Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography: A Study on the Theology, Literature, and Ideology of Luke-Acts 316153090X, 9783161530906

Table of contents :
Cover
Preface
Table of Contents
List of Charts
Abbreviations
Part 1: Introduction
Chapter 1. Theology, History, and Ideology
Luke-Acts: Hellenistic Writing with Jewish Theology?
History and Theology in Lukan Studies: The “Great Divide”
Luke the Jewish Theologian
Luke the Hellenistic Writer
Luke the Hellenistic-Jewish Ideologist
Where Do We Go from Here?
Part 2: Divine Involvement. In Ancient Historical Accounts
Chapter 2. Divine Involvement in Greco-Roman Historical Accounts
Divine Stories and Human Histories
Divine Authority and Human Assent
Divine Regents and Human Agents
Summary and Conclusion
Chapter 3. Divine Involvement in Jewish Historical Accounts
Divine Story and Israel’s History
Divine Authority and Human Assent
Divine Regent and His Human Agents
Summary and Conclusion
Chapter 4. Divine Involvement in Luke-Acts
Divine Story and Continuation of Israel’s History
Divine Authority and Human Assent
Epiphanies
Exorcisms and Healings
Exposition and Divine Revelation
Divine Regent and His Human Agents
Summary and Conclusion
Summary and Conclusion to Part 2. Luke-Acts as a Theological History
Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Ancient Historical Accounts
Taxonomy of Parallels in Luke-Acts
Structural Parallels
Episodic Parallels
Circumstantial Parallels
Verbal Parallels
An Attempt at Categorization
Purpose of Parallels in Luke-Acts
Apologetic
Historical Continuity or Literary Unity
Succession
Luke-Acts as a Succession Narrative
Chapter 5. Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Greco-Roman Historical Accounts
Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers
Parallels without Successions
Successions without Parallels
Summary and Conclusion
Chapter 6. Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Jewish Historical Accounts
Parallels and Succession in the Moses-Joshua Narratives
Parallel Episodes
Parallel Incidents
Farewell Speeches of Moses and Joshua
Moses-Joshua Parallels
Parallels and Succession in the Elijah-Elisha Narratives
Structure of the Elijah-Elisha Narratives
Parallel Episodes
Parallel Incidents
Elijah-Elisha Parallels
Succession in Other Jewish Writings
Summary and Conclusion
Chapter 7. Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Luke-Acts
Succession in Luke-Acts
“Ascension” of the Predecessor as Narrative Structural Center
Parallel Episodes: Jesus-Peter
The Two Centurions
Stone Rejected by Builders
Parallel Episodes: Jesus-Paul
Beginning of the Ministries of Jesus and Paul
Healing of Fevered Parents
Trials of Jesus and Paul
Jesus, Peter, and Paul: The Giving of the Spirit
Other Jesus-Peter and Jesus-Paul Parallels
Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives: Deuteronomic Precedents
Summary and Conclusion
Summary and Conclusion to Part 3. Luke-Acts as a Succession Narrative
Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods in Ancient Historical Accounts
Chapter 8. Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of The Gods in Greco-Roman Historical Accounts
Migrations, Conquests, and Territorial Claims
Land and Genealogies
Reign of the Gods and Piety of the Kings
Summary and Conclusion
Chapter 9. Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of God in Jewish Historical Accounts
Migrations, Conquests, and Territorial Claims
Land and Genealogies
Reign of the Gods and Piety of His Kings
Summary and Conclusion
Chapter 10. Land, Genealogy, and the Reign of God in Luke-Acts
Land in Luke-Acts
Territorial Claims: Not Just Historical Markers
Herod the Great and the Temple
Augustus and “All Inhabited Earth”
Tiberius, Pilate, the Tetrarchs, the Priests, and the Districts Around the Jordan
Son of God as Heir to His Father’s Land
Baptism: Announcement of the Heir
Genealogy: Legitimacy of the Heir
Temptation: Heir as the Rightful Possessor of the Land
The Year of the Lord’s Favor: Hope of Repossessing God’s Land
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: Rejection of the Rightful Heir
New Moses, Old Law
Jesus as the New Moses
Jesus as the Embodiment of the Law
Trespassers of God’s Law, Trespassers in God’s Land
Jewish Leaders: The Pharisees, the Scribes, and the Chief Priests
Pontius Pilate
Herod Antipas
Herod Agrippa I
Sergius Paulus
Gallio
Felix
Festus
Herod Agrippa II
The Kingdom of Caesar and the Dominion of Caesar
Portraits of Jewish and Roman Authorities
Geographical Movements and God’s Land Claims
Jerusalem and Judea: Local and Diaspora Jews
Samaria (and the Coastal Regions): Samaritans and Gentiles
End of the Earth: Rome and the Gentiles
Summary and Conclusion
Summary and Conclusion to Part 4. Luke-Acts as an Ideological Writing
Part 5: Summary and Conclusion
Chapter 11. Where Can We Go from Here?
Luke-Acts and Jewish Theological Histories
Luke-Acts and Jewish Succession Narratives
Luke-Acts and Jewish Ideological Writings
Where Can We Go from Here?
Bibliography
Scripture Index
Old Testament
New Testament
Index of Greco-Roman Writings
Index of Jewish Writings
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
Hellenistic Jewish Writings
Other Jewish Writings
Index of Modern Authors
Subject Index

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)

366

Samson Uytanlet

Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography A Study on the Theology, Literature, and Ideology of Luke-Acts

Mohr Siebeck

Samson Uytanlet, born 1970; 1995–2007 Bible teacher at Central Bible Seminary, Philippines; 1998–2007 Pastor at Christian Bible Church of the Philippines and Seminar Teacher for WorldTeach Philippines; since 2013 Professor at the Biblical Seminary of the Philippines.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153172-9 ISBN 978-3-16-153090-6 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface This work is a revised version of my doctoral thesis that was submitted to the London School of Theology (Middlesex University, UK) in the Fall of 2012 and was defended in the Winter of 2013. The production of both the initial work and this final version had been long and arduous, as those who had gone through a similar process can attest; thus, I am grateful for the people who had provided help along the way making the completion of both the original thesis and this monograph possible. Professor Joel B. Green, my doctoral supervisor who had meticulously read every draft of my thesis, merits much appreciation. His invaluable input and constructive critique helped me, not only to stay focused, but also to explore other possibilities in interpreting the Scriptures. Professor Fredrick J. Long, under whom I served as a teaching intern, had also provided helpful feedback in the process. I consider it a great privilege to work with these two gentlemen and faithful servants of God whose commitment to see their students succeed is evident in their selflessness and generosity. I am also grateful to Professor Loveday Alexander and Dr. Conrad Gempf who had provided helpful suggestions as I worked on the final version of my thesis, and to Professor Markus Bockmuehl who had recommended important resources as I revise my thesis for this monograph series. The Langham Partnership, USA (formerly John Stott Ministries) had been a channel of blessing throughout the years I was working on my thesis, not only for providing the funds needed to complete the program of study, but also through their encouragement and prayers. Dr. Elaine Vaden deserves a special mention as she tirelessly looked after the welfare of their scholars. I am also grateful to Dr. Joseph Shao, president of the Biblical Seminary of the Philippines (BSOP), who had been, in many ways, instrumental in making this pursuit possible. To the faculty and staff of BSOP, I am also thankful for their continuous prayer and support. The Christian Bible Church of the Philippines (Talayan, Quezon City) had been very supportive as well in this undertaking. Two individuals had played an important role in my decision to pursue this endeavor, namely, Dr. Randall Gleason and Rev. Danny Reyes; to them I am also grateful. I have a number people who had helped me in various ways as I complete my

VI

Preface

dissertation and its revision: Rev. Andy Ponce, Ptr. Caleb Wang, and Susie Patrick, who helped me gather additional materials which I have included in this work; Dr. Eunice Irwin, Dr. Laurence Wood, and Dr. Robert and Mrs. Ellen Stamps, who through their lives brought encouragements to me and my family as I complete my work. To my wife, Juliet, and our son, Johann, many thanks. I appreciate of the sacrifices they made to allow me to complete this work. May the blessed Lord be praised in all these things!

Biblical Seminary of the Philippines January 2014

Samson Uytanlet

Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... V List of Charts ...................................................................................... XIII Abbreviations ....................................................................................... XV

Part 1

Introduction Chapter 1. Theology, History, and Ideology................................... 3 Luke-Acts: Hellenistic Writing with Jewish Theology? ............................. 4 History and Theology in Lukan Studies: The “Great Divide” ............... 4 Luke the Jewish Theologian .................................................................. 8 Luke the Hellenistic Writer ................................................................. 12 Luke the Hellenistic-Jewish Ideologist ................................................ 19 Where Do We Go from Here? ................................................................. 21

Part 2

Divine Involvement in Ancient Historical Accounts Chapter 2. Divine Involvement in Greco-Roman Historical Accounts ....................................................................... 27 Divine Stories and Human Histories ........................................................ 27 Divine Authority and Human Assent ....................................................... 30 Divine Regents and Human Agents ......................................................... 31 Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................ 33

VIII

Table of Contents

Chapter 3. Divine Involvement in Jewish Historical Accounts ....................................................................... 35 Divine Story and Israel’s History ............................................................ 35 Divine Authority and Human Assent ....................................................... 37 Divine Regent and His Human Agents .................................................... 39 Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................ 41

Chapter 4. Divine Involvement in Luke-Acts ............................... 43 Divine Story and Continuation of Israel’s History ................................... 44 Divine Authority and Human Assent ....................................................... 50 Epiphanies .......................................................................................... 51 Exorcisms and Healings ..................................................................... 53 Exposition and Divine Revelation ....................................................... 59 Divine Regent and His Human Agents .................................................... 64 Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................ 67

Summary and Conclusion to Part 2. Luke-Acts as a Theological History ............................................................... 68 Part 3

Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Ancient Historical Narratives Taxonomy of Parallels in Luke-Acts ....................................................... 72 Structural Parallels ............................................................................ 72 Episodic Parallels .............................................................................. 74 Circumstantial Parallels ..................................................................... 75 Verbal Parallels ................................................................................. 75 An Attempt at Categorization .............................................................. 76 Purpose of Parallels in Luke-Acts ........................................................... 76 Apologetic .......................................................................................... 78 Historical Continuity or Literary Unity .............................................. 78 Succession .......................................................................................... 78 Luke-Acts as a Succession Narrative ....................................................... 80

Table of Contents

IX

Chapter 5. Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Greco-Roman Historical Accounts ........................................ 83 Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers .................................. 83 Parallels without Successions .................................................................. 84 Successions without Parallels .................................................................. 87 Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................ 90

Chapter 6. Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Jewish Historical Accounts ..................................................... 91 Parallels and Succession in the Moses-Joshua Narratives ........................ 91 Parallel Episodes ............................................................................... 92 Parallel Incidents ............................................................................... 98 Farewell Speeches of Moses and Joshua ........................................... 100 Moses-Joshua Parallels .................................................................... 101 Parallels and Succession in the Elijah-Elisha Narratives ........................ 102 Structure of the Elijah-Elisha Narratives .......................................... 102 Parallel Episodes ............................................................................. 106 Parallel Incidents ............................................................................. 110 Elijah-Elisha Parallels ..................................................................... 111 Succession in Other Jewish Writings ..................................................... 112 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................... 116

Chapter 7. Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Luke-Acts ................................................................................. 118 Succession in Luke-Acts ...................................................................... 118 “Ascension” of the Predecessor as Narrative Structural Center .............. 121 Parallel Episodes: Jesus-Peter ............................................................... 130 The Two Centurions.......................................................................... 130 Stone Rejected by Builders ............................................................... 133 Parallel Episodes: Jesus-Paul................................................................. 137 Beginning of the Ministries of Jesus and Paul................................... 137 Healing of Fevered Parents .............................................................. 141 Trials of Jesus and Paul ................................................................... 143 Jesus, Peter, and Paul: The Giving of the Spirit ................................ 146 Other Jesus-Peter and Jesus-Paul Parallels ............................................ 150

X

Table of Contents

Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives: Deuteronomic Precedents ................................................................. 153 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................... 153

Summary and Conclusion to Part 3. Luke-Acts as a Succession Narrative ........................................................... 156 Part 4

Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods in Ancient Historical Accounts Chapter 8. Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of The Gods in Greco-Roman Historical Accounts ...................................... 163 Migrations, Conquests, and Territorial Claims ..................................... 164 Land and Genealogies ........................................................................... 167 Reign of the Gods and Piety of the Kings .............................................. 175 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................... 178

Chapter 9. Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of God in Jewish Historical Accounts ................................................... 179 Migrations, Conquests, and Territorial Claims ...................................... 179 Land and Genealogies ........................................................................... 180 Reign of the Gods and Piety of His Kings ............................................. 190 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................... 194

Chapter 10. Land, Genealogy, and the Reign of God in Luke-Acts ................................................................................. 195 Land in Luke-Acts ................................................................................ 196 Territorial Claims: Not Just Historical Markers ..................................... 198 Herod the Great and the Temple ....................................................... 199 Augustus and “All Inhabited Earth” ................................................. 200 Tiberius, Pilate, the Tetrarchs, the Priests, and the Districts Around the Jordan ....................................................................... 202 Son of God as Heir to His Father’s Land ............................................... 205 Baptism: Announcement of the Heir .................................................. 206 Genealogy: Legitimacy of the Heir ................................................... 206

Table of Contents

XI

Temptation: Heir as the Rightful Possessor of the Land .................... 209 The Year of the Lord’s Favor: Hope of Repossessing God’s Land .... 211 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: Rejection of the Rightful Heir ... 212 New Moses, Old Law ............................................................................ 215 Jesus as the New Moses .................................................................... 216 Jesus as the Embodiment of the Law ................................................. 218 Trespassers of God’s Law, Trespassers in God’s Land .......................... 222 Jewish Leaders: The Pharisees, the Scribes, and the Chief Priests ... 222 Pontius Pilate ................................................................................... 225 Herod Antipas .................................................................................. 225 Herod Agrippa I ............................................................................... 226 Sergius Paulus .................................................................................. 228 Gallio ............................................................................................... 228 Felix ................................................................................................. 229 Festus ............................................................................................... 230 Herod Agrippa II .............................................................................. 231 The Kingdom of Caesar and the Dominion of Caesar ....................... 232 Portraits of Jewish and Roman Authorities ....................................... 233 Geographical Movements and God’s Land Claims ................................ 233 Jerusalem and Judea: Local and Diaspora Jews ............................... 235 Samaria (and the Coastal Regions): Samaritans and Gentiles .......... 240 End of the Earth: Rome and the Gentiles .......................................... 247 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................... 251

Summary and Conclusion to Part 4. Luke-Acts as an Ideological Writing............................................................ 253 Part 5

Summary and Conclusion Chapter 11. Where Can We Go from Here? ............................... 257 Luke-Acts and Jewish Theological Histories ......................................... 257 Luke-Acts and Jewish Succession Narratives ........................................ 258 Luke-Acts and Jewish Ideological Writings........................................... 259 Where Can We Go from Here? .............................................................. 260

XII

Table of Contents

Bibliography ......................................................................................... 261 Scripture Index ..................................................................................... 285 Index of Greco-Roman Writings ........................................................... 309 Index of Jewish Writings ...................................................................... 316 Index of Modern Authors ...................................................................... 320 Subject Index ........................................................................................ 325

List of Charts 4A 6A 6B 6C 6D 6E 6F 6G 6H 6I 7A 7B 7C 7D 7E 7F 7G 7H 7I 7J 10A 10B

Divine Involvement in Greco-Roman and Jewish Historiography ....................... 44 Espionage Episodes in Numbers and Joshua ....................................................... 93 Crossing the Water in Exodus and Joshua .......................................................... 96 Israel-Ai War and the Review of the Covenant Stipulation ................................. 97 Moses-Joshua Circumstantial Parallels ............................................................... 98 Parallels in the Farewell Speeches of Moses and Joshua ................................... 101 Structural Parallels of the Elijah-Elisha Narratives ........................................... 104 Bountiful Oil Supply, Raised Son to Life ......................................................... 107 Famine, Sole Sovereignty of the God of Israel Confirmed ................................ 109 Elijah-Elisha Circumstantial Parallels .............................................................. 111 Test for Legitimate Successors ........................................................................ 120 “Ascension” Account as Narrative Center ........................................................ 122 Succession in OT and Luke-Acts ..................................................................... 123 Two Tales of a Centurion in Luke and Acts ..................................................... 131 The “Stone Rejected by Builders” Episodes in Luke and Acts .......................... 134 Formal Beginning of the Ministries of Jesus and Paul ...................................... 138 Healing of Fevered Parents .............................................................................. 142 Trials of Jesus and Paul ................................................................................... 146 The Holy Spirit for Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles .......................................... 147 Circumstantial Parallels for Jesus-Peter/Paul .................................................... 150 Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods ................................................. 195 Jesus and Moses .............................................................................................. 216

Abbreviations A1CS AB ABRL AcBib AGJU AJP AJPS AmAn AnBib ANRW ANTC ATANT BapT BBR BCSBS BEATAJ BECNT BerOl BETL Bib BN BNTC BR BSac BSL BTB BWANT BZ BZNW CBET CBQ CBR CJ CJA ConBOT CQ CRINT CTM

The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Reference Library Academia Biblica Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums American Journal of Philology Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies American Anthropologist Analecta biblica Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung Abingdon New Testament Commentary Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Baptistic Theologies Bulletin for Biblical Research Bulletin of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentum Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Berit Olam Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblica Biblische Notizen Black’s New Testament Commentary Biblical Research Bibliotheca Sacra Biblical Studies Library Biblical Theology Bulletin Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research Classical Journal Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series Classical Quarterly Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Concordia Theological Monthly

XVI CTR CW DCLY EJT ERT ESC ETL EuroUS EvQ ExpT GNS GR HNT HS HSCP HSM HTR HT HUCA IBC IBS ICC JBL JBQ JBT JEH JETS JHS JITC JP JPS JPT JPTSup JRS JRT JSJ JSJ JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSPS JSPSup JSS JTS KEK LNTS LHB/OTS

Abbreviations Criswell Theological Review Classical World Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook Evangelical Journal of Theology Evangelical Review of Theology Emory Studies in Christianity Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses European University Studies Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Good News Studies Greece and Rome Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Hebrew Studies Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Semitic Monograph Harvard Theological Review History and Theory Hebrew Union College Annual Interpretation Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly Jahrbüch für Biblische Theologie Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center Journal for Preachers Journal of Pentecostal Studies Journal of Pentecostal Theology Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series Journal of Roman Studies Journal of Religious Thought Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Society of Pentecostal Studies Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Library of New Testament Studies Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies

Abbreviations Mnem NICNT NICOT NIGTC NovT NovTSup NTM NTOA NTS NTT ÖBS OBT OTL PBM PEW PMAAR PNTC Proof PRSt PRSt PrTMS PTMS PzB RB RelEd ResQ RevExp RevScRel SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP SJLA SJOT SJT SNT SNTSMS SP SR StPB ST SwJT TAPA TDNT TJ TJT TOTC TSAJ TynBul UNDCSJCA

Mnemosyne New International Commentary of the New Testament New International Commentary of the Old Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Testament Monograph Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies New Testament Theology Österreichische Biblische Studien Overtures to Biblical Theology Old Testament Library Paternoster Biblical Monographs Philosophy East and West Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome Pillar New Testament Commentary Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History Perspectives in Religious Studies (Journal) Perspectives in Religious Studies (Monograph) Princeton Theological Monograph Series Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series Protokolle zum Bibel Revue Biblique Religious Education Restoration Quarterly Review and Expositor Revue des sciences religieuses Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology Studien zum Neuen Testament Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Studies in Religion Studia Post-Biblica Studia Theologica Southwestern Journal of Theology Transactions of the American Philological Association Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Trinity Journal Toronto Journal of Theology Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Tyndale Bulletin University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity

XVII

XVIII VT VTSup WBC WCLBS WJT WTJ WUNT YNER ZAW

Abbreviations Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Westminster College Library of Biblical Symbolism Wiener Jahrbuch für Theologie Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Yale Near Eastern Researches Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Part 1

Introduction Inasmuch as many have undertaken to investigate the literature and theology of Luke-Acts, and most of them, although diverse, conclude that ancient Hellenistic writings provide literary precedents and the Jewish Scriptures provide the theological framework for Luke-Acts, it seems necessary to reopen the discussion, investigate other evidence that may have been left out in previous inquiries, and evaluate the things we have been taught. Despite the obvious differences, readers who are familiar with the Lukan preface in English can immediately detect my conscious effort to imitate, albeit epigonic, the introductory statement of the Third Gospel. Such an introduction may be unusual for works of this nature, and perhaps its verbosity would move any editor to make many revisions, yet the point is clear: my choice of language and composition makes it obvious which work is being imitated. Identifying the ancient works that influenced Luke’s Doppelwerk poses a greater challenge, however. Many scholars have recognized the influence of the Jewish Scriptures on Luke’s theological ideas. Nevertheless, the default in Lukan studies has been to examine Luke’s narrative in light of Greco-Roman writings, with the result that few attempts have been made to examine the influence of Jewish historiography on Luke-Acts. This creates an unnecessary disjunction between contents and literary features – that is, between theology (generally recognized as essentially Jewish) and literature (generally deemed as essentially Hellenistic). There is no question that Luke-Acts contains observable Hellenistic literary features. However, influence should not be limited to style and literary features. Luke’s theological and ideological stances are also integral to his historical narrative. In this introductory section, I will briefly review the history of Lukan scholarship with respect to the theology and literature of Luke-Acts, after which an assessment will be made to identify some lacunae within these studies that require further investigation.

Chapter 1

Theology, History, and Ideology Much of modern study on Luke-Acts has assumed the “unity” of the two works attributed to Luke. “Unity,” however, carries diverse nuances in modern Lukan scholarship.1 It is beyond the scope of this present work to discuss this issue in detail. Nevertheless, part of my aim in this work is to show that common theological strands hold Luke’s Doppelwerk together. Thus, in this Forschungsbericht I will make no distinction between the works done for Luke only, for Acts only, for Luke and Acts, and for LukeActs. Moreover, despite the recent reopening of the question concerning the issue of the authorial unity that challenged the common assumption of single authorship of Luke-Acts, I find it unnecessary to abandon the use of “Lukan” as modifier for Luke and Acts, or to avoid the usual reference to the author as “Luke” or the “Third Evangelist.”2

1 The complexity of this issue was elaborated in Michael F. Bird, “The Unity of LukeActs in Recent Discussion,” JSNT 29, no. 4 (2007): 425–48. 2 Patricia Walters (The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009]) has argued against its authorial unity. Questions have been raised about her conclusions (e.g., Sean Adams, review of Patricia Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence, EJT 20, no. 1 [2011]: 81–82; Heather Gorman and Mikeal Parsons, review of Patricia Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence, CBQ 74, no. 1 [2011]: 179–80; Joel B. Green, review of Patricia Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] [2009]; Richard I. Pervo, review of Patricia Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.book-reviews.org] [2009]). Moreover, despite the questions raised by Mikeal C. Parsons and Richard I. Pervo on the narrative unity of Luke and Acts, they maintained that the narrative “disunity” of Luke and Acts does not affect the question of its authorial unity (Rethinking the Narrative Unity of Luke and Acts [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993], 126). For a more recent inquiry on the authorship of Luke-Acts by Luke the physician, see Alexander Mittelstaedt, Lukas als Historiker: zur Datierung des lukanischen Doppelwerkes (TANZ 43; Tübingen: Francke, 2006), 11–48.

4

Part 1: Introduction

Luke-Acts: Hellenistic Writing with Jewish Theology?3 History and Theology in Lukan Studies: The “Great Divide” The contours of Lukan studies have continuously changed throughout the past two centuries. Discussions concerning history in Luke-Acts have been projected in different directions over these years. My aim is not to provide a comprehensive review of works that discuss Lukan history and historiography, 4 but to locate this work in relation to earlier writings. An important focus of discussion in the latter half of the nineteenth century concerns the historicity of Luke-Acts. Many critics have questioned the historicity of Luke’s accounts and the reliability of his works,5 while others defended the veracity of Luke’s records.6 Both critics and defenders of the historicity of Luke-Acts show little interest in theology. 3

The collection of essays in David P. Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Luke Interpreter of Israel 1; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity University Press, 1999) illustrates this disjunction. The literary features of Luke-Acts are set in Hellenistic literary backgrounds (see the essays by L. C. A. Alexander, Daryl D. Schmidt, Vernon K. Robbins, and David P. Moessner), with the Hellenistic Jewish writings providing hints of the possible ideological motivations behind Luke-Acts (see the essays by William Kurz, Carl R. Holladay, and Gregory E. Sterling); moreover, Luke’s theological stance finds its basis in Israel’s Scriptures (see the essays by Michael Wolter, Robert C. Tannehill, and I. Howard Marshall). 4 Other works have already accomplished this feat. Cf. W. Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975); Joel B. Green and Michael C. McKeever, Luke-Acts and New Testament Historiography (IBR Bibliographies; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994); and François Bovon, Luke the Theologian (2nd ed.; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006). 5 F. C. Baur, for instance, observes the differences between Luke’s portrayal of Paul to Paul’s self-portrait in his epistles and proposes that where Acts contradicts the Pauline writings, the latter should be given priority because only one version can be historically accurate (Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003], 4–5). For a survey of similar works (e.g., Bauer, Renan, Overbeck, and Schmiedel), see Gasque, History, 73–95; also Jens Schröter, “Paulus als Modell Christlicher Zeugenschaft,” in Réception du Paulinisme dans les Actes des apôtres (ed. Daniel Marguerat; BETL 229; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 53–60. 6 See Gasque’s reviews the works of some of Baur’s contemporaries and other later scholars (History, 55–72, 136–63). William M. Ramsay ranked Luke with other ancient Greek historians (Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898], 10–15). C. K. Barrett called for critics to evaluate the works of Luke based on the standards of ancient history-writing instead of expecting Luke to meet modern standards. Although Luke was not an eyewitness, he claimed to have received information from eyewitnesses, investigated them, arranged these materials in an orderly manner, and presented only accurate information (Luke the Historian in Recent Study [London: Epworth, 1961], 9). More recently, the reliability of Luke’s accounts is reaffirmed by Colin J. Hemer (The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History [ed. Conrad H. Gempf; WUNT 49; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989], 429) and Claus-Jürgen Thornton, Der Zeuge

Chapter 1: History, Theology, and Ideology

5

Discussions of Luke-Acts began to take on a “new look” during the early part of the twentieth century. The discussions go beyond issues like How accurate are Luke’s accounts? or Are Luke’s accounts consistent with Paul’s letters? or How does Luke compare with other ancient historians? There was a growing recognition of the relationship between theology with history and the artistic nature of ancient histories; as a result, questions like Does Luke record the events “as they actually happened”? or How does Luke’s theological agenda shape his work? or Do historicity and accuracy of Luke’s accounts matter at all? come to the fore. These new questions shift the focus of Lukan scholarship. This shift is seen in the contributions of Martin Dibelius, particularly his studies on Acts.7 He claimed that stories and sayings of Jesus found in the Third Gospel were committed to memory by the early Christians for purposes of propaganda and edification. Hence form criticism is an appropriate method to use in studying Luke. In Acts, however, the stories of the apostles were passed on as a result of the early Christian communities’ natural impulse to tell stories, but without a “cultic-christological interest.” Moreover, the higher literary standard employed in Acts as seen in the speeches requires another method of study. Hence, he introduced “style criticism.” 8 Dibelius suggests that in both Luke and Acts, Luke is an evangelist who portrays “God’s leadership of the Christian community within the framework of history.” 9 As a historian, Luke can be considered an artist who not only collected and framed traditions, but also endeavors to illuminate and present the meaning of the events.10 He considers Luke as a historian comparable to ancient historians like Thucydides. Luke’s literary ability is evident particularly in the speeches in Acts.11 These speeches, argues Dibelius, show that history is not the ultimate object of Acts.12 Since ancient historians were unaware of any obligation to reproduce the text of a speech, the question of historicity has to take the backseat in the discussion.13 des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen [WUNT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991], 361). 7 More relevant to our discussion are Dibelius’ articles (written within 1923–1951) that are compiled in his Studies in the Acts of the Apostle (ed. Heinrich Greeven; London: SCM, 1956): “Style Criticism of the Book of Acts” ([1923], 1–25), “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography” ([1944], 138–85), “The Acts of the Apostles as an Historical Source” ([1947], 102–108), and “The First Christian Historian” ([1948], 123–37). 8 Dibelius, Studies, 3. 9 Dibelius, Studies, 107. 10 Dibelius, Studies, 125. Unfortunately, Dibelius does not elaborate on the idea of Luke’s artistry. This assumption, however, will be significant particularly in the discussions on the genre of Luke-Acts in the later decades. 11 Dibelius, Studies, 138–85. 12 Dibelius, Studies, 102. 13 Dibelius, Studies, 139, 165.

6

Part 1: Introduction

In the mid-twentieth century, form criticism began to give way to redaction criticism. Hans Conzelmann assumes the unity of Luke-Acts and argues that there are two main factors that determine Luke’s picture of history: (1) the periods of Jesus and the church as two distinct but systematically interrelated epochs; and (2) the period between the “present” and the “arche” (i.e., the foundational period of the apostles and eyewitnesses).14 The delay of the parousia not only motivated Luke to reinterpret his sources, but also inevitably extended Luke’s view of redemptive history so that a significant period can be placed between Jesus’ earthly life and the eschaton. With Jesus placed in der Mitte der Zeit, history can then be divided into three main epochs: (1) Israel, Law and Prophets; (2) Jesus, foretaste of salvation; and (3) the period between Jesus and parousia in which the Spirit and ethical regulations replace the imminent expectation of the eschaton.15 As we move into the 1970s, valuable contributions to Lukan scholarship would be made by I. Howard Marshall and Martin Hengel. It was commonplace for redaction critics to treat history and theology as mutually exclusive. Moreover, they viewed Luke’s interest as primarily to advance his theological agenda by creatively using his sources, and at times, even at the expense of historical accuracy. 16 Marshall moved away from an “either/or” to a “both/and” view concerning the relationship between history and theology. He claims that the separation between history and theology allowed redaction critics to shift their focus from examining the traditions behind the Gospel texts to identifying the theological agenda of the Gospel writers based on the finished product. Moreover, as Marshall observes, this separation allowed redaction critics to reach a “dead end of the study of the historical Jesus to continue their study of the Gospels without raising the problem of historicity.” 17 He argues that such a distinction is unnecessary and agrees with Ernst Käsemann, who suggests that Luke can be appreciated as a historian only when one sees him as a theologian, but takes this further by suggesting that the converse is also true, that “Luke can be properly appreciated as a theologian only when it is recognized that he is also an historian.”18 14 Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 14–16. 15 Conzelmann, Theology, 150. 16 Recently, Gerd Lüdemann writes, “By interweaving history and legend, Luke confused facts, fiction, and faith. He blended historical and supra-historical fact, thereby falsifying history for the sake of piety, politics, and power” (“Acts of Impropriety: The Imbalance of History and Theology in Luke-Acts,” TJT 24 [2008]: 77). 17 I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 17. 18 Marshall, Historian, 18.

Chapter 1: History, Theology, and Ideology

7

Marshall affirms that Luke has a theological agenda, namely, to present a theology of salvation. However, he denies the allegations that Luke does not care about historical accuracy as he presents his theology. 19 First, he claims that the evangelist had been accurate in his presentation of geography and politics. While acknowledging that Luke may have erred in some details (e.g., Quirinius’ census), these errors need not discount the overall accuracy of Luke’s account. Second, it is hard to establish whether Luke was aiming to produce “Thucydidean verisimilitude” in the speeches in Acts. What is clear is that Luke used these speeches to bring out the theological significance of the events he recorded. Finally, Luke was not as interested in presenting detail as he was in presenting an “idealized and simplified” picture of the early church. 20 Marshall concludes by presenting Luke as an evangelist who aimed to present a theology of salvation by recording historical events pertinent to his message of salvation.21 Like Marshall, Hengel razed the wall separating history and theology. He proposes that Luke should be recognized as a “theological historian.”22 He distinguishes between romantic biographies and real histories. The ancients’ natural delight to tell and listen to stories is considered one important factor in the production of some romances which took the form of the “acts” of the apostles, but these are considered second-rate compared to real history. Luke’s Doppelwerk cannot be classified together with these works.23 He notes further that early Christian historical accounts were predominantly biographical – a practice not unusual during that period.24 Writing of biographies was rooted in the panegyrics of great leaders and these were based on reliable historical facts.25 He critiques K. L. Schmidt who sharply distinguished ancient biographies and histories from the Gospels and Acts, “for all [the four evangelists’] religious concern, they set out to depict the activity and the suffering of a real man and not a phantom figure.”26 In re19

Marshall, Historian, 53. Joel B. Green proposes that there cannot be a sharp distinction between “history” and “interpretation.” By choosing what and what not to include, Luke imposes certain significance on certain past events. (The Theology of the Gospel of Luke [NTT; Cambridge, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1995], 17–20, 144–47). 20 Marshall, Historian, 69–74. 21 Marshall, Historian, 216. 22 Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 44, 67. 23 Hengel, Earliest, 12. 24 Hengel, Earliest, 18. 25 Hengel, Earliest, 15–16. 26 Hengel, Earliest, 19. See K. L. Schmidt, “Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturgeschichte” in Eucharisterion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments (ed. Hans Schmidt; 2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 2:50–134.

8

Part 1: Introduction

sponse to radical criticism that divorces kerygma and history, he stresses that just as theology and history are inseparable, so are history and kerygma. He notes an important similarity between the four evangelists and other Jewish historians, namely, the assumption that God revealed himself in history. Hence there can be no proclamation of the gospel without narration of the past history. 27 In summary, a “great divide” was placed between theology and history by early historical critics who showed little interest in discussing the issue of theology in relation to history. Although redaction criticism had created a “bridge” between theology and history, both are still held apart. Marshall and Hengel should receive credit for attempting to pull history and theology closer together. Yet the question remains whether the relationship between theology and history is nothing more than “contiguous.” Luke the Jewish Theologian More recently, Scott Shauf moved towards an understanding of a closer relationship between history and theology. For him, a “presentation of the theology of Acts should consist of an elucidation of the reflection about God or gods that is exhibited in the narrative of Acts.”28 He further comments, “In studying the theology of Acts, therefore, divine elements in the story are purposefully considered as threads woven into the fabric of the overall narrative.”29 Although Luke-Acts is infused with accounts of divine activities, the significance of these accounts is dependent upon the other events in the whole narrative, which remain fundamentally human. Luke’s attempt to shape Christian identity necessitated the link between his historical accounts with biblical history.30 The continuity between Luke’s theological-historical accounts with the OT narrative is widely recognized. Bovon points out that the works of God 27

Hengel, Earliest, 44. Robert G. Hall highlights Josephus’ expectations from the best historians – that they should be prophets and record events of their own times (Ag. Ap. 1. Proem 7 §§37–40). Like prophets, the historian interprets current events in light of God’s plan and purpose. Hall assesses Luke as one who had met these expectations through the “inspired history” in Luke-Acts, which aims to show how the plan of God was worked out in the life of Jesus (Revealed Histories: Techniques for Ancient Jewish and Christian Historiography [JSPSup 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991], 171–208). 28 Scott Shauf, Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 (BZNW 133; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), 48. 29 Shauf, Theology, 49. Mark Coleridge, likewise, acknowledges the infancy narrative as theology: “it offers an account of the divine visitation which has at its heart a dynamic of promise-fulfillment: God appears as one who before he acts announces what he will do” (The Birth of Lukan Narrative: Narrative as Christology in Luke 1–2 [JSNTSup 88; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 23). 30 Shauf, Theology, 302, 307.

Chapter 1: History, Theology, and Ideology

9

were accomplished in space and time, allowing Luke to write a historical narrative of these events. He rightly observes that the “spatio-temporal details of these events fit into the framework of powerful rulers: the kings and leaders who reign at a certain moment in time.” 31 Although Luke’s narrative coincides with the history of his world, his main interest was to identify specific acts of God that resulted in the salvation of his people, which commenced in the OT and continued in Luke’s narrative. J. Bradley Chance suggests that the inauguration of the “eschatological age” does not require the replacement of Jerusalem and the temple as the Jewish center for salvation, and that Luke’s understanding of the importance of the temple and his Christology is grounded in the OT.32 From another perspective, John T. Carroll claims that although there was a movement of “the Way” beyond the synagogue, they “continued to claim for themselves the scripture, heritage, and promise – the past and the future – of Israel.” 33 This claim is grounded in the continuity of God’s salvation in history. Joel B. Green notes that one of the primary means by which Luke shows his interest in the divine plan is the way he grounds his writings on Israel’s Scriptures.34 The continuity between God’s salvific acts for Israel in the OT and Christians in Luke-Acts is central to Robert O’Toole’s arguments; this continuity is also seen in Jesus’ saving acts during his earthly ministry and the activities of the risen Jesus.35 There is also a general consensus that, aside from Luke’s concept of salvation-history, his idea of “the people of God” is grounded in Israel’s Scriptures. Jacob Jervell strongly suggests that there is no concept of the church as “the new/true Israel” in Luke-Acts. The missionary proclamation is what divides the one people of God (which includes both Jews and Godfearers) into two (believers and unbelievers of Jesus). Even in Acts, the term “Israel” continues to refer to the Jewish people who repent.36 The restoration of “the dwelling of David” opened the way for “the rest,” which Jervell understands to be a reference to the Gentiles, who may be included within “Israel, the people of God” (Acts 15:16–17; cf. Jer 12:15).37 David 31

Bovon, Theologian, 83. J. Bradley Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988), 146. 33 John T. Carroll, Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in LukeActs (SBLDS 92; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 165 (italics original). 34 Green, Theology, 22. 35 Robert O’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology: An Analysis of Luke-Acts (GNS 9; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1984), 266. 36 Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 1972), 43. 37 Jervell, People, 51. Cf. Martina Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas (WUNT 2/111; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). 32

10

Part 1: Introduction

Pao suggests that like the Qumran community (e.g., 1QS 9:16–21), Luke used the ὁδός terminology as part of the Christians’ self-designation and identity marker. The language of “the Way” is part of the wider Isaianic program that foresees the inclusion of the Gentiles into God’s people. 38 Kerstin Schiffner considers Israel’s exodus from Egypt as a model of God’s salvation and argues that the confirmation of Jesus as Messiah opens the way for the rest of the world to be part of God’s people.39 Robert L. Brawley aims to destroy the “conventional theory that Luke gives up on the Jews as hopelessly hardened against the gospel and that he views them as providing antecedents for Christianity only as a part of a remote past.” He concludes that gentile Christianity is inevitably tied to its Jewish roots. 40 In examining intertextual issues between the OT and Luke-Acts, Kenneth Litwak claims that Luke’s use of the OT is for the purpose of validating Christianity by showing its link with the people of God in the OT. 41 The ancient Jewish writings have often been mined for parallels in investigating the source of Luke’s Christology. Peter Doble demonstrates the influence of the language of the Wisdom of Solomon on Luke’s understanding of Jesus’ death in relation to his identity as the Righteous One.42 Martin Rese proposes that the OT quotations in Luke-Acts ground Luke’s Christology in the OT.43 For Darrell Bock, the typological relationship between Luke’s Christ with OT figures shows that Luke’s main concern was to present Jesus as the long-expected ruler. 44 David Crump provides numerous examples from Jewish writings of divinely chosen heavenly intercessors distinguished through the efficacy of their prayers during their earthly existence.45 H. Douglas Buckwalter insists that the exalted Jesus’ characteristics parallel those of Yahweh: invisibility or transcendence,

38

David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (WUNT 2/130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 41–42. 39 Kerstin Schiffner, Lukas liest Exodus: Eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme ersttestamentlicher Befreiungsgeschichte im lukanischen Werk als Schrift-Lektüre (BWANT 12; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 253–59. 40 Robert L. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation (SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 155. 41 Kenneth Duncan Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005), 32. 42 Peter Doble, The Paradox of Salvation: Luke’s Theology of the Cross (SNTMS 87; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 187–225. 43 Martin Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (SNT 1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1969), 208. 44 Darrell Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 278–79. 45 David Crump, Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke-Acts (BSL; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 204–36.

Chapter 1: History, Theology, and Ideology

11

uniqueness, and personal presence and activity. These parallels were aimed at portraying the “exalted Jesus as the Father’s co-equal.”46 Luke’s understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit is also seen to have Israel’s Scriptures as its basis. Roger Stronstad points out the charismatic motifs in the OT and the Septuagintal language concerning the Spirit’s work that are found in Luke’s writings. He notes the OT prophetic anticipation of the Spirit’s work in the messianic age which Luke saw as being fulfilled among the early believers.47 Robert P. Menzies highlights the role of the Spirit in connection to prophetic speeches. This connection is seen particularly in Jewish writings, whether Palestinian or Diaspora writings, Qumran or Rabbinic literature. 48 The role of the Spirit in connection to prophecy was also central to William Shepherd’s thesis.49 Max Turner, after surveying the various ways in which the “Spirit of prophecy” was presented in Jewish writings, argues against the distinction between the “Spirit of prophecy,” “charismatic Spirit,” and the “soteriological Spirit,” concluding, “This in turn means we cannot so easily assume that the ‘Spirit of prophecy’ would be irrelevant to Luke’s concept of salvation, and that it may safely be described as a donum superadditum of empowering for mission.”50 Turner grounds Luke’s pneumatology on the Jewish understandings of the Spirit. John Michael Penney betrays a similar assumption. His work focuses on the involvement of the Spirit in missionary activities which is based on God’s promise to bless the nations through Abraham’s descendants.51 Matthias Wenk probes the ethical dimensions of the Spirit’s work among the believers, and this also finds precedence in the OT.52 Edward J. Woods is convinced that there is no real parallel to Luke’s use of the language “finger of God” in Luke 11:20 outside the OT (Exod 8:19; 31:18; Deut 9:10).53

46 H. Douglas Buckwalter, The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology (SNTMS 89; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 279. 47 Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of Luke (Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1984), 13–26. 48 Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 102. 49 William Shepherd, The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 147; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2009), 40. 50 Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (JPTSup 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 138. 51 John Michael Penney, The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology (JPTSup 12; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 25. 52 Matthias Wenk, Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (JPTSup 19; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 64. 53 Edward J. Woods, The ‘Finger of God’ and Pneumatology in Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 205; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 98.

12

Part 1: Introduction

In summary, despite the various ways in which Luke’s theology has been understood, scholars share the same assumption, namely, that early Jewish writings, and particularly Israel’s Scriptures, provide the foundations for Luke’s eschatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, Christology, and pneumatology. What should be noted is that all these theological facets can be subsumed under the heading of theopraxis.54 There is no eschatological concept without God directing the course of history; no salvation unless God orchestrated the events in history to fulfill his salvific plans; no people of God had God not created a people for himself; no understanding about the Christ if God had not raised his Messiah; and no pneumatology apart from God’s sending of his Spirit. In short, there is no theology unless God acts in history. Although it is true, as Shauf claims, that divine beings do not enter the into Luke’s story directly (but always in interaction with human characters), his conclusion that divine beings only provide a “supporting role” in Luke’s historical narrative seems unnecessary. 55 This raises the question regarding ancient historians’ understanding of divine involvement in history and how the acts of the gods were typically narrated in ancient historiography. Luke the Hellenistic Writer A different trajectory can be observed with regard to the works on the Lukan literature. Decades before literary criticism took center stage in NT scholarship, Henry J. Cadbury advanced the study of Luke-Acts as literature. Like Dibelius, Cadbury considers the issue of historicity of LukeActs to be less important compared to other issues, such as Luke’s sources, his literary methods, and his intention for writing. Unlike Dibelius, Cadbury considers it important to stress the unity of Luke-Acts. 56 Cadbury gives more importance to the written work than to accomplished events. For him, the importance of Luke-Acts as a historical writing rests not on whether the recorded events are true, but on the fact that they were told.57 Nonetheless, Cadbury still views Luke as a historian, “Artist or advocate, the historian is still historian, even if not in our modern sense.”58 54 In this work, I use the term theopraxis to refer to τὰς πράξεις τοῦ θεοῦ or “the acts of God.” 55 Shauf attempts to distinguish Luke’s accounts from mythological works wherein the gods take a primary role in the narrative. The gods are the primary actors, so to speak, in mythological sagas and interactions take place among these gods (Theology, 299). 56 Henry J. Cadbury, Making of Luke-Acts (Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1927), 8. Cadbury also acknowledges that Luke-Acts is a valuable source of information for firstcentury Judaism (The Book of Acts in History [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955], 86). 57 Cadbury, Making, 4. 58 Cadbury, Making, 300. For some, Luke’s artistry in crafting his work does not present any inconsistency with his ability to write history and/or do theology (e.g., G. H. R.

Chapter 1: History, Theology, and Ideology

13

A growing appreciation of Luke’s artistry is evident in other works on Luke-Acts. Charles H. Talbert views Luke’s work as a biography comparable to Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers. 59 Talbert claims that the correspondences between Luke and Acts are not only in Horsley, “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts,” NTS 32, no. 4 [1986]: 613); some finds this problematic (e.g., Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 8). 59 Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of LukeActs (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974), 134. The assessment of Luke-Acts vis-àvis Greco-Roman genre is common. For a concise survey of the recent discussion of genre of Acts, see Thomas Phillips, “The Genre of Acts: Moving toward a Consensus,” CBR 4, no. 3 (2006): 365–96; Richard Burridge, “The Genre of Acts – Revisited,” in Reading Acts Today (ed. Steve Walton, et al.; London: T. & T. Clark, 2011), 3–28; Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (vol. 1; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 51– 89. Richard A. Burridge shares Talbert’s conclusion, suggesting that Luke as well as the other gospels are to be considered biographies (What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biographies [Second Edition; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004], 250). David E. Aune admits that the Gospel of Luke shows features of Greco-Roman biography, but because Acts cannot be separated from Luke, the Third Gospel does not easily fit in this category (The New Testament in Its Literary Environment [LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987], 77). David Balch compares Luke-Acts with Dionysius’ Roman Antiquities and concludes that Luke-Acts is best classified as ancient history, although later he admits that the distinction between biography and history is not easy to define, either way, Luke-Acts can be considered “historical literature” (“The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political History?” SWJT 33 (1990): 5–19; ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse [ed. Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele; SBLSymS 20; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003], 186). A number of works acknowledge Luke’s work as some form of historical writing, e.g., historical monograph (Hengel, Earliest, 36; Darryl Palmer, “Acts and Ancient Historical Monograph,” The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting: Ancient Literary Setting [ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke; A1CS 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 26–29), tragic history (Thornton, Zeuge, 355–60; Doohee Lee, Luke-Acts and ‘Tragic History’ [WUNT 2/346; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck], 281–83). Loveday C. A. Alexander correctly points out that detaching the generic label “historiography” does not make Acts (and for this matter even Luke) more or less reliable. Neither an accurate classification of its genre can clearly define whether Acts is fact or fiction. Nonetheless, expediency (at the very least) requires that there be some kind of generic classification within which Luke-Acts can fit and be understood (Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles [LNTS 298; London: T. & T. Clark, 2005], 135). Nonetheless, given the nature of Luke’s narrative, “history” remains the best description for the Doppelwerk. Moreover, the dissimilarities between the formal features of Luke’s work and those of ancient Hellenistic historians do not necessarily suggest that Luke did not write history, “for Luke has been influenced as well by Israelite and Jewish historiography, especially with respect to the use of historical sequence to shape a narrative theology” (Joel B. Green, “Internal Repetitions in Luke-Acts” in History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts [ed. Ben Witherington, III; Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996], 286).

14

Part 1: Introduction

terms of the sequence of materials and their content, but also in type of parallel structure between the first and latter halves of the Acts of the Apostles. This “architectonic pattern” results from a “deliberate activity by the author of Luke-Acts.”60 Aside from the use of parallel structures, Luke also employs chiasm particularly in the account of Jesus’ journeys in Luke 9:51–19:46. 61 Such literary models are part of the “patterns of balance” used in both ancient Greek and Jewish literatures.62 Luke’s use of literary structures in Luke-Acts is not purely for aesthetical purpose, but is important for the evangelist’s theology, particularly his understanding of Heilsgeschichte.63 Lukan scholarship has been characterized by the general impulse to study Lukan literature qua literature in light of Greco-Roman writings. One of the few who ventured to examine Luke-Acts from another vantage point was Bertil Gärtner. In his 1955 monograph, he distinguishes between the Gospel writers and ancient “profane historians.”64 He proposes that the distinction between Jewish and Greco-Roman historiography is seen in the function of the speeches that historians include in their works. In the Greek societies, speeches were given either for the purpose of political propaganda or for popular entertainment. Speeches that were included in their historical writings served the same function. In Jewish histories, however, speeches are included for the purpose of edification and teaching.65 Gärtner acknowledges the Greek model behind Luke’s writings, but he critiques his predecessors like Dibelius and Cadbury for proceeding from a comparison with the principles of Greek historiography without allowing for the possi-

60 Talbert, Patterns, 23. A similar idea was advanced almost three decades earlier by Robert Morgenthaler. He proposed that Luke, as an artist, creatively arranged his materials in doublets (Zweigliedrigkeit) which he built using travel-to-Jerusalem narratives (Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis: Gestalt und Gehalt der Kunst des Lukas [ATANT 14–15; 2 vols.; Zürich: Zwingli, 1949], 1:12–13). 61 Talbert, Patterns, 51. 62 Talbert, Patterns, 67–71. 63 Talbert, Patterns, 89. Talbert raises the issue of “succession motif” in his discussion of the implications of Luke’s literary structure on his presentation of his theology. Thomas L. Brodie observes the same feature in the Elijah-Elisha narratives which he claims as literary model by which the Gospels must be interpreted (The Crucial Bridge [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999], 3). 64 Bertil Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiskells, 1955), 7. 65 Gärtner, Areopagus, 8. J. W. Bowker suggests that the speeches in Acts, particularly Paul’s speech in Acts 13, may have been derived from an original synagogue homily given by the apostle (“Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form,” NTS 14, no. 1 [1967]: 96–111).

Chapter 1: History, Theology, and Ideology

15

bility of Jewish influence. 66 After examining the Areopagus speech, he concludes that the contents and purpose of Paul’s speech in Athens resembles Jewish theology more than Stoic philosophy. On the one hand, the reference to the nature of human connection to the Deity, for the Stoics, is an important argument for the existence of the gods. On the other hand, the Jews “adduced nature to underline that there were no others save the One almighty God, and that the idols were nothing.”67 The polemics behind the Areopagus speech puts it closer to Jewish than Greek historiography. In the mid-1960s, W. C. van Unnik assessed the state of discussion on Luke-Acts as history and acknowledged that there was already a growing recognition of Luke as a historian (e.g., Ehrhardt, Barrett).68 However, this consensus had grown prematurely since a comparative work on Luke and ancient histories remained missing.69 Eckhard Plümacher took van Unnik’s challenge seriously and published his Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller in 1972. He highlights Luke’s literary artistry particularly in the second volume of his work. Luke was not a writer who follows a certain literary style perforce. Like other ancient writers, he had the freedom to choose which technique to use. His choice of the Hellenistic style of writing qualifies him als hellenistischer Schriftsteller. In terms of methodology, Luke appropriated the technique of mimesis common among Hellenistic writers, with the LXX as his model.70 Plümacher claims that the methodological similarity between Luke’s work and the classical Greek writers is evident especially in the speeches in Acts. 71 Just as the words of the 66 Gärtner, Areopagus, 27. William Kurz proposes that the genealogy in Luke is one of the evidences that Luke used materials and adapted methods seen in the Greek Bible (“Luke-Acts and Historiography in the Greek Bible” [SBLSP 19; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980], 283–300). Likewise, Daryl Schmidt suggests that Luke’s emphasis on obedience and the use of deuteronomistic phraseology are evidence that the influence on the historiography in Acts is traceable to the deuteronomistic historian (“The Historiography of Acts: Deuteronomistic or Hellenistic?” [SBLSP 24; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985], 417–28). 67 Gärtner, Areopagus, 167. Arnold Ehrhardt argues along the same line and suggests that in Luke-Acts, Luke practiced the art of writing “historical biography” similar to the ones in the OT (“Construction and Purpose of the Acts of the Apostles,” ST 12 [1958]: 45–79). 68 W. C. van Unnik, “Luke-Acts: A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship,” in Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 15–32. 69 Van Unnik, “Storm,” 27. 70 Eckhard Plümacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 78. 71 He came to a similar conclusion after examining the so-called “we sections” of Acts which is often interpreted either as evidence of eyewitness account, as “relics” of Luke’s sources written by an eyewitness, or as a simple literary device commonly used in Hellenistic writings (“Wirklichkeitserfahrung und Geschichtsschreibung bei Lukas,” in Ges-

16

Part 1: Introduction

hervorragender Politiker or bedeutender Feldherren were considered valuable in Greek historiography – for they can be the “determining force” (die geschichtsbestimmenden Kräfte) in the unfolding of history – the speeches of the apostles serves the same function in Acts. Like Dionysius, Luke attempted to present by way of mimesis the ideal conception of the epoch he presents. For Dionysius, it is the Roman primeval era. For Luke, it is the holy character of the earliest church.72 In his examination of the dramatic episodes in Acts, Plümacher observes that Luke’s narrative shows resemblance to Livy’s works, although this affinity does not necessarily suggest dependence. The purpose of the dramatischen Episodenstil is to concretize abstract political, apologetic, and theological ideas so that they may come alive for the readers. Such style is intended for the edification of the readers.73 Colin J. Hemer examines the features of ancient histories (such as their scope and scale, order and arrangement, use and construction of speeches, moral and religious stance, and bias), and shows that there is considerable diversity in ancient historiographical practice. Thus, studying literary parallels is not enough.74 He concludes, “It is not that we have particular literary parallels which demand such comparisons, but rather there is a common world of traditions and conventions which the author of Acts seems to share with other ancient writers of allegedly historical narratives.”75 John T. Squires stands in the line of scholars who view Luke-Acts alongside Hellenistic historiography. He proposes that “the plan of God” is a distinctively Lukan theme, yet God’s involvement in history in LukeActs betrays Hellenistic influence. He suggests that the role of Providence in Hellenistic historiography creates points of contact between Greek histories and Luke-Acts. For examples, Dionysius and Diodorus relate portentous occurrences as signs indicating gods accomplishing their wills.76 Such elements are also features of Luke’s work. The common use of epiphanies, the phenomenon of oracles, and the language of necessity, which high-

chichte und Geschichten: Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte und zu den Johannesakten [ed. J. Schröter and R. Brucker; WUNT 170; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], 85–107). 72 Plümacher, Schriftsteller, 38, 72. 73 Plümacher, Schriftsteller, 110–11, 126. 74 Hemer, Setting, 100. 75 Hemer, Setting, 411. After examining the relationship between first-person narration and eyewitness accounts in ancient Hellenistic and Jewish prose, Thornton admits that identifying the model used by Luke in his work is close to impossible; nonetheless, he insists that in the case of Acts, the “we-section” is evidence of eyewitness accounts supplemented by materials from Paul’s travel journal (Zeuge, 113–17). 76 John T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (SNTSM 76; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 78.

