 -3 5 , 1041, 1 0 4 3 -4 5 , 1 0 4 7 -5 2 , 1 0 5 4 -5 7 , 1077, 1125, 1129, 1130, 1136, 1156, 1 1 9 2 ,1 2 0 1 , 1207, 1229 P a tria rc h s , th e fa th e rs 43, 65, 73, 76, 85, 87, 337 P a u l 4 9 3 -9 5 , 1043, 1 1 1 6 -1 7 , 1122, 1124, 1 1 8 0 - 8 1 ,1 2 2 6 P e a c e 92, 102, 1 0 7 -0 9 , 112, 119, 124, 280, 354, 360, 362, 4 1 8 ,4 2 0 ,4 2 3 , 431, 5 5 2 -5 3 , 559, 604, 606, 7 0 9 -1 0 , 764, 92 7 , 932 P e n te c o s t 1225, 1229 P e o p le ( o f G o d ) xli, 28, 45, 68, 8 5 -8 6 , 8 8 -8 9 , 112, 120, 124, 2 7 6 -7 7 , 295, 302, 499, 640, 7 3 5 -3 6 , 755, 8 6 9 -7 1 , 875, 887, 899, 902, 906, 908, 912, 9 3 3 , 9 3 9 -4 1 , 9 4 4 -4 5 , 9 4 9 -5 4 , 988, 1000, 1002, 1 0 1 4 -1 5 , 1066, 1128, 1 1 3 5 ,1 1 3 9 , 1229 P e r s e c u tio n 303, 385, 398, 485, 551, 663, 9 9 4 -9 6 , 998 P e ter, S im o n xli, 2 1 1 -1 4 , 2 2 1 -2 4 , 2 2 6 27, 233, 2 6 4 -6 6 , 2 6 9 -7 2 , 316, 322, 324, 3 5 2 -5 3 , 355, 361, 414, 416, 418, 4 2 1 -2 2 , 460, 464, 465, 467, 484, 486, 492, 4 9 6 -9 7 , 5 0 0 -0 1 , 504, 7 0 3 -0 5 , 1023, 1 0 3 3 -3 4 , 1 0 7 0 -7 1 , 1 0 7 3 -7 4 , 1 0 9 2 -9 4 , 1 0 9 6 -9 7 P h a ris e e s xlii, 147, 218, 225, 229, 2 3 1 34, 238, 2 4 1 -4 2 , 244, 247, 253, 256, 258, 2 6 0 -6 2 , 288, 314, 3 4 2 -4 3 , 351, 353, 3 5 5 -5 9 , 423, 426, 434, 4 4 7 -4 9 , 4 5 1 -4 5 4 , 466, 6 6 2 -6 3 , 666, 6 6 9 -7 1 , 6 7 6 -7 7 , 7 4 0 -4 1 , 743, 7 4 5 -4 6 , 753, 7 7 1 -7 2 , 780, 788, 8 0 9 -1 0 , 835, 8 5 1 52, 8 7 4 -7 9 , 911, 9 27, 929, 931, 940, 9 6 8 -6 9 , 976

1264 P iety 941 P ila te 1 1 0 4 - 0 6 ,1 1 1 2 ,1 1 1 4 - 2 1 ,1 1 2 3 - 3 3 , 1 1 3 5 -3 6 , 1 1 4 2 -4 3 , 1 1 4 7 -4 9 , 1151, 1161, 1 1 6 3 -6 4 , 1166, 1202 P overty, p o o r 72, 76, 274, 2 8 1 -8 4 , 2 8 8 89, 292, 3 0 0 -0 1 , 754, 7 5 8 -5 9 , 805, 826, 8 2 8 -2 9 , 832, 886 P o w er 31, 54, 59, 71, 76, 80, 86, 103, 109, 140, 142, 153, 155, 180, 186, 198, 2 0 4 -0 9 , 214, 227, 234, 2 3 8 -3 9 , 2 7 6 77, 2 9 5 ,3 1 3 ,3 1 5 ,3 1 7 , 398, 401, 4 0 5 -0 6 , 409, 4 1 1 -1 2 , 414, 417, 4 1 9 20, 423, 4 26, 4 28, 556, 566, 636, 639, 6 4 1 -4 4 , 9 0 1 -0 2 , 1 0 0 6 -0 7 , 1180, 1220 - 21 P ra is e 62, 6 4 -6 5 , 69, 108, 110, 1 1 2 -1 3 , 2 1 5 ,9 2 8 ,9 2 9 P r a y e r 2 8 - 3 0 , 35, 4 0 , 122, 160, 2 1 0 , 2 2 8 , 2 4 7 , 2 6 4 , 2 7 2 , 2 8 7 , 39 8 , 40 1 , 443, 452, 454, 491, 4 9 6 -9 8 , 503, 5 0 7 , 5 5 8 , 5 7 7 , 6 0 7 , 6 1 0 - 2 0 , 62 3 , 6 2 6 -2 7 , 630, 867, 8 6 9 -7 1 , 8 7 5 -7 9 , 9 3 7 , 9 3 8 , 9 7 6 - 7 7 , 9 8 7 , 1 0 1 3 -1 4 , 1 0 7 0 -7 1 , 1 073, 1 0 8 1 - 8 5 , 1142, 1144, 114 6 P r e a c h e r 653 P re a c h in g , p r o c la im in g , a n n o u n c in g x li-x lii, 18, 137, 140, 142, 144, 1 4 6 4 8 , 1 5 0 ,1 5 4 ,1 8 5 ,1 9 1 ,1 9 3 ,1 9 6 , 208, 2 1 5 -1 6 , 221, 224, 267, 331, 3 6 4 -6 5 , 367, 370, 373, 376, 381, 385, 396, 4 2 5 -2 6 , 4 2 8 -2 9 , 4 45, 542, 602, 6 0 4 06, 796, 1209, 1219, 1221 P r id e 876 P rie sts, h ig h p rie s t, c h ie f p rie s ts 23, 2 6 28, 33, 35, 88, 124, 140, 194, 2 2 7 -2 9 , 233, 2 5 6 -5 8 , 450, 464, 4 66, 580, 5 9 3 -9 4 , 597, 9 3 5 , 9 4 0 , 954, 957, 960, 9 6 3 ,1 0 2 9 , 1 0 8 8 -8 9 , 1092, 1106, 1109, 1111, 1118, 1124, 1125, 1127, 1131, 1227, 1229 P ro m is e 32, 50, 8 5 -8 7 , 102, 1 1 9 -2 0 , 148, 170, 174, 181, 282, 442, 1226, 1230 P r o n o u n c e m e n t S to ry 963, 9 7 0 P r o p h e c y ( fu lfillm e n t o f p r o p h e c y ) 79, 103, 111, 135, 143, 202, 322 P r o p h e tic v isio n 564 P r o p h e ts 30, 35, 8 6 - 8 8 , 9 1 , 1 4 0 -4 1 , 149, 162, 1 9 3 -9 4 , 196, 2 0 0 - 0 1 , 224, 268, 2 8 5 - 8 6 , 2 8 8 , 290, 308, 3 2 0 , 3 2 3 -2 4 , 32 7 , 3 3 1 , 355, 3 3 4 - 3 7 , 339, 3 79, 43 0 , 4 3 2 , 6 6 8 , 6 7 1 , 742, 896, 1205 P ro te c tio n 998 Q ( n o n - M a r k a n m a te ria l c o m m o n to M a tth e w a n d L u k e ) x x ix -x x x i, 264, 364 R e c a p itu la tio n in w o rs h ip 64 R e c o g n itio n 787, 790 R e c o n c ilia tio n 7 8 5 -8 6 R e d e e m e r 1203 R e d e m p tio n 485, 1044, 1049, 1056 R e je c tio n 465, 473, R e je c tio n o f C h ris t 467, 537, 544, 6 7 9 8 1 ,9 9 5 R e je c tio n o f th e p r o p h e t s 2 0 0 -0 2 , 206, 467, 995 R e le ase 1 9 7 ,2 1 1 R e p e n ta n c e 1 4 1 -4 4 , 1 4 8 -4 9 , 151, 154, 216, 221, 242, 244, 250, 269, 327, 331, 3 4 2 -4 5 , 348, 4 26, 556, 6 5 4 -5 5 , 716, 719, 769, 772, 7 7 5 -7 6 , 7 8 0 -8 1 , 784, 8 26, 8 3 1 -3 3 , 8 3 8 -3 9 , 879, 1144,

1221

Index

of

Principal T opics

R e s p o n s ib ility 6 8 7 -8 8 , 700, 705, 795, 797, 8 02, 831, 8 3 7 -3 9 , 877, 1060 R e s to ra tio n 774, 776, 78 7 -8 8 , 7 9 0 -9 1 ,9 0 6 R e s u r re c tio n xxviii, xxxiv, xxxviii, 56, 1 2 8 ,1 3 0 ,1 3 9 ,1 6 0 ,1 6 2 , 248, 251, 265, 2 6 7 -6 8 , 323, 3 6 5 -6 7 , 399, 418, 4 2 2 23, 431, 449, 452, 4 54, 4 6 0 -6 3 , 467, 472, 473, 483, 4 9 4 -9 5 , 513, 529, 653, 751, 758, 826, 831, 8 33, 953, 955, 9 6 4 -6 6 , 9 6 9 , 97 2 , 974, 1110, 1153, 1156, 1 1 6 0 -6 1 , 1 1 6 8 ,1 1 7 6 , 1 1 8 3 -8 4 , 1 1 8 7 -8 8 , 1 1 9 0 -9 4 , 1 1 9 8 -1 2 0 0 , 1202, 1 2 0 4 ,1 2 0 9 , 1210, 1212, 1 2 1 5 -1 6 , 1219, 1221, 1 2 2 5 - 2 6 ,1 2 2 9 R ev ersal la n g u a g e 72, 76 R ig h te o u s , rig h te o u s n e s s , justify, ju s tif ic a tio n 31, 36, 141, 150, 218, 221, 283, 342, 3 5 7 -5 8 , 449, 465, 664, 666, 774, 8 0 9 -1 0 , 8 7 5 -7 9 , 887, 9 5 7 R itu a l 6 6 3 - 6 6 ,6 7 0 - 7 1 R o m a n r u le 9 9 -1 0 0 , 139, 1106, 1111, 1117, 1120, 1123, 1107 R oyal 925 S a b b a th xli, 205, 210, 2 13, 219, 2 2 4 -2 5 , 231, 241, 253, 255, 262, 391, 7 2 2 -2 5 , 7 4 5 -4 7 , 1145, 1163, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1188 S a c rific e 935 S a d d u c e e s 963, 9 64, 9 67, 968, 969 S a lv atio n , c o n s o la tio n , r e d e m p ti o n xli, 13, 3 0 -3 2 , 35, 50, 58, 68, 71, 8 3 -8 9 , 9 1 - 9 2 , 108, 115, 1 1 7 -2 1 , 1 2 4 -2 5 , 138, 1 4 2 -4 4 , 156, 1 9 6 -9 8 , 202, 206, 223, 226, 235, 239, 243, 248, 251, 261, 2 8 7 -8 8 , 313, 327, 330, 332, 334, 341, 346, 348, 3 6 0 -6 1 , 385, 412, 417, 4 2 0 -2 1 , 465, 478, 5 5 1 -5 2 , 559, 574, 6 06, 614, 680, 735, 8 9 1 -9 2 , 904, 9 0 6 -0 8 , 91 8 , 99 8 , 1 1 5 2 -5 3 , 1221 S alv atio n h is to ry 30, 35, 54, 83, 115, 412, 94 8 S a m a rita n 527, 533, 536, 580, 5 8 9 -9 8 , 6 0 5 ,8 4 7 - 4 8 , 866 S a n h e d r i n 9 4 0 ,9 4 1 ,9 4 4 , 1 0 9 8 -1 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 4 -0 6 , 1109, 1 1 1 1 -1 2 , 1 1 1 4 -1 9 , 1122, 1 1 4 2 - 4 3 ,1 1 6 3 - 6 4 , 1166 S a ta n , th e devil, B e e lz e b u l 1 7 7 -8 3 , 187, 3 8 4 -8 5 , 388, 4 11, 449, 514, 563, 5 6 5 -6 6 , 6 3 6 -3 9 , 642, 724, 931, 1 0 2 9 -3 1 , 1 0 7 2 -7 3 , 1076, 1078, 1089, 1 1 5 6 ,1 1 6 0 , 1201, 1 2 0 6 -0 7 S c rib e s, law yers, te a c h e rs o f t h e law xl, 130, 135, 225, 2 3 1 -3 5 , 238, 242, 245, 255, 2 6 0 -6 1 , 314, 342, 343, 359, 423, 464, 466, 507, 662, 6 66, 6 6 9 -7 2 , 780, 7 88, 911, 940, 9 54, 9 57, 960, 963, 964, 967, 9 7 5 -7 6 , 1109, 1111, 1 1 2 4 2 5 ,1 1 4 4 S c r ip tu re xxxv, 7, 33, 174, 181, 187, 198, 258, 380, 381, 1000, 1168, 1179, 1 1 9 8 -1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 4 -0 8 , 1214, 1 2 1 8 -2 1 S e c re c y 3 3 -3 4 , 328, 418, 421, 50 2 S e r v a n t 465, 701, 705 S e r v a n t o f G o d 1078 S e rv a n ts 9 1 2 , 9 1 4 - 1 5 ,9 4 9 S e rv ic e 805 S ick n ess, illn e ss 204, 2 1 0 -1 2 , 232, 317, 329, 366 S ig n (s ) 40, 53, 107, 1 0 8 -0 9 , 121, 141, 178, 643, 6 5 0 -5 2 , 712, 852, 9 9 0 -9 3 , 1008, 1123 S im o n 1136, 1138, 1 1 7 8 -7 9 , 1181, 1186, 1 1 8 8 -9 0 , 1 1 9 2 -9 4 , 1200, 1203, 1 2 0 7 -0 9 , 1215

S in, s in n e r s xli, 8 4 -8 5 , 89, 9 1 -9 2 , 122, 125, 137, 142, 144, 160, 178, 197, 2 02, 204, 218, 221, 227, 2 3 2 -3 3 , 2 3 5 -3 8 , 241, 2 4 4 -4 5 , 250, 282, 293, 296, 299, 3 0 2 -0 3 , 307, 3 4 5 -4 6 , 348, 3 5 2 -5 3 , 3 5 5 -5 6 , 3 5 8 -6 2 , 618, 718, 7 7 0 -7 6 , 7 8 0 -8 1 , 784, 791, 837, 839, 879 Slave 57, 119, 210, 3 1 4 -1 5 , 317, 319, 701, 7 0 3 -0 5 , 787, 8 0 7 -0 8 , 8 4 1 -4 3 , 9 1 6 - 1 9 ,9 2 9 , 951 S o ld ie r 1143, 1147 S o lo m o n 928 S o u r c e s ( o f L u k e ) 168, 177, 1 8 4 -8 5 , 1 9 1 -9 4 , 20 4 , 210, 213, 2 15, 2 1 9 -2 0 , 2 2 5 - 2 6 , 23 1 , 2 4 1 - 4 3 , 2 5 9 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 9 80, 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 29 6 , 3 0 5 - 0 6 , 3 1 4 - 1 5 , 32 1 , 32 6 , 3 2 6 , 3 4 1 - 4 2 , 3 5 1 - 5 2 , 3 64, 3 7 0 -7 1 , 3 7 7 -7 8 , 3 8 2 -8 3 , 3 8 9 -9 0 , 3 9 3 , 3 9 7 - 9 8 , 4 0 3 - 0 5 , 4 1 6 - 1 7 , 425, 4 30, 435, 4 3 7 , 449, 451, 50 6 , 512, 51 7 , 5 4 7 , 5 6 1 , 56 9 , 5 8 0 , 62 8 , 6 3 5 36, 6 4 1 , 6 5 1 , 6 5 8 , 6 6 2 , 6 7 5 , 680, 6 8 4 , 68 6 , 69 0 , 69 9 , 707, 727, 732, 7 35, 761, 7 7 0 - 7 1 , 775, 8 3 6 , 8 57, 926, 930, 935, 948, 949, 984, 995, 99 7 , 1000, 1005, 1023, 1063, 1071, 1081, 1 082, 10 8 7 , 1094, 1098, 1104, 1107, 1 108, 1110, 1115, 1121, 1136, 1142, 1146, 1155, 1 1 5 8 -5 9 , 1162, 1165, 1 185, 1197, 1189, 1 2 0 9 -1 0 , 1225 S o v e re ig n ty 1060 S p irit 1218, 1 2 2 0 -2 1 , 1225, 1 2 2 9 -3 0 S p irit, p o w e r o f 524 S p irit, th e H o ly 5 10, 5 71, 613, 629, 6 3 1 3 2 ,6 4 0 ,6 8 0 - 8 2 S t e p h e n 1144 S te w a rd s h ip 7 9 7 -8 0 3 , 8 0 7 S to n in g 9 4 4 S tory, p r o n o u n c e m e n t 6 48, 6 84, 716, '739, 845 S tru c tu ra l 1001, 1065 S t r u c t u r e ( o f t h e G o s p e l) 4 - 5 , 1 7 -2 4 , 4 0 -4 8 , 6 2 -6 5 , 7 7 -7 8 , 8 2 -8 5 , 9 8 -1 0 2 , 1 1 5 -1 6 , 1 2 7 -2 8 , 1 3 7 -3 9 , 1 4 6 -4 7 , 1 5 5 - 5 6 ,1 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 6 7 -7 0 , 1 7 6 -7 8 , 1 8 4 -8 6 , 1 9 1 -9 5 , 204, 210, 2 1 2 -1 3 , 215, 2 1 9 -2 0 , 2 2 5 -2 6 , 2 3 0 -3 2 , 2 4 1 4 4 ,2 5 3 - 5 5 , 2 5 9 -6 0 , 2 6 4 -6 8 , 2 7 4 -7 5 , 2 7 9 -8 1 , 2 9 2 -9 4 , 3 0 5 -0 6 , 3 1 3 -1 5 , 3 2 0 -2 1 , 3 2 6 -2 7 , 3 3 4 -3 5 , 3 4 0 -4 1 , 3 5 1 -5 3 , 3 6 3 -6 4 , 3 7 0 -7 3 , 3 7 7 -7 9 , 3 8 2 -8 4 , 3 8 9 -9 0 , 3 9 3 -9 4 , 3 9 6 -9 9 , 4 0 3 -0 6 , 4 1 6 -1 8 , 425, 4 3 0 -3 1 , 4 3 4 39, 4 4 8 -5 1 , 496, 5 3 0 -3 1 , 611, 622, 628, 6 3 0 -3 1 , 669, 716, 722, 732, 739, 754, 1023, 1150, 1199 S u ffe rin g xxxiv, xxxviii, 142, 144, 214, 254, 2 8 5 -8 6 , 290, 449, 4 5 3 -5 4 , 524, 528, 830, 931, 1124, 1139, 1193, 1 2 0 4 ,1 2 0 6 -0 8 S u f fe r in g o f J e s u s 4 5 8 -6 7 , 472, 481, 485, 490, 497, 506, 529, 619 S u p p o r t 1108 S y n a g o g u e x x x ii, xli, 18, 184, 1 8 6 -8 8 , 1 9 3 -9 6 , 202, 204, 206, 2 0 8 -1 5 , 219, 2 8 5 -8 6 , 288, 316, 319, 419, 421, 423, 723, T ax c o lle c to rs 147, 150, 154, 232, 241, 2 4 4 -4 5 , 250, 299, 314, 3 4 2 -4 3 , 346, 348, 355, 361, 366, 8 7 4 -7 9 , 904, 907 T a x e s 9 5 -6 1 T e a c h e r 941, 1034

Index o f Principal Topics 95 3 , 9 6 7 , 968, 9 7 2 , 97 9 , 9 9 5 , 1094, T e a c h in g 740, 763, 837, 9 3 9 , 9 4 2 , 94 4 , 1205, 1229 1 0 1 4 ,1 2 1 7 -1 8 , 1 2 2 0 -2 1 , 1229 T r a n s f ig u ra tio n 481, 485, 4 9 0 -9 8 , 502, T e m p le xxxviii, xxx ix , 13, 18, 20, 23, 2 5 51 0 -1 1 28, 3 3 -3 6 , 40, 49, 57, 116, 117, 119, T r e a s u r e 979 122, 1 2 4 -2 5 , 128, 1 3 1 -3 3 , 135, 138, 1 7 2 ,1 8 2 , 2 57, 316, 464, 5 9 3 -9 4 , 847, T ria l (s) 6 1 8 -1 9 , 1 0 7 0 -7 2 , 1074, 1 0 8 1 934, 935, 9 36, 937, 938, 9 3 9 , 940, 82, 1085, 1106, 1116 941, 942, 9 7 8 -8 0 , 9 8 6 -9 0 , 995, 1000, T r u s t 808, 1076 1014, 1068, 1 0 8 9 -9 0 , 1 1 0 6 -0 7 , 1112, U n d e r s ta n d i n g /m is u n d e r s t a n d in g 128, 1146, 1 1 5 6 -5 7 , 1160, 1179, 1226, 130, 470 1229 T e m p ta tio n , tria l(s ) xli, 1 5 8 -5 9 , 171, U n le a v e n e d B re a d 1 0 2 7 ,1 0 3 2 ,1 0 3 4 173, 1 7 6 -8 3 , 186, 385, 388, 6 1 8 -2 1 , V in e y a rd 949 6 8 1 -8 2 , 1066 V irg in b i r t h 41, 4 3 -5 9 , 104 T h a n k s g iv in g 847, 1052 V isio n 56 6 T h e o p h a n y 492, 847 V is ita tio n (c o m in g o f G o d ) 8 3 -8 4 , 89, T h o m a s 1180 9 1 - 9 2 , 3 1 3 -1 4 , 318, 321, 3 2 3 -2 5 , T im e 77, 7 1 2 -1 3 T ith in g 665 328, 3 3 1 ,3 3 4 , 337, 360 T o d a y 1 9 8 ,2 3 8 W ar 1001 T o m b 1 1 6 4 -6 6 , 1179, 1181, 1 1 8 4 -9 0 , W a sh in g o f f e e t 1042 1 1 9 2 -9 3 , 1198, 1202, 1208, 1215, W e alth , ric h e s , m a m m o n , g o o d s , 1221 p o s s es s io n s 72, 76, 283, 287, 290, T r a d itio n xx x v -x x x v ii, xxx ix , xlv, 7 -9 , 3 86, 388, 484, 529, 6 06, 615, 664, 18, 21, 23, 33, 36, 4 2 -4 3 , 4 6 -4 8 , 54, 5 6 -5 7 , 63, 66, 74, 76, 8 3 -8 4 , 87, 89, 6 8 3 -8 8 , 690, 696, 7 6 4 -6 6 , 787, 795, 8 0 2 -0 3 , 8 0 5 -1 0 , 8 2 6 -2 7 , 8 3 1 -3 2 , 103, 1 1 5 -2 0 , 131, 143, 1 4 5 -4 6 , 159, 8 6 1 ,8 8 5 - 9 3 ,9 1 5 ,9 7 8 , 980 162, 171, 185, 194, 197, 199, 205, 226, 232, 242, 265, 268, 280, 293, W id o w (s) 1 2 2 -2 3 , 174, 191, 201, 203, 295, 2 9 9 -3 0 0 , 308, 3 1 5 -1 6 , 318, 321, 2 10, 313, 3 2 1 -2 2 , 324, 347, 366, 444, 8 6 7 - 7 1 ,9 7 6 , 9 7 8 ,9 7 9 ,9 8 0 340, 346, 354, 359, 3 6 4 -6 5 , 375, 378, 3 7 9 -8 0 , 383, 390, 401, 407, 417, 420, W ife 964 W ild e rn e s s x li- x lii, 59, 137, 140, 1 4 3 4 25, 430, 435, 4 3 7 -3 8 , 442, 449, 45, 147, 148, 158, 161, 171, 4 5 0 -5 1 , 465, 466, 922, 930, 936, 938,

1265 1 7 7 -7 9 , 1 8 2 ,1 8 7 ,2 1 5 - 1 7 , 22 8 , 3 3 5 36, 3 3 9 , 3 4 5 , 34 8 , 40 9 , 4 3 8 , 440, 4 4 2 ,4 4 4 - 4 5 W ill o f F a th e r 491 W ill o f G o d 1060, 1 0 8 3 -8 5 , 1088 W in e 1143, 1147, 1149 W is d o m xlii, 31, 123, 125, 127, 133, 135, 2 4 4 , 2 8 0 ,3 0 2 , 3 0 5 ,3 4 1 - 4 3 ,3 4 6 - 4 8 , 3 90, 577, 663, 686, 997 W is d o m , t ra d itio n 574, 629, 6 6 8 -6 9 , 671, 672, 739 W itn e s s 1221 W oes xli, 2 7 9 -8 1 , 284, 2 8 6 -9 0 , 307, 6 6 2 63, 6 6 5 -6 6 , 6 7 0 -7 2 , 1007 W o m e n x lii, 119, 122, 3 4 3 , 3 6 3 - 6 8 , 648, 7 2 3 - 2 4 , 730, 7 7 4 -7 6 , 1002, 1137, 1139, 1 1 5 5 -5 6 , 1 1 5 9 -6 0 , 1 1 6 2 -6 4 , 1 1 6 6 -6 8 , 1177, 1 1 7 9 -8 1 , 1186, 1188, 1190, 1 1 9 2 -9 4 , 1202, 1208, 1215 W o rd ( o f G o d ) 140, 143, 221, 224, 370, 3 8 3 -8 4 , 388, 3 9 1 -9 5 , 418, 6 0 0 -0 6 , 6 46, 649, 657 W o rry 6 9 1 -9 2 , 695 W o rs h ip x x ix , xxxii, 13, 18, 28, 32, 34— 36, 64, 67, 74, 8 3 -8 5 , 8 8 -8 9 , 1 2 2 -2 3 , 180, 182, 9 3 5 -3 7 , 979, 1179, 1215, 1226, 1228 W o rs h ip o f J e s u s xxxiv, 105, 122, 125, 1 2 8 , 1 4 2 , 1 8 1 , 183, 3 6 6 , 3 9 8 , 4 3 1 , 449, 454, 463, 466, 4 9 9 -5 0 0 , 537 W ra th o f G o d 1084 Z a c c h a e u s 9 0 4 -0 8