Chapter 1: History, Theology, and Ideology

17

lights divine control, are features of Hellenistic historiography. 77 These features, he claims, are also evident in Luke’s work. Daniel Marguerat attempts to present a more balanced view of the influences on Luke’s historiography. Although there is a similarity between Greek and Jewish historiography in that both were done in search for truth, he points out that the primary interest in Greek historiography was to establish the plausibility of the events being related while Jewish historiography is more confessional in nature in that it placed more importance in exposing the truth of the God behind history. 78 Although placing emphasis on the confessional and theocentric focus in Jewish historiographies, Marguerat was aware of the polymorphic character of Jewish histories. For instance, he distinguished between the God of Josephus and the God of Luke, particularly in relation to the Roman Empire.79 Recent NT scholarship has begun to appreciate the importance of ancient Greek rhetoric, and this has an impact even in the study of ancient historiography and its relation to Luke-Acts. Three works are worth noting. First, Todd Penner provides an analysis of Acts 6–7 in light of the development of historiographical works during the Greek and Roman era. He observes a significant shift “from the more deliberative stance of Thucydides to the more epideictic one of Livy, Dionysius, and Tacitus.” This trend is also evident in Jewish historiography, particularly among the rewritten Jewish histories, which serves an apologetic purpose as an exercise of ethnic self-promotion or ethnic self-preservation.80 He claims that the speech of Stephen in Acts 7 is to be understood within this historical backdrop. Moreover, Acts 6–7 can be read as serving an epideictic function. On the one hand, Acts 6:1–7 praises the community for their philanthropia as seen in their ability to resolve conflicts and their increasing openness to welcome foreigners. On the other hand, Acts 6:8–15 and 7:54–8:3, within which the speech of Stephen is placed, should be understood as the misan77

Squires, Plan, 120, 154, 185. Daniel Marguerat, Lukas, der erste christliche Historiker: Eine Studie zur Apostelgeschichte (ATANT 92; Zürich: TVZ, 2011), 41–42. Barrett expressed the same view by pointing out that Luke wrote in the manner of the OT historians. The OT historians, he suggests, “wrote history because they were convinced that they already knew the truth about God and his relation with men, and they wrote…as men who had already reached their conclusion and needed only to illustrate it, and bear witness to it” (Historian, 18). 79 Marguerat, Erste, 127. Cf. F. Gerald Downing, “Common Ground with Paganism in Luke and Josephus,” NTS 28, no. 4 (1982): 548–51. 80 Todd Penner, In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (ESC; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 235–36. Penner proposes that Jewish historiography during this era shows trend similar to the Greco-Roman historiography. His proposal implies that Jewish historiography was not totally insulated from Greco-Roman methods of writing. 78

18

Part 1: Introduction

thropia. Since Stephen did not answer the charges against him, it cannot be understood as judicial speech; and since the speech created polarity between Stephen, who is characterized as the faithful servant of Jesus, and his Jewish opponents, who are characterized by disobedience and hardheartedness, the speech is best understood as epideictic.81 Second, Clare Rothschild proposes that, like ancient philosophy, ancient historiography is written with the intention of exposing truth, not arguing truth. In the words of Quintilian, history writing is ad narrandum non probandum (Inst. 10.1.131). Ancient historians’ preference for truth over style is often misconstrued as evidence of widespread disinterest of historians in rhetoric resulting in works void of rhetoric. On the contrary, as Rothschild argues, ancient historians’ valuing of the veracity of historical account only resulted in a more subtle use of rhetorical style, for even the conventional preface where historians announce their intention to write history is part of their rhetorical technique.82 Rothschild proposes that the four rhetorical features used in Luke’s Gospel are common features in ancient Hellenistic and Roman historiography. These features include (1) pattern of recurrence (e.g., verbal echoes, historical characterization, parallels between Jesus and the two chief apostles); (2) use of predictions aimed at clarifying the unseen; (3) use of the verb δεῖ to emphasize divine guidance; and (4) use of exaggerations to assert that what is being related is part of public knowledge.83 Third, Robert G. Hall examines what he calls “revealed histories” as “an effective rhetorical technique, a successful tool for persuasion.” 84 Like Penner and Rothschild, he acknowledges rhetorical elements in ancient historical accounts; unlike Penner and Rothschild, he grounds his work on the rhetorical elements in earlier Jewish writings. He shows the prevalent use of this technique in both the canonical and non-canonical Jewish writings, e.g., Ezekiel and Daniel, Jubilees, Josephus’ Jewish Wars, 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and Sibylline Oracles. As a rhetorical topos, revealed histories (1) convince the readers that the mysteries of God’s working in the past require certain beliefs and action in the present, (2) provide a basis of knowledge of the past, and (3) serve as a hermeneutical technique since the inspired prophets declare what is beyond human perception, namely, the significance of events in history in the overall working of divine plan.85 81

Penner, Praise, 303, 325. Such announcement is the historian’s attempt at persuading the readers/hearers that what they are about to read/hear is a historical account on the basis of fact. See Clare Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (WUNT 2/175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1–4. 83 Rothschild, Rhetoric, 215. 84 Hall, Revealed, 12. 85 Hall, Revealed, 116–17. 82

Chapter 1: History, Theology, and Ideology

19

Like other Christian writings, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, Ascension of Isaiah, Odes of Solomon, and even the Gospel of John, Luke-Acts stands in line with these Jewish revealed histories. Hall claims that as Luke portrayed inspired individuals who have the capacity to understand the past, it can be inferred “that the author writes a chronicle based on revelation.”86 In summary, as far as Lukan literature is concerned, studies have tended to investigate Luke-Acts in light of Greco-Roman literature. Indeed, this seems to be the default in Lukan scholarship. Despite the wedge placed between literature and theology, the division separating the two cannot be clearly defined. For instance, Squires had shown that it is possible to examine Luke’s theology in light of Hellenistic writings. Nonetheless, the unnecessary demarcation between theology and history in Lukan studies in the past two centuries has made it easier for scholars to compartmentalize the literature and theology of Luke-Acts. This brings us back to the question raised at the beginning of this chapter: Is Luke-Acts Hellenistic writing containing Jewish theology? Or to put it in another way: Is Luke-Acts Jewish theology in Greco-Roman garb? Moreover, questions concerning the legitimacy of such practice should also be raised: Can we really separate theology from history? Luke the Hellenistic-Jewish Ideologist As we move towards the end of the past century, another aspect of ancient historiographical works was brought to the fore by Gregory Sterling. Lukan scholarship had long recognized the apologetic function of LukeActs, and Sterling proposes that its author stands in line with a tradition of Oriental historiographical works he labeled as “apologetic historiography.” The writings he classifies under this category share common content (story of a people group), form (recast in a form palatable to a Greco-Roman audience), and function (offers self-definition of the group). Apologetic history, as Sterling defined it, “…is the story of a subgroup of people in an extended prose narrative written by a member of the group who follows the group’s own traditions but Hellenizes them in an effort to establish the identity of the group within the setting of the larger world.”87 He traces the 86 Hall, Revealed, 172. This idea is echoed by Martin Bauspieß who claims that Luke chose a specific theological approach to history, namely, that salvation-history is rooted in revelation and that the internal consistency Luke’s accounts does not mean they were written for historical verification (Geschichte und Erkenntnis im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu einer christlichen Perspektive auf Geschichte [ABG 42; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012], 245–46. 87 Gregory Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 17 (italics original). Cf.

20

Part 1: Introduction

origin of this type of writings to early Greek ethnographies which had misrepresented individual ethnic groups. 88 This misrepresentation was met with a corrective response by indigenous writers, rejecting the Greek ethnographic methodology and appealing to antiquity for proofs of their claims.89 The indigenous writers’ ability to communicate in Greek allowed them to craft their work using a Greek form. The fusion of Hellenistic and Oriental tradition resulted in apologetic historiography. Sterling notes that the largest corpus classifiable under this genre is Jewish in origin (e.g., Demetrius, Artapanus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Eupolemus). 90 Despite the diversity in literary devices used by these Jewish writers, they all wrote their story using extended Greek prose narrative. Most importantly, in the words of Sterling, “What gives them a sense of unity in this diversity is that they all wrote ad maiorem Iudaeorum gloriam. They are national historians – tout-à-fait – who claim the superiority of the Jewish nation over both other Oriental people and Greeks.”91 With all these at the background, one can better understand the writings of Josephus and Luke. Josephus wrote apologetic history with the purpose of defining the Jewish people through their own records and not through Greek misconceptions. Likewise, Luke-Acts was written with the purpose of defining this new people group. As Sterling writes, “Luke-Acts defines Christianity both internally and externally. The two are related by the recognition that Christianity is a movement in history. It must understand both itself and the world in which it exists. It was essential therefore to define Christianity in terms of Rome (politically innocent), Judaism (a continuation), and itself (traditio apostolica).”92 William Kurz also sees the importance of investigating Luke in light of Hellenistic-Jewish writings. He proposes that the prominence of the theme of promise-fulfillment among Hellenistic-Jewish writings such as the Letter of Aristeas, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Josephus’ Jewish Wars and the Anidem, “Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography,” (SBLSP 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 326–42. A similar view is presented by Marianne Palmer Bonz who identifies Virgil’s Aeneid as the literary precedent for Luke-Acts. Just as Virgil saw Fate behind the establishment of the Roman Empire, Luke saw the formation of the Christian community as part of God’s plan for universal destiny (The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000], 56–57). 88 Sterling cites Hekataios of Miletos’ Περιήγησις Γῆς as example. The generalized treatment of Hekataios spurred a reaction by individual countries and ethnic groups resulting in a more specific ethnographic works. Source materials for such works were acquired from local people by traveling ethnographers. Delivering such reports is acceptable, even if the credibility of such reports cannot be ascertained (Self-Definition, 53–54). 89 Two examples cited by Sterling are Berossos’ Babylonika and Menathon’s Aigyptiaka (Self-Definition, 136). 90 Sterling, Self-Definition, 137. 91 Sterling, Self-Definition, 223. 92 Sterling, Self-Definition, 308, 386.

Chapter 1: History, Theology, and Ideology

21

tiquities of the Jews provide the justification for such investigation.93 He concludes that there was a variety of ways in which Hellenistic-Jewish writers develop this promise-fulfillment theme (e.g., the use of terms reminiscent of David and the judges in 1 Maccabees; the martyr theology of Daniel in 2 Maccabees; and the recasting of biblical motifs in Hellenistic terms in the works of Josephus).94 Nonetheless, Luke’s interest in developing this promise-fulfillment theme shows his general agreement with these Hellenistic-Jewish writers in their “sense of God’s providence and plan as demonstrated in promises and prophecies and their fulfillment.”95 Carl Holladay observes four important similarities between the Hellenistic-Jewish writings and Luke-Acts. First, the commendation given to Paul and Barnabas as heroes of faith is reminiscent of Artapanus’ commendations of Moses as a hero. Second, Luke’s positive portrayal of Christianity shows similarity to Aristeas’ apparent appeal to the State. Third, the presentation of God in Acts 14 and 17 is similar to that of the philosophers. Last, the importance of repentance and Luke’s theology of conversion find similarities with the ideas of the authors of Wisdom of Solomon, Sibylline Oracles, Prayer of Aseneth, and Philo (Concerning Virtues).96 In summary, Hellenistic-Jewish writings have been useful in examining certain questions pertaining to Lukan ideology, e.g., identity formation, God’s providence outside the land of the Jews, the believers’ relation to the state, and their connection with the Jewish religion.

Where Do We Go from Here? As we have seen, the shape of Lukan studies had constantly changed throughout the past two centuries. In the last several decades, many scholars have acknowledged the need to compare Luke-Acts with other writings within Luke’s historical milieu. It was observed that most of the studies of Lukan theology focus on its affinities with Israel’s Scriptures while the literary features of Luke-Acts were examined often in light of Hellenistic writings. Hellenistic-Jewish writings were considered by some scholars to 93 William Kurz, “Promise and Fulfillment in Hellenistic Jewish Narratives,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (ed. David Moessner; Luke the Interpreter of Israel 1; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1999), 146. 94 Kurz, “Promise,” 169. 95 Kurz, “Promise,” 170. 96 Carl Holladay, “Acts and the Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Historians” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (ed. David Moessner; Luke the Interpreter of Israel 1; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1999), 171–72.

22

Part 1: Introduction

be useful in understanding Luke’s ideological stance. The presence of both Hellenistic and Jewish elements in Luke’s work is evidence of Luke’s genius for being able to bring the two worlds together. In this work, my aim is to show that the Jewish writings, particularly Israel’s Scriptures, have the dominant influence on Luke’s work in these three areas – theology, literature, and ideology. The mere fact that Luke was written in Greek is already a clear evidence of Hellenistic influence. However, there are still features in Luke’s work that have not yet been explored fully, and these are the areas on which I want to work. First, while the studies of aspects of Lukan theology are valuable, it is also important to examine the ancient historians’ general understanding of divine involvement in human history. It is necessary, therefore, to compare Luke’s idea of God’s work in history with that of the ancient Hellenistic and Jewish writers in order to have firmer conclusion concerning Luke’s understanding of theopraxis. This will be the focus of Part 2. Second, although Luke-Acts shows evidence that the author acquired both Greek education and extensive knowledge of the OT,97 Marshall observes that during the third quarter of the last century there is a stronger inclination among scholars to compare Luke’s work with Greek historians. This bias has continued to characterize the studies of Lukan historiography up to the present. He agrees with van Unnik, who appealed to scholars to study Luke-Acts in light of the evangelist’s contemporaries, but suggests, “Perhaps it should be sought not so much in Greek historiography as in Jewish.”98 His comment points to a lacuna in the studies of Lukan writings.99 Considering the cultural influence of the Greeks on the first-century Mediterranean world, one has to admit that there is legitimacy in reading Luke-Acts alongside ancient Hellenistic historiography. However, LukeActs is more than just a record of history; for Luke and its original recipients, it is sacred history. Hence one must not ignore the influences of the Greek OT on Luke-Acts as well. As Loveday Alexander claims, Luke’s “dominant narrative model is the Greek Bible.”100 Studies on the literary

97 Mittelstaedt sums it well, “Lukas besitzt nicht nur griechische Bildung, sondern auch eine umfassende Kenntnis des AT, das er in griechischer Übersetzung studiert hat; an den Stil der LXX lehnt er sich in beiden Werken deutlich an” (Lukas, 131). 98 Marshall, Historian, 54. He did not discuss this issue in detail, except to appeal to Gärtner’s monograph on the influence of the Maccabean historian on Luke’s work. This is understandable since the issue is not the main thesis of his work. 99 Lukan studies are not totally void of such studies (e.g., see works of B. Gärtner, A. Ehrhardt, J. W. Bowker, W. Kurz, and D. Schmidt). Nonetheless, there is still a considerable amount of open ground in this area ready for cultivation. 100 Alexander, Classicist, 181; cf. idem, “Marathon or Jericho? Reading Acts in Dialogue with Biblical and Greek Historiography,” in Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the

Chapter 1: History, Theology, and Ideology

23

influence of Hellenistic writings on Luke-Acts are numerous, and a comparative study that examines the similarities in literary features between Luke-Acts and Jewish writings is still lacking. One of the literary features in Luke-Acts is the use of parallels. Characters in Acts (e.g., Peter and Paul) were portrayed as replicating the works of Jesus in Luke. Brodie suggests that imitated the features of the Elijah-Elisha narratives and its main function is to present succession.101 Although the value of Brodie’s work cannot be questioned, his claim concerning the relationship literary parallels and successions is not sufficiently elaborated. These questions remain: Do other narratives use parallels to present succession? Is this pattern found only in Jewish writings or is this a universal practice? I will address these in Part 3. Third, some of the issues related to Luke’s ideology include formation of a new community and their relation to the state, God’s involvement with the people outside the holy temple and the holy city, and divine sovereignty throughout the lands under Rome. After the initial phase of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, he asserts, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43). This statement best explains the geographical movements in Luke-Acts. In Luke, Jesus moved from place to place to proclaim the kingdom; the same pattern is evident in Acts. Moreover, Luke presents Jesus’ divine pedigree (Luke 3:23–38), which is comparable to those of the Roman emperors. The proclamation of another king and another kingdom apart from Caesar and the Roman Empire would inevitably create disturbance within the emperor’s territory, yet Luke-Acts focuses on the growing movement of believers who acknowledge Jesus as Lord throughout the land claimed by Rome. I will discuss this in Part 4. Accordingly, this work will undertake a comparative study between Luke’s work and those of the Greco-Roman and Jewish writers in three areas: (1) his idea of divine involvement, (2) the use of parallels as a literary feature used in his composition, and (3) his stance concerning God’s sovereign rule. Parts 2–4 each include a chapter examining an area as this is evident in Greco-Roman literature, a chapter focusing on Jewish writings, and a chapter on Luke-Acts. In Part 2, which includes chs. 2–4, I will examine the ancient historians’ concepts of divine involvement in history and how they incorporate this idea into their historical narratives. This is necessary to understand better not only the ancient historians’ idea of the relationship between theology and history, but also Luke’s theological understanding of God’s role in Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies (ed. D. J. A. Clines and S. D. Moore; JSOTSup 269; Sheffield; Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 117–25. 101 Brodie, Bridge, 3.

24

Part 1: Introduction

human history. My aim is to demonstrate that although Greco-Roman and Jewish historical narratives show similarities in the way historians weave divine and human acts together, Luke’s theology is best understood in light of the Jewish Scriptures. Luke’s accounts can be considered a continuation of God’s work which he began in the OT. In Part 3, which includes chs. 5–7, I will examine how ancient historians used parallels as a literary device. I will also examine the relationship of literary parallels, if there is any, in presenting the succession from Jesus to the two main disciples in Acts, namely, Peter and Paul. My aim is to show that Luke used literary features similar to those found in the two succession narratives in the Jewish Scriptures. In Part 4, which includes chs. 8–10, I will examine the ancient historians’ conceptualizations of divine sovereignty and its relationship with land and territories. I will also examine the implication of Jesus’ genealogy in light of the function of genealogies in ancient writings. My aim is to show that genealogies are used in ancient writings to legitimize a king’s reign and legitimize land ownership. By showing that Jesus is the Son of God, Luke also presents him as God’s co-regent and the real owner of all the land under the emperor’s jurisdiction and even beyond. The geographical movement in Luke-Acts highlights the proclamation of God’s universal kingship by God’s agents. This movement is the counterpart of the accounts of conquests and migrations in ancient historical accounts, but instead of recording how one regent occupies another territory, Luke records how God’s agents move from place to place announcing who is the real king. In Part 5, a brief conclusion and synthesis of the study will be provided.

Part 2

Divine Involvement In Ancient Historical Accounts Luke expressed his intention to write an account περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων (Luke 1:1). If this expression is understood in light of Acts 1:1–3, these πραγμάτων include the words and works of Jesus (“about all that Jesus began to do and teach”), the passionrelated events that led to his ascension (“until the day he was taken up to heaven”), and even his commission to his disciples with the expectation that they will continue the works he left unfinished (“after he had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles which he had chosen”). Josef Verheyden suggests that τῶν πεπληροφορημένων should be construed as divine passive.1 These “things accomplished among us” do not only include the works of God through Jesus and the apostles, but also the unmediated acts such as raising Jesus from the dead (e.g., Luke 9:22; cf. Acts 2:24; 3:26). In short, the God of Israel was very much involved in human affairs; and this is the focus of this section. The expression of divine involvement through accounts of portents, epiphanies, and oracles, and the use of the language of necessity are common features of Hellenistic histories, according to Squires.2 His conclusion is based on the assumption that first-century Judaism was substantially Hellenized; hence, to examine Luke’s concept of divine control over history with reference to solely Hellenistic or Jewish sources would be to work with a false dichotomy. For this reason, his use of the term “Hellenistic” becomes a catch-all term that describes even Jewish understanding of the OT.3 This raises the question whether the Hellenization of the Jews implies 1 Josef Verheyden, “The Unity of Luke-Acts: What Are We Up To?” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (ed. Josef Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 110. In Luke-Acts, πληρόω (a cognate of πληροφορέω) is not only associated with the acts of God (e.g., fulfillment of prophecies [Luke 1:20; Acts 3:8]), but also with the acts of Jesus (e.g., fulfillment of prophecies about Jesus [Luke 4:21; 24:44], completion of his work [7:1; 9:31]) and the acts of apostles (e.g., task done to fulfill prophecies [Acts 1:16], completion of missionary task [13:25; 14:26; 19:21]), even the acts of the Jewish rulers against Jesus in fulfillment of prophecies (e.g., 13:27). 2 Squires, Plan, 120, 154, 185. 3 Squires, Plan, 7.

26

Part 2: Divine Involvement

that there is no longer any identifiable element in their understanding of theopraxis that can be considered distinctly Jewish. Adoption of Greek culture by some Jews (e.g., 2 Maccabees; Letter of Aristeas) and resistance by others (e.g., 1 Maccabees) show the complexity of this process.4 Moreover, although first-century Jews were strongly Hellenized (as seen in the fact that many of them produced their writings in Greek), the Jews’ constant struggle to define who they are and their persistence to maintain their religious heritage should be a signal to modern interpreters that there may still be elements in their religious system that are distinctly Jewish. Marguerat notes that classical historians typically deal with political and military history, and occasionally with ethnographic study; 5 this is not true for Acts. Moreover, he suggests that Luke wrote a theological history in contradistinction to the Greco-Roman writers by violating the norm followed by Graeco-Roman historians in order to follow biblical tradition.6 Thus he distinguishes between Greek and Jewish historiography: “Greek and Jewish historians both understand their task as a search for truth…yet the former establish the plausibility of the event, while the latter expose the truth of the God who rules the world. Greek history is illuminating, Jewish history is confessional.” 7 Marguerat’s conclusion raises the question on how one should define “theology” or “theological.” Greco-Roman writers weave the story of the gods/Fate/Fortune into their historical narrative; whether we agree with their theology, should not their work be considered “theological”? In this section (Part 2), I will examine how the acts of gods are incorporated within ancient historical narratives. In chs. 2 and 3, a synchronic approach will be used to examine the concepts of divine involvement in history found in Greco-Roman and Jewish historical accounts, respectively. 8 Then in ch. 4, Luke’s understanding of theopraxis will be investigated in light of the two previous chapters.

4

The complexity of this issue is discussed succinctly in Louis H. Feldman’s review of John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling, ed., Hellenism in the Land of Israel (CJA 13; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001), “How much Hellenism in the Land of Israel?” JSJ 33, no. 3 (2002): 290–313; cf. Wayne A. Meeks, “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 17–28. 5 Marguerat, Erste, 39. 6 Marguerat, Erste, 40. 7 Marguerat, Erste, 41–42. 8 The English translations for Greco-Roman works are based on the LCL series, and the Jewish writings on James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–85) and Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (4 vols.; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983).

Chapter 2

Divine Involvement in Greco-Roman Historical Accounts In this chapter, I will focus on three areas relating to theopraxis in GrecoRoman histories: (1) how these historians view theopraxis in relation to human affairs and how they weave divine stories and human histories together in one narrative; (2) how, according to these historians, the gods assert their authority to cause humans to participate in the divine sagas that form historical narratives; and (3) the implications of this divine assertion of authority.

Divine Stories and Human Histories Recording the acts of the gods was not the primary reason Greco-Roman historians recorded significant events of the past.1 For instance, in his Histories, Herodotus claims, “Now, for the stories which I heard about the gods, I am not desirous to relate them, saving only the names of the deities; for I hold that no man knows about the gods more than another; and I will say no more about them than what I am constrained to say by the course of my history” (2.3.2; cf. 2.65.2).2 Likewise, in his Library of History, Diodo1 Arnaldo Momigliano summarizes the common assumption concerning the role of the gods in early Hellenistic historiography: “It is not for history to give the ultimate sense of things or to measure in full the relevance of gods to men, or indeed to explore systematically the nature (physis) of man: for this there are other sciences. The direction given by Herodotus and even more by Thucydides to history-writing certainly presupposes – and helps to reinforce – the assumption that the intervention of gods in human affairs is neither constant nor too patent. But this is an implicit acceptance, or exploitation, of the general trend of Greek thought in the fifth century rather than a programmatic aim” (“Greek Historiography,” HT 17, no. 1 [1978]: 7). Nonetheless, some events in history were inevitably given religious significance by many historians, as we shall see in this chapter. Cf. Marguerat, Erste, 40. 22 John Gould suggests that Herodotus’ reticence in discussing matters of religion was not driven by a “historiographical principle,” but a reflection of the universal attitude (at least among the ancient Greeks) of hesitation and uncertainty with regard to questions of divine actions, and an “implicit acknowledgement of the limitations of human knowledge in such matters” (“Herodotus and Religion,” in Greek Historiography [ed. Simon Horn-

28

Part 2: Divine Involvement

rus Siculus followed Herodotus’ stance not to write of the acts of the gods unless it was absolutely necessary. Concerning the various conceptions of the gods formed by those who were the first to introduce the worship of the deity, and concerning the myths which are told about each of the immortals, although we shall refrain from setting forth the most part in detail, since such a procedure would require a long account, yet whatever on these subjects we may feel to be pertinent to the several parts of our proposed history we shall present in a summary fashion, that nothing which is worth hearing may be found missing. (Hist. 1.6.1)

Despite these historians’ hesitation to include such accounts, many events that occurred were explained in terms of the divine orchestration of human affairs.3 The religious beliefs of a historian seem to be a factor determining what were conceived to be divine activities and what should be included in their historical accounts. Polybius was more transparent with his views about the guiding force of history. He declares, “Fortune (ἡ τύχη) has guided almost all the affairs of the world in one direction and has forced them to incline towards one and the same end” (1.4.1). Having this perception that the “end” to which ἡ τύχη had guided the course of history was the rise of the Roman Empire, he refused to write local histories and committed himself to write a universal history of Roman dominion. Likewise, Dionysius of Halicarnassus openly critiqued those who were bent toward atheism and claimed that the things concerning the gods/goddesses have a place in historical accounts because these things “have been believed by the Romans and their historians have related so much about them” (Ant. rom. 2.68.2).4 The philosophical inclination of individual historians also influenced the historian’s assertions concerning the activities of the gods. For instance, influenced by the Stoic philosophy of the universal kinship of humans under the same Providence (τῆς θείας), historians like Diodorus Siculus asblower; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994], 94). Alexander considers this as the historian’s “prudent agnosticism” or a “disclaimer” for recording events such as the acts of the gods; there is no means by which the veracity of such records could be proven (Ancient Literary Context, 157). 3 There were events in history that defy natural explanations. These “riddles of history,” as W. den Boer calls them, are “solved” by considering factors beyond history such as divine intervention (“Graeco-Roman Historiography in Its Relation to Biblical and Modern Thinking,” HT 7, no. 1 [1968]: 68). Alexander explains Herodotus’ “distinctly postmodern discovery” that beliefs and traditions are to be considered as facts worth including in historical narratives; Lucian (Hist. conscr. 60) and Dionysius (Ant. rom. 1.8.1) share the same attitude towards marvelous accounts and acts of gods (Ancient Literary Context, 143). 4 Dionysius is vocal about what he believes and what he doubts. Once he declares that God is incapable of doing anything unworthy of his incorruptible nature; and he is noncommittal whether it is really possible for gods and humans to produce a “mixed” race of ancient heroes (Ant. rom. 1.77.3; cf. 2.18.3).

Chapter 2: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

29

serted that the various names used to refer to a deity are just different ways of pointing to the same god (1.25.1–2; cf. 1.1.3). 5 There are instances when the gods are named and their works are pointed out (e.g., Zeus’ deeds [Herodotus, Hist. 3.124.1–126.1; Arrian, Anab. 4.9.7]). Yet in many instances, Greco-Roman historians seem to show reluctance in crediting the gods for historical events. This reluctance was compensated by the personification of fate and fortune. 6 Other names were commonly used as a substitute, such as χρεών (Fate), τύχη (Fortune),7 and δαιμόνιον (Providence)8 among the Greek writers, and Fortuna (Fortune) among the Latin writers.9 These terms are used synonymously in Greco-Roman histories, as illustrated in two passages in Dionysius’ work. In a speech, Lucius Junius says, “Well then, if we are doing you any injustice, we do not ask for either impunity or an amnesty; though we do not choose even to share the same city with you any longer, but will live wherever Fate (τὸ χρεών) shall lead us, leaving it to Fortune (τῇ τύχῃ) and to the gods (δαίμοσιν) to direct our course” (Ant. rom. 6.73.2). A little later he says, “Accordingly, now that we are freed by Heaven (τοῦ δαίμονος) from so many and great evils, let us gladly fly from them with all the eagerness and ability each of us possesses, taking as the guides of our journey Fortune (τύχην) and the god (θεὸν) who ever preserve us, and looking upon our liberty as our country and our valor as our wealth” (6.79.3). Divine orchestrators were believed to have certain 5

The use of “theatrical enticements” (cf. Dionysius, Thuc. §7) and “dramatic vividness” are evidence of the historian’s commitment to the use of rhetoric in writing history (cf. Alexander, Ancient Literary Context, 144–45; Thornton, Zeuge, 350–60). However, contrary to Rothschild’s claim that divine intervention is a matter of stylistic imitation independent of one’s theological beliefs (Rhetoric, 7), ancient historians’ varying presentations of the extent and manner of divine intervention seem to have resulted from their theological assumptions. 6 Even qualities like valor (e.g., “Valor and Fortune” [Virtus et Fortuna], Florus 1.1.2) and justice (e.g., Arrian, Anab. 4.9.7) were personified and seen as having the capacity to control human affairs. Lisa Raphals observes that Fate was often personified as various gods and goddesses who were linked with the notion of destiny, justice, punishment, and retribution (“Fate, Fortune, Chance, and Luck in Chinese and Greek: Comparative Semantic History,” PEW 53, no. 4 [2003]: 556–57). 7 The two temples built by Tullius for Fortune (τύχη) further show that “Fortune” was reckoned as one of the gods (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.63.1). 8 The expression τὸ δαιμόνιον (“divine power,” “divinity,” “lesser god”) is sometimes translated as “Heaven” in the LCL series (e.g., Appian, Hist. rom. 9.19; Diodorus, 11.89.5; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.20.1; 1.23.1; 4.83.4; 6.79.3; Herodotus, Hist. 1.210; Plutarch, Thes. 15.1; Thucydides 2.64.2). 9 Francis M. Lazarus correctly asserts that historians like Livy used the concept of Fortuna to denote the idea of “chance in history” and at times used it rhetorically to mark turning points in his accounts of war (“Fortuna and Rhetorical Structure in Livy,” CJ 74, no. 2 [1978–79]: 130–31). However, one should not overlook the versatility of this notion as it was used in Greco-Roman writings.

30

Part 2: Divine Involvement

qualities exhibited in their interactions with humans. The gods were thought to be easily jealous10 and fickle-minded.11 Fortune shows favor to certain individuals and cities; and there is no guarantee of impartiality as favors are given.12

Divine Authority and Human Assent For these ancient historians, divine rewards and retributions are clear evidences of divine activities amidst humans. 13 They were means by which the gods assert their authority over humans. Two things commonly invite divine judgments: haughtiness and sacrilege. 14 For Dionysius, “heaven” (δαιμόνιος) was the source of good fortune and calamity. 15 Ancient histori10

For instance, after Polycrates’ victory in Samos against the Lacedaemonians, he began to fear that the gods might be jealous of his successes and cause a reversal of fortune. Following Amasis’ counsel, he disposed his emerald and golden seal in the sea, which he got back a few days later after a fisherman found inside the belly of a fish (Herodotus, Hist. 3.40.1–43.2). Polycrates concluded that “the hand of heaven was in this matter” (τὸν δὲ ὡς ἐσῆλθε θεῖον εἶναι τὸ πρῆγμα) (3.42.4). Appian also recounted a similar story. Paulus was afraid that “Heaven” (δαιμόνιον) would become jealous of him as he reached the “pinnacle of fortune” (εὐτυχίας) and as a result of this divine jealousy, calamity might befall him and his troops. So he offered sacrifices to the gods even before they acted against him (Hist. rom. 9.19.1). 11 Diodorus Siculus considers Eumenes’ resilience amidst political turmoil as a result of his belief that Fortune can make sudden changes (18.42.1; cf. 18.67.5). Suetonius is more explicit about the fickleness of Fortune (Aug. 65.1). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, on the other hand, even though he is open to other opinions, is clear about his beliefs that the gods could not act ignorantly. Hence, for him, misfortune befalls only those who deserve it (e.g., King Tullius Hostilius’ neglect of his religious duty resulted in a catastrophe [Ant. rom. 3.35.1–6]). 12 Livy claims that cities achieve great power, not only by their own worth, but also by the “favor of Heaven” (1.9.3). Italy and Sicily flourished because of divine favor (26.41.14); and the Campanians, who blamed their misfortune on the “partiality of the gods” (iniquitatem deum), received an accursed fortune (26.34.13). 13 Not all historians see the works of the gods behind disasters. As Moses Hadas observes, for instance, Herodotus sees the gods behind Athens’ victory over Persia; Livy, in his attempt to present the superiority of the Romans, explains their defeats as something unrelated to the acts of the gods (“Livy as Scripture,” AJP 61, no. 4 [1940]: 453). 14 Haughtiness sometimes results in divine retribution (e.g., Appian, Hist. rom. 3.4.2; Diodorus 15.33.3; 18.20.1, 24.6). Moreover, temple plunderers never find favor from the gods. The gods declared war against those who perform acts of impiety (14.76.3). Sacrilege was condemned and divine protection was deprived from those who ransack temples (16.57.3; cf. 16.58.6; 16.61.1; 16.64.1). 15 Aeneas was said to receive his “fortune from the god” (τὴν ἐκ τοῦ θείου τύχην) (Ant. rom. 1.59.5). Calamities were also sent by “Heaven” (1.23.1 [δαιμονίοις]; 1.24.3 [θεοβλαβείᾳ]).

Chapter 2: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

31

ans, nevertheless, were careful not to attribute all forms of calamities to the gods.16 Revelation, in its various forms, was a means by which the divine communicated its desires to humans, who were then expected to give their assent and to participate in the divine acts. Oracles and prophecies were common means of revelation,17 and these could sometimes be misunderstood (e.g., Plutarch, Thes. 3.3). 18 Divine messages were also given through theophany, visions, and dreams.19 Omens are also considered media of communication between the gods and human,20 and they were believed to be sent in different forms such as birds, goats, spiders, bees, talking wood, and celestial portents such as thunder and lightning, eclipses and earthquakes, and comets.21

Divine Regents and Human Agents Communication between the gods and humans was bidirectional. On the one hand, the gods would speak through various types of revelation. On the other hand, prayers, divinations, and the offering of sacrifices were

16 For instance, Diodorus claims that the epidemic of fever in Delos was not due to divine acts, but to heat (12.58.5–6); yet at the same time, he asserted that the disease Heracles suffered was a consequence for murdering Iphitus (4.31.4). Even Livy, who is noncommittal as to whether the temple matrons’ prayer of contrition was the reason the pestilence stopped, is not hesitant to attribute the pestilence to the gods who needed to be appeased (3.8.1; cf. 3.7.8). 17 E.g., Xenophon, Hell. 6.4.30; Diodorus 4.64.1; 4.82.1; 4.84.4; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.20.1. 18 Plutarch is critical of signs as well (Oth. 4.4). Nonetheless, he sees the hands of Providence guiding human history in which virtuous humans can gain the favor of the gods (Simon Swain, “Plutarch: Chance, Providence, and History,” AJP 110, no.2 [1989]: 276). 19 Antigenes of Enna claimed that his divine appointment to kingship was given through theophany (Diodorus 34/35.2.7–8). Onomarchus dreamed that he was remodeling the bronze statue that the Amphictyons dedicated in the temple of Apollo. In the dream, he was making the statue taller and larger, and he took this as a sign that he would increase in power and glory (16.33.1–4; cf. Herodotus, Hist. 7.12.1–19.3; Suetonius, Galb. 4.3). 20 Omens were believed to be means by which gods forewarn humans of impending calamity (e.g., Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.63.1), foretell the future (6.1.3), and make promises (6.6.2; cf. 5.46.1). 21 E.g., birds (Arrian, Anab. 2.3.3–5; cf. Plutarch, Num. 7.2–3); goats (Diodorus 16.26.1–6); spiders (17.10.1–6); bees (19.2.8–9); talking wood (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.56.1–3); eclipses (1.77.1–3); lightning (Xenophon, Hell. 7.1.31); and comets (e.g., Suetonius, Claud. 46.1; Nero 36.1).

32

Part 2: Divine Involvement

means by which humans communicated with the gods.22 The approval of the gods was important; and the decisions of the gods were sought especially in the appointment of a regent,23 in engaging in wars,24 and in legitimizing conquest.25 A king’s rise to power was believed to be the orchestration of the gods,26 and since these gods were believed to be deified rulers, the earthly kingdoms become an extension of these “heavenly” rulers and the earthly rulers function as their vice-regents. The gods are very much involved in wars among humans,27 and their decisions are critical in determining who would emerge victorious. 28 Yet human qualities like bravery and piety can invite the favors of the gods.29 For Diodorus, moral

22 Prayers (e.g., Diodorus 4.61.2–3), offering of sacrifices (e.g., 4.62.1; 4.67.1; 4.83.3; 5.31.5; 5.32.6; cf. Xenophon, Hell. 7.2.20), and divination (e.g., Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.22.3) were common rites practiced in the Greco-Roman world. 23 Romulus, for instance, was chosen by the people to be their ruler, but he refused to assume the responsibility until he received a favorable omen. After praying, flashes of lightning appeared in the clear sky, and this was perceived as divine approval (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.7.1; cf. 2.4.2; 2.5.1–2). Henceforth, it became the custom of his successors that kingship must be sanctioned by the gods through signs (2.6.1–4). Likewise, Vespasian was believed to be predestined by Fate to inherit the throne (Tacitus, Hist. 1.10; cf. 2.1). The reign of several emperors, including Augustus and his successors, were believed to be indicated in advance by portents (Richmond Lattimore, “Portents and Prophecies in Connection with the Emperor Vespasian,” CJ 29, no. 6 [1934]: 441). In some cases, the gods appear to them to announce their departure and the end of emperors’ reign (Olivier Hekster, “Reversed Epiphanies: Roman Emperors Deserted by the Gods,” Mnem 63 [2010]: 604). 24 The gods were beseeched during wars (e.g., Diodorus 13.3.2; 13.16.7; 13.18.4; Suetonius, Galb. 10.1–5). At times, loss in war was considered as divine retribution (e.g., Diodorus 13.21.1–7; 13.22.1). 25 For instance, Xerxes believed that the territories won through the successful expeditions of Cyrus II, Cambyses II, and Darius I resulted from divine leading. In his speech, he claims, “It is the will of heaven” (Herodotus, Hist. 7.8.1). 26 Herodotus considers Cyrus’s rise to power as an event “in accordance with divine visitation” (κατὰ δαίμονα) (Hist. 1.111.1; cf. κατὰ θεόυς [1.124.1–2]) and a “lucky turn of fortune” (τῆς τύχης εὖ) (1.118.2). 27 In the speech of Clearchus, the help of the gods is assumed during wars (Xenophon, Anab. 2.3.21–24; cf. 3.1.42; 3.2.11–14). See also Tacitus, Hist. 4.52. 28 Fortune was believed to have the ability to reverse the expected outcomes of wars by causing the weaker nation to win against the stronger ones (e.g., Thucydides 4.64.1–2). At times, it is also necessary to evoke the gods to leave the city they protect before it can fall (see Hekster, “Epiphanies,” 611). 29 For instance, the achievements of King Philip I of Macedon were attributed both to Fortune and to Philip’s own brilliance and personality (Diodorus 16.1.6); the presence of the finest fighters in Macedonia allowed Fortune to bring Alexander the Great successful expeditions (17.20.1).

Chapter 2: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

33

fitness, not ancestry, finds favor with Fortune (37.17.1);30 for Tacitus, the gods favor the braver (deos fortioribus adesse) (Hist. 4.17).

Summary and Conclusion A synchronic approach has been used to sketch the concept of divine involvement in historical events in the Greco-Roman corpus. Although the materials surveyed in this chapter are far from being exhaustive, for the purpose of this work this is enough to provide a snapshot of the general understanding of the ancient Greco-Roman historians concerning the acts of the gods and how these acts affect the movement of historical events.31 Three things are worth noting. First, although the expressed intention of Greek historians was to avoid writing about the acts of the gods (e.g., Herodotus and Dionysius), their historical accounts were inevitably peppered with the records of such acts. Despite their reluctance to discuss matters of theological nature such as divine involvement in human affairs, their history is theological in nature, whether or not we agree with their theology.32 Modern interpreters of ancient historical narratives have created an unnecessary disjunction between theology and history by not taking seriously enough that ancient historians did not have such a compartmentalized understanding. In an important sense, for ancient Greco-Roman historians, history is theology. That is, their historical narratives are inevitably theological accounts of the acts of the gods among humans. Second, as theological accounts, Greco-Roman historical narratives consistently portray the gods as supreme over humans. Through rewards and retributions, the gods assert their authority over humans, rewarding humans who act according to their plans and punishing those who do otherwise. Revelation was the means by which the divine communicates their purposes to humans, with the expectation that humans can and will participate with them as they orchestrate human affairs. Third, the gods are not only powerful heavenly beings who have the capacity to manipulate the course of history. As deified rulers holding history’s rudder, they are responsible for the rise and fall of earthly kings who 30 Thus Diodorus made a distinction between misfortune (ἀτυχίαν) and misdoing (ἀδικίας) (27.18.1; cf. Thucydides 5.104.1; cf. 4.92.7). 31 Alexander points out that accounts of divine acts are typical in ancient novels and typically associated with “fiction.” Nonetheless, she admits that conventional markers in ancient narratives are often subverted and that accounts of miraculous events in Acts are presented as “real events of supernatural origin” (Ancient Literary Context, 158). 32 Contra Marguerat’s claim that Greco-Roman historiography is non-theological (Erste, 40).

34

Part 2: Divine Involvement

were expected to rule according to the expectations of these deified rulergods. In the process, earthly kingdoms become an extension of the kingdoms of these gods.

Chapter 3

Divine Involvement in Jewish Historical Accounts In the previous chapter, I used a synchronic approach in examining how ancient Greco-Roman historians weave theopraxis into their historical narratives and its implication for the relationship between history and theology. I also examined how the gods and humans participate in a common historical narrative, particularly the roles they played in the unfolding of history. In this chapter, I will focus on the same areas and use the same approach in examining the ancient Jewish historical narratives.

Divine Story and Israel’s History Ancient Jewish writers share a common belief with their Hellenistic counterparts that history is about the acts of the gods for or against humans, in the midst of humans, and through humans.1 However, for Jewish writers in general, this god is clearly identified as the God of Israel. Part of the Jewish heritage is the knowledge of universal and Jewish national history that consists of a series of narratives concerning Yahweh’s work throughout the different eras of the past. Luke shares this knowledge with the Jewish historians as well (e.g., Acts 7:1–53; 13:17–43). The creation of the world was considered Yahweh’s first act (Gen 1:1). Jewish historians are one in acknowledging that Yahweh made the heavens and the earth (e.g., Exod 20:11; 31:17; 2 Kgs 19:15; 2 Chr 2:12; Neh 9:6; cf. Pss 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6); and OT writers agree that his spirit played an active role in giving life (e.g., Ps 104:30 [103:30, LXX]; Job 33:4; cf. Gen 1:2). For some NT writers, Yahweh’s act of creation marks the formal beginning of history (e.g., Mark 10:6; 13:9; Rom 1:20; 2 Pet 3:4; cf. Ps. Sol. 8:7; 3 Macc 3:9). By virtue of being the creator, the God of Israel, is also the ruler of all the kingdoms of the earth (3 Macc 2:2;

1 In writing about the Chronicler’s effort in rewriting history, Sara Japhet observes two essential factors of biblical thought and faith: (1) the perpetual adjustments to changing situations and (2) the concept of history as the arena of God’s relationship with the world (From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006], 38).

36

Part 2: Divine Involvement

cf. Isa 37:16).2 The relative importance of the account of the first sin (Gen 3) and the accounts of the sins of the Watchers and Noah’s contemporaries (Gen 6) is evident in the various Jewish writings. 3 One thing is clear about Yahweh in these accounts, namely, that God actively requires righteousness from humanity and divine retribution is carried out against those who failed to meet this requirement.4 The acts of Yahweh continued to manifest in the life of Abraham who played an important role in Jewish history. From the universal history in Gen 1–11, the focus of biblical history narrows after Yahweh set Abraham apart from his relatives and promised to give the land of Canaan to his descendants (Gen 12:1–3, 7). Jewish historians trace the birth of their nation 2

Although Luke does not focus much on the theme of creation, he acknowledges God as the “Father” and “Lord” (implying that he is both the source/origin [πατήρ] and ruler [κύριος]) of all creation (Luke 10:21). These concepts are reiterated in Acts 4:24 where God was referred to as the “lord” or “ruler” (δεσπότης), and the “maker” (ὁ ποιήσας) of all creation. Moreover, for Luke, every nation in the world shares a common history for having the same roots (Acts 17:24–26). 3 Paul, for instance, traces the origin of human sin to Adam and Eve (e.g., Rom 5:12– 14; cf. Sir 25:24; 2 Cor 11:3); however, the author of Jubilees blamed the Watchers for the sins of Noah’s contemporaries (e.g., Jub. 10:4–7; cf. 4:15; 7:20–21; 8:3). In LukeActs, not much is said about the first couple except for a quick reference to Adam in Jesus’ genealogy (Luke 3:38); and aside from including Noah in Jesus’ ancestry (3:36), the only instance wherein Noah’s era is mentioned is Jesus’ discourse concerning the coming judgment (17:26–27). 4 This belief in rewards and retributions is also evident in extra-canonical Jewish writings. Josephus asserts that the destruction of the Jewish temple was a direct result of their sedition and divine justice, and that the Romans were supreme because God conferred the world’s government to them (J.W. 5.1.1 §2; cf. 2.16.4 §345; 4.2.3 §97). He also considers God as the “God of the whole (world/universe?)” (θεὸν…πάντων [4.9.8 §543]) who installs rulers and protects them by his providence (e.g., Vespasian [3.7.3 §141]; Titus [5.2.2 §§60–61]). From an opposite ideological stance, the author of 3 Maccabees recounts Ptolemy’s insistence to enter the sacred places and claims that God punished the general for his insolence and effrontery (2:21–22). God’s act resulted from the prayers of Simon who addressed God “Lord” (κύριε), “king of heaven” (βασιλέυ τῶν οὐρανῶν), “ruler of all creation” (δέσποτα πάσης κτίσεως), “holy among the holy ones” (ἅγιε ἐν ἁγίος), “sovereign” (μόναρχη), “conqueror of all” (παντοκράτωρ), “creator of all things” (ὁ κτίσας τὰ πάντα), “governor of all things” (τῶν ὅλων ἐπικρατῶν), and “just ruler” (δυνάστης δίκαιος) (2:2–3; cf. 3:5–7). Through the prayers of the priests, justice was also meted out against governor Apollonius of Syria, who was struck down upon entering the Jerusalem temple, because of his sacrilegious attempt to ransack the temple treasury (cf. 4 Macc 4:1–14). Punishment was also harsh against those who usurped authorities (Antiochus IV suffered from an intestinal disease for his arrogance [2 Macc 9:4]; Nicanor’s death resulted from his unwillingness to acknowledge the sovereign rule of God and claiming to be a sovereign ruler himself [15:35; cf. 15:4–5]; Jason’s death came after usurping the high priesthood through bribery and building a gymnasium that caused Jewish youth to adopt the Greek way of life [4:7–10; cf. 4 Macc 4:19–20]).

Chapter 3: Jewish Historical Accounts

37

to him (e.g., Josh 24:3; Josephus, Ant. 1.6.5 §§148–53; cf. Luke 3:8).5 The fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham concerning the land began to be realized during the days of Moses who was set apart by God to deliver the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and to bring them to Canaan (Exod 3:6– 10). Through Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel from an oppressive nation, Moses acknowledged that Yahweh was the warrior who delivered Israel through miraculous acts (15:3; cf. 14:14, 25), and this deliverance was evidence of Yahweh’s eternal reign (15:18). Susan M. Pigott correctly asserts that the absence of the language “kingdom of God” in the OT does not mean the absence of the concept.6 This is because the goal of Israel’s deliverance was to make them “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” under Yahweh’s rule (19:5–6). Hence, they are no longer subjects of the king of Egypt; they are now the people of the “king of Jeshurun” (Deut 33:5). The giving of the Law was the means by which Yahweh asserted his rule over Israel. Throughout Israel’s history, national independence was a consequence of the nation’s faithfulness, and conversely, their loss of land was the ultimate judgment for Israel’s unfaithfulness.

Divine Authority and Human Assent Revelation is also an important element in the acts of Yahweh, who not only executes his plans, but has also revealed those plans to human participants. Yahweh’s revelation was given in various forms, such as oracles/ prophecies (e.g., Num 22–24; 1 Kgs 22:13–40; 2 Kgs 9:25; 2 Chr 18:8–24), theophanies (e.g., Gen 17:1–8; 32:24–32; Exod 3:1–4:31), visions (e.g., Gen 15:1–11), and dreams (e.g., 15:12–16; 28:10–17; 37:1–17). An important feature of God’s involvement in human affairs in the OT is the participation of his human agents empowered by his spirit. 7 Although the OT does not explain how Moses received God’s spirit to empower him for service, the presence of God’s spirit in his ministry is none5 Some even present him as the biological “father of many nations” (e.g., Cl. Mal. Frag. 1a and 1b). 6 Susan M. Pigott, “The Kingdom of the Warrior God: The Old Testament and the Kingdom of Yahweh,” SwJT 40 (1998): 5. The expression “kingdom of Yahweh,” however, appears twice (1 Chr 28:5; 2 Chr 13:8). Cf. Martin J. Selman, “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament,” TynBul 40 (1989): 161–83; and Bruce K. Waltke, “The Irruption of the Kingdom of God,” CTR 2, no. 1 (2004): 3–13. 7 The complexity of ancient Jewish pneumatology was presented by John R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (AGJU 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997). Despite the developments in the Jewish understanding of God’s spirit, the OT provides enough examples to show that God’s spirit was viewed as Yahweh’s agent to empower his human servants tasked to do God’s work.