The Old Testament G e n e s is

2:7 2:8 4:10 5 :1 -3 2 5:24 6:2 6:4 6:8 6:9 7:1 7:17 9:5 9:6 10 11:4 11:8 1 1 :1 0 -2 6 11:12 12:7 12:18 13:10 14:18 14:19 14:20 14:22 15:1 15:2 15:5 15:8 15:9 -2 1 16:4 1 6 :7 -1 4 16:11 1 6 :1 7 -1 8 1 7 -3 7 1 7 -1 8 17:1 17:10 1 7 :1 1 -1 2 17:19 18 1 8 :1 -8 18:1 18:2 18:3 18:4 18:6 1 8 :7 -8 18:10 1 8 :1 1 -1 2 18:11 18:14 19:2 19:3 19:8 19:19 1 9 :2 4 -2 8 19:24 19:26 19:29 1 9 :3 6 -3 8 20:7 20:9 2 1 :1

686, 688 1152 6 6 8 ,6 7 1 172 8 2 9 ,8 3 2 ,1 2 2 8 - 2 9 46, 968 46 51 26 26 1225 668 1055, 1057 549, 558 71 71 172 168 28 131 140, 1152 345 6 7 ,5 7 2 67 572 29, 35 828 36 32 33, 36 34 24, 41, 57 29, 51, 58 24, 34, 4 1 ,5 1 19 57 2 7 -2 8 1054, 1057 79, 81 29, 35 624, 1181, 1205, 1215 626 28 1212 5 1 ,1 2 0 5 ,1 2 0 8 51 730 786 29 32 25, 27, 35 56, 59 1 2 0 5 ,1 2 0 8 1205 53 7 8 ,8 1 555, 56 0 860 861 73 51 6 6 8 ,6 7 1 131 3 4 -3 5 , 57, 86, 91

2 1 :2 -3 21:3 21:4 21:6 22:1 22:2 22:11 22:15 2 2 :1 6 -1 7 24 24:1 24:3 24:12 24:43 2 5 :5 -6 25:21 2 5 :2 2 -2 3 25:24 2 5 :2 5 -2 6 26:3 26:10 26:12 2 7 -4 3 28:13 29:25 2 9 :3 0 -3 3 29:31 29:32 30:1 30:13 30:22 30:23 30:27 30:34 31:11 31:30 31:41 31:42 33:4 33:18 35:21 37:11 37:20 37:25 3 8 :8 -1 0 38:8 40 41:42 41:56 42:22 42:2 5 e 4 3 :3 4 4 5 :1 4 -1 5 46:2 46:29 49 49:10 49:11

51 79 79 7 8 ,8 1 163, 179 162 28, 742 345 8 7 ,9 2 828 27 26 87, 371 47 782 27, 29, 35 66, 74 78, 8 1 , 1 0 5 , 111 79 8 7 ,9 2 131 3 7 4 -7 6 19 29 131 762 27 34, 69 34 70 29, 35 3 4 -3 5 51 57 28 1045 787 72 7 8 4 -8 5 48 106 110, 112, 133 951 755 968 96 4 1151 785 1013 6 6 8 ,6 7 1 648 604 785 742 785 1227, 1229 52, 328, 332 922, 9 2 4 - 2 5 , 928

Exodus

2:3 2:8 2:11 2:14 2:24

106 47 30 6 8 5 ,6 8 8 73, 87, 92

3 3 -4 3:2 3:4 3:6 3 :6 -1 2 3:12 3:15 4:5 4 :2 2 -2 3 4:22 4:23 4 :2 4 -2 6 4:27 4:31 5:19 6 :1 -6 6:1 6:6 6:20 6:23 7:14 8:15 8:19 8:32 10:16 12 12:11 12:14 12:18 13:2 13:5 13:12 13:15 14:11 1 4 :1 5 -1 6 14:19 14:24 14:37 15:2 15:13 15:16 15:20 15:21 15:26 16 16:3 16:4 16:7 16:10 16:35 17:3 17:14 1 9 :10-11 19:11 19:12 19:14 19:16 19:17 1 9 :2 1 -2 5 19:21 20:4 20:5 20:9 20:10 20:14

24, 41 1181 28 742 966, 968 1181 991 1 ,9 6 8 55, 59 1 6 2 -6 3 45, 179 257 179 105 86, 91 616 76 71 71 26 26 1012 639 640, 643 1012 784 1027, 1033, 1048 701 1047 1033 55, 59, 105, 118, 124 87 55, 59, 118, 124 117, 124 131 398 28 1188, 1193 1 1 8 8 ,1 1 9 3 576 105 29, 71 26, 122, 125 116 580 442 179, 182 616, 618 106, 112 106, 112 1225 181 5 1 3 ,8 5 9 740 576 275 275 501, 5 0 4 32, 275 275 581 959 2 3 2 ,7 1 8 724 1166 822

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 2 0 :1 9 -2 0 20:20 2 0:23 21:5 2 2 :2 2 -2 4 22:25 22:29 2 3 :4 -5 2 3 :1 4 -1 7 23:20 24 24:2 24:8 24:9 24:11 2 4:16 24:17 24:18 25:8 25:30 29:2 3 0 :1 -1 0 3 0 :1 -6 3 0 :7 -8 3 1:13 31:16 3 2 :9 -1 0 32:12 32:13 3 2 :14 32:17 3 2 :2 7 -3 9 3 2 :3 2 -3 3 3 3 -3 4 3 3 :1 2 -1 3 3 3 :2 9 -3 0 , 35 34:3 34:6 34:10 34:21 3 4 :28 34:29 35:13 3 7 :2 5 -2 9 39:36 4 0:34 4 0 :3 5

4 0:36

501 618 95 9 807 867 798 117 29 4 129, 134 336 49 2 , 498, 503 275 1042, 1045, 1 0 5 4 ,1 0 5 7 49 8 701 497 106 1225 5 5 ,5 9 257 1052 28 28 27 261 1 0 5 4 ,1 0 5 7 148 5 1 ,5 8 73 877 51 766 566 492, 498, 503 575 498 275 870 725 256, 258 1225 492 257 28 257 6 2 ,1 0 6 54, 59, 5 0 1 31

L e v itic u s

1:2 2:4 5:11 6 :2 -5 7:33 9:22 10:9 11:7 11:15 12 1 2 :1 -8 12:3 12:6 12:8 12:11 1 3 :4 5 -4 6 13:46 1 4 :1 -3 2 14:4 14:57 15 1 5 :1 9 -2 7 16 :2 9 -3 1 18:5

31 1052 118 906 26, 30 1227 30, 35 4 1 0 ,7 8 3 692 29 117 7 9 ,8 1 117 118, 124 227 226 84 6 2 2 8 -2 9 227 2 2 8 -2 9 139 419 87 6 887

1 8 :6 -1 9 18:16 18:20 19:5 1 9 :1 7 -1 8 19:18 1 9 :2 3 -2 5 19:31 19:34 20:6 2 0 :10 2 0 :1 1 -2 1 2 0 :2 0 -2 1 2 1 :1 -4 2 1 :1 -3 21:7 2 1 :1 7 -2 3 21:21 2 3 :5 -6 2 3 :2 7 -3 2 23:37 2 4 :5 -9 24:9 25 2 5 :3 6 -3 7 26:42 2 7 :3 0 -3 3

81 7 156 822 95 8 83 8 294, 580 950 1213 584 1213 817 817 27 227 593 81 7 , 820 751 156 1 2 9 ,1 0 2 7 876 616 257 258 197 798 87 665

N u m bers

3 :1 1 -1 3 3:12 ‫ ־‬13 4:3 4:7 5:2 5 :2 -3 5 :1 1 -3 1 6 :1 -2 1 6 :9 -1 2 6:10 6:19 6:23 10:35 11 11:12 1 1 :2 4 -3 0 1 1 :2 4 -2 5 11:25 1 1 :2 6 -3 0 11:26 11:31 11:32 1 2 :9 -1 5 1 2 :1 4 -1 5 14:18 14:34 15:30 1 5 :3 7 -4 1 1 5 :3 8 -3 9 18:12 1 8 :1 5 -1 6 1 9 :2 -1 3 19:2 2 0 :29 2 1 :6 -9 2 2 :2 2 -2 4 23:11 24:2 2 4:17 24:19 25:11 2 7 :1 -1 1 2 7 :3 -8 3 1 :1 7 -1 8 32:41

55 105 171 257 593 226, 8 4 6 817 89 9 118 118 1052 121, 125 71 442 510 525 549 552 54 9 549 130 511 226 22 6 870 178 704 194 419 665 105, 117, 124 593 9 2 5 ,9 2 8 119 565 1212 131 140 90 261 271 685 170 53 170, 174

35:30 35:33 3 6 :7 -9

1267

5 5 0 ,5 5 8 66 8 685

D e u te r o n o m y

1 -2 6 1:8 1:13 1:15 3:24 4:6 4 :7 -8 4:32 5:13 5:14 5 :1 7 -2 0 5:18 5:21 5:22 6 :4 -9 6 :4 -5 6:4 6 :1 3 -1 4 6:16 7:6 7:8 7:9 7:12 7 :1 3 -1 4 8:2 8:3 8:6 8:15 8 :1 6 8:3 6 9 9:1 0 9:27 1 0 :1 2 -1 3 10:12 1 0 :1 7 -1 8 10:21 11:1 11:7 1 1 :1 3 -2 1 11:17 1 2 :6 -9 1 3 :1 -5 1 3 :1 -3 1 3 :1 -2 13:4 13:10 14 14:1 14:8 14:14 1 4 :2 2 -2 9 14:26 15 15:2 1 5 :7 -8 15:13 1 6 :1 -8 16:3 16:7 16:16 16:19 1 7 :1 2 -1 3 17:12 1 8 :1 5 -1 8 18:15 1 8 :1 8 -1 9 19 19:15

529 735 572 572 71 649 379 85 9 724 1165 88 6 82 2 50 4 501 194 5 8 1 ,5 8 3 - 8 5 8 8 6 -8 7 1 8 0 -8 2 181 1013 73, 87 87 73, 8 7 67 1 7 8 ,6 1 8 179 95 8 56 4 , 5 6 6 618 1 7 9 ,1 8 2 639 63 9 73 95 8 581 282 70, 75 581 75 194 70 665 638, 64 3 , 742 637, 6 4 3 643 618 742 529 613 410, 783 692 665 30 35 6 197 798 72 1027 1047 1033 129, 134 582 1106 704 88 4 9 9 ,5 0 2 , 504 685, 688 529 367, 550, 55 8

1268 2 0 :5 -8 20:5 2 1 :1 -1 5 21:3 2 1 :1 5 -1 7 21:17 2 1 :2 2 -2 3 2 2 :5 -2 3 :1 4 22:9 22:12 22:14 2 2:19 22:22 2 3 :1 9 -2 0 2 3 :23 2 3 :2 4 -2 5 24:1 24:4 24:5 2 5 :5 -1 0 26:7 2 6 :1 2 -1 5 26:13 2 7 :1 5 -2 6 2 6 :1 5 -1 6 27:20 2 8 :1 -6 28:4 28:13 2 8 :1 5 -1 9 28:15 2 8:64 29:5 30:14 3 0 :1 5 -1 6 3 1 :1 1

32:5 32:6 32:11 32:22 32:39 33 33:8 33:9 33:29 34:5

Index

of

756 703 529 925, 9 2 8 105, 685, 762 782 1165 529 1052 419 285 285 817 798 199 255, 258 818, 823 81 7 756 169, 964, 968 69 665 787 279 617 817 279 67 649 279 649 1002 345, 348 382 887 743 5 0 6 ,5 1 0 -1 1 613 742 678 678 1227, 1229 618 762, 766 2 8 0 ,5 8 0 4 9 8 ,8 2 9

Josh u a

1:6 3 :1 0 -1 3 5:6 5:13 9 :3 -6 9:4 9 :13 13:1 22:5 23:1 24:3 24:14

73 398 73 642, 644 427 249 249 27 581 27 87 85, 88, 92

Ju dges

1:24 1:34 2:1 2:22 3:9 3:10 3 :1 3 -1 4 3:15 4:4 5 5:24 5:31

87 1001 28 618 1 0 7 ,1 1 2 ,1 0 6 7 1 4 0 ,1 6 2 724 107, 112, 1067 122, 125 116 6 6 -6 7 , 70, 75 90

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources 6 6:2 6 :1 1 -2 4 6 :1 1 -1 8 6:12 6:15 6:17 6:19 6:23 6:24 6:26 6:28 6:34 6 :3 6 -4 0 6 :3 6 -3 7 6 :3 7 -4 0 8:35 9:38 10:8 11:14 11:39 13 1 3 :2 -2 3 1 3 :2 -7 13:2 13:3 13:6 13:7 13:14 13:20 1 3 :2 4 -2 5 15:11 16:9 16:17 16:21 17:8 1 9 :4 -9 19:9 20:25 2 0 :44 21:11

1181 1001 24, 41, 48, 50, 57 1067 28, 50, 58 52 5 1 ,5 8 730 29, 35, 1212 51 58 785 162 33, 36 32 25 87 99 7 724 157 53 1181 2 4 , 4 1 ,5 7 18, 34 2 5 -2 7 , 35 29, 32, 35 99 30, 207 30, 35 1228 90 131 677 3 1 ,2 0 7 678 48 686 1205 724 724 53

R u th

1:6 1:8 2:4 2:12 2:20 4 :1 -1 0 4:19

86 87 50 742 67 169 172

1 Sam uel

1 -3 1 :1 -2 1:1 1:3 1 :4 -5 1 :5 -6 1:7 1 :1 0 -1 3 1:11 1:15 1:17 1:19 1:20 1:21 1 :2 4 -2 8 1:24 1:28 2 :1 -1 0 2:1 2:5 2:6

1 8 -1 9 , 34 25, 35 26, 65, 169 129, 134 60 4 34 1 2 9 ,1 3 4 29, 35 30, 34, 57, 6 8 -6 9 , 75 30 29, 35 33 51 1 2 9 ,1 3 4 116 117, 124, 730 117, 124 68 69 34, 72 678

2 :7 -8 2:7 2:13 2:19 2:20 2:21 2:26 3 3 :4 -1 4 3:10 3 :1 9 -2 0 3:19 5 6:3 6:7 9:16 9:23 1 0 :1 -1 0 1 0 :2 -1 6 10:10 1 4 :4 3 -4 5 14:45 15:30 15:32 15:33 16:7 16:11 16:17 17:12 17:15 17:58 20:6 20:8 2 0 :1 4 2 1 :1 -6 21:1 21:12 23:19 24:7 24:11 25:32 25:41 26:1 26:9 26:11 28 2 8 :3 -1 9 2 8 :7 -2 0 28:24 2

34 72 27 129, 134 116, 121, 124 30, 116, 123 90, 116, 123, 133 1181 28, 35 742 90 123 222, 9 1 3 72 9 2 5 ,9 2 8 69 604 1032 33 30 1130 678 1227 1227 917 810 106 112 104, 111 106, 112 104 104, 111 87 87 2 5 6 -5 8 25 6 80 1001 119 119 85, 91 57 1001 119 119 1183 1213 831 786

Sam uel

2:1 2:4 5:7 5:8 5:9 5:14 6 :2 -1 9 6:9 6:10 6:11 6:12 6:16 7 7 :1 1 -1 6 7 :1 2 -1 6 7:14 7:15 7:16 7:24 7:26 8:13 9:7 1 2 : l- 7 a

104 52 104, 111 751 104, 111 172 62, 74 67, 75 1 -4 74, 77 104 66, 75, 104 91, 163 163 5 2 ,5 8 , 132 41, 45, 613 163 52 32 8 6 ,9 1 724 755 596

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 14:11 14:33 1 5 :1 -6 17:13 18:22 19:6 20:12 22:3 22:5 22:17 22:29 22:51 23:2 23:3 23:4 24:1 24:21

678 785 1067 932 157 762 92 5 8 6 ,9 1 708 90 90 73, 76 30 581 90 179 67

1 K in g s

1:1 1:33 1:48 1:52 2:24 2:27 3 :1 6 -2 8 4:25 7:48 8:25 8:39 8:59 8:61 9:3 1 0 :1 -2 9 1 0 : 4 - 5 ,2 1 ,2 3 , 10:8 12:11 12:14 13:2 17 1 7 -1 8 1 7 :8 -2 4 1 7 :8 -1 6 17:10 1 7 :1 7 -2 4 17:18 1 7 :2 1 -2 2 17:22 17:23 18 18:1 18:17 18:18 18:36 18:40 18:46 19 19:4 19:8 19:10 19:14 19 :1 9 -2 1 1 9 :1 9 -2 0 19:19 19:20 2 0 :3 1 -3 2 22:19 22:25 2

27 92 5 , 9 2 8 52, 85, 91 678 52 170 1067 718 257 52 810 616 27 182 654 693 280 565 565 29 201 31 3 2 1 -2 4 978, 1032 3 2 1 -2 4 1183 207 422 322 323, 417 201 194 1117 1117 735 271 701 498, 503 130 1225 2 7 1 ,6 6 7 667 545 540 925 539 701 108 677

K in g s

1 :3 -4 1:10 1:12 1:14

1032 536, 708 5 3 6 -3 7 5 3 6 -3 7

2 2 :1 -1 5 2:8 2 :9 -1 6 2 :9 -1 0 2:9 2 :1 0 -1 1 2:11 2 :1 1 -1 2 2:15 2 :1 7 -1 8 2:19 4 :1 -7 4 :8 -3 7 4:8 4 :1 8 -3 7 4:29 4:31 4:38 4 :4 2 -4 4 4:44 5 5 :1 -1 4 5:7 5:8 5 :9 -1 9 5:10 5:15 9:1 9:13 9:28 12:22 13:21 13:23 15:5 16:3 17 :2 4 -4 1 18:13 1 9 :2 1 -3 1 19 :2 9 -3 1 19:30 19:35 20:5 2 0 :8 -1 1 20:8 2 0 :1 6 -1 9 22:14

1 2 2 8 -2 9 543 398 30 1221 31, 36 537 498, 503, 829, 832, 1183 742 31, 36, 552, 559 1189 9 7 3 -7 4 352 352 755 417, 1183 552, 559, 701 509 603 435, 442 445 201 226 678 201 845 226, 846 847 701 922, 926, 928 104 104 1483 735 226 678 535 104 991 993 148, 385 1188, 1193 29, 35 25, 33, 36, 637, 643 32 481 122

1 C h r o n ic le s

1 :1 -2 6 1:18 2 :1 -1 5 2:9 2 :2 1 -2 2 2 :3 4 -3 5 3:5 3:17 3:19 4:10 6:27 6 :2 7 -2 8 6 :3 3 -3 8 6 :3 3 -3 4 9:32 14:4 15:20 16:33 16:34 16:35 16:36 17:24 21:1 2 1 :1 5 -1 6 2 2 :9 -1 0

23:6 2 4 :7 -1 8 24:10 25:2 28:9 2 8 :1 1 -1 9 2 9 :18

1269

26 26 26 172 810 640 71

2 C h r o n ic le s

4:19 5:13 6:42 7:16 9 :1 -1 2 9:4 9:20 9:22 15:1 15:4 15:6 17:4 1 9 :4 -6 19:4 20:14 2 4 :2 0 -2 2 2 8 :1 -1 5 28:15 31:3 3 1 :5 -1 2 33:3 33:5 35:12 3 5 :1 3 -1 4 35:26 36:4 36:22

257 885 73 182 654 693 693 693 162 31 990, 992 27 867 31 162 668, 671, 742 595 595 118 665 108 108 143 1033 118 171 86

E zra

1:8 2 :3 6 -3 9 2:61 3:2 7:22 9 :6 -9 9:6 1 0 :1 8 -2 2

1 7 1 ,1 7 4 26 79, 170, 174 172 799 282 877 26

N e h e m ia h

172 168 172 172 170, 174 170 172 172, 174 172 80 172 168 168 169 257 172 47 614 885 69 85 86 179 1212 52

1:5 2:13 7:63 8 :1 0 -1 2 9:26 9:27 9:28 9:30 9 :3 2 -3 7 1 0 :3 5 -3 6 1 0 :3 7 -3 8 12:1 12:44 13:5 13:12

581 678 79, 170 604, 758 6 6 7 ,6 7 1 107, 112 1072 162 282 117, 124 665 172 665 665 665

E s th e r

2:18 4:3 5:8 6 :6 -1 1 6:14 7:9 9:19

698 556 755 785 755 131 604

1270 9:20 9:22 9:31

Index

of

604 698 876

Job

1-2 1:1 1:6-12 1:6 2 :1-7 2:1 2:3 2:4 4:7 5:11 5:13 8:4 8:12 8:20 12:10 12:19 12:21 15:6 15:29 18:20 19:27 20:29 22:5 22:9 22 :26-27 26:12 27:3 27:13 28 :12- 13, 20- 23 , 27-28 28:13 28:23 32:2 33:4 34:19 35:15 38:3 38:7 38:41 39 :29-30 39:30 40:1 40:7 42:5

678 , 1072 25 563 46 , 968 563 46 581 592 718-19 72 572 718 693 718 68 72 72 916 72 131 576 605 718 72 443 401 45 605 572 574 574 26 45 465 25 701 46 692 857 863 592 701 576

P s a lm s

1:3 1:4 1:6 2 :1-2 2:2 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10 6:9 7:10 7:12 8:4 9 9 :2-3 10:17-18 11:6 13:3 15 15:11 17:3 17:8 17:27 17:51

148 718-19 732 1122 996 41,45-48,5 2,58, 132, 161-65 180, 654 163 1067 734 810 718 469 71 571 282 861,1084 90 580 88 86 742 71 88

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources 18:10-11 18:11 18:16-17 19:7 19:13 21:7 21:26 22 22:1 22:2 22:3 22 :6-7 22:6 22 :7-8 22:7 22:10 22:18 22:19 22:20 22:21 22:26 22:27 22:28 23 :1-3 23:2 23:5 24 24 :3-4 24:5 24 :6-7 25:8 25:14 25:18 26:6 26:9 27:9 29:1 29:11 30 30:5 30:7 31 31:6 32 :1-2 32:6 32:11 33:6 33:10 33:18 34:3 34:8 34:9 34:16 36:7 37:2 37:15 37:20 39 :5-8 39:5 39:13 40:13 40:16 41 41:1 41:9 41:13 44:3 45:9 46:1 46:3 47:2 49 49:13 50:16 51

501 501 400 572 704 810 72 467 , 1147, 1158 1143, 1158 1155 86 1149 88 1147 1143 31 1143 1146, 1149 125 122 289 284 654 771,773 701 69 , 357 , 701 580 141 69 73 885 379 89,617 141 69 88 46 108 71 1188, 1193 69 467, 1156, 1158, 1160 1155, 1158 571 708 50 45 72 72 69 885 69 810 742 693 122 718 687 692 687 85 68 467 280 1059 91 199 973-74 47 1005, 1007 85 478, 484, 487 687 118 877 , 879

51:13 59:14 60:8 60:14 61 :4-5 62 :11-12 63:3 65:7 66 66 :4-5 67:1 68 68 :5-6 68 :5 (67 :6 ) 68:22 68:26 68:27 69 69 :2-3 69:7 69:9 69:12 69:15 69 :19-20 69:21 69:28 69:30 70:1 70:9 70:19 70:22-23 71:18 71:19 72 72 :5-7 72:26-28 73 73:2 73:13 73:15 73:26-28 75:9 76:9 77 :2-3 77:2 77:16 77:70 78:13 79:14 80 :9-14 80:17 82:2 82:6 84 :4-5 86 :8-10 86:15 86:16 87:6 87:15 88:3 88:10 88:28 88:34 88:48 89 89:6 89:9 89:14 89 :26-29 89 :26-27 89:26 89:27 90 90 :5-6 90:12

610 654 151 71 182 69 106 400 71 571 71 71 282 867 1143 47 66 467 , 1143, 1147 400 , 708 1143 1143 1143 708 1143 1143, 1147, 1149 566 69 69 583 70 , 108 571 85 75 71 52 605 72 73 141 46 606 1084 282 68 380 401 106 123 86 950 469 958 46 279 108 870 57 566 72 87 71 87 199 119 91 46 401 88 52 45 613 613 181 693 687

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 90:14 91:1 91:13 95:3 96:4 96:10 96:13 97:3 98:2 98:3 98:9 9 8 :14 99:8 101:17 101:19 102:4 102:12 102:14 102:17 1 0 2 :2 5 -2 7 103:8 103:13 103:15 103:17 103:28 104:3 104:7 104:8 -1 1 104:8 104:9 104:12 104:30 104:42 105:4 105:6 105:10 1 0 5 :2 6 -4 2 105:43 105:45 105:48 106:1 106:4 106:5 106:9 106:10 106:16 1 0 6 :2 1 -2 2 1 0 6 :3 2 -3 3 106:45 107:3 107:9 107:10 107:20 1 0 7 :2 3 -2 9 1 0 7 :2 8 -3 0 108:9 108:14 110 110:1 110:4 110:6 110:9 111:9 1 1 3 :7 -9 116:6 116:16 117 117:7 118:1, 29 118:15 118:16 118:21 118:22 118:26

1188 565 5 6 5 -6 6 85 85 88 614, 620 73, 120 89 70 614 88 89 72 90 616 693 78 71 1010 870 613, 785, 790 693 76 72 501 4 0 0 -0 1 73 73, 87 87 728 45 73 86 869 87 72 869 87 85 886 91 869 72, 400 90, 92 199 571 679 92 7 3 5 -3 6 284, 289 92 317 401 400 151 71 973 67, 7 5 ,9 7 1 - 7 4 , 1 1 0 9 -1 2 52 73 70, 86 76 72 572 57 71 85 886 71 71 71 121, 1 2 5 ,4 6 2 ,4 6 5 ,5 1 2 , 9 4 8 -4 9 , 9 5 2 -5 5 3 2 8 ,7 3 9 , 742, 922, 926, 9 2 8 -2 9

118:49 118:57 118:78 118:105 119:30 119:89 119:160 1 2 4 :4 -5 125:6 126 1 2 6 :1 -6 131:2 131:17 132:15 132:17 133:2 136:1 137 1 3 9 :2 1 -2 2 1 4 1 :1 -2 143:7 143:8 143:10 144:15 146:6 1 4 6 :7 -1 0 147:2 147:9 147:20 148:2 151:5

73 605 71 90 572 1010 1010 708 284 289 284 881 86 282 91 357 284, 886 71 762 28, 35 90 1188 610 279 72 282 7 4 2 -4 3 692 379 108 164

P ro verb s

1 :20-21 2:1 3:1 3:4 3:24 3:28 3:32 8:30 8:32 9 9:1 11:31 12:12 13:24 14:2 14:14 14:21 21:2 24:12 2 5 :6 -7 2 5 :2 1 -2 2 26:12 28:7 28:14 29:3 30:8 30:19 31:17 31:22

668 787 787 133 7 1 -7 2 624 379 668 379 671 672 1138 885 762 732 885 280 810 810 749 294 572 783 280 787 617, 620 47 701 827

E c c le s ia s te s

1:3 1:13 2:10 2:24 3:2 3:4 3:13 3:15 3:22 5:18

478 859 605 686 78 284 686 54 605 686

1271

686 755 820 280 45

8:15 9:7 9:9 1 0 :1 6 -1 7 11:5 C a n tic le s ( S o n g o f S o lo m o n )

1:3 2 :1 1 -1 3 6:8

47 1009 47

I s a ia h

1:6 1 :9 -1 0 1:17 1:23 1:25 1:26 2:5 2 :1 0 -2 1 4:1 4 :2 -6 4:2 4:3 4:4 5 :1 -6 5 :1 -7 5:2 5:4 5:5 5 :8 -2 3 5 :1 3 -1 4 6 6 :1 -8 6 :1 -3 6:1 6:4 6:8 6 :9 -1 0 6:13 7:6 7 :1 1 -2 5 7 :1 1 -1 6 7:14 8:3 8 :1 4 -1 5 8:17 8:19 8:21 8:22 9:1 9 :2 -7 9:3 9 :5 -6 9:5 9:6 9:7 10 1 0 :1 3 -1 4 10:15 1 0 :1 6 -1 9 10:20 1 0 :3 3 -3 4 10:33 10:47 11:1 11:2 11:4 11:6 11:8 1 3 -2 3 13:6 13:10

595 555 867 867 7 1 ,1 5 3 88 52 148 616 141 90 5 4 -5 5 , 566 153 1067 954 149, 7 1 8 ,9 4 9 - 5 0 951 952 279 992 5 6 3 -6 4 222 13, 28, 35 140, 144 162 162 380 149 104 25 991 29, 41, 47, 51, 53, 58 5 1 ,1 2 2 121, 125, 953, 955 52 1213 443 1156 90 90 107, 112 1 0 8 ,1 1 2 708 52, 69, 75, 107, 112 52 1004 1003 149 1138 52, 555 149 1003 1003 899 56, 1 5 1 -5 2 , 162 153 551 147 71 614, 709, 859 6 2 0 ,1 0 0 5 , 1007

1272 13:11 1 4 :4 b -2 1 14:12 14:13 14:15 14:29 15:3 16:17 17:14 19:1 19:2 19:3 19:20 2 1 :3

22:13 22:16 23 23:17 24 24:17 24:19 24:20 24:23 26:3 26:9 26:19 26:21 2 7 :2 -5 2 7 :1 2 -1 3 28:16 29:3 29:4 29:6 2 9 :14 2 9 :1 8 -1 9 29:23 3 0 -3 1 30:6 30:18 30:26 30:28 31:3 31:9 3 2 :6 -7 32:11 32:12 32:15 32:17 32:19 32:20 33:22 34:4 34:10 34:44 3 5 :5 -6 36:9 36:10 37:27 3 7 :3 0 -7 2 37:36 40 4 0 :1 -3 40:1 4 0 :3 -5 40:3 40:5 4 0 :6 -8 40:8 40:9 4 0 :9 -1 1 40:18 40:24 41:3 4 1 :8 -9 41:8 4 1 :14

Index

of

71 556 90, 563 557, 560 547, 557, 560 147 757 141 605 501 990, 992 1213 107 108

686 1165 555, 56 0 1013 1013 1 0 1 2 -1 3 , 1017 1005 1012 614, 620 108 68 3 3 0 -3 2 614 950 5 5 0 ,5 5 8 121, 125 9 3 2 -3 3 , 1000, 1213 153 572 3 3 0 -3 2 614, 619 958 147 280 90 153 80 678 284 701 1052 45, 54, 59, 152, 1220 108 149 280 614 1 0 0 6 -0 7 154 1005 2 8 2 ,3 3 0 - 3 2 153 248 693 9 9 1 ,9 9 3 1188 1 4 4 -4 5 143 118, 124 137, 143, 144, 146, 701 32, 8 8 -8 9 120, 138 693 1010 196, 564, 576 143 728 153 90 73, 76 162 1203

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources 41:20 41:27 4 2 :1 -4 42:1 42:6 42:7 42:13 42:19 4 3 :5 -6 4 3 :6 -7 43:7 43:10 43:14 4 3 :19 43:20 4 3 :2 5 -2 6 44:1 44:2 4 4 :3 -4 44:3 44:5 44:21 4 4 :2 2 -2 4 44:22 45:4 45:16 46:4 46:13 48:8 48:11 48:18 4 9 :1 -6 49:5 49:6 49:10 49:12 49:13 49:15 5 0 :4 -9 50:6 51:2 51:3 51:5 51:9 5 1 :16 51:17 51:22 5 2 -5 3 52:7 52:9 52:10 5 2 :1 3 -1 5 5 2 :1 3 -5 3 :1 2 53 53:1 53:7 53:8 53:12 54 54:1 54:10 55:3 55:6 55:7 55:11 56:7 57:13 57:15 57:18 58 58:5 58:6 58:7 58:8

80 196, 576 73 152, 1 6 1 -6 5 , 501, 504, 1147 90, 120, 124 282 70, 75 73 7 3 5 -3 6 46 108, 112 73 1203 56 4 869 236 73 162 45 152, 645, 1220 959 73 1203 236 73, 869 725 510 120 31 108, 112 108 73 31, 35 120, 124 283 735 1 1 8 ,2 8 2 678 73 896, 1099 87 118, 124, 1152 71, 76 71 196 1084 1084 467, 1077 108, 112, 396, 450, 564, 576, 614 1 1 8 ,1 2 4 -2 5 120, 124 576 73 5 1 2 ,1 0 7 7 71 1 1 2 3 -2 4 69, 248 642, 1076, 1123, 1 1 4 3 -4 4 , 1146, 1148 742 3 2 ,1 1 3 7 108 87 564 89 199, 376 93 7 153 70 118 582 556 1 9 3 -9 7 , 202, 580 284 9 0 -9 2 , 120

5 8 :10 58:12 59:5 59:7 59:8 59:9 5 9 :1 4 -2 0 6 0 :1 -3 6 0 :1 -2 60:1 60:10 60:14 6 0 :1 9 -2 0 6 1 :1 -2 61:1 61:10 62:1 62:4 62:25 6 3 :1 -6 63:10 63:14 63:16 6 4 :7 -8 64:8 65:9, 15, 22 65:13 6 6 :2 b 66:5 6 6 :1 0 -1 1 66:14 6 6 :1 5 -1 6 66:24

9 0 -9 2 88 147 1 0 5 5 ,1 0 5 7 90 122 936 9 0 -9 2 120, 124 106 69 88 120 165, 193, 197, 202, 217, 2 8 2 ,4 5 0 30, 56, 112, 152, 1 6 1 -6 3 , 1 9 1 -9 6 , 3 3 0 -3 2 248 742 88, 164, 248, 742 551 550, 558 679 1 6 1 ,1 6 5 4 6 ,6 1 3 613 46 869 283 580 284, 290 118 80 708 154, 678, 742

J e r e m ia h

1 :1 -3 1:1 1:2 1:3 1 :4 -1 0 1 :5 -8 1:5 1:10 1 :1 3 -1 9 2:21 2:30 3 :4 -5 3:18 3:19 4:3 4 :1 1 -1 2 4:14 5:22 5 :2 7 -2 9 6:15 7 7 :8 -1 1 7:11 7 :2 5 -2 6 7:32 8:4 8:5 8:13 9:1 9:20 11:5 11:16 11:19 12:17 13:11 13:17 13:23 13:24

138 140, 144 25, 35, 140, 144 25, 35 24, 41, 57 1181 5 5 ,1 4 0 839 5 6 3 -6 4 , 566 149, 950 667 613 735 613 286, 374 153 141 401 72 932 9 8 8 -8 9 9 36, 938 937 951 678, 1137 121 625 718 931 513 87, 92 1 4 9 ,1 1 3 8 1138 718 108 694 154 153

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 13:25 605 15:15 86 16:5 108 16:14 1137 16:16 2 2 3 ,1 0 0 1 1 7 :7 -8 374 17:8 148 17:11 72 1 8 :1 -4 678 19:2 678 1 9 :1 0 -1 3 678 19:13 108 2 0 :4 -6 1002, 1004 2 1 :8 -1 0 1001 21:8 732 2 2 :1 -8 742, 43 2 2 :3 -4 580 2 2 :2 4 -3 0 1 7 0 -7 4 23:5 90 23:19 153 25:15 1084 2 5 :3 0 -3 1 550 25:33 (L X X 32:33) 859 26 1130 26:17 28 2 6 :1 8 -1 9 932 2 6 :2 0 -2 4 667 26:21 (L X X ) 785 2 6 :2 7 -2 8 73 27:7 1003 2 7 :34 (L X X ) 868 28:36 (L X X ) 868 28:64 1004 29:7 961 30:8 (L X X 37:8) 555 31:9 613 3 1 :1 0 -2 0 769 3 1 :1 7 -2 0 790 31:20 785 46:1 785 47:4 556 50:34 868 51:36 868 52:34 616 30:7 1002 30:23 153 31:9 179 31:14 72 31:20 46 31:25 72 31:27 375 3 1 :3 1 -3 4 1042, 1045, 1 0 5 4 ,1 0 5 7 31:31 1137 31:34 89, 236 32:17 56 32:22 87 34:21 1001 36:3 142 37:11 1001 38:8 141 3 8 :1 4 -1 5 1110 38:31 1137 39:21 71 41:1 1000 41:17 105 43:3 142 4 6 -5 1 71 48:1 280 50:6 1001 50:15 1001 50:27 280 50:51 1003 50:52 1004 51:5 1005 51:6 1000, 1001 51:22 1000

51:45 51:46 52:7

1001 992 1001

L a m e n ta tio n s

1:1 1:13 4:16 4:18 4:19 4:20 4:21 5:9 5:21

867 90 958 991 1001 107 50, 1084 616 31

E z e k ie l

1 :1 -3 l:l- 2 :3 1:1 1:4 1:7 1:25 1:28 2:1 2:2 2:3 2 :9 -1 0 3:18 3:24 4 4 :1 -3 4:6 4:15 5 5:9 5:16 7:2 7 :2 -3 7 :6 -7 8 :1 -3 9:4 9 :1 0 -1 4 11:5 11:23 12 12:19 1 3 :1 0 -1 6 13:13 14:17 16:4 16:59 16:63 1 7 :2 2 -2 3 17:24 18:10 18:23 20:23 2 0 :3 3 -3 8 20:33 20:34 20:47 21:7 21:31 22:10 2 4 :9 -1 0 2 4 :1 5 -2 4 26:16 2 8 :2 -1 9 2 8 :2 0 -2 3 30:3 3 1 :5 -6 31:8 31:12 32:7

140, 144 222 160 498 498 162 162, 222 469 610 222 5 6 3 -6 4 668 610 223 9 3 2 -3 3 178 616 223 1002 616 563 992 563, 992 640 476 950 30 1227 223 616 310 153 1 2 1 -2 2 1 0 5 , 111 87 236 7 2 8 -2 9 1138 1 0 5 5 ,1 0 5 7 773 76 143 71 71 1138 5 3 4 -3 5 72 817 1138 542, 544 72 5 5 5 ,5 6 0 555 1003 728 1152 1 4 9 ,9 3 2 1005, 1007

32:9 33:11 33:13 34 3 4 :1 4 -1 6 3 4 :1 5 -1 6 34:16 34:22 3 4 :2 3 -2 4 3 4 :2 5 -3 1 34:28 36:9 36:17 36:23 3 6 :2 5 -2 7 3 6 :2 5 -2 6 36:25 36:27 36:33 3 7 :1 -1 4 37:14 37:23 37:25 38 3 8 :1 9 -2 2 38:22 39:6 39:29 4 4 :2 5 -2 7 47

1273 1002 773 875 642, 644, 694, 903, 908 701, 771, 773 282 31 90 6 91 108 282 375 419 613, 619 610 141 236 152 141 45 152 141 52 1005 992 708 708 1 5 2 ,1 2 2 0 593 141

D a n ie l

1:5 1:18 2 :1 9 -2 3 2:28 2 :3 1 -4 5 2:34 2 :3 7 -3 8 2 :4 4 -4 5 2:44 3:28 4:12 4:14 4:19 4:21 5:20 6:25 7 7 :1 -1 4 7 :7 -2 7 7:9 7 :1 3 -1 4 7:13 7:14 7:15 7:25 7:27 7:28 8 -1 2 8 :9 -2 6 8:13 8:15 8:17 8:26 9 -1 0 9:3 9:4 9:20 9 :2 0 -2 1 9 :2 1 -2 4 9:23 9 :2 4 -2 7 9:24

616 33 571 3 7 9 -8 0 , 465, 986, 992 985 955 573 955 3 7 9 -8 0 , 953 592 728 149 67, 75 728 72 148 473 513 985 473 237 160, 328, 469, 4 7 1 -7 3 , 485, 8 9 5 -9 6 , 1 0 0 6 -7 , 1109 180, 573, 694, 696 29 5 1 2 -1 5 694, 696 1 1 0 -1 2 , 133 19, 32 985 1002 1212 29, 35, 469, 1212 33, 36 29, 35 556 581 29, 35 2 8 - 2 9 ,3 5 116 33, 50, 58 985 29, 35, 197, 282

1274 9 :2 6 -2 7 10:1 10:7 10:8 1 0 :1 1 -1 2 10:11 10:12 10:15 10:16 10:19 1 1 -1 2 1 1 :2 1 -1 2 :4 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:4 12:5 12:6 12:7 12:9 12:11 12:12 13:7 44:23 49:13 52:9 54:1

Index

of

1003 33 29, 33 33 4 9 - 5 1 ,5 8 32, 50, 58 29, 35, 51 29, 35 33 29, 5 0 ,5 8 , 1212 471 985 5 5 6 ,6 6 8 , 1002 557, 567, 583, 585, 1183 32, 36, 90 33, 36 1212 50, 498 990 33, 36 1000 280 471 50 50 50 50

Biblical and O ther A ncient Sources A m os

1:1 1:4 1:7 1:10 1:14 2:14 3:2 3:7 4:2 5:2 5:4 5:16 5 :1 8 -2 0 7:2 7:5 8 :1 -3 8 :1 -2 8:9 8:14 9 :1 1 -1 2

25, 35 708 708 708 708 583 1067 379 223 121 582 709 148 694 694 564 563, 566 1156 121 91

O b a d ia h

16

1003

Jonah H osea

1 -3 1:1 1 :3 -4 2:7 2 :1 4 -2 3 2 :1 9 -2 3 3 :4 -5 4:1 6 :1 -1 0 6:2 6:6 9:7 10:1 10:8 10:12 1 1 :1 -3 11:1 12:9 13:4 14:1 14:10

223 138 51 616, 784 143 248 31 149, 154 595 466 595 1001 950 1 1 3 5 ,1 1 3 7 ,1 1 3 9 78 613 46, 179 5 0 1 ,5 0 4 108 932 26

Joel

1:15 2 :1 -2 2:1 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:13 2:21 2:23 2:28 2:29 2 :3 0 -3 1 2:31 3 :1 -5 3:1 3:2 3 :3 -4 3:13 3:15 4:15

709 709 614, 859 1156 709 877 870 50, 58 50 1 5 2 ,1 2 2 0 57 1007, 1156 709 1156, 1160 30 179 1005, 1156 550 1156 1156

3:4 3 :5 -9 3:6 3:10 4:1

653 556 556 653 653

M ic a h

1:3 4:4 4 :6 -7 4:7 4:8 4 :1 1 -1 3 5:2 6:7 6:8 7:6 7:19 7:20

614, 620 718 282 52 106 5 5 0 ,5 5 8 9 8 ,1 0 2 - 5 , 111 770 149, 154, 580 7 0 9 -1 0 , 995 , 9 9 7 236 73, 76, 87, 92

N ahum

1:4 1:7 3:10

400 886 932

H abakkuk

1 :1 -2 :3 1 :1 4 -1 5 2:3 2 :6 -1 9 2:11 3:2 3:18 9 :5 -7

1003 223 3 2 8 ,3 3 2 279 927 73 69 930

Z e p h a n ia h

1:5 1 :1 4 -1 5 1:15 1:18 2 :1 -2

1156 148 1156 148 148

3 :1 4 -1 7 3:15 3:17

50, 58 614, 620 70, 75

H aggai

1:1 2:6 2:15 4:11

140, 172 9 9 2 ,1 0 0 6 - 7 9 32, 9 9 6 346

Z e c h a r ia h

1:1 3 :1 -2 3:8 3:10 4 :6 -1 0 6:12 7:3 7:5 8 :1 6 -1 7 8:19 9:2 9:9 10:3 11:17 1 2 :3 -4 1 2 :1 0 -1 4 12:10 12:12 12:13 13:1 13:7 13:9 14:1 14:4 14:8 14:9 1 4 :1 6 -2 0 14:21

140, 669 563 90 714, 770 172 90 87 6 876 580 876 556 50, 58, 328, 9 22, 9 24, 928 694 280 555 1137 1 2 1 -2 2 170, 174 1002, 1004 141 1 2 1 -2 2 153 6 1 4 ,8 5 9 1227 141 6 14, 620 5 0 1 ,5 0 4 93 6

M a la c h i

1 :2 -3 1:6 1:10 2:2 2:6 2:10 2 :1 4 -1 6 3 :1 -2 3:1 3 :2 -3 3:8, 10 3:12 3 :1 6 -1 7 3:17 3:19 3:20 3:21 3 :2 3 -2 4 3:24 4:2 4 :4 -5 4:5 4:6

762 613 9 35, 938 5 1 3 ,9 9 6 31 613 822 116, 935 3 1 -3 6 , 88, 92, 128, 138, 3 3 4 -3 6 , 432, 535, 537 1 4 8 ,1 5 3 665 70 566 785 148 66, 90 432 31 31 92 499, 503 36, 432, 614, 620, 8 59, 1183 36

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources

275 ‫ן‬

The New Testament M a tth e iu

1 :1 -1 7 1 :1 -6 1:1 1 :6-11 1:12 1:15 1:16 1:17 1 :1 8 -2 5 1:18 1 :20-21 1:20 1:21 1 :2 4 -2 5 2:1 2 :1 3 -2 3 2:15 2:18 2 :2 2 -2 3 2:23 3:3 3:5 3 :7 -1 0 3:7 3:8 3 :1 1 -1 2 3:11 3:12 3 :1 3 -1 5 3 :1 4 -1 5 4 4 :1 -1 1 4:3 4:12 4 :2 4 -2 5 5 5 :3 -1 2 5:3 5:4 5:13 5:15 5:16 5:17 5:18 5:20 5 :2 5 -2 6 5:25 5:28 5 :2 9 -3 0 5:32 5:42 5:44 5 :4 5 -4 8 5:45 6:1 6:2 6 :5 -1 8 6:5 6 :9 -1 3 6:9 6:10 6 :1 3 b 6 :1 4 -1 5 6:14 6:16 6 :1 8 -1 9 6 :1 9 -2 1

167, 169 169 23 170, 174 169, 172 169 23, 169 168 23 23 23 23 2 3 ,5 1 23, 111 23 123 170, 174 170, 174 23 105, 899, 9 0 0 89 140 146 1 4 6 -4 7 148 146, 151 151 153 159 159 185 1 5 9 ,1 7 0 179, 630 5 57, 56 0 275 818 281 282 2 83, 287 761, 765 390, 656 392, 612 709, 809 809 809 713 714 576, 8 1 9 -2 0 837 809, 8 1 6 , 818 299 292, 294 298 46, 292, 612, 693 612 287 122 287 610 610 1083 610 618, 6 2 0 612 287 1071 684, 6 8 7 -8 8 , 691, 694

6 :2 2 -2 3 6 :2 3 b 6:24 6 :2 5 -3 4 6:25 6:26 6:30 6:32 6:34 7 :3 -5 7:6 7 :7 -1 1 7 :7 -8 7 :9 -1 1 7:9 7:11 7:12 7 :1 3 -1 4 7 :1 6 -1 9 7:21 7 :2 2 -2 3 7:22 7 :2 4 -2 7 7:28 8:1 8 :5 -1 3 8:5 8:6 8:10 8 :1 1 -1 2 8:11 8 :1 2 -1 4 8 :1 3 b 8:14 8 :1 8 -2 2 9:2 9:9 9:13 9 :3 2 -3 4 9:34 9:35 9 :3 7 -3 8 10 10:2 10:3 10:4 1 0 :5 -4 2 10:6 1 0 :7 -8 10:7 10:8 1 0 :9 -1 0 10:9 10:10 1 0 :10b 10:11 10:11a 10:13 10:14 10:15 1 0 :1 9 -2 0 10:22 10:23 1 0 :2 4 -2 5 10:25 1 0 :2 6 -3 3 10:26 10:27 10:28 10 :3 0 -3 1

6 5 6 -5 7 658 805, 8 0 7 620 691 612 692 612 616, 69 3 3 0 6 -0 7 765 306 62 9 530 630 612 306 306, 7 3 2 -3 3 306, 308 3 0 6 ,6 1 2 5 6 5 , 732, 734 732 306 315 315 417 315 2 3 2 ,8 2 8 315 318, 732, 735 85 9 7 6 -7 0 7 6 9 ,7 7 1 769, 8 2 8 539 828 244 595 636 637 364 547 547 265, 2 7 0 244 264 547 906 5 5 2 -5 3 42 6 226 552 551 42 6 552 427 548 547 547 5 5 5 -5 6 676 267 4 72, 5 4 7 -4 8 , 8 1 5 305, 307 637 675 3 9 0 -9 1 677 4 8 3 ,6 9 1 ,6 9 5 678

1 0 :3 2 -3 3 10:34 1 0 :3 5 -3 6 10:36 1 0 :3 7 -3 8 1 0 :3 8 -3 9 1 0 :4 0 -4 2 10:40 10:41 10:42 11:1 11:2 1 1 :4 -6 11:10 1 1 :1 1 -1 5 1 1 :1 2 -1 3 11:12 11:13 11:15 1 1 :1 6 -1 9 1 1 :2 0 -2 4 1 1 :2 3 -2 4 11:24 1 1 :2 5 -3 0 1 1 :2 5 -2 7 1 1 :2 8 -3 0 11:29a 12:1 12:2 12:7 1 2 :1 1 -1 2 12:11 12:18 12:20, 28 1 2 :2 2 -3 0 12:22 12:27 12:32 1 2 :3 3 -3 5 1 2 :3 8 -4 2 12:40 12:46a 12:50 13 13:9 13:13 1 3 :1 6 -1 7 13:17 13:19 13:24 1 3 :3 1 -3 3 13:41 13:43 13:44 13:52 14:1 14:8 14:11 14:23 1 4 :6 0 -6 1 15:3 1 5 :1 6 -2 0 15:27 1 6 :2 b -3 16:3 16:4 16:6 16:17 16:18

4 7 8 -8 1 , 612 7 0 7 -0 8 285 710 761 4 7 6 -7 8 555 5 1 7 -1 8 , 557 576 517 364 612 330 89 326 3 4 1 ,8 1 4 815 1205 375 343 547, 555 557 555 569 5 47, 555, 562, 569, 612 569 476 571 253 595 745 7 2 2 -2 3 , 7 4 5 -4 6 1 6 2 -6 3 632 635 204, 6 3 6 204 675, 679 306, 308 650 472, 6 5 1 - 5 3 648 61 2 730 375 378 569 858 382, 565 727 727, 730 472 90, 375 589, 8 0 2 667 571 664 664 875 1123 1124 1124 8 2 5 ,8 2 8 7 1 1 -1 2 260 652 676 3 7 9 ,6 1 2 , 1053 271

1276 16:21 16:24 16:27 17:12 1 7 :1 6 -1 8 1 7 :1 9 -2 0 1 7 :2 0 -2 1 17:25 18:2 18:3 18:4 18:5 1 8 :6 -7 18:8 1 8 :1 0 -1 4 18:10 18:13 18:14 1 8 :1 5 -1 7 1 8 :1 5 -1 6 a 18:17 1 8 :2 1 -3 5 1 8 :2 1 -2 2 1 8 :2 3 -3 5 1 8 :2 3 -3 4 18:27 18:31 18:33 18:35 19:6 19:9 19:10 1 9 :1 3 -1 5 19:14 19:23 19:27 19:28 19:30 20:11 2 0 :13 2 0 :16 2 0 :2 4 -2 8 2 0 :2 6 -2 7 20:28 2 1 :1 0 -1 3 2 1 :1 4 -1 6 2 1 :1 8 -1 9 21:21 2 1 :2 8 -3 1 21:28 21:31 21:44 2 2 :1 -1 0 22:2 22:8 22:10 22:14 2 2 :3 4 -4 0 22:34 22:37 22:40 23 2 3 :2 -3 23:2 23:3 23:4 2 3 :6 b -7 a 2 3 :8 -1 0 2 3 :1 1 -1 2 23:11 23:12 23:23 23:25 2 3 :26 2 3 :2 7 -2 8

Index

of

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources

46 4 763 479 345 50 6 83 6 83 6 236, 246 518 5 17, 881 517, 748 518 835 154 530 612 589 612 836 836 836 355 836, 838 618, 620 356 589 589 589 612 816 8 1 6 ,8 1 8 838 518 881 57 6 80 4 7 2 ,4 7 9 ,1 0 6 6 7 3 2 ,7 3 5 245, 787, 790 788 5 1 8 ,7 3 2 1062 517 748 935 518, 9 2 2 , 927 717 836 596 781 589 953 530, 754 755 758 758 869 580, 585 583 583 580 662 669 195, 198 667 66 6 664 666 51 7 1062, 1065 748 670 663, 670 664 666