38

Part 2: Divine Involvement

theless an assumed fact. When Moses complained to Yahweh concerning the burdens he had to carry in leading the Israelites, God instructed him to choose seventy people to whom he could delegate some of his tasks; this instruction came with the assurance that Yahweh would take the spirit which is on him to set on the people so that they can share the leadership burdens (Num 11:11–17). Yahweh’s action suggests that the role of the spirit of God was to empower his human agents for a particular task. The same can be said about Joshua, the successor of Moses, who was tasked to continue the work Moses left unfinished (27:18; Deut 34:9). Elijah and Elisha, likewise, share the empowerment of the spirit in their work (2 Kgs 2:15). Aside from his role in creation, the OT often portrays God’s spirit as God’s agent who empowers Yahweh’s ministers to accomplish certain tasks (e.g., Bezalel [Exod 31:2–5; 35:30–32]; Oholiab [31:6–11; 35:33–35; cf. 28:3]; Othniel [Judg 3:9–10]; Gideon [6:34]; Jephthah [11:29]; Samson [13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14]; Saul [1 Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6; 19:23]; Saul’s messengers [19:20]; David [16:13–14; 2 Sam 23:2]; Amasai [1 Chr 12:18]; Azariah [2 Chr 15:1]; Zechariah [24:20]; and the prophets [Neh 9:30]). In most instances, God directed the course of history as his spirit-empowered human agents participate in completing his plans. Some individuals take on tasks as part of their official function, and others are appointed for a particular task (e.g., Moses, Elijah). In some cases, the death of God’s human agents required a successor who would continue and bring to fruition God’s appointed task. Joshua was the one who led Israel to enter Canaan after Moses led them out of Egypt (Josh 1:2). The same can be said of Elisha, who made sure that the judgments Yahweh pronounced through Elijah against the Omrides would be carried out (2 Kgs 9:5–10; cf. 1 Kgs 19:15– 18). God’s acts, then, are not dependent on one individual, but he can continue to work through his agents’ successors. First Maccabees also accentuates the idea that God acts through his chosen human agents. A contrast is made at the beginning of this historical narrative between the families of Antiochus Epiphanes and Mattathias. The historian describes Antiochus IV’s ancestry as a “sinful root” (1:10), he exhibited covetousness by desiring the kingdom of the Ptolemies so that he could rule both (1:16–19), he displayed arrogance both in his speeches and actions (1:21–26), and he was characterized by deceit and sacrilege (1:30– 40). Mattathias and his sons, on the other hand, are presented as pious and nationalistic (2:1–14),8 and their piety and nationalism compelled them to 8 Harold W. Attridge notes that through Mattathias’ final instructions to his sons to emulate the piety and devotion of the OT heroes, the author of 1 Maccabees “implicitly places Mattathias and his sons in that tradition which is held up as the ideal…[And] in many of the comparisons with biblical prototypes, there is an implicit defense of the legitimacy of the irregular, charismatic leadership exercized by the Hasmoneans” (“Histo-

Chapter 3: Jewish Historical Accounts

39

act against external powers even through violent means (2:15–25). They have exhibited zeal reminiscent of Phinehas’ devotion to God and his commands (cf. Num 25:16–25). David A. deSilva observes, “The signs of God’s choice of the Hasmonean house are to be found not only in the great string of victories and successes achieved under its leadership but also in the failures that attend those who act apart from their leadership” (e.g., Joseph and Azariah who tried to gain honor independent of Judas [1 Macc 5:18, 55–62]).9

Divine Regent and His Human Agents There are various versions of the account concerning the origins of the nations and the rebellion of humans at Shinar. The canonical account separates the anecdote concerning Nimrod (Gen 10:8–10) and the confusion of languages that resulted from the humans’ attempt to “make a name” for themselves (Gen 11).10 In Josephus, however, it was Nimrod “the tyrant” (Ant. 1.4.2 §114) who took the initiative to build a tower that would be high enough so that no deluge would be able to reach and destroy. 11 The construction of the tower was evidence of his attempt to “unify” humanity under his rule independent from God; and this was motivated by his desire for self-preservation, refusal to acknowledge that their prosperity comes from God, and unwillingness to send out colonies so that other parts of the earth could be cultivated and consequently avoid internal conflicts (1.4.1–3 riography,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period [ed. Michael E. Stone; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984], 172). 9 David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 260. 10 W. Creighton Marlowe suggests that with Shinar’s unified military and linguistic power, not only could their people “make a name” for themselves as a fierce and undefeatable people, but with their power left unchecked, they could also abuse it to fulfill their own purposes (“The Sin of Shinar [Gen 11:4],” EJT 20, no. 1 [2011]: 35–36). Cf. John H. Walton, “The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implication,” BBR 5 (1995): 155–75; Theodore Hiebert, “The Tower of Babel and the Origins of the World’s Cultures,” JBL 26, no. 1 (2007): 27–58. 11 According to Josephus, for seven generations from the time of Seth, God was reckoned as “the ruler of the whole (land/earth?)” (δεσπότην…τῶν ὅλων [Ant. 1.3.1 §72]). Nimrod was responsible for beginning a tyrannical form of government (1.4.2 §114). It was Abraham who restored the awareness that God as the “Creator of the whole (land/earth?)” (δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων [1.7.1 §155]); and by implication, he is the supreme ruler over the whole earth. Even the Chronicler took the relationship between God’s act of creation and his supreme rule for granted (Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought [BEATAJ 9; Berlin: Peter Lang, 1997], 53).

40

Part 2: Divine Involvement

§§109–19). In the biblical account, the confusion of languages was the means by which God thwarted the human plans.12 Both the canonical account of Babel and Josephus’ rewriting of it serve as witness to Yahweh’s assertion of his kingship over the world.13 Contrasts can be drawn between Abraham’s story and the Babel narrative. First, the nation that sought to “make a name for itself” ended up frustrated (Gen 11:4), but Yahweh promised to make Abraham’s name great (12:2). Second, the nation that refused to be scattered was dispersed, and the confusion of their language was part of God’s curse (11:7–9), yet part of God’s blessing to Abraham was that he would become the “father of many nations” (17:4); moreover, Yahweh’s blessing for Abraham includes the scattered nations as beneficiaries (12:2–3). Third, the nation that attempted to establish a kingdom, presumably under one ruler and independent from God, was dispersed because of their refusal to be under the kingship of God (11:6–8).14 Yet Abraham’s fruitfulness would be evident in the nations and kings that would descend from him (17:6); and God’s dominion over the nations would be experienced as Abraham commanded his offspring to follow the ways of the Yahweh, and practice justice and righteousness (18:18–19). In other words, the building of the tower envisioned a unified nation, and although it has the potential to become many, chose to be under one human ruler instead of God; while the calling of Abraham envisions many nations with many kings under the rule of one God. Yahweh’s role as king over Israel becomes more conspicuous in the books of Samuel and Kings. Even in Deuteronomy, the establishment of a dynasty in Israel was already anticipated (17:14–15, 20); and Yahweh laid out his expectations on how a king should rule the nation, that is, in compliance with his laws (17:18–19). This implies that the kingdom of Israel was to be the kingdom of Yahweh where the earthly monarchs, who act as Yahweh’s vice regents, were supposed to rule in accordance to God’s laws. 12 Sabrina Inowlocki suggests that Josephus’ account of Babel is a polemic against Greek imperialism because they have “unduly appropriated the glory of antiquity by imposing Greek names on conquered peoples.” Unlike other Jewish writers who aimed at presenting the superiority of the Hebrews, Josephus stressed the common origin of the nations, perhaps implying the equality of the nations under God, and an “attack against Greek cultural imperialism” (“Josephus’ Rewriting of the Babel Narrative [Gen 11:1–9],” JSJ 37, no. 2 [2006]: 187, 190). 13 In Pseudo-Philo’s account, however, the tale of Babel is the occasion in which Abraham’s clan was distinguished from the rest of the people who desires to “make a name” for themselves by inscribing their names on the bricks that would be used to build the tower (L.A.B. 6:1–18). Nimrod and the builders sentenced them to death by being thrown into the furnace because of their refusal to join the project; but Abraham and his companions were delivered from this (cf. Dan 3:1–30). 14 Marlowe, “Shinar,” 35–36.

Chapter 3: Jewish Historical Accounts

41

Hence, Israel’s request for a king was legitimate (1 Sam 8:4–6); and as Yahweh made clear, it was not Israel’s request for a king that displeased him, but their rejection of him as their ruler (8:6–9; esp. v. 7). As the divine ruler, Yahweh has the prerogative to appoint a human king, to expand or decrease both the geographical and temporal extent of his dominion, and to terminate his reign. Several factors determine this divine prerogative, including (1) the earthly ruler’s obedience (e.g., Saul [13:13–14]; Solomon [1 Kgs 11:30–35]; Jeroboam I [13:33–34]; Baasha [16:1–5]; Ahab [21:20– 26]; cf. 2 Kgs 17:7–23), (2) the completion of God’s task (e.g., Jehu [10:28–33]), and (3) God’s promise (e.g., David [1 Kgs 2:1–4]). The Deuteronomic historian summarized David’s reign as Yahweh’s vice regent with two statements that reflect the purposes of Yahweh for earthly rulers: 15 (1) “And the Lord said to you, ‘You will shepherd My people Israel, and you will be a ruler over Israel’” (2 Sam 5:2); and (2) “So David reigned over all Israel; and David administered justice and righteousness for all his people” (8:15).

Summary and Conclusion In this chapter, I have briefly sketched how Jewish historians wove the story of Israel’s God into the nation’s historical accounts; or perhaps more accurately, how Jewish historians wove their nation’s historical accounts into the story of their God. This practice is comparable to the GrecoRoman historians’ inclusion of the accounts of the gods in their historical narratives. Unlike the Greco-Roman historians, however, Jewish historians do not express any form of reluctance to include the acts of Yahweh in their historical narratives. The God of Israel is the single character that appears in most of Jewish historical narratives. Jewish historiography in general focuses on the works of God; hence, one can agree with Marguerat in his assessment that Jewish historiography is confessional in nature.16 Jewish historians worked with the assumption that God is involved in the affairs of the world, especially in Israel’s history and these narratives are simply expressions of their theology. A dominant theme in Jewish historical narratives is the kingship of Yahweh. Yahweh is king by virtue of being the creator, and Israel’s eman15

Cf. J. J. M. Roberts, “The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms,” CBQ 64 (2002): 676; Michael Goulder, “David and Yahweh in Psalms 23 and 24,” JSOT 30, no. 3 (2006): 463–73; Leo G. Perdue, “‘Yahweh Is King over All the Earth’: An Exegesis of Psalm 47,” ResQ 17, no. 2 (1974):85–98. 16 Marguerat, Erste, 41–42.

42

Part 2: Divine Involvement

cipation from Egypt was part of Yahweh’s plan to make them a kingdom of priests. Part of this plan was the bestowal of the land on Israel with an expectation that the people would faithfully live under God’s authority. Israel’s unfaithfulness would ultimately result in the loss of this land and subjugation to foreign rule. Revelation was the means by which Yahweh made known his plans and call for humans to participate in it. In many instances, God’s spirit played an important role in empowering his chosen servants to accomplish their assigned task. The participation of God’s human agents was also important because in most instances, God’s actions were mediated by humans. The geographical and temporal extent of a king’s reign depends on Yahweh’s prerogative as the divine orchestrator of history. This prerogative was determined by factors such as the earthly king’s faithfulness, the completion of God’s task, and God’s promise. Earthly rulers act as Yahweh’s vice-regents who are expected, not only to rule over God’s people, but also to administer justice and righteousness on earth.

Chapter 4

Divine Involvement in Luke-Acts In the two previous chapters, I examined some of the features of GrecoRoman and Jewish historical narratives, focusing on their presentation of theopraxis or divine acts (see comparison in Chart 4A). Several elements in Hellenistic and Jewish historiographies are notably similar. First, although Greco-Roman historians exhibit reluctance in recounting the acts of the gods, records of divine acts are woven into their historical narratives. This practice is also evident in Jewish writings, although they show no hesitation in recounting the acts of the God of Israel. Second, the sovereignty of the gods/God is central in both Greco-Roman and Jewish historiographies. Divine interventions in Hellenistic historical narratives show the extent of the deified rulers’ kingdoms; in Israel’s history, Yahweh’s sovereignty is seen above all in the creation of the world and the redemption of Israel. Third, in both Greco-Roman and Jewish historiographies, divine authority is asserted through rewards and retributions, and mediated through various forms of revelation. There are also perceivable differences between Greco-Roman and Jewish historiographies. First, Jewish historians are not only ardent in keeping records of divine acts; they also have no qualms identifying this God who continuously acts amidst humans. Moreover, Jewish writers generally see history as a series of divine acts in which humans participate. This is the opposite of Greco-Roman historians who generally include records of divine acts only when other explanations for the cause of certain events are elusive. Second, although Greco-Roman and Jewish historical narratives include accounts of divinely appointed human agents, what distinguishes Jewish histories is that in many cases, particularly the OT, these divinely appointed human agents participate in divine acts only because they are empowered by God’s spirit. Greco-Roman historical narratives lack an equivalent for this type of human agents. Third, the collection of historical works within Israel’s Scriptures also provides a continuous history of Israel that focuses on the story of God’s redemption, with God as the constant character throughout Israel’s history. These observations inevitably raise the question whether Luke-Acts exhibits qualities that are more similar to Greco-Roman or to Jewish historiographies. My aim in this chapter is to show that Luke-Acts exhibits fea-

44

Part 2: Divine Involvement

tures common to both Greco-Roman and Jewish historical narratives. However, in areas where Greco-Roman and Jewish historiographies diverge, Luke-Acts shows greater similarity with Jewish narratives. To do so, I will examine how Luke weaves the story of the God of Israel into his Doppelwerk and how Luke locates his historical accounts in relation to other ancient historical narratives. I will also look at the ways in which God’s agents participate in God’s story and their role in God’s kingdom. Chart 4A: Divine Involvement in Greco-Roman and Jewish Historiography Greco-Roman Historiography

Jewish Historiography

The acts of the gods inevitably recorded in historical narratives

Acts of Yahweh recorded in historical narratives as “confession of faith”

Gods seldom identified by name; divine orchestrator referred to as δαιμόνιον, χρεόν, τύχη

God identified as Yahweh, the God of Israel

Gods are deified rulers, by implication, their involvement in human affairs is an extension of their rule

Yahweh is ruler by virtue of being the creator of the universe and the one who creates a kingdom of priests under his rule with human kings as his vice-regents

Divine kingship seen in their control over human affairs, e.g., rise and fall of earthly kingdoms and rulers

Divine kingship seen in his control over human affairs, e.g., rise and fall of earthly kingdoms and rulers

Assertion of divine authority through revelation (oracles, theophany, visions, dreams), rewards, and retribution

Assertion of divine authority through revelation (oracles, theophany, visions, dreams), rewards, and retribution

No involvement of divine spirit, only human agents

Involvement of divine spirit and human agents

Divine Story and Continuation of Israel’s History The continuity between OT history and Luke’s accounts has been acknowledged in previous works.1 Just as OT history is set within the larg1 Various aspects of this continuity have been highlighted, e.g., “Israel” as the people of God to whom gentile converts are incorporated (Jervell, People, 42–43), continuity of salvation-history (Green, Theology, 38–39), connection of the new redeemed community with the exodus community and returnees from exile (Pao, Isaianic, 111–46), connection between the NT community and the faithful remnants who are able to interpret the Scriptures properly (Litwak, Echoes, 116–17), continuation of the storyline of Israel’s scriptural past (Bonz, Past, 26–27). In a more recent work, Kazuhiko Yamazaki-Ransom sug-

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

45

er world with the dominating powers as historical markers (e.g., exodus and Egyptian rule, beginning of Israel’s monarchy and Philistine rule over Palestine, exiles during Assyrian and Babylonian rule; cf. Maccabean revolt and Greek domination, Josephus’ Jewish Wars and the Roman Empire), Luke’s accounts are also set within the larger context of the Roman Empire (e.g., Luke 1:5; 2:1–2; 3:1–2; Acts 18:12). Even with the new socio-political environment, the continuation of Yahweh’s acts which began in the OT can be seen in Luke’s works.2 John Drury stresses an important aspect of this continuity by claiming that Luke crossed no boundaries to link his work with the OT “because the same God, who as Lord of history works his purpose out by prophecy and fulfillment as years succeed year, is working in all.” 3 Michael Wolter enumerates three characteristics of Luke’s historical narrative that highlight its continuity with Israel’s history: (1) Luke’s narrative style is reminiscent of that of the LXX; (2) he interprets the events in Jesus’ life as fulfillment of Israel’s Scriptures and their hope of salvation; and (3) he presents Jesus as Israel’s expected Savior and Messiah-King, and this expectation is anchored in Israel’s history. 4 His lordship and the progression of his work are seen in his dealings with his people. Two speeches in Acts particularly highlight the historical continuity between OT history and Luke’s narrative. Both speeches also accentuate the kingship/lordship of God. First, Stephen’s speech illustrates this continuity (7:2–53; cf. 6:11–14). 5 Penner correctly claims that the function of the speech is not to present an anti-Jewish stance, but to show that the “newly founded ekklesia represents the ‘restored tent’ of David gests that Luke redefined the people of God by redefining the enemies of God (The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative [LNTS 404; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010], 3). 2 N. T. Wright claims that Luke “is intending this book to be placed not in the first instance within the Jewish, biblical world (it would include that, but is not contained by it) but within the general world of serious Hellenistic writing, not least history writing” (The New Testament and the People of God [Christian Origins and the Question of God 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 378). It should be noted, however, that even within the “Jewish, biblical world,” the God of Israel is presented not merely as the God of one nation but as the supreme ruler over the world powers such as Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. The “wider” setting of Luke’s narrative can be best seen as a continuation of OT theology concerning the universal rule of Israel’s God. 3 John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel: A Study in Early Christian Historiography (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976), 11. 4 Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 27. 5 Oda Wischmeyer views Stephen’s speech as a prophetic address similar to those found in the Chronicler’s histories. Moreover, Stephen’s “review of history…follows the deuteronomistic theology of history and at the same time sets its own accents” (“Stephen’s Speech before the Sanhedrin [Acts 7]” in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History [eds. Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen; DCLY 2006; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006], 354).

46

Part 2: Divine Involvement

(15:16–17).” However, he incorrectly assumes that Luke “praised” the Christian community without addressing the charges hurled against Stephen.6 Stephen shared the beliefs of the Christian community he was representing, and this explains the persecution targeted against them in Acts 8. What this implies is that Luke cannot present the legitimacy of the community that Stephen represented without portraying the martyr innocent of the charges against him. Moreover, the role reversal that Penner points out, that is, the Jewish accusers becoming the accused, is possible only if the charges against Stephen were proven false. Four things are worth noting concerning these false charges: (1) contrary to the charge of blasphemy against Moses (6:11), Stephen spoke well of Moses by acknowledging that he was chosen by God to be the “ruler and deliverer” of Israel and the prophet through whom God revealed his plans (7:35–37; cf. Exod 22:28); 7 (2) contrary to the charge of blasphemy against God (Acts 6:11), Stephen accentuated theocentric worship as the consequence of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt (7:7); 8 (3) contrary to the charge that he claimed that Jesus would destroy the temple (6:14), Stephen stressed that the construction of the temple was initiated by one who “found favor in God’s sight” (7:46), thus by implication, disfavor awaits those who would destroy it;9 and (4) 6

Penner, Praise, 325. Luke clearly portrays Moses as the one who foreshadowed the coming of Jesus. Aside from the explicit statement that God will raise a prophet like Moses (Acts 7:37; Deut 34:10), Moses is presented as a wonder-worker (Acts 7:36), a description that fits Jesus perfectly (cf. 2:22). 8 In referring to this revelation, the first half of Yahweh’s statement to Abraham was quoted almost verbatim in Stephen’s speech, τὸ δὲ ἔθνος ᾧ ἐὰν δουλεύσωσιν κρινῶ ἐγώ (Gen 15:14a [LXX]; cf. Acts 7:7a). Yet instead of focusing on the prosperity that would come as a consequence of Israel’s deliverance from their oppressors (Gen 15:14b), Stephen stressed that God would be worshipped after the coming out of Egypt (Acts 7:7b). Moreover, the allusion to the tabernacle serves as a reminder that worshipping Yahweh was possible even without the temple and outside Jerusalem (cf. 7:44), not to undermine the importance of the temple, but to rectify their misplaced devotion to the structure so they could focus solely on the God within and beyond the structure (7:47–51). 9 James P. Sweeney summarizes two basic reasons Stephen’s speech is considered “anti-temple” (“Stephen’s Speech [Acts 7:2–53]: Is It as ‘Anti-Temple’ as is Frequently Alleged?” TJ 23 [2002]: 185–210). First, the permanent structure (οἶκος) represents the attempt to “localize” the divine presence in contrast with the tabernacle (σκήνωμα). Second, the temple was said to be “made with human hands” (χειροποίητος), hence, it can be considered an idol. In response to these two arguments, Sweeney observes the quotation of Isa 66:1–2 (cf. Acts 7:49–50) and notes that the essence of this passage is similar to that of 1 Kgs 8:27 (cf. 2 Chr 6:18). Yet instead of quoting the latter OT passage, Stephen quoted Isa 66:1–2. By doing so, he underscored the disobedience of the Israelites and their unwillingness to listen to the divine revelation, not Stephen’s renunciation of the temple as a structure that “localized” the divine presence. With regard to the issue concerning the temple as an idol, Sweeney also notes that although the term χειροποίητος is 7

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

47

contrary to the charge that he claimed that Jesus would alter the customs of Moses (6:14), Stephen reminded his accusers that their ancestors who reject Moses’ commands through their idolatry were the ones who deserved to be charged with disobedience (7:38–44), and by following the ways of their ancestors who consistently rejected God’s messengers, the accusers can be charged with the same (7:52–53). Acts 7 highlights not only Stephen’s exoneration, but also his accusers’ culpability for not being able to understand the acts of God (cf. 7:25). God is portrayed as the sole character present across many generations in Stephen’s historical recounting; and Luke presents him as the one who orchestrated events in Israel’s history in preparation for the coming of the Righteous One (7:52). 10 Theopraxis in Israel’s past, according to Stephen, moved history toward the coming of Jesus. This movement in Israel’s history began with two important revelatory acts of God, namely, the promise of land that Stephen’s accusers were already occupying (7:5) and the assurance of judgment against the nation that would enslave them (7:6). 11 The fulfillment of the promise was not immediate, for it waited until the descendants of Abraham “increased and multiplied in Egypt” causing great disturbance among the Egyptians (7:17; cf. 7:14). The acts of God continued through Moses, by whom he led Israel out of Egypt (7:36); and by sending Moses to be the “ruler and deliverer” (ἄρχοντα καὶ λυτρωτὴν), God assumed the roles of king and savior through a human agent. Stephen also emphasized God’s promise to raise a “prophet like Moses” creating an anticipation for a successor who would continue Moses’ task. Through Joshua (Ἰησοῦς), the successor of Moses, God dispossessed the original inhabitants of the land (7:45). However, the brevity of the account concerning Joshua and the climax of the speech that focused on the Righteous One whose rejection was reminiscent of Moses’ experience (7:51–53; cf. 7:35–37) show that another Ἰησοῦς was expected. This Ἰησοῦς, whom Steindeed used to describe εἴδώλον (Wis 14:8; Jdt 18:8; Isa 10:11), but it is also used to describe the tabernacle (Philo, Mos. 2.88). Thus the description of the temple as χειροποίητος is insufficient grounds to consider the temple as an idol. Considering Stephen’s indictment against his “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” listeners who betray the Righteous One (Acts 7:51–53), it is best to conclude that it is not against the temple that Stephen spoke, but against unbelieving Jews. 10 The speech contains numerous verbs with God as the expressed subject (e.g., ὤφθη [Acts 7:2]; ἐλαλησαν [7:6]; εἶπεν [7:7]; κρινῶ [7:7]; ἦν [7:9]; ὡμολόγησεν [7:17]; δίδωσιν [7:25]; ἐγῶ [7:32]; ἀπέσταλκεν [7:35]; ἀναστήσει [7:37]; ἔστρεψεν, παρέδωκεν [7:42]; ἐξῶσεν [7:45]) or as the implied subject (e.g., εἶπεν [7:3]; μετώκισεν [7:4]; ἔδωκεν [7:5, 8, 10]; ἐπηγγείλατο δοῦναι [7:5]; ἐξείλατο [7:10]; ἰδῶν, εἶδον, ἤκουσα, κατέβην, ἀποστείλω [7:34]; διετάξατο [7:44]). 11 The relative pronoun ᾧ broadens the possible referents of the oppressive nation. In its original context, ᾧ is Egypt, but this generalized rendering of God’s promise allows Luke and his audience to see Rome as a potential oppressive nation like Egypt.

48

Part 2: Divine Involvement

phen saw in his vision, assumed authority at the right hand of God (7:56) and was declared κύριος (7:59). Moreover, in relating the construction of the “dwelling place for the God of Jacob,” Stephen pointed out that Solomon constructed the temple as a result of God’s favor to David. David’s desire betrayed his assumption that it is improper for the earthly king to live in a house that is more grandiose than that of the heavenly king (7:46– 47; cf. 2 Sam 7:2; 1 Chr 17:1). Although God honored David by granting him his desire, as Stephen emphasized, the true dwelling place of the heavenly king is heaven where God’s throne was and where Jesus stood (Acts 7:49–50; cf. 7:55; Isa 66:1). More to the point, by briefly summarizing the works of God in Israel’s past, Luke highlights the progressive unfolding of God’s story from the OT to Luke’s narrative and the continuity of God’s reign over his people. He not only presents the solidarity of Stephen’s accusers with the “stiff-necked” and “uncircumcised-in-heart” Israelites in rejecting God (Acts 7:51); by creating an expectation of a “prophet like Moses,” he has also shown God’s consistency in raising servants who would do his work. Second, Paul’s sermon also illustrates historical continuity (13:16–41).12 Unlike Stephen’s invective, Paul delivered a “word of exhortation” (13:15);13 but like Stephen’s review of Israel’s history, Paul’s recounting is a presentation of the acts of Yahweh in Israel’s past. 14 A comparison of these two speeches shows that regardless of the occasion and manner in which Israel’s history is reviewed, from Luke’s perspective, “history” is basically a record of God’s acts. In short, historical narrative is theological to its core. History is not about what happened in the past, but about what God had done in the past.15

12

Wolter (Lukasevangelium, 28–29) notes that Luke presented Israel’s history as an Epochengeschichten: (1) the era of “the Law and the Prophets until John” (cf. Luke 16:16) which includes the period of the patriarchs, judges, and kings (cf. Acts 13:17–22); and (2) the era of Jesus within which the kingdom of God was preached until the parousia (13:23, 31–33; cf. 1:11). Cf. Conzelmann, Theology, 14–16. 13 Numbers 33 provides a precedent for the use of history for hortatory purposes. 14 Like Stephen’s speech, Paul’s sermon in Acts 13 contains numerous verbs with God as the expressed subject (e.g., ἐξελέξατο [13:17]; ἔδωκεν [13:21]; ἤγαγεν [13:23]; ἤγειρεν [13:30, 37]; ἐκπεπλήρωκεν [13:33]) or implied subject (e.g., ὕψωσεν, ἐξηγαγεν [13:17]; ἐτροποφόρησεν [13:18]; καθελὼν, κατεκλρονόμησεν [13:19]; ἔδωκεν [13:20]; μεταστήσας, ἤγειρεν, εἶπεν, μαρτυρήσας, εὗρον [13:22]; ἀναστήσας [13:33]; εἴρηκεν, ἀνέστησαν [13:34]; λέγει [13:35]). Marion L. Soards observes, “throughout vv. 17–23 God is clearly the dominant figure in the history, whereas other characters come and go” (The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994], 82). 15 Bauspieß cautions against looking at history and theology as if they are indistinguishable by pointing out that Luke’s accounts reflect a complex Wirklichkeitswahr-

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

49

The occasion of Stephen’s speech required an elaboration of God’s promise to Abraham and the events involving Moses before Stephen could proceed to talk about the Righteous One (7:52). The preliminary history in Paul’s speech, however, was brief, not because the events are less important, but because the main focus of the exhortation is the presentation of Jesus as David’s offspring who would rule forever. Paul provided a sequence of major events from the election of Israel to the establishment of the Davidic dynasty that prepares for the coming of Jesus. The interplay of God’s sovereignty and human credentials is evident in the establishment and removal of Saul as king of Israel and the rise of David as his replacement (13:21–22). The one whose kingdom would endure was the one “after [God’s] heart, who will do [his] will” (13:22). Yet more important than David’s credentials is the fact that Saul’s kingship was evidence of Israel’s rejection of Yahweh’s kingship, and God reasserted his authority by removing the people’s king and installing the regent of his choice whose descendant would also be the savior of Israel. The sermon of Paul (13:16–41), the revelation of Yahweh (2 Sam 7:4– 16), and the prayer of David (7:18–29) show an observable pattern. All three review what God did in the past, and each recounting of past events was done to elaborate God’s continuous work in human history, with each event moving history toward the fulfillment of God’s promises.16 This pattern betrays the biblical historians’ perspective on historical events, that is, historical events, as a series of acts of God in the past, have a continuing bearing on the present/future. As I have indicated in the previous chapter, God emancipated Israel from Egypt, dispossessed the Canaanites to bequeath their land to Israel, and established Israel’s monarchy to create “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” under Yahweh’s rule (Exod 19:6; cf. 1 Chr 28:5; 2 Chr 13:8). God’s work has God’s people as the beneficiary; David stressed it (2 Sam 7:23–26), Paul reiterated it (Acts 13:26). Paul also made clear that the coming of Jesus was a fulfillment of the promise of God (13:23), which is most likely a collective reference to the promises God made to David concerning his offspring who would rule forever (2 Sam 7:12–16; cf. 22:51; Pss 89:29, 36–37; 132:11–17).17 God promised to build the “house for David” (2 Sam 7:11) just as an offspring of David would build the “house for nehmung which can be distinguished based on the degree of knowledge: (1) the readers, (2) Jesus’ disciples, and (3) the outsiders (Geschichte und Erkenntnis, 355). 16 David A. deSilva notes that Paul’s review of Israel’s history also “underscores the connection between God’s initiative in Israel’s history and His initiative in the present initiation of the fulfillment of Davidic, messianic promise” (“Paul’s Sermon in Antioch of Pisidia,” BSac 151 [1994]: 38). Cf. Huub van de Sandt, “The Quotations in Acts 13, 32–52,” Bib 75, no. 1 (1994): 26–58. 17 I. Howard Marshall, Acts (TNTC; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1980), 224.

50

Part 2: Divine Involvement

God” (7:13). In its original context, Solomon can easily be identified as the promised descendant who would build a “house for God.” However, David foresaw the temporal distance (μακράν) from his days until the fulfillment of God’s promise (7:19). Moreover, God’s promise included an enduring kingdom (7:16). Paul saw Jesus’ resurrection as fulfillment of three other OT promises, all of which concern the king ruling on God’s behalf:18 (1) the declaration of Jesus’ sonship based on the psalm about God’s anointed king (Acts 13:33; cf. Ps 2:7); (2) the reassurance of God’s promise to raise up a king who would lead his people (Acts 13:34; cf. Isa 55:3–4); and (3) the assertion that this anointed king would not undergo decay (Acts 13:35; cf. Ps 16:10). More to the point, by reviewing God’s deeds in the past, Paul not only testified about the continuity of God’s work, but also stressed the continuity of God’s reign over his people, which many of his listeners refused to acknowledge. God’s deliverance was for the purpose of creating a people under his rule, and by raising up kings in Israel, God ruled over his people through his co-regents. God continued to move history toward the coming of his anointed king, whom Paul declared to be Jesus, the offspring of David who rules the kingdom of Yahweh on God’s behalf.

Divine Authority and Human Assent Throughout Israel’s history, God asserted his authority over humans. Epiphanies, miracles (e.g., exorcisms and healings), and prophecies (i.e., exposition of God’s revelation) are three of the means by which God did so. 19 Squires distinguishes these acts according to their functions: (1) epiphanies assert the will of the gods and guide human actions;20 (2) por18

There is nothing in Ps 2 that hints about the resurrection, hence, there seems to be no reason to assume that Ps 2:7 was understood as a prophecy concerning the resurrected Christ (cf. deSilva, “Sermon,” 41–42). More conspicuous, however, is the shared theme of kingship in all three quotations (Ps 2:7; Isa 55:3; and Ps 16:10) and that the resurrection was deemed by Paul as the clearest evidence that Jesus is the promised Davidic king whose rule will never end. 19 Raymond M. Gen demonstrates that acts of restoration (e.g., healing, exorcism) and inflictions in Luke-Acts can at times be attributed to God (“The Phenomena of Miracles and Divine Inflictions in Luke-Acts: Their Theological Significance,” JPS 11, no. 1 [2009]: 3–19). 20 Squires, Plan, 103. A brief survey of epiphanies in Luke-Acts shows the various purposes of such activity. One of their purposes is divine annunciation (e.g., annunciation of the birth of the savior-king [Luke 1:13; 2:9]; Jesus’ death [9:31]; declaration of Jesus as God’s Son [9:35]; resurrection [24:4–7]). Angels also appeared to give instructions (e.g., Philip instructed to preach to the eunuch [Acts 8:26]; Cornelius commanded to send envoys to get Peter [10:3; cf. 10:22; 11:13]). At times, the ἄγγελος does more than just bring God’s message (e.g., strengthen Jesus before his crucifixion [Luke 22:43]; set Peter

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

51

tents as signs of God’s continuous guidance of history; 21 and (3) prophecies, which are by nature predictive, provide assurance that God is guiding history toward fulfilling his plans.22 He proposes that these acts should be understood in light of Hellenistic histories such as the works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus Siculus, and Josephus. He also claims that “when we combine each of the strands identified as related to the plan of God, the result is a comprehensive picture of divine activity in which God’s actions stretch from creation to the final judgement and exhibits a consistent intention to guide history in a very specific direction.” 23 It should be observed that records of divine acts exhibit similar functions whether we are dealing with Hellenistic works (e.g., Dionysius, Diodorus) or Jewish writings with Hellenistic influence (e.g., Josephus). Luke-Acts contains similar elements. Epiphanies, portents, and prophecies are means of divine revelation, and Luke-Acts contains records of theopraxis in these forms. Two things are worth noting concerning these acts. First, many of these accounts in LukeActs illustrate the consistency of divine acts in Israel’s history. Second, these acts are integral to the proclamation of God’s kingdom and the identity of his co-regent. Epiphanies The angelic annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist illustrates this (Luke 1:5–25). Luke locates this announcement during the reign of king Herod of Judea (1:5a) and the Abijahite priest Zachariah (1:5b; cf. 1 Chr 24:10). The importance of this statement goes beyond specifying the temporal location of the annunciation accounts in history, for it reflects the socio-political dilemma of Israel right before the birth of Jesus, that is, the Jews had a legitimate priest that promoted religious piety among God’s people but an illegitimate king.24 This dilemma was worsened because the illegitimate king served, not as an instrument of God, but as a puppet king free [Acts 5:19; 12:8–10]). Human responses to these manifestations, whether through faith or actions, are expected (e.g., Luke 1:20; 2:15–20; 9:35b; 24:8; Acts 5:20; 8:27–39; 10:5). This confirms Squires’ observation that the purpose of epiphanies is to guide human acts and make it conform to divine plans. 21 Squires, Plan, 78–79. Although he admits that portentous events function to show God’s ongoing guidance of history, he stops short of acknowledging that Luke’s view of God’s ongoing providence over human history does not begin in his birth narratives, but can be traced far back to the creation as recorded in Israel’s Scriptures, on which the Third Evangelist built his work. 22 Squires, Plan, 121. 23 Squires, Plan, 36. 24 See Green, Theology, 7. See also ch. 10 for the spatial significance of the three historical markers (Luke 1:5; 2:1; 3:1–2).

52

Part 2: Divine Involvement

of Israel’s colonizers. It is within this context that this account should be understood. Israel’s Scriptures contain numerous accounts of barren women giving birth as a result of divine intervention coupled with angelic announcements (e.g., Sarah [Gen 18:1–33; cf. 11:30]; Manoah’s wife [Judg 13:1–25; esp. vv. 2–3]; see also Hannah [1 Sam 1:1–28; cf. esp. v. 2]).25 The similarities between Luke 1:5–25 and Judg 13:1–25 are so striking that they should not be ignored: 26 (1) events occurred during a period of foreign domination (Judg 13:1); (2) pious parents received God’s revelation (Luke 1:6; cf. Judg 13:19–20); (3) would-be mothers were barren (Luke 1:7; cf. Judg 13:2); (4) appearance of angels (Luke 1:11; cf. Judg 13:3, 9); (4) birth of the sons announced (Luke 1:13; cf. Judg 13:3–5); (5) would-be fathers gripped with fear (Luke 1:12; cf. Judg 13:22–23); (6) would-be fathers’ prayers were answered (Luke 1:13; cf. Judg 13:8–9); (7) instruction concerning the Nazirite lifestyle of the sons (Luke 1:15; cf. Judg 13:5–7, 14); (8) the sons’ vocation announced (Luke 1:17; cf. Judg 13:5); and (9) the sons empowered by God’s spirit (Luke 1:15; cf. Judg 13:25). From a theological perspective, the similarities between these two accounts attest to the consistency of God’s acts particularly in preparing for the deliverance of his people. Hope was pronounced in the midst of oppression and the intervention of God was made more glorious as barren women conceived sons who would become instruments of divine deliverance.27 Through such interventions, God sent a strong message regarding his intention to save his people. His authority was stressed through his requirements of piety from the human participants; and by empowering his servants through his spirit, God became a direct participant in, not a mere director of, these events. Although there is a significant difference with regard to the manner by which this deliverance would take place, – Samson as the one-man-

25 Squires acknowledges that the language and form of the epiphany account in Luke’s birth narrative is an imitation of the LXX (Plan, 112–13). Walter Radl enumerates some common elements of birth announcements typically found in OT and Jewish traditions: situation of childless woman, appearance of divine agent, annunciation of pregnancy or birth, naming the child, promise of coming son, an objection, declaration of the character of the child (Das Evangelium nach Lukas [2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder, 2003– 10], 1:44). 26 The similarities between the birth narratives of John the Baptist and Samson (and Samuel) are also explicated by Michael Unger who considered these connections as evidence of God’s continuous presence in Israel’s history (“Johannes, der Prophet: Eine Persönlichkeitsskizze,” PzB 4, no. 1 [1995]: 41–47). 27 Wright saw the analogy between the birth accounts, and the messages of judgment and salvation in the stories of John the Baptist and Samuel. For Wright, John’s relation to Jesus is also comparable to that of Samuel with David (People of God, 380).

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

53

army against the Philistines and John as the forerunner of the expected savior/king – their births signal the coming of God’s salvation.28 As we narrow our focus to Luke-Acts, the inseparability of epiphanies and christocentric proclamation is also worth noting.29 Divine beings appeared in Luke’s historical narratives to announce the identity of the Messiah (e.g., Transfiguration [Luke 9:35]) and key events in his life (e.g., birth [1:31–33], death [9:30], resurrection [24:43]), and to create opportunities for Christ to be proclaimed (e.g., shepherds’ initiative to make the announcements [2:10–15], Peter released from prison and ordered to preach in the temple [Acts 5:20],30 Philip instructed to speak to the Ethiopian eunuch [8:26–40], 31 and Cornelius commanded to send for Peter [10:1–47]). These suggest that epiphanies in Luke-Acts were not only means by which God asserted his authority over humans, but they were also kerygmatic in purpose with the person and works of Jesus at the center of the proclamation.32 Exorcisms and Healings Ancient people, whether Jews or otherwise, exhibited a worldview that allowed them to embrace supernatural phenomena as a typical part of their lives.33 Hence, even their historical accounts contain records of portentous events. This shared worldview explains why miracle-stories are recorded

28 Radl correctly points out the there are two important themes in Luke’s first account of epiphany, namely, the joy that God brought to the childless couple, and the plight and redemption of God’s people Israel (Lukas, 1:43). 29 Cf. Jean-Noël Aletti, Quand Luc Raconte: Le Récit Comme Théologie (LLB 115; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2012), 59. 30 John B. Weaver points out two conventional features of epiphanies in ancient writings: (1) the manifestation of a deity and (2) the deity’s propagation of the cult through epiphanies. One of the theological implications of the story concerning Peter’s escape from prison is the propagation of Christianity via proclamation. He writes, “prisonescape is not just release from prison, but also release for proclamation” (Plots of Epiphany: Prison-Escape in Acts of the Apostles [BZNW 131; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004], 284– 86). 31 The themes of gospel proclamation (e.g., Scott Shauf, “Locating the Eunuch: Characterization and the Narrative Context of in Acts 8:26–40,” CBQ 71 [2009]: 775) and divine involvement (e.g., Robert O’Toole, “Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch [Acts VIII 25–40],” JSNT 5 [1983]: 25) are both present in Lukan epiphanies. 32 Radl observes that miraculous accounts accompanying birth narratives are common in Greco-Roman literature; records of epiphanies accompanying birth accounts with an announcement of God’s salvation are also common in Jewish writings (Lukas, 1:104). 33 Although it is common for historians during this era to include accounts of the supernatural in historical narratives, Keener notices that Luke, like other Christian writers, report signs more often than other ancient historians (Acts, 1:321).

54

Part 2: Divine Involvement

in ancient narratives, whether Greco-Roman or Jewish in origin.34 What is seen as extraordinary according to some modern standards was considered typical by ancient historians. 35 Luke’s inclusion of miracle-stories in his Doppelwerk reflects the basic assumptions of the writers within this milieu.36 Moreover, it shows his attempt to present the continuity of God’s work from Israel’s past with the era about which he wrote. 34 Healing accounts from both Greco-Roman and Jewish literature abound, as shown by Wendy Cotter (Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity [New York: Routledge, 1999]) and Eric Eve (The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles [JSNTSup 231; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002]). Hans-Josef Klauck notes that even as early as the 3rd century CE, writers like Philostratus had already observed the similarities between Jesus and Greco-Roman wonder-workers like Apollonius of Tyana (The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Greco-Roman Religions [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 168–74). More recent works also draw connections between Jesus and Asclepius (e.g., Patricia Cox Miller, Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture [Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997]; Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Paul and Jesus: A Comparison with Special Reference to ‘Faith that Can Remove Mountains’ and ‘Your Faith has healed/saved you’ [WUNT 2/147; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002]). Three things should be noted in view of these studies comparing Jesus with the miracle-workers in Greco-Roman writings. First, many of the parallels are irrelevant, as Howard C. Kee observes, because even though there are some superficial similarities in these healers’ techniques, the fundamental frameworks of the healings are different (Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times [SNTSM 55; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986], 65). Second, Jewish writings do not lack accounts of healing by miracleworkers who share, not only comparable techniques with Jesus, but also the basic belief in the Creator God who was their source of power in healing (see Boris A. Paschke, “The Mystery of the Vanishing Sources: How New Testament Scholars Superficially and Uncritically Identified the Ancient Background of Luke 8:43–48, Acts 5:15, and Acts 19:12,” BN 129 [2006]: 72). Third, Luke places Jesus in the line of wonder-workers from Israel’s Scriptures. The resemblances between Jesus’ healing and those of Elijah and Elisha (e.g., Luke 7:11–17; cf. 1 Kgs 17:17–24; 2 Kgs 4:8–17) and the portrayal of Jesus and Moses as prophets whose prophetic ministries were confirmed by signs and wonders (Acts 7:51– 53; cf. 7:37) are evidence to this. 35 See Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of New Testament Accounts (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011); Rick Strelan, Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the Apostles (BZNW 126; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004). 36 One has to acknowledge, as Squires did, that miracles are evidence of the continuity of divine acts in history (Plan, 78). It is also important to note that both Hellenistic (e.g., Diodorus, Dionysius) and Jewish (e.g., OT historians, Josephus, Ben Sirach, Artapanus, etc.) writers betray such assumption. Hence, it is incorrect to conclude, as Squires did, that Luke-Acts is to be considered Hellenistic writing based on this criterion. It is better, perhaps, to take the question a step further by asking if portents in Luke-Acts show the continuity of God’s work in history, which history is Luke continuing? The answer, as we have seen, is OT history. Werner Kahl distinguishes between mediators and petitioners of numinous power in ancient miracle-stories and observed that, usually, mediators and petitioners are two distinct characters in Hellenistic records while Jewish writers traditionally merge these two roles into one person (New Testament Miracle Stories in Their Reli-

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

55

The functions of miraculous accounts in Jewish writings may be construed in various ways, e.g., to present the character of God,37 to reveal his presence and action, 38 to construct/reconstruct national identity, 39 to emphasize the hope of national restoration.40 Likewise, the miracles in LukeActs may have various functions, e.g., to elicit faith in Jesus,41 as proof of the Spirit’s presence with Jesus, 42 to identify Jesus as the eschatological prophet,43 for missionary purposes,44 to illustrate the roles of the apostles as mediators of the power of God.45 Perhaps it is best to assume that miracles in Luke-Acts have a variegated function.46 More relevant to our disgious-Historical Setting: A Religiongeschichtliche Comparison from a Structural Perspective [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994], 234–35). 37 J. P. Ross, “Some Notes on Miracles in the Old Testament” in Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History (ed. C. F. D. Moule; London: Mowbray, 1965), 60. In the Gospels and Acts, miracles are said to be a suitable means to depict Jesus as the authoritative redeemer-figure and present various attitudes of the people toward him (Kahl, Miracle, 236). 38 Leopold Sabourin, “Old Testament Miracles,” BTB 1, no. 3 (1971): 259. 39 Erkki Koskenniemi’s survey of the miracle-stories in various Jewish writings (Sirach, Jubilees, Ezekiel the Tragedian, Artapanus, L.A.B., Lives of the Prophets, and the works of Philo and Josephus) demonstrates that although these writers exhibit various methods in the rewriting of OT miracles, they share the same pride in retelling the acts of God among their people in the past (The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism [WUNT 2/206; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 40). 40 Eric Eve, The Healer from Nazareth: Jesus’ Miracles in Historical Context (London: SPCK, 2009), 50. 41 Paul J. Achtemeier, “The Lucan Perspective on the Miracles of Jesus: A Preliminary Sketch,” in Perspective on Luke-Acts (ed. Charles H. Talbert; PRSt 5; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), 165. 42 Evelyn Ashley, “The Miracles of Jesus,” in The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition (ed. Mark Harding and Alanna Hobbs; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 408– 409. 43 Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus: The Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999), 144–88; Cf. Achtemeier, “Miracles,” 166; Alan Richardson, The Miracle-Stories of the Gospels (New York: Harper, 1942). 44 Anton Fridrichsen suggests that “[c]lose connection with miracles distinguished the primitive Christian mission from the Jewish mission and the propaganda of philosophic popularization” (The Problem of Miracle in Primitive Christianity [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972], 56). Joel B. Green considers Jesus’ healing as central to his mission (“Jesus and the Daughter of Abraham [Luke 13:10–17]: Test Case for a Lucan Perspective on Jesus’ Miracles,” CBQ 51, no. 4 [1989]: 654). 45 Dennis Hamm, “Acts 3,1–10: The Healing of the Temple Beggar,” Bib 67, no. 3 (1967): 318. So Kahl, Miracle, 226–27. 46 G. W. Lampe, for instance, points out that miracles in Acts function: (1) as evidence of the Spirit’s work, e.g., Acts 10:38; (2) to highlight the authority of Jesus, e.g., Luke 4:36; (3) as part of the proclamation of the kingdom, e.g., 5:15; (4) to emphasize messianic anointing of Jesus, e.g., resurrection; (5) as fulfillment of prophetic hopes, e.g., Pentecost (“Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles” in Miracles: Cambridge Studies in

56

Part 2: Divine Involvement

cussion is the revelatory aspect of Jesus’ miracles.47 The healing/ exorcism stories in Luke 4:31-44 can illustrate this. Prior to Jesus’ birth, he was already presented as the Son of God who would reign from the throne of David (1:31–35). Luke also recounts four major events at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to highlight Jesus’ divine sonship: (1) at his baptism, the voice from heaven declared Jesus as his beloved Son (3:21–22),48 thus presenting him as the rightful heir of the cosmic regent; (2) Jesus’ genealogy traced his lineage to God (3:23–38), which also implies his divine origin; (3) Jesus’ temptation centered on his identity as the Son (4:1–13); and (4) Jesus’ rejection at the synagogue on the basis of misunderstood identity (4:22).49 The healing stories in 4:31–41 should be understood in light of this series of events. In response to the Nazarenes’ reaction, Jesus recalled the miracles involving Elijah (1 Kgs 17:1–16) and Elisha (2 Kgs 5:1–27). In both cases, the prophets were sent to non-Israelites even though there were many in Israel with the same needs. Green is correct to point out that these incidents do not imply an outright rejection of Israel because there is nothing in the narratives of Elijah and Elisha to suggest that they were involved in a programmatic outreach to the Gentiles.50 It is also true that by showing the kind of treatment these two prophets experienced from their own people, Jesus’ status as prophet is certified.51 In light of the previous events Their Philosophy and History [ed. C. F. D. Moule; London: Mowbray, 1965], 165–78). Cf. A. B. Bruce, The Miraculous Elements in the Gospels (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1886). 47 Marguerat observes that miracles in Acts are often accompanied by a theologischen Klärung. These “words of clarification” are intended to elicit faith from the audience; hence, the inseparability of Wunder, Wort, and Glaube. Thus he concludes, “Ohne Wunder ist das Wort leer. Ohne Wort is das Wunder gefährlich vielsagend” (Erste, 208). 48 God’s declaration in Luke 3:22 (σύ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός) is reminiscent of the language of Ps 2:7 (υἱός μου εἶ σύ). With God’s promise to the nations that he would install his chosen king in Zion (2:6; cf. Luke 2:4–7) and his promise to this king of an inheritance even “to the ends of the earth” (τὰ τέρατα τῆς γῆς [Ps 2:8; cf. Acts 1:8]), Jesus’ identity as Son is inseparable from his role as God’s co-regent. 49 The question raised by some synagogue members, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” had been construed both positively (e.g., Joel B. Green, Luke [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 215) and negatively (e.g., John Nolland, Luke [WBC 35; 3 vols.; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1989–93], 1:199). Both agree, however, that Jesus’ identity was gravely misunderstood leading to his rejection at the synagogue. 50 Green, Luke, 218. Moreover, Isa 61:1–2 (cf. Luke 4:18–19) centers on the restoration, not the rejection, of Israel. 51 Green, Luke, 217. In Stephen’s recounting of the exodus, it is implied that Moses, who was also rejected by his kinsfolk, performed signs and wonders as confirmation of his prophetic ministry (Acts 7:35–36). This rejection-confirmation element is also the essential element in his argument that Jesus is the expected “prophet like Moses” (7:51– 53; cf. 7:37).