2 3 :2 9 -3 9 2 3 :2 9 -3 2 2 3 :29 2 3 :34 2 3 :3 7 -3 9 24:2 2 4 :4 -5 , 2 3 - 2 4 2 4 :1 7 -1 8 24:20 24:24 2 4 :2 6 -2 7 24:26 24:28 2 4 :2 9 -3 6 24:30, 37 2 4 :36 2 4 :3 7 -3 9 24:37 2 4 :3 9 b 2 4 :4 0 -4 1 24:40 2 4 :4 2 -5 1 2 4 :43 24:51 2 5 :1 -1 3 2 5 :1 -1 2 2 5 :1 0 -1 2 25:13 25:23 25:29 25:31 2 5 :3 5 -4 0 25:41 2 6 :2 6 -2 9 26:28 26:36 26:41 26:42 26:49 2 6 :50 26:55 26:57 26:62 26:64 26:71 26:73 26:75 27:1 27:2 27:11 27:20 27:29 27:50 27:60 28:1 28:4 28:6 28:8 28:9 2 8 :9 -1 0 28:10 2 8 :1 6 -2 0 28:16 2 8 :1 7 -2 0 2 8 :1 8 -2 0 28:19 28:28

664 667 576 667 6 6 2 ,7 3 8 576 858 856 856 637, 643 856 858 856, 863 856 472 612, 704 856 859 860 856 862 699 699 704 702 734 732 704 589 39 0 472 518 154 1042 89 485 619 615 49 953 1 9 5 ,1 9 8 1109 1104 1104 899 1 0 9 5 -9 6 1 0 9 2 -9 3 , 1096 1109 1115 1 1 1 5 ,1 1 1 8 1131 49 1158 1162, 1164 3 6 6 -6 7 , 1165, 1184 29 1185 1192 49 3 6 6 -6 7 , 1181 1182 1 1 8 1 ,1 2 1 0 , 1225, 1228 1227 495 1181 1219 1182

M a rk

1 :1 -1 3 1 :2 -3 1:2 1:5 1:7

185 8 8 -8 9 , 462 143, 336 146, 213 146

1 :9-11 1:9 1:10 1 :1 4 -1 5 1:14 1:15 1 :1 6 -2 0 1 :1 6 -1 8 1:16 1:17 1 :1 9 -2 0 1:20 1 :2 1 -3 8 1 :2 1 -2 8 1:21 1:22 1 :2 3 -2 8 1:23 1:24 1:26 1:27 1:28 1:29 1 :3 2 -3 9 1 :3 2 -3 4 1:35 1 :3 8 -3 9 1:39 1 :4 0 -3 :1 9 1 :4 0 -4 5 1:4 0 -4 1 1:40 1:45 2 : l- 3 :6 2 :1 -1 2 2 :1 -5 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:6 2:10 2 :1 1 -1 2 2 :1 3 -1 7 2 :1 5 -1 6 2:17 2 :1 8 -2 2 2:18 2 :1 9 -2 0 2:19 2:21 2:22 2 :2 3 -2 8 2:26 2 :2 7 -2 8 2:27 2:28 3 :1 -6 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6 3 :7 -1 2 3 :7 -1 0 3 :7 -8 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:11 3 :1 3 -1 9 3 :1 4 -1 6 3:14 3:16 3:19 3 :2 0 -2 1

159 159 1158 1 8 4 -8 5 , 216, 219 156, 1 8 4 -8 5 , 243 191, 216, 554, 640, 1003 205, 211, 219, 220, 244, 270 223 221 2 2 0 ,2 2 3 223 222 1025 1 8 5 ,2 0 4 185 205 405 206 54, 105 20 6 398 1 8 4 -8 5 , 208 66, 2 3 4 185 213 228 364 1 8 4 -8 5 , 187, 208, 215 219 225, 845 846 227 234 231, 246, 259, 264 225 231 233, 557, 560 238 316 233 2 3 2 ,4 7 2 - 7 3 2 3 1 -3 2 , 275 241 770 786 241, 243 246 464 244, 247 243 243 253 253 473 253, 257 237, 257, 472 253, 745 661, 746 260 2 5 9 ,7 4 6 260 238, 2 5 9 -6 0 , 669 219, 2 7 5 ,2 8 0 275 244 220 276 2 2 0 -2 1 , 276 2 1 3 -1 4 , 27 6 265 244 3 6 4 -6 7 365 393 393

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 3:20 3 :2 2 -2 7 3:22 3:23 3:26 3 :2 8 -3 0 3:28 3:29 3 :3 1 -3 5 3 :3 1 -3 2 3:33 3:35 4 :1 -2 4:1 4 :3 -9 4 :5 -6 4:8 4 :1 0 -1 2 4:10 4:11 4:13 4 :1 4 -2 0 4:14 4:15 4 :2 1 -2 5 4 :2 1 -2 2 4:21 4:22 4:24 4:25 4 :2 6 -2 9 4 :3 0 -3 2 4:30 4:31 4:32 4 :3 3 -3 4 4 :3 5 -4 1 4:35 5 :1 -2 0 5 :3 -5 5 :3 -4 5:5 5:7 5:12 5:14 5:15 5:16 5 :1 8 -2 0 5:19 5:23 5:25 5:30 5:34 5 :3 8 -3 9 5:42 6 :1 -6 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6 6 :7 -1 3 6:7 6:9 6 :10b 6:11 6:12 6 :1 4 -1 5 6:14 6 :1 7 -2 9 6 :1 7 -1 8 6:20 6:25 6:30 6:31

438 635 430 638 1077 676, 679 680 675 367, 370, 376, 393, 648 394 395, 971 309, 649 221 2 2 0 - 2 1 ,3 7 0 370 371 374 370, 377 365, 370 379 370, 384 370 3 8 3 -8 4 382 392 370 3 8 9 -9 1 , 656 391 370 3 7 0 ,9 1 7 370 370, 4 8 1 ,7 2 7 , 730 244 727 727 370 397 406 204 403, 40 7 244 771 206 1073 404 244, 40 7 411 405 900 213 419 420 418, 438 419 419 1 9 1 ,3 9 7 570 1 9 9 ,3 9 4 200 213 396 547 365 551 548 558 426 430 156, 1183 397, 430 156 431 65 267 439

6 :3 2 -4 4 435 6 :4 5 -8 :2 6 210, 213, 397, 434 6 :4 5 -5 1 1211 6:53 221 7 :1 -5 663 7:6 584 7 :9 -1 3 979 7:19 665 7 :3 1 -3 5 1008 7:32 213 8 :1 -1 0 435 8:7 443 8 :1 1 -1 2 651 8:11 637 8:12 652 397 8 :1 4 -2 1 8:15 6 7 5 -7 6 , 97 6 , 1012 244 8:22 8:23 213 8:25 213 8:27 451 8:28 430 8:29 1108 8 :3 1 -3 4 4 6 1 -6 2 , 475, 477, 479 8 :3 1 -3 3 4 5 8 -6 0 , 4 6 3 -6 4 , 472 8:31 130, 527, 1108 8 :3 2 -3 3 512 8:33 177, 4 49, 536 8:34 763 8:35 2 8 5 ,4 7 8 - 7 9 8 :3 6 -3 7 4 7 8 ,4 8 4 8:38 4 7 2 -7 3 , 4 80, 485, 1108 9:1 4 8 0 -8 1 , 485, 815 9:2 497 9:9 472 9:10 461 9 :1 1 -1 3 243, 322, 506 9:12 472 9:13 481 9 :1 4 -2 9 204 9:22 509 9:29 122 9:30 527 9:31 67, 463, 472 9:32 4 6 1 ,8 9 6 9 :3 3 -5 0 517 9 :3 5 b 517, 520 9:36 518 9:37, 41 557 9 :3 7 b 518 9 :3 8 -4 0 557 9:38 5 2 3 ,6 3 9 9 :3 9 -4 0 524 9:41 5 1 8 ,5 2 2 9:42 835 9:43 154 9 :4 4 -4 5 465 9 :4 6 -4 8 , 4 9 -5 0 , 5 1 - 5 6 465 9 :4 8 -5 0 557 9:48 154 9 :4 9 -5 0 761 9:50 764 1 0 :1 -1 3 522 10:1 527 1 0 :2 -9 8 2 1 -2 2 10:9 8 1 6 ,8 1 8 , 8 20, 823 1 0 :1 0 -1 2 822 10:10 427 1 0 :1 1 -1 2 8 1 6 ,8 1 8 1 0 :13-31 884 1 0 :1 3 -1 6 5 1 8 ,6 0 1 ,8 8 1 10:13 66 10:15 5 1 7 ,8 8 1 - 8 2 10:16 519, 882, 1227 1 0 :1 7 -2 2 580

10:17 1 0 :1 8 -2 3 1 0 :1 8 -1 9 10:18 10:2 0 -2 1 10 :2 3 -3 1 1 0 :2 3 -2 6 a 10:23 10:24 10:26 1 0 :2 8 -3 1 1 0 :2 9 -3 0 10:29 10:31 1 0 :3 2 -3 4 1 0 :3 2 -3 3 10:32 10:33 1 0 :3 4 -3 6 10:34 1 0 :3 5 -4 5 1 0 :3 5 -3 7 10:35 10:37 1 0 :3 8 -3 9 10:38 10:39 1 0 :4 1 -4 5 10:42 1 0 :4 3 -4 4 10:45 1 0 :4 6 -5 2 10:46 1 0 :4 7 -4 8 1 1 :1 -1 0 11:1 11:6 1 1 :1 1 -1 2 1 1 :1 3 -1 4 , 2 0 -2 1 11:15 11:17 11:18 11:19 1 1 :2 2 -2 3 11:25 11:28 1 1 :2 9 -3 2 11 :4 9 -5 1 12:4 12:5 12:6 12:7 12:8 12:9 1 2 :1 2 -1 3 12:12 12:13 12:14 12:15 1 2 :2 6 -2 7 1 2 :2 8 -3 4 12 :2 8 -3 1 12:28 12:29 12:30 1 2 :3 2 -3 4 1 2 :3 2 -3 3 12:34 1 2 :3 5 -3 7 12:37 1 2 :3 8 -3 9 12:43 12:44 13 1 3 :1 -2

1277 527, 583 890 583, 884 6 3 1 ,8 8 5 884 8 8 9 -9 0 890 889 8 8 9 -9 1 889 889 892 479, 762 518, 732, 735, 892 894 527 5 2 7 ,9 1 7 472, 895 911 130 5 3 6 ,8 9 8 , 1 1 4 4 -4 5 4 6 1 ,4 8 5 900 4 7 9 ,9 7 3 - 7 4 , 1145 152, 707, 1073 463, 708 1088, 1090 1062 1064 517, 1063 472, 1063, 1045 898 921 846 1032 6 6 ,9 1 7 925 1015 717 916 9 3 5 -3 6 939 9 43, 1015 836 618, 620 942 1008 1008 256 949 784, 952 208 256 951 285 462 669 244 177, 963 5 8 0 ,5 8 5 ,9 7 0 , 1164 600 963, 967 580 583 582 580 584, 9 63, 968 970 971 666 975 244 485, 8 5 6 -5 7 , 9 84, 986 987

1278

Index

of

9 3 0 , 93 2 13:2 13:3 1227 990 13:4 13:5 -3 1 985 1 3 :5 -6 , 21 -2 2 8 5 6 ,8 5 8 13:7 98 6 995 1 3 :9 -1 1 285, 6 8 0 13:9 13:10 99 6 , 1218 13:11 63 9 , 6 7 6 , 68 0 13:12 995, 997 13:13 99 7 13:14 2 3 7 , 9 8 6 ,1 0 0 0 1001 1 3 :1 5 -1 6 13:15 857, 861 13:18 1 0 0 2 ,1 0 1 3 13:19 6 68, 1 0 0 2 -3 13:20 869, 1003, 1005 1005 1 3 :2 1 -2 3 858 13:21 869 13:22 1 3 :2 4 -2 5 1005 13:25 1005 1 3 :2 6 -2 7 4 7 9 -8 0 13:26 47 2 , 9 8 6 ,1 0 0 5 , 1108 13:27 4 84, 86 9 , 1 0 0 5 -0 6 13:29 1009 13:30 4 8 1 ,8 1 5 , 1008 1008 13:31 13:32 704, 1008, 1010 1 3 :3 3 -5 7 1012 699 1 3 :3 3 -3 7 13:33 1013 1 3 :3 5 -3 6 699 13:35 702 13:37 702 1 0 2 3 ,1 0 2 7 , 1 0 2 9 ,1 0 8 4 ,1 0 8 7 1 4 :1 -2 1025, 1094 14:1 1 4 :3 -9 3 5 1 -5 4 , 1029 1015 14:3 1 4 :1 0 -1 1 1023, 1029, 1089, 1094 1 4 :1 2 -1 6 1032 14:13 92 3 1033 14:14 14:15 1033 14:16 8, 925 14:17 1041, 1049 1 4 :1 8 -2 1 1 0 5 8 -5 9 14:18 1049, 1058 4 7 2 -7 3 14:21 1 4 :2 2 -2 5 64, 1042 1 4 :2 2 -2 3 1051 14:25 8 1 5 ,1 0 4 3 ,1 0 5 0 - 5 2 14:26 1 0 1 5 ,1 0 8 3 1 4 :2 7 -3 1 1 0 8 1 ,1 0 9 3 1 4 :2 7 -2 8 694 14:27 1070 14 :2 9 -3 1 1071, 1073 14:30 1 0 7 3 ,1 0 9 3 14:35 1083, 1089 5 7 1 ,6 1 3 14:36 14:37 1088 14:38 6 19, 621 463, 472, 1 0 8 8 -8 9 14:41 1 0 3 0 ,1 0 8 7 14:43 14:46 1088 14:48 1 0 8 8 -8 9 93 9 14:49 1093 1 4 :5 3 -7 2 1089 14:53 1 0 9 2 -9 3 14:54 14:58 4 64, 93 0 , 9 8 7 -8 8 , 9 9 0 , 993 4 7 2 ,1 0 9 9 ,1 1 0 8 14:62 1105 1 4 :6 3 -6 4 1100, 1163 14:64

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources 14:65 1 4 :6 6 -7 2 1 4 :6 6 -6 8 14:70 14:71 1 5 :1 -5 15:1 15:2 1 5 :4 -5 15:6 15:7 15:8 15:11 15:14 15:15 1 5 :1 6 -2 0 15:17 15:18 15:19 15:20 15:22 15:23 15:24 15:25 1 5 :2 6 -2 7 15:26 15:27 15:29 15:30 1 5 :3 1 -3 2 15:32 1 5 :3 4 -3 6 15:34 15:36 15:37 1 5 :4 0 -1 6 :8 15 :4 0 -4 1 15:40 15:47 1 6 :1 -8 16:1 16:6 16:7 16:9 16:12 16:16 16:19 16:20 17:3 17:26 1 8 :3 1 -3 4 2 2 :2 4 -2 7 2 4 :2 6 2 7 :34

895 1 0 9 2 -9 3 1093 1096 1093 1114 1 1 0 5 ,1 1 0 7 , 1109 1 1 1 5 ,1 1 1 8 ,1 1 4 8 1123 1130 1132 1130 1 1 1 8 ,1 1 3 1 1132 1132 1 1 2 2 ,1 1 3 6 827 49 895 1135 1142 1142, 1145, 1147 1142 1142, 1145, 1155 1142 4 4 9 , 1146 1 1 3 5 ,1 1 3 8 ,1 1 4 2 1142 1146 1142 1146, 1150 1142, 1147 1158 1142 1158 1163 3 6 4 -6 6 , 1159 1 1 5 5 ,1 1 5 9 366, 1023, 1165 4 9 0 -9 2 , 1177, 1184, 1186 355, 1025 1190 1227 876 430, 4 9 8 1184 535, 1225 243 1012 1012 465 465 484 3 99, 1147

Luke

1 -3 1 -2 1 1 :1 -9 :2 0 1 :1 -4 1:1 1:2 1 :3 -1 4 1:3 1 :5 -2 :5 2 1 :5 -3 8 1 :5 -2 5

1 :5 -2 0 1 :5 -7 1 :5 -6

247 xx x i, x x x ii, 365, 821 18, 19, 25 xli viii, xxviii, x x x ii, xxxiv, xxxv, 17, 25, 78, 138 137, 173 2 2 3 ,2 2 4 1049 xx x i, 365 13, 17, 34, 42 122, 125 1 3 ,1 9 - 2 2 , 24, 3 4 ,4 0 - 4 1 ,4 8 , 56-8, 7 7 -7 8 , 80, 83, 85, 90, 9 8 -9 9 , 106 ,1 0 9 , 112, 115, 123, 130, 133 17, 177 24 23

1:5 1 :6 -7 1:6 1:7 1 :8 -2 3 1:8 1:9 1:10 1 :1 1 -2 0 1:11 1:12 1:13 1 :1 4 -1 5 1:14 1 :1 5 -1 7 1:15 1 :1 6 -1 7 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:20 1:21 1:22 1:23 1 :2 4 -2 5 1:24 1:25 1 :2 6 -3 8

1 :2 6 -3 0 1:26 1:27 1 :2 8 -3 0 1:28 1:29 1:30 1 :3 1 -3 5 1:31 1 :3 2 -3 5 1 :3 2 -3 3 1:32 1:33 1 :3 4 -3 5 1:34 1:35

1:36 1:37 1:38 1 :3 9 -5 6 1 :3 9 -4 5 1:39 1:41 1:42 1:43 1:44 1:45 1 :4 6 -5 5 1:46 1:47 1:48 1:51 1 :5 2 -5 3 1:52 1:53

23, 27, 137, 1 4 0 ,2 1 6 , 244, 1163 49 5 0 ,1 1 8 ,7 7 3 - 7 4 , 831 1163 25, 122 24 79, 221, 46 6 1 1 9 ,1 2 9 ,1 0 8 3 8 7 5 , 1117 19, 78 2 3 ,1 0 6 ,1 0 8 4 ,1 2 1 2 29, 106, 238, 1 2 1 2 -1 3 24, 29, 3 0 ,5 1 - 5 2 , 7 8 - 7 9 ,8 1 , 22 3 , 1189 23 50, 67, 79, 106, 385, 56 2 , 905 25 25, 29, 35, 54 , 66, 140, 162 25 30, 88 2 3 - 2 4 , 26, 89, 107, 160, 164, 185, 322, 337, 710, 7 7 3 -7 4 , 1220 223 79, 106, 1088 2 9 ,8 1 ,1 8 2 , 223, 235, 3 8 5 ,6 7 7 109, 112, 6 3 6 29, 206, 1118, 1123, 1203, 1220 66, 74, 9 2 3 24, 33, 104 62 77 13, 17, 19, 2 0 -2 2 , 24, 34, 36, 4 1 ,4 7 - 4 8 , 53, 58, 78, 86, 104, 106, 110, 112, 1111 32, 49, 205 65, 104, 118, 133, 195, 1220 23, 26, 4 7 ,5 1 ,9 8 , 104, 118, 122, 173, 90 0 23 50, 164 29, 110 50, 106, 133, 164, 223, 1212 199 23, 2 9 ,5 0 - 5 2 , 110, 63 9 160, 165 7, 107, 111, 164, 172, 1066 23, 42, 52, 5 5 - 5 6 , 104, 111, 1 3 3 -3 4 , 165, 173, 901, 1220 150 4 1 -4 2 , 57, 171 23, 51 2 3 , 3 1 ,4 2 - 4 3 , 4 5 -4 6 , 4 8 ,5 2 , 5 5 - 5 6 , 58, 111, 118, 124, 1 3 3 -3 4 , 162, 1 6 4 -6 5 , 171, 173, 178, 186, 207, 209, 214, 1220 26, 33, 62 5 1 ,5 6 , 891 3 3 ,4 1 , 109, 393, 395, 1206 17, 1 9 -2 0 , 34, 59, 78, 82, 103, 127, 133 2 1 -2 2 , 56, 6 2 -6 3 , 110 1 0 9 ,2 1 1 , 1123 18, 3 1 ,6 6 , 119, 923 67, 6 4 8 -4 9 27, 222, 971 2 3 , 3 1 ,3 0 , 5 1 3 33, 67, 109, 235, 385, 388, 6 4 8 -4 9 , 878 20, 2 1 ,1 1 5 50, 68 107, 571 2 2 3 , 283, 509, 6 4 8 -4 9 , 707, 87 8 583 28 3 , 686, 830 810, 8 7 8 830

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 1 :5 4 -5 5 1:55 1 :5 6 -6 6 1 :5 6 -5 7 1:56 1 :5 7 -6 6 1 :5 7 -6 4 1 :5 7 -5 8 1:57 1:58 1 :5 9 -6 6 1:59 1:62 1:63 1:64 1 :6 5 -6 6 1:65 1:66 1 :6 7 -8 0 1 :6 7 -7 9 1:67 1 :6 8 -7 5 1:68 1:69 1:70 1:71 1 :7 2 -7 3 1:73 1 :7 4 -7 5 1:76 1:77 1 :7 8 -7 9 1:78 1:79 1:80 2 2 :1 -5 2 2 :1 -4 0 2 :1 -2 4 2 :1 -2 1 2 :1 -2 0 2 :1 -7 2:1 2:2 2 :4 -7 2 :4 -5 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7 2 :8 -2 0 2 :9 -1 4 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:12 2 :1 3 -1 4 2:14 2:15 2 :1 7 -1 8 2:18 2:19 2 :2 0 -2 3 2:20 2:21 2 :2 2 -4 0

1220 724, 9 0 6 24 59 33, 56, 62, 186 17, 1 9 -2 4 , 34, 7 7 -7 8 , 80, 8 2 ,9 8 , 1 0 2 -3 , 110, 113 2 1 ,1 1 5 19, 20 77, 98, 105 7 9 ,7 7 2 19, 20 98, 110 32, 519 98, 109, 112, 120, 185 2 1 ,1 1 9 21, 80, 133 2 5 ,2 3 8 21, 25, 98, 103, 110, 156, 1 8 5 ,3 8 5 ,6 3 9 ,9 9 6 20, 21, 23, 34, 8 1 -8 2 , 86, 1 1 5 ,1 2 3 20, 21, 115 66, 119 21 107, 123, 150, 323, 1203 9 0 6 ,9 0 8 83, 1220 90, 294 1220 830, 90 6 90 88, 337, 944, 1220 32, 107, 1 5 0 -5 1 , 197, 235, 360 2 1 ,9 0 , 106, 112, 657 86, 90, 1220 3 6 0 ,7 0 9 2 1 -2 2 , 49, 9 0 -9 1 , 123, 125, 133, 140, 216 1 8 -1 9 , 23, 25, 1225, 1227, 1229 40 123, 125 21 17, 2 0 - 2 1 ,3 4 , 78, 8 0 ,9 3 , 102, 113, 115 2 0 -2 2 , 25, 105, 110 20 49, 179, 180 1 0 1 ,1 0 2 6 23 49, 53 23, 25, 49, 98, 104, 900 23, 67 80, 226, 534 160, 165, 199, 1034 20 19 2 9 ,2 3 8 ,1 1 8 9 ,1 2 1 2 30, 3 5 ,5 0 ,1 5 0 , 2 2 3 ,2 3 1 , 2 5 8 ,3 8 5 , 1228 23, 25, 27, 111, 151, 164, 222, 1110 33 9 2 7 ,9 2 9 109, 164, 360, 552, 573, 577, 709, 9 2 6 -2 7 , 1220 9 23, 1206, 1228 80 120, 185 21, 133, 385 104 33, 1 8 5 -8 6 , 238, 847, 901, 929 20, 24, 29, 49, 79, 98, 534 2 0 -2 1 , 34, 83, 86, 91, 113, 115, 123, 128

2 :2 2 -3 8 2 :2 2 -2 4 2:22 2 :2 3 -2 4 2:23 2:24 2 :2 5 -3 8 2:25 2:26 2 :2 7 -2 8 2:27 2:28 2 :2 9 -3 5 2 :2 9 -3 2 2 :2 9 -3 0 2:29 2:30 2:31 2:32 2 :3 4 -3 5 2:34 2:35 2 :3 6 -3 8 2:36 2:37 2:38 2 :3 9 -4 0 2:39 2:40 2 :4 1 -5 2 2 :4 1 -5 1 2 :4 1 -4 9 2 :4 1 -4 2 2:41 2:42 2:43 2:44 2:45 2:46 2:47 2:48 2:49 2 :5 1 -5 2 2:51 2:52 3 :1 -4 :1 3 3 :1 -2 0 3 :1 -6 3 :1 -2 3:1 3:2 3 :3 -6 3:3 3 :4 -6 3:4 3:6 3 :7 -1 8 3 :7 -8 3:7 3 :8 -9 3:8 3:9 3 :1 0 -1 4 3:10 3:11 3 :1 2 -1 3 3:12 3 :1 3 -1 9 3 :1 3 -1 5 3:14 3 :1 5 -1 7

22, 49, 20 1166 49 , 124, 276, 733 1184 49, 55, 59, 1219 1184 115 26, 5 5 2 ,7 7 3 ,8 3 1 , 1 1 6 3 -6 6 , 1202 107, 453 1228 161, 206, 571 86, 231 250 248 25 787 107, 1 4 4 -4 5 , 576 1184 xxxiv, 144, 150, 2 01, 203, 6 5 7 ,1 2 1 9 -2 1 248 1 2 1 ,1 2 2 8 1 8 1 ,5 1 9 9 7 9 -8 0 1184 1228 8 6 ,5 7 1 ,9 5 3 , 1164, 1166, 1 2 0 2 -3 49, 133, 195 2 1 ,2 3 , 49, 110, 113, 831, 1166 2 1 ,3 3 ,5 5 , 9 0 ,9 2 , 198, 997 18, 20, 23, 34, 126, 127 20, 22 49 49 1 7 1 ,1 7 4 27, 119, 886 127 1159 1228 3 0 ,4 9 185 171, 174, 235 132 2 1 ,1 9 5 21, 33, 49, 110, 385 33, 4 9 ,9 0 , 123, 127, 692, 997 136, 144, 170 23, 80, 740 91, 137, 145, 167, 821 25, 104, 144 18, 25, 103, 171, 1026, 1123 9 1 ,2 1 6 156 89, 46, 150, 158, 197, 216, 556, 663, 718, 774, 8 38, 1219, 1221 89, 465, 900 8 9 ,9 1 ,3 3 6 , 337, 1219 2 0 1 ,2 0 2 , 249, 774, 966 138, 145, 185, 821 276 143, 158, 637, 7 0 1 ,9 6 4 508 32, 87, 724, 830, 906 143, 150, 677, 701, 7 1 8 -1 9 583 234, 276, 686 596 246 158, 342, 8 7 5 ,9 0 4 364 1184 906 143, 247, 335