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

57

that highlight Jesus’ identity as heir-king and in consideration of the larger context of the narratives involving Elijah and Elisha, it seems best to conclude that there is more to this episode in Luke 4 than just certifying Jesus’ status as prophet. 52 Five things are worth considering: (1) several references has been previously made to God as Lord (κύριος [1:6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 25, 28, 32, 38, 45, 46, 58, 66, 68; 2:9, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 39; 4:8, 12, 18, 19]; δεσπότης [2:29]), with the same title used to refer to Jesus (κύριος [1:43, 76; 3:4]);53 (2) as Luke points out, Jesus, as the Son of God, is the heir-king who would assume the status of God’s co-regent; (3) Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God implies the kingship of God; (4) turning to the story of Elijah, the circumstances surrounding the prophet’s temporary and “centrifugal” move to Sidon was the idolatry sponsored by the then-earthly rulers King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, who denied the lordship of Yahweh by turning to another Baal (Βααλ/‫ בַ ַﬠל‬or “lord” [1 Kgs 16:31–34]) and leading Israel to follow them; and (5) in the case of Elisha, the movement was more “centripetal” as Naaman sought him for healing, and after which the Aramean officer declared, “Behold now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel…” (2 Kgs 5:15). The allusion to these episodes in 1–2 Kings creates an undercurrent that reinforces Luke’s earlier presentation of the reign of God. This highlights not only the kingship of Yahweh and the role of his co-regent, but also the potential for rejection by his own people and the possibility of having “outsiders” acknowledge his dominion. 54 Luke’s allusion to Elijah and Elisha also creates a stronger coherence between Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth and the miracle at Capernaum.55 This coherence is evident in the verbal affinities between Luke 4 and the narratives of the two prophets; 56 more importantly, these narratives share a 52

Eve also observes that the Second Temple Jewish writers show greater interest in miracles associated with exodus and conquest, or other miracles related to national deliverance. Healings and exorcisms are not so much part of mainstream Jewish expectations of signs and wonders. The resemblances between the healing miracles of Jesus and those of the Elijah and Elisha, and the typical presentation of Moses in Jewish writings as a miracles worker undoubtedly suggest that Jesus was a prophet (Jewish Context, 377–86). 53 See C. Kavin Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke (BZNW 139; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006). 54 Wolter observes the fourfold Nähe-Ferne parallelism in Luke 4:23–27 wherein the “far one” is consistently the “beneficiary” of God’s act: (1) physician (self)-sick (“other”), (2) Nazareth-Capernaum, (3) Israel-Zarepath, and (4) Israelite-Syrian (Lukasevangelium, 195). 55 Todd Klutz, The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading (SNTSMS 129; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 61. 56 The unclean demon’s question, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?” (Luke 4:34), echoes that of the widow of Zarepath, “What do I have to do with you, O man of God? Have you come to me to bring

58

Part 2: Divine Involvement

common thread that emphasized the supremacy of God. Not only was Satan’s authority negated in the temptation of Jesus (4:1–13), but Jesus’ authority was also made clear through exorcisms and healings (4:31–44).57 Three accounts of miracles were recorded in 4:31–44: the exorcism in the synagogue in Capernaum (4:31–37), the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (4:38–39), and healings/exorcisms at sunset (4:40–41). 58 Jesus’ authority was recognized not only by the people who witnessed the miracles (4:36), but also by the demons who acknowledged him as the “Holy One” (4:34) and the “Son of God” (4:41). Two other accounts of exorcisms in the Third Gospel share the same emphasis; a demon (δαιμόνιον) declared Jesus as the Son of the Most High God (ὁ θεός ὁ ὑψιστος [8:27–28]) and the voice from heaven declared Jesus as his Son right before another exorcism account (9:35–45).59 The healing/exorcism accounts in Luke 4 reaches their climax with the crowd’s wanting to keep him from leaving, and to this Jesus replied, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (4:42–43). This is Jesus’ first explicit reference to the kingdom of God after a series of accounts that point to his status as Son.60 The proclamation of the good news of the kingdom was acmy iniquity to remembrance and put my son to death?” (1 Kgs 17:18). Even the demon’s statement, “I know who you are – the Holy One of God” (Luke 4:35) is reminiscent of the widow’s expressed discovery, “Now I know that you are a man of God…” (1 Kgs 17:24). Moreover, the healing of the demoniac was considered a “cleansing” process to rid the unclean demon, in the same way that the healing of Naaman required that he be cleansed from leprosy (2 Kgs 5:10–14). 57 Recent scholarship has begun to recognize the use of coded language in the NT, with “Satan” as representative of evil, and in the NT era, a representative of the evil rulers of Rome. This is highly plausible because they can easily be perceived as sharing similar characteristics. It is unnecessary, however, to reduce NT writers’ understanding of “Satan” to merely a personification of evil (e.g., Norman A. Beck, Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Symbolic Messages of Hope and Liberation [WCLBS 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1997], 5–6). Such concept cannot satisfactorily explain accounts of exorcisms (e.g., demons’ subjection to Jesus’ commissioned disciples). See further discussion in ch. 10. 58 On three occasions, Jesus rebuked (ἐπιτιμάω) the demons (Luke 4:35, 41) and the fever (4:39). This may suggest that the fever was caused by demonic activity (cf. 13:16). 59 The identities of the exorcists (Jesus [Luke 4:34, 41; 8:28; 9:35]; and Paul [Acts 16:17]) are important for Luke. The three accounts in the Third Gospel point to Jesus as the Son and the one in Acts point to Paul and Silas as God’s servants who continued the work of Jesus. Klutz correctly observes that the correspondences between Paul’s exorcisms and those of Jesus point, not only to the “idealized Jewish identity” of Paul, but also to the identity of Jesus as one by whose authority Paul exorcised (Exorcism, 262–63). 60 It is also noteworthy that proclamation of the acts of God followed each of the exorcism accounts in Luke-Acts: (1) the exorcised Gerasene was instructed to proclaim what God had done for him in his hometown after he was healed (Luke 8:39); (2) the disciples’ were told about the suffering that awaits Jesus (9:44); and (3) the exorcism of

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

59

complished, not only verbally (e.g., 4:18–19, 21), but through the miracles that point to God’s supremacy and his acts through his agent. Exposition and Divine Revelation The literary function of prophecies in Luke-Acts has been raised in many previous works.61 Its theological function has also been suggested, some focus on Luke’s Christology, 62 while others on his ecclesiology. 63 Prophecies may also serve a hortatory function.64 Despite the diversity in focus, there is a general agreement that the fulfillment of these prophecies reflects the continuity of God salvific works.65 Prophecies create an expectation of fulfillment; and in the case of the prophecies in Luke-Acts, the an-

the clairvoyant girl led to Paul’s imprisonment and an opportunity for proclamation to the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31). 61 The prophecy-oriented accounts in Luke-Acts contribute to the literary unity of Luke’s work according to Brodie (Bridge, 4–5). Pervo, because of his assumption that Luke’s work is to be considered a novel, maintains that prophecies in Acts are included for aesthetic purposes (Profit, 72). For Robert L. Brawley, prophecies create anticipation for Jesus’ fulfillment of his ministry of liberation. This is part of the narrative schema to show that Jesus is aligned with God and his work (Centering on God: Method and Messages in Luke-Acts [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1990], 85). Rothschild considers predictions as a rhetorical feature that authenticates proofs of a historical account (Rhetoric, 93). 62 Some works focus on the role of Jesus as a prophet (e.g., Richard J. Dillon, “The Prophecy of Christ and His Witnesses According to the Discourses of Acts,” NTS 32, no. 4 [1986]: 544–56; D. A. S. Ravens, “Luke 9.7–62 and the Prophetic Role of Jesus,” NTS 36, no. 1 [1990]: 119–29), or the understanding of Lukan Christology based on OT prophecies fulfilled by Jesus (e.g., David L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology [JSNTSup 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995]), or both (e.g., Brigid Curtin Frein, “Predictions, OT Prophecies and Luke’s Sense of Fulfillment.” NTS 40, no. 1 [1994]: 22–37; J. Severino Croatto, “Jesus, Prophet Like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher Like Moses in Luke-Acts,” JBL 124, no. 3 [2005]: 451–65). 63 Despite the “intra-family struggle,” as David L. Tiede puts it, between Jews and Christians, followers of Jesus claimed to be part of the “faithful Israel” who draws assurance of God’s deliverance from these prophetic traditions (Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980], 5–7, 129). Litwak also sees the OT prophecies that were brought to fulfillment in Luke-Acts as a pointer to the continuity of God’s people in the past and present, thus they serve to validate the Christians as legitimate people of God (Echoes, 32). 64 E.g., Jesus’ prophetic discourse about the destruction of the temple climaxed with the parable of the fig tree exhorting listeners to guard their hearts (Luke 21:3–36; cf. Acts 15:32). 65 E.g., Brawley, Centering, 85; Drury, Tradition, 8; Litwak, Echoes, 129; Alan J. Thompson, The Acts of the Risen Lord: Luke’s Account of God’s Unfolding Plan (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 22.

60

Part 2: Divine Involvement

ticipation that God would do or the retrospective acknowledgement that God had done what he said he would.66 Squires’ comparison of the prophecies in Luke-Acts with those in Josephus’ works “demonstrates how a basically Jewish perspective on prophecy can be presented in a thoroughly hellenistic manner without damage to either point of view.”67 It is unclear, however, how one can distinguish a “hellenistic manner” of presentation from a “Jewish manner.” Two prominent features of Hellenistic prophecies that can be inferred from his discussion are the predictive and inspired nature of such prophecies. The same features, however, are also characteristic of prophecies in Jewish writings.68 Perhaps a more important issue is not the manner in which prophecies are presented in Luke’s writing but what prophecies, in Luke’s perspective, are fulfilled. Five elements in Luke’s portrayal of prophets find precedent in Israel’s Scriptures. First, Luke portrays prophets as Spirit-empowered mouthpieces of God. The Spirit’s role in prophetic utterances is repeatedly stressed in Luke-Acts (e.g., Zachariah [Luke 1:67], Simeon [2:27], David [Acts 1:16; 4:25], believers [19:6], Agabus [21:11], Isaiah [28:25]). Luke is not the first to present the Spirit in this manner (e.g., Spirit-filled elders prophesying [Num 11:25–29]; Saul and his companions [1 Sam 10:6, 10; cf. 19:20– 23]; and Azariah [2 Chr 15:1]). The prophet’s task is best summarized in Yahweh’s description, “I will put my words in his mouth” (Deut 18:18).69 Prophecy is also listed alongside dreams and Urim as a means of divine revelation (1 Sam 28:6, 15).

66 The essence of prophetic utterances and their fulfillments in Luke-Acts is found in the acts of God. Many of these prophecies were uttered in the first person with God as the speaker (e.g., sending of John [Luke 7:27]; the outpouring of the Spirit [Acts 2:17– 21]) or with God as the active third person subject (e.g., the coming of the prophet like Moses [Acts 3:22; 7:37]). Hence, by implication, the fulfillment of such prophecies must be seen as a result of God’s act. 67 Squires, Plan, 129. 68 Cf. Koskenniemi, Miracle-Workers, 192–202. Mittelstaedt observes four elements of Luke’s theological history: (1) Christianity as fulfillment of OT prophecies; (2) the key role of Jerusalem in salvation-history; (3) the changing role of pagans in the history of salvation; and (4) the embedding of church history in time and political history, especially the relationship between Judea and Rome (Lukas, 136). 69 Cf. Keener, Acts, 1:887. When Moses claimed to have speech impediments, Yahweh allowed him to bring along Aaron with him, so that he would be like God to Pharaoh and his brother would be like his prophet, that is, Aaron would speak to Pharaoh on Moses’ behalf (Exod 7:1). It is already assumed that the prophets act as God’s messengers, and this is probably the reason some can easily trust those who claim to bring God’s message (e.g., 1 Kgs 13:11–19; 20:35–43).

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

61

Second, Luke portrays prophets as proclaimers of divinely-inspired and predictive speeches. 70 Luke identifies several individuals as prophets/ prophetess (e.g., Anna [Luke 2:36]; Jesus [4:24]; John the Baptist [7:26; 20:6]; Moses [Acts 3:22]; Samuel and his successors [3:24; 13:20]; Agabus [11:27–28]; Barnabas, Simeon the Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Saul [13:1]; daughters of Philip [21:9]; and Isaiah [28:25]),71 some of them foretold things before they occurred. Zachariah spoke concerning John (Luke 1:76–80). Anna pronounced Jesus’ role in Israel’s redemption (2:38). Agabus foretold the famine in Jerusalem (Acts 11:27–30) and the suffering of Paul (21:10–14). The predictive nature of prophecies can be illustrated in these examples from the OT: (1) an unnamed prophet proclaimed Israel’s deliverance from Amorites (Judg 6:7–10); (2) Ahijah informed Jeroboam I of his rise to kingship (1 Kgs 11:29–39) and also his downfall (14:4–18); (3) Elijah predicted the drought (17:1–7) and the fall of Jehoram of Judah (2 Chr 21:12–15); (4) an unnamed prophet declared Ahab’s victory over Ben-Hadad (1 Kgs 20:13–15); (5) Micaiah warned Ahab of his impending defeat (22:19–28; 2 Chr 18:22–27); (6) Elisha announced Jehoram of Israel’s loss (2 Kgs 3:14–20), but he also assured the people of God’s provision in the period of national turmoil (7:1–20); (7) Jonah son of Amittai announced the restoration of Israel’s territories (14:25); (8) Isaiah predicted the Babylonian exile (20:16–19; cf. 21:10–15; 24:2); (9) Huldah declared the imminent judgment on Judah (22:14–20; 24:2; 2 Chr 34:22–30); (10) Shemaiah announced Rehoboam’s downfall (12:5); and (11) Eliezer son of Dodovahu pronounced God’s judgment on Jehoshapat (20:37). The prophet’s role as one who predicts the future cannot be separated from his role as instructor (that is, one who exhorts people to do according to God’s instructions and calls people to repentance be-

70 Turner cites numerous examples from both the Targum and intertestamental Jewish writings in which charismatic knowledge is attributed to the “Spirit of prophecy” (e.g., Tg. Neof. Exod 2:12; Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 33:16; Tg. Neb. 2 Sam 23:1–2; Tg. Neb. 2 Kgs 5:26; Tg. Ezek 8:1–3; 11:15; 37:1; 40:1–2; 1 En. 91:1; 4 Ezra 14:22; Jub. 31:12; L.A.B. 9:10; 28:6; 31:9; 1QS 8:16; CD 2:12; Sir 48:24). This charismatic knowledge is also given through visions and dreams; the content of such knowledge includes foreknowledge of the future or understanding of things that are otherwise unknowable without divine revelation (Power, 92–95). Luke Timothy Johnson acknowledges the predictive character of prophecies, which is common in both Greco-Roman and Jewish writings. These traditions are based on two convictions: (1) the deity communicates in an obscure manner that not everyone who hears would be able to understand, thus requiring an interpreter; and (2) the deity who discloses these truths is in control of history (Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church: The Challenge of Luke-Acts to Contemporary Christians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011], 40–41). 71 The use of the title “prophet” or reference to a person as “prophet” is part of the prophetic characterization (Johnson, Prophetic, 29).

62

Part 2: Divine Involvement

cause of God’s judgment) and interpreter of prophecy (that is, one who interprets certain events as fulfillment of prophecies). Third, Luke portrays prophets as instructors whose task is to teach and exhort God’s people. 72 For instance, after being listed as one of the “prophets and teachers” in Antioch, one of Paul’s first acts was to deliver a “word of exhortation” to the people (Acts 13:15; cf. 13:1). Judas and Silas, who are also presented as prophets, “encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message” (15:32). OT prophets assume similar roles: (1) Deborah instructed Barak concerning what God wanted him to do (Judg 4:4–10); (2) Gad relayed God’s instructions to David (1 Sam 22:3–6; 2 Sam 24:10–14); (3) Nathan rebuked David for his wrongdoings (12:1–14); (4) Jehu delivered God’s message of judgment to Baasha (1 Kgs 16:7; cf. 16:12); (5) Elijah confronted Israel’s idolatry and asked them to choose between serving Yahweh and serving Baal (18:20–24), he also indicted Ahab for his greed (21:17–24); (6) Azariah exposed the idolatry of the Jews, compelling Asa to lead a religious reform (2 Chr 15:1–7); (7) an unnamed prophet condemned Amaziah for seeking foreign gods (25:14– 16); (8) Oded denounced Samaria for taking the Judeans captives (28:8– 15); and (9) Jeremiah spoke against Zedekiah’s evils (36:12). The various facets of this prophetic role include exhorting people to obey God’s commands (Ezra 9:10–11), warning them of impending judgment (2 Kgs 17:23), and calling them to repentance (2 Chr 24:19; cf. 2 Kgs 17:13; 2 Chr 36:15–16).73 Fourth, Luke portrays prophets as interpreters of earlier prophecies. The OT quotations and allusions in Zachariah’s prophesy regarding Jesus (Luke 1:69–75; 2 Sam 22:3, 18; Pss 18:2, 17; 106:10) suggest that the Baptist’s father sees the fulfillment of these OT passages in Jesus.74 The 72

Turner cites the chief evidence used to show that Judaism considered the “Spirit of prophecy” to be the power of charismatic discourse, namely, Mart. Isa. (1:7; 5:15) and Philo’s Virt. (217). He also acknowledges that the idea of the “Spirit of prophecy” as inspiration for preaching is found in Luke-Acts but denies its origin from Judaism (Power, 103). This suggestion is questionable unless one also claims that the “Spirit of prophecy” is to be distinguished from the “Spirit of God.” The “Spirit of God” is clearly the inspiration behind Azariah’s message to Asa which resulted in religious reform (2 Chr 15:1). This provides the hint that such an idea exists even within Israel’s Scriptures. 73 Roger Stronstad points out that Jesus’ preaching links him with the prophetic preaching of Isaiah (The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 46). 74 Frein observes how the “new” prophecies in Luke’s narrative are woven together with “old” prophecies from Israel’s Scriptures. She notes the prophecy about John the Baptist as the expected Elias redidivus (Luke 1:17; Mal 3:1) and suggests that “Zachariah’s prophecy is actually a prediction that OT prophecy would soon be fulfilled” (“Prediction,” 24). The temporal aspect of the fulfillment of this prophecy is never raised in Zachariah’s speech, however. This raises questions concerning Frein’s suggestion. It

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

63

same can be said of Simeon’s pronouncements regarding Jesus’ role as “light of revelation to the Gentiles and glory of Israel” (Luke 2:32; cf. Isa 42:6; 43:16; 49:6). Similarly, Daniel had interpreted earlier prophecies of Jeremiah as part of his prophecies (Dan 9:2; cf. Jer 25:11–12; 29:10). Fifth, Luke portrays prophets as miracle workers. Jesus’ healing ministry is tied to his role as a prophet like Elisha (Luke 4:24, 27). The people’s reaction after he raised a widow’s son confirms this: “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (7:16; cf. 9:8, 19). Jesus is referred to as the “prophet mighty in word and deed” (24:19); this is the character expected of the “prophet like Moses” (cf. Acts 7:36–37). The connection between miracles and prophetic ministry is seen in the stories of Elijah (e.g., 1 Kgs 17:17–24) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4:1–37; 5:1–14). Moreover, Yahweh’s statement, “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder…” (Deut 13:1), presupposes that prophets are empowered to perform miracles. Luke’s fivefold portrayal of prophets is clearly grounded in Israel’s Scriptures. Moreover, he also clarifies that the source of the prophecies in Luke-Acts is Israel’s Scriptures (e.g., Luke 4:21; 24:27, 32, 45; Acts 1:16; 8:32, 35; 18:28). 75 The sufferings that many prophets in Luke-Acts encountered are reminiscent of those in the OT (Luke 6:23, 26; 11:47–50; 22:64; Acts 7:52; cf. Neh 9:26).76 The role of God’s Spirit in these divine speeches is seen in many of the prophecies recorded in Luke-Acts.77 God’s servants in the OT, including those who are prophets by vocation (e.g., Moses, Isaiah, Joel, Amos) and those who are not (e.g., David [Luke 1:70; cf. 2 Sam 22]), had prophesied concerning Jesus and the church. These prophecies are fulfilled through direct acts of God (e.g., Luke 1:57–80; 2:21–29; 7:37; Acts 2:17–21; 3:22; 7:37), through human assent and participation (e.g., Luke 1:37–38; Acts 21:9–14), or even through human initiatives (e.g., 1:16).78 seems more accurate to consider Zachariah’s speech as an interpretation of earlier prophecy rather than a new prophecy building on an old prophecy. The pattern of prophetic interpretation in Luke-Acts can be cited as support to this (e.g., Peter [Acts 2:17–36; cf. Joel 2:28–32; Ps 16:8–11] and James [Acts 15:13–18; cf. Amos 9:11–12]). 75 Sometimes referred to as the words of the prophets (Luke 1:70; 3:4; 4:17; 24:25; Acts 2:16; 3:18, 21–22; 7:48; 13:40; 15:15). 76 Cf. Stronstad’s “rejected prophet” theme in Luke-Acts (Prophethood, 48). 77 E.g., Zachariah (Luke 1:68); Simeon and Anna (2:25–27); David (Acts 1:16; 4:25); Agabus (11:28; 21:4, 11); Paul (20:23); and Isaiah (28:25). Cf. Levison, Spirit, 167–211; Shepherd, Narrative, 99. 78 Cf. Max Wilcox, “The Judas-Tradition in Acts I. 15–26,” NTS 19, no. 4 (1973): 438–52; Joseph Plevnik, “‘The Eleven and Those with Them’ According to Luke,” CBQ 40 (1978): 205–11; Arie W. Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15–26 (WUNT 2/187; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Tzvi Novick, “Succeeding Judas: Exegesis in Acts 1:15–26,” JBL 129, no 4 (2010): 795–99.

64

Part 2: Divine Involvement

Many of the prophecies in Luke-Acts are about Jesus (e.g., his ministry [Luke 4:18–19] and his sufferings [18:31; 24:25–27, 44; Acts 3:18; 8:32– 33; 10:43]), but some are not (e.g., ministry of John [Luke 3:4], the sufferings of Paul [Acts 21:10], and the outpouring of the Spirit [2:17–21]). It is noteworthy that even the prophecies that are not directly about Jesus also lead to proclamation about him. As Jesus’ forerunner, John was tasked to announce the coming of Jesus (Luke 3:4; cf. 1:15–17). Paul’s sufferings were also in line with his ministry as Jesus’ witness to both Gentiles and Jews (Acts 21:10; cf. 9:15–16). Even the outpouring of the Spirit led to Peter’s proclamation of the Son of David as God’s co-regent (2:22–40). To sum up, Hellenistic historical narratives contain various accounts of epiphanies, portents, and prophecies, but early Jewish writings are not lacking such accounts. This can be explained by appealing to the shared worldview of the Hellenistic and Jewish writers that the gods/God are/is involved in human affairs. The epiphanies and miracles in Luke-Acts are reminiscent of those in OT. As for the fulfilled prophecies in Luke-Acts, Luke is clear in his allusion to Israel’s Scriptures. These things point to the continuity of God’s acts from earlier Jewish history to the era of Jesus and the apostles. Through these acts, God asserts his authority over humans and at times allowing them to participate in them. The inseparability of christological proclamations and these divine acts are conspicuous.79 Theopraxis in Luke-Acts are essentially revelatory. They are not accidental but God’s attempt to reveal his kingship and the identity of his co-regent.

Divine Regent and His Human Agents Two things have been emphasized so far in this chapter. First, Luke places his Doppelwerk in continuity with Israel’s earlier history. In doing so, he points not only to the continuous work of God, but also to his unbroken reign over humanity, especially over his people. Luke’s assumption of a continuous history allows him to show how God orchestrated history for the coming of Jesus. Second, the acts of God are revelatory. These acts in their various forms not only showcase God’s sovereignty over humanity; in many instances direct proclamation about Jesus is tied to them. Hence, it is necessary to examine Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ work and how it fits God’s claim to ultimate lordship. As we have seen, the speeches of Stephen and Paul point to Jesus’ role as God’s co-regent. Several passages in Luke-Acts highlight this theme. 79 J. R. Brady, “Do Miracles Authenticate the Messiah?” ERT 13, no. 2 (1989): 101– 109. Cf. Dennis C. Duling, “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David,” HTR 68, no. 3 (1975): 235–52.

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

65

First, the birth narrative in Luke-Acts contains both hints and declarations of Jesus’ role as king. Gabriel’s announcement of Jesus’ birth includes the declaration of Jesus’ identity and the role he would assume (Luke 1:32–33).80 Zachariah’s prophecy recalls God’s promised salvation that would be accomplished by this descendant of David (1:68–75).81 The angel of the Lord announced the savior’s birth in “the city of David” to the shepherd (2:8–20).82 Simeon’s declaration about God’s salvation, “A light of revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel” (2:32)

80 Gabriel’s announcement recalls Nathan’s prophecy that God will raise a “descendant after you” (2 Sam 7:12) who would reign on David’s throne over God’s people. Green correctly points out that this prophecy does not envision a dynasty for David, but a single ruler reigning forever. Hence the emphasis is not so much on David the ruler, or any of his offspring, but on the eternal dominion of Yahweh in which one of David’s descendants would rule (Luke, 88). 81 The acts of God continued as he “visited” his people and raised a “horn of salvation” to redeem them (Luke 1:69). In the OT, “horn” is sometimes be used as a metaphor for honor (e.g., Job 16:15; Pss 75:4–5, 10; 89:17, 24; 92:10; 112:9; 148:14) or power (e.g., 1 Sam 2:1, 10; 2 Sam 22:3; Pss 18:2; 22:21; 132:17; Jer 48:25; Ezek 34:21; Mic 4:13; Zech 1:21). Hans Klein points out that the “horn” symbolizes the strength of an animal and is often used in reference to the power of a king (Das Lukasevangelium [KEK 1/3; Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006], 123). The political/military overtones attached to this metaphor cannot be denied (Strauss, Messiah, 100; cf. Pigott, “Kingdom,” 15). Hannah’s prayer, for instance, contains military imagery (e.g., 1 Sam 2:4) and presents God as a warrior who judges “the ends of the earth” (ἄκρα γῆς), strengthens his king, and exalts “the horn of his anointed” (2:10). With Luke’s allusion to God’s covenant with Abraham which includes the promise of land (Gen 15:18) and the hope that Israel can once again serve God “without fear” (Luke 1:74; cf. Josh 24:14), it is almost impossible to separate the promised salvation from Israel’s liberation from Roman oppression. Stephen Farris contends, “The ultimate purpose of national liberation is cultic; the political interest is subordinated to the religious” (The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives: Their Origins, Meaning and Significance [JSNTSup 9; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985], 138). Zachariah’s hope hints that the Roman’s domination in Israel, at least to a certain degree, deprived God’s people of the freedom to serve him. This much-needed freedom was about to be granted, not through clementia Caesaris, but through ἐλέους θεοῦ (Luke 1:78). 82 Luke makes it clear that the trip of Joseph and Mary was in compliance with Augustus’ order for a census (Luke 2:1–3). The emperor’s decree was one of the ways he demonstrates his authority over conquered nations whose people are numbered among Caesar’s subjects, whether willingly or otherwise (cf. Alan J. Thompson, One Lord, One People: The Unity of the Church in Acts in Its Literary Setting [LNTS 359; London: T. & T. Clark, 2008], 63; Green, Luke, 126; Richard A. Horsley, The Liberation of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives in Social Context [New York: Continuum, 1993], 23–25). The emperor’s assertion of his dominion was countered by the announcement of the birth of the savior whom the angel referred to as “Christ the Lord” (2:11).

66

Part 2: Divine Involvement

also reverberates with themes of God’s sole sovereignty from Isaiah (42:6; 46:13; 49:6).83 Second, the reign of God lies beneath Jesus’ own claim about his ministry appointment (Luke 4:18–19; cf. Isa 61:1–2). 84 Jesus’ task is essentially to proclaim God’s reign. Salvation in its various forms is possible only because God reigns (Isa 52:7).85 The prophecies concerning Jesus (i.e., what role he was expected to assume), his own claim (i.e., what role he said he would assume), and his followers’ claims (e.g., speeches of Stephen and Paul) have been examined briefly above. This demonstrates that the kingship of God and Jesus’ role as his co-regent is at the core of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Themes from Isaiah and the Psalms permeate the work of Luke,86 83 Simeon’s prophecy contains verbal allusions to Isaiah (Luke 2:32; cf. Isa 42:6; 46:13; 49:6). First, Isa 42 calls attention to God’s Spirit-filled servant who would bring justice for God’s people (42:4). This Servant was appointed as “light to the nations” in order to bring sight to the blind and freedom for the prisoners (42:7). Two things are worth noting: (1) the reverberation of these themes in Jesus’ claim concerning his ministry (Luke 4:18–19) and (2) God’s purpose for bringing light to the nations is for them to see Yahweh’s sole sovereignty and shun idolatry (Isa 42:8). Second, Isa 46 declares Yahweh’s supremacy over the gods of Babylon (46:1). This serves as a guarantee that Yahweh can deliver “the remnant of the house of Israel” from their Babylonian oppressors (46:3, 12–13). Third, Isa 49 reveals the destiny that God prepared for his Servant (49:1, 5), namely, (1) to be God’s instrument in showing his glory through the restoration of his people (49:3–4), and (2) to be the “light of the nations” and bring God’s salvation to “the end of the earth” (49:6). 84 Only a brief survey is necessary for our purposes. For a more detailed examination of Luke’s use of Isaiah, see David Seccombe, “Luke and Isaiah,” NTS 27, no. 3 (1981): 252–59; two articles by James A. Sanders (“Isaiah in Luke” and “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4”) in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 14–25, 46–69); Bart J. Koet, “Isaiah in Luke-Acts,” in Dreams and Scripture in Luke-Acts: A Collected Essays (CBET 42; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 51–79; and Peter Mallen, The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts (London: T. & T. Clark, 2008). 85 This quotation was derived from Isaiah wherein God was constantly portrayed as king; and as noted in the previous chapter, the prophet’s presentation is perhaps best summed up in his declaration, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; and he will save us…” (Isa 33:22; cf. 6:1, 5; 33:17; 41:21; 44:6; 66:1). God is king by virtue of being the creator: “I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King” (43:15). As king, he exercises the prerogative to bring judgment on any nation that refused to acknowledge his kingship (e.g., 41:1–2; 60:12); conversely, redemption awaits those who submit to his dominion. Salvation is inevitably tied to God’s kingship (52:7); this salvation includes, among others, (1) bringing justice to the poor and afflicted (61:1; cf. 3:14–15; 10:2; 11:4; 29:19), (2) freedom from captivity (61:1b–2a; cf. 14:2; 49:9), (3) vengeance of the LORD (61:2b), and (4) comfort for those who mourn (61:3). In looking into Jesus’ claim to fulfill “this Scripture” (Luke 4:21), one cannot simply ignore these thematic undercurrents in Isa 61:1–2. 86 This is also evident in discussions concerning Luke’s understanding of the Messiah’s sufferings (e.g., Luke 24:44–46). A strong Isaianic voice concerning the Suffering

Chapter 4: Luke-Acts

67

and a strong conviction that Yahweh is the ultimate king and that he would rule through his anointed one is reflected in both the prophecies of Isaiah (e.g., 49:1–7) and that of David (e.g., Ps 110:1–2; cf. Acts 2:30). Hence the message that Jesus was tasked to proclaim was the message of the kingdom of God (Luke 4:18–19; cf. 4:42–43), and that salvation is possible because God is king (cf. Isa 52:7).

Summary and Conclusion As a historian, Luke demonstrated interest in showing the acts of God within the context of the Roman Empire (e.g., Luke 1:5; 2:1–2; 3:1–2; Acts 18:12). It is also evident that Luke is concerned to show the continuation of Yahweh’s acts that he began in earlier eras. The speeches of Stephen (Acts 7) and Paul (Acts 13) illustrate Luke’s attempt to locate the acts of God through Jesus and the apostles along the trajectory of the acts of God in Israel’s history. These speeches also betray Luke’s basic conviction that historical narratives are not simply records of past events, but they are records of God’s acts among humans, and especially among his people. God’s acts demonstrate his kingship, and are seen in various forms such as epiphanies, miracles, and prophecies. They are means by which he asserts his authority over humans, revealing his purposes and plans, and allowing humans to participate in them. In Luke-Acts, proclamation concerning Jesus is inevitably tied to these acts. Epiphanies, miracles, and prophecies are vehicles of revelation to inform humans of Jesus’ identity and what God has done or would do through him. Luke’s concept of God’s kingship shows resemblance to the Jewish idea of the kingship of Yahweh. Redemption is possible because God is king. Several accounts in Luke-Acts point to Jesus as the anticipated Davidic king to whom God entrusts his kingdom; and his task is to proclaim the kingdom of God.

Servant (Isa 53) was heard by some (e.g., Green, Luke, 848–49; I. Howard Marshall, Luke [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 896–97; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke [AB 28; 2 vols.: Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981–85], 2:1565– 66), others perceived David’s words about the Righteous Sufferer resounding (e.g., Peter Doble, “Luke 24.26, 44 – Songs of God’s Servant: David and His Psalms in Luke-Acts,” JSNT 28, no. 3 (2006): 267–83; Joshua W. Jipp, “Luke’s Scriptural Suffering Messiah: A Search for Precedent, A Search for Identity,” CBQ 72 [2010]: 256), and still others hear Isaiah and David in concert (e.g., Strauss, Messiah, 256–67).

Summary and Conclusion to Part 2

Luke-Acts as a Jewish Theological History Ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish historians share a common viewpoint that the gods/God are/is the real orchestrator of history. Hence, theopraxis is integral to ancient historical narratives. In the recording of significant events, accounts of theopraxis are typically woven into ancient historical accounts, whether it is done purposefully (as in Jewish histories) or because it is inevitable (as in Greco-Roman histories). Two things are worth noting. First, the convergence of history and theology in ancient historical narratives implies that the common distinction between them in Lukan studies, and in biblical studies in general, should be laid to rest.1 For ancient historians, history is theological in nature, and there should be no separation between the two. 2 Second, considering the nature of the accounts of theopraxis in ancient historiography, Luke-Acts shows greater affinity with earlier Jewish history than its Greco-Roman counterparts. The confessional character of Jewish works, as Marguerat described it,3 is the clearest dividing line between ancient Hellenistic and Jewish writings. The reluctance of some Greek historians (e.g., Herodotus, Dionysius) to give accounts of the acts of the gods was not characteristic of ancient Jewish historians. With Luke’s claim that his purpose was to provide a record of the “things accomplished among us” so that Theophilus “may know the exact truth about the things [he] had been taught,” there is no reason not to regard Luke-Acts as a confessional historical narrative similar to ancient Jewish histories. 1

Heike Omerzu correctly observes that Acts (and for this matter Luke as well) provides us insights to the early history of Christian theology. Although Luke presents biographical accounts of Paul, his concern is not only to present the life of Paul, but also the origins of the Christian church of which Paul played a significant role; and by trying to make sense of the past through the recording of historical events, Luke also shaped and strengthened the identity of his addressee (“Apostelgeschichte als Theologiegeschichte: Apg 19 als Beispiel Konstruktiver Paulusrezeption,” in Réception du Paulinisme dans les Actes des apôtres [ed. Daniel Marguerat; BETL 229; Leuven: Peeters, 2009], 173). 2 Thus Marguerat’s distinction between a religious/theological Jewish historiography and a political/non-theological Greco-Roman historiography cannot stand (Erste, 40). Nonetheless, one can still agree with him that the nature of Jewish historiography is confessional, that is, historical narratives express their theological beliefs. 3 Marguerat, Erste, 41–42.

Divine Involvement: Summary and Conclusion

69

To a certain extent, Jewish and Hellenistic historians also share the same idea of the role of the gods as divine rulers who determine the course of history by causing nations to rise or fall, or by causing certain individuals to attain a position of power and influence to move history’s course according to their plans. Through revelatory acts such as epiphanies, portents, and prophecies, these divine rulers assert their authority over humans by revealing their plans and allowing humans to participate in their acts. Squires observes the basic similarities between the forms (e.g., portents, epiphanies, and prophecies) of God’s acts in Luke’s writings and those in ancient Hellenistic literature, and he proposes that Luke-Acts should be considered as Hellenistic history. 4 His use of the term “Hellenistic” as a catch-all to describe even the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament is imprecise for two reasons. 5 First, similarities between Luke-Acts and earlier Hellenistic histories can be explained by appealing to the common worldview that ancient Mediterranean historians share. Moreover, despite the basic similarities between ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish historiographies in this area, Jewish and Hellenistic histories begin to branch apart once we examine the identity of the divine ruler in their respective accounts. Greco-Roman historians do not have a unified concept of this divine regent, but Jewish historians do. This common concept of divine regent among Jewish historians allows later writers to build on earlier works and show the continuity of the work of their divine ruler. Luke evidently placed his writings alongside the works of earlier Jewish historians, particularly those in Israel’s Scriptures, to show the continuity of God’s work from creation with God’s work in Luke’s era. He is also in unison with these earlier Jewish historians in his declaration that the God of Israel is king. Luke-Acts, as a theological history, continues to recount the acts of the God of Israel and promote their understanding of Yahweh’s acts. Hence, Luke-Acts is best seen as Jewish theological history.

4 5

Squires, Plan, 78. Cf. Squires, Plan, 7.

Part 3

Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Ancient Historical Accounts After surveying both the ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman historians’ understanding of divine involvement in human affairs, it was observed that they share a number of common elements: (1) accounts of divine acts, hence, ancient histories are theological in nature; (2) revelatory acts (epiphanies, portents, prophecies) are means by which the gods direct the course of history; and (3) a perception of the gods as divine rulers involved, in varying degrees, in human affairs. Despite sharing some basic characteristics with Greco-Roman histories, Jewish histories exhibit some unique features: (1) historical accounts are basically records of the acts of Yahweh; (2) revelatory acts are means by which Yahweh exposes his plans and enlists people he filled with his spirit to be part of his work; and (3) as far as Israel’s Scriptures are concerned,1 the God of Israel is the sole sovereign over humanity, and his rule is often realized through his anointed human agents. Having identified these features of Jewish historical accounts, it was concluded that Luke-Acts is best construed as Jewish theological history because: (1) Luke presented his accounts as a continuation of Yahweh’s acts from Israel’s past, (2) revelatory acts are means by which God exposes his plans and introduces his Spirit-filled agents who take part in God’s works among his people, and (3) as king, God exercises his sovereignty over his people through Christ, his co-regent. Luke’s accounts of God’s acts involve the presentation of the role of Jesus in God’s kingdom, namely, as the proclaimed co-regent of God and the proclaimer of God’s kingship. In Luke-Acts, the revelatory acts of God and christocentric proclamation are tied together. Moreover, the primary task of Jesus was the proclamation of the kingdom of God. This naturally raises the question whether Jesus’ task of proclamation ended with his death and resurrection (Luke 23–24). The answer is no, because this proclamation continues in the Acts of the Apostles. 1

Similar claims are made, for instance, by Ovid for Jupiter with the Roman emperor as the co-regent: “Jupiter controls the heights of heaven and the kingdoms of the triformed universe; but the earth is under Augustus’ sway. Each is both sire and ruler” (Metam. 15.858–59).

72

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

In this section (Part 3), my aim is to show that Jesus’ task of proclamation is continued in Acts through his disciples, focusing particularly on Peter and Paul. Jesus’ ministry of proclamation involves both words (preaching, teaching) and works (healing, other forms of miracles). In Acts, Luke portrays Peter and Paul as Jesus’ successors who, after Jesus’ ascension, replicated and continued the task appointed to him. Luke does so through a form of literary parallels found in the OT, namely the succession narratives of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha.

Taxonomy of Parallels in Luke-Acts Aletti observes that the most dominant literary feature of Luke-Acts is parallelism.2 Various types of parallels in Luke-Acts have been observed in previous studies.3 However, a taxonomy of these parallels remains lacking. The discussion that follows is an attempt to classify the parallels discussed in previous studies on Luke-Acts. Structural Parallels Talbert provides a comprehensive analysis of the structural parallel (or “architectonic pattern”) of Luke-Acts.4 He concludes that the architectonic 2

Aletti, Quand, 69. The term “parallel” has been used in a variety of ways in biblical studies. For instance, it may refer to the literary technique found particularly in biblical poetries wherein a clause is restated in another way or contrasted by another clause for the purpose of emphasizing an idea (e.g., Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008]; Stephen A. Geller, Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry [HSM 20; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979]; James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981]). Alternatively, it may pertain to narrative accounts within the Gospels that relate same/similar stories (Craig L. Blomberg, “When Is a Parallel Really a Parallel? A Test Case: The Lucan Parables,” WTJ 46 [1984]: 78–103). Or, it may relate to the possible influences of earlier biblical and/or extra-biblical writings on latter biblical writings (e.g., Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81, no. 1 [1962]: 1–13; T. L. Donaldson, “Parallels: Use, Misuse and Limitations,” EvQ 15, no. 4 [1983]: 193–210). Even within Lukan studies, parallels may have various connotations. With such versatility of the term, it seems necessary to identify how Lukan scholars use the language. 4 Talbert, Patterns, 15–29. This pattern reflects the “pattern of balance” seen in both ancient both ancient Hellenistic and Jewish writings (see his examples in pp. 67–82). More recently, Maria Ðỗ Thị Yến builds on Talbert’s work by examining Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ Transfiguration and Ascension in relation to the journey motif in LukeActs. She suggests that these accounts “represent instances of the law of duality” found throughout Luke’s Doppelwerk noting that Luke 9:8–26 is to be considered the starting point of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and Acts 1:6–11 as the starting point of missionary 3

Parallels and Successions: Introduction

73

pattern in Luke-Acts shows Luke’s “deliberate adaptation of his source material” to create correspondence. 5 He observes the similarities in the structure of the Third Gospel and Acts by noting the general sequence of important themes and events,6 citing several examples of this type of parallel: Acts 1–12//Acts 13–28; Luke 9:1–48//Luke 22:7–23:16; Luke 4:16– 7:17//Luke 7:18–8:56; Luke 1//Luke 2; Luke 3//Luke 4; Luke 10:21– 11:30//Luke 14:1–18:30; and Acts 15:1–18:11//Acts 18:12–21:26.7 O’Toole demonstrates the structural parallel between Luke 23:1–25 and Acts 25:1–26:32: (1) introduction (Luke 23:1//Acts 25:1); (2) hearing before a Roman procurator (Luke 23:2–5//Acts 25:2–12); (3) introduction to appearance before Herodian prince (Luke 23:6–7//Acts 25:13–27); (4) appearance before Herodian prince (Luke 23:8–11//Acts 26:1–23); (5) dialogue (Luke 23:13–23//Acts 26:24–29); and (6) conclusion (Luke 23:24– 25//Acts 26:30–32). Aside from the comparable outline, the two accounts contain several comparable structural elements. 8 These parallels, he suggests, show the continuity of the salvific work of Jesus.9 Green’s analysis of Luke 1–2 shows parallels between John and Jesus seen in the way their birth accounts are structured: (1) introduction of parents (1:5–7//1:26–27); (2) annunciation (1:8–23//1:28–38); (3) mother’s response (1:24–25//1:39–56); (4) birth (1:57–58//2:1–20); (5) circumcision and naming (1:59–66//2:21–24); (6) prophetic response (1:67–79//2:25–39); and (7) growth of child (1:80//2:40–52).10 Andrew C. Clark observes that aside from the similar sequence of the events, there are similarities in language within these two accounts.11 The language Talbert, O’Toole, and Green use to refer to parallels in structure may be different, but they refer to the similarities between two journeys of his followers. For her, the Transfiguration and Ascension should be construed as two stages of one unique journey (The Lucan Journey: A Study of Luke 9:28–36 and Acts 1:6–11 as an Architectural Pair [EuroUS 23/895; Bern: Peter Lang, 2010], 20– 22). 5 Talbert, Patterns, 23, 29. 6 Talbert, Patterns, 15–18. 7 Talbert, Patterns, 23–29, 39–48, 51–58. Talbert also notes the similar “Lukan architecture” in Luke 24:33–52//Acts 1:3–12 and Luke 9:11–36//Acts 1:3–11. There is no question about the structural similarities between these pairs of episodes, but I will distinguish between parallels between two-single episodes (episodic parallels) and parallels between two sets of extended narratives consisting of multiple episodes (structural parallels). 8 O’Toole, Unity, 68–71. Cf. Andrew Jacob Mattill Jr., “The Jesus-Paul Parallels and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: H. H. Evans Reconsidered,” NovT 17, no. 1 (1975): 33. 9 O’Toole, Unity, 71. 10 Green, Theology, 51–55. 11 Andrew C. Clark, Parallel Lives: The Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the Lucan Perspective (PBM; Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2001), 104. Cf. Aletti, Quand, 69.

74

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

narratives in their outline and order of themes/events. For our purposes, I will use the term structural parallels to refer to this type of parallel. Episodic Parallels In discussing the parallels between Jesus and Paul, Mattill specifies the limits of the sections for his discussion and identifies particular episodes within Luke-Acts from which Jesus-Paul parallels will be determined. He focuses mainly on the trials of Jesus and Paul (Luke 22:54–23:25//Acts 22:30–26:32).12 He notes that the trial narratives not only show similarity in its basic structure (i.e., same general order),13 but also contain details/ circumstances that are comparable. He shows other comparable incidents in the larger sections within Luke-Acts (e.g., the accounts of Jesus’ and Paul’s journeys to Jerusalem and their trials [Luke 9:51–23:44//Acts 19:21–28:31]). 14 It should be observed that although incidental parallels can be found throughout Luke-Acts, there are identifiable pairs of episodes within which many incidental parallels seem to be concentrated. For our purposes, these will be referred to as episodic parallels. Circumstantial Parallels Evans lists the parallel incidents in the ministries of Peter and Paul. He claims that these parallels “show that they both preach the same Gospel, and with equal authority.” He also lists the same type of parallels to show similarities between Jesus and Paul to present Paul as one who preached the same gospel as Christ and “to offer such an admirable defence of his own conduct and actions in answer to his bitter opponents and merciless persecutors.” 15 Mattill not only resounds Evans’ proposal regarding the purpose of these parallels, but also provides a list of parallel incidents that fall under four themes that show the unity of the church and the tradition of Israel: (1) the Law, (2) preaching in the synagogues, (3) affirmation of the Pharisaic doctrine of resurrection, and (4) fulfillment of Scripture.16 He also enumerates the similar incidents in Luke and Acts to demonstrate the continuity of God’s salvific plans under these themes: (1) God’s servants; 12 Mattill, “Parallels,” 33. For other works on the same topic, see Bovon, Theologian, 396 n. 52; Troy M. Troftgruben, A Conclusion Unhindered (WUNT 2/280; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 159 n. 62. 13 Luke may not have arranged his material in a chronological manner, and at times the placement of materials seems arbitrary and interchangeable, nonetheless, his arrangement remains “orderly” (Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 16). 14 Mattill, “Parallels,” 30–37. 15 Howard Heber Evans, St. Paul the Author of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Third Gospel (London: Wyman, 1884), 39. Cf. Keener, Acts, 239. 16 Mattill, “Parallels,” 22–24.

Parallels and Successions: Introduction

75

(2) divine necessity; (3) Spirit, revelations, and angels; (4) signs and wonders; and (5) turning to the Gentiles.17 O’Toole notes that parallels include comparable actions (whether performed or endured), places, descriptions of message preached, content of preaching, description of persons, and language used to designate the “word” that was preached.18 The parallels between Jesus-Stephen and Jesus-Paul in O’Toole’s lists include similar incidents in the accounts concerning them. His lists include parallels not confined to a particular section in Luke-Acts.19 Clark provides parallels between Stephen-Paul and Peter-Paul that include similarities in their descriptions, situations, and actions found throughout Acts.20 These parallels do not appear in the same order and are found not only in particular sections/episodes within the narrative. The same can be said of Arie Zwiep’s list of Peter-Paul parallels and Thomas J. Lane’s lists of Jesus-Peter, Jesus-Stephen, and Jesus-Paul parallels.21 The parallels between Jesus and Stephen in Stronstad’s list include Luke’s similar descriptions or actions of Jesus and Stephen, and comparable circumstances encountered by these two figures. He suggests that one can infer from these parallels Luke’s attempt to highlight their “unique position in the unfolding of salvation-history.” Jesus’ rejection makes salvation possible; and Stephen’s rejection marks Christianity’s decisive break from Judaism which allows the message of salvation to be brought to the Samaritans, and eventually to the Gentiles.22 Certain parallels are concentrated within pairs of episodes (episodic parallels) as shown by Evans, Mattill, O’Toole, Clark, Zwiep, and Stronstad. However, there are those that are not confined within small sections of the narrative. For our purposes, these will be called circumstantial parallels. Verbal Parallels Evans notes that the parallels between Peter-Paul and Jesus-Paul are “both in general experiences and in verbal expressions.”23 He further notes that these parallels “belong to the closing scenes of our Lord’s life and to St. 17

Mattill, “Parallels,” 24–30. O’Toole, Unity, 72–94. 19 E.g., Jesus and Paul (Luke 23:1–25//Acts 25:1–26:32); Stephen (Acts 6:1–8:1; 22:20) and Jesus (birth and passion narratives, etc.). 20 Clark, Parallel, 181–84. 21 Arie W. Zwiep, Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God (WUNT 2/293; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 166–67; Thomas J. Lane, Luke and the Gentile Mission: Gospel Anticipates Acts [EuroUS 23/571; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996], 69–72. 22 Stronstad, Prophethood, 100–101. 23 Evans, Paul, 46. 18

76

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem.” 24 The verbal parallels in his list include mainly instances wherein the same language or expressions are used to describe actions and situations involving Jesus, Peter, and Paul.25 Clark’s use of the term “verbal parallels” includes not only the use of similar languages describing actions and situations of the characters, but also similar language found in direct discourse.26 These comparable languages, whether found in direct discourse or used to describe actions/situations will be called verbal parallels. An Attempt at Categorization Four types of parallels are identified in previous studies on Luke-Acts. The general arrangement of events and themes in two episodes/narratives may be the same (structural parallels). In certain instances, similar or comparable details such as actions, places, and situations, whether arranged in the same sequence, are found within specific episodes or small literary sections (episodic parallels). At times, these similar details are not confined to particular episodes (circumstantial parallels). Finally, similar language can be used within direct discourses or descriptions of actions, persons, and events within the narratives (verbal parallels).

Purpose of Parallels in Luke-Acts The purposes of parallels within Luke-Acts were also examined. Howard Heber Evans, for instance, concludes that Jesus-Paul parallels serve as an apology for Paul whose experiences and sufferings made him a model like Jesus.27 Michael Goulder proposes that Acts should be read as “typological history” and that the life of Jesus as recorded in the Third Gospel provided a type of the life of the church.28 Robert C. Tannehill suggests that incidents in Luke that are echoed in Acts serve as indicators of the narrative unity of Luke-Acts.29 Talbert provides a more extensive study of the paral24

Evans, Paul, 48. See Appendix B in Evans, Paul, 119–22. 26 Clark, Parallel, 183–84. See also his list in Table 2 (p. 185). 27 Evans, Paul, 37–50. For other early studies on parallels in Luke-Acts, see Franz Neirynck, “The Miracle Stories in the Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction,” in Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (ed. J. Kremer; BETL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1970), 169–213. 28 Michael Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964). 29 Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986–90). Cf. idem, “The Composition of Acts 3–5: Narrative Development and Echo Effect,” SBLSP 23 (1984): 217–40; Rebecca I. Denova, The 25

Parallels and Successions: Introduction

77

lels within Luke-Acts and presents two models for Luke’s compositional procedure, a literary model that was patterned after Hellenistic writings and a pastoral model patterned after the letters of Paul.30 He acknowledges the succession motif in Luke-Acts is comparable to that found in the records of the lives of philosophic missionaries in the Greco-Roman world.31 Thomas L. Brodie suggests that the parallels in the Elijah-Elisha narratives were used to present succession, and these parallels serve as the pattern for Luke’s writings.32 Robert F. O’Toole proposes that the parallels between Luke and Acts are aimed to show the continuity between the Third Gospel and Acts.33 Joel B. Green suggests that “the Lucan parallelisms are narratologically motivated, so as to tie the Acts of the Apostles into the story line of the Gospel of Luke.”34 Karl Kuhn examines the parallel construction of the Lukan birth narratives and concludes that Luke’s primary concern is to present Jesus as the embodiment of God’s mission, for which John the Baptist prepared the way. 35 Clark proposes that the Peter-Paul parallels in Acts are aimed at showing the continuity of salvation-history and the unity of the Jewish and gentile missions.36 Zwiep points out the rhetorical function of the Peter-Paul parallelisms aimed at showing that both continue the ministry of Jesus.37 Although the purposes for Luke’s use of such literary features have been understood in various ways, yet certain motifs claim dominance among these works.38

Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of LukeActs (JSNTSup 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 95–102 30 Talbert, Patterns, 141. In another work, he examined the passages parallel to Luke 9:1–50 and concluded that this pericope should be understood as a continuation of Jesus Galilean ministry (Luke 4:16–8:56) and that its relation to Luke 22–23 and Acts 1 show that the Jesus who ministered in Galilee is the same Jesus who suffered and rose again (“The Lukan Presentation in Galilee,” RevExp 64 [1967]: 485–97). Cf. idem, Reading Luke-Acts in Its Mediterranean Milieu (NovTSup 107; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 19–55. 31 Talbert, Patterns, 96. 32 Brodie, Bridge, 3. 33 Robert F. O’Toole, “Parallels between Jesus and His Disciples in Luke-Acts: A Further Study,” BZ 27, no. 2 (1983): 195–212. Cf. idem, Unity, 62–94. 34 Green, “Internal Repetition,” 285. 35 Karl A. Kuhn, “The Point of Step-Parallelism in Luke 1–2,” NTS 47, no. 1 (2001): 38–49. Cf. Farris (Hymns); Rene Laurentin, Structure et théologie de Luc 1–2 (Paris: Gabalda, 1957); C. T. Ruddick Jr., “Birth Narratives in Genesis and Luke,” NovT 12, no. 4 (1970): 343–48. 36 Clark, Parallel, 337–38. Cf. Robert Gnuse, “Vita Apologetica: The Lives of Josephus and Paul in Apologetic Historiography,” JSP 13, no. 2 (2002): 151–69. 37 Zwiep, Christ, 166. 38 Cf. Clark, Parallel, 108–10.

78

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

Apologetic The parallels between Jesus-Paul and Peter-Paul in Luke-Acts are understood primarily as a defense of the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship. This proposal can be traced back to Matthias Schneckenburger,39 it is reiterated by Evans and Mattill,40 and it is implied in the conclusion of Zwiep. Although this proposal fits well with the positive portrayal of Paul in Acts, the expressed intention in the writing of the Third Gospel and Acts raises a question about its validity. Luke’s main concern is to show “the exact truth about the things [Theophilus had] been taught” (Luke 1:4; cf. Acts 1:1–3). Moreover, the proposal downplays the significance of the Jesus-Peter parallels. Historical Continuity or Literary Unity Tannehill focuses primarily on the narrative unity of Luke-Acts, with these parallel events understood as literary devices uniting these two volumes. Goulder’s concept of typological history provides room for one to understand the parallels in Luke-Acts as part of a continuous history/narrative, which is also the main focus of Green, O’Toole, and Clark. Rothschild explains that the use of parallels (or “pattern of recurrence”) is a common feature in ancient historiographical writings. 41 Although she recognizes that such patterns are not only found in Greco-Roman but also in Jewish historiography, she does not acknowledge the variegated purpose of this pattern among Jewish writings. Prefigurement is only one of the purposes for this pattern (e.g., ideal king of 2 Samuel, Son of Man of Daniel, Mosaic Prophet of Deuteronomy, Suffering Servant of Isaiah); creating a narrative of succession is another purpose for their use, which will be further elaborated in the two examples in ch. 6 (Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha). Succession Luke’s theological agenda rules out the possibility of a purely aesthetic motivation for the use of parallel patterns in Luke-Acts. As Talbert stresses, these patterns should be viewed within the context of Luke’s concept of Heilsgeschichte. 42 Following Conzelmann’s periodization of salvation39 Both Susan Praeder (“Jesus-Paul, Peter-Paul, and Jesus-Peter Parallelisms,” SBLSP 23 [1984]: 24) and Penner (Praise, 9) traced this suggestion back to Matthias Schneckenburger’s (Über den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte: Zugleich eine Ergänzung der neueren Commentare [Bern: Fisher, 1841]). 40 Mattill, “Parallels,” 15–46. See also idem, “The Purpose of Acts: Schneckenburger Reconsidered,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, (ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 108–22. 41 Rothschild, Rhetoric, 103. 42 Talbert, Patterns, 89.

Parallels and Successions: Introduction

79

history, Talbert sees the continuity of God’s plan from the OT to Jesus and also to the early church. However, as far as literary models are concerned, the OT apparently had no influence on Luke’s work. Talbert suggests that the Greco-Roman biographies of wandering philosophers provide the pattern for the writing of Luke-Acts. He observes several important elements found in these biographies, which include a divine command given to the philosopher, the exposition of philosophy as a way of life rather than a philosophy about life, philosophy as imitation of lifestyle rather than remembering precepts, and a succession list to distinguish between true and false philosophers to designate where the “living voice” could be found.43 a. Content: Luke-Acts presents the story of the church’s savior and the church in a way comparable to the popular image of the wandering philosopher in antiquity. Talbert compares Jesus with the founders of a philosophical school, typically presented not only in terms of an academic model but also in terms of a religious one as divine figures. Aside from the life of the founder, the selection of disciples/successors and a summary of their doctrine are also provided. b. Form: Like Diogenes’ Lives, Luke-Acts consists of the life of the founder as the first structural unit followed by the narrative of his successors. The speeches of the successors in both Acts and Diogenes include narrations of the lives of their teachers. c. Sitz im Leben: Luke-Acts functions to present the authentic Christian image of Jesus and the Christian faith just as Diogenes shows the real succession in the various philosophic schools. Talbert considers Luke-Acts as a succession narrative in view of three similarities between Luke-Acts and Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers.44 Talbert preempted possible criticisms of his proposal by admitting a major structural difference between Luke-Acts and Diogenes’ Lives. LukeActs may contain biographical materials, but it is not a collection of multiple biographies like Diogenes’ Lives. 45 In terms of content, Diogenes’ Lives “do not possess strong emphasis on bearing witness, spreading the gospel, preaching the word…[and the] gift and guidance of the Holy Spir43

Talbert, Patterns, 90. Talbert, Patterns, 129–30, 133. His main concern in identifying the affinities between the works of Luke and Diogenes Laertius is to identify the genre of Luke-Acts. Cf. Loveday Alexander, “Acts and Ancient Intellectual Biography,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke; A1CS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 31–53; John Fitzgerald, “The Ancient Lives of Aristotle and the Modern Debate about the Genre of the Gospel,” ResQ 36, no. 4 (1994): 209–21. 45 Talbert, Patterns, 130. 44

80

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

it.”46 Despite these differences, Talbert insists that the similarities between Luke-Acts and Diogenes’ Lives could be taken as evidence of their shared dependence on a common pattern used to depict the lives of philosophers. He identifies this “common pattern” as (a) life of founder + (b) succession narrative.47 Using Talbert’s classification, the Third Gospel is the “life of founder” and Acts is the succession narrative. From a different vantage point, Brodie proposes that the Elijah-Elisha succession narrative serves as the literary model for the four Gospels. He notes that in its theme (role of prophecy), structure (assumption to heaven at the center of two balanced narratives), and specific episodes (e.g., Luke 7:11–17; cf. 1 Kgs 17), Luke-Acts shows much affinity to the Elijah-Elisha narratives.48 He concludes that Luke used the Hellenistic practice of mimesis but with Jewish writings as his model.49

Luke-Acts as a Succession Narrative As shown above, there can be more than one reason Luke used parallels as literary device, but the focus of this work will be on the possibility that 46

Talbert, Patterns, 132. Talbert, Patterns, 133. Cf. idem, “Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of Religious Propaganda in Mediterranean Antiquity,” ANRW 2.16.2 (1978): 1619–51. 48 Brodie, Bridge, 82–85. 49 Brodie, Bridge, 82. A number of his works show the influence of Deuteronomic history on Luke-Acts. See Thomas L. Brodie, “A New Temple and a New Law: The Unity and Chronicler-Based Nature of Luke 1:1–4:22a,” JSNT 5 (1979): 21–45; idem, “Luke the Literary Interpreter: Luke-Acts as a Systematic Rewriting and Updating of the ElijahElisha Narrative” (1981 diss.: Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1981); idem, “The Accusing and Stoning of Naboth (1 Kgs 21:8–13) as One Component of the Stephen Text (Acts 6:9–14; 7:58a),” CBQ 45 (1983): 417–32; idem, “Luke 7,36–50 as an Internalization of 2 Kgs 4,1–37: A Study in Luke’s Use of Rhetorical Imitation,” Bib 64 (1983): 457–85; idem, “Towards Unraveling the Rhetorical Imitation of Sources in Acts: 2 Kgs 5 as One Component of Acts 8,9–40,” Bib 67 (1986): 41–67; idem, “Towards Unraveling Luke’s Use of the Old Testament: Luke 7.11–17 as an Imitatio of 1 Kings 17.17–24,” NTS 32, no. 2 (1986): 247–67; idem, “Luke 9:57–62: A Systematic Adaptation of Divine Challenge to Elijah (1 Kings 19),” SBLSP 28 (1989): 237–46; idem, “The Departure for Jerusalem (Luke 9,51–56) as a Rhetorical Imitation of Elijah’s Departure for the Jordan (2 Kgs 1,1–2,6),” Bib 70, no. 1 (1989): 96–109; idem, “Luke-Acts as an Imitation and Emulation of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative,” in New Views on Luke and Acts (ed. Earl Richard; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990), 78–85; idem, “Again Not Q: Luke 7:18–35 as an Acts-Orientated Transformation of the Vindication of the Prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22:1–38),” IBS 16 (1994): 2–32; idem, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006). 47

Parallels and Successions: Introduction

81

Luke used parallels to construct a succession narrative. Two types of succession narratives have been proposed: 50 (1) Talbert views Luke-Acts as literature with a purely Hellenistic precedent with the Third Gospel as the biography of a founder and Acts as the succession narrative,51 and (2) Brodie suggests that Luke-Acts as a whole is a succession narrative patterned after the Deuteronomic history particularly the Elijah-Elisha narratives.52 In the next three chapters, I aim to show that Luke-Acts should be taken together as a succession narrative with the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha narratives serving as literary precedents. In chs. 5 and 6, an investigation on the relationship of literary parallels and succession narratives in GrecoRoman and Jewish literature will be conducted. Then in light of the conclusions from these two chapters, literary parallels in Luke-Acts and their relationship with the succession from Jesus to the two chief messengers will be examined in ch. 7.

50 In OT studies, the term “succession narrative” has often been used to refer to Israel’s monarchy or to a hypothetical Vorlage of Samuel-Kings (e.g., D. M. Gunn, “Traditional Composition in the ‘Succession Narrative’” VT 26, no. 2 [1976]: 214–29; Willem S. Vorter, “Readings, Readers and the Succession Narrative: An Essay on Reception” ZAW 98, no. 3 [1986]: 351–62; J. W. Wesselius, “Joab’s Death and the Central Theme of the Succession Narrative (1 Samuel ix 1–1 Kings ii),” VT 40, no. 3 [1990]: 336–51; Serge Frolov, “Succession Narrative: A ‘Document’ or a Phantom?” JBL 121, no. 1 [2002]: 81– 104; Jonathan Burnside, “Flight of the Fugitives: Rethinking the Relationship between Biblical Law (Exodus 21:12–14) and the Davidic Succession Narrative (1 Kings 1–2),” JBL 129, no. 3 [2010]: 418–31). 51 Talbert, Patterns, 133. Aletti criticizes O’Toole bold opinion that any effort to understand Luke’s work primarily in terms of its Hellenistic setting is doomed to failure (O’Toole, Unity, 12; Aletti, Quand, 11). 52 Brodie, Bridge, 3.

Chapter 5

Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Greco-Roman Historical Accounts Since Talbert raised the issue of similarity between Luke-Acts and Diogenes’ Lives, it seems that Diogenes’ work is a good starting point for our discussion. A survey of Diogenes’ Lives is enough to show its disparity with Luke-Acts.

Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers Diogenes’ Lives (3rd century AD) contains two lines of philosophic successions, namely, the Ionian and the Italian philosophers. Diogenes Laertius aims to rebuff earlier theories of the origin of philosophies (1.6).1 Herbert S. Long identifies the rubrics into which the biographical materials in Diogenes’ work fall: (1) origin; (2) education, philosophical training, and travels; (3) place in succession or founding of a school; (4) character and temperament illustrated by sayings or anecdotes; (5) important events of his life; (6) anecdotes about his death and epigrams; (7) chronological data; (8) works; (9) doctrines; (10) documents, i.e., testament and letters; (11) other men of the same name; and (12) miscellaneous notes such as lists of followers, jibes in comic or satiric poets, inventions, and political activities.2 Each biographical account of the Ionian and Italian philosophers contains most, if not all, of these elements. Pronouncement stories are used to present the doctrines of the philosophers. 3 Diogenes Laertius’ main focus, however, remains on individual 1 Diogenes cites the various biographical sources in his Lives, e.g., works of Myronianus (1.115; 10.3), Apollodorus (1.60; 2.6; 7.185; 8.90; 9.25, 61; 10.13, 14), Sotion (2.12, 75; 5.86; 8.86), Satyrus (2.12), Hermippus (2.13), Alexander (2.19, 116; 3.4; 4.62; 7.179; 8.24; 9.61), Antisthenes (2.39, 98; 6.77; 9.6, 27, 35), Diocles (2.54, 82), Antigonus of Carystusand Sosicrates (6.80; 8.8). 2 Herbert S. Long, “Introduction,” in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Books 1–5 (trans. R. D. Hicks; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), xxi–xxii. 3 Paula Nassen Poulos identifies six types of pronouncement stories: inquiries, quests, objections, corrections, commendations, and descriptions. She suggests that these stories

84

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

teachers and their successors. The concept of succession in Diogenes focused on the successors’ adherence to a philosophical idea or his assuming the leadership of a philosophical school. Succession is presented by listing names of successors (e.g., 1.13–14) or by direct statements of successions (e.g., 4.1, 21, 59; 5.2, 58, 65; 6.2, 82; 7.168). There is also a particular focus on the heads of philosophic schools (e.g., Speusippus to Clitomachus in book 4; Aristotle and the Peripatetics in book 5). Allen Brent describes Diogenes’ work: In his Successions of the Philosophers, Diogenes Laertius writing in an existing tradition of historiography that charts the inter-relationships between systems of philosophical thought in terms of relations between persons rather than abstract ideas…Thus the notion of διαδοχή is fundamental as a description of how one named individual succeeds another head of a school, and how a philosophical system itself grows. 4

“Parallel,” using Diogenes’ work as basis for definition, is a collection of biographical accounts. Although the lives of the philosophers are interconnected, each Life is an independent literary unit. Talbert’s attempt to associate Diogenes’ succession narratives and the parallel arrangements of his accounts raises the question of the purpose of such literary features in Greco-Roman narratives and whether such features are used to present succession. Three other writings exhibit similar form, namely, Nepos, Plutarch, and Suetonius.

Parallels without Successions With the assumption that Luke had been educated with the προγυμνάσματα, hence familiar with the basic rhetorical technique of σύγκρισις, Clark sees the relevance of analyzing the “parallels” in Luke-Acts in connection with the “parallels” in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives (late 1st to early 2nd century AD), wherein a Roman figure is juxtaposed with a Greek counterpart for the purpose of comparison.5 A survey of Plutarch’s work warrants a look into the works that exhibit similar structure, namely, Cornelius Nepos (De Viris Illustribus, 1st century BC) and Suetonius (Lives of the Twelve Cae-

are the means by which the philosopher’s teachings were delineated (“Form and Function of the Pronouncement Sayings in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives,” Semeia 20 [1981]: 62). See also Paula J. Nassen, “A Typology of Pronouncement Stories in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of Diogenes Laertius,” SBLSP 17 (1978): 273–84. 4 Allen Brent, “Diogenes Laertius and the Apostolic Succession,” JEH 44, no. 3 (1993): 372. 5 Clark, Parallel, 97–101.

Chapter 5: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

85

sars, 2nd century AD).6 Our main concern is to understand the purpose of using “parallels” in these writings. Nepos’ collection of biographies is described as one that “embrace[s] a wide span of history in a relatively short space.”7 He consistently provides evaluative comments about these illustrious men from the past, e.g., Miltiades’ tyranny caused his downfall (Milt. 8), Themistocles remained honorable despite being ostracized by his own countrymen (Them. 8), Aristides’ death as a poor man attested to his integrity (Arist. 3), and Pausanias’ death was considered as consequence of his covetousness for power (Paus. 1). McCarthy enumerates some of the features of Nepos’ works, including the comparative element in Nepos’ biographies.8 Nepos’ statement hints at his main purpose for writing: “But it is time for us to put an end to this book and give an account of the Roman generals, to make it possible by comparing their deeds with those of the foreigners to judge which heroes ought to be given higher rank” (Han. 13.4). Lord describes Nepos’ work which compares the ancient Greeks with his Roman contemporaries: He laments that Roman commanders of his own time do not display the modesty of Agesilaus (Ages. 4); the license of the soldiers of Alexander is exactly like that of the Roman soldiers of the civil war (Eum. 8); the soldiers of Macedon enjoyed the same reputation that now belongs to the Roman legions (Eum. 3); the soldiers of Iphicrates are compared to those of Q. Fabius Maximus, and we are told that in the good old times of Scipio justice and not money ruled the state (Cat. 2).9

Apparently, Nepos’ aim is to show the glory of days past and the superiority of the Greeks over the Romans. A similar tendency is observable in Plutarch’s Lives which includes a series of “parallel lives” (βίοι παραλλήλοι) with eighteen of the twenty-two pairs concluding with a synkrisis (σύγκρισις), that is, a comparison between a Greek figure with a Roman equivalent.10 Bernadotte Perrin notes that the comparison is “often fanciful 6

The pattern of Plutarch’s work is likely structured after that of Cornelius Nepos (Louis E. Lord, “The Biographical Interest of Nepos,” CJ 22, no. 27 [1927]: 499). 7 A. C. Dionisotti, “Nepos and the Generals,” JRS 78 (1988): 35. See also Thomas G. McCarthy, “The Content of Cornelius Nepos’ ‘De viris illustribus,’” CW 67 no. 6 (1974): 386. 8 McCarthy, “Content,” 385. 9 Lord, “Nepos,” 502. 10 Plutarch’s series of comparative essays also exhibits the same purpose (e.g., Comparationis Aristophanes et Menandri compendium, etc.). Even the works attributed to Plutarch but now considered pseudepigraphic (e.g., Lives of Ten Orators and Greek and Roman Parallel Stories) exhibit comparative and evaluative tendencies. In the case of Luke-Acts, although there are parallels which may be used for comparative purposes (e.g., Peter-Paul), there are others that do not seem to have this purpose (e.g., Jesus-Peter, Jesus-Paul). This suggests that Luke had other reasons for the use of this literary technique. One has to agree with Aletti’s claim, “…la synkrisis permet de balayer les deux

86

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

and forced, abounds in contrasts rather than resemblances, and is seldom of any historical value, although it often has great library charm.”11 Timothy E. Duff states that the use of σύγκρισις as part of conducting evaluations is a “means of moral characterization” accomplished through the use of contrasts.12 He reiterates, “By putting together two figures from two different backgrounds and two different periods, Plutarch is able to focus attention on the moral issues which their Lives raise rather than simply on the historical details of each Life.”13 Aside from the moral aspect of the comparison, the juxtaposition of a Greek individual with his Roman equivalent has political and cultural implications as well. Duff sums it: The synkritik structure makes more obvious this appropriation of Roman history: each Roman subject is judged and analysed according to the standards and themes set out in the Greek Life which preceded it. In this sense, the order in which the two Lives of a pair are usually placed has cultural significance: the Greek Life establishes the evaluative norms against which the Roman must stand. The moral categories applied to both Roman and Greek figures are unmistakably Greek: Romans are assessed on Greek criteria, and figures from Roman history re-used as exampla of Greek moral and political imperatives…The effect of this use of a Greek lens through which to project his Romans is both at times to misrepresent the motives of Roman statesman and the workings of Roman politics, and to suggest – albeit subtly – the universality of Greek cultural and political models.14

As for Suetonius, his concern is more evaluative than comparative. K. R. Bradley enumerates the range of topics Suetonius discussed in his Lives of the Caesars (early 2nd century AD), including the emperors’ appearance, demeanor, character, wars they fought, offices they held, administration of the empire, private lives, and inner nature. He further notes that in Suetonius’ evaluation of the emperors, “it is as if Suetonius had in his mind as he composed The Lives of the Caesars a fixed image of how a Roman emperor, any Roman emperor, ought to behave, and that he set out to measure the evidence he found for his subjects’ lives and reigns against this ideal standard of comportment.”15 Also, Suetonius’ arrangement of his materials was not quite the same as Plutarch and Nepos. Considering that Suetonius volets de l’oeuvre, et force le lecteur à s’interroger sur sa ou sur ses diverses fonctions” (Quand, 75). 11 Plutarch, Parallel Lives (vol. 1; trans. Bernadotte Perrin; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914), xiv. 12 Timothy E. Duff, Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 243. 13 Duff, Exploring, 287. 14 Duff, Exploring, 302. For a summary of the complexity of Plutarch’s synkrisis, see the chapter entitled “The Politics of Parallelism” (287–309). 15 K. R. Bradley, “Introduction,” in Suetonius, Lives of Caesar, Books 1–4 (trans. John C. Rolfe; LCL; Cambridge: Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 17–18.

Chapter 5: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

87

produced a work that lines up the lives of one imperial successor after another, one might expect some hints about his thoughts concerning the succession of emperors, but it seems that in Suetonius’ Lives, each life is designed to be an independent literary unit and he shows little interest in delving into the topic of succession. Although the idea of succession is implied, it is not elaborated and the legitimacy of the successors to assume the throne is based primarily on the pedigree of the emperor or the extent of illustriousness of the emperor’s ancestry. In summary, discussion of the works of Cornelius Nepos, Plutarch, and Suetonius for our purposes seems to be disproportionate to the importance of their works. However, two things become clear. First, considering the arrangement of materials in Nepos and Plutarch, “parallels” can be considered as the juxtaposition of two or more Lives of individuals whose deeds or roles are comparable with each other. Second, the purpose of this parallel arrangement is either Synkritik (i.e., comparison of two figures) as it is Nepos and Plutarch or evaluative (i.e., a test of whether a person meets certain standards) as it is in Suetonius. Although Suetonius implies the idea of succession, the legitimacy of the successors is not based on their replication of the deeds of their predecessors but on their pedigree.

Successions without Parallels Greco-Roman writing includes a wide variety of succession types. Talbert lists references from Greco-Roman writings concerning the succession of kings, philosophers, jurists, magi, rhetoricians, temple wardens, priests, admirals, and generals.16 He also notes that the language of “passing on” and “receiving” varied widely because of the diversity of what was bequeathed, such as (1) a kingdom (e.g., Diodorus 11.66.4; 18.1.6; 30.9.2; Alexander Polyhistor [in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.31–33]; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.53.4; Athenagoras, Leg. 37.2), (2) rule/authority/leadership (Dio Chrysostom, Troj. 11.124.6; Diodorus 15.60.4; 18.2.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.34.3; Cassius Dio 41.48.1; 44.34.5; 49.17.6; 53.31.3), (3) succession/ διαδοχή (Aristotle, Soph. elench. 34.30–31 §183b; Plutarch, Exil. 14), (4) school (Diogenes 5.62, 68; 7.37; Iamblichus, Vit. Pyth. 36; Plutarch, Vit. X orat. 850C; Lucian, Alex. 5), (5) disciples (Pomponius Sextus, Ench. [in Justinian, Dig. 1.2.40]), (6) instruction (Cicero, Nat. d. 1.10.25–26), (7)

16

Talbert, Reading, 19–20. The same article is found in Charles H. Talbert and Perry L. Stepp, “Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity, Part 1: The Lukan Milieu,” and “Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity, Part 2: Luke-Acts,” SBLSP 37 (2 vols.; 1998): 1:148–68, 169–79.

88

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

oracle shrine (Lucian, Alex. 60), and (8) βίος/vita (Tacitus, Ann. 15.62; Diogenes 9.110).17 He examines the succession stories of Alexander the Great (Diodorus 17.1–118; Lucian, Alex. 60), Tiberius (Josephus, J.W. 18.6.9–10 §211–37), Stoic philosophers (Philodemus, Σύνταξις τῶν φιλοσόφων preserved in Herculaneum papyri), various philosophers (Socrates, Aristippus, Plato, Zeno, Pythagoras, and Epicurus in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives; Aulus Gellius, Noct. att. 13.5), Pythagoras (Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica), and the study of the law (Pomponius Sextus, Enchiridion [in Justinian’s Dig. 1.2.2.1–53]). Talbert finds three main components found in these succession stories: (1) naming what is to be passed on, (2) giving the symbolic acts that accompany the succession, and (3) confirming that the succession has taken place.18 He also proposes that the same components are found in both Jewish and early Christian writings.19 Perry L. Stepp explores the different functions of succession in GrecoRoman writings, and finds that the most dominant include the following: 20 (1) continuity of possessions (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 3.53; Aristotle, Pol. 1293a.13–30); (2) continuity of character/behavior (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 5.90–92; Plato, Leg. 6.769c; Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 28.1–4; Pol. 1293a.13–30; Diodorus 15.93.1; Strabo, Geogr. 11.13.9; Pausanias, Descr. 7.12; Dio Chrysostom, 2 Fort. 64.20–22; Cassius Dio 53); (3) continuity of “effect,” that is, people under the successors enjoy the same benefits they received while under the predecessors (e.g., Plato, Leg. 6.769c; Aristotle, Pol. 1293a.13–30; Diodorus 15.8–11; Livy 23.27.9–12; Dio Chrysostom, 2 Fort. 64.20–22; Cassius Dio 53); (4) realization of effect, that is, people enjoy certain benefits under the successors as a result of the works done by the predecessors (e.g., Aristotle, Ath. pol. 28.1–4; Diodorus 17–18; Strabo, Geogr. 13.1.3; Tacitus, Ann. 15.62); and (5) continuity of institutional vitality (e.g., Diogenes 4.67; 9.115; 10.9; Iamblichus, Vit. Pyth. 36). Despite having an observable pattern, the successors’ repetition of their predecessors’ acts is not the basis for presenting the legitimacy of succession in Greco-Roman writings.21 In Diodorus’ account of the succession of the kings of Egypt (1.42.1–68.6), for instance, he claims that he records 17

Talbert, Reading, 24–26. Talbert, Reading, 39. 19 Talbert, Reading, 36, 41. 20 Perry L. Stepp, Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle (NTM 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005), 15–59. He provides a tabulated summary of his investigation at the end of his chapter on “The Ancient Understanding of Succession, Part 1: Background and Graeco-Roman Texts.” 21 In the biblical accounts of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha successions, the legitimacy of the successions was confirmed through the successors’ repetition of the acts of their predecessors. This will be discussed further in the next chapter. 18

Chapter 5: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

89

only those that are “worthy of record” (1.45.3). Hence, out of the fifty-two successors of Menas, only accounts of kings known for their piety (e.g., Menas [1.45.1–3], Bocchoris [1.65.1–8]) or tyranny (e.g., Amasis [1.60.1– 10]), their constructions (e.g., Busiris [1.45.4–6], Uchoreus [1.50.3–7], Mendes [1.61.1–3], Chemnis [1.62.2–8], Cephren [1.64.1–6]), wealth (e.g., Remphis [1.62.5–6]), and military accomplishments (e.g., Sesoösis [1.53.5–10], Psammetichus [1.67.1–7], Apries [1.68.1–6]) are told. Also, in his account of Alexander’s accession, the great king is not presented as a legitimate successor for repeating the works of Philip of Macedon. Diodorus even claims that Alexander’s achievements surpassed those of the other kings (17.1.1–2). Likewise, in Appian’s accounts of the succession of kings after Aeneas, he shows no interest in presenting the successors as those who replicate the deeds of their predecessors (Hist. rom. 2.1–13; see also Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.73.1–5). Even in the more detailed accounts in Dionysius’ Roman Antiquities, the successors’ replication of the predecessors’ work is not a way to ascertain the legitimacy of succession. Succession is primarily based on kinship (e.g., Latinus to his son-in-law Aeneas [1.64.3]; Aeneas to his son Ascanius [1.65.1]; and Ascanius to his brother Silvius [1.70.1]). The same can be observed among the Latin writers. Florus recounts the succession of Roman kings from Romulus to Augustus in his Epitome of Roman History, but his expressed purpose is to show how the Roman people, if considered as a single individual, grew from infancy to adulthood (1.1.4). Hence he divides history into several epochs: (1) infancy – the four hundred year period of the seven kings from Romulus to Superbus, characterized by struggle against their neighbors; (2) youth – the one hundred and fifty year period of extreme activity and subjugation to Italy from the consulship of Brutus and Collatinus to that of Appius Claudius and Quintus Fulvius; and (3) maturity – the one hundred and fifty year period of peace that climaxed in the reign of Augustus (1.1.5–7). There is no hint that Florus is interested in presenting successors as those who replicate the deeds of their predecessors. Even in Diogenes’ account of philosophic successions, we find no indication that the legitimacy of succession is based on the successors’ replication of his predecessors’ deeds. Diogenes, however, shows that despite having weaknesses, the heads of the philosophic schools show certain qualities that made them worthy successors.22 22 Speusippus was loyal to his teacher’s doctrines despite showing poor character (Lives 4.1). Xenocrates exhibited courage despite being slow and clumsy (4.6, 11). Polemo’s diligence surpassed other scholars despite being a drunkard (4.16). Crates shared Polemo’s pursuits in life (4.21). Crantor was praised for his cleverness (4.27). Arcesilaus showed prudence in making judgments (4.28). Bion had shown great commitment to

90

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

To summarize, the Greco-Roman writings present a host of succession stories that include succession of military, monarchial, sacerdotal, judicial, and other institutional heads. There is also a variety of ways in which these successions are accounted, and these can be classified according to the function of the succession. There is also an observable pattern by which succession stories in the Greco-Roman writings are presented. Despite having a recognizable outline, the Greco-Roman writers that are examined show no intention of presenting successors as those who replicated the works of their predecessors.23 Succession is presented even without juxtaposing the lives of the predecessors and successors.

Summary and Conclusion In this chapter, Talbert’s earlier suggestion that Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers provides a pattern by which Luke-Acts created his work was revisited. Differences between the successions of JesusPeter/Paul in Luke-Acts and the philosophic succession in Diogenes’ Lives were pointed out: (1) the sense of divine appointment, (2) the number of generations in succession, (3) the type of succession, and (4) the sense of mission inculcated in the lives of Jesus’ successors. A brief survey of three “parallel lives” (Nepos, Plutarch, Suetonius) led to two important conclusions: (1) the “parallels” in these biographies are constructed by juxtaposing two or more Lives and (2) the purpose of the “parallel” structure is the comparison and evaluation of these figures. Nepos and Plutarch use parallel structure mainly for the purpose of σύγκρισις, and not for presenting successions. Even Suetonius presents a series of short biographies of Caesars according to their succession, but shows greater interest in evaluating them than in arguing for their rightfulness as successors. In other words, parallels (as series of “lives”) are not always used for presenting successions. Succession stories in the Greco-Roman literature were also surveyed, and it was observed that the legitimacy of the succession is presented through means other than portraying successors as those who replicate the deeds of their predecessors. In other words, successions are presented without the use of parallels.

learn philosophy despite his arrogance (4.47). Lacydes, Carneades, and Clitomachus were praised for being industrious (4.59, 62, 67). 23 The successor’s replication of the predecessor’s acts is a vital element in the succession narratives in Luke-Acts. This will be elaborated in the next chapter. Cf. Talbert, Reading, 49.

Chapter 6

Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Jewish Historical Accounts In the previous chapter, a type of parallel was discussed, namely, “parallel” as a collection of lives. A similar form of parallel is seen in the Lives of the Prophets among the Jewish writings. Other types of parallel can be found in Israel’s Scriptures, particularly in the narratives of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha. This will be the focus of this chapter.

Parallels and Succession in the Moses-Joshua Narratives The first chapter of Joshua begins a new episode in Israel’s history with the transition of leadership from Moses to Joshua. As Joshua assumed the responsibility of the national leader, God promised, “Just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you…” (Josh 1:6).1 The nature of Joshua’s leadership is different from that of Moses. Joshua did not assume the role of a prophet like Moses (Deut 34:9–12). Moses was the lawgiver and iconic prophet, while Joshua was the military commander. Nevertheless, as the new national leader, the same divine agent (i.e., God’s spirit) who was at work through Moses was also at work through him (Num 27:18; cf. Deut 34:9). This leadership transition prepared the Israelites for Moses’ departure and the shift of their allegiance to the new leader. Despite their dissimilar roles, they shared the common task of bringing the Israelites from Egypt into the land of Canaan. The nature of succession from Moses to Joshua is task-specific.2 This is made clear in God’s com1 Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger argues that by portraying Joshua as the “ideal successor,” the historian presents the legitimacy of Joshua’s leadership over the nation (“‘Josua’ und ‘Elischa’ – eine biblische Argumentation zur Begründung der Autorität und legitimat des Nachfolgers,” ZAW 101, no. 2 [1989]: 206–10). 2 Roy Porter notes the similarities between Joshua’s installation and that of Israel’s kings (particularly Solomon) and concludes that Joshua’s installation is presented in the royal pattern and that Joshua was installed into the office of Moses (“The Succession of Joshua,” in Proclamation and Presence [ed. Gwynne Henton Davies; London: SCM, 1970], 103–34). It is unclear, however, what he meant by the “office of Moses.” What is conspicuous is that Moses was called with a clear task (i.e., to bring Israel out of Egypt

92

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

mand to Joshua (Josh 1:6b) – the command that would bring to fruition God’s purpose for calling Moses (cf. Exod 6:8). The Moses-Joshua succession is not about one person passing on an official duty (e.g., prophet, priest, king) to another person of the same vocation. There are a number of episodes in the book of Joshua which, when juxtaposed with episodes from Exodus to Deuteronomy, show significant similarities between the two leaders. At times, Joshua is presented as one who replicated the works of Moses; in other instances, he continued or completed his predecessor’s work. These indicate the succession from one human agent to another in order that God’s purpose of bringing Israel to the Promised Land might be brought to completion.3 Parallel Episodes Three episodes in Joshua are reminiscent of Moses’ stories within Exodus to Deuteronomy: the sending of spies (Josh 2:1–24), the crossing of the Jordan River (3:1–17), and the conquest of Ai (8:1–35). These parallels present Joshua as the Moses-like leader who would bring to realization God’s promise to bring the Israelites to Canaan. First, Joshua’s espionage episode illustrates how Joshua, as Moses’ successor, completed the task of his predecessor.4 The espionage episode in Josh 2 is not the first instance in which Israelite spies were sent to the land to gather information in preparation for their entry to Canaan. The response of the people to the spies’ report four decades earlier delayed Israel’s entry into the land (Num 14:20–23). Had their response been one of belief, the first attempt to send spies might have been the last. The fortyyear digression was brought to a halt and a new generation of Israelites was preparing to enter the land once again; Joshua was already in the place of his predecessor to continue what was left undone.

to the Promised Land [Exod 3:7–9]), and Joshua took over this uncompleted task after Moses’ death (Josh 1:1–2; cf. Num 20:12). 3 The succession from Moses to Joshua is not only expressed explicitly (e.g., Deut 31:23–30); rather, comparable episodes in the narratives involving them also point to the succession (David Daube, The Exodus Pattern in the Bible [London: Faber and Faber, 1963], 11; Jan Wagenaar, “Crossing of the Sea of Reeds (Exod 13–14) and the Jordan (Josh 3–4): A Priestly Framework for the Wilderness Wandering,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus [ed. Marc Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996], 461–70; Sarah Lebner Hall, Conquering Character: The Characterization of Joshua in Joshua 1–11 [LHB/OTS 512; London: T. & T. Clark, 2010], 54–59). 4 Moses’ sending of spies (Num 13) serves as the backdrop for Joshua’s action (Josh 2). Hall suggests, “Parallels between Joshua’s leadership and that of Moses are common in the book of Joshua. They emphasize the legitimacy of Joshua’s leadership and the continuity between Yahweh’s work in the exodus and conquest” (Conquering, 33).

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

93

The two espionage episodes (Num 13 and Josh 2) contrast on many details. These differences, however, are more complementary than incongruous (see Chart 6A). Moses sent the spies at God’s command (Num 13:1),5 but Joshua took the initiative to send the spies in Josh 2:1. Joshua’s initiative could be evidence of his experience as part of the military intelligence four decades earlier or proof that he is indeed the successor who “was filled with the spirit of wisdom” (Deut 34:9). The historian’s choice to record the account in Josh 2 indicates his attempt to take the account of Israel’s successful entry into the Promised Land under Joshua as a continuation of their failed attempt that resulted in the forty-year digression of their history. Israel’s failure (Num 13) resulted from their unbelief instigated by the spies; recovery took place by another attempt to send spies in Josh 2.6 Chart 6A: Espionage Episodes in Numbers and Joshua Moses (Num 13–14)

Joshua (Josh 1–2)

Initiated by God (13:1)

Initiated by Joshua (1:1)

Twelve spies sent (13:2–3); only two were reliable

Two spies sent (1:1); both were reliable

Spies named; leaders of their tribes (13:4– 15)

Spies unnamed

Detailed instructions given (13:17–20)

No instructions given

Spies went as far as Ρααβ/‫( ְר ֹח ב‬13:21)

Spies went to the house of Ρααβ/ ‫ָר ָח ב‬ (2:3)

Joshua and Caleb exhorted the twelve tribes not to rebel against God (14:6–9)

The two-and-a-half Transjordanian tribes promised not to rebel against God (1:18)

5

In Philo’s rewriting of Num 13, Moses is portrayed as the military tactician who thought of sending spies (De Vita Mosis 1.220–21; cf. Josephus’ Ant. 3.302). Louis H. Feldman proposes that this is evidence of Philo’s attempt to build up Moses’ stature as a military planner to highlight his quality as a leader (“Philo’s Version of the Biblical Episodes of the Spies,” HUCA 73 [2002]: 29–48). This may be the Deuteronomic historian’s reason for giving Joshua the credit for taking the initiative for sending the spies. Regardless of the reason, Joshua’s action clearly recalls not only the earlier espionage episode (Num 13), but also places him as the new Moses who continued his predecessor’s unfinished task. 6 Joshua’s initiative to send spies need not be understood as a sign of his lack of faith, as Yair Zakovitch proposes (“Humor and Theology, or The Successful Failure of Israelite Intelligence: A Literary-Folkloristic Approach to Joshua 2,” in Text and Tradition: the Hebrew Bible and Folklore [ed. Susan Niditch; SemeiaSt; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990], 80–81, 86, 94–95), but as an “imitation of Mosaic precedent” (Bernard P. Robinson, “Rahab of Canaan – and Israel,” SJOT 23, no. 2 [2009]: 262).

94

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

A possible word play could have been intended; Moses’ spies reached as far as Rehob (Ρααβ/‫[ ְר חֹ ב‬Num 13:21]) and Joshua’s spies went to the house of Rahab (Ρααβ/‫[ ָר חָ ב‬Josh 2:1]). 7 The pun may be taken as a demonstration of the historian’s ability to take advantage of the circumstantial details within two accounts to further strengthen the link between the two episodes. There are other details that set the contrast between the two accounts. For instance, the scope of the spies’ work in Num 13 is larger than that in Josh 2, and this may explain the decrease in the number of spies Joshua sent for the task. Moreover, prominent individuals were chosen in Num 13:4–15, whereas the spies in Joshua were unnamed. Detailed instruction was provided in Num 13:17–20, yet none was given in Josh 2. Perhaps a more significant contrast concerns the responses of the Israelites in the two stories. In Joshua, the two-and-a-half tribes renewed their promise to join the other nine-and-a-half in their expedition against the Canaanites (Josh 1:12–17; cf. Deut 32). This renewed promise included a solemn vow that whoever rebels will be executed (Josh 1:18) – a reversal of the incident in Num 14:6–10 wherein the Israelites rebelled despite Moses’ exhortations.8 Aside from the similar activities (espionage) and the possible word play (Rehob-Rahab) that unite the two episodes, even the contrasting details may be taken as complementary. This is because they accentuate the Moses-Joshua succession by pointing to Joshua as the successor who continued the task that could have been completed under his predecessor’s leadership but was delayed because of the earlier generation’s unbelief.9 Second, the crossing of the Jordan, which illustrates Joshua’s replication of Moses’ miracle, also reinforces the Moses-Joshua succession. 10 This replication is evidence of God’s affirmation best summarized in 7

The inclusive nature of divine salvation as it is implied in Rahab’s account is also noteworthy because Luke shares the same outlook (e.g., Ethiopian eunuch [Acts 8] and Cornelius [Acts 10]). Divine grace and sovereignty is manifest in the story as the female Canaanite prostitute was brought into God’s covenant people (Aaron Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading and a Prostitute’s Profession: A Re-examination of Joshua 2,” JSOT 31, no. 1 [2006]: 60–61). Moreover, Rahab’s story may have influenced Luke’s inclusion of the story of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36–50), as Frédéric Manns suggests (“Luc 7,47 et les traditions juives sur Rahab,” RevScRel 61, nos. 1–2 [1987]: 1–16). 8 Hall notes the shared vocabulary between Num 13 and Josh 2 (Conquering, 30). In the HB, the spies’ report about the inhabitants of Jericho whose hearts were “melting” turned the events around for the Israelites whose hearts “melted” at the thought of the dangerous task ahead (Josh 2:9, 11, 24; cf. Deut 1:28). 9 The number of spies that Joshua sent is the same as the number of faithful spies in Num 13 episode, and perhaps a reflection of his hope that they would be faithful (Hall, Conquering, 30). 10 Daube observes that the “account of Joshua’s crossing of the Jordan is full of elements designed to recall the crossing of the Red Sea under Moses” (Pattern, 11).

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

95

God’s words to Joshua, “This day I will begin to exalt you in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you” (Josh 3:7). Just as the predecessor led the people out of their place of origin by dividing the waters, the successor would lead the people into their destination by dividing the waters. However, the act by which the dry path through the Jordan was created differs from that in the account of the parting of the Red Sea.11 God required the priests carrying the ark to take the first step through Jordan (Josh 3:8), while Moses’ upraised hand was enough to produce a trail between heaps of water (Exod 14:16, 21). Despite the observable disparity, a connection can be established between them. The uplifted arms of Moses comprised a symbolic act of intercession that brings victory for the Israelites (17:11–12), and so was the marching of the priests who carried the ark (Josh 6:6–11).12 It is plausible, therefore, to assume that the historian is setting up the battle account that is to follow by recording the acts of the marching priests in Josh 3. This is similar to the way the audience was prepared for the battle account in Exod 17 (cf. Moses’ act of raising his arms [Exod 14]). Many details in Josh 3–5 are also similar to those in Exod 14–16 that stress the succession. The Israelites were consecrated before they witnessed “the wonders of God” and crossed the Jordan (Josh 3:5), just like all the firstborn males were consecrated before they left Egypt to witness “the powerful hand of the Lord” (Exod 13:1–2, 9). In both episodes, the historian recounts the incidents wherein the waters stood in heaps (Josh 3:13, 16; cf. Exod 15:8). The two events are described as evidence of God’s powerful hand (Josh 4:23–24; cf. Exod 13:3, 9); and both sent a message to non-Israelites concerning the power of the God of Israel (Josh 4:23–24; cf. Exod 14:4, 18). The historian’s attempt to juxtapose these two leaders is evident in the kind of details he included in Josh 3–5 (see Chart 6B).13 These details include period of time, precise dates, specific items, and other minute details that are combined to create an unbroken linkage between the Moses and Joshua sagas. These details suggest that Joshua was the one who finished what Moses started. The Israelites dwelled near the Jordan three days before they crossed the river (Josh 3:1). The “three-day period” recalls the length of their fathers’ stay in the wilderness immediately after they 11 Despite the differences between these two episodes, the similarities are remarkable and they point to the succession of Joshua (Hall, Conquering, 54–59). 12 George W. Coats observes that the ark of the covenant is used as a symbol of Joshua’s leadership in the same way that Moses’ staff is used to symbolize his authority (“The Ark of the Covenant in Joshua: A Probe into the History of Tradition,” HAR 9 [1985]: 137–57). 13 See also Wagenaar, “Crossing of the Sea of Reeds,” 461–70.

96

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

crossed the Red Sea (Exod 15:22). The Israelites’ temporary camp near the Jordan became a time of consecration prior to their crossing, in contrast with the grumblings of the earlier generation (Josh 3:5; cf. Exod 15:22–27). Moreover, their arrival date on the other side of Jordan, the tenth day of the first month, marks the fortieth anniversary since their fathers first celebrated the Passover in preparation for their departure from Egypt (Josh 4:19; cf. Exod 12:3).14 The episodes in Exod 15–16 also explain the origin of the provision of manna that ceased immediately after the new generation crossed the Jordan (Josh 5:12; cf. Exod 16:4, 31). Whether through obvious or subtle parallels, the historian’s aim is to present Joshua as the new Moses by portraying Joshua as one who replicates his predecessor’s work. Moreover, similar details in these accounts emphasize the continuity of their task, that is, Joshua as the successor who completed the task his predecessor left unfinished. Chart 6B: Crossing the Water in Exodus and Joshua Moses (Exod 13–16)

Joshua (Josh 3–5)

Dwelled in the wilderness three days after crossing the Red Sea (15:22)

Dwelled near the river three days before crossing the Jordan (3:1)

Consecration of the firstborn before they left Egypt (13:1)

Consecration of the Israelites before they entered the Promised Land (3:5)

Raising of arms – symbol of intercession during war; water divided (14:16, 21; cf. 17:8–16)

Ark of the covenant – symbol of intercession during war; water divided (3:13)

Waters stood in heaps (15:8)

Waters stood in heaps (3:13, 16)

Tenth day of the first month, celebrated Passover before crossing the sea (12:3)

Tenth day of the first month, arrived on the other side of the river (4:19)

Purpose: to let the Egyptians know that the LORD is God (14:4, 18)

Purpose: to let all the earth know that the hand of the LORD is mighty (4:23– 24)

The powerful hand of the Lord witnessed (13:2–3)

The powerful hand of the Lord witnessed (4:24)

Manna provision began (16:4, 31)

Manna provision ended (5:12)

Third, the battle at Ai puts Joshua in the place of Moses as the nation’s intercessor during war. Once again, the historian uses the technique of repetition to highlight Joshua’s replication and completion of Moses’ task (see Chart 6C). Joshua 8 is reminiscent of two episodes about Moses, the IsraelAmalek war (Exod 17:8–16) and Moses’ instruction to review the covenant 14

Cf. Hall, Conquering, 71.

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

97

stipulations (Deut 27–28). Moses initiated the raising of his staff in Exod 17, the same act that resulted in the parting of the Red Sea (Exod 14:16). Joshua raised his javelin in response to God’s instruction to seal their victory against Ai (Josh 8:18).15 God’s command to raise his javelin may suggest divine affirmation and that the successor did not volunteer to imitate his predecessor. Moreover, although the objects raised are different, the objectives for the acts are the same, namely, to intercede for Israel in the midst of battle. Through God’s instruction to Joshua to repeat his predecessors’ action, Joshua was presented as the new intercessor for Israel. The upraised arms of Moses and Joshua secured their victory against Amalek and Ai (Exod 17:12; Josh 8:26). Chart 6C: Israel-Ai War and the Review of the Covenant Stipulation Moses (Exod 17; Deut 27–28)

Joshua (Josh 8)

Moses raised staff (Exod 17:9)

Joshua raised javelin (8:18)

Moses initiated the action

Joshua responded to God’s command

Moses kept his arms raised until they had complete victory (17:12)

Joshua kept his arm raised until they had complete victory (8:26)

Moses’ instruction about the altar to be built on Mt. Ebal (Deut 27:1–8)

Joshua fulfilled Moses’ instruction to build the altar on Mt. Ebal (8:30–32)

Moses’ instruction about the reading the covenant stipulations at Ebal and Gerizim (27:11–28:68)

Joshua fulfilled Moses’ instruction to read the covenant stipulations at Ebal and Gerizim (8:30–35)

Moses wrote the Law (27:3, 8)

Joshua copied the Law (8:32)

Joshua’s role as the spiritual leader of Israel is stressed further as the historian weaves together the episode of the battle and the review of the covenant stipulations in Josh 8. Moses’ instructions in Deut 27–28 were accomplished in the second half of Josh 8 with the construction of the altar according to Moses’ specifications (Josh 8:30–32; cf. Deut 27:1–8), the 15 Christopher T. Begg observes how Josephus emphasizes the stature and authority of Joshua in his rewritten account of the battle at Ai. He also observes Josephus’ tendency to diminish the divine role by excluding the javelin account (“The Ai-Achan Story [Joshua 7–8] According to Josephus,” Jian Dao 16 [2001]: 1–20). The Deuteronomic historian is inconsistent in his portrayal of Moses and Joshua. Moses sent spies at God’s command (Num 13:1) and Joshua took the initiative to repeat the act (Josh 2:1); Moses took the initiative to raise his staff (Exod 17:9) and Joshua raised his javelin at God’s command (Josh 8:18). This may suggest that his primary concern is not to emphasize the place of these leaders in history, but to relate what God did through them. God’s command to Joshua in Josh 8:18, however, can be seen as an indirect affirmation of the successor putting him in the place of his predecessor as the new intercessor of the nation.

98

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

copying of the Law (Josh 8:32; cf. Deut 27:3, 8), and the reading of the blessings and curses before the Israelites (Josh 8:30–35; cf. Deut 27:11– 28:68). Josh 8 betrays the historian’s literary skill as he combines the elements from two Moses episodes in order to present Joshua as the new spiritual leader who not only interceded on Israel’s behalf during battle, but also led the people in worship. In summary, the historian portrays Joshua as the successor of Moses through the use of parallels as a literary device. Three sets of episodic parallels discussed above contain Joshua’s replication of Moses’ act. The use of identical elements such as time periods, dates, and identical or similar objects further strengthens the link between the episodes concerning Moses and Joshua. Even in cases where there are obvious differences, subtle links or complementary details are observable. The use of such features highlights the Moses-Joshua succession, wherein the successor was presented as one who had replicated, continued, and completed the task of his predecessor. Chart 6D: Moses-Joshua Circumstantial Parallels Moses

Joshua

Twelve men, one from each tribe sent as spies (Num 13:2)

Twelve men, one from each tribe set up memorial stones (Josh 3:12; 4:3)

Celebrated Passover before crossing Red Sea (Exod 12)

Celebrated Passover after crossing Jordan (5:10)

Sandals removed on holy ground (3:5)

Sandals removed on holy ground (5:15)

Moses interceded for Israel (32:11–14; Num 21:7)

Joshua interceded for Israel (7:6–9)

Moses began apportioning the land to the Israelites (32:28–42; cf. Josh 13:8–32)

Joshua “finished” apportioning the land to the Israelites (Josh 15–19)

Special request concerning the distribution of land: Zelophehad’s daughter (Num 27:1–15; cf. 36:1–13)

Special request concerning the distribution of land: Caleb (Josh 14; cf. Num 14:24)

One man per tribe were sent as spies (13:2)

Three men per tribe were sent as surveyors (Josh 18:2–7)

Cities of refuge planned (35:6–34)

Cities of refuge apportioned (Josh 20)

Cities for Levites planned (35:1–5)

Cities for Levites apportioned (Josh 21)

Parallel Incidents A number of incidents in Joshua’s narrative also recall those in Moses’ narrative. These are incidents wherein what Joshua did, said, or a situation he was in point back to similar or related incidents involving Moses (see

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

99

Chart 6D). These circumstantial parallels have features similar to those of episodic parallels, namely, replications, continuations, and completions. These parallels include instances wherein Joshua repeated the actions of Moses. Both leaders were instructed to send a representative per tribe to accomplish a task.16 They were both ordered to remove their sandals because they stood on “holy ground” (Josh 5:15; cf. Exod 3:5).17 Moses led the celebration prior to the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod 12) and Joshua did the same subsequent to the crossing of the Jordan (Josh 5:10).18 Joshua interceded for Israel after the Achan incident (Josh 7:6–9); his prayer was reminiscent of Moses’ intercession for Israel (Exod 32:11–14).19 Both Moses and Joshua received a request concerning the distribution of land; the daughters of Zelophehad requested of Moses a portion of their tribe’s inheritance (Num 27:1–15; cf. 36:1–13), and Caleb asked Joshua whether he might occupy Hebron (Josh 14; cf. Num 14:24).20 16 Joshua was one of the twelve tribal leaders sent by Moses as spies in response to God’s command to send “one man each tribe” (Num 13:2). A similar order was given to Joshua who sent “one man each tribe” to gather memorial stones from the Jordan (Josh 3:12; 4:3). 17 Blažeh Štrba proposes that this incident should be interpreted as part of Joshua’s commissioning as the successor of Moses (Take off Your Sandals from Your Feet! An Exegetical Study of Josh 5,13–15 [ÖBS 32; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2008]). 18 Marten H. Woudstra observes that the account in Josh 5 does not provide an exhaustive report of their celebration but points to three significant developments: the Passover celebration, the consumption of Canaan’s produce, and the cessation of manna provision (The Book of Joshua [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981], 103). These developments suggest that the interim period from their exodus from Egypt to their entry to Canaan was over, and under the leadership of Joshua, the task his predecessor began was in the process of completion (cf. Jan Wagenaar, “The Cessation of Manna: Editorial Frames for the Wilderness Wandering in Exodus 16,35 and Joshua 5,10–12,” ZAW 112 [2000]: 192–209). 19 Moses’ prayers undoubtedly serve as model for Joshua (Woudstra, Joshua, 125). Perhaps more importantly, Joshua’s imitation of Moses placed him as the new Moses who served as the intercessor for Israel. 20 The episodes relating the request of Zelophehad’s daughters (which was followed by the story of Joshua’s formal commissioning [Num 27:12–23]) and the request of Caleb (and the land grant that followed [Josh 14:6–15]) shared the same counter-cultural stance. L. Daniel Hawk observes the assailment of the connection between land and kinship by relating the stories of Zelophehad’s daughters (Josh 17:3–6) and Caleb’s daughter Achash (Josh 14:6–15). The possession of land by women (Zelophehad’s daughters) and a foreigner (Caleb’s daughter, Achash, married Othniel the Kennizite) undermined the patriarchal structures in Israel (Joshua [BerOl; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000], 192). Aside from presenting a similar stance, the two aforementioned episodes present Joshua as the one who would fulfill Moses’ uncompleted task. Yahweh’s approval of the land grant for Zelophehad’s daughter, which was requested through Moses, was realized through Joshua. Moreover, Joshua became the decision maker who granted Caleb’s request; having a precedent, Achash was allowed to own a portion of the land as

100

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

In other instances, Joshua was shown to continue or complete the tasks Moses planned or had started. The tribes of Reuben, Gad, and a half-tribe of Manasseh were allotted their portions while Moses was still alive (Num 32:28–42; cf. Josh 13:8–32). This apportioning was completed only after Joshua led Israel to cross the Jordan (Josh 15–19). Joshua sent three surveyors per tribe to map out the land before finalizing the land allotment for the remaining tribes. This detailed instruction recalls the sending of the spies (Josh 18:2–7; cf. Num 13:17–20). Moses made provisions for the cities of refuge and the portions for the Levites (Num 35), and Joshua established these cities (Josh 20–21). Farewell Speeches of Moses and Joshua The farewell speeches of Moses and Joshua also include comparable contents.21 The speeches of Moses and Joshua both contain first-person (i.e., Moses or Joshua spoke as if God was speaking) and third-person (i.e., God referred to as “the Lord your God”) references to God. The historian used similar content and verbal parallels to create more links between these addresses and to demonstrate the succession. Joshua had to assume the task of the divinely appointed instructor after his predecessor’s death, and just before his own death, he delivered farewell speeches that significantly resemble that of his predecessor (see Chart 6E). Both their speeches include hints of their impending death (Deut 31:1–2; cf. Josh 23:2, 14), an appeal to things that the Israelites have witnessed (Deut 29:2–4; cf. Josh 23:3), a statement about their accomplishments (Deut 29:5–6; cf. 23:4), a promise of God’s presence (Deut 31:3–6; cf. Josh 23:5), an exhortation to keep the word of the Lord (Deut 29:9–13; cf. Josh 23:6–11), commands to shun idolatry (Deut 29:14–21; cf. Josh 23:12–16), a review of history (Deut 29:7–8; cf. Josh 24:2–13), and a choice to serve the Lord (Deut 30:15–20; cf. Josh 24:14–15). The use of exact phrases in their speeches strengthens the link between the Moses-Joshua episodes (Josh 10:25//Deut 31:6; Josh 23:3//Deut 29:1).22 well (cf. Zafrira Ben-Barak, Inheritance by Daughters in Israel and Ancient Near East: A Social, Legal and Ideological Revolution [Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications, 2006], 210–13). 21 Sabine Bieberstein and Klaus Bieberstein identify the common motifs found in farewell speeches in the OT, including burial instructions, pronouncement of blessings, and exhortations (“Angesichts des Todes das Leben formulieren: Abschiedsworte Sterbender in der biblischen Literatur,” JBT 19 [2004]: 3–47). Although the farewell speeches of Moses and Joshua share the same features with other farewell speeches, the relationship of the speeches of Moses and Joshua is unique because of their unitive function within the Moses-Joshua narratives. 22 William T. Koopmans (Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative [JSOTSup 93; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], 357) enumerates several affinities including the warnings against

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

101

Chart 6E: Parallels in the Farewell Speeches of Moses and Joshua Moses (Deut 29–31)

Joshua (Josh 23–24)

Use first person to refer to God (29:5–6)

Use first person to refer to God (24:3–4)

Use third person to refer to God (e.g., “the LORD your God,” 29:10)

Use third person to refer to God (e.g., “the LORD your God,” 23:3)

Hints of impending death (31:1–2)

Hints of impending death (23:2, 14)

Appeal to things they witnessed (29:2–4)

Appeal to things they witnessed (23:3)

Statement of his accomplishments (29:5–6)

Statement of his accomplishments (23:4)

Promise of God’s presence in entering the Promised Land (31:3–6)

Promise of God’s presence upon entering the Promised Land (23:5)

Exhortation to keep God’s word (29:9–13)

Exhortation to keep God’s word (23:6– 11)

Command to shun idolatry with stern warnings (29:14–21)

Command to shun idolatry with stern warnings (23:12–16)

Review of previous victories (29:7–8)

Review of previous victories (24:2–13)

Choice presented (30:15–20)

Choice presented (24:14–15)

Joshua’s speech not only repeats Moses’ words, it also alludes to earlier commands of Moses. If Joshua’s repetition of Moses’ words puts him as the new instructor of Israel, his allusion to Moses’ commands makes him the one who continues and completes the unfinished tasks of Moses. Joshua’s address to the two-and-a-half Transjordanian tribes shows the same basic contents as Moses’ address to them (Josh 1:12–15; cf. Deut 3:18–22): a reminder of God’s instruction concerning the rest of the tribes, their families and possessions, and the time of their warriors’ return. Moses-Joshua Parallels In summary, the historian used episodic, verbal, and circumstantial parallels to present the succession from Moses to Joshua. God’s instruction to Moses (Exod 17:14; Num 27:18–22; Deut 1:38; 3:28; 31:3, 14), Moses’ words to Joshua (31:7, 23), the historian’s description of Joshua (34:9), God’s promise to Joshua (Josh 1:2–9), and the Israelites’ recognition of his leadership (1:17) are enough to make the point of succession clear. Yet the abandoning Yahweh (Deut 29:23; cf. Josh 24:20), the witness formulae (Deut 29:19, 21, 26; cf. Josh 24:27), the song of Moses (Deut 31:19) which is comparable to the people’s oath (Josh 24:22), the presentation of both leaders as lawgivers (Deut 31:24–29; cf. Josh 24:25–27), and the emphasis on Yahweh’s jealous nature (Deut 32:15–18; cf. Josh 24:19).