1279

1184 28, 50, 1 6 4 ,5 1 9 ,9 6 6 , 1112, 1220 141, 160, 1 6 5 ,3 3 1 3 :1 6 -1 7 24, 31, 158, 1 6 0 -6 1 , 165, 3:16 329, 676, 7 0 7 -0 8 , 770, 1220 143, 514, 686, 693 3:17 3 2 ,1 1 2 3 3:18 155, 158, 740, 1124 3 :1 9 -2 0 156 3:19 1 8 5 ,3 2 8 3:20 271 3 :2 1 -2 8 157, 182, 1 8 7 ,4 9 6 ,5 0 4 , 506 3 :2 1 -2 2 158, 230, 269, 342, 452, 1 1 5 7 -5 8 3:21 46, 52, 132, 158, 160, 1 6 3 -6 4 , 3:22 167, 1 7 3 -7 4 , 179, 186, 196, 199, 202, 234, 238, 254, 5 0 1 ,5 7 3 , 637, 9 5 1 ,9 5 5 , 1111 166, 531 3 :2 3 -2 8 168 3 :2 3 -2 4 7, 25, 100, 104, 169, 199, 228, 3:23 1026, 1119 169 3:24 169 3:27 169 3 :3 1 -3 4 56, 158, 164, 167, 179, 182 3:38 159, 1 6 4 -6 5 , 1 7 3 -7 4 , 185, 4 :1 -1 3 187, 385, 513, 515, 637, 1029, 1 0 6 6 -6 7 496 4 :1 -1 1 178 4 :1 -2 119, 158, 161, 165, 167, 171, 4:1 1 8 6 -8 7 , 196, 206, 216, 221, 234, 238, 5 0 8 ,5 7 1 ,6 7 7 103, 248, 385, 618, 1184, 1225 4:2 56, 158, 164, 165, 167, 171, 4:3 173, 1 9 9 ,6 0 4 , 630 6 0 4 ,6 0 6 4:4 4:5 24 514, 1123 4:6 158, 167, 171, 173 4:9 201 4 :1 0 -1 1 4:10 1184 4:13 1 0 3 1 ,1 0 6 5 , 1206 184, 186, 204, 205, 210, 215, 4 :1 4 -4 4 218, 221, 269, 273, 274, 276, 364 216 4 :1 4 -4 3 154, 179, 1 8 4 -8 5 , 1 9 0 -9 1 , 4 :1 4 -1 5 2 1 5 ,9 3 9 , 1119 4:14 31, 54, 161, 178, 1 8 5 -8 6 , 188, 196, 206, 215, 228, 234, 238, 5 5 6 ,1 2 0 2 , 1220 -2 1 4:15 1 8 5 ,1 8 8 ,7 7 0 4 :1 6 -9 :5 0 186 176, 188, 191, 204, 215, 4 :1 6 -3 0 464, 467, 533, 572 4:16 49, 105, 119, 181, 1123, 1125 465 4 :1 7 -1 9 248 4 :1 8 -2 9 248 4 :1 8 -2 1 4 :1 8 -1 9 141, 143, 150, 165, 172, 234, 238, 900 4:18 72, 158, 161, 1 6 3 -6 4 , 167, 182, 1 8 6 -8 7 , 1 9 6 -9 7 , 199, 209, 211, 255, 283, 330, 7 2 4 -2 5 , 821 4:19 1 9 9 ,2 0 0 4:21 33, 107, 199, 238, 248, 283, 906, 908 4 :2 2 -2 3 105 11, 79, 109, 112, 123, 130, 4:22 185, 187, 188, 3 9 0 ,5 1 3 , 1111 4 :2 3 -3 0 465 4:23 203, 236, 261, 315, 394, 519, 557, 638, 702, 905, 924, 950, 1147, 1149

3 :1 5 -1 6 3:15

1280 4:24

Index

of

165, 201, 378, 466, 485, 741, 882, 891, 1009, 1123, 1125, 1 1 5 2 ,1 2 0 2 4 :2 5 -2 7 122, 201, 322, 365 4:25 783 4 :2 6 -2 7 652 4:27 54, 226, 227, 229 4 :2 8 -2 9 248 4:28 156, 157, 185 4:29 957 4:30 54 4 :3 1 -4 4 557 4 :3 1 -3 9 366 4 :3 1 -3 7 184, 185, 188, 2 0 4 ,2 1 2 , 215, 228, 260, 275, 329, 510, 523, 562, 636, 643, 725 4:31 221, 233, 236, 255, 280, 315, 723 216, 603 4:32 4:33 1 6 1 ,2 2 7 , 509 4:34 54, 399, 408 4 :3 5 -3 6 399 4:35 235, 238, 2 6 1 ,4 0 8 ,9 0 0 4:36 142, 186, 238, 556, 6 4 5 ,9 0 1 4 :3 7 -3 8 156 4:37 184, 185, 188, 228, 839 4 :3 8 -4 1 228 4 :3 8 -3 9 209, 2 1 2 -1 3 , 232, 237, 260, 275, 315, 329, 443, 899 4:38 66, 221, 227 4:39 317, 604 4 :4 0 -4 1 210, 212, 260, 275, 329 4:40 229, 316, 366, 510, 724 4:41 148, 164, 167, 206, 229, 254, 275 214, 228, 233 4 :4 2 -4 4 202, 221, 228, 245, 440, 4:42 557, 734 363, 364, 367 4 :4 3 -4 4 4:43 32, 131, 154, 196, 223, 226, 396, 485, 542, 554, 556, 558, 693, 708, 728, 741, 814, 821, 852, 882 4:44 25, 179, 184, 186, 215, 276, 277, 323, 742, 1119 2 1 8 -2 0 , 230, 232, 241, 5 :1 -6 :1 6 244, 245, 250, 253, 258, 269, 262, 264, 269, 271, 2 7 3 -7 6 , 364, 428, 722 5 :1 -6 :1 1 269 2 1 8 -1 9 , 2 2 0 -2 1 , 2 2 4 -2 5 , 230, 5 :1 -1 1 241, 244, 253, 259, 264, 267, 2 6 9 -7 1 , 280, 284, 319, 3 6 4 -6 5 , 642, 702, 1207 214, 373, 5:1 ‫ ־‬3 219, 226, 245, 281, 365, 369, 5:1 603, 606, 649, 770, 846 846 5:2 245 5:3 5:4 280, 612 211, 500, 524, 846 5:5 283, 693 5:6 742 5 :8 -1 0 847 5 :8 -9 5:8 164, 221, 228, 2 3 1 -3 2 , 246, 256, 408, 5 6 2 ,6 1 2 , 702 208 5:9 69, 221, 233, 241, 270, 707 5:10 220, 244, 245, 246, 764, 8 8 7 -8 8 , 5:11 8 9 1 - 9 2 ,1 0 8 3 , 1094 228 5 :1 2 -6 :1 1 219, 224, 231, 238, 250, 5 :1 2 -1 6 253, 332 845 5 :1 2 -1 4

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources 210, 2 1 9 -2 1 , 2 2 5 -2 6 , 2 3 3 -3 4 , 323, 365, 367, 509, 702, 723, 745, 8 4 5 -4 6 , 9 3 7 , 1163, 1189 5:13 205, 210, 765, 886 5:14 464, 846 5:15 188, 225, 234, 238, 2 4 4 -4 5 , 2 7 6 -7 7 , 329, 762 5:16 215, 216, 264, 269 5 :1 7 -2 6 142, 219, 224, 225, 229, 2 3 0 -3 1 , 2 4 5 ,2 5 3 , 2 5 9 -6 1 5 :1 7 -1 8 , 20, 32 815 5:17 25, 1 8 6 ,2 1 9 , 2 2 1 ,2 2 5 - 2 6 , 228, 231, 249, 2 7 6 -7 7 , 342, 399, 466, 556, 583, 663, 666, 740, 745, 770, 875, 9 43, 9 76, 1109, 12 2 0 -2 1 5 :1 8 -2 6 210 5:18 231 5:19 207, 231, 245, 412 5 :2 0 -2 4 142 359 5 :2 0 -2 1 5:20 210, 220, 227, 309, 360, 6 8 5 ,9 0 1 5:21 164, 221, 228, 2 3 1 -3 2 , 246, 256, 669, 672 122, 199, 202, 231, 519 5:22 5:23 2 3 1 ,5 5 8 ,6 5 4 5:24 144, 164, 234, 2 5 4 -5 5 , 465, 617, 677, 679, 742, 8 0 1 ,9 4 3 723 5 :2 5 -2 6 5:25 110, 205, 210, 846 5:26 80, 81, 107, 164, 231, 324, 724 5 :2 7 -3 9 219, 224, 239, 2 4 1 ,2 5 3 , 255, 258, 260, 264, 271, 464, 708 261, 604 5 :2 7 -3 2 5 :2 7 -2 8 5 4 1 ,7 7 0 887 5:27 5:28 220 905 5:29 770 5 :3 0 -3 2 5:30 150, 221, 228, 2 3 2 - 3 3 ,2 5 5 - 5 6 , 509, 576, 669, 672, 702, 763, 770, 773 9 0 5 ,9 0 7 , 1066, 1184 232, 235, 238, 356, 769, 5 :3 1 -3 2 771, 839 5:31 238, 256, 786 1 4 1 -4 2 , 216, 221, 233, 245, 255, 5:32 269, 345, 556, 654, 655, 708, 770, 772, 906, 943, 1220 261 5 :3 3 -3 9 243 5 :3 3 -3 8 238 5 :3 3 -3 4 5:33 23, 221, 228, 232, 246, 256, 612, 876, 1066 5:34 552 179, 464, 8 5 7 ,9 3 1 ,9 8 8 5:35 5 :3 6 -3 9 2 3 8 ,2 5 1 241, 248 5 :3 6 -3 8 5 :3 6 -3 7 764 30, 770, 866, 943 5:36 220 5 :3 8 -3 9 2 4 4 ,2 4 8 5:39 219, 224, 241, 251, 253, 6 :1 -5 255, 260, 262, 264, 285, 465, 469, 513, 702, 858, 870, 1006, 1110, 1204 219, 221, 226, 253, 260, 269 6:1 205, 221, 225, 228, 233, 246, 260 6:2 123, 236, 992 6:3 6:5 254, 257, 260, 261, 654—55, 7 4 7 ,9 9 2 , 1151 210, 219, 224, 231, 241, 6:6 -1 1 253, 255, 259, 260, 7 2 4 -2 5 , 746 1 8 6 ,2 1 5 ,2 1 9 , 2 2 1 ,2 2 6 , 231, 6:6 2 5 3 ,2 5 5 6:7 221, 228, 231, 233, 412, 669, 672 122, 199, 212. 207, 231, 519 6:8 5:12

6:9 6:10 6:11 6 :1 2 -1 6

6 :1 2 -1 3 6:12 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:16 6 :1 7 -4 9 6 :1 7 -1 9 6 :1 7 -1 8 6:17 6 :1 8 -1 9 6:18 6:19 6 :2 0 -4 9 6 :2 0 -2 6 6:20

6:21 6:22 6:23 6 :2 4 -2 6 6:24

6:25 6:26 6 :2 7 -3 8 6:27 6:28 6 :2 9 -3 0 6:30 6:31 6 :3 2 -3 6 6:32 6 :3 5 -3 6 6:35 6:36 6:37 6:38 6:39 6:40 6 :4 1 -4 2 6 :4 3 -4 5 6 :4 3 -4 4 6:43 6:44 6:45 6:46 6 :4 7 -4 8 6:47 6:48 6:49 7 :1 -5 0 7 :1 -1 7 7 :1 -1 0 7:1 7 :2 -9 7:2 7 :3 -5 7:3 7:6 7 :7 -1 0

225, 231, 238, 257, 258, 483, 5 9 3 ,7 4 6 - 4 7 210, 227, 846 231, 261, 465, 740, 940 219, 221, 224, 241, 244, 262, 264, 271, 275, 3 6 4 -6 5 , 558, 895, 9 25, 1049 267, 268 65, 160, 219, 226, 253, 260, 264, 452, 497 2 2 1 ,2 2 4 , 246, 2 6 5 ,2 6 7 2 2 2 -2 3 , 1072, 1207 56, 923 1030 2 2 0 ,2 7 3 - 7 6 219, 2 7 3 -7 4 , 276, 280 220 25, 188, 216, 221, 238, 264, 275, 323 225, 329 206, 225, 276, 510, 645, 770 225, 234, 238, 276. 483, 7 2 5 ,8 8 1 527 72, 197, 277, 570. 703, 830 49, 197, 216, 219, 379, 386, 484, 513, 554, 693, 728, 852, 877, 882 280, 287 254, 285, 676, 859, 863 31, 67, 200, 202. 6 6 7 -6 8 , 7 4 1 ,8 8 7 757 287, 386, 484, 556, 664, 670, 686, 764, 830, 832, 888, 890, 1002, 1059 287 31, 66 8 3 9 ,9 7 9 , 1144 284, 299, 5 8 4 -8 5 , 590, 6 2 9 ,8 8 5 265 293, 817 687 2 2 8 .5 9 5 - 9 6 751, 805 751, 798 149 46, 54. 584, 693, 887 228 618, 620 618, 621. 798 197, 248, 866 355 891 148, 154 306 149, 306 306 306, 387, 885 317, 323 246 11. 221, 480, 649, 678 272 205 315, 321, 326, 821 366 210, 313, 320, 326, 557 7, 208, 281, 315, 365. 367, 513 210 686 314 466 202, 323, 784 846

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 299 2 1 0 ,2 3 5 , 3 7 5 ,8 4 7 , 1 1 3 6 -3 7 186, 412 201, 210, 313, 320, 326, 506, 510, 899, 1183 321 7 :1 1 -1 2 7:11 56, 202, 365, 3 67, 762, 923 3 29, 549, 594, 663, 702, 724, 7:13 784, 787, 905, 925, 1096 210, 629, 846 7:14 7:15 321 8 0 8 1 ,8 6 , 8 9 ,9 2 , 200, 238, 7:16 603, 606, 723, 725, 734, 1202 25, 187, 2 1 5 -1 6 , 228 7:17 7 :1 8 -3 5 23 7 :1 8 -2 3 210, 247, 313 7:18 612, 924 7 :1 9 -2 3 576 6 1 2 ,9 2 7 , 929 7:19 197, 210, 248, 899, 901 7 :2 1 -2 2 197, 206, 5 7 1 ,6 3 5 ,9 5 3 7:21 193, 197, 226, 283, 465, 7:22 5 0 6 ,5 1 0 , 740, 7 5 1 ,8 1 4 , 900 480, 728 7:23 7 :2 4 -3 0 204 7 :2 4 -2 8 1 5 9 ,3 1 3 7 :2 4 -2 6 147 7:24 140 7:25 386 7 :2 6 -2 7 88, 92 7:26 23, 89, 9 4 4 7:27 32, 143, 322 7 :2 8 -3 0 944 7 :2 8 -2 9 281 7:28 24, 151, 247, 558, 669, 837 7 :2 9 -3 9 831 7 :2 9 -3 5 313 7 :2 9 -3 0 30, 137, 142, 216, 326, 5 5 7 -5 8 147, 160, 188, 592, 770, 810, 7:29 1123, 1202 7:30 233, 666, 746 7 :3 1 -3 5 1 4 1 -4 2 , 243, 247 7 :3 1 -3 4 465 7:31 509, 652, 654, 728, 859, 1009 7:32 882 7:33 30, 246, 637, 1066 7:34 150, 179, 232, 246, 254, 467, 4 7 2 -7 3 , 708, 770, 773, 788, 905, 907, 1066 7:35 6 5 4 - 5 5 ,8 1 0 , 997 7 :3 6 -5 0 122, 232, 604, 1029 7:36 233, 663, 670, 745 7:37 33, 509 7:39 200 7:40 150, 199, 202, 509, 583, 666, 6 84, 927, 958, 988, 1034, 1088 7 :4 1 -4 3 596 7:42 584 7:43b 584 7 :4 4 -4 6 143, 465 7:44 575 7:45 1202 7 :4 7 -4 9 142 7:47 584 7:49 2 3 5 ,2 3 9 7:50 235, 709, 847, 901 8 :1 -9 :2 0 3 6 4 -6 5 8 :1 -2 1 600 8 :1 -3 365, 367, 3 96, 603, 1159, 1161, 1 1 9 0 -9 3 8:1 215, 221, 364, 367, 396, 542, 7 3 3 ,8 1 4 , 821, 1049 8 :2 -3 368 8:2 297, 6 4 8 ,6 5 1 ,7 8 5 , 1014 7:8 7:9 7:10 7 :1 1 -1 7

8:3 8 :4 -2 1 8 :4 -1 5 8 :4 -8 8:4 8:8 8 :8 b 8 :9 -1 0 8:10 8 :1 1 -1 5 8:11 8:12 8:13 8:14 8:15 8 :1 6 -1 8 8 :1 6 -1 7 8:16 8:17 8:18 8 :1 9 -2 1 8:21 8 :2 2 -5 6 8 :2 2 -2 6 8 :2 2 -2 5 8:22 8:23 8:24 8:25 8 :2 6 -3 9 8:27 8:28 8 :2 9 -3 2 8:29 8 :3 1 -3 2 8:31 8:33 8:34 8:35 8:36 8:37 8:38 8:39 8 :4 1 -4 2 8:41 8:42 8 :4 3 -4 8 8 :4 3 -4 4 8:44 8:45 8:46 8:47 8:48 8 :48b 8:49 8:50 8:51 8:52 8:53 8:54 8:55 8:56 9 9 :1 -6

9 :1 -5 9 :1 -2 9:1 9 :2 -3 9:2

604, 764, 1191 373 527 3 8 2 ,3 9 3 , 5 5 1 ,6 2 9 , 728, 1207 1 8 8 ,2 2 0 761 764 382 378, 572, 57 6 658 603, 606, 1110 178, 382, 514, 704, 917 182, 1 0 6 5 ,6 1 8 - 1 9 ,6 2 1 , 1072 604, 606, 670, 6 8 1 -8 2 , 686, 691, 7 5 7 -5 8 , 764, 891, 1012 888, 97 6 , 1065 6 5 6 -5 7 389 3 9 0 ,6 5 6 677 394, 605 18, 133, 135, 648 221, 603, 606, 6 4 8 -4 9 397 221 210, 223, 899 221, 226, 943 397 222, 355 235, 239, 397, 562, 573, 575, 742 2 0 4 ,2 7 5 , 315 204, 206, 592, 950 204, 206, 227, 1131 204 91, 228, 645, 771 1193 1190 204, 374 204 204, 603 206 8 0 - 8 1 ,2 3 8 , 3 4 5 ,4 6 5 , 1117 227, 746 228, 847 210 48, 509, 724, 885 3 2 2 ,8 4 6 277 276 205, 210, 234, 238, 275 222 276, 556 408 210, 235, 237, 359, 360, 709, 9 0 1 ,1 0 9 6 518 314, 317, 355 210, 385 223, 270, 497, 1033 1136 465 210, 846 322, 1158 228 740 2 2 2 -2 3 , 268, 3 6 3 -6 5 , 367, 403, 548, 509, 5 11, 5 5 8 -5 9 , 562, 600, 605, 642, 918, 9 28, 1075, 1220 -2 1 550 210 186, 208, 397, 564, 1220 491 269, 365, 396, 5 42, 550, 8 8 2 ,1 2 2 0

9:3 9 :4 -5 9:4 9:5 9:6 9 :7 -9 9 :7 -8 9:7 9 :8 b 9:9 9 :1 0 -1 7 9:10 9 :1 0 a 9:11 9 :1 2 -1 7 9:12 9:13 9 :1 4 -2 9 9 :1 4 -1 7 9 :1 4 -1 6 9 :1 5 -1 6 9 :1 6 -1 7 9:16 9:17 9 :1 8 -2 4 9 :1 8 -2 0 9:18 9:19 9 :2 0 -2 3 9:20

9 :2 1 -5 0 9 :2 1 -2 7 9 :2 1 -2 4 9 :2 1 -2 2

9:21 9 :2 2 -5 0 9 :2 2 -2 6 9:22

9 :2 3 -2 7

9:23 9 :2 4 -2 5 9:24

9:25 9:26

9 :2 7 -3 6 9:27 9 :2 8 -3 6 9 :2 8 -3 0 9 :2 8 -2 9 9:28 9:29 9 :3 0 -3 2 9 :3 0 -3 1 9:30 9 :3 1 -3 2

1281 552, 559 548 551, 602, 638 200, 554, 6 02, 882 602, 733, 1214 885, 1121, 1123, 1183 366 23, 1123, 1219 548 23, 235, 239, 394, 573, 575, 740 322, 397, 1052, 1178, 1199, 1206, 1208, 1211, 1214 186, 267, 364, 548, 556, 575, 923, 1030 562 396, 1136 617 412, 1155, 1218 277, 1214 5 0 6 -8 701 509 1206 1214 256, 1050, 1206, 1208, 1214 547, 734, 1214 458, 460 397, 885 160, 2 2 6 ,2 6 9 , 4 8 1 ,5 1 0 ,6 1 2 147, 1202 214 245, 362, 364, 367, 397, 403, 510, 515, 575,7 0 2 , 891, 900, 1110, 1 1 4 6 -4 7 , 1149 467, 490, 522, 5 2 8 -2 9 , 5 3 4 - 3 5 ,5 3 7 ,5 4 1 ,5 4 3 4 7 5 -7 6 547 257, 255, 285, 486, 500, 5 1 2 -1 3 , 515, 521, 529, 540, 602, 653, 676, 859, 870, 8 9 4 -9 6 , 940, 9 4 9 ,1 0 5 9 -6 0 , 1204 214, 228 880, 882 254 1 3 0 -3 1 , 232, 233, 254, 461, 499, 535, 741, 856, 8 9 5 -9 6 , 943, 1033, 1050, 1076, 1109, 1190, 1 1 9 3 ,1 2 0 4 5 0 0 ,5 0 2 ,5 2 1 ,5 2 9 ,5 4 4 , 6 7 6 -7 7 , 761, 763, 857, 861, 884, 1 1 0 8 -9 223, 244, 483, 485, 615, 702, 766, 8 8 7 -8 8 , 1094, 1136 503 261, 477, 4 8 3 -8 6 , 6 8 1 -8 2 , 751, 762, 766, 8 5 6 -5 7 , 861, 891, 998, 1147, 1149, 1190 297, 478, 4 8 4 -8 7 , 685 180, 254, 479, 4 8 3 -8 4 , 486, 4 99, 700, 702, 8 5 6 ,9 1 1 , 1006, 1109, 1 2 0 4 -5 , 1208, 1230 506 119, 4 9 0 ,5 7 6 ,6 1 4 , 7 0 3 ,9 7 9 , 9 8 6 ,1 0 0 0 1182 510 160, 269, 452, 491 221, 223, 269, 270, 485, 875, 1033 161, 7 4 5 ,8 5 9 177 1183 1183, 1189, 1193 1204

1282 9:31

Index

of

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources

7, 180, 4 9 1 ,5 1 0 - 1 1 ,5 1 5 , 535, 895, 1023, 1050 9:32 144, 180, 894, 1228, 1230 9 :3 3 -5 0 516 9:33 222, 355, 806, 1084, 1206 9:34 5 4 ,3 7 5 9:35 1 6 2 -6 5 , 265, 2 7 1 ,5 5 8 , 951, 1 1 4 6 -4 9 9:36 67, 179 9 :3 7 -4 3 204 9 :3 7 -3 8 506 9:37 5 17, 745 9:38 69, 227, 322, 355 9:39 204, 206 9 :4 0 -4 1 524, 525 9:40 227 9:41 499, 503, 652, 848 9 :4 2 -4 5 519 204, 322, 645, 1096 9:42 9 :4 3 -4 5 506, 529, 1062 9:43 1 8 8 ,2 0 4 9 :4 3 b 636 9:44 67, 254, 463, 1 0 3 0 -3 1 , 1059, 1 1 1 5 ,1 1 9 3 9:45 896, 931 9 :4 6 -4 8 529, 880, 8 82, 1062 9:46 122, 1064, 1067 9:47 122, 199, 2 0 2 ,5 1 8 , 746 9:48 5 1 ,2 0 0 , 2 4 3 ,5 1 8 , 858, 1219 9 :4 9 -5 0 549, 562 9:49 2 2 2 -2 3 , 244, 355, 536, 562 9:50 1 8 6 ,5 1 7 9 :5 1 -1 8 :3 4 467, 517 530 9 :5 1 -1 7 :1 2 9 :5 1 -1 0 :2 4 5 3 1 ,5 3 7 , 576 533 9 :5 1 -6 2 206, 524, 527, 529, 537, 547, 9 :5 1 -5 6 5 50, 570, 592, 847 465 9 :5 1 -5 4 9:51 1 8 1 - 8 2 ,2 0 2 , 2 2 1 ,4 5 8 , 483, 491, 5 00, 503, 543, 7 0 9 -1 0 , 733, 741, 743, 845, 8 9 4 -9 5 , 914, 1003, 1023, 1073, 1084, 1110, 1112, 1119, 1 1 5 2 -5 3 , 1205, 1208, 1228, 1230 9 :5 2 -5 6 535 9 :5 2 -5 5 1 5 3 ,1 5 5 558 9 :5 2 -5 3 202, 9 5 7 , 533, 550, 594, 847 9:52 9:53 153, 200, 202, 223, 270, 5 3 3 -3 4 , 553 9 :5 4 -5 5 322 5 75, 1137 9:55 9:56 202 537, 547, 571, 640, 884 9 :5 7 -6 2 603 9 :5 7 -5 8 9:57 202, 223, 527, 733, 1206 9:58 108, 199, 216, 233, 254, 465, 4 67, 4 7 2 -7 3 , 540 8 9 1 ,8 9 3 9 :5 9 -6 2 9 :5 9 -6 1 979 540 9 :5 9 -6 0 223, 244, 766, 887 9:59 533, 552 9:60 223, 766 9:61 322, 540 9 :6 1 -6 2 5 33, 859 9:62 548 10 537 1 0 :1 -2 4 425, 428, 1 2 2 0 -2 1 1 0 :1 -2 0 569 1 0 :1 -1 7 547, 561, 571, 573, 600, 1 0 :1 -1 6 6 05, 6 42, 91 8 , 928, 1075 5 3 3 -3 5 , 542 1 0 :1 -1 2 244, 268, 533, 535, 548, 561, 10:1 7 3 3 ,9 2 3 , 1189, 1200