102

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

historian utilized parallels to accentuate this point further. The nature of their succession was task-specific. The successor not only replicated the action of his successor, but he brought to completion the unfinished task of his predecessor.

Parallels and Succession in the Elijah-Elisha Narratives The use of parallels to compose a succession narrative is found not only in the narratives involving Moses and Joshua. The same literary device is also utilized in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. Second Kings 2 is the pivotal episode in the Elijah-Elisha narratives;23 the responsibility for carrying out God’s work transitions from Elijah (the predecessor) to Elisha (the successor). 24 Elisha used Elijah’s mantle to perform the same miraculous act. This repetition elicited his colleagues’ affirmation, “The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha” (2:15).25 These words created an expectation that Elisha would, to some degree, repeat the works of his predecessor just as he divided the water of Jordan using Elijah’s mantle. 26 Thus, he is presented as Elijah’s successor who would continue Elijah’s work. This succession is further stressed using literary parallels. Structure of the Elijah-Elisha Narratives Parallels can be observed in the general arrangement of the stories within the narratives concerning Elijah and Elisha (structural parallels). The stories of Elijah and Elisha are placed within the saga of the Omride dynasty. Elijah first appeared when Ahab, the first of the Omrides, ascended to 23

T. Raymond Hobbs, “2 Kings 1 and 2: Their Unity and Purpose,” SR 13, no. 3 (1984): 327–34. 24 R. P. Carroll considers the Elijah-Elisha saga as a narrative of prophetic succession (“The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel,” VT 19 [1963]: 400–15; cf. R. A. Carlson, “Élisée – Le Successeur D’Élie,” VT 20 [1970]: 385–405). 25 Gene Rice suggests that Elisha’s ability to see spiritual realities made him the most qualified as Elijah’s successor (“Elijah’s Requirement for Prophetic Leadership [2 Kings 2:1–18],” JRT 59/60, nos. 1/2 [2006/2007]: 10). Although Elisha assumes the same prophetic office as Elijah, his succession is more than taking the role of “leader among the prophets.” Both share the common task of addressing the idolatrous practices of their days (1 Kgs 18:20–46; cf. 2 Kgs 10:28–29) and both are instrumental in bringing judgment to the house of Ahab (1 Kgs 19:15–18; cf. 2 Kgs 9:27–10:27). 26 Schäfer-Lichtenberger argues that the historian presents Elisha as the “ideal successor” of Elijah in much the same way as he portrayed Joshua as Moses’ “ideal successor.” The historian’s presentation is aimed at legitimizing Elisha’s prophetic leadership (“Josua,” 210–22).

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

103

power and caused Israel to sin against God, inviting judgment against Ahab’s clan. Elisha last appeared when Joram and Athaliah, the last of the Omrides, were thrown out of power and Jehu’s dynasty began, fulfilling God’s judgment against Ahab’s clan. Elijah was instrumental in declaring God’s judgment against Ahab’s house, and Elisha in installing to power the people who would execute this judgment. These point to the unity of the narratives and the completion of the divine acts through his human agents; such acts began with the predecessor but came to fruition through the successor after the predecessor was taken away by God. 27 The general arrangement of the episodes in the two narratives also displays several resemblances (see Chart 6F).28 Elijah’s narrative begins with Omri’s rise to power (1 Kgs 16:25–26a). Not much is said about Omri’s reign and the narrative quickly transitions to Ahab’s ascent to the throne. The historian describes Ahab’s sins as surpassing the evils of his father, and through the influence of Jezebel, Samaria became a center for Baal worship – which all the more provoked God and brought judgment on the house of Ahab (16:32–33). The two prophets were sent specifically for this purpose. Several other prophets are mentioned within the narrative (e.g., Micaiah, the prophets under Obadiah’s protection, and the companions of Elisha), but they did not share the same responsibility given to Elijah and his successor. Elijah’s ministry formally began with a confrontation with Ahab. He spoke about the impending period of drought, during which he went to Zarepath and stayed with a widow and her son. The drought lasted for three years, but the oil and flour supply of the widow did not run out just as Elijah prophesied. While Elijah was staying with them, the widow’s son died and the prophet raised him back to life. The arrangement of the stories in 1 Kgs 17:8–21 and the phrase “after these things” (καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ ταῦτα [17:17]) suggest a chronological sequence.29 However, there is nothing in 2 Kgs 4:1–37 that suggests the same; the sequence of which is more literary than chronological. Moreover, the stories of the Shunammite woman (4:8–37) and the widow’s oil (4:1–7) are mutually independent. Yet the 27 Brodie enumerates four indications of unity within the Elijah-Elisha narratives: (1) it constitutes a succession narrative, (2) it is bound together by prophecy, (3) it has a unique emphasis on healing, and (4) it has a coherent structure (Bridge, 2). 28 Brodie observes the four diptychs for each section of the Elijah-Elisha narratives but did not take into consideration the general flow of the stories in these two halves (Bridge, 10–11). 29 One may focus on the literary/logical sequence of the story (so Robert L. Cohn, “The Literary Logic of 1 Kgs 17–19,” JBL 101, no. 3 [1982]: 333–50). Nonetheless, the impression of chronological arrangement need not be overlooked. Either way, the arrangement of materials in the Elisha section still replicates that in the Elijah portion, and this arrangement painted Elisha as the new Elijah.

104

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

placement of the story of the Shunammite woman immediately after the story of the widow’s oil in 4:1–37 clearly connects these episodes with 1 Kgs 17:8–21. This arrangement shows that Elisha, the successor of Elijah, had duplicated the works of his predecessor.30 Chart 6F: Structural Parallels of the Elijah-Elisha Narratives Elijah (1 Kgs 16:25–2 Kgs 2:25)

Elisha (2 Kgs 3:1–13:25)

Ahab became king; Elijah prophesied before Ahab (1 Kgs 16:25–17:7)

Ahab’s son became king; Elisha prophesied before Ahab’s son (3:1–27)

Widow of Zarepath provided for Elijah; bountiful oil supply; Elijah raised widow’s son to life (17:8–21)

Widow of Shunem provided for Elisha; bountiful oil supply; Elisha raised widow’s son to life (4:1–37)

Famine; Ahab’s attendant fed a hundred prophets (18:1–16)

Famine; Elisha’s attendant fed a hundred prophets (4:38–44)

God of Israel confirmed as the only true God in Elijah’s confrontation with prophets of Baal and Asherah (18:17–46)

God of Israel confirmed as the only true God in the healing of Naaman (5:1– 27)

Queen of Israel pursued Elijah (19:1–21)

King of Aram pursued Elisha (6:1–23)

War between Israel and Aram; Ben-hadad set free (20:1–34)

War between Israel and Aram; Benhadad returned (6:24–7:20)

Land of the Jezreelite taken by the king of Israel (21:1–16)

Land of the Shunammite returned by the king of Israel (8:1–6)

Elijah prophesied the fall of Ahab’s house (21:17–29)

Elisha instrumental in installing two kings who will execute God’s judgment against Ahab’s house (8:7–15)

Alliance between Israel and Judah against Aram (22:1–28)

Alliance between Israel and Judah against Aram (8:16–9:26)

Judgment upon Ahab (22:29–41)

Judgment upon Ahab’s clan (9:27– 10:33)

New kings in Judah and Israel (22:41–53; 2 Kgs 1:1–18)

New kings in Judah and Israel (10:34– 13:13)

Elijah taken away; Elisha to be his successor (2:1–25)

Elisha died (13:14–25)

30

Jopie Siebert-Hommes compares the widow of Zarepath and woman of Shunem episodes and concludes that although the latter portrayed Elisha as a reluctant prophet who needed to be reminded about his prophetic calling, he was nevertheless clearly portrayed as the successor of Elijah (“The Widow of Zarepath and the Great Woman of Shunem: A Comparative Analysis of the Two Stories,” in On Reading Prophetic Texts [ed. Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 231–50).

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

105

The two pairs of miracle stories (oil supply and the raising of dead sons) are followed by stories of famine: the confrontation between Elijah and Ahab (18:1–16) and the poisonous stew (2 Kgs 4:38–44). These famine stories are then followed by stories that confirm the God of Israel’s sole sovereignty: the confrontation between Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18:17–46), and the healing of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:1–27). The episode in 1 Kgs 18 apparently follows a chronological sequence like 1 Kgs 17. The confrontation between Elijah and the prophets of Baal resulted from the prophet’s challenge to settle the question of whether Yahweh or Baal is the real God (18:18–21). 31 However, it is unnecessary to consider the arrangement of the poisonous stew and Naaman episodes in 2 Kgs 4:38–5:27 as chronological.32 Like 4:1–37, the arrangement of these two episodes betrays the historian’s attempt to trigger memories of Elijah’s confrontation with Ahab and Baal’s prophets while telling the story of Elisha. Just as Elijah was God’s instrument to show the Israelites that there is no other God except the God of Israel (1 Kgs 8:39), Elisha continued this work by showing Naaman, a non-Israelite, that there is no other God in all the earth but in Israel (2 Kgs 5:15).33 The confirmation of God’s sole sovereignty placed the life of Elijah in jeopardy. Once again, the episode in 1 Kgs 19 makes a good chronological sequel to 1 Kgs 18. Jezebel’s death threat (1 Kgs 19) resulted from Elijah’s exposure of Baal’s falsehood (1 Kgs 18). However, 2 Kgs 6:8–23 is not an outcome of the episode of Naaman. Nevertheless, the placement of the Aramean king’s pursuit of Elisha after Naaman’s story (2 Kgs 5) and before the Israel-Aram war (2 Kgs 7) created a sequence that corresponds to that in 1 Kgs 18–20. The two Israel-Aram war episodes in the narratives of Elijah and Elisha are followed by episodes in which the kings of Israel were involved in taking and giving of land. Ahab took Naboth’s land (1 Kgs 21) and this became the tipping point of the divine judgment against his family. 34 Despite the delay of God’s judgment because of Ahab’s despondency, 31

Alan J. Hauser and Russell Gregory assume that the historian and his original audience shared a common knowledge of the periodic cycle of Baal’s death, during which he could not send rain. Yahweh is then pictured “as the living god who selectively sustains life in the midst of the drought he himself has sent” (From Carmel to Horeb: Elijah in Crisis [JSOTSup 85; Sheffield: Almond, 1990], 12). Through Elijah, his human agent, God was able to exhibit his power over death; and this feat is unparalleled in the OT except by God himself through another human agent, Elisha. 32 Robert L. Cohn construes the individual episodes in this section as independent stories (“Form and Perspective of 1 Kings V,” VT 33 [1983]: 171–84). 33 W. Alan Smith, “Naaman and Elisha: Healing, Wholeness, and the Task of Religious Education,” RelEd 89, no. 2 (1994): 215. 34 Patrick T. Cronauer, The Stories about Naboth the Jezreelite: A Source, Composition, and Redaction Investigation of 1 Kings 21 and 2 Kings 9 (LHB/OTS 424; New York:

106

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

the efficacy of divine judgment did not diminish. Hence, Jehoram’s returning the land to the Shunammite was not enough to reverse God’s judgment (2 Kgs 8). Elijah was God’s agent who prophesied against the Omride dynasty and Elisha was God’s agent who anointed the instruments appointed to fulfill this prophecy. 35 First Kings concludes with another war account in which Israel allied with Judah against Aram. This Israel-Judah alliance against Aram was strengthened through the marriage of Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, and Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kgs 9; cf. 8:16–18, 24–26). There is a conceivable pattern in which these wars were recorded: (1) Israel-Aram war (1 Kgs 20) and Israel/Judah alliance versus Aram (1 Kgs 22); and (2) IsraelAram war (2 Kgs 6–7) and Israel/Judah alliance versus Aram (2 Kgs 9). This pattern fits in the larger structure of the narratives concerning Elijah and Elisha with the installation of new kings in Israel and Judah, and a conclusion of God’s work through the two prophets (see Chart 6F). The structure of the Elijah-Elisha narratives shows much resemblance. Whereas the narrative of Elijah hints that it is arranged in a chronological order,36 this is not so for the narrative of Elisha. The arrangement of Elisha’s section can be best explained by the historian’s attempt to create a succession narrative by showing that Elisha not only duplicated the works of his predecessor (e.g., oil supply, raising of the dead son), but also continued the works of his predecessor (e.g., as God’s mouthpiece). Parallel Episodes The structural parallel in the accounts of Elijah and Elisha features Elisha’s duplication and continuation of his predecessor’s work. These feaT. & T. Clark, 2005), 201. Nadav Na’aman attempts to distinguish between the actual historical events and the ideological details added by the historian (“Naboth’s Vineyard and the Foundations of Jezreel,” JSOT 33, no. 2 [2008]: 197–218). Whether his conclusions are correct, it is clear that for the historian, the judgment carried out in 2 Kgs 8–9 was a direct consequence of the evils of Ahab’s household that climaxed in the death of Naboth. 35 Discrepancies can be observed as one compares the details of the fulfillment of the judgment against Ahab and the prophecies concerning it (see Peter D. Miscall, “Elijah, Ahab, and Jehu: A Prophecy Fulfilled,” Proof 9 [1989]: 73–83). However, if one avoids reading against the grain of the narrative movement from Elijah’s first confrontation with Ahab until the establishment of Jehu’s kingship, it would not be difficult to see the continuity from Elijah as the predecessor who first declared judgment against Ahab’s house to Elisha as the successor instrumental in installing individuals who would fulfill his predecessor’s prophecy. 36 Cohn is correct to conclude that the episodes in 1 Kgs 17–19 are arranged in a “linear logical progression” (“Literary Logic,” 334). Nonetheless, there are hints (as indicated above) that the historian creates the impression that the episodes were arranged, not just in a logical, but also in a chronological manner.

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

107

tures point to Elisha as the new Elijah through whom God’s involvement in human affairs was realized. The emphasis on succession is further strengthened through the episodic parallels shown particularly in the first episodes in the narratives of the two prophets. Two sets of episodes can be cited to illustrate this type of parallel: the two pairs of oil/resurrection miracles and the two sets of episodes concerning God’s sole sovereignty. First, the two miracle stories in Elisha’s section allude to the first miracle story in Elijah’s section (2 Kgs 4:1–44; cf. 1 Kgs 17:8–24).37 The two miracle stories in 2 Kgs 4 (widow’s oil, Shunammite’s son) do not necessarily follow a chronological order and are mutually independent, but the parallel details are striking (see Chart 6G). Both the episode in 1 Kgs 17 and the first episode in 2 Kgs 4 involve widows who lack even the basic supplies needed for survival.38 Nevertheless, both still have little oil that was miraculously multiplied. The miracles provided for the needs of the widow of Zarepath and enabled the prophet’s widow to pay her debts.39 Chart 6G: Bountiful Oil Supply, Raised Son to Life Elijah (1 Kgs 17:8–24)

Elisha (2 Kgs 4:1–44)

Widow of Zarepath had little amount of oil and flour (17:12)

Widow of a prophet had little amount of oil (4:2)

Elijah instructed the widow, bountiful supply until drought was over (17:14)

Elisha instructed the widow, bountiful supply until debt was paid (4:7)

Prophecy fulfilled, oil/flour supplied to the Sidonian widow (17:16)

Prophecy fulfilled, a son given to the Shunammite woman (4:17)

Upper room for Elijah (17:19)

Upper room for Elisha (4:10)

Son of Sidonian widow died (17:18)

Son of Shunammite woman died (4:19)

Widow questioned Elijah (17:18)

Woman questioned Elisha (4:28)

Elijah prayed, stretched himself on the boy, boy raised to life (17:21)

Elisha prayed, bend himself on the boy, boy raised to life (4:35)

Elijah called “man of God” after raising boy to life (17:24)

Elisha called “man of God” before the boy was born (4:9)

37 The stories in 1 Kgs 17:17–24 and 2 Kgs 4:1–37 very likely influenced Luke’s composition of Luke 7:11–17 and 7:36–50, respectively (see Brodie, “Old Testament”; idem, “Luke 7,36–50”). 38 The tale of the Shunammite woman and her son’s revival, Donald J. Wiseman notes, “became a long-remembered confirmation of Elisha’s inherited prophetic and healing power” (1 and 2 Kings [TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993], 203). 39 Siebert-Hommes enumerates the other parallels between these two episodes (“Widow,” 231–50).

108

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

The mention of the upper room in 1 Kgs 17:19 serves as a precursor for the Shunammite woman’s offer to let Elisha stay in the upper room of their house (2 Kgs 4:10). Starker connections between these two narratives are drawn through other similar details: the death of the two sons (1 Kgs 17:18; cf. 2 Kgs 4:19), the questions raised by bereaved mothers (1 Kgs 17:18; cf. 2 Kgs 4:28), and the actions done by Elijah and Elisha in raising the boys back to life (1 Kgs 17:21; cf. 2 Kgs 4:35). Both Elijah and Elisha are acknowledged as “man of God” in these two episodes (1 Kgs 17:24; cf. 2 Kgs 4:9). The prophetic roles of Elijah and Elisha are highlighted in Elijah’s prophecy of the bountiful oil and flour supply (1 Kgs 17:14–16) and Elisha’s prophecy of the birth of the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:17). Moreover, their roles as miracle workers are stressed by the raising of the dead. These similar roles (prophet and miracle worker) emphasize the continuity of their work. Second, two episodes in the Elijah and Elisha narratives affirm the sole sovereignty of God (1 Kgs 18:1–26; cf. 2 Kgs 4:38–5:14).40 Aside from the common themes they share, the two episodes contain detailed parallels that strengthen this connection (see Chart 6H). Like the previous example, the episode concerning Elijah follows a chronological sequence and two episodes concerning Elisha are woven together with a sequence that replicates the former. Both episodes were set in the context of famine.41 The famine in 1 Kgs 18 was a continuation of the long drought that began two chapters earlier. However, the famine in 2 Kgs 4 did not come as a result of the events recorded in the earlier chapters. In both episodes, efforts were made to look for food. Ahab and Obadiah divided the land to find food to prevent death (1 Kgs 18:5); and one of the prophets found a wild gourd that almost caused death (2 Kgs 4:39–40). Moreover, the historian portrays Obadiah as the protector of a hundred prophets of Yahweh (1 Kgs 18:3– 4).42 This description may not be necessary in the Elijah-Ahab confrontation episode, but it nonetheless foreshadows the feeding of a hundred sons of prophets in 2 Kgs 4:43. Naaman’s story (2 Kgs 5) further reinforces the relationship between the accounts of Elijah and Elisha. Elisha is presented as the “prophet who is in Samaria” (2 Kgs 5:3), a description that can also be applied to Elijah (1 Kgs 18:2). Both stories highlight the sole sovereignty of the God of Is40 The renewal of the covenant after the confrontation in 1 Kgs 18 is also reminiscent of Exod 24, thus presenting Elijah as the new Moses (Kathryn L. Roberts, “God, Prophet, and King: Eating and Drinking on the Mountain in First Kings 18:41,” CBQ 62 [2000]: 632–44). 41 Nachman Levine asserts that famine is one of the common themes that bind the Elijah and Elisha stories together (“Twice as Much of Your Spirit: Pattern, Parallel, and Paranomasia in the Miracles of Elijah and Elisha,” JSOT 85 [1999]: 27). 42 Levine, “Twice,” 28.

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

109

rael. After fire consumed Elijah’s offering, the people were convinced that there is no other God but the God of Israel (18:36, 39). Likewise, after Naaman was healed from leprosy, he affirmed that there is “no God in all the earth, but in Israel” (2 Kgs 5:15). The declaration of a non-Israelite complements that of the Israelites to strengthen the historian’s claim of God’s sole sovereignty. Naaman also decided to bring two mules’ load of earth back to Aram where he could offer sacrifices to the God of Israel; this suggests that he intended to build an altar to God outside the land of Israel using Israel’s soil (25:17) – reminiscent of Elijah’s repair of the altar (1 Kgs 18:30–31). Chart 6H: Famine, Sole Sovereignty of the God of Israel Confirmed Elijah (1 Kgs 18:1–26)

Elisha (2 Kgs 4:38–5:14)

Famine in Samaria (18:2)

Famine in Gilgal (4:38)

Ahab and Obadiah were hoping to find grass to prevent the death of their animals (18:5)

Sons of prophets found wild gourd that almost caused their death (4:39–40)

Obadiah fed a hundred prophets (18:4)

Attendant fed a hundred prophets (4:43)

Elijah the prophet was in Samaria (18:2)

Elisha, the “prophet who is in Samaria” (5:3)

Elijah repaired the altar (18:30–31)

Naaman built an altar (5:17)

Israelites affirmed that there is no other God but the God of Israel (18:21, 36–39)

Non-Israelite affirmed that there is no other God but in Israel (5:15)

Elijah’s servant sent seven times (18:43)

Naaman told to dip himself in the Jordan seven times (5:10, 14)

Elijah ran before Ahab to Jezreel (18:46)

Gehazi ran behind Naaman on his way to Aram (5:21)

In summary, the episodic parallels provide internal connections between the sections about Elijah and Elisha in 1–2 Kings. These parallels include identical (e.g., widows, oil, raising of dead sons, etc.) or complementary elements (e.g., declaration by the Israelites and a non-Israelite), but they serve the same function, namely, to show the continuity of God’s work through his two human agents. God’s work was not cut short by Elijah’s departure. It continued through Elijah’s successor who replicated his deeds.

110

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

Parallel Incidents The Elijah and Elisha accounts also contain circumstantial parallels that strengthen the connection between them. 43 Throughout 1–2 Kings, only Elijah and Elisha are described as those on whom “the hand of the Lord” was at work (1 Kgs 18:46; 2 Kgs 3:15). Among the prophets who speak out against the evils of Ahab’s house, only Elijah and Elisha were threatened with death by members of the Omride dynasty (1 Kgs 19:2; 2 Kgs 6:30–31).44 Only Elijah and Elisha were given the task to proclaim the end of drought/famine while prophesying judgment against the house of Ahab (1 Kgs 19:1, 17–21; 2 Kgs 7:1–2). Perhaps the most significant connection between Elijah and Elisha is the common purpose they shared, that is, to declare and be instrumental in carrying out God’s judgment against the Omrides. A number of individuals and groups shared the prophetic roles of Elijah and Elisha within the narrative. The hundred prophets under Obadiah’s care shared the same allegiance to the God of Israel (1 Kgs 18:4). An unnamed prophet acted as royal adviser to Ahab, and so did Elisha to Jehoram (20:13–25; cf. 2 Kgs 6:8–10). Another unnamed prophet confronted Ahab’s negligence, which is reminiscent of Elijah’s altercation with the king over his evil deeds (1 Kgs 20:35–43; cf. 18:17–19; 21:17–24). The companions of Elisha showed foreknowledge of Elijah’s ascent (2 Kgs 2:1–6), an ability commonly exhibited by the ancient prophets of Israel (e.g., 7:1–2). Both Micaiah and Elisha were “the prophet[s] of the Lord” who foretold the outcome of the Israel-Aram wars on the requests of Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs 22:7; 2 Kgs 3:11). Despite sharing the same functions and abilities, however, none of these prophets can be considered as Elijah’s successor in the same way as Elisha. This is because the ElijahElisha succession is task-specific.45 Elisha is Elijah’s successor not simply because they performed the same acts or assumed the same role as prophet, but because they are commissioned for the same task. Elisha’s replication of his predecessor’s acts is the confirmation, not the basis, of succession. Elijah’s role as God’s agent revolved around addressing the issue of idolatry introduced by Ahab and Jezebel. He was the one who first announced God’s verdict against the 43

Cf. Levine, “Twice,” 25–46. Micaiah was imprisoned and fed sparingly (1 Kgs 22:27), but was never threatened with death. 45 Although it is true that the prophetic office of Elijah and Elisha can be traced back to Moses and can be understood in light of the general idea of prophetic succession in ancient Israel (so Caroll, “Sagas,” 408–14), the Elijah-Elisha succession is more taskspecific. The succession is not simply in terms of a “prophet-leader-among-all-theprophets” passing his responsibility to another prophet. 44

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

111

Omrides (1 Kgs 20:21–24). Yet the task was not completed within his generation, and Elisha, as successor, functioned as one who would continue and complete the task God assigned to Elijah. It was God who handpicked Elisha to become his successor; this choice was announced to Elijah together with the command to anoint two kings who would be involved in executing God’s judgment against the house of Ahab (19:15–18). Elijah was unable to fulfill this command. Elisha was the one who announced the reign of Hazael as king of Aram (2 Kgs 8:7–15), and commissioned another prophet to anoint Jehu to be king of Israel through whom the prophecy against Ahab’s house came to fruition (9:36–37). 46 Chart 6I: Elijah-Elisha Circumstantial Parallel Elijah (1 Kgs)

Elisha (2 Kgs)

The “hand of the LORD” with Elijah (18:46)

The “hand of the LORD” with Elisha (3:15)

Death threat (19:2)

Death threat (6:30–31)

Proclaim end of drought (19:1, 17–21)

Proclaim end of drought (7:1–2)

Proclaim judgment against Omrides

Proclaim judgment against Omrides

Elijah-Elisha Parallels In summary, parallels within the Elijah-Elisha accounts are used as literary devices to emphasize succession. God’s command to Elijah to anoint Elisha as the “prophet in [Elijah’s] place” is enough to present Elisha as the one who would continue his work (1 Kgs 19:16). Nevertheless, the historian used different types of parallels to present the continuity of God’s work through Elijah and Elisha. In many instances, the successor is shown to have replicated the works of his predecessor in order to accentuate the motif. The transfer of the spirit concretized the succession, and this is manifested in Elisha’s use of his predecessor’s mantle to divide the waters of the Jordan, hence duplicating his action (2 Kgs 2:8, 14). There is no oneto-one correspondence between the words and works of the two prophets. Nevertheless, the parallels in both structure and details between the narra46 Moral/ethical issues attached to Jehu’s ascent to the throne are raised by Hannelis Schulte (“The End of the Omride Dynasty: Social Ethical Observations on the Subject of Power and Violence,” Semeia 66 [1994]: 133–48) and Lissa M. Wray Beal (The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu [2 Kings 9 and 10] [LHB/OTS 478; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007], 192), among others. Nonetheless, the historian’s message concerning God’s judgment on Ahab’s house is clear. It was a sentence first declared through Elijah, but came to fruition only through his successor.

112

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

tives of Elijah and Elisha clearly confirm the succession. Finally, since their succession is task-specific, Elisha is to be considered Elijah’s successor insofar as God’s judgment against the Omride dynasty is concerned. God’s sentence against the house of Ahab was first declared by Elijah, but it did not come into fruition within his earthly ministry. Hence God’s work through Elijah, which was cut short by the prophet’s departure, continued through his successor. Elijah pronounced God’s verdict against Ahab and Jezebel, and Elisha was God’s agent who installed the kings who will be instrumental in carrying out this judgment.47

Succession in Other Jewish Writings Both the narratives of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha illustrate how literary parallels can be used to present succession. The type of parallel in the Greco-Roman writings (parallels as collection of “lives”) does not match any of the parallels used in these narratives. For the remainder of this chapter, we will survey the other ways by which succession is presented in other Jewish writings. The concept of succession is common in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Talbert has shown that this idea permeated Greco-Roman, Jewish, and even Christian writings. In Hellenistic writings, succession is used for rulers, philosophers, jurists, magi, rhetoricians, temple wardens, priests, admirals, and generals. Jewish writings also record succession of leaders or rulers of the people, prophets, priests, and even rabbinic and mystical traditions. Among the early Christian writings, one finds records of succession of bishops, elders and teachers, and also the succession of apostolic and Gnostic traditions.48 As shown earlier, the Deuteronomic historian uses parallels as a literary device to recount stories of succession. The successors are presented as those who replicate the works of their predecessors.49 In Josephus’ retell47 The Elijah-Elisha narratives do not provide only a literary pattern for Luke-Acts. As Ravens points out, Luke’s references to Elijah and Elisha also affirm the prophetic role of Jesus (“Prophetic,” 119–29). Luke’s allusions to the Elijah-Elisha narratives are plenteous as shown by Craig A. Evans (“Luke’s Use of the Elijah/Elisha Narratives and the Ethics of Election,” JBL 106, no. 1 [1987]: 75–83) and D. G. Bostock (“Jesus as the New Elisha,” ExpT 92 [1980]: 38–41), and also in the aforementioned works of Brodie. 48 Cf. Talbert, Reading, 19–21. 49 Talbert also acknowledges that in Luke-Acts, both Paul and Peter replicated the life of Jesus; he writes, “If such replication of a predecessor’s life confirms that a succession has taken place, then Luke believes that Jesus’ emissaries are both those who came to their position by means of a horizontal, historical process of succession (the Twelve) and those whose appointment was a vertical, experiential event (so Paul).” Thus he concludes,

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

113

ing of the Moses and Joshua narratives, he shows no interest in preserving, for instance, the parallels between Moses and Joshua cited above. Nonetheless, some of his alterations of the Moses narratives are recalled in the Joshua episodes and vice versa. The biblical record does not include Moses’ speech regarding the freedom bestowed by God to the Israelites, although this is certainly implied as they ceased to be slaves of the Egyptians. In Ant. 3.14.1 §304, however, Josephus presents Moses as standing before the Israelites saying that God gave both freedom and the blessed land to the Israelites. The same is stressed after Joshua led the Israelites to cross the Jordan. Having been freed from Egypt and the wilderness, Joshua named the place Gilgal (5.1.11 §34).50 Moreover, Josephus adds details about the impossibility of the conquest. Moses’ scouts report that the rivers and mountains are impossible to cross, causing the crowd to be dismayed (3.14.2 §305). Details about the river not found in the biblical account are also provided by Josephus (5.1.3 §16). Josephus also changes some of the details in the biblical account, e.g., the water of Jordan was restrained so that the current was not strong and the water level was not high as usual (5.1.3 §§18–19).51 One notable addition in Josephus’ Antiquities is his story concerning the war between Egypt and Ethiopia. Feldman observes, It is striking that whereas in the LXX Moses is never called στρατηγός (general) or even ἡγεμών (leader), in Josephus he is referred to 15 times in the Ant. (2.241, 268; 3.2, 11, 12, 28, 47, 65, 67, 78, 102, 105; 4.82, 194, 329) and once in Apion (2.158) by the former term; in addition to στρατηγέω, “to be a field commander,” “to lead an army,” is used of him once (Ant. 2.243); and the noun στρατηγία, “army command,” “office of supreme commander,” twice (Ant. 2.255, 282). Furthermore, the noun ἡγεμών (leader) is applied to him 6 times (Ant. 2.268, 4.11; Apion 1.238, 261; 2.156, 159). Indeed, it was not as teacher or legislator that the voice from the burning bush bids Moses to act but rather as general (στρατηγόν) and leader (ἡγεμόνα) (Ant. 2.268).52

“The validation of both is the replication of the life of the founder in their own” (Reading, 49). 50 See Louis H. Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary (Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary; ed. Steve Mason; Leiden, Brill, 2000), 325 nn. 923–24. Perhaps we may understand this as Josephus’ portrait of Joshua as one who completed what Moses began. 51 Josephus seems to find it awkward relating miracle stories (e.g., Ant. 3.5.2 §81), perhaps in consideration of his pagan audience. This could be an attempt by Josephus to rationalize miracles, as Louis H. Feldman observed (Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998], 460). 52 See Feldman’s gloss in Judean Antiquities 1–4, 202–203 n. 668. For a discussion of the relationship between Josephus’ account and that of Artapanus, see Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works, and Their Importance (JSPSup 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 154, 159. Elsewhere, Feldman notes the significance of the victory against the Ethiopians in Josephus’ account because even great rul-

114

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

In Josephus, Moses was a warrior like Joshua. In the battle against the Amalekites, Moses led the troops who stayed behind to keep the women and children safe while Joshua took command of those who went to the battlefield (3.2.3 §§49–50). In addressing Israel, Moses called them συστρατιῶται (“fellow soldiers”) (4.8.2 §177). The biblical portrayal of Joshua seems to be projected backward onto Moses. Likewise, Joshua is presented as the legitimate successor of Moses as he assumed command over the army and the role of a prophet (4.7.2 §165). These roles are mentioned in his encomium to Moses (4.8.48 §329). There is no question that Josephus had an axe to grind in his work with the biblical records. As Feldman suggests, Josephus’s modifications of the biblical narrative of Moses are occasioned by his apologetic concern to defend the Jews against their opponents’ charges, particularly cowardice, provincialism, and intolerance, and by his positive desire to portray a personality who would be fully comparable to such great leaders, whether historical or legendary, as Heracles, Lycurgus, Aeneas, and Pericles.53

Considering the political undertones in Josephus’ Antiquities, it is more plausible to assume that his revision of Moses’ image was not an attempt to make him “look” like Joshua, but to present the founder of the Jewish nation like the ideal hero in Hellenistic writings. Josephus’ rendition of the Elijah and Elisha narratives also betrays his political stance more than an interest in reproducing the predecessor in the life of his successor. Nonetheless, for both Elijah and Elisha, Josephus emphasizes their roles as prophet. Josephus stresses Elijah’s role by calling him a “prophet” or describing his action as “prophecy” even in those instances where the biblical account does not include such statements.54 He does the same for Elisha.55 Elijah’s association with the Zealots in PseudoPhilo’s writing (e.g., L.A.B. 48:1) and the popular belief about the Davidic Messiah for whom the prophet would serve as the forerunner were against Josephus’ pro-Roman bias. His political inclination is likely the reason for his remolding of Elijah’s character by eliminating the prophet’s Zealot-like features.56 In short, Josephus’ agenda is something other than presenting Elisha as the legitimate successor who replicated the works of Elijah. Aside from the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha successions, Josephus provides other succession accounts. Brief records of the Davidic dynasty ers such as the Persian king Cambyses (Herodotus, Hist. 3.17–26) were unsuccessful against the Ethiopians who had the reputation of being invincible (Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.4) (Josephus’s Interpretation, 404–405). 53 Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 442. 54 Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Elijah,” SJOT 8, no. 1 (1994): 79. 55 Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Elisha,” NovT 36, no. 1 (1994): 4. 56 Feldman, “Elijah,” 81.

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

115

(Ant. 10.8.5–6 §§143–150) and the Aaronic priesthood (10.8.6 §§151–53) are included in his work. Even records of the succession of Roman emperors, e.g., Tiberius to Caligula (18.6–9 §§211–37), Caligula to Claudius (19.3–4 §§212–73), and Caligula to Nero (20.8.1–2 §§148–53), are included in Josephus’ history. Accounts of succession focus on the passing on of role, function, or office. Josephus’ concept of succession focused on the official capacity of the successor. A task is seen merely as byproduct of office. Even his portrayal of Moses as a Joshua-like figure (i.e., military general) need not be construed as an attempt to make Moses and Joshua appear similar. Pseudo-Philo rewrites the biblical accounts with dramatic embellishments. In his account of the crossing of the Red Sea, for instance, he basically summarizes the calling of Moses, the account of the ten plagues, and the first Passover celebration in two brief sections (L.A.B. 10:1–2), but he adds a conversation among the tribes regarding their fearful state (10:3–6). Moses is portrayed as the ideal mediator who constantly struggled to address the tension between God’s mercy and God’s justice.57 In the biblical account, Moses’ symbol of authority was his staff. In Pseudo-Philo, Moses’ “garment of wisdom” and “belt of knowledge” were symbolic of his leadership authority. Joshua had to wear these items as he assumed Moses’ role as the national leader.58 Joshua became a new person after clothing himself with Moses’ garment and girding on his belt (20:2). The act was symbolic, showing that he inherited Moses’ qualities. Murphy notes that “in a touch characteristic of the Biblical Antiquities, God quotes divine words spoken previously to Moses that prove God always intended to appoint Joshua as Moses’ successor.”59 In short, Joshua’s succession is characterized by two things: (1) the acquisition of the qualities Moses possessed as a leader, and (2) divine confirmation. Pseudo-Philo shows no interest in portraying Joshua as the successor who replicated the acts of his predecessor. Neither is there evidence that literary parallels were used in order to accentuate the succession.60 Pseudo-Philo’s presentation of the leadership succession after Joshua (i.e., Judges to David) focuses primarily on the leaders’ qualities, and not 57 Frederick J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 52. 58 An incident that highlights the relationship between garments and communication with the divine is also recorded in Herodotus, Hist. 7.12–19. 59 Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 97. 60 There is, nonetheless, a pattern in Pseudo-Philo in which the stories were arranged, that is, the historical pattern of the book of Judges: sin – divine judgment by an enemy nation – repentance – salvation through divinely appointed leader (George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period [ed. Michael E. Stone; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984], 107).

116

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

on their abilities. Murphy comments, “The central element of the leaders’ portraits is their trust in God. That trust is expressed in the good leaders’ exhortation to the people to obey and trust God for their deliverance and in the leaders’ willingness to risk death, trusting in God for deliverance.”61 Like Josephus, Pseudo-Philo manifests no interest in presenting successors as leaders who replicate the acts of their predecessors. His main concern was to present leaders as those who possessed the character expectations of God. In 1 Maccabees, leadership succession is limited only to the male members of the Hasmonean clan. The testament of Mattathias defines the qualities expected from those would judge the nation (2:49–70). The legitimacy of the Hasmonean dynasty rested on divine selection; their piety and devotion to the traditional laws justified the choice. Moreover, the author of 1 Maccabees established the legitimacy of the clan’s leadership by showing that their rule was generally recognized by the major powers of their era.62 As far as the clan patriarch is concerned, his successors shared a common task: “Pay back the Gentiles in full, and obey the commands of the law” (2:68). Nonetheless, succession was still determined by kinship.

Summary and Conclusion In this chapter, I have examined numerous parallels within the narratives of Moses-Joshua and of Elijah-Elisha. Two observations can be made. First, “parallels” in these accounts include similar arrangement of events (structural parallels), comparable episodes (episodic parallels), analogous incidents (circumstantial parallels), and the use of same or comparable language (verbal parallels). Second, these “parallels” are different from the “parallels” (as collection of Lives) found in Greco-Roman writings examined in the previous chapter. The parallels in the Deuteronomic accounts differ from the parallels in the Greco-Roman works not only in form, but also in purpose. The former as literary device to present succession, the latter has syncritical purpose. The examination of canonical and extra-canonical Jewish writings in this chapter is far from exhaustive. Nonetheless, these are enough to show that there was diversity in the way succession was perceived and recounted even in Jewish writings. There is neither uniformity in the way succession was legitimized nor homogeneity in the purposes for recounting succession. The canonical Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha succession narratives provide a clear example wherein parallels are used as literary device to legiti61 62

Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 234. Attridge, “Historiography,” 173.

Chapter 6: Jewish Historical Accounts

117

mize succession. The successors in these narratives are presented as those who replicated, continued, and even completed the deeds of their predecessors. The nature and function of “parallels” seen in this chapter are different from the one discussed in the previous one. This raises a question concerning the type of parallels seen in Luke-Acts and their purposes.

Chapter 7

Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives in Luke-Acts As seen in chs. 5 and 6, there are various types of literary parallels in ancient writings. Parallel, in the Greco-Roman writings discussed above, is the collection of two or more Lives. The purposes of the parallels in the writings of Nepos, Plutarch, and Suetonius are comparison and evaluation of these individuals, and not the presentation of succession. Although the idea of succession is present in Suetonius’ work, the legitimacy of successors is based on their pedigree, not on their replication of the predecessors’ work. In Diogenes’ Lives, the students’ adherence to the philosophy of their teachers is an important element in succession. The use of parallels to present succession is seen in the Deuteronomic historian’s work, particularly in the narratives concerning Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha. In the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha narratives, successors are portrayed as those who replicate, continue, and even complete the unfinished task of their predecessors. Four basic types of parallels were used by the Deuteronomic historian to narrate succession tales, namely, structural, episodic, circumstantial, and verbal parallels. These types of parallels resemble the types of parallels that can be observed in Luke-Acts, and one important function of these parallels as literary device is the presentation of succession. These parallels may either be subtle or explicit. Parallel elements may include similar actions or incidents. At times, even the minutest details are the same, creating a stronger link between the successor and the predecessor. In this chapter, I aim to show that the parallels in Luke-Acts are comparable to those found in the Deuteronomic writings. Moreover, one of Luke’s purposes for using such a feature is to present Peter and Paul as Jesus’ successors.

Succession in Luke-Acts Talbert lists three requisite components in a narrative for it to be considered a narrative of succession: (1) identification of what was transferred, (2) symbolic signs accompanying the transfer, and (3) confirming acts indicat-

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

119

ing transfer has taken place.1 Considering the Deuteronomic accounts, two other elements can be added to his list, namely, a clear expression of divine selection/appointment of the successor and a clearly defined task. These elements are present in the Moses-Joshua succession: (1) the Lord commanded Moses to give some of his authority to Joshua in the presence of the congregation (Num 27:18); (2) Moses laid his hands on Joshua as a symbol of this transfer of authority (27:23; Deut 34:9); (3) aside from the congregation’s acknowledgement of Joshua’s authority (Josh 1:17–18), Joshua also replicated the acts of his predecessor; (4) Joshua’s appointment came from the Lord (Num 27:18); and (5) Joshua’s task was clearly defined, namely, to bring Israel to Canaan (Josh 1:2). The same elements are observed in the Elijah-Elisha succession: (1) the Lord instructed Elijah to anoint Elisha as prophet in his place (1 Kgs 19:15–17); (2) Elijah placed his mantle on Elisha as a sign that Elisha has now “put on” Elijah’s power (19:19; cf. 2 Kgs 2:13–15); (3) aside from the prophet’s acknowledgement of Elisha’s authority (2:15), Elisha also replicated the acts of his predecessor; (4) Elisha’s appointment came from the Lord (1 Kgs 19:15); and (5) Elisha’s task was clearly defined, namely, to be an instrument of God’s judgment upon the house of Ahab (19:15–17; cf. 2 Kgs 9:1–10). One or two of these elements may be present in accounts within the narratives of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha that involve other characters. For instance, there are those who received divine appointment (e.g., Aaron and his descendants to assume the priestly office [Exod 28–29; Num 3–4], Bezalel and Oholiab as craftsmen [Exod 31:1–11], and Hazael and Jehu as kings [1 Kgs 19:15–17]). Parallels can also be drawn between episodes involving the predecessor/successor and those involving another character (e.g., parallels between Micaiah and Elisha).2 However, all five elements mentioned are found only with reference to Joshua and Elisha.

1

Talbert, Reading, 47. These parallels include: (1) two Israelite kings waged war (to reclaim back Ramoth Gilead from Aram [1 Kgs 22:4], to subdue Moab [2 Kgs 3:7]); (2) these kings placed their confidence on someone other than Yahweh (prophets and their predictions [1 Kgs 22:6], alliance with Judah and Edom [2 Kgs 3:8]); (3) they both sought military reinforcement from Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs 22:5; cf. 2 Kgs 3:6); (4) Jehoshaphat’s question, “Is there not a prophet of the LORD here, that we may inquire of the LORD by him?” (1 Kgs 22:7; cf. 2 Kgs 3:11); (5) Elisha’s sarcastic reply to Jehoram recalled Micaiah’s words (2 Kgs 3:12; cf. 1 Kgs 22:6); (6) the merging of the heavenly and earthly realm through Micaiah’s vision and Elisha’s experience (1 Kgs 22:19–23; cf. 2 Kgs 3:15); (7) both proclaimed the results of the war, Micaiah declared Israel’s defeat while Elisha announced their victory (1 Kgs 22:17; cf. 2 Kgs 3:16–19); and (8) both prophecies were fulfilled (1 Kgs 22:29–40; cf. 2 Kgs 3:20–27). 2

120

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

Chart 7A: Test for Legitimate Successors Joshua

Elisha

Peter

Paul

Identification of what is transferred

Authority (Num 27:18)

Prophetic task (1 Kgs 19:16)

Authority (Luke 9:1)

Role as “light to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47; cf. 26:23)

Symbolic sign

Lay hands (27:23; Deut 34:9)

Mantle (19:19; cf. 2 Kgs 2:13–15)

Spirit (Acts 1:8)

Ananias laid hands on Paul (9:17– 18)

Confirming acts

Affirmed by congregation (Josh 1:17– 18)

Acknowledged by prophets (2:15)

Recognition of authority (e.g., 2:14; 8:14–15; 15:14)

Commissioned by the church in Antioch (13:1–2)

Divine appointments

The LORD’S appointment (Num 27:18)

The LORD’S appointment (1 Kgs 19:15)

Jesus’ appointment (Luke 5:10; cf. 5:8, 12)

Commission from Jesus (9:15)

Defined task

Entry to Canaan (Josh 1:2)

Judgment on Ahab and Israel (19:15– 17; cf. 2 Kgs 9:1–10)

As “fisher of men” (5:10) and witness to the resurrection (Acts 1:8)

Instrument of Jesus before Gentiles, kings, and sons of Israel (9:15; 22:21; 23:11; 26:16–18)

Using these elements as criteria in identifying the presence of succession, only two characters in Acts can be considered successors of Jesus, namely, Peter and Paul (see Chart 7A).3 These elements are true of Peter: (1) Peter 3 The parallels between John the Baptist-Jesus, Jesus-Stephen, and Jesus-Philip are undeniable. This suggests that literary parallels serve other functions aside from presenting successions. In this work, I focus only on this one particular function. Moreover, although one or two of these elements are present in accounts involving other characters in Luke-Acts (e.g., divine appointment of the twelve [Luke 6:13–16; 9:1–6] and the seventy preachers [10:1–20]), these five elements can only be said of Peter and Paul; hence, the discussion in this chapter is limited to them. Also, considering the amount of space Luke allotted to Peter, Stephen, Philip, and Paul in Acts, we find additional warrant to focus our work only on Peter and Paul. Considering the number of verses that accounts for the acts of Peter, Stephen, Philip, and Paul in relation to the total length of Acts (based on

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

121

was given power and authority to preach the kingdom of God (Luke 9:1); (2) he received the Spirit to be a witness (Acts 1:8); (3) aside from the consistent recognition of Peter’s authority (e.g., 2:14; 8:14–15; 15:14), he also replicated the acts of Jesus; (4) he received clear appointment from Jesus, the Lord (Luke 5:10; cf. 5:8, 12); and (5) his task is clearly defined, namely, a “fisher of men” (5:10) and witness for Jesus (Acts 1:8). The same can be said of Paul: (1) only Jesus and Paul are referred to as the “light to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47; cf. 26:23); (2) Ananias laid hands on Paul (9:17–18); (3) aside from his commissioning by the church in Antioch (13:1–2), he also replicated the acts of Jesus; (4) he received a clear commission from Jesus (9:15);4 and (5) his task was clearly defined, namely, as the chosen instrument of Jesus before Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel (9:15; 22:21; 23:11; 26:16–18).5 Considering these, the remainder of this chapter will focus on the parallels between Jesus-Peter and Jesus-Paul.

“Ascension” of the Predecessor as Narrative Structural Center Although the Moses-Joshua sagas in the books of Exodus-Joshua do not show the kind of structural symmetry exhibited in the Elijah-Elisha narratives in 1–2 Kings, the two narratives share a common structure with the predecessor’s “ascension” as their pivot point. Three things are worth noting: First, the language of ascension is present in both narratives. Moses “went up” (ἀνέβη) to the top of Pisgah at Mount Nebo (Deut 34:1) and Elijah was “taken up” (ἀνελήμφθη) by the chariot of fire (2 Kgs 2:11). Second, the Lord is the active subject who brought both Moses and Elijah to an unknown location (Deut 34:5–6; 2 Kgs 2:16–18). Finally, although the physical presence of the predecessors discontinues, the presence of God the total number of 1007 verses), the amount of space in Acts for their accounts are roughly as follows: Peter – 31.9%; Stephen – 7.4%; Philip – 3.9%; Paul – 60.7%. (The excess over 100% reflects the overlapping account in Acts 15 where both Peter and Paul are present). 4 Ðỗ observes that both the accounts of Jesus’ Transfiguration (Luke 9:35) and Ascension (Acts 1:8) include the commissioning of God’s servant(s) (Lucan Journey, 180– 81). It is important to note, however, that Paul was not present in Jerusalem when Jesus gave the commission to the apostles, that he was given a similar commission on another occasion, and that larger portion of Acts recounts Paul’s journeys outside Jerusalem and Judea. 5 Schröter considers Acts 9:15 as Luke’s programmatic statement characterizing Paul’s ministry as one of suffering and hardship; the purpose of which is to present Paul as the model witness (“Modell,” 79).

122

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

continues with the successors. The Lord promised Joshua his continuous presence (Josh 1:5; cf. Exod 3:12). Likewise, the presence of the Lord with Elisha is evident in the prophet’s acts (2 Kgs 2:14–15; cf. 1 Kgs 17:1).6

JesusPeter/Paul

ElijahElisha

MosesJoshua

Chart 7B: “Ascension” Account as Narrative Center God’s presence and work through the predecessors ← God with Moses (Exod 3:12)

“Ascension” accounts ↑ “Ascension” of Moses (Deut 34:1)

(Exodus–Deuteronomy) God with Elijah (1 Kgs 17:1)

(Joshua) “Ascension” of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11)

(1 Kgs 17–2 Kgs 2) Jesus Spirit-filled (Luke 4:1, 14) (Luke)

God’s continuous presence and work through the successors → God with Joshua (Josh 1:5)

God with Elisha (2 Kgs 2:14–15) (2 Kgs 2–9)

Ascension of Jesus (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:2, 9)

Peter Spirit-filled (Acts 4:8); Paul Spirit-filled (Acts 13:9) (Acts)

These same features are found in Luke’s narrative (see Chart 7B). First, Jesus’ ascension transitions the narrative from Jesus to his successors. The language of ascension is also present in Luke’s account (e.g., ἀνεφέρετο [Luke 24:51]; ἀνελήμφθη [Acts 1:2, 11]; ἐπήρθη [1:9]). Second, the passive ascension verbs are best seen as divine passives. Considering Luke’s consistent portrayal of God as the one who raised Jesus from the dead (e.g., 2:24; 3:26; 4:10; cf. Luke 9:22), God is the active participant who “raised” Jesus to heaven. Third, although the physical presence of Jesus discontinues in Acts, God’s presence and work continues through Jesus’ successors. Unlike Luke-Acts, the accounts of the succession from Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha are not recorded in a two-volume work. The accounts of Moses-Joshua span five canonical writings (Exodus–Joshua) while those of Elijah-Elisha are included in portions of 1–2 Kgs (1 Kgs 17:1–22:53; 2 Kgs 1:1–13:25). This is perhaps another evidence of Luke’s ingenuity that he was able to modify the formats of the earlier succession accounts by producing a two-volume sequel. Five elements can be observed in the accounts of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha that point to their successions. Luke-Acts shares these five common elements (see Chart 7C): (1) state6 Elisha’s question, “Where is the Lord, the God of Elisha?” is indirectly answered in the narrative with Elisha’s replicating Elijah’s miracle (2 Kgs 2:14; cf. 2:8). Moreover, God’s presence with Elisha is affirmed by the other prophets (2:15).

123

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

ment of task, (2) predecessor’s work as God’s agent, (3) appointment of successor, (4) ascension of the predecessor, and (5) successors take over as God’s agents to continue/complete the task previously assigned to the predecessor. Chart 7C: Succession in OT and Luke-Acts Narrative Development

Moses-Joshua Succession

Jesus-Peter/Paul Succession

Elijah-Elisha Succession

Statement of task

Bring Israel out of Egypt to Canaan (Exod 3:13–22)

Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2:25–38); inaugural speech (4:18–19)

Pronounce judgment on Ahab’s house (1 Kgs 21:17–19)

Predecessors as God’s agents who began to carry out the tasks

Moses delivered Israel, gave Law, began allotment of land, led Israel to Canaan’s border (Exodus– Deuteronomy)

Jesus taught in temple and synagogues, performed miracles, spoke against societal ills (Luke)

Elijah performed miracles, prophesied against the house of Ahab (1– 2 Kgs)

Appointment of successors

Joshua commissioned (Deut 31:23–30)

Peter called to be “fisher of men” (Luke 5:10); Paul chosen to witness to Gentiles (Acts 9:15)

Elisha anointed as his successor (1 Kgs 19:15–18)

Transition and leaders’ “ascension”

Moses’ “ascension” to Mount Ebal and his death (34:1)

Jesus’ ascension (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11)

Elijah’s “ascension” with the chariot of fire (2 Kgs 2:9–14)

Successors as God’s agents who continue/complete the tasks

Joshua led people across Jordan, led battles, interceded during wars, completed land allotment, instructed Israel to obey the Law (Joshua)

Peter and Paul taught in the temple and in synagogues, witnessed before leaders, were instrumental in the giving of the Spirit (Acts)

Elisha performed miracles, assumed prophetic role, anointed the kings that carry out the judgment against Ahab’s clan (2 Kgs 2–9)

First, the statements of the tasks given to the predecessors are made explicit within the narratives. These succession narratives recount how the successors take the place of their predecessors as God’s agents through whom divine purposes were carried out. Since in all three occasions the successions are of tasks and not of offices, all three succession narratives contain task-oriented statements. The divine task assigned to Moses was to bring Israel from Egypt to Canaan (Exod 3:17). The first-person reference to

124

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

Yahweh throughout the burning bush episode is significant because it stresses the divine orchestration behind human affairs. 7 Furthermore, the proclamation of God’s sole sovereignty is a significant element in Moses’ ministry.8 This task was given at the beginning of Moses’ ministry and it became the primary focus of his work. The divine imperative for Elijah was not given at the beginning of the prophet’s ministry (1 Kgs 21:17–19). Nevertheless, the direction of his prophetic work is already clear. Elijah’s prophetic ministry against Ahab should be understood in light of God’s commands concerning idolatry (cf. Exod 20:1–5). His campaign against idolatry in Israel was directed against Ahab and Jezebel who led the nation to plunge deeper in its plight. Like Moses, the earthly ministry of Elijah was devoted to the declaration of Yahweh’s sole sovereignty (e.g., 1 Kgs 18:20–46; cf. 21:17–19). Jesus claimed that his divinely appointed task was to proclaim the kingship of God (Luke 4:18–19; cf. Isa 61:1–2), stressing that the kingdom of God must also be preached in the other cities (Luke 4:43; 8:1).9 Jesus’ itinerant ministry in Luke together with the disciples’ itinerant mission to the non-Jews in Acts may suggest that Luke desired his readers to see Jesus’ task as the beginning of a universal proclamation of God’s kingship.10 The words of Simeon also describe the character of Jesus’ ministry: “A light of revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel” (2:32; cf. Isa 42:6; 46:13; 49:6).11 Jesus’ post-resurrection commission to his disci7 Cf. John van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in ExodusNumbers (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 38. 8 For instance, the purpose of the signs Moses performed in Egypt was to let the people know that the LORD is God and there is no one like him (for the sake of Israel [Exod 6:7; 7:17; 8:22; 10:2; 16:6, 12]; Egypt [7:5; 8:10; 9:29; 14:4, 18]; cf. 18:11; 29:46; 31:13). 9 Jesus defines his mission as one that includes preaching the kingdom of God “to the other cities also” (Luke 4:43–44). This sets the journey motif even at the beginning of his ministry. Hence it is incorrect to assume that the “entire journey of Jesus is enclosed in the ‘ascension’ motif” (Ðỗ, Lucan Journey, 274). Nonetheless, it is important to note that the theme of “ascension” of Jesus (ἡ ἀνάλημψις to Jerusalem [9:51] and ἡ ἀνάλημψις to heaven [24:51; Acts 1:9]) serves as pivot points as the center of proclamation moves from Galilee to Jerusalem, and then from Jerusalem to the end of the earth. 10 The themes of Yahweh’s lordship and salvation lie behind this quotation (see ch. 4). Proclamation of his salvation is expected to reach “until the end of the earth” (ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς [Isa 48:20; 49:6; 62:11; cf. 45:22; 52:10]); as his message of salvation is proclaimed and his lordship acknowledged, praises will ring forth “from the end of the earth” (ἀπ’ ἄκρου τῆς γῆς [42:9–10; 45:5, 9; 43:6]). 11 The theme of Gentile inclusion in the kingdom can be seen throughout Luke-Acts. “The introduction of the idea of universalism of salvation in the prologue, especially in the Canticle of Simeon, and hinted at occasionally during the Gospel prepared for the baptism of the Gentiles in Acts and their inclusion in the Church” (Lane, Gentile Mission, 48). All of these are part of the divine orchestration so that the kingdom of God may be

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

125

ples reflects the universal extent of his ministry “until the end of the earth” (ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς [Acts 1:8]). Their tasks include not just the announcement that “Jesus is raised,” but also the proclamation that “Jesus is Lord” (e.g., 2:29–36). In these three succession narratives, God wrought history through agents he appointed for a particular task. The tasks of these agents were clearly spelled out and the events in which they were involved can be placed in continuity with earlier history. Moses’ task of bringing Israel to Canaan was a fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham; Elijah’s task of confronting Israel of its idolatry was in observance of God’s commands through Moses; and Jesus’ task as savior, teacher, healer, and suffering Christ fulfilled the prophecies about him. Second, with a clear statement of their tasks, the agents, who were the predecessors in their respective narratives, began to do their appointed tasks. 12 The wonders Moses performed before Pharaoh, the exodus from Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, Moses’ intercessions during the initial battles of Israel, the giving of the Law, and the preliminary allotment of land are all part of the primary phase of God’s purposes to bring the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan. Likewise, Elijah fulfilled the initial phase of God’s purpose of bringing judgment against the Omride dynasty. His confrontation with the false prophets was also a direct affront against Israel’s idolatrous practices instigated by Ahab and Jezebel. The Third Gospel witnesses to the preliminary stage of the proclamation of the kingdom of God. Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom was not confined to one city or region only; he preached “to the other cities also” (Luke 4:43). This had been the pattern of his ministry as he went from one city to another to proclaim the kingdom of God (8:1). The itinerant character of this proclamation creates anticipation that the good news would reach every city, even “until the end of the earth.” Jesus’ purpose of bringing the message of the kingdom of God to the other cities becomes more evident in the two episodes concerning the sending of the missionaries (9:1–2; 10:1).

proclaimed outside Israel. Moreover, Luke’s reference to Elijah and Elisha in Luke 4:24– 27 is also indicative that he understood God’s plan as all-inclusive (see Jeffrey S. Siker, “‘First to the Gentiles’: A Literary Analysis of Luke 4:16–30,” JBL 111, no. 1 [1992]: 73–90). 12 Whatever Moses and Elijah had declared or done should be considered acts of Yahweh done through them: the acts of God through Moses (e.g., the exodus [Exod 3:7– 9, 16–25], the parting of the Red Sea [14:1–4, 15–18, 21], the giving of the covenant [6:2–8], the victories against their enemies [14:14; Deut 1:30; 29:4]) and the acts of God through Elijah (e.g., drought and rain [1 Kgs 17:16; 18:1], judgment against Ahab [21:20–24]).

126

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

Moreover, his proclamation of the kingdom involves divine works such as healing and exorcism. This is perhaps best summarized in Luke’s description of Jesus’ ministry: “He began speaking to them about the kingdom of God and curing those who had need of healing” (9:11b). He expected his disciples to do the same as he sent them out to preach (9:2; 10:9). Jesus’ proclamation was accompanied by miracles; this is evidence of the Spirit’s empowerment (e.g., 4:28–44; 11:20). 13 Throughout Jesus’ ministry, he exhibited a clear understanding of his mission (5:32; 9:55–56; 19:10) and a resolve to fulfill his task even if it means he would suffer (e.g., 9:44, 51; 22:42).14 Third, successors were appointed in lieu of their predecessors who would leave their mandated task unfinished at their “ascension.” Both Joshua and Elisha began to participate in the works of God even while their predecessors were still with them. Joshua was appointed Moses’ successor with a directive to “bring the sons of Israel into the land” (Deut 31:23). This comes with a promise that God would continue to do through him what he started to do through his predecessor (Josh 1:5). By bringing Israel into Canaan, Joshua completes the task Moses left undone (Exod 6:8–13; cf. Num 20:12). Similarly, Elisha’s appointment was in connection with the demise of Ahab’s clan, “Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place. It shall come about, the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall put to death” (1 Kgs 19:16b–17). The transfer of Elijah’s spirit to Elisha is not only a proof of succession,15 but also proof of God’s continuous work. Among the companions/disciples of Jesus, Peter has the most prominent role in Luke’s Gospel and the first several chapters of its sequel (Acts 1:15–5:42; 8:14–24; 9:32–12:19). The order of names in the list of Jesus’ apostles (Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) and even among those who are closest to Jesus (e.g., Luke 9:28) reflects his standing among the apostles. In some 13

Woods, Finger, 240. Luke makes clear the presence of the Spirit of God in Jesus’ ministry (Luke 2:25; 3:12; 4:1, 18; Acts 10:38) Jesus was able to perform such works through the power of the Spirit (Luke 4:14, 36; cf. 5:17; 6:19; 8:46). The same power was promised (12:12; 24:19; Acts 1:7–8) and given (Luke 9:1; 10:19; Acts 2:4) to his disciples for them to continue his works. 14 James A. Meek observes that “the prophetic significance of the OT in Luke-Acts is found in five themes: (1) the suffering, death, resurrection and exaltation of the Messiah; (2) the attendant eschatological blessings; (3) the coming judgment; (4) the rejection of Christ by many Jews; and (5) the proclamation of forgiveness to all (Jew or Gentile) through Jesus” (The Gentile Mission in the Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutics, and Purpose [LNTS 385; London: T. & T. Clark, 2008], 23). 15 Elliot B. Gertel, “Moses, Elisha, and the Transferred Spirit,” JBQ 30, no. 2 (2002): 77.

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

127

cases, the other apostles are referred to as Peter’s “companions” (9:32) or “the rest of the apostles” (Acts 2:37; cf. 5:39). Luke portrays him as their speaker and representative (e.g., Luke 8:45; 9:33; 12:41; 18:28; Acts 1:15; 2:14; 3:6; 4:13–14; 5:3, 8–9, 15; 15:7). Luke’s Gospel contains episodes with Peter as one of the main characters (e.g., healing of his mother-in-law [4:38–39], his denial [22:55–62]), 16 including the calling of Peter that highlights his special role among the apostles and the task assigned to him (5:1–11). Despite the presence of other would-be disciples, Jesus’ statement, “Do not fear, from now on you will be catching men,” contains only second person singular verbs and participle (φοβοῦ…ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν) addressed to Peter (5:10).17 It is possible to see Peter as the representative speaker who speaks on behalf of the other apostles and the representative recipient who receives the commission on behalf of the others. This highlights Peter’s chief role and the specific task appointed to him. As one of Jesus’ companions, Peter took part in Jesus’ works before his ascension (e.g., present while Jesus performed miracles [6:17–19; 8:22–56; esp. 8:51] or preached [8:1]). He was also one of those given power and authority to proclaim the kingdom of God and perform healing (9:1–6).18 After Jesus’ ascension, the Spirit was sent to the disciples (Acts 2:14–36; cf. 1:7–8; Luke 24:45–49).19 Being filled with the Spirit, Peter was also the first to stand as witness to Jesus’ resurrection and lordship (Acts 2:4; cf. 4:8; Luke 12:12). 20 The Spirit was promised and was given to the other 16 There are a few episodes in the Third Gospel that focus on the other apostles, but they only emphasize the mission of Jesus. The calling of Levi (5:27–39), for instance, led to the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees because Jesus ate with “sinners.” Consequently, Jesus clarified his mission to call sinners to repentance (5:31–32). Also, the episode concerning James and John, wherein they volunteered to command fire from heaven to consume the unreceptive Samaritans also stressed Jesus’ mission to save and not to destroy lives (9:55–56). 17 Richard J. Dillon observes, “All this emphasizing of Peter in the Gospel obviously builds towards his special role in the inaugural period of the Church, narrated in Acts” (From Eye-witnesses to Ministers of the Word [AnBib 82; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978], 64–65). 18 Unlike the activities of Moses and Elijah that have a clear termination point, Jesus’ activities continue after his death. Luke referred to the Spirit as “the Spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7), suggesting that the risen Lord continued to work even after his ascension (cf. Conzelmann, Theology, 16). Peter’s activities in the Gospel and the risen Lord’s activities in Acts further underscore the continuity of God’s work in Luke-Acts (cf. Dillon, “Prophecy,” 551). 19 Talbert observes four parallels between Jesus’ baptism and the disciples’ filling with the Spirit: (1) the context of prayer, (2) the Spirit’s descent after their prayers, (3) the physical manifestation of the Spirit, and (4) preaching (Patterns, 16). 20 The role of the Spirit in the apostles’ mission is acknowledged in earlier works (e.g., Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 52). The place of inspired speeches in the fulfillment

128

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

disciples (Acts 2:3); however, Luke gave only a passing comment about the prophetic activities of the others (2:4), and once again, Peter stood as their representative (2:14). Aside from Peter, three other disciples in Acts assumed the role of the Spirit-filled herald of Jesus, namely, Stephen (6:3–5; cf. 7:2–53), Philip (6:5; cf. 8:4–8, 25–40), and Paul (13:9). Like Peter, the three witnessed before those in authority (e.g., Acts 4:1–31; cf. Luke 12:12) and the crowd (e.g., Acts 2:14–36).21 However, of the three, only Paul received a special commission comparable to that of Peter. Stephen and Philip were appointed as ministers to serve tables in order to free the hands of the apostles and allow them to focus on prayer and ministry of the word (6:2–3), but Paul received a commission to proclaim the kingdom of God similar to Jesus’ mandate (9:15; cf. 19:8–12). Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord reveals his special role (9:15) and the work he had to fulfill (26:16–18).22 Aside from his initial commission, Paul was assured of the Lord’s presence (18:9–10). Unlike Peter, he had no opportunity to participate in Jesus’ ministry prior to the ascension. However, Paul’s work clearly continued Jesus’ ministry. 23 Fourth, the predecessors’ ascension marks the point at which the successors take over the predecessors’ work. The succession narratives of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha display this simple schema: God’s work through the predecessors – predecessors’ “ascension” – God’s work through the successors. Moses ascended to Mount Ebal where he reportedly died (Deut 34:1). Deuteronomy 34 serves as the transition in which the task of bringing the Israelites to the land was transferred from Moses to Joshua. Likewise, Elijah ascended to heaven, leaving Elisha to take over his ministry (2 Kgs 2:7–14). Luke-Acts follows the basic outline of these succession narratives with the ascension of Jesus as the transition point that shifts the focus from of this mission is usually discussed (e.g., Menzies, Empowered, 177; Penney, Missionary, 83). 21 Stephen before the Sanhedrin (Acts 6:12) and the Jews (6:8–10); Philip before a court official of Candace (8:27) and the Samaritans (8:12); and Paul before Jewish and Roman rulers (16:20; 23:1, 33; 25:1–2, 23; cf. 9:15) and the Jews (13:13–43). 22 Paul’s vision of the risen Jesus qualified him as a “witness” and the injunction he received placed him on equal footing with the other apostles. See Manfred Diefenbach, “Das ‘Sehen des Herrn’ vor Damaskus: Semantischer Zugang zu Apg 9, 22 und 26,” NTS 52, no. 3 (2006): 409–18. 23 The miracles Paul performed present him as a “legitimate envoy of Christ” who was also his source of power (Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, “Paul the Miracle Worker: Development and Background of Pauline Miracle Stories,” in Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment [ed. Michael Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte; LNTS 288; London: T. & T. Clark, 2006], 199).

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

129

God’s works through Jesus (cf. Acts 2:22; 10:38) to God’s works through Peter and Paul (15:12; 19:11; 21:19). Jesus’ Galilean ministry was accomplished with the “power of the Holy Spirit” (Luke 4:14; cf. Acts 10:38); this power was first demonstrated through Jesus’ exorcism (cf. Luke 4:36), then seen in Jesus’ healing ministry (5:17; 6:19; 8:46).24 This same power was given to the commissioned disciples in the Gospel (9:1; 10:19). In Acts, the apostles demonstrate the same power as they bear witness to the resurrection (e.g., 4:33; 18:28), and perform miracles (e.g., 15:12; 19:11; 21:19; cf. 6:8). This power, according to Luke, would be available to the disciples because of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:7–8). Last, the Spirit-filled successors were appointed to continue the unfinished task of the predecessors. The spirit was bestowed on them as they fill in for their ascended predecessors. Joshua is described as one “in whom is the spirit” as Moses delegated some tasks to him (Num 27:18; cf. 11:25; Deut 34:9). God’s presence with Joshua made it possible for him to complete Moses’ work (Josh 1:5; 23:3). Elisha asked for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit before his predecessor was taken away (2 Kgs 2:9), and the way he replicated Elijah’s work is evidence that he received what he had requested.25 The Spirit was given to Peter to empower him to witness for the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:8). The sermons he preached and the miracles he performed are clear indications of the Spirit’s work (4:8). Likewise, Paul received the Spirit through the prayer of Ananias before he began his work as God’s herald among the Gentiles (9:17). Jesus’ expressed desire to preach the gospel “to the other cities” (Luke 4:43) was continued through Peter’s itineraries (cf. Acts 9:32) and Paul’s journeys (Acts 13–21). To sum up, Luke-Acts exhibits the basic structural features of the two succession narratives in the Deuteronomic history. It does not show a symmetrical structure comparable to that of the Elijah-Elisha narratives; 24

E. Schweizer claims that the role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts is limited to prophecy (note similar claims by Stronstad and Menzies), and that while healing is important for Luke, it was never ascribed to the Spirit. He acknowledges, however, that healing is associated with the “power” of Jesus (“πνεῦμα, πνευματικός,” TDNT 6:407). This is unnecessary hairsplitting. Turner points out that the “Spirit of prophecy” cannot be dissociated from “works of power,” and this is evident both in the OT and Luke-Acts (Power, 118). Moreover, although nowhere in Luke-Acts does Luke suggest that the spirit = power, he made clear that Jesus began his public ministry with the “power of the Spirit” (Luke 4:14). He soon affirmed that Jesus’ healing and teaching were done with “power” (4:36). Considering its immediate context, the most natural way to understand this “power” is through its earlier reference, that is, the power by which Jesus healed and preached is the “power of the Spirit” (4:14). 25 For Brodie, the “crucial turning point” of the narratives of Elijah-Elisha and LukeActs is the resurrection of the predecessor (“Imitation and Emulation,” 83). This is also true of the narratives of Moses-Joshua.

130

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

this symmetry is not observable even in the Moses-Joshua sagas. Nevertheless, the significant features of the succession narratives that pertain to the divine task, the commencement of the work by the predecessor and its continuation by the successor, and the transitional elements such as the appointment of the successor and ascension of the predecessor are found in these three succession narratives.

Parallel Episodes: Jesus-Peter The episodic form of Luke’s narrative has been acknowledged in earlier works on Luke-Acts.26 The way by which the parallel episodes in LukeActs were developed resembles the episodic parallels of the two succession narratives in the Deuteronomic history (see ch. 6). Two pairs of episodes in Luke-Acts show Peter’s replication of the acts of Jesus, namely, the tales of God-fearing centurions (Luke 7:1–10; cf. Acts 10:1–48) and the episodes where Jesus was presented as the “stone rejected by builders” (Luke 20:1–18; cf. Acts 4:1–12).27 The Two Centurions First, the tales of centurions identify Peter’s work as a continuation of Jesus’ earthly ministry (see Chart 7D). Luke 7 and Acts 10 share a common thrust. 28 The healing of the centurion’s slave (Luke 7:1–10) offers a glimpse of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Simeon (2:32); this prophecy 26 For instance, Wolter observes that Luke narrated Jesus’ story “zur Form der episodischen Erzählung” (Lukasevangelium, 16). 27 Talbert demonstrates how the correspondences between Luke 5:17–7:50 and Acts 3:1–11:18 feature parallels between Jesus and Peter (Patterns, 16, 19–20). He notes that the analogous sequencing of the materials is evident of a “deliberate editorial activity by the author of Luke-Acts” (23). The question is why he would do so. Apparently, this is done to present Peter as one who continued Jesus’ work. 28 William O. Walker Jr. suggests that Peter’s articulation of the doctrine of gentile conversion could be part of Luke’s attempt to rehabilitate Peter as the champion of gentile mission and freedom from the law. Paul was thus portrayed, not as an innovator or rebel, “but rather as the legitimate successor of Peter as missionary to the Gentiles” (“Acts and Pauline Corpus Reconsidered,” JSNT 24 [1985]: 17). What Walker failed to see is that Acts 10 has a precedent episode in the Third Gospel wherein Jesus attempted to engage with a Gentile. In Luke’s account, there was no direct contact between Jesus and the centurion, not because Jesus refused this contact, but because the centurion considered himself unworthy. The progression is conspicuous: a Gentile as an “indirect” beneficiary (blessing received by his servant) of Jesus’ healing ministry (Luke 7:1–10); Peter, as Jesus’ successor, was involved in proclamation to the Gentiles (e.g., Acts 10:1– 11:18); and Paul, as Jesus’ (not Peter’s) successor, continued this mission to the Gentiles (cf. 14:27; 15:12; 18:6; 21:19; 22:21; 28:28). Cf. Zwiep, Christ, 164–75.

131

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

would be fully realized in Acts. Jesus, the “light of revelation to the Gentiles” (2:32), recognized the faith of a Gentile (7:9). Peter, the recipient of revelation concerning the Gentiles (Acts 10:10–18), testified about God’s desire to bring in the Gentiles (11:2–18) and was himself involved in this mission (cf. 15:7, 14). Paul, the new “light for the Gentiles” (13:47), continued this task through his mission to Gentiles. Chart 7D: Two Tales of a Centurion in Luke and Acts Jesus (Luke 7)

Peter (Acts 10)

Centurion at Capernaum (7:1–2)

Centurion at Caesarea (10:1)

Heard about God’s agent (Jesus) (7:3)

Seen God’s agent (angel) (10:3)

Sent messengers to Jesus (7:3)

Sent messengers to Peter (10:7)

Commendation by Jewish leaders: “loves our nation…build us our synagogue” (7:5)

Commendation by Luke: “devout…feared God…give alms…prayed to God continually” (10:2)

Centurion from Capernaum called Jesus “Lord” (7:6)

Cornelius acknowledged God as “Lord” (10:33)

Centurion: unworthy to have Jesus come visit him (7:8)

Peter: unlawful for Jews to visit Gentiles (10:28)

God’s agent (Jesus) acknowledged the centurion’s faith (7:9)

God’s agent (angel) acknowledged the centurion’s faith (10:4, 31)

Luke 7:1–10 presents an important breakthrough because the episode indirectly decries the racial barrier between Jews and Gentiles. 29 Green observes, The principal issue of this account was raised within Jesus’ sermon: If love is to be extended even to enemies, are there any functional perimeters for the reach of Jesus’ gracious ministry? Sharply put, will the active presence of the good news extend even to the Gentile world? How far will Jesus go in “doing good”?... Jesus’ failure to draw insideroutsider lines, even when faced with possible Gentile defilement (as well as the potential of corpse impurity – cf. v 2), is manifest, first, in his intention to enter the centurion’s 29 In the Gospel, Jesus’ commendation of the centurion’s faith is evidence that his expectations for both Jews and Gentiles are the same. In Acts, the giving of the Spirit to the Gentiles is evidence of God’s impartiality towards Jews and Gentiles. Richard Bauckham observes, “For Peter, then, the significance of the gift of the Spirit to Gentiles was both a matter of social identity, shifting the boundary that had hitherto divided Jews from Gentiles, and a matter of purity of heart, in that gentile sinners repent and are purified of their sin by God” (“Peter, James and the Gentiles” in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity [eds. Bruce Chilton and Craig Evans; NovTSup 115; Leiden: Brill, 2005], 115).

132

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

home (v 6) and, second, in his praise of the centurion as an example worthy of emulation (v 9). The prophecy of Simeon (2:29–32) seems at the point of consummation. 30

Acts 10 also represents an important breakthrough in the mission of the church in that Peter’s vision catalyzed a discussion among Jews about Peter’s acts. Although the issue raised by the Jews against Peter has to do with table fellowship with the Gentiles (11:3),31 this question is inseparable from the issue of whether Gentiles can be co-beneficiaries of God’s salvation with the Jews. This is evident in Peter’s reply to the Jews (11:13– 18). The positive attitude of the Jewish leaders toward the gentile centurion in Luke 7:1–10 is worth noting (e.g., Acts 11:1–3).32 The patron-client relationship was the clear basis for such hospitality. The centurion’s contributions to the Jewish community in Capernaum indebted the Jews to him and the least that they can do is to speak on his behalf (Luke 7:2–5). The itineraries of Jesus should be understood in connection with his statement, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (4:43). His return to Capernaum in 7:1 had not only created a “pattern of itineration,”33 which reflects his desire to proclaim the kingdom of God to Israel, but also opened the opportunity for resident Gentiles to partake in it. News about Jesus’ works was reportedly being spread and crowds are being drawn to him as a result (e.g., 4:14; 5:15). The historian did not identify the people from whom the centurion heard about Jesus (7:3), yet the presence of a messenger is implied in this episode. In Acts 10, this messenger (ἄγγελος) was the angel of God (ἄγγελον τοῦ θεοῦ) who appeared before Cornelius in a vision and instructed him to send people to invite Peter to his house (10:7). Luke’s version of the centurion’s story is different from Matt 8:5–13.34 Some details in Luke’s version seem to be intended as an anticipation of the episode in Acts 10. Matthew presented an uninhibited centurion who approached Je30

Green, Luke, 283–84. Joel B. Green, “‘She and her household were baptized’ (Acts 16.15): Household Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross; JSNTSup 234; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 76. 32 Marshall observes that in Luke 7, “the Jews had no compunctions about bringing such a man into contact with Jesus, and this example will have been relevant to the problem of Jewish Christians and gentiles in the early church” (Luke, 277). 33 Nolland, Luke, 1:318. 34 Robert A. J. Gagnon lists some earlier works that examine the possible influences of Jewish writings on Luke 7:1–10 (“Luke’s Motives for Redaction in the Account of the Double Delegation in Luke 7:1–10,” NovT 36, no. 2 [1994]: 128–29 nn. 16–17). See also Robert W. Wall, “Peter, ‘Son’ of Jonah: The Conversion of Cornelius in the Context of the Canon,” JSNT 29 (1987): 79–90; J. Julius Scott Jr., “The Cornelius Incident in Light of Jewish Setting,” JETS 34, no. 4 (1991): 483. 31

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

133

sus to ask for help (8:5). Luke, on the other hand, portrayed an unassuming commander who needed a middleman to approach Jesus (7:3). The Jewish messengers of the centurion in Luke 7 become a significant detail in light of Acts 10:5–8 wherein Cornelius also sent his messengers to bid Peter to come to his house. In both episodes, the centurions received commendatory remarks announcing them worthy to have God’s agents visit them.35 In the Capernaum episode, Jewish leaders reported how the unnamed centurion loved their country and how he helped build their synagogues; hence, they concluded that he was worthy for Jesus to grant his request to him (Luke 7:4– 5). Likewise, the announcement of the angel of the Lord indirectly affirms Cornelius whose alms and prayers were deemed acceptable by God (Acts 10:4). Luke’s additional comments concerning Cornelius as one who was “devout…feared God…give alms…prayed to God continually” justify Peter’s visit although this was contrary to the Jewish norms (10:2; cf. 10:28). In each episode, the faith of the centurion was also acknowledged – by Jesus (Luke 7:9) and by the angel (Acts 10:4, 31). God’s act (theopraxis), in this case a miraculous healing, was Jesus’ response to the centurion’s faith (Luke 7:9–10).36 The faith of the centurion was accompanied by the recognition that Jesus is Lord. The centurion from Capernaum sent word to Jesus, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof…” (7:6);37 Cornelius sent for Peter expecting to hear the message he brought from the Lord (Acts 10:33). Peter’s sermon provides a succinct assessment of the value of Cornelius’ conversion: God welcomes God-fearing people from all nations because Jesus is Lord of all (10:36). Stone Rejected by Builders Second, the confrontations of Jesus and Peter with religious leaders both presented Christ as the “stone rejected by the builders.”38 Despite the variations in the synoptic accounts, the general arrangement of the materials 35 Gagnon notes that “in Luke-Acts the admiration of the Jews for the kinds of people associated with the Christian movement says more for the Christian movement than it does for the Jews” (“Motives,” 134). It legitimizes, from a Jewish perspective, Christianity and the believers’ mission to the Gentiles. 36 Klein observes Luke’s revision of the Markan account in order to highlight the theme of faith in this episode (Lukasevangelium, 268). 37 Radl notes that Jesus’ decision to go the centurion’s house without hesitation (Luke 7:6–8) anticipates the Peter’s visit to Cornelius’ house (Acts 10:20) (Lukas, 1:444–45). 38 J. Ross Wagner shows that themes of Ps 118 permeate Luke’s Doppelwerk (“Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals [ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], 154–78).

134

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

from the triumphal entry to the last supper is the same.39 It is noteworthy that despite Matthew’s observable tendency to combine two oratory verbs (e.g., “to teach” and “to preach”) to describe Jesus’ actions (e.g., 4:23; 9:35; 11:1), only Luke uses such a combination in this episode (20:1); and this parallels the episode in Acts (4:2; cf. 5:42; 15:35; 28:31).40 Chart 7E: The “Stone Rejected by Builders” Episodes in Luke and Acts Jesus (Luke 20)

Peter (Acts 4)

Jesus taught in the temple, preached the gospel (20:1)

Peter taught in the temple, proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus (4:1–2)

Jesus questioned by the chief priest and scribes (20:1)

Peter questioned by the rulers, elders, and priests (4:6)

Source of authority/power questioned (20:2)

Source of authority/power questioned (4:7)

Jesus threw back a question (20:3–4)

Peter questioned their prohibition to preach (4:19–20)

Religious leaders conferred among themselves (20:5–6)

Religious leaders conferred among themselves (4:15–17)

Religious leaders unable to answer (20:7)

Religious leaders unable to answer (4:21)

Jesus’ speech: parable of the vine growers who killed the son of the land owner

Peter’s speech: Jesus God’s servant who was crucified

Jesus as the “stone rejected by the builders” (20:17)

Jesus as the “stone rejected by the builders” (4:11)

The priests and the scribes were unanimous in their intent to put an end to Jesus and his movement. The Third Gospel records incidents wherein Jesus initiated the confrontation (e.g., questions about the lawfulness of his Sabbath healing [6:9; 14:3]). Yet in both Luke 20:1 and Acts 4:5–6, the initiative was taken by the Jewish religious leaders. To Jesus they asked, “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things, or who is the one who gave you this authority?” (Luke 20:2); and to Peter, “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” (Acts 4:7).41 The religious leaders’ ques39 Wagner also notes that in the parable of the wicked tenants, “Luke has highlighted the royal connotations of the Psalm, identifying ‘the one who comes’ as ‘the king’” (“Psalm 118,” 157). 40 Wagner notes further that “the faint echoes of Psalm 118 found in the Gospel are amplified in Acts 4 to a triumphant fanfare announcing that the words of the psalm finds their fulfillment in Jesus’ death and resurrection” (“Psalm 118,” 173). 41 Luke showed no interest in the judicial aspect of Peter’s trial. It is clear, however, that the Sanhedrin’s question provided a cue for Peter to start his speech while John slid

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

135

tion may suggest that they see him as the “new Jesus,” a successor who continues Jesus’ task. The sequences of events that followed are not the same for the two episodes. Nonetheless, these episodes show a considerable number of similar elements that place Peter’s ministry in conjunction with that of Jesus (see Chart 7E). Jesus replied to the religious leaders’ question of his authority by raising a question concerning John the Baptist’s authority (Luke 20:3– 4).42 He recognized the legitimacy of John’s authority, so his question was not an assault against John or his ministry (cf. 7:18–35). Instead, it pointed to the religious leaders’ failure to recognize the work of God through John. Their indifference toward the Baptist was not an indication of their approval of his work, but their fear of the people. 43 In Acts 4, Peter’s response to the religious leaders was direct and succinct; his power came from Jesus the Nazarene, the one they crucified and God raised from the dead (4:10). The evidence of God’s work was compelling; after all, the former lame beggar was standing in their midst. Like his predecessor, Peter questioned the religious leaders’ refusal to recognize God’s work.44 Consequent to the replies of Jesus and Peter, the priests and scribes engaged in a private conversation among themselves as to how they would respond. Luke recounts the consultation among these leaders who were in a quandary whether to acknowledge God’s work (Luke 20:5–6; Acts 4:15– 17). In both episodes, the interrogators were unable to answer when being interrogated themselves (Luke 20:7; Acts 4:21). Both episodes climaxed into the background (Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971], 216–17). This account shows great similarities with Jesus’ trial; and Luke has placed Peter’s trial in continuity with that of Jesus; Jesus’ speech as a precursor to his death and Peter’s speech as an exposition of its significance. 42 Jesus’ question exposed not only the religious leaders’ inability to comprehend God’s acts, but also their refusal to accept these acts as divinely originated. Peter’s question came towards the end of the episode, but the essence of Peter’s defiance was the same, that is, to testify to these divine acts as the new agent of God. 43 In Luke’s account, the religious leaders feared that the people may stone (καταλιθάζω) them. This word is a NT hapax legomenon that is not even found in the LXX. Wagner confesses, “It is tempting to see here one more of Luke’s mutations of the ‘stone’ theme of Ps. 118:22” (“Psalm 118,” 170; so Tiede, Prophecy, 81). 44 Peter’s defiant reply had a precedent in Socrates who, convinced that his life as a philosopher was divinely appointed, said to the court that sentenced him to death, “πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν” (Plato, Apol. 17). Jewish writings, however, do not lack stories that show such defiant attitude against the powers that be as the characters comply with divine expectations, albeit no verbal parallel similar to Socrates’ apology can be found. Daniel and his friends (Daniel) and Eleazar and the pious woman with her seven sons (4 Maccabees), among others, show the same sturdiness in the face of death. Perhaps a more significant correspondence to Peter’s invulnerability is found in the interrogation of his predecessor by the religious leaders, who were left speechless both in Luke and Acts.

136

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

with a declaration that Jesus is the stone rejected by the builders (Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11). Luke concluded the episode with Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenant. 45 The Third Evangelist clearly associated the rejection of the son in the parable with the rejection of the Messiah by using a florilegium of OT passages that speak about God’s judgment against the religious leaders and the vindication of his rule.46 In summary, the confrontation between the religious leaders and Peter in Acts 4 and the Cornelius episode in Acts 10 show much likeness to their parallel episodes in Luke 20 and Luke 7, respectively. The type of parallels shown through these pairs of stories resembles the episodic parallels in the accounts of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha. In the two episodes in Acts, Peter is portrayed as one who replicated and continued the works of Jesus. Just as Jesus’ action in Luke 7:1–10 sends the message of God’s purpose of including Gentiles as beneficiaries of his salvation (cf. 2:29–32), so also Peter’s authoritative declaration was necessary to break the racial barriers that could have prevented, not just table fellowship, but also the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:13–18). Moreover, Peter’s encounter with the religious leaders presents him as the “new Jesus,” the successor who continues his work of proclamation.

45 Jane E. Newell and Raymond R. Newell interpret the parable as an indictment against the Zealots’ attempt at land reform under the Roman rule. They assert that Jesus was not against their desire to “own the vineyard,” only against their method in acquiring it (“Parable of the Wicked Tenants,” NovT 14, no. 3 [1972]: 226–37). Klyne Snodgrass sees this parable as a “caustic attack on the authorities of established religion and not an argument for the replacement of Israel by the Church” (The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Inquiry into Parable Interpretation [WUNT 27; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983], 94). R. Alan Culpepper insists on the allegorical nature of the parable, as a narrative commentary that expounds on God’s patience and persistence (“Parable as Commentary: The Twice-Given Vineyard [Luke 20:9–16],” PRSt 26, no. 2 [1999]: 147–68). A more comprehensive study on this parable was done by John S. Kloppenborg (The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine [WUNT 195; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006]). Despite the various ways this parable is understood, it is clear that Jesus implicitly claimed to be the son sent by the landlord, rejected by the people to whom he was sent, and would later be vindicated by God. These themes reverberated in Peter’s speech in Acts 4. See ch. 10 for further discussion. 46 The quotation seems to be taken from Isa 8:14; Dan 2:35, 44; and possibly Ps 110:5–6 (Wagner, “Psalm 118,” 171). Kloppenborg explains that the assimilation of Luke 20:13 (inclusion of the landlord’s “beloved son” in the parable) and 3:22 (baptismal voice that identified Jesus as the “beloved son”) points to Jesus as the “beloved son” in the parable. Furthermore, the use of interpretive saying in 20:17–18 makes clear that the tenants are to be identified with the builders of Ps 118:20 (117:20, LXX) (Tenants, 216).

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

137

Parallel Episodes: Jesus-Paul These Jesus-Paul parallels also show how the events in Jesus’ life were replicated in the life of his successor Paul. 47 Three pairs of episodes in Luke-Acts feature Paul, like Peter, as one who replicated the acts of Jesus, namely, the formal beginning of their ministries (Luke 3:1–18; Acts 8–9), the healing of fevered parents (Luke 4; Acts 28), and the trials of Jesus and Paul (Luke 22–23; Acts 23–26). Beginning of the Ministries of Jesus and Paul First, the parallels between the two initiation episodes in Luke-Acts are too astounding to be ignored (see Chart 7F). Both are preceded by stories of gospel preachers: John the Baptist among the Israelites (Luke 3:1–18), and Philip the Evangelist with a non-Israelite (Acts 8:25–40). 48 Luke clearly identifies their roles within his historical narrative, John as “the Baptist” (ὁ βαπτιστής [Luke 7:20, 33; cf. 9:19]) and Philip as “the Evangelist” (ὁ εὐαγγελιστής [Acts 21:8]).49 Interestingly, despite their distinct roles, they 47 Earlier studies see an apologetic aim behind the parallels between Jesus and Paul (e.g., Evans, Mattill, Clark). There is no question that Luke presented Paul as a faithful Jew in the same way that Jesus, Stephen, and Peter were faithful Jews through the use of parallels (Clark, Parallel, 203). However, this raises the question whether it is plausible for Luke to take great pains to produce (roughly) one-and-one-third volumes (Luke 1–24 and Acts 1–8, 10–12) of work just to present the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship. Economic considerations and the difficulty of producing these volumes make the theory of purely pro-Paul apology unlikely. For other Jesus-Paul parallels, see Walter Radl (Paulus und Jesus im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Untersuchungen zu Parallelmotiven im Lukasevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte [Bern: Lang, 1975], 103–267). 48 F. Scott Spencer proposes that Acts 8:4–25 should be considered as a single literary unit with an inclusio formed by two μὲν οὖν statements in 8:4 and 8:25 (The Portrait of Philip: A Study of Roles and Relations [JSNTSup 67; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992], 26). It seems best to consider Acts 8:4–24 and 8:25–40 as two separate units introduced by μὲν οὖν, an expression commonly used to introduce a new subject (cf. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar [ed. Gordon M. Messing; Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984], 655). In Luke-Acts, this expression often includes a brief summary or concluding remarks concerning the previous account with the shift of topic introduced by δέ (cf. Luke 3:18–19; Acts 1:6–7; 2:41–42; 9:31–32; 11:19–20; 12:5–6; 14:3–4; 15:3–4, 30–31; 17:12–13, 17–18; 19:32–33, 38–39; 23:18–19, 31–32; 25:4; 28:5–6). 49 Michael F. Bird makes several important observations concerning Jesus’ encounters with Gentiles. Most relevant to our discussion are these two points: (1) in all cases, Gentiles take the initiative in coming to Jesus, and (2) in most cases, the healed person remained at a distance (Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission [LNTS 331; Sheffield: T. & T. Clark, 2006], 122). These suggest that in Luke-Acts, Philip was technically the first to preach to the Gentiles, just as John the Baptist was the first to preach to the Jews. Moreover, Philip’s ministry was pivotal as Gentiles began to be co-recipients of the good news.

138

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

shared the same tasks, that is, the Baptist baptized and evangelized (εὐηγγελίζετο) the Israelites (Luke 3:18) and the Evangelist evangelized and baptized (ἐβάπτισεν) the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:38). While Philip was on the road to Gaza, he received the order from the Spirit to join the eunuch (8:29). The parenthetical description “this is a desert road” (αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος) becomes significant as it points back to the desert (ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ) where John received his order to preach (Luke 3:2; cf. Acts 8:26). A more significant correspondence between the two stories is the role Isaianic prophecy plays in each. 50 Both prophecies highlight the coming salvation. The work of John was understood as a fulfillment of Isa 40:3–5, the Greek version of which was quoted by the historian in Luke 3:4–6 almost verbatim. The significance of the Lukan quotation lies in the fact that Luke did not focus only on “the voice in wilderness” who was sent to prepare the way of the Lord (Isa 40:3; cf. Matt 3:3; Mark 1:2–3), but extended his quotation to announce the consequence of this preparation, that is, all flesh would see the salvation of God (Luke 3:6; cf. Isa 40:5). Likewise, the Isaianic quotation in Acts 8:32–33 (cf. Isa 53:7–8) centered on the salvation theme, for it explained the means by which this salvation was accomplished. Chart 7F: Formal Beginning of the Ministries of Jesus and Paul Jesus (Luke 3)

Peter (Acts 8–9)

John preached, people baptized (3:1–18)

Philip preached, eunuch baptized (8:25– 40)

Desert (3:2)

Desert road (8:29)

John the Baptist imprisoned (3:20)

Threat of imprisonment (9:1–2)

Heavenly vision (3:21)

Heavenly vision (9:3)

Jesus baptized by John, the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus (3:22)

Paul baptized by Ananias, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (9:17)

Voice from heaven (3:22)

Voice from heaven (9:4–7)

Divine declaration about Jesus (3:22)

Divine declaration about Paul (9:15)

Jesus began his ministry (3:23; cf. 4:15)

Paul began his ministry (9:20)

50

Pao enumerates several important themes from Isa 40 that Luke reiterated in LukeActs, namely, (1) the restoration of the people of God, (2) universal relation of the glory/salvation of God, and (3) the power of the word of God and the fragility of the people (Isaianic, 45–51).

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

139

The parallels between Jesus and Philip cannot be denied;51 in the same way, there are parallels between John the Baptist and Jesus.52 The relationship between Paul and Philip is not exactly the same as that of Jesus and John; Philip did not prepare the way for Paul as John did for Jesus. However, the way in which Luke arranged the materials in Luke 3:1–23 and Acts 8:25– 9:20 prompts the readers to draw an analogy between the John-Jesus and Philip-Paul relationship. 53 John’s ministry cannot be separated from the beginning of Jesus’ work as God’s agent of proclamation to the Jews; similarly, Philip’s ministry is closely connected to the beginning of Paul’s work as God’s agent of proclamation to the Gentiles. The interweaving of episodes concerning John and Jesus is intricate (Luke 1–3). Although the 51 Aletti suggests that parallels like this is Luke’s way of inviting the readings to observe the works of God (Quand, 49–51). Two ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ accounts in Luke-Acts (Luke 24:13–34; cf. Acts 8:25–40) placed Philip in a similar situation as Jesus (cf. Octavian Baban, On the Road Encounters in Luke-Acts: Hellenistic Mimesis and Luke’s Theology of the Way [PBM; Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2006], 207–27; cf. Spencer, Portrait, 127). Like Jesus, Philip was portrayed as an authoritative exegete and expositor of the sacred writings. Comparable details in Luke 24 and Acts 8 include: (1) the encounters took place “on the road” (Luke 24:13, 32; cf. Acts 8:26, 36); (2) the discussion centered on the sufferings of Jesus (Luke 24:15–19; cf. Acts 8:27); (3) Jesus took the initiative to join Cleopas and Philip took the initiative to join the eunuch (Luke 24:17; cf. Acts 8:31); (4) both Cleopas and the eunuch were unable to understand the scriptures (Luke 24:25; cf. Acts 8:31); (5) Jesus and Philip are portrayed as authoritative exegetes; and (6) both Jesus and Philip are “taken away” (Luke 24:51; cf. Acts 8:39). The significance of Philip’s “rapture” (Acts 8:39) is difficult to grasp unless construed in connection with the ascension of Jesus. These parallels could also be an indicator that Luke understood the death of Jesus (Luke 24:19–20, 26; cf. 24:44–47) in light of Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the Suffering Servant (Acts 8:32–33; cf. Isa 53:7). 52 Cf. Green, Theology, 51–55. Clark notes that the parallels between the accounts concerning John (Luke 1) and Jesus (Luke 2) consist not only of similar sequence but also of similar words (Parallel, 104). 53 Spencer draws an analogy between the relationship between John and Jesus to that of Philip and Peter. He notes that Philip (like John) is the forerunner who proclaims the gospel and baptizes with water and Peter (like Jesus) is the culminator who comes after and baptizes with the Spirit (Portrait, 221). It should be noted, however, that Luke 3:16 merely anticipates the baptism of the Spirit that would occur later and Jesus has not yet baptized anyone. Spencer readily acknowledges that: (1) Philip, not Peter, should be credited as the one who inaugurates the gentile missions (186); and (2) Peter’s act of laying hands in Acts 8 should be considered as a “gesture of solidarity” between the believing Jews and Samaritans (219). This suggests that Philip’s ministry to the non-Jews should be seen as the initial step by the church towards a gentile mission that was fully realized through the missionary activities of Paul. Moreover, Peter’s role in the Samaritan’s reception of the Spirit is best understood in light of the other accounts of the reception of the Spirit (Acts 2:1–36; 9:10–19a; 19:1–10). Considering the parallels between Luke 3:1–23 and Acts 8:25–9:20, it seems best to consider Philip as a forerunner of Paul who served among Gentiles just as John was a forerunner of Jesus who served among the Jews.

140

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

episodes concerning Philip and Paul lack this degree of intricateness, the interweaving of their stories should not be overlooked. Paul, formerly known as Saul, is first introduced in Acts 8:1. The persecution, of which he was a part, was the catalyst for the mission to Samaria, in which Philip was the main preacher (8:4–8). In the same way that Jesus’ ministry within the land of the Jews is subsequent to John’s ministry of proclamation and baptism (Luke 3:23; cf. 3:3), from a literary standpoint, Paul’s ministry outside the land of the Jews is a continuation of Philip’s ministry of proclamation and baptism (Acts 9:20; cf. 8:12) set in the context of the Jews’ persecution of Christ’s followers within which Paul received the commission to do Christ’s task, both preaching and suffering (7:1–9:25a; esp. 9:15).54 The brief anecdotes relating to imprisonments that threatened to impede the works of John and Philip also link the two episodes together. Luke presents the two earthly powers behind these threats: Herod the king of Judea (Luke 3:20) and Saul with the high priest’s authority (Acts 9:1–2). Both episodes attest to the scandalous character of the word of God that distressed those in authority (Luke 3:2; Acts 8:14). God’s ethical standards were applied to the crowd, tax-collectors, soldiers (Luke 3:10–14), and even to rulers like Herod (3:19–20). Luke does not give details of the sins of Herod except to say that it concerns his brother’s wife (cf. Mark 6:17– 18), perhaps with the assumption that Herod’s evil acts were public knowledge.55 Nonetheless, he made clear that John’s imprisonment was a direct result of his confrontation with Herod (Luke 3:19–20). Likewise, the proclamation of the word of God in Jerusalem was unsettling for the religious leaders (Acts 6:7–15; cf. 8:14; Luke 3:2). This led to the death of Stephen (Acts 7:54–8:1a), the persecution of the church by Saul (8:1b–3), and eventually the mission of Philip in Samaria (8:4–40). The two initiation episodes begin with incidents of divine intervention. After Jesus’ baptism, he saw a vision of heaven opening, 56 followed by a divine voice from heaven that declares, “You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:21–22). Analogous elements are found in Acts 9:3–18, albeit in a different order: Paul saw the light and heard the voice from heaven; a divine declaration concerning Paul was given to Ananias: “[H]e is a chosen instrument of mine, to bear my name before the Gentiles 54 Clark correctly notes that Luke presents both Philip and Paul as pioneers whose mission is to the “unreached groups” (Parallel, 290; cf. Spencer, Portrait, 32, 185). The work of Philip and Paul among non-Jews finds precedent in the works of John and Jesus among Jews. 55 Green, Luke, 183. 56 The second person direct address in Luke 3:22 implies that it was Jesus who saw the vision (cf. Mark 1:10–11).

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

141

and kings and the sons of Israel”; and Paul was baptized.57 In the two other synoptic accounts, Herod’s imprisonment of John the Baptist was seen as the incident that opened the way for Jesus to begin his public ministry (cf. Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).58 In light of the parallel incident in Acts 9:1–2 and the divine acts that followed, what were supposedly attempts by earthly powers to hinder the preaching of the gospel become points of breakthrough for the divine purpose to progress. The coming of the Holy Spirit is another element the two initiation episodes share in common. Supernatural phenomena – such as the heavenly vision, the voice from heaven, and God’s declarations about Jesus and Paul – demonstrate the divine orchestration of events in Luke’s narrative. God’s purpose would be accomplished through his Spirit-empowered agents. For both Jesus and Paul, the coming of the Holy Spirit marked the formal beginning of their ministries as God’s agent to proclaim the word of God throughout the Roman Empire. In Jesus’ case, it was the proclamation in the land of the Jews (Luke 4:15); and for Paul, in the land of the Gentiles (Acts 9:20). In short, Paul’s ministry complemented that of Jesus. Healing of Fevered Parents Second, the two accounts in Luke-Acts of the healing of a fevered parent show many affinities.59 The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Luke 4) and the healing of Publius’ father (Acts 28) illustrate how Paul replicated Jesus’ work. Aside from the obvious parallels (e.g., fever, healing, and parent) in the story, other elements tie these two episodes together (see Chart 7G). Both narratives are preceded by events that created a sense of wonder among the witnesses, and in both occasions, there is an apparent concern about the portentous character of the incidents. The crowd was concerned about how Jesus’ exorcism would affect them (Luke 4:35). Likewise, the Maltese onlookers were expecting divine retribution (Acts 28:4).

57

Divine intervention through vision-related phenomena (e.g., Luke 3:21–22; Acts 9:3–18) was given much significance in the ancient world (see Part 2 above). Zwiep stresses that Paul’s christophany has a legitimizing function for his apostleship (Christ, 157–58, 162–65). Luke shows Paul’s contributions to the proclamation of God’s kingdom. The encomiastic portrayal of Paul, however, must be seen against the backdrop of God’s involvement in history and his purpose to bring his word to the end of the earth. Luke legitimizes Paul’s role, not for the sake of Paul, but to show how God’s word spread. 58 For Fred B. Craddock, it was necessary for Luke to get John “offstage in order to make room for the entrance of Jesus” (Luke [IBC; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2009], 50). So François Bovon, Luke 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 127; Green, Luke, 183. 59 Cf. Richard I. Pervo, Acts (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 675–76.