10:2 1 0 :3 -1 1 10:3 1 0 :4 -7 10:4 10:4b 1 0 :5 -8 1 0 :5 -7 1 0 :5 -6 10:5 10:6 1 0 :7 -8 10:7 1 0 :8 -1 0 1 0 :8 -9 10:8 10:9

547 547 1078 548 5 4 0 ,5 5 1 ,5 5 3 , 1075, 1 0 7 7 -7 8 547 628 553 709 5 3 3 -3 4 , 553, 5 59, 6 02, 1 2 1 1 -1 2 764 604, 606 246, 548, 5 52, 6 0 1 -2 , 1066 557 554 200, 602, 905 1 9 1 ,2 1 0 ,2 1 3 , 283, 4 8 5 ,5 3 3 , 5 5 4 , 562, 640, 9 0 5 - 0 6 1 0 :1 0 -1 2 5 3 6 -3 7 10 :1 0 -1 1 550, 5 53, 554 10:10 200, 533, 536, 602 10:10a 548 10:11 283, 533, 553, 605, 882 1 0 :1 2 -1 6 560, 56 2 1 0 :1 2 -1 5 547 10:12 536, 5 5 5 -5 7 , 560, 1012 1 0 :1 3 -1 6 558 1 0 :1 3 -1 5 465, 548, 555, 560, 651, 6 5 3 -5 5 , 742, 774 10:13 1 4 2 ,2 1 6 , 92 6 , 93 0 , 654 10:14 536, 7 0 1 ,7 4 1 ,7 5 1 10:15 315, 829 1 0 :1 6 -1 7 667 10:16 378, 5 1 7 -1 8 , 555, 6 0 2 -0 3 10:1 7 -3 1 889 1 0 :1 7 -2 0 548, 5 6 1 - 6 2 ,5 6 5 , 571, 642, 644 10:17 30, 35, 564, 575, 928 573, 575 10 :1 8 -2 1 10:18 178, 207, 378, 384, 668, 671 1 0 :1 9 -2 0 630 10:19 5 6 5 -6 6 10:20 286, 562, 567, 569 1 0 :2 1 -2 4 283, 5 6 1 -6 2 , 5 6 9 -7 0 , 576 1 0 :2 1 -2 3 555 132, 164, 5 4 7 ,5 7 7 1 0 :2 1 -2 2 186, 379, 571, 6 1 2 -1 3 , 668, 10:21 740, 882, 955 10:22 132, 1 6 4 - 6 5 ,5 7 5 , 1066 1 0 :2 3 -2 4 1 2 0 ,2 1 6 , 330, 379, 480, 539, 545, 554, 5 69, 575, 649 10:23 1137 10:24 380, 533, 858 5 3 1 ,5 7 8 - 7 9 , 585 1 0 :2 5 -4 2 1 0 :2 5 -3 7 261, 262, 530, 874 1 0 :2 5 -2 8 580, 5 8 2 -8 3 , 585, 5 8 8 -8 9 , 592, 594, 5 96, 600, 820, 886, 970 10:25 25, 149, 233, 355, 600, 885, 892 1 0 :2 6 -2 8 591 10:27 592, 594, 665 10:28 596 885 1 0 :2 9 -3 8 580, 5 8 4 -8 5 , 589, 594, 1 0 :2 9 -3 7 6 0 0 - 0 1 ,8 2 8 10:29 810, 957 1 0 :3 0 -3 7 xliii, 25 10:30 595, 686, 746, 755, 781, 827, 1089 25 10:31 895 10:32 10:33 25, 784 1 0 :3 7 -3 8 762 10:37 5 8 2 -8 3 , 590, 594, 716 588, 596, 6 0 0 -0 1 , 692, 979 1 0 :3 8 -4 2 244, 527, 552, 648, 733, 1163 10:38

10:39 1 0 :4 0 -4 2 10:41 10:42 1 1 :1 -1 3 1 1 :1 -4 1 1 :1 -2 11:1 1 1 :2 -3 11:2

8 5 6 -5 7 , 1220 1163 386, 605, 691, 1220 580, 817 531 628 160, 247 23, 160, 226, 269, 452 693 216, 485, 562, 612, 618, 631, 852, 1009, 1083 11:3 6 1 7 -1 8 , 1065 11:4 299, 718, 838, 1083, 1085 1 1 :5 -1 3 6 3 2 ,8 7 1 1 1 :5 -8 5 30, 6 2 2 ,6 2 4 - 2 5 , 6 2 8 -2 9 , 6 3 1 -3 2 , 8 6 5 -6 6 , 868 1 1 :5 -7 623 11:5 7 6 3 ,7 7 0 , 8 4 1 ,8 6 7 11:7 6 2 2 -2 3 , 626, 868 1 1 :8 -1 0 6 3 0 -3 1 11:8 623, 627, 868, 8 70, 8 78, 1190 1 1 :9 -1 0 6 2 2 -2 3 , 6 2 8 -2 9 , 632 11:9 805 1 1 :1 1 -1 4 935 1 1 :1 1 -1 3 5 30, 595, 622, 6 2 7 -2 9 , 8 4 1 -4 2 1 1 :1 1 -1 2 565 11:11 623, 763, 814 11:12 628 11:13 148, 1 6 0 ,6 1 0 ,6 1 2 ,6 2 8 , 6 3 0 - 3 1 ,6 4 0 , 680, 6 9 1 ,6 9 3 1 1 :1 4 -5 4 531, 637, 642, 648, 661, 670, 673 1 1 :1 4 -2 6 646 1 1 :1 4 -2 3 207, 261, 576, 631, 635, 645 11:14 204, 212, 645, 648, 651 1 1 :1 5 -2 0 642 1 1 :1 5 -1 7 935 1 1 :1 5 -1 6 6 3 7 -3 9 11:16 637, 6 5 0 -5 2 , 654, 1 1 2 3 -2 4 6 3 6 ,6 4 0 1 1 :1 7 -1 9 11:17 1 9 9 ,2 0 2 ,6 5 1 1 1 :1 8 -1 9 6 3 5 ,9 3 5 11:18 52, 178, 384, 563 1207 1 1 :1 9 -2 1 1 1 :2 0 -2 5 935 1 1 :2 0 -2 3 649 11:20 142, 164, 210, 378, 480, 485, 554, 559, 564, 646, 651, 654, 656, 6 7 9 -8 0 , 7 2 4 -2 5 , 7 2 8 -2 9 , 8 5 3 ,8 8 2 6 3 6 ,6 4 2 , 6 4 5 -4 7 1 1 :2 1 -2 2 646, 764 11:21 151, 640, 875 11:22 11:23 637, 642, 646, 667 1 1 :2 4 -2 6 635, 642, 6 4 5 -4 6 , 650 663 11:26 1 1 :2 7 -2 8 67, 635, 642, 6 4 8 -4 9 , 651, 654, 1135 11:27 394, 649, 881, 942 11:28 221, 395, 603, 606, 646, 1214 509, 6 3 5 -3 7 , 643, 645, 1 1 :2 9 -3 2 6 5 0 -5 1 , 657 148, 653, 655, 676, 1009, 11:29 1 1 2 3 -2 4 652 1 1 :3 0 -3 2 228, 254, 4 7 2 -7 3 , 653, 11:30 6 5 5 ,1 0 0 9 6 5 0 -5 1 , 6 5 5 -5 6 1 1 :3 1 -3 2 1000, 1009 11:31 1 4 2 ,2 1 6 , 654, 667 11:32 635 1 1 :3 3 -3 6 11:33 391, 656, 658 657 1 1 :3 4 -3 6 656, 6 5 8 -5 9 1 1 :3 4 -3 5 658 11:34

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 11:36 11:37-54 11:37-44 11:37 11:38 11:39-44 11:39-41 11:39 11:40 11:41-42 11:41 11:42 11:43 11:44 11:45-52 11:45-48 11:45-46 11:45 11:46 11:47-48 11:47 11:48-50 11:48 11:49-51 11:49-50 11:49 11:50-51 11:50 11:51 11:52 11:53-54 11:53 11:54 12:1- 13:9 12:1-12 12:1 12:2-9 12:2 12:3 12:4-7 12:4-6 12:4-5 12:4 12:5 12:6 12:7 12:8-12 12:8-9 12:8 12:9 12:10 12:11-12 12:11 12:12 12:13-22 12:13-21 12:13-20 12:13-14 12:13 12:14 12:15-21 12:15 12:16-21 12:16 12:17-19 12:17 12:18 12:19-21 12:19 12:20

656-59 , 669 677,975 635 1049,1096 663-64 233 665-66 645 , 664 , 810 664,686 294 664 , 694 , 696 , 751, 766, 891 584, 671,876 748, 810 , 976 662 , 810 635 667 669 233, 355 , 895 233 668 200, 202, 666 , 668 202 667 663 , 667, 671 , 742, 996 , 998 , 1010, 1137, 1139 200 , 930 , 986 268, 654, 669, 995 , 997 509 , 652 , 668 , 1004 481, 735,1009 572 , 576,1009 233, 666 -67 , 669 662 , 635 , 677 , 740, 746- 47 , 940 233 , 342, 527 , 667 1111 531 , 675, 681 , 683 , 699, 705, 707, 710- 11, 713 , 716 - 17, 719 675, 681,710 233, 379, 651, 691, 702, 712, 730 , 837 , 976,1012 676-77 390, 391 691,932 695 1030 679, 1151 691,862 669 , 687 , 718 , 751, 829,917 951 997 153 473 , 478- 79 , 485 , 680, 733 254, 472,1110 1073, 1096, 1110 254- 55 , 472- 73 , 640 , 681 , 705 676 , 681-82 , 691, 995-97 285 153, 690 , 694 , 740, 745 691 530 , 593, 690, 695 , 825 , 891 684 685 355 , 648 , 675 , 683 685 267, 757 367, 386, 691 , 695 , 764 484, 487, 685 592 , 866 , 922 951 694 687 605 246 , 386, 687, 786 , 998,1066 694, 687 , 690- 91 , 698 , 798, 862

683, 687- 88 , 698 , 764 12:21 12:22-34 690 , 699 , 858 , 979 12:22-31 604, 691,698 12:22-26 682 12:22-25 386 12:22 606, 675 , 681, 691 , 693- 94,797 12:23 691 691-93 12:24 12:25-26 606 , 681,691 12:25 133, 623 12:27 691-92 12:28-34 963 12:28 107, 691- 92 , 740 605-6 , 695 12:29 12:30-31 694 12:30a 691 283, 698 12:31-32 12:31179 , 182, 429 , 605-06 , 695- 96 , 1078 12:32-34 691 12:32-33 688 164, 379, 1066 12:32 12:33-34 367, 687 , 764 12:33286 , 664 , 670 , 761 , 764 , 806-08 , 887 12:34 696, 807-08 12:35-40 243, 690 , 699 , 702,1013 12:35-38 530 , 700, 702,1012 12:35-37 1108 12:35 842 12:36 702, 748, 755 12:37 702-03 , 800 , 841 12:38 702 12:39-40 698, 699 12:39 652 12:40 254 , 472 , 700-01 , 703,1006 12:41-48 555, 690 , 699 700-01 12:41-42 a 12:41 675, 698 , 733, 858 , 950 12:42-48 243 12:42-46 700 12:42 698 , 703, 800 12:42b -46 699 12:43 700-01 12:44-45 558 12:44 691, 700 12:45-46 704 12:45 645 , 700 12:46-50 648 12:46 700 , 703 12:47-48 700-03 , 705, 977 12:48 558 , 798 12:49- 13:35 722 12:49-53 153, 155, 707, 710, 998 12:49-50 463 12:49 153, 709, 711 12:50 152,1084 12:51-53 712, 995 12:51 708 12:52-53 714 12:52 69,223 12:53 31 12:54- 13:5 722 12:54-56 1008-9 12:54 675 , 711-12 12:56 260, 711-15 12:58 716, 885 12:59 979 13 869 13:1-9 530 , 536 , 716, 769 13:1-5 717, 719, 1148 13:1 675 13:2-3 709 13:2 878 13:3 79 , 142, 716 , 878 , 917 13:4-5 709 13:4 878

283 ‫ן‬ 79 , 142, 716, 878 149, 717 866 995 736, 753 , 761 725, 727, 729, 732 721- 22 , 725, 738, 745 210 , 260, 554 , 722, 727- 28 , 741 , 744- 45 , 747 , 750, 997 178, 186, 205 , 215, 226, 723,1219 723 206 , 366, 509, 723, 746 210 , 723, 746,917 110, 210- 11,238 723 261, 419, 1000 236, 261 , 722, 746-47,984 575 178, 197, 211- 12, 384 , 563 , 906 375, 746, 931 , 997 722,755 722, 727, 729, 731, 733, 748-49 727, 730 730 730, 836, 852 722, 727, 729, 733, 748-50 677,1214 530 722, 733-34 , 753, 758-59 255 , 365 , 527 , 738, 740 53 , 734 758-59 198, 1137, 733, 735,1190 741 306 , 732 735- 36 , 757, 1108, 1137 736 735, 931 859 216, 733 485, 498 , 503, 751, 754 736, 758, 1184 701 , 729,1066 518 , 733, 735, 740, 892 529, 722, 732, 733, 738, 761, 762,845 738-39 390, 465, 953 , 1122- 24 , 1220 181-82 107, 198, 210, 248, 251, 463 , 709, 741, 743, 1023, 1077 200 , 202 , 466 107, 130, 131, 200, 202, 216 , 464- 65 , 534 , 723, 743, 931,1013 149, 930 , 986 , 998 , 1137, 1139 722, 738- 39 , 741 668 704,917 1221 704,917 721- 22 , 725, 738, 745 529 748, 753, 762 604 210 , 257 , 554, 722- 25 , 744, 746-47 1023 221 , 233 , 255 , 260 , 663 , 669- 70, 740, 746, 885 745

13:5 13:6-9 13:6 13:9-11 13:10- 14:35 13:10- 14:34 13:10-35 13:10-17 13:10 13:11-13 13:11 13:12 13:13 13:14-17 13:14 13:15 13:16-17 13:16 13:17 13:18-30 13:18-19 13:18 13:19-20 13:19 13:20-21 13:21 13:22-35 13:22-30 13:22 13:23 13:24-28 13:25 13:26-33 13:26-27 13:26 13:27-28 13:27 13:28-30 13:28-29 13:28 13:29-30 13:29 13:30 13:31-35 13:31-33 13:31 13:32-33 13:32 13:33-34 13:33 13:34-45 13:34-35 13:34 13:42 13:47 13:50 14:1-35 14:1-33 14:1-24 14:1-14 14:1-6 14:1-2 14:1 14:2-6

1284

Index

of

14:2 25, 592, 770 14:3 118, 233, 258, 261, 342, 745, 950 1 4 :5 -6 297 236, 530, 623, 724, 745, 763 14:5 1 4 :7 -2 4 530, 722, 745 14:7 -1 1 722, 727, 729, 7 4 8 -5 1 , 9 7 6 14:7 755, 757, 770 14:8 -1 1 748 1 4 :8 -9 751 14:8 750 14 :1 0 -1 1 1023 14:10 7 5 5 ,1 0 4 9 1 4 :1 1 -1 4 7 5 5 -5 7 14:11 5 17, 810, 878 1 4 :1 2 -1 4 519, 722, 727, 729, 7 4 8 -5 0 , 754 7 8 ,7 5 0 - 5 1 ,7 5 4 - 5 5 14:12 1 4 :1 3 -1 5 924 14:13 197, 245 1 4 :1 4 -1 5 758 14:14 26, 755 1 4 :1 5 -2 4 543, 722, 732, 734, 736, 7 5 0 -5 1 , 7 5 7 -5 9 14:15 722, 745, 747, 754, 810, 9 12, 1009, 1066, 1123 1 4 :1 6 -2 4 755 14:16 25, 592, 756 931 14:17 1 4 :1 8 -2 0 754 1 4 :1 8 -1 9 756 757 14:18 1 4 :2 1 -2 3 729, 735 1 9 7 ,7 5 1 , 754, 757, 1218 14:21 1 4 :2 2 -2 3 754 105 14:22 7 5 6 ,8 0 0 14:23 14:24 747, 7 5 4 ,7 5 8 - 5 9 1 4 :2 5 -3 5 7 2 2 ,7 3 8 ,7 4 3 1 4 :2 5 -3 3 862 14:25 527, 740, 761, 765, 845 1 4 :2 6 -3 3 153 1 4 :2 6 -2 7 244, 246, 7 6 1 -6 2 , 764, 766 395, 477, 486, 540, 756, 14:26 758, 763, 766, 891, 893 14:27 4 7 6 -7 7 , 741, 7 6 1 -6 2 , 887, 1136 1 4 :2 8 -3 3 530 762, 7 6 5 -6 6 , 769 1 4 :2 8 -3 2 761 1 4 :2 8 -3 0 6 2 3 ,7 7 0 , 1186 14:28 761 14:30 761 1 4 :3 1 -3 2 770 14:31 500 1 4 :3 2 -4 2 543 1 4 :3 3 -3 5 2 4 5 -4 6 , 367, 761 14:33 1 4 :3 4 -3 5 722, 743, 761 375 14:35 1025 14:37 1190 14:41 1218 14:49 1186 1 4 :5 1 -5 2 1107 1 4 :5 5 -6 6 1115 1 4 :5 5 -6 4 1115 14:61 1108 14:62 1098, 1099 14:65 590, 773, 7 9 5 -9 6 , 802, 810, 828 15 5 3 0 - 3 1 ,7 1 6 , 7 6 7 ,7 8 0 , 1 5 :1 -3 2 789, 809, 825 775, 780 1 5 :1 -7 1115 1 5 :1 -5 769, 772 1 5 :1 -3 780 1 5 :1 -2 150, 771, 788, 809, 1088, 15:1 1098, 1107

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources 1 5 :2 -3 15:2 1 5 :3 -1 0 15:3 1 5 :4 -1 0 1 5 :4 -7 1 5 :4 -5 15:4 1 5 :5 -7 15:5 1 5 :6 -1 4 1 5 :6 -7 15:6 15:7

1 5 :8 -1 0 1 5 :8 -9 15:8 1 5 :9 -1 0 15:9 1 5 :1 0 -1 1 15:10 1 5 :1 1 -3 2 1 5 :1 1 -1 2 15:11 15:12 15:13 1 5 :1 5 -1 8 1 5 :1 6 -2 0 15:16 1 5 :1 7 -1 9 15:17 1 5 :1 8 -1 9 15:18 15:20 15:21 1 5 :2 2 -2 4 1 5 :2 3 -2 4 15:23 15:24 1 5 :2 5 -3 2 15:31 15:32 15:40 15:47 16 1 6 :1 -3 1 1 6 :1 -1 3 1 6 :1 -9 1 6 :1 -8 16:1

1 6 :3 -4 16:3 16:4 16:5 16:6 16:7 16:8 1 6 :9 -1 3 16:9 1 6 :1 0 -1 3 16:1 0 -1 1 16:10 1 6 :1 1 -1 2 16:11 16:12 16:13 1 6 :1 4 -1 5

796 2 4 5 ,4 6 5 ,5 1 9 , 669, 717, 775, 905, 90 7 122, 366 8 6 6 -6 7 , 95 0 786 769 , 775 774 623, 763, 768, 770, 775, 781 772 772 1129 764, 772 , 788 78, 245, 769, 771, 776, 786 26, 30, 142, 2 16, 247, 625, 7 6 9 -7 0 , 774, 776, 780, 786, 789, 878 7 7 2 ,7 7 5 xliii 7 6 3 ,7 7 0 ,7 8 1 788 78, 245, 769, 772, 786 772, 775, 780 142, 625, 679, 764, 7 6 9 -7 0 , 776, 784, 786, 789, 878, 1110 xliii, 591, 772, 775, 8 25, 832 786 25, 5 92, 787, 797 784, 7 8 7 -8 8 797 1221 1098 386, 786, 825, 828 7 8 4 -8 5 , 951 786 7 8 0 -8 1 211 2 1 1 ,5 9 4 , 784 781, 784 2 4 5 ,7 8 5 772, 828 780 781, 784, 7 8 6 -8 7 772, 828 235 7 7 1 ,7 8 0 - 8 1 ,7 8 4 , 786, 828 1191 1191 7 9 5 -9 6 , 810, 828, 891 5 3 1 ,8 0 4 , 809, 825, 831 5 3 0 ,6 9 9 591 356, 703, 796, 8 0 8 -0 9 , 821, 825 379, 592, 686, 764, 7 9 6 -9 7 , 799, 810, 827, 835, 837, 964, 1023, 1191 796 686, 800, 838, 951 8 0 5 -0 6 , 808 800, 837, 9 1 6 96 4 8 0 1 ,1 1 8 1 5 52, 796, 801, 8 0 5 -0 6 , 8 69, 965 8 01, 809 367, 629, 8 0 4 -0 5 , 8 0 6 -0 8 , 814, 1072 8 0 5 -6 703 8 04, 808, 818 80 4 8 0 5 -6 , 96 4 964, 973, 355, 605, 8 0 4 -0 5 , 808, 810, 8 2 1 ,8 8 8 809, 8 1 4 -1 5 , 831, 833

16:14 1 6 :1 5 -1 8 16:15 1 6 :1 6 -1 8 16:16

233, 379, 465, 669, 764, 7 9 6 -9 7 564 592, 9 5 7 809, 814 23, 247, 338, 342, 542, 576, 7 9 5 ,8 1 8 , 8 2 1 ,8 3 1 16:17 815, 1010 16:18 816 1 6 :1 9 -3 1 484, 487, 530, 591, 593, 684, 796, 1153 1 6 :1 9 -2 6 809 1 6 :1 9 -2 5 (26) 826 830 1 6 :1 9 -2 2 16:19 386, 592, 615, 686, 797, 1033 16:20 197, 244, 825 386 16:21 1 6 :2 2 -2 3 967 16:22 197, 831, 1183 16:23 877, 1152, 1158 1 6 :2 4 -2 5 131 16:24 87, 413, 724, 8 2 7 ,9 0 0 16:25 235, 283, 857 16:26 1073 1 6 :2 7 -3 1 809, 826, 830 16:29 820 1 6 :3 0 -3 1 827 16:30 79, 216 16:31 820, 1205, 1219 531, 839, 841, 844, 848, 854 1 7 :1 -1 9 1 7 :1 -7 8 4 1 -4 2 844 1 7 :1 -6 8 3 5 -3 6 , 1058 1 7 :1 -2 8 3 9 ,1 0 5 9 17:1 1 7 :3 -4 8 3 5 -3 7 235, 8 3 5 - 3 6 1 7 :5 -6 17:5 267 530, 787, 789, 844 1 7 :7 -1 0 17:7 623, 763, 842, 1049 17:8 244, 841 17:9 841 764, 841 17:10 17:11 202, 221, 527, 529, 534, 844, 84 6 210, 226, 554, 845 1 7 :1 1 -1 9 360 1 7 :1 2 -1 9 84 4 17:12 17:13 2 2 2 ,4 1 3 , 648, 8 3 0 ,9 0 0 210, 226, 228 17:14 844 1 7 :1 5 -1 6 110, 238, 847 17:15 845, 847 17:16 238 17:18 210, 235, 359, 844, 901 17:19 8 5 1 -5 2 , 8 56, 8 58, 863, 1 7 :2 0 -2 1 1013 531, 851, 854, 856 1 7 :2 0 -1 8 :8 669, 835, 862, 875, 9 27, 1009 17:20 851 1 7 :2 1 -2 2 67, 1 6 4 ,2 1 6 , 4 8 0 - 8 1 ,4 8 5 , 17:21 554, 728, 854, 858 8 5 1 -5 4 , 856, 858, 1 7 :2 2 -3 7 8 6 5 -6 6 , 870, 930, 986, 1006, 1013 853 1 7 :2 2 -2 7 254, 386, 472, 856, 859, 861, 17:22 863, 865, 867, 870, 875 861 1 7 :2 3 -2 4 17:23 8 5 1 - 5 2 ,8 5 4 ,8 5 6 , 8 5 8 -5 9 , 9 8 8 ,1 0 0 5 614, 620 1 7 :2 4 -3 7 4 6 1 -6 2 1 7 :2 4 -2 5 17:24 254, 472, 8 5 6 -5 8 , 862, 1006, 1189 17:25 1 3 1 ,4 6 5 , 509, 652, 856, 858, 860, 863, 865, 870, 1050, 1204

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 857 228, 254, 472, 858, 860, 1006 32, 8 59, 863, 965 856 862 153, 155 2 5 4 ,9 3 1 ,4 7 2 , 860, 863, 862, 1006 863 1 7 :3 1 -3 7 8 6 3 -6 4 1 7 :3 1 -3 3 543, 756, 758, 857, 860, 17:31 8 6 2 ,9 1 7 , 1001, 1012, 1184 857 17:32 478, 8 5 6 -5 7 17:33 864 1 7 :3 4 -3 7 3 5 5 ,8 5 6 1 7 :3 4 -3 5 17:34 686, 8 5 6 -5 7 , 875, 1013 17:36 856 17:37 8 5 6 -5 8 1 8 :1 -1 8 530 1 8 :1 -1 4 366 1086 1 8 :1 -1 2 1 8 :1 -8 684, 851, 858, 865 18:1 387, 866, 869, 875, 1013, 1214 1 8 :2 -5 622 940 18:3 18:4 244, 8 7 1 ,8 7 7 18:5 867, 869 18:6 800, 866 1 8 :7 -8 1013 18:7 8 6 6 -6 7 , 8 6 9 -7 0 18:8 153, 155, 235, 2 54, 387, 419, 472, 6 25, 851, 8 6 6 -6 7 , 869, 8 7 1 ,8 7 8 1 8 :9 -3 0 531, 874, 878 1 8 :9 -1 4 5 3 0 , 684, 865, 8 80, 882, 884 1 8 :9 -1 2 592 18:9 379, 592, 770, 810, 8 6 6 -6 7 , 8 7 8 -7 9 , 9 27, 950, 95 7 18:10 3 5 5 ,8 7 8 , 1033 18:11 379 1 8 :1 3 -1 4 1107 18:13 150, 443, 749, 785, 876, 1159 18:14 529, 592, 748, 771, 810, 874, 8 7 8 -7 9 18:14b 517 1 8 :1 5 -1 7 5 1 7 -1 8 , 8 78, 884 18:15 66, 519, 522, 1088 18:16 517 18:17 419, 517, 881, 885, 890 1 8 :1 8 -3 0 880 1 8 :1 8 -2 3 734, 884, 889 18:18 149, 583, 686, 887, 892 1 8 :1 9 -2 4 1107 18:19 235 18:21 592, 649, 884, 891 18:22 197, 223, 244, 286, 517, 605, 694, 698, 7 61, 764, 806, 884, 887, 8 9 1 -9 2 , 9 0 1 -0 2 , 905, 952, 1 098, 1214 18:23 884 1 8 :2 4 -3 0 8 82, 88 7 1 8 :2 4 -2 5 8 8 2 ,8 9 1 18:24 8 9 1 ,9 5 2 18:25 815, 905, 907 18:28 223, 245, 517, 764, 887, 9 0 1 -0 2 1 8 :2 9 -3 1 888 1 8 :2 9 -3 0 132, 395, 693 18:29 366, 756, 758, 762 18:30 8 9 1 ,9 6 5 1 8 :3 1 -3 4 517, 529, 5 3 1 ,8 4 5 , 8 8 1 ,9 3 9 1 8 :3 1 -3 3 1204

1 7 :2 6 -2 9 17:26 17:27 1 7 :2 8 -2 9 17:28a 17:29 17:30

254, 1190 465, 467, 527, 529, 709, 917, 952, 1 0 0 1 ,1 0 7 6 , 1218 514, 896, 1099, 1115 18:32 18:34 4 5 3 ,5 1 2 , 5 1 4 - 1 5 ,5 2 9 , 9 3 1 ,1 2 0 7 1 8 :3 5 -1 9 :4 6 1027 1 8 :3 5 -4 3 329, 332, 921 18:35 197, 5 2 7 , 529, 9 0 3 , 923 18:36 255, 733 18:37 1202 830, 846 1 8 :3 8 -3 9 18:38 4 1 3 ,9 0 7 , 9 72, 1214 18:39 413, 798, 905, 907 275, 9 05, 1078 18:40 905 18:41 210, 235, 360 18:42 18:43 110, 238, 723, 846, 931, 1202 1 9 -2 4 128 1 9 :1 -1 0 603, 606, 770, 887 1098 1 9 :1 -3 56, 244, 509 19:2 238 1 9 :3 -4 1 3 3 ,1 2 1 5 19:3 107 19:5 245 19:6 2 4 5 ,4 4 1 , 1106 19:7 150, 197, 367 19:8 107, 2 3 8 -3 9 19:9 19:10 254, 472, 529, 708 9 2 1 ,9 2 7 , 930, 1 0 6 6 -6 7 , 1 9 :1 1 -2 8 1 1 1 8 -1 9 1 9 :1 1 -2 7 5 2 9 ,9 2 2 19:11 52, 216, 485, 554, 728, 852, 882, 92 3 , 1009 1 9 :1 2 -2 7 143 1 9 :1 2 -1 4 243 142, 186, 254, 491, 592, 19:12 783, 1110, 1 1 5 2 -5 3 , 1205, 1208, 1228, 1230 19:14 52, 59, 465, 764, 783, 92 7 19:15 221, 596, 846 19:17 7 0 3 ,8 0 5 - 0 6 19:19 703 1111 19:22 19:23 150, 798 19:26 390 19:27 52, 4 6 5 ,5 2 9 1227 1 9 :2 8 -2 9 19:28 529 1 9 :2 9 -4 0 1066, 1107 19:29 33, 66, 603, 1227 19 :3 0 -3 1 1033 19:30 1 1 6 5 -6 6 19:31 1032 8, 1034 19:32 19:34 329 19:35 595 1 9 :3 7 -3 8 1227 19:37 246, 275, 277, 923, 5 5 6 ,1 1 1 7 19:38 5 2 ,1 0 8 , 7 09, 7 4 2 ,1 0 1 5 , 1110, 1112 19:39 355, 669, 975 19:40 900 1 9 :4 1 -4 5 149 1 9 :4 1 -4 4 xxxviii, 143, 603, 606, 937, 986, 998, 1000 19:41 917, 923, 1137, 1139 1 9 :4 2 -4 4 xxxviii, 1137, 1139 19:42 709 19:44 86, 529, 677, 9 8 7 -8 8 1 9 :4 5 -4 8 40 1 9 :4 5 -4 6 149, 979, 1107 19:46 935 1 9 :4 7 -4 9 9 8 3 ,1 1 0 9 1 8 :3 1 -3 2 18:31

1 9 :4 7 -4 8

19:47

19:48 19:49 2 0 :1 -8 2 0 :1 -6 20:1 20:2 20:3 20:4 20:6 2 0 :9 -1 9 20:10 20:11 20:12 20:13 20:14 20:15 20:16 2 0 :1 7 -1 8 20:17 20:18 2 0 :1 9 -2 6 20:19 2 0 :2 0 -2 6 20:20 20:21 20:22 20:23 20:24 20:26 2 0 :2 7 -4 0 20:27 20:31 2 0 :3 4 -3 5 20:34 20:35 20:36 20:39 2 0 :4 1 -4 4 20:42 2 0 :4 5 -4 7 20:45 20:46 21 2 1 :1 -4 21:3 21:4 2 1 :5 -3 6 2 1 :5 -2 4 2 1 :5 -6 21:5 21:6 21:7 21:9 2 1 :1 2 -1 9 2 1 :1 4 -1 5 21:14 21:15 2 1 :1 6 -1 9 2 1 :1 6 -1 8 21:16 21:17

1285 9 4 2 -4 4 , 948, 9 53, 957, 975, 1002, 1015, 1023, 1027, 1127 128, 130, 234, 615, 670, 943, 953, 9 6 3 , 9 78, 980, 1014, 1089, 1090, 1111, 1127 519, 5 2 9 -3 0 , 9 8 8 , 9 5 0 , 975, 1030, 1202 944 1 4 2 ,9 6 0 , 9 63, 975, 1 1 0 4 -0 5 , 1 1 0 9 -1 2 940 226, 234, 466, 940, 9 50, 975, 1089, 1090 1104 1104 23, 236 23, 147, 975, 1104 200, 202, 1109 72 72 256 1 6 3 -6 5 , 506, 686, 784 50, 110, 208, 1214 256 57 121 948 529 669 1 5 6 -5 7 , 234, 5 7 1 ,7 4 0 , 940, 944, 995, 1027, 1089, 1090, 9 63, 1109, 1117, 1119 260, 5 1 4 -1 5 , 746, 810, 895, 1030, 1115, 1117, 1119, 1214 355 1214 199, 202, 691 236 130, 746, 940, 975 7 5 1 ,9 7 2 1110 771 892 552, 801 1219 552 355, 9 7 5 - 7 6 67, 75, 975, 1108, 1 1 1 0 ,1 1 1 2 170 979, 1109 379, 940, 975, 988 666, 748 490, 614, 620, 7 4 2 ,8 6 0 -6 1 , 9 1 7 ,1 2 1 8 -1 9 9 8 8 ,1 1 0 9 197, 576 9 4 4 , 963, 983 983 149 937, 990, 9 9 5 ,9 9 7 , 1001, 1005, 1107 983 180, 8 5 7 -5 8 , 9 30, 932, 979 3 5 5 ,1 0 0 2 387, 783, 1001 999 676, 680 80 639 1078 567 181, 183 284

1286 2 1 :1 8 -1 9 21:18 21:19 2 1 :2 0 -2 4

Index

of

995 399, 678, 999 1214 xxxviii, 1005, 1013, 1135, 1137, 1139 25, 8 6 2 -6 3 , 9 92, 1013 21:21 952 21:22 21:23 30, 148, 179 2 1 :24 182 2 1 :2 5 -2 6 153, 155, 992, 1005 21:25 208, 1005 2 1 :2 7 -2 8 485, 864, 918 21:27 144, 254, 4 9 0 - 9 1 ,5 0 3 , 1006, 1204 21:28 863 21:29 866 714 21:30 701 2 1 :3 1 -3 2 216, 485, 852 21:31 4 9 0 ,5 0 9 , 652 21:32 21:33 764, 821 2 1 :3 4 -3 6 1012 21:34 3 86, 604, 606, 681, 700, 702, 837, 9 7 5 , 1013 21:36 153, 155, 254, 472, 485, 9 83, 1 0 0 6 ,1 0 7 2 2 1 :3 7 -3 8 23, 130, 983, 1014 1 2 8 ,1 0 8 3 -8 4 21:37 21:38 1202 2 2 :1 -2 3 :5 6 1023 528 22 96 3 , 1023, 1029, 1030, 1043, 2 2 :1 -2 1050, 1107, 1143, 1177 129, 1032, 1034 22:1 2 3 4 ,5 1 9 , 670, 94 0 , 1105, 1109 22:2 2 2 :3 -6 1 0 2 3 ,1 0 5 0 , 1109 178, 1 8 2 -8 3 , 2 0 1 -0 2 , 384, 22:3 563, 1065, 1089 5 1 4 - 1 5 ,5 1 9 , 757 22:4 5 1 4 -1 5 , 1030 22:6 1050 2 2 :7 -1 3 223, 270, 497, 923 22:8 92 4 2 2 :1 0 -1 2 237 22:10 105, 355, 1204 22:11 8, 7 0 4 ,9 1 7 22:13 1049 2 2 :1 4 -3 8 617 2 2 :1 4 -2 0 2 2 :14 267 1023, 1205 2 2 :1 5 -2 0 251 2 2 :1 5 -1 8 248 2 2 :1 5 -1 6 3 8 6 ,1 0 3 2 22:15 179 22:16 1048 22:17 2 2 :18 69, 223, 248, 576, 614, 707, 1042 1042, 1045 2 2 :1 9 -2 0 256, 443, 1177, 1206, 1208 22:19 1041 2 2 :2 1 -2 3 5 1 4 -1 5 , 1 0 3 0 -3 1 2 2 :2 1 -2 2 4 6 5 ,1 0 0 1 ,1 0 5 8 22:21 202, 254, 1058, 1115 22:22 519 2 2 :2 3 -2 4 1058 22:23 180, 182 2 2 :2 4 -2 9 1033, 1060 2 2 :2 4 -2 7 1035 2 2 :2 5 -2 7 604 2 2 :2 6 -2 7 5 1 7 ,1 0 6 2 - 6 3 22:26 701, 1063 22:27 143, 69 4 2 2 :2 8 -2 9 182, 459, 619 22:28 918 2 2 :2 9 -3 0 132, 379 22:29 701 22:30

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources 2 2 :3 1 -3 4 2 2 :3 1 -3 2 22:31 22:32 2 2 :3 3 -3 4 22:34 2 2 :3 5 -3 8 22:35 22:36 22:37 2 2 :3 9 -5 3 2 2 :3 9 -4 6 2 2 :3 9 -4 5 22:39 22:40 22:41 22:42 2 2 :4 3 -4 4 2 2 :4 5 -4 7 22:45 22:46 2 2 :4 7 -5 3 2 2 :4 7 -5 1 2 2 :4 7 -4 8 22:47 22:48 22:49 22:51 22:52 22:53

2 2 :5 4 -6 2 2 2 :54 22:57 22:59 22:60 22:61 22:62 2 2 :6 3 -6 5 2 2 :6 3 -6 4 22:63 22:64 22:65 2 2 :6 6 -7 1 2 2 :66 2 2 :6 7 -7 0 2 2 :6 7 -6 8 2 2 :67 22:68 22:69 22:70 23 2 3 :1 -2 5 2 3 :1 -1 5 2 3 :1 -5 23:1 2 3 :2 -5 23:2 23:3 23:4 23:5 2 3 :6 -1 2 2 3 :6 -9 23:7 23:8 23:10

4 5 2 ,1 2 0 7 10 7 0 -7 1 178, 1 8 2 -8 3 , 270, 384, 563, 10 3 0 -3 1 2 3 5 ,2 4 8 , 2 5 1 ,2 7 0 , 272, 8 3 9 ,1 0 9 6 1071 107, 1096 248, 4 27, 429 548 5 5 1 ,1 0 7 8 1 3 1 ,4 6 5 , 7 0 9 ,9 5 2 ,9 9 2 , 1123, 1 1 3 8 -3 9 , 1148, 1218, 1 0 1 4 -1 5 1 8 1 - 8 3 ,4 9 1 ,5 0 3 619 27, 119, 1086, 1014 604, 1065 160, 165, 269, 452 183, 612, 615, 1 1 3 8 -3 9 , 1 1 5 8 ,1 1 6 0 503 465 211, 1214 1065 1098, 1109 537 1030 1096 254, 4 7 2 - 7 3 ,5 1 4 - 1 5 536, 733 206, 210 466, 940, 1146 178, 1 8 2 -8 3 , 2 0 1 -0 2 , 254, 6 15, 953, 1 0 2 9 -3 0 , 1123, 1 1 3 5 ,1 1 5 5 , 1160 484, 487, 547, 682, 1023, 1 0 7 0 ,1 0 7 2 ,1 1 0 4 - 0 5 1 0 2 3 ,1 1 6 0 6 7 9 -8 0 1123 1212 107, 679, 95 2 , 1093, 1137, 1190 1 0 9 2 -9 3 , 1097 1104 254, 1098 8 9 5 -9 6 , 1098 355 6 7 9 ,8 9 5 , 1118 1 1 5 -1 6 234, 466, 670, 940 1118 1104 1 6 4 ,2 1 4 , 2 54, 562, 1104 944 69, 142, 223, 254, 707, 914, 973, 1118, 1228, 1230 164, 1104, 1118 487 895, 1115 1116, 1 1 2 6 ,1 1 2 9 , 1130, 1164 717, 1112, 1148 1115 958 52, 107, 112, 198, 254, 9 5 7 -5 8 , 9 60, 1 1 0 5 -0 6 , 1110, 1112, 1115 52, 1 1 1 5 -1 6 , 1151 1115 216, 940, 1219 4 3 1 ,7 4 0 , 743, 1121, 1130 1184 33 3 94, 740 234, 670, 94 0

23:11 2 3 :1 3 -1 6 23:13 23:15 23:18 23:21 23:22 23:23 23:25 2 3 :2 6 -3 2 23:26 23:28 23:29 23:32 23:33 23:34 23:35 23:36 2 3 :3 7 -3 8 2 3 :3 9 -4 3 23:39 23:40 23:41 23:42 23:43 2 3 :44 2 3 :46 23:47 23:48 23:49 2 3 :5 0 -5 6 23:50 23:51 23:52 23:53 23:54 2 3 :5 5 -5 6 23:55 23:56 24 2 4 :1 -5 3 2 4 :1 -1 2

2 4 :1 -1 1 24:1 24:2 24:3 2 4 :4 -8 24:4 24:5 2 4 :6 -8 24:7 2 4 :9 -1 2 24:10 24:11 24:12 2 4 :1 3 -3 5 24:13 24:15 2 4 :16 2 4 :1 7 -2 0 2 4 :1 7 -1 8 24:17 24:18 2 4 :1 9 -2 1 2 4 :1 9 -2 0 24:19 24:20 24:21

875, 895, 1 0 9 8 -9 9 , 1123, 1126, 1189 1129 885, 940, 1002, 1147, 1202 1 1 1 5 ,1 1 2 3 1002, 1129 1129 1129 1002 5 1 4 -1 5 , 1030 1142 1133 5 7 5 ,9 3 1 9 3 1 ,9 8 8 1151 56, 1142, 1151 6 1 2 ,9 3 1 , 1158, 1160 163, 165, 199, 202, 254, 453, 5 0 1 ,8 1 0 , 8 8 5 ,9 4 0 8 9 5 ,1 0 9 9 52 1150 254, 895 977 148 1 9 1 ,1 0 6 6 107, 1 9 1 ,2 3 8 , 629, 1158, 1183 952 612 26, 110, 238, 723 877 3 6 4 -6 7 , 1165 1162, 1187 1 1 8 ,2 4 4 118, 1202 863 105, 925, 928, 1187, 1192 1182 3 6 4 -6 5 , 1177 3 6 6 -6 7 , 863 257, 1023, 1029, 1191 503, 1 1 7 8 -7 9 , 1206, 1218, 1220 1023 1162, 1 1 9 8 -9 9 , 1204, 1206, 1 2 1 0 ,1 2 1 7 -1 8 , 1220, 1226, 1228 3 6 4 -6 5 1162, 1165 1165 3 6 6 -6 7 , 863 3 6 6 -6 7 106, 2 08, 2 2 1 ,4 9 0 , 498, 745, 8 5 9 ,1 1 8 9 1212 490 131, 2 54, 4 65, 5 14, 896, 1030, 1115 1207 267, 3 6 6 -6 7 , 379, 1191 366 1096, 1179, 1185 604, 617, 896, 1177 48 2 2 1 ,1 1 8 4 4 98, 5 1 4 -1 5 , 931 248, 251 857 243 244, 431 7 940 200 885, 940, 977, 1030, 1126, 1147 2 14, 8 30, 1179, 1184

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 24:22 24:23 24:24 2 4 :2 5 -2 7 2 4 :2 5 -2 6 24:25 24:26

24:27 2 4 :2 8 -3 0 2 4 :2 9 -3 0 24:29 2 4 :3 0 -3 1 24:30 24:32 24:33 2 4 :3 4 -5 3 24:34 2 4 :3 6 -5 3 2 4 :3 6 -4 9 2 4 :3 6 -4 1 24:36 2 4 :3 7 -4 3 2 4 :3 7 -3 9 24:38 24:39 24:40 2 4 :4 1 -4 3 24:41 24:42 24:43 2 4 :4 4 -5 3 2 4 :4 4 -4 9 2 4 :4 4 -4 7 2 4 :4 4 -4 6 2 4 :44 24:45 2 4 :46 2 4 :4 7 -4 9 24:47 2 4 :4 8 -4 9 24:49 2 4 :5 0 -5 3 2 4 :5 0 -5 1 24:51 2 4 :5 2 -5 3 24:52 24:53 25:14 25:30 26 26:18 27:9 27:34

366, 1083 3 3 ,8 6 3 ,1 1 8 9 1185 214, 465, 467, 514 248, 1060 514 7, 59, 131, 142, 144, 181, 186, 254, 4 6 5 ,4 6 7 , 4 9 1 ,8 9 5 , 9 1 4 ,1 0 5 0 , 1 0 6 6 -6 7 , 1110, 1152, 53, 1204, 1228, 1230 87, 187, 197, 735, 831, 1118 1198, 1211 1178 500 2 2 0 ,4 3 9 ,1 0 5 0 ,1 1 7 8 256, 443, 701, 1214 248, 251 366, 6 5 1 ,7 4 0 , 95 3 1181 28, 270, 1072, 1 0 9 6 -9 7 , 1 1 8 0 -8 1 1228 366 1210 221, 1096, 1179 422 1183 29, 122, 519 1 1 4 5 ,1 1 7 9 1179 1183, 1198, 1211 30, 35, 248, 251, 385, 1096 1211 256, 1228 xxxiv, 11, 494 502, 504, 1220 1219 87, 516, 1060 33, 131, 820, 831, 8 9 5 ,9 7 3 , 1001, 1205 1 8 7 ,5 1 4 -1 5 254, 465, 467, 896, 1050, 1110 268, 1210 89, 142, 144, 236, 617, 9 9 6 , 1 1 1 8 -1 9 31, 153 132, 221, 1066, 1181 1 2 2 0 ,1 2 2 5 33, 535 917, 1182 94 0 30, 35, 186, 248, 251, 385, 562, 1179 23, 122, 128, 1208 915 7 0 4 ,9 1 7 23 178 950 997

John

1:18 1:34 1:44 1:45 1:51 2 :1 3 -1 7 2:19 3:7 3:16 3:29 4 :4 -4 2 4:19

829 1 6 2 -6 3 440 831, 1205 160 935 464 336 332 66, 74 533 355

4:27 4 :4 6 -5 4 4:4 7 4:50 6 6 :2 5 -5 9 6 :3 0 -3 1 6:41 6:43 6 :5 2 -6 0 6 :5 3 -5 8 6:61 6 :6 4 -7 1 6:67 6:69 6 :7 0 -7 1 7:30 7:32 7:41 7:49 7 :5 3 -8 :1 1 8:20 8 :3 3 -3 9 8:39 8:41 8:59 9 :2 -3 9:7 9:11 10:24 10:25 10:31 10:39 11 1 1 :1 -4 4 11:1 1 1 :8 -9 11:16 11:44 1 2 :1 -8 1 2 :1 -3 1 2 :1 2 -1 5 1 2 :1 4 -1 6 12:21 1 2 :2 4 -2 5 12:27 12:31 12:36 1 3 -1 7 1 3 :1 -1 7 1 3 :1 -2 13:1 13:3 13:16 13:21 13:22 13:23 13:27 13:30 1 3 :3 7 -3 8 13:37 14:26 14:28 1 5 :1 3 -1 5 16:6 16:7 1 6 :2 0 -2 2 16:20 16:25 16:29 18:2 18:5 18:7 18:11 18:13

366 314 316 846 6 2 0 ,1 0 5 5 1045 637 245 245 1045 1053 245 1030 365 207 365 201 245 47 876 1014 978 148 87 199 201 7 1 8 -1 9 718 718 1104 1104 201 201 8 2 7 -2 8 601 603 201 270 1165 3 5 3 - 5 4 ,6 0 1 603 921 1198 440 477 1082 563 801 1045 701, 1053 1024 129 573 267 829 105 829 1 0 2 8 -2 9 201 1071 1073 1198 839 677 1081 1221 1081 243 380 380 1081, 1083, 1086 899 899 1 0 8 1 -8 2 140

1 8 :1 5 -2 7 18:17 18:18 18:24 18:25 18:26 18:28 18:37 18:38 18:40 19:1 1 9 :2 -3 19:3 19:5 19:6 19:12 19:14 19:17 19:18 19:19 1 9 :2 3 -2 4 19:24 19:29 19:30 1 9 :3 1 -3 7 19:39 19:40 19:41 20:2 2 0 :3 -1 0 2 0 :4 -8 2 0 :5 -7 2 0 :6 -7 20:9 2 0 :1 1 -1 8 2 0 :1 1 -1 3 20:11 20:12 2 0 :1 4 -1 6 2 0 :1 6 -1 7 20:17 2 0 :1 9 -2 9 2 0 :1 9 -2 3 2 0 :1 9 -2 0 20:20 20:24 20:25 20:26 20:27 21 21:7 21:9 2 1 :1 2 -1 3 21:12 21:13 2 1 :1 4 -1 7

1287

1093 1093 1093 140 1095 1095 1024 1118 1115 1129, 1132 1126 1126 49 1129 1 1 2 9 ,1 1 3 2 1 1 1 6 -1 7 1024 9 5 2 , 1142 1142, 1145 105 1146 1142 1142 1158 1024 1130 1129, 1165 1162, 1164 1192 1185 1180 1165 1192 1198 3 6 6 -6 7 1186 243 1185, 1189 1198 1181 494, 1182, 1187, 1225 1181 1210 1210 1145, 1179 365 1145, 1191 497 1145, 1191 220, 1211 220, 1198 1211 1198 220 1211 1181

A c ts

1 1 :1 -5 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6-11 1 :6 -8 1:6 1 :7 -8 1:7 1 :8-11 1:8 1 :9 -1 2

19, 1229 xxxiii, 1225 10 32, 2 6 8 -6 9 , 272, 275, 535, 1190 4 9 4 ,1 1 8 9 1 1 9 9 ,1 2 2 0 1 5 2 -5 3 , 155, 783 4 9 4 ,5 5 0 , 1179 1210 52, 733, 1202, 1225 2 6 8 -6 9 80, 1010 1228 8 , 3 1 ,5 4 , 153, 1 8 5 ,2 2 1 , 268, 426, 1119, 1 2 19-21 1224

1288

Index

of

4 9 0 -9 1 , 496, 503, 1206 498, 1189, 1193 5 3 5 ,9 1 4 , 1110 56, 1227 223, 265, 270, 1033 133, 135, 3 9 3 -9 5 1066, 1191 862, 1073 86, 465, 1087 7 7, 3 6 6 -6 7 224 2 6 8 ,1 1 1 8 -1 9 265, 1 0 3 0 2 6 9 ,8 1 0 7 1191 973 19, 153, 222, 833 534, 862 208 28, 153, 160 1 1 8 ,8 5 9 153 395 1136 2 4 8 ,2 5 1 648, 1191 118 1198 1 1 5 6 ,1 1 6 0 8 5 ,9 1 1220 30, 57, 179 185 36, 931, 1156 513 5 5 6 ,7 4 0 ,8 9 9 , 1202 4 6 7 -6 8 , 1110 1031, 1060 1204 9 7 3 -7 4 998 9 5 3 , 955 667 59 52, 914, 1110 7 1226 9 1 4 ,9 1 8 , 1110 491 143, 153, 612, 631, 858, 1220, 1226 2 :3 4 -3 6 142 1110 2 :3 4 -3 5 67 2:34 107, 3 9 1 -9 2 2:36 149, 1191 2:37 89, 1 4 1 -4 2 , 144, 236 2:38 1009 2:40 1045 2:42 1 7 9 ,2 8 3 2 :4 3 -4 7 80, 153 2:43 3 8 5 ,7 6 4 , 766, 862 2:44 615 2 :4 6 -4 7 67, 617, 1045, 1056, 1207, 1229 2:46 133, 862 2:47 142 2:56 28, 35, 223, 270, 497, 1033, 1229 3:1 615 3:2 223, 270, 497, 1033 3:3 223, 270, 497, 1033 3:4 2 1 0 ,8 9 9 3:6 3 3 ,2 0 8 3:10 1:9-11 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14 1 :1 5 -2 6 1:15 1:16 1:17 1 :2 1 -2 2 1:21 1:22 1:23 1:24 1:25 1:26 1:30 2 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:5 2 :6 -1 2 2:7 2:10 2:11 2:14 2:16 2 :1 7 -2 2 2 :1 7 -2 1 2 :1 7 -1 8 2:17 2:18 2:19 2:20 2 :2 2 -2 3 2:22 2 :2 3 -2 4 2:23 2 :2 4 -3 5 2 :2 5 -3 6 2:28 2 :2 9 -3 6 2 :2 9 -3 0 2 :3 0 -3 6 2:30 2 :3 2 -3 6 2 :3 2 -3 3 2 :3 3 -3 6 2 :3 3 -3 5 2:33

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources 3:11

3 :1 2 -2 6 3:12 3 :1 3 -1 5 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16 3 :1 7 -2 1 3 :1 7 -1 9 3:17 3:18 3:20 3:21 3 :2 2 -2 3 3:22 3:24 3:26 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:5 4:6 4:8 4:10 4:11 4 :1 3 -1 6 4:13 4:15 4:16 4:19 4:20 4:21 4 :2 4 -2 8 4:24 4 :2 5 -2 9 4 :2 5 -2 7 4 :2 5 -2 6 4:25 4 :2 6 -2 7 4:26 4:27 4:28 4:29 4:30 4:31 4:32 4:33 4:34 4:36 4:46 5 5 :1 -1 1 5:2 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:7 5:9 5:11 5:13 5:14 5 :1 5 -1 6 5:15 5 :1 7 -2 2 5:17 5:18 5:19 5:21 5:25 5:26 5:27 5 :3 0 -3 2 5:30

223, 270, 4 9 7 83 210 1110 1 6 5 ,5 1 4 , 735, 1118, 1131 54 4 6 7 -6 8 , 1190 143 742, 744 515 536, 680, 885, 9 31, 1127, 1133, 1 1 4 7 -4 9 86, 254, 453, 735 9 1 4 ,1 1 1 0 83, 86, 143, 728, 858 2 0 0 ,3 2 3 502 735 165, 216, 1228 964 130 1109 596, 1127 140, 1105 1127 32, 899, 1190 8 1 9 8 ,2 0 2 33, 153, 2 2 3 -2 4 , 270, 497, 1033 110 153 2 2 3 ,2 7 0 , 497, 1033 110 5 1 9 ,9 9 8 1122 648, 846 99 6 120 165 86 164, 196, 202 453 156, 1 6 5 ,2 0 7 , 1124 639 34, 997 1 6 5 ,6 3 9 153 367, 385, 764, 766 123, 1 9 9 ,9 9 6 282 552 862 1218 143, 153, 155 658 1030 80, 131 80. 178, 390 221 355 80 54, 379 54 213 80, 390, 418 1109 9 6 4 . 1105 1073 28 31, 1105 130 885 1105, 1131 1226 1151, 1190,

5:31 89, 107, 142. 144. 236, 1219, 1226 5:32 153, 680 5 :3 4 -3 9 2 3 3 ,1 1 6 6 5:34 1163 5 :3 5 -3 9 1164 5:35 1012 5:37 1 0 1 .1 0 4 5:38 943 5:41 965 5:42 1229 6 :1 -2 444 6 :1 -6 604, 606 6:2 1191 6:4 7 6:5 178 6:6 2 6 9 ,2 7 2 6:8 31, 178, 199 6:10 3 1 .9 9 7 - 9 8 1133 6 :1 1 -1 2 9 4 0 .1 1 3 1 6:12 6 :1 3 -1 4 993 6:13 988 6:14 8 9 9 ,9 9 0 6:15 11, 198, 202 6 :3 4 -3 9 740 7:1 733, 1105 7:2 28, 80, 724 7 :7 -5 3 170. 174 7:7 868 7:10 199, 997 7:14 1227 1202 7:22 7:23 31 7:26 28 7:27 685, 714 7:30 28. 1084 735 7:32 7:35 28. 685, 714 7 :3 7 -5 3 323 7:37 31. 200, 502 7:41 179 7:42 1219 7:46 133 7:48 54 7:50 639 831 7 :5 1 -5 3 7:51 201, 203 31, 2 0 0 -0 2 7:52 201 7 :5 4 -6 0 7:54 1 5 6 -5 7 1157, 1160 7 :5 5 -5 6 7:55 28. 178, 493 160 7:56 7:59 4 22. 1158. 1160 7:60 1081, 1144. 998. 1158 1 8 5 ,1 2 0 0 8 8:2 118 8:3 514 5 3 5 ,5 3 7 8 :4 -2 5 8:4 8, 185 8:7 206, 234 8:9 30. 1124, 1203 9 5 0 ,1 2 0 3 8:11 5 4 2 ,8 1 4 .8 2 1 8:12 8:13 148, 556 524 8 :1 4 -2 4 223, 268, 270, 385, 388, 8:14 497, 1033 387, 810 8:21 28 8:26 509 8:27 8:33 69, 670 8:35 3 2 ,1 1 1 8 8:36 882 1206 8:39

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 9 9:1 9 :3 -7 9 :4 -5 9:11 9:15 9:17 9:19 9:21 9 :2 3 -2 5 9:24 9:30 9:31 9:33 9 :3 6 -4 3 9 :3 6 -4 2 9:34 9:37 9:40 9:42 10 1 0-11 10:2 10:3 10:4 10:7 1 0 :9 -1 6 10:9 10:11 10:15 10:17 10:22 10:28 10:29 10:30 10:31 10:35 10:36 10:37 10:38

1 0 :3 9 -4 0 10:39 1 0 :4 0 -4 2 10:41 10:42 10:43 10:44 10:46 10:47 11 11:1 1 1 :2 -3 1 1 :3 -1 2 11:3 11:4 11:8 11:15 11:16 11:17 11:18 11:19 11:20 11:21 11:22 11:23 11:24 11:27 11:28 11:33 12:2 12:3 12:4 12:6-11

268 1105 493 1221 67 31, 120, 124 28 221 130 998 260 1073 1118 2 3 4 ,5 9 2 4 1 7 -1 8 3 2 2 ,3 2 4 210 179 323, 863, 1081 1204 670 316, 820, 822 6 6 4 - 6 5 ,6 7 0 49, 1203 664, 670, 1212 807, 1203, 1206 665 861 160 610 828 26, 118, 1163, 1203 139, 314, 665, 783 5 4 ,6 6 5 509, 1124, 1189, 1203, 1212 664, 670 200 8, 31, 108, 216, 552 7, 137, 1118, 1202 31, 49, 161, 164, 1 8 6 -8 7 , 178, 185, 1 9 6 -9 7 , 202, 209, 2 1 1 -1 2 , 238, 724, 740 467 1151 1190 268, 896, 1198 143, 1060 89, 142, 236, 735 1096 68, 153 882 670 3 8 5 ,3 8 8 249, 251 665 49 10 610 120, 124 1 5 2 -5 3 , 1096, 1190 665, 1204 110, 120, 124, 746 8, 185 120, 124 80, 639 6 7 ,5 1 3 387 1 7 8 ,1 1 6 3 85, 91 103, 180, 783 56 223, 99 8 , 1033 940, 1073 1131 998

12:7 12:10 12:11 12:13 12:15 12:18 12:21 12:23 13:1 1 3 :2 -3 13:4 13:6 ‫ ־‬12 1 3 :6-11 13:6 13:7 13:11 13:12 13:13 13:14 13:15 13:17 13:20 13:22 13:23 13:24 1 3 :2 6 -3 9 13:26 1 3 :2 7 -3 0 13:27 13:29 1 3 :30-31 1 3 :3 0 -3 7 13:31 1 3 :3 2 -3 3 13:33 1 3 :3 4 -3 7 13:37 13:38 13:40 13:43 13:46 13:47 13:48 13 :5 0 -5 1 13:50 13:51 14:1 14:3 14:5 14:9 14:11 14:17 14:22 14:23 14:25 14:26 14:28 15 15:1 15:2 15:5 1 5 :8 -9 15:8 15:9 15:11 15:12 15:14 1 5 :1 5 -1 8 1 5 :1 6 -1 8 15:16 15:20 15:22 15:23 15:25 15:27

28, 106, 870 1206 1131 828 422, 1095 80, 783 1189 28, 67 7, 84 7 8 5 ,9 1 ,3 6 6 2 4 7 ,2 6 9 , 272 268 143 411 48 366 80, 182, 639 366 399 268 41 9, 820 71, 639 868 8 6 ,2 5 7 - 5 8 107 137, 500 366 216, 724 467 5 1 4 -1 5 , 1127, 1144, 1 1 4 7 -4 9 709, 1164 1190 1226 28 1190 162, 165, 975, 1219 52 1219 89, 142, 144, 236 118 387 965 1218 3 7 9 ,8 6 9 428 940 268 120 428 895 385 648, 94 0 693 387, 882, 1066 269, 272 8 199 783 247, 268, 6 7 0 ,8 1 7 , 820, 822 2 4 9 ,2 5 1 268 233 610, 665 810 120, 131, 6 6 5 ,8 4 7 385, 3 8 8 ,8 4 7 1117 86 1 2 1 8 -1 9 120 868 81 6 9, 1030 1073 9 373

15:28 15:29 15:35 15:40 16:4 16:9 16:11 1 6 :1 3 -1 5 16:14 16:15 1 6 :1 6 -1 9 1 6 :1 6 -1 8 16:16 1 6 :1 7 -1 8 1 6 :1 9 -2 0 16:23 16:28 16:29 16:30 16:31 16:40 17:1 1 7 :2 -3 17:2 17:3 17:4 1 7 :6 -7 17:7 17:9 17:11 17:18 17:20 17:25 17:26 17:27 1 7 :2 8 -2 9 17:30 17:31 18:4 18:5 18:6 18:8 1 8 :9 -1 0 1 8 :1 4 -1 6 18:21 18:23 1 8 :2 5 -2 6 18:27 18:43 1 9 :1 -7 1 9 :1 -6 19:1 19:2 19:4 19:6 19:10 1 9 :1 1 -1 2 19:11 19:12 1 9 :1 3 -1 6 1 9 :1 3 -1 4 19:13 19:17 19:21 19:25 19:31 19:34 19:38 19:40 19:48 20:3 2 0 :7 -1 2 20:7 20:11 20:13

1289

9 816 32 199 255 28 399 552, 603 1219 407, 1205 807 411 206, 724 214 714 592 1158 408 149 3 8 5 ,3 8 8 , 1204 49 365 187 4 9 ,1 1 9 4 6 5 ,8 9 6 , 1 2 0 5 -0 6 940 1117 103, 107, 112, 1118 379 1 8 7 ,3 8 5 ,6 1 5 3 2 ,2 0 6 2 0 8 ,1 1 4 8 -4 9 703 1013, 1060 1213 173 1144 143, 173, 728, 1060 120 709 69, 223, 707 366 997 1118 399 1073 11 199 1202 1 4 2 ,1 5 1 -5 2 612 226 3 8 5 ,7 3 3 143, 151 85 120 418 556 2 1 3 ,9 1 5 411, 524 639 204 120 7, 80 1118 3 6 6 ,9 9 7 33 1203 1118 1202 399 418 1045, 1207 1045, 1207 399

1290 20:18 20:22 20:24 20:25 20:30 20:32 20:33 20:36 20:38 21:1 21:2 21:3 21:4 21:5 21:7 21:8 21:9 21:11 21:13 21:14 21:15 21:21 21:24 21:25 21:26 21:27 2 1 :2 8 -3 0 21:35 21:36 21:37 21:38 21:39 22:3 22:4 2 2 :6 -1 1 2 2 :6 -9 22:8 22:10 22:11 22:12 22:16 22:18 22:19 22:22 22:25 22:29 22:30 23:2 23:4 23:5 2 3 :6 -9 23:6 23:7 23:9 23:11 23:14 23:21 23:23 2 3 :24 23:26 24:1 2 4 :2 -5 24:2 24:3 2 4 :10 24:11 2 4 :14 24:15 24:17 24:22 24:26 2 4 :44 24:47 2 5 -2 6 25:2

Index

of

357, 1202 119 5 3 5 ,9 5 8 1012 1081 199 386 1081 131 3 9 9 ,5 0 9 , 1081 399 276 109 1 0 8 1 ,1 2 2 7 276 1088 8 5 ,9 1 514 1073 1083 33 11 1 1 , 2 2 8 -2 9 53, 247, 816 542 1 7 9 ,7 2 5 1131 1083 1131 733 1202 783 603 514 493 964 899 149 4 5 2 ,1 2 0 2 118 1 4 1 ,1 5 2 870 680, 1204 648 733 33 519 1105 1105 1105 9 6 4 , 969 355 1117 66 106 466 669 328 595, 925 10 1105 1117 6 10 6 33, 357 960 2 6 ,7 5 1 664 960 54 1205 1118 1124 940

Biblical and O ther Ancient Sources 25:4 2 5 :6 -9 25:15 25:17 2 5 :1 8 -2 0 25:19 25:21 25:24 25:25 2 6 :4 -8 26:5 26:7 26:9 26:10 26:11 2 6 :1 3 -1 9 26:13 26:16 26:17 26:18 26:19 2 6 :2 2 -2 3 26:22 26:23 26:25 26:26 26:30 26:32 27:2 27:3 2 7 :1 3 -4 4 27:18 27:23 27:25 27:30 27:34 27:35 27:41 27:44 28:1 2 8 :3 -5 28:7 28:8 28:9 28:10 28:17 28:22 28:23 2 8 :2 5 -2 7 28:25 2 8 :2 6 -2 7 2 8 :26 28:28 28:29 2 8 :3 0 -3 1 28:31

87 0 233 466 509 1118 1189 103, 1123 1117 1 0 3 ,1 1 1 8 233 233 123 866, 899 157 1227 493 106 7, 28 1131 89, 120, 236 3 3 ,1 0 8 ,1 2 0 3 1219, 1221 1205 120 10 187 148 1118 399, 594 276 4 0 0 -0 1 509 686 68 976 678 256, 437, 1045 592 379 33 5 6 5 -6 6 940 4 9 ,2 1 3 379 399 940 99 7 8 2 0 ,8 3 1 , 1205 170 31, 200, 202 931 208 144 514 xxxviii, 4 144, 535, 542

14:17 16:7 16:20 16:21

852 2 6 6 -6 7 56 3 XXXV

1 C o r in th ia n s

1:12 1 :1 8 -3 1 2 :6 -1 3 3 :5 -6 3 :1 8 -2 0 3:22 4:6 4:9 5:5 5:7 6:7 7 :1 0 -1 1 7 :3 2 -3 5 7:32 7:34 8:12 9:1 9:4 9:5 9:6 9:14 9:16 10:10 10:13 1 0 :1 6 -1 7 1 0 :2 0 -2 3 10:27 11 11:18 1 1 :2 3 -2 6 11:23 11:25 13:2 13:11 14:19 1 4 :2 4 -2 5 1 5 :1 -8 1 5 :3 -5 15:3 15:4 1 5 :5 -8 15:5 1 5 :7 -8 15:7 1 5 :8 -9 15:8 15:32 1 5 :4 4 -4 9 15:50 16:2

266 572 572 266 572 266 266 266 859 8 297 816, 818 601 131 131 191 2 6 7 -6 8 , 494 2 6 8 ,6 0 1 266 266 553 298 245 619 1 0 4 2 ,1 0 4 8 637 553 1056 200 64, 1042, 1044 1087 437, 1048 836 131 11 355 495 366 8 467 4 9 4 ,1 1 8 0 , 1182 2 6 5 ,3 6 5 , 1 2 0 7 -0 9 268 2 6 6 -6 7 267, 1182 4 9 3 ,1 2 2 5 68 6 494 1053 87 6

R om ans

2 1 :3 -4 1:4 1:16 1:24 1:28 1:29 4:17 5:20 8:15 8:32 8:34 9 :3 2 -3 3 12:12 1 3 :1 -7 13:9 13:13

42, 5 5 -5 6 , 971 54, 494, 1226 4 8 5 ,6 2 5 72 8 685 57 362 613 514 494 121 1013 961 886 1012

C o r in th ia n s

1:14 4:1 4:14 4:16 6:2 6:15 8 :1 -5 8:23 9:5 11:5 11:13 11:14 12:4 12:11 12:12

859 867 494 867 200 637 980 266 685 267 267 637, 643 1152 267 267

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 5:17

G a la tia n s

1:16 1:17 1:19 2:1 2 :7 -8 2:9 2:12 2:19 3:7 3:14 4:4 4:6 4:10 4:26 4:29 5:3 5:21 6:6 6:9

4 9 4 ,1 0 5 3 266 394 266 266 270, 497 139 266 724 1220 1 1 5 ,5 3 4 1 8 ,6 1 3 852 7 4 2 -4 3 43, 45 79, 81 1012 11 867

E p h e s ia n s

1:6 1:13 1:20 2:6 3:5 3:13 4:10 4:19 5:3 5:8 5:29 6:14 6:18

1 T i m o th y

1:4 1:7 3:16 4 :4 -5 4:10 5 :1 3 -1 6 5:18 6:8 6 :1 1 -1 2

169 233 1225 443, 1052 733 1 2 2 ,1 2 5 553 617 733

1:8 2:12 2:19 4 :7 -8 4:11

1226 859 266 79 494 1226 566 200

3:9

485 485 734 733 XXXV

XXXV

1 T h e s s a lo n ia n s

1:1 1:6 1:10 2:7 2:13 2:15 5 :2 -4 5:5 5:17 2

266 385 428, 1226 266 385 286 699 801 867

T h e s s a lo n ia n s

1:9 2:9 3:13 5:3

151 637, 643 867 1012

2:3, 14 2:4 2 :1 7 -2 0

685 410 645

10

601

3 John

7 -8

601

6 -7 6 7 14

829 410 154 168

R e v e la tio n H eb rew s

1:5 2:14 4:14 5:5 5:7 6:19 9:2 4 10:20 10:29 11:5 11:30 12:15 12:23 13:2 13:2 1 3 :1 2 -1 3 13:17

165 1053 1225 165 1082 1225 1225 1157 374 1228 595 374 566 5 2 0 - 2 1 ,6 2 6 1205, 1208 952 1 0 1 3 -1 4

Jam es

927 685 89 7

2 P e te r

XXXV

C o lo s s ia n s

1:20 3:5 3:12 4 :1 -1 1 4:14

829 152 1225 286 285 131 1138

Jude

169

P h ile m o n

24

3 :1 9 -2 0 3:21 3:22 4:13 4:14 4:15 4 :1 7 -1 8

2John

2 T im o th y

T itu s

50 1220 494, 1226 494 87 867 1225 685 685 801 5 8 4 -8 5 701 1 0 1 3 -1 4

P h ilip p ia n s

2 :9 -1 1 2:16 2:25 3:5 3:10 3 :2 0 -2 1 4:3 4:18

1013

1291

1:2 1 :1 3 -1 4 1:21 1:27 2:5 4 :1 3 -5 :6 5:1 5:4 5:6 5:7 5 :1 9 -2 0

592 618 385 867 283 687 280, 287 553 297 194 31

1 P e te r

1:3 1 :6 -8 1:13 1:21 2 :6 -8 2:8 2:12 2 :1 3 -1 7 2:17

494 286 701 494 121 953 932 961 867

1 :1 2 -2 0 2:2 2:7 2:11 2:17 2:22 2:29 3:3 3:5 3:6 3:10 3:13 3:22 4:1 5 :9 -1 2 5:12 6:8 6:16 7 :2 -3 7:14 8:2 8 :3 -4 8:5 8:6 8 :7 -8 8:8 9 :1 -1 1 9 :1 -2 9 :3 -4 9:6 9:11 9:15 10:4 10:8 1 1 :2 -3 11:2 11:7 11:12 11:13 1 1 :1 4 -1 8 12:6 1 2 :7 -1 0 12:10 12:14

493 828 375, 1152 375, 565 375 1152 375 699 566 375 618 375 375 162 108 151 992 1006, 1137 565 141 32 28, 35 708 32 708 836 565 41 5 6 5 -6 6 1137 410 704 33, 162 162 194 1002 410 162 992 1006 194 563 108, 9 2 7 194

1292 13:5 13:8 1 3 :1 3 -1 4 1 4 :1 0 -1 1 14:13 1 4 :1 5 -1 6 1 4 :1 8 -1 9

Index

of

194 566 637, 643 154 162 149 149

Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 16:15 17:8 18:4 18:7 19:11 19:20 2 0 :1 -3

699 41 0 668 703 160 411, 678 563

20:1 20:9 20:10 20:14 20:15 21:8 2 2 :16

410 708 4 1 1 ,5 6 3 411 411 411 899

The Apocrypha 1

K in g d o m s

1:18 1:23 6:6 1 9 :2 3 -2 4 21:13 23:8 2

K in g d o m s

8 :3 3 -3 4 8 :4 8 -5 0 11:15 12:28 16:10 3

105 199 1012 140 996 932

142 142 79 931 206

12:15 12:16 12:17 12:19 13:14

32 2 9 ,1 2 1 2 29 1215 2 7 9 -8 0

J u d ith

6:19 8:6 13:8 13:18 15:2 16:14 16:17 16:21 1 6 :2 2 -2 3

69 123 75 6 6 -6 7 29 45 154 33 122

W is d o m

129 191 266 207 1072

4 K in g d o m s

3:13 4:9 6:14 10:1 10:6 15:5 23:8 2 3 :34

207 20 7 931 79 79 1067 48 171

1:5 1:15 3 :1 -9 3:4 3:8 3:9 4:15 7 :2 -3 7:4 8:13 11:1 15:3 15:11 1 9 :1 0 -1 2

30 967 1152 967 1067 1147 1147 34 1 0 5 , 111 967 86 96 7 45, 68 442

S ir a c h 1 E sd ra s

8:49 2

122

E sdras

2:61 8:6 8:41 9:31 17:63

79 385 3 7 5 -7 6 375 79

T o b it

1:1 3:6 3:13 4:8 4:11 5:4 5:10 12 12:13

143 119 119 149 149 4 8 ,1 2 1 2 104 1218 299

2 :1 2 -1 4 4:10 9:10 10:14 11:6 14:17 14:18 14:25 17:31 2 5 :7 -1 0 2 5 :16 28:18 31:8 36 36:11 38:33 39:2, 3 40:15 4 4 :16 48:9 4 8 :10 48:12

279 46 244 72 72 26 1053 105 1053 279 164 1002 280 282 46 380 380 385 1228 1228 24, 31, 432 1228

51 3 2 ,1 2 0 1228 1 2 2 5 ,1 2 2 7 ,1 2 2 9 1228 29 964

B aru ch

1:22 3:37 4:24 5:9

71 162 120 120

S u san n a

3 2 8 -6 2 35

K in g d o m s

2:12 1 3 :2 1 -2 2 14:6 17:18 19:6

48:22 49:12 4 9 :14 5 0 :2 0 -2 2 50:21 51:11 51:12

26 1130 443

B e l a n d th e D r a g o n

2 15

25 27

1 M accabees

1:15 1 :2 1 -2 2 1:63 2 :1 -2 2:57 2:58 4:11 8:31 9:73 10:47 11:33 11:57 11:67 14:41

87 28 87 79 52 1228 1203 79 1067 164 299 79 221 164

2 M accabees

2, 3 , 4 3:2 5 :2 -3 7:27 9:16 10:19 1 5 :1 1 -1 6

25 988 992 34 988 904 430

3 M accabees

5:24 5:27

6 5 ,1 1 5 9 66

Index o f Biblical and Other Ancient Sources

\ 293

Pseudepigrapha and Early Patristic Works

1 E noch

J u b ile e s

3 E noch

9:1 15:6 20 22 39 :4-8 40:2 45:3 46 :4-8 49:2 50:5 51:3 51:5 52:6 52:19 53:6 55:4 58:2 60:8 61:5 61:8 61:10 61:12 68:8 90 :8-13 91 :12-17 93 :1-14 94 :6-11 104:1

32 966 32 422 422 32 1147 72 1147 1147 1147 1147 1147 1147 1147 1147 280 1152 1147 1147 1147 1152 375 384 282 282 72 90

2 E noch 42 :7-9 56:1 57:2 64:4

280 1227 1227 1227

48c :9

72

S ib . O r.

3:371

280

A s. M os.

10:8

280

E p .J e r .

40

141 108 256 384 179 179 256

P s a l m s o f S o lo m o n

32

T. L e v i

8 18:3-4 18:10-11

32 90 1152

2 A p o c . B a r. 10:6-7 10:13-15 12:3-4 21:4 29 :3-8 51:5 51:10 85:1

280 1137 1003 45 442 966 966 87

4 E zra

2:18 6:13 6:58 6 :49-52 13:13 14:23 14:36 14:42-45

1:23 2 :2-3 2:29 11:11 17:15-18 48 :2-3 50:3

9:1 17 17:21 17:36 17:37 17:42 17:50 18:7 18:8 18:10

1203 163 972 107 162 162 280 280 119 108

A p o c a ly p s e o f A b r a h a m

13:3-7

384

M a r ty r d o m o f I s a ia h

3:11

1029

T e s ta m e n t o f Z e b u lo n

430 162 46 442 160 1225 1225 1225

7:38 8:2 8:6

89 89 89

G o s p e l o f P e te r

7.27

243

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts M u r ( W a d i M u r a b b d ■ a t te x ts )

19:10 4Q D 1b H a m

1 Q H (T h a n k s g iv in g H y m n s)

906 1205

1 Q p H a b (P e sh e r o n H a b a k k u k )

7:4- 5 , 8

379

4 :23-24

4Q S1

379

I Q S ( R u l e o f th e C o m m u n i t y )

1:3 2:1 3 :13- 4:25 3:23

39

23,89

1 Q M ( W a r S c r o ll)

1205 89 1030 379

14:4 3:9

87 379

Rabbinic and Mishnaic Materials 10.1-14

m. Yom a

5:1

33

to. K er.

2:1

138

8:8 10:1-9

138 1047

7:7

138

7:31

8:36

.

1:1

4:1

1106

to T a m i d

1073

1111

m. H a g . 138

129

. S an h.

to

.

to B . Q a .

. Be r

t. P e s a h

7.13

244 129

to

y. P e s a h

. Nid.

TO

5:6

m.>A b o t 4:20 5:21

to. P e s a h

1047

5 :2- 6:3 6 :1-3 6:3 7:2

27 28 28 33

Gen.Rab. 129

63:10

129