142

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

Chart 7G: Healing of Fevered Parents Jesus (Luke 4)

Paul (Acts 28)

Questions about Jesus’ authority (4:36)

Questions about Paul’s identity (28:4)

Demons acknowledged Jesus as the “Holy One of God”/“Son of God” (4:34, 41)

Maltese mistook Paul to be a god (28:6)

Peter’s mother-in-law had fever (4:38)

Publius’ father had fever (28:8)

Jesus healed the fevered parent

Paul healed the fevered parent

Many more sought healing after Peter’s mother-in-law was healed (4:40)

Many more sought healing after Publius’ father was healed (28:9)

Jesus the healer served (4:39)

Paul the healer served (28:10)

Jesus preached the kingdom of God (4:43)

Paul preached the kingdom of God (28:31)

Both Jesus and Paul are shown to possess divine power. In Luke, demons declare Jesus’ identity (Luke 4:34, 41). In the parallel account, the natives of Malta mistook Paul as a god (Acts 28:6).60 Moreover, Jesus and Paul received the gratitude extended in connection with the healing they performed. Peter’s mother-in-law waited on Jesus (Luke 4:40) and the Maltese who were healed by Paul supplied what he needed (Acts 28:10). Both incidents resulted in many more healings in Capernaum and Malta (Luke 4:40; cf. Acts 28:9). The account in Acts 28 raises questions concerning the historian’s choice of elaborating only the account regarding Publius’ father. The status of Publius may have some bearing on Luke’s choice (28:7), yet if this episode is understood within the context of Luke’s succession narrative, it is plausible that the choice has to do with strengthening the parallels between Jesus and Paul. As Pervo asserts, “The choice of 60

There is a significant difference between these two incidents, namely, the confession of the demons in Luke 4 points to Jesus’ divine identity – which is not the case for Paul in Acts 28. Darrell L. Bock argues that Luke did not intend to portray Paul as a θεῖος ἀνήρ but “as one whom even pagans recognize as being in close contact with God” (Acts [BECNT 5; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 744). The combination of prayer and laying of hands suggests that Paul is not portrayed as Theos Aner, suggests Jacob Jervell (Die Apostelgeschichte [KEK 3; Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998], 617). Cf. C. K. Barrett, Acts (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994–98; 2:1224). Setting aside the aspect of identity, the continuity of task from Jesus to Paul is undeniable. Green acknowledges that the demon’s confession involves not only a statement about Jesus’ divine origin, but also “identifies him as one in God’s service” (Luke, 223). In Paul’s case in Acts, the fact that he was able to withstand poisonous snakes made it clear that “some divine dynamis must be at work in him” (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles [SP; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992], 462). The bottom line in all these is the presence and power of God at work through Jesus and Paul.

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

143

material was not accidental: the ‘conclusion’ of Paul’s ministry echoes the beginning of Jesus’ (ministry).” 61 These parallels are reinforced by the events that followed. Both Jesus and Paul continued their work of preaching the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43; cf. Acts 28:31).62 Trials of Jesus and Paul Third, the trial stories of Jesus and Paul provide significant parallels. 63 They consist of several shorter episodes pieced together. These two sets of episodes show an observable pattern of arrangement. Hence, one can talk about the structural parallels between these two narratives. However, for the purpose of this work, I will consider each set of episodes as a single extended account (see Chart 7H). The antagonism between Jesus and the religious leaders resulted from Jesus’ healing during Sabbath, his claim to have authority to forgive sins, and his open criticism of the religious leaders, among others. The tipping point of this conflict was the incident involving the temple traders, after which they were adamant in destroying Jesus (Luke 19:47). Despite Jesus’ awareness of the danger waiting for him in Jerusalem, he was determined to go there because he understood this to be a fulfillment of the divine will (18:31–33; 19:28). 64 The religious leaders’ opportunity to destroy Jesus 61

Pervo, Acts, 675–76. It is noteworthy that these parallel episodes are located at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and the conclusion (as far as the record of Acts is concerned) of Paul’s. This arrangement forms an inclusio to imply that the work which Jesus began doing was brought to “completion” through Paul. This completion of a task does not necessarily mean that any task of a similar nature is no longer needed. Joshua brought Israel into the land, but their conquest continued even after Joshua’s death (Judg 1:1–36). Elisha had been instrumental in putting an end to idolatry instigated by Ahab, but the campaign against idolatry continued after his death (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:7–23). In the same way, Paul’s proclamation of the kingdom of God in Rome does not mean that the task ends with him. Nonetheless, from a literary vantage point, the task Jesus began was “completed” by Paul. 63 Mittelstaedt also tabulates the parallels between Jesus and Paul noting that the main difference between the accounts Jesus and Paul is that the latter lacks an account of his death. He uses this to argue an early date for the writing of Luke-Acts stressing that the absence of the account concerning Paul’s death can only suggest that Luke-Acts was written prior to his martyrdom (Lukas, 170–71). Such conjecture is valid especially as one considers that the accounts of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha include the “ascension” of the predecessors (Deut 34:1–12; 2 Kgs 2:1–25) and the death of the successors (Josh 24:29–33; 2 Kgs 13:14–25). Nonetheless, the absence of the account of Paul’s death in Acts is only one of the many factors that need to be considered in accurately dating Luke’s work. 64 Shauf contests that there is no parallel between Luke 9:51–53 and Acts 19:21–23 because Jerusalem is Jesus’ final destination, which is not the case for Paul (Theology, 236). This led some to suggest that Jesus’ real destination is heaven; hence for both Paul and Jesus, Jerusalem only serves as the point of transition to their final destination (e.g., 62

144

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

came through Judas who offered his services to the chief priests by facilitating his teacher’s arrest.65 Luke’s edition of the betrayal story includes a statement about Satan’s role in the process (22:3). The historian’s comment betrays his understanding of spiritual reality and the “clash of kingdoms” between God and Satan (cf. 10:18; 11:15–20).66 Immediately after Jesus’ arrest, he was brought before the Sanhedrin (22:66–71). A comparable sequence of events can be seen in the accounts concerning Paul. Like his predecessor, the apostle had several death threats during the course of his ministry (e.g., Acts 9:23–25), and his sufferings were accepted as integral to his assigned task (e.g., 9:15). The sufferings that Jesus and Paul had to experience in Jerusalem also highlight the role of prophecies in their ministries. The OT prophecies were the basis of Jesus’ awareness of his sufferings (e.g., Luke 18:31–33); likewise, Agabus’ prophecy played an essential role in Paul’s awareness of his impending suffering (Acts 21:10–12).67 Their knowledge of the sufferings did not deter them from going to Jerusalem (Luke 19:28; cf. Acts 21:13–15). The temple was also important in both episodes. Jesus was teaching in the temple when he was confronted by the Jewish leaders (Luke 20:1). Paul was in the temple when he was seized by the Jews from Asia (Acts 21:27–22:30). Although the sequence of events in these two portions differs, the similar elements are noticeable. In the Gospel, the initial phase of Jesus’ trials was conducted by the Jewish leaders (22:66–71),68 and Paul was in a similar situation. After Paul was seized by the Jews, he stood before the Sanhedrin to make his defense (Acts 23:1–11). The trial stories of Jesus in Luke provide no parallels with the portion in Acts concerning the Radl, Paulus, 123–24). Although Shauf is correct that such a fanciful suggestion cannot strengthen the argument for a parallel between Luke 9:51–53 and Acts 19:21–23, the journey towards Jerusalem that is coupled with prophecies about sufferings for both Jesus and Paul, and the willingness to face such predicament in this city is worth noting. Moreover, the similarity between Jesus’ trip to Jerusalem and that of Paul does not necessarily require that Jerusalem be the final destination for both. 65 Linguistic connections between Luke 4:13 and 22:6 show that this moment was the “opportune time” (Green, Luke, 753). 66 Cf. Green, Luke, 753–54. Interestingly, with the exception of Luke 22:3, Luke uses the term “Satan” only in direct discourse addressed to Jews (10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; Acts 5:3). Cf. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 415. 67 Pervo’s proposal that the oracle of Agabus was a purely Lukan composition based on Jesus’ prediction of his death and suffering may require more evidence than he had supplied (Acts, 538), the echo of Luke 18:31–33 in Acts 21:13–15 is nonetheless clear (cf. David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles [PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 580–82). 68 In Luke, Jesus addressed the whole council, which implies that “the whole temple establishment is joined in solidarity against Jesus” (Green, Luke, 794). The same kind of solidarity is evident in Acts among the Jews in Jerusalem and Diaspora.

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

145

Jewish conspiracy to kill Paul (23:12–35). Nevertheless, the comparable sequences of parallel materials reveal the historian’s attempt to juxtapose the trials of Jesus and his successor: (1) charges brought before procurators, (2) the council reiterated their charges, (3) the presence of two Herods in Jerusalem, and (4) the “not guilty” verdict. 69 First, charges against Jesus and Paul were brought by the Jewish Council before the procurators. In both cases, the accusations relate to the potential political instability created by Jesus’ claim as king (Luke 23:2; Acts 24:5–6). Despite the nature of these allegations, Pilate pronounced Jesus not guilty of the charges (Luke 23:4). Likewise, Felix’s comments implied that Paul was not guilty of the charges (Acts 24:22–27). Pilate’s verdict is noteworthy because this material is unique to Luke. Moreover, if seen in light of the structural pattern in the trial episodes, it makes sense to assume that Luke was creating a similar sequence of materials for Luke and Acts (see Chart 7H). Second, the council’s reiteration of the charges before Pilate in Luke 23:5 can also be seen as preparatory for the need for the council to repeat their charges against Paul because Felix was replaced by the new procurator Festus (cf. Acts 25:1–2). Third, the presence of Herod Antipas in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ trial and Herod Agrippa II’s visit to Caesarea during Paul’s trial reinforces the parallel structures (Luke 23:7; cf. Acts 25:13–27).70 Finally, similar verdicts were given after Jesus and Paul stood before Herod and Agrippa, respectively (Luke 23:14, 22; cf. Acts 23:31). Finally, despite the favorable verdict for each, Jesus was crucified and Paul was brought to Rome for further trial.71 In Acts, Luke consistently stressed the importance of Jesus’ death and resurrection as the means by which God’s rule through the Son of David was realized (Acts 2:36; 3:15; 4:12; 10:41, 42; 13:30, 34; 17:3, 31; etc.).72 In Luke’s Doppelwerk, Jesus’ ministry provided the different facets of God’s kingdom (e.g., healing, power over the evil realm, justice, etc.), and similar elements are found in Paul’s ministry. What Jesus had started in the Gospel, Paul continued in Acts.

69 Cf. Paul W. Walaskay, ‘And So We Came to Rome’: The Political Perspective of St. Luke (SNTSMS 49; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 43. 70 The lack of reference to Herod Antipas in the other three Gospels is indicative of Luke’s attempt to strengthen the parallel between Jesus and Paul. Cf. Walaskay, Rome, 48. 71 Aletti explains that the lengthy passion stories for Paul is anticipated in Jesus’ statement in Luke 6:40, “A pupil is not above his teacher…” (Quand, 94). 72 Cf. Robert O’Toole, “How Does Luke Portray Jesus as Servant of YHWH,” Bib 81, no. 3 (2000): 328–46.

146

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

Chart 7H: Trials of Jesus and Paul Jesus (Luke 22:47–23:25)

Paul (Acts 23–26)

Conflicts with Jewish leaders

Conflicts with Jews and Gentiles

Awareness of impending suffering in Jerusalem based on OT prophecies (e.g., 18:31–33)

Awareness of impending suffering in Jerusalem based on Agabus’ prophecy (21:10–12)

Determined to go to Jerusalem (19:28)

Determined to go to Jerusalem (21:13– 14)

Confrontation with the religious leaders in the temple; arrest (20:1–45; 22:54–65)

Seized in the temple; defense before the Jews (21:27–22:30)

Initial trial before Jewish religious leaders (22:47–71)

Initial trial before Jewish religious leaders (23:1–11)

Council brought charges before the procurator (Pilate) (23:1)

Council’s representatives brought charges before the procurator (Felix) (24:1)

Charges: misled the nation, prohibited paying of taxes to Caesar, claimed to be Christ and king (23:2)

Charges: created unrest in the nation, desecrated the temple (24:5–6)

Pilate’s verdict: no guilt (23:4)

Felix’s implied verdict: no guilt (24:22– 27)

Council brought charges before the procurator anew (Pilate) (23:5)

Council brought charges before the new procurator (Festus) (25:1–2)

Jesus before Herod Antipas (23:7)

Paul before Herod Agrippa II (25:13– 27)

Verdict of Herod and Pilate: Jesus had done nothing worthy of death or imprisonment (23:14, 22)

Verdict of Agrippa and Festus: Paul had done nothing worthy of death or imprisonment (25:31)

Despite the “not guilty” verdict, Jesus was crucified

Despite the “not guilty” verdict, Paul was brought for further trial in Rome

Jesus, Peter, and Paul: The Giving of the Spirit Perhaps the most important link that connects the works of Jesus, Peter, and Paul was the role they played in the giving of the Spirit in Acts. John the Baptist distinguished his task from that of Jesus: “As for me, I baptize you with water; but one is coming after me…[who] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit...” (Luke 3:16). Luke reiterates the nature of Jesus’ baptism in which he promised his disciples that they would soon be baptized by the Spirit (Acts 1:5; cf. 11:16). Thus, the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2 should

147

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

be understood not only as a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28–32; cf. Acts 2:17–21), but also as a fulfillment of Jesus’ promise. Moreover, in Peter’s speech, he affirmed that the risen Jesus was the active agent through whom the Spirit was given to all believers (2:33). This role was not assumed by any other followers of Jesus except Peter and Paul.73 Chart 7I: The Holy Spirit for Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles Acts 2

Acts 8

Acts 19

Jerusalem and Diaspora Jews heard the word (2:5)

Word preached by dispersed believers throughout Judea and Samaria (8:4)

Word preached to both Jews and Greeks in Asia (19:10)

Prophecy fulfilled (2:16– 21); Jesus’ promise expected (cf. 1:5, 8)

Peter laid hands on them (8:17)

Paul laid hands on them (19:6)

The Spirit received by the believers (2:4)

The Spirit received by the believers (8:17)

The Spirit received by the believers (19:6)

Manifestation: tongues and prophecy (2:4)

Manifestation: none (8:17 cf. 10:45–48)

Manifestation: tongues and prophecy (19:6)

Peter baptized believers (2:41)

Philip baptized believers (8:12)

Paul baptized believers (19:5)

Peter preached

Philip preached

Paul preached

Jesus proclaimed as “Lord” (2:36)

The kingdom of God was proclaimed (8:12)

The kingdom of God was proclaimed (19:8)

Repentance preached (2:38)

Repentance preached (8:22)

Repentance seen (19:19)

More believed (2:41)

More believed (8:12)

More believed (19:18)

Truth revealed: Jesus Christ (2:22–24)

Counterfeit exposed: Simon Magus (8:18–21)

Counterfeit exposed: seven sons of Sceva (19:13–15)

Word continue to spread in Jerusalem (2:42–47)

Word continue to spread in Samaria (8:25)

Word expected to reach Rome (19:25)

“…in Jerusalem, and in all Judea…”

“…(in all) Samaria…”

“…and even to remotest part of the earth…”

Parallels in the three episodes in Acts in which the Spirit was given to believers (Acts 2, 8, 19) accentuate the task-succession from Jesus to Peter 73 Although Luke acknowledged John’s role in the giving of the Spirit to the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–17), it was no more than a passing reference and the bulk of the narrative focused on Peter’s role.

148

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

and Paul (see Chart 7I). All three episodes center on the proclamation of God’s word to a wide audience. In Acts 2, both the local Jews and those from Diaspora present in Jerusalem received the word (2:5). 74 This centripetal movement toward Jerusalem was reversed in Acts 8. Luke reported that the early persecution against Jesus’ followers was the catalyst for centrifugal movement, and the once-passive believers became active instruments in the spread of the word throughout Judea and Samaria (8:4). The same is evident in Acts 19 as believers continued to preached to both Jews and Greeks in Asia (19:10).75 Luke explains the first occurrence of Spirit baptism as the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16–21). By implication, the next two are understood as a continuation of that fulfillment (2:4; 8:17; 19:6). More noteworthy is the implied necessity for the Jerusalem apostles to lay hands on the Samaritan believers before they received the Holy Spirit (8:17; 19:6). 76 The believers’ acceptance of Philip’s message was not enough for them to receive the gift of the Spirit (8:14–17), which suggests that he did not possess the same authority as the apostles.77 So Peter and John had to travel to 74 The restoration of Diaspora Jews cannot be understood apart from Gentile inclusion in the kingdom. Richard Bauckham notes that although it is possible to understand the phrase “all flesh” (Acts 2:17; cf. Joel 3:1) as “all Jewish flesh,” the fact that it recalls an earlier quotation from Isa 40:3 (cf. Luke 3:6) that uses an identical phrase makes it less likely (The Jewish World around the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], 359). Seen in this light, the works of Peter (Acts 8) and Paul (Acts 19) should be construed as part of a series of partial fulfillments of God’s plan of gathering the whole world under his rule. 75 By comparing the giving of the Spirit in Acts with Jesus’ meal fellowship with the “outcasts” in Luke, A. J. M. Wedderburn notes, “Just as Jesus, as God’s representative, had signified God’s acceptance of sinners by eating with them, so now too God was signifying his acceptance of Gentile sinners by pouring out divine Spirit upon them as upon Jewish Christians” (“Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity,” NTS 34, no. 2 [1988]: 172; italics original). 76 In light of Peter’s admission that the Jews consider it unlawful for them to associate or visit non-Jews (Acts 10:28), the potential for early schism between the Jerusalem and Samaritan community was great. Hence, there is a need for confirmation of divine acts by authoritative figures such as the apostles (cf. 11:17–18), and such confirmation is necessary to preserve the unity among God’s people. Cf. V. J. Samkutty, The Samaritan Mission in Acts (LNTS 328; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 213. 77 For a survey of various views regarding the delay of the coming of the Spirit upon the Samaritans, see Samkutty, Samaritan, 33–43. Ananias assumed the same role when he laid hands on Paul before the latter received the Spirit (Acts 9:10–19a). This suggests that the Jerusalem apostles did not have a monopoly in administering the reception of the Spirit (cf. Spencer, Portrait, 211–40). Nonetheless, Ananias’ role in Acts cannot be compared with that of Peter and Paul. Philip’s other functions (e.g., preacher of the kingdom of God, evangelist, authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures, Spirit-filled agent) place him on equal footing with Peter and Paul. By presenting Philip as one who was not instrumental in the giving of the Spirit, Luke highlights the roles of Peter and Paul.

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

149

Samaria and lay hands on the believers for the bestowing to take place. Paul, however, was presented as an authorized instrument for the bequeathing of the Spirit (19:4–6). These incidents identify Paul as one sharing equal authority with Peter, and present both as instruments in the giving of the Spirit and in this sense as the real successors of Jesus. One of the most crucial elements in these three episodes is the proclamation of God’s kingdom by Peter, Philip, and Paul (2:36; 8:12; 19:8). The essence of this proclamation was summarized in Peter’s sermon as the declaration of the Son of David as “Lord” (2:36). Repentance was also an important element in their preaching (2:38; 8:22); and in 19:19, the realization of this transformation was seen in the destruction of objects used in the propagation of a rival kingdom. Jesus is presented as God’s true agent through whom divine miracles were performed (2:22). Exposure of counterfeits was also an important element in the episodes involving Jesus’ two successors. Peter confronted the evil motives of Simon the magician, whose desire to have the same gifts as Peter was denied (8:18–21).78 Likewise, the delusive acts of the sons of Sceva were brought to light, and interestingly, by an evil spirit (19:13–15). In view of the three parallel episodes, these two charlatan incidents correspond to the revelation of truth about Jesus (2:22–24). In these cases, exposition of truth was done through exposure of counterfeits. At the same time, these two incidents further emphasize that Peter and Paul were the true successors of Jesus. In all three episodes, an increasing number of people acknowledge the lordship of Jesus (2:41; 8:12; 19:18), the proclamation of the word continued in Jerusalem (2:42–47) and in Samaria (8:25), and Paul’s plan to continue his work in Rome (19:25). In summary, Luke points out that one of the distinctives of Jesus’ ministry was the giving of the Spirit. Even John the Baptist, Stephen, and Philip lacked this authority. The giving of the Spirit was first realized in Acts 2; the risen Jesus was the active agent in this event. Throughout Acts, with the exception of John whose work was not elaborated, the only persons given the authority to bestow the Spirit were Peter and Paul. This observation is crucial in our understanding of Luke’s succession narrative. Peter and Paul were the legitimate successors of Jesus instrumental in the giving of the Spirit.

78 The affinities between Acts 8:9–40 and 2 Kgs 5 are shown by Brodie (“Acts 8,9– 40,” 45–64). Luke’s dependence on the Deuteronomic historian’s style and content is not just evident in individual episodes but also in his construction of a succession narrative.

150

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

Other Jesus-Peter and Jesus-Paul Parallels As we have seen in the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha narratives, the Deuteronomic historian did not only use structural and episodic parallels to present the successions of task. There are numerous circumstantial parallels within the narratives that accentuate the transfer of responsibility from the predecessor to their successors. Acts contains incidents involving Peter and Paul that are reminiscent of Jesus’ words and activities in the Third Gospel. The list of these incidents is far from exhaustive (see Chart 7J). Nonetheless, it shows instances wherein the actions of the successors recall similar situations that involved Jesus. First, in the account of the Transfiguration, when the two sons of Zebedee also heard the “voice from heaven” (Luke 9:35–36), the prominence of Peter was seen in the way Luke refers to Jesus’ closest disciples.79 Throughout Luke’s work, only Jesus, Peter, and Paul were the direct recipients of these divine revelations by the “voice from heaven.” The foci of these revelations are different; Jesus’ identity is the focus of Luke 3,80 the nature of God’s mission to the Gentiles is emphasized in Acts 11, and Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles is voiced in Acts 9. There are other “earwitnesses” to the revelatory voices from heaven (e.g., James and John [Luke 9:32] and the companions of Paul [Acts 9:7]), but only Jesus and his two successors are the addressees of these revelation. Chart 7J: Circumstantial Parallels for Jesus-Peter/Paul Incidents Voice from heaven

Jesus (Luke)

Peter (Acts)

Paul (Acts)

3:22

11:9

9:3–4

Mana healing

8:43–48

5:15

19:12

“Stand and walk”

5:18–26

9:34

14:10

7:12–16; 8:49–56

9:32–43

20:7–12

Confronted hypocrisy and challenged satanic activities

13:15–16

5:1–11

13:4–12

Continued association with Jewish religious system

4:16

3:1

17:2

Raised dead back to life

79 The importance of Peter’s role in the Transfiguration is seen in his direct discourse (Luke 9:33). His prominence is highlighted in Luke’s reference to “Peter, James, and John” as “Peter and his companions” (9:32; cf. Mark 9:5), instead of the implied third person plural subjects in Mark (e.g., 9:9, 10, 11) and Matthew’s general reference to them as the “disciples” (e.g., 9:6). 80 The same can be said of the Transfiguration episode in which Jesus’ role as prophet was the focus (Ravens, “Prophetic,” 119–29; Ðỗ, Lucan Journey, 90).

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

151

Second, Jesus and his two successors are able to heal through involuntary actions. Operative in these instances was the ancient assumption that contact with a person with power (e.g., magicians) is necessary to tap healing power.81 The episodes wherein the ailing received healing through Peter’s shadow (Acts 5:15) and Paul’s handkerchiefs (19:12) recall the healing of the hemorrhaging woman (Luke 8:43–48). In Acts, healing by involuntary contact of the healer was a feat unique to Peter and Paul.82 Third, Jesus and his two successors were instrumental in the healing of three paralyzed men. 83 Aside from the physical condition of the persons needing healing, the essential similarity of Jesus’ words and those of Peter and Paul draw these three incidents together: ἔγειρε (Luke 5:24), ἀνάστηθι (Acts 9:34), and ἀνάστηθι (14:10).84 Fourth, within Luke’s narrative, only Jesus and his two successors have manifested the power to raise the dead. Peter’s raising of Tabitha is reminiscent of the raising of the widow’s son (Luke 7:12–16; Acts 9:32–43).85 Just as Jesus gave the lad back to his widowed mother (Luke 7:15), Peter presented Tabitha to her companions (Acts 9:41).86 Another pair of resur81 Howard C. Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study in Sociohistorical Method (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983), 215–16. 82 Paschke’s warning against haphazard identification of the background of the three healing stories in Luke-Acts is well-taken (“Mystery,” 83). From a literary perspective, however, the two healing stories in Acts function as recollections of the one in the Gospel. Within Luke-Acts, the healing mana was possessed only by Jesus, Peter, and Paul; this makes it clearer that Peter and Paul were tasked to continue the work of their predecessor. 83 The parallels between the accounts of Peter’s healing of the lame man (Acts 3) and that of Paul (Acts 14) are also worth noting: (1) the lame men were lame since birth (3:2; cf. 14:8); (2) Peter and Paul looked intently at the lame men (3:4; cf. 14:9); (3) the lame men leaped (3:8; cf. 14:10); (4) the incidents happened near temples, namely, the temple of the God of Israel (3:2) and the temple of Zeus (14:13); (5) the onlookers responded positively (3:9; cf. 14:11); (6) both Peter and Paul preached by turning the people’s attention from them to God (3:12; cf. 14:14–17); and (7) a contrast can be made, however, between the response of the Jewish authorities (4:1–2) and that of Zeus’ priest and his followers (14:13). For other parallels between Jesus-Peter, Jesus-Paul, and Peter-Paul, see Aletti, Quand, 75–76, 82, 84–86. 84 In the LXX, as Rick Strelan observes, the command ἀνάστηθι was typically uttered by “the Lord” (Deut 9:12; Josh 7:10; 1 Sam 23:4; 1 Kgs 12:24; 17:9; 20:18; Jonah 1:2; 3:2; Isa 51:17; Jer 13:4, 6; 18:2; Ezek 3:22; Mic 2:10; 4:13; 6:1; 2 Esd 6:13), by an angel (Gen 21:18; 1 Kgs 19:5; 2 Esd 2:38), or by a prophet or king (Num 23:18; 2 Kgs 8:1; 1 Chr 22:16; 2 Chr 6:41; Bar 5:5; 2 Esd 2:38). The same can be said even in other Jewish writings (e.g., T. Abr. 2:8; 3:6; 4:14) (“Recognizing the Gods [Acts 14.8–10],” NTS 46, no. 4 [2000]: 501–503). 85 Brodie is correct in his observation that there is no steady pattern of resuscitation stories within the NT, not even within Luke-Acts (“Old Testament,” 262). 86 The observable similarity in the arrangement of materials in Luke 7 and 1 Kgs 17 led Brodie to conclude that Luke followed the Hellenistic technique of mimesis in relat-

152

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

rection episodes concern the raising of a dead girl (Luke 8:49–56) and the raising of Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12). In the Gospel account, Jesus comforted the girl’s parents by saying that she was not dead but asleep (Luke 8:52). Immediately after the girl was raised, Jesus ordered that food be given to her (8:55). Interestingly, Eutychus’ death resulted from his falling asleep (Acts 20:9), and after Paul raised him, they shared a meal together (20:12). Fifth, throughout Luke-Acts, only Jesus and his two successors are portrayed as authoritative figures with the capacity to confront human hypocrisy and challenge satanic activity. Luke 13 records the story of Jesus’ confrontation with a synagogue official who questioned him about the lawfulness of his Sabbath healing (13:15). Jesus explained that this incident was actually a confrontation between him and Satan who kept the woman bound in her sickness for eighteen years (13:16). This confrontation was immediately followed by his discourse on the growth of the kingdom of God (13:18–21). Luke’s arrangement of these materials clearly points to his understanding of the realities concerning the kingdom of God, that is, human hypocrisy and satanic activity impede the growth of God’s kingdom, and Jesus had the authority to address both. Similar elements can be found in the episode concerning Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 and that concerning Elymas in Acts 13. Peter associated Ananias’ hypocrisy with the work of Satan (5:3). The result of Peter’s exposure of Ananias’ sin was the increase in the number of believers (5:14 cf. Luke 13:18–21). Likewise, Paul called Elymas a “son of the devil” and a “man full of all deceit and fraud” as he attempted to turn proconsul Sergius Paulus away from the faith (Acts 13:8–11). Consequent to Paul’s exposure of Elymas’ evils, the proconsul was led to faith in Christ (13:12).87 Last, despite the antagonism shown by the religious leaders toward Jesus and his followers, they continued to associate themselves with the Jewish religious system. Luke makes it clear that it was Jesus’ custom to visit the synagogues every Sabbath (Luke 4:16; cf. 4:33, 44; 6:6; 13:10). The same was said about Paul whose custom was to visit the synagogues of Jews during his missionary works (Acts 17:2; cf. 13:5, 14–15; 14:1; 17:1, ing the resuscitation story of the widow’s son (“Old Testament,” 247, 262). Considering the extent to which Luke imitated the OT historian’s presentation of his stories, it is very plausible that even in the choice and arrangement of his material, Luke was consciously crafting a succession narrative using the Elijah-Elisha (and Moses-Joshua) narratives as precedents. 87 Cf. Craig A. Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” BBR 15, no. 1 (2005): 48–75. Jesus’ exorcism, preaching, and healing are integral to this divine conquest over the evil dominion. One important aspect of God’s kingdom is the exposure of lies, whether in the form of religious hypocrisy or counterfeit. This act was initiated by Jesus (contra the religious leaders) and continued by Peter and Paul (contra counterfeits).

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

153

10, 17; 18:4, 19, 26; 19:8). Peter continued to worship in the temple except with a new understanding of their Scriptures and its fulfillment (Acts 3).

Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives: Deuteronomic Precedents One of the major difficulties in seeing the Moses-Joshua or even the Elijah-Elisha narratives as literary pattern for Luke-Acts is that these accounts are not independent biographies (“Life of Moses,” “Life of Elijah”) followed by the acts of their successors.88 Nonetheless, the type of “parallels” in Luke-Acts finds closer resemblance to those in the narratives of MosesJoshua and Elijah-Elisha than the “parallels” found in Greco-Roman writings. Considering that in the Deuteronomic narratives, parallels, as a literary device and in its various forms (structural, episodic, circumstantial, and verbal), are used to present the successions of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha, and considering the continuation of Jesus’ task in Acts by Peter and Paul, one may conclude that Luke used this literary device to present the succession from Jesus-Peter/Paul as well. Luke’s use of parallels to present the successors’ replication, continuation, and “completion” of the predecessor’s task is comparable to the Deuteronomic historian’s presentation of the successions of Joshua and Elisha. The use of parallels to present successions is used in the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha narratives, and Luke has capitalized on this feature to present the Jesus-Peter/Paul successions. It is not necessary that independent “Life of Moses” or “Life of Elijah” accounts exist before Luke can use the literary features to create his Doppelwerk. In the first place, the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha narratives can be considered as complete literary units. Hence, Luke’s adoption of this literary feature should not be a concern.

Summary and Conclusion In the previous chapter, it was shown that there is no pattern by which succession was presented in Jewish writings. The succession narratives of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha in Israel’s Scriptures provide one of the examples by which succession was presented, namely, the use of various types of parallels to show the successors’ repetition, continuation, and completion of the predecessors’ task.

88

Talbert, Patterns, 134.

154

Part 3: Literary Parallels and Succession Narratives

In this chapter, our aim was to test whether such features are also present in Luke-Acts. Five things were identified as criteria for recognition of the legitimate successors, namely, (1) identification of what is transferred, (2) symbolic sign of succession, (3) confirming acts that succession took place, (4) divine appointment of both the predecessors and the successors, and (5) defined task for the successor to continue. With these criteria, the focus of the study was narrowed to the parallels between Jesus-Peter and Jesus-Paul. One may find parallels between Jesus and other characters within Luke-Acts just as one may find parallels between two characters within the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha narratives. This suggests that there may be other purposes for this literary device. Nonetheless, it was pointed out that this literary device can be used to highlight succession. The ascension of the predecessor is the basic structural pivot found in the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha narratives, and in Luke-Acts. An important difference between Luke-Acts and the two OT narratives lies in the fact that for Luke, the risen Lord continues to be active in Acts while Moses and Elijah ceased from their activities. Nonetheless, from a literary vantage point, the narrative focus shifted at the ascension of the predecessors from God’s work through the predecessors to God’s work through the successors. Significant differences can be observed as one compares the features of succession in Diogenes’ Lives and in Luke-Acts. a. Nature of “parallels”: In Diogenes’ work, “parallel” refers to a collection of biographical accounts. b. Multigenerational succession: The line of succession in Diogenes’ work involves several generations. Talbert notes that although the succession in Luke-Acts conceivably runs through three generations, actual records of succession only run through one generation (e.g., Jesus-Twelve, Twelve-Deacons, and Paul-elders).89 Considering the number of generations involved, perhaps a more fruitful comparison could be made between the succession of the philosophers in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives with the apostolic succession,90 or the succession of judges or kings in the OT, though not with succession in Luke-Acts. c. Succession type: The succession presented in Diogenes’ Lives revolves around the successors’ affiliation with a philosophic school or their assumption of leadership roles. The nature of succession in Luke-Acts focuses on the task (i.e., proclamation of the kingdom of God). The lead-

89 90

Talbert, Reading, 50. E.g., Brent, “Apostolic Succession,” 367–89.

Chapter 7: Luke-Acts

155

ership role of James the Just in Acts is unquestionable.91 Yet Luke does not mention anything that point to James as Jesus’ successor. His cameo in Acts only highlights the prominent roles of Peter and Paul in Luke’s narrative. Even the other eleven apostles and companions of Peter play a less prominent role in Luke-Acts. As far as Jesus’ mission is concerned, Peter and Paul are clearly the main successors of Jesus whose mission was to continue (by replication) the work of Jesus after his ascension. d. Sense of divine appointment: The involvement of the gods with human affairs is assumed in Diogenes’ work. Despite this awareness, evidence for a sense of divine appointment to the philosophical task is lacking.92 In Luke-Acts, divine mandate is the motivation for both the “founder” of the Christian movement and his successors (e.g., Jesus [Luke 3:21– 23; 9:35], Peter [5:10], and Paul [Acts 9:15; 22:10; 23:11; 26:15–18]). e. Mission: As Talbert himself points out, the mission of spreading Jesus’ message, and the continuation of Jesus’ work as part of the Spirit’s outworking are just some of the important emphases in Luke-Acts that are lacking in Diogenes Laertius.93 In Luke-Acts, these tasks are integral to their divine appointment, successors were chosen by God just as Jesus was (Luke 4:18–19), and they were appointed to continue what Jesus had started doing. It seems that the differences between the works of Diogenes Laertius and Luke repel them more than their similarities attract. Moreover, Talbert’s proposal that Luke and Diogenes shared a “common pattern” seems to have insufficient warrant.94 Considering the nature and purposes of parallels found in Hellenistic writings (“parallels” as collection of Lives for the purpose of σύγκρισις) and Deuteronomic history (“parallels” as replication, continuation, and “completion” of acts for presenting succession), it is best to conclude that Luke-Acts is patterned after the narratives of MosesJoshua and Elijah-Elisha for the same purpose.

91 See Matti Myllykoski, “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship,” CBR 5, no. 1 (2006): 73–122; and 6, no. 1 (2007): 11–98. 92 This idea is present, however, in other writings (e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Exil. 13.9). 93 Talbert, Patterns, 132. 94 Cf. Talbert, Patterns, 133.

Summary and Conclusion to Part 3

Luke-Acts as a Jewish Succession Narrative In this section, we have focused on the relationship between literary parallels and succession narratives. After examining some Greco-Roman writings, I concluded that the main purpose for their use of parallels is σύγκρισις. Moreover, the nature of parallels in these writings is different from what we find in Jewish writings, particularly the narratives concerning Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha in Israel’s Scriptures. The parallels in these two sets of narratives were used to present succession stories wherein the task assigned to the predecessors was continued and to a certain extent completed by the successors through replication of their predecessors’ acts. O’Toole sums up the purpose of literary parallels well: “But these parallels demonstrate that Luke wants to show that what Jesus began to do and to teach, he continues through his disciples.”1 Two scholars have dealt with this issue, namely, Talbert and Brodie. The former concluded that LukeActs was patterned after Hellenistic writings while the latter looked at its parallels with Jewish writings, particularly the Elijah-Elisha narratives. Critiques of Talbert’s view have already been offered,2 and it is unnecessary to rehearse them again. However, a few things may still be proffered. First, although Luke-Acts contains biographical narratives, unlike Hellenistic biographies (e.g., Diogenes’ Lives), Luke-Acts is not a compendium of short biographies but a witness to the work of God through these individuals. Second, the succession in Luke-Acts is one of task (e.g., bring God’s people out of Egypt to the Promised Land, judgment against the Omrides, proclamation of God’s kingship) and not of office (e.g., philosopher, prophet, priest, king). Hence, the office-based succession found in the Lives of Philosophers does not match the task-based succession narrative of Luke-Acts. Third, the OT does not only present the basis of Luke’s theology, but it also provides the literary precedent for Luke’s succession narrative. The Jewish writings have often been overlooked in studies of Lukan literature. Brodie had shown that there are many affinities between LukeActs and the Deuteronomic historian’s work. In chs. 6 and 7, it was shown 1 2

O’Toole, Unity, 63. E.g., Alexander, “Biography,” 31–64.

Parallels and Successions: Summary and Conclusion

157

that Luke’s use of the Deuteronomic historian’s work goes beyond parallel episodes between Elijah-Elisha narratives and Luke-Acts, which is the focus of Brodie’s work; Luke followed the literary features seen in the parallels between narratives involving the predecessors (Moses and Elijah) and their successors (Joshua and Elisha) and used the same in composing Luke-Acts. Like the Deuteronomic historian, Luke employed parallels between the predecessors and the successors to present the succession from Jesus to Peter and Paul. Considering the literary features used in the narratives concerning Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha to present succession and how Luke followed this pattern in presenting the continuation of task from Jesus to Peter and Paul in Acts, one can conclude that Luke-Acts can be viewed on the analogy of the two succession narratives found in Israel’s Scriptures.

Part 4

Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods in Ancient Historical Accounts Ancient historical narratives, whether Jewish or Greco-Roman, are theological in nature, that is, records of divine acts are woven together with human affairs highlighting the involvement of the gods in human history. However, the confessional nature of Jewish historiography distinguishes these writings from their Greco-Roman counterparts. Luke-Acts, as a theological history, exhibits no reluctance to account for the acts of the God of Israel, a tendency also evident in earlier Jewish historical narratives. Moreover, God’s work is accomplished through his chosen agents. In the case of Luke-Acts, God’s work is accomplished through Jesus and his successors; as a succession narrative, parallels were used to account for the succession of tasks from Jesus to Peter and Paul. The use of parallels as a literary device to present succession was characteristic of the canonical accounts of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha. Hence, it was concluded that Luke patterned his work after the Deuteronomic historical narratives. In this section (Part 4), another aspect of Luke’s writing will be investigated, namely, the ideological elements in Luke-Acts. Earlier Lukan scholarship held that Luke-Acts was written with an apologetic aim, whether pro-church or pro-Rome. 1 Richard J. Cassidy points to the mixed portrayals of Christians and Roman officials, showing that the pro-ecclesial and pro-imperium views are inadequate.2 He points to Luke’s threefold purpose for writing: (1) to express and share his personal commitment to Jesus, (2) to provide his fellow Christians with guidance 1 Brief reviews are offered by Squires, Plan, 52–55; Jervell, People, 153–58; Thompson, One, 60–61; Loveday Alexander, “The Acts of the Apostles as an Apologetic Text,” Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians (ed. Mark Edwards, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 16–19. More comprehensive reviews are presented by Steve Walton, “The State They Were in: Luke’s View of the Roman Empire,” in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (ed. Peter Oakes; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 1–41; and Alexandru Neagoe, The Trial of the Gospel: An Apologetic Reading of Luke’s Trial Narratives (SNTSMS 116; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 3–22. 2 Richard J. Cassidy, Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987), 145–57. Walton also points out that for Luke to declare Jesus as “king” shows Luke’s political interest (“State,” 17).

160

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

for their exercise of discipleship within the context of Roman rule, and (3) to provide Christians of his day with perspective regarding Christian witness before political officials.3 C. Kavin Rowe also notes, The failure to perceive that Luke is not working analytically within the circumscribed area of Roman religio-political practice and reflection – as if he were somehow forced rationally to render the judgment “innocent” or “guilty” on their terms – has prevented us from seeing that the narrative of Acts offers an entirely different alternative. The alternative is not a piecemeal substitution of Christian terms for Roman ones but the refusal of the Roman premise and a construction of a different set of terms, or a whole pattern of thinking. Because he knows that Jesus is the κύριος πάντων Luke proclaims him, in contrast to emperor, as “another King,” as one whose salvific claim upon his subjects results in a new, worldwide, and publicly identifiable form of communal life. 4

Rowe focuses on the regal claims of Jesus as the risen king, not as a counterclaim, but in contrast to Caesar’s claim of universal authority. 5 Thompson highlights the unity of the people under Jesus’ rule, which challenges the emperor’s claim as the unifier of the empire. 6 The character of Jesus’ kingship is also the focus of his work. He demonstrates that in both GrecoRoman and Jewish literatures, an ideal ruler was portrayed as one who is able to unite subjects under his rule (e.g., Polybius 6.11–18; Virgil, Aen. 1.275–96; 6.788–96; 1 Chr 29:21–24; Ezek 37:15–28). The themes of unity and kingship are also found in Luke’s work (e.g., Acts 2; 4:32–5:16; 16:6–10). 7 He claims, “there is possibility that the combination of the themes of unity and kingship in Acts may point to a critique of contemporary Roman claims.”8 Two earlier essays by Douglas R. Edwards and Vernon K. Robbins are also worth mentioning.9 Edwards points out the conflict between the political powers (Romans) and the local groups within the empire; this conflict is a result of the peculiar values, traditions and culture of the group and religion was the means by which the ruling classes gain power. He explains, “Groups that wished to maintain power, encourage believers, or at3

Cassidy, Society, 158–59. C. Kavin Rowe, World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 136. 5 Rowe, World, 151. Cf. idem, “Luke-Acts and the Imperial Cult: A Way Through a Conundrum?” JSNT 27 (2005): 279–300. 6 Thompson, One, 61. 7 Thompson, One, 19, 57. 8 Thompson, One, 60. 9 Douglas R. Edwards, “Surviving the Web of Roman Power: Religion and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles, Josephus, and Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe,” in Images of Empire (ed. Loveday Alexander; JSOTSup 122; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 179–201; Vernon K. Robbins, “Luke-Acts: A Mixed Population Seeks A Home in the Roman Empire,” in Images of Empire (ed. Loveday Alexander; JSOTSup 122; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 202–21. 4

Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods: Introduction

161

tract adherents, especially those who participated in and benefitted from Rome’s ‘web of power…, had to make clear that their movement or group operated within the bounds of lawful society.” 10 The use of religious languages was the means to bolster a group’s sense of power. He enumerates the four features of this religious expression: (1) the antiquity of the worship of a deity, (2) the power and presence of the deity throughout the Roman world, (3) the legitimate social customs of a group, and (4) the deity’s influence.11 In the case of Luke, “[The] author redefines for his audience the web in which acts of miraculous and political power must be perceived. Nations and the cosmos itself function at the behest of the Christian God.”12 Robbins explicitly states the main thesis of his essay: “Luke-Acts is a narrative map grounded in an ideology that supported Christians who were building alliances with local leaders throughout the eastern Roman empire.”13 Like Edwards, Robbins acknowledges that Luke’s narrative focuses on the theme of power which he associates with environment/territories.14 For Robbins, the early Christians shared the same “territory” (workplace) with the non-believers and that Christian activities (work) were done within this shared place. Luke’s concern was to show that there is a compatible and symbiotic relation between Christianity and Rome.15 Whether one views Christianity’s relationship with Rome as one of accommodation (e.g., Robbins) or as a challenge (e.g., Rowe, Thompson), it is clear that Christianity’s existence as part of the Roman regime inevitably raises the issue concerning the conflicting claims between God and the emperor. The Roman Empire was defined by its territories (e.g., Appian, Hist. rom. Pref. 1–5). The extent of Rome’s hegemony is measured by the territories subjugated by the emperor, and his claim over a vast land was contrary to Yahweh’s claim as the “Lord of all the earth” (Josh 3:11, 13; Mic 4:13; Zech 6:5). In this final section, I will focus on the spatial aspect of the emperor’s reign. I will examine the relationship between the themes of land and the reign of the gods, and the significance of the genealogy of Jesus for these themes. In chs. 8 and 9, I will investigate the relationship of land, genealogies, and the reign of the gods in Greco-Roman and Jewish 10

Edwards, “Surviving,” 180–81. Edwards, “Surviving,” 181. 12 Edwards, “Surviving,” 183. 13 Robbins, “Mixed Population,” 202. 14 Robbins, “Mixed Population,” 204. 15 Robbins, “Mixed Population,” 221. This raises the question whether Christianity simply accommodates itself to the dominant culture or posited a challenge against any element inconsistent with their convictions. 11

162

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

literature, respectively. In ch. 10, I will examine the significance of these themes in Luke-Acts.

Chapter 8

Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods in Greco-Roman Historical Accounts It is common for Greco-Roman historians to build on earlier works (e.g., Diodorus 13.42.5; 14.117.8–9). Some historical writings were intended to complement earlier records (e.g., Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.6.1–2; 1.7.1; 1.11.1–3; Thucydides 1.97.1–2), others to continue unfinished accounts (cf. Diodorus 14.84.67), and still others were meant to correct supposed errors (e.g., Polybius 1.14.1; Diodorus 1.53.1). For many Greco-Roman historians, history has a didactic purpose.1 Diodorus considers historians as “ministers of Divine Providence” (ὑπουργοὶ τῆς θείας προνοίας) as their works became the means by which the lessons from the past were transmitted (1.1.3).2 Tracing the origin of a person or nation, whether for polemical or other reasons, was also done through the writing of history. 3 Hence, ancient ethnography and historiography are inseparable. The historians’ tendency toward flattery and slander was tempered by their desire for accuracy of accounts (e.g., 19.8.4; Tacitus, Hist. 1.1; cf. 1 This is perhaps one of the reasons some historians have no qualms with combining historical accounts with what they already know to be fictitious events as long as the stories contribute to fostering piety to equip the readers for noble living (e.g., Diodorus 1.2.2). Livy summarizes the didactic purpose of history: “What chiefly makes the study of history wholesome and profitable is this, that you behold the lessons of every kind of experience set forth as on a conspicuous monument; from these you may choose for yourself and for your own state what to imitate, from these mark for avoidance what is shameful in the conception and shameful in the result” (Pref. 10; cf. Polybius 1.1.2). P. G. Walsh also notes Livy’s attempt to portray certain leaders as having a predestined role in history, but also as the embodiment of virtues like “prudence, justice, courage, and moderation”; in doing so, “Livy has allowed his pursuit of edifying examples to take precedence over truthful account, not merely by distortion of emphasis, but even by suppression of unpalatable facts” (Livy: His Historical Aims and Method [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970], 109). 2 The memory of good deeds of ancient figures is also preserved through historical records. Hence, honor can continuously be bestowed to those who deserve it, not for the sake of the dead hero but for the society that needs a good model to emulate (Diodorus 1.2.4–5; 37.4.1; cf. Herodotus, Hist. 1.1.1; Livy, Pref. 3). 3 Herodotus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus Siculus, and Livy, among others, see the continuity between the legendary era and antiquity to show that the pedigree of many contemporary heroes can be traced back to the hero-gods.

164

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.6.5).4 Historians assumed the task of choosing and arranging materials in their historical records (Diodorus 5.1.1–4; cf. 13.1.1), some arranged their work according to topics (e.g., Appian, Hist. rom. Pref. 13), and some provide a summary of contents (e.g., Polybius 1.13.6–7; cf. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.1.4). 5 The bottom line is that the events should be significant enough that the knowledge of these events is a necessity and depriving future generations of such information is a disservice to them (cf. Polybius 38.4.1–8). Diodorus wrote only about “chief events worthy to be accounted in history” (19.53.3; cf. 1.45.3). Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ choice is limited only to “noble and lofty subjects as will be of great utility to the readers” (Ant. rom. 1.1.2); for him, the rise of the Roman Empire within a short time period, and its conquest of all accessible and inhabited regions tops the list of these “noble and lofty subjects” (1.3.1–3). 6 Likewise, Polybius’ choices reflect this standard (1.1.5). Accounts of conquests and territorial expansions are often considered worthy to be included in historical narratives.

Migrations, Conquests, and Territorial Claims Migration, whether by sea or land, was common in the ancient Greek world. Weaker groups were often forced out by the stronger ones and powerful nations advanced to take more land. On various occasions within Thucydides’ narratives, he pointed to three reasons one nation would desire larger territories: need, greed, and honor.7

4 Hadas observes the natural tendency of historians to exaggerate the merits of the heroes and gloss over their shortcomings for a consistent portrayal of these heroes; likewise, the faults of the villains were highlighted (“Livy,” 449–51). 5 Principles for writing history were explicated by writers from a latter period such as Lucian who stresses the importance of the historian’s moral qualities (Hist. conscr. 1) and the historian’s task to be accurate in their records by writing the events as it happened (τοῦ δὴ συγγραφέως ἔργον ἕν ὡς ἐπράχθη εἰπεῖν, §39). Although he discusses the various tasks of the historians, such as the need to use direct sources (§47) and the need to compose speeches (§58), he does not elaborate how the historian should actually do his job. Hence, C. K. Barrett says of Lucian, “he was strong on morals, sound on style, but not so good on methods” (“Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit.” NTS 28, no. 3 (1982): 304. 6 Hadas refers to the works of Livy, Herodotus, and Thucydides as “patriotic historiography” (“Livy,” 445). Although Dionysius was Greek in origin, unlike Herodotus and Thucydides, his sentiments and loyalty were not towards the Greeks, but towards Roman colonizers; like Livy, arguing for Roman superiority is at the center of his work. 7 This is perhaps best summarized by the Athenians: “It was under the compulsion of circumstances that we were driven to advance our empire to its present state, influenced

Chapter 8: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

165

Lands that promise more sustenance were the common target for invasion, hence the need for self-defense on the part of the original inhabitants and conquest on the part the growing nation (e.g., 1.2.2). Insufficient supplies for a nation with increasing population often resulted in border wars among neighboring nations to meet the need for more land (e.g., 1.15.2).8 Aside from the rising needs of a nation, greed was a driving force that caused one nation to invade another. 9 Thucydides, an Athenian himself, describes the Athenians as a nation that was constantly desiring/grasping for more (τοῦ δὲ πλέονος ὠρέγοντο). He admits that greed was the reason the Athenians refused to enter into a peace treaty with the Lacedaemonians without the latter surrendering certain territories to them (4.21.3; cf. 4.92.3). Honor is another reason for desiring more or maintaining ancestral territories. This is best summarized in Nicias’ closing remarks as he motivated the Athenians to defend their “fatherland”: “Be mindful, therefore, of your own reputation…” (6.68.4). With need, greed, and honor as motives, violence was the common means by which the goal of acquiring land was attained. This is attested by the graphic depiction of the wars in Thucydides. The treaties made within the period covered in his history, which were attempts to at least minimize international violence, also indirectly point to the extensive damage these wars caused.10 Self-defense was often used to justify violence (e.g., 4.95.1). Similar thematic strands are found in other Greco-Roman historical narratives. Polybius, for instance, listed greed as one of the strongest motivations for ransacking and using violence against weaker nations. He denounced the acts of Dorimachus and Scopias against the Messenians because they acted “without any regard for their ancient friendship and alliance with the Messenians, or for the principles of international justice common to all mankind, subordinating every consideration to their selfish

chiefly by fear, then by honor also, and lastly by self-interest as well…” (Thucydides 1.75.3). 8 Insufficient space is another motivation for conquest (e.g., Appian, Hist. rom. 4.1.5; 6.8.42). 9 M. M. Austin argues that kingship, wars, and economy are inseparable issues as far as ancient Hellenistic history is concerned; and conquests were undertaken openly for acquisitive purposes (“Hellenistic Kings, War, and the Economy,” CQ 36, no. 2 [1986]: 454). 10 Six treaties were recorded within Thucydides’ history with the aim of ending further violence: (1) Athenians and Lacedaemonians (5.18.3–4); (2) Athenians, Argives, Eleans, and Mantineans (5.47.2–4); (3) Lacedaemonians and Argives (5.79.4); and (4) thrice between Lacedaemonians and Persians (8.18.1, 37.1, 58.1). Cf. Xenophon, Hell. 6.3.1–20.

166

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

greed, they set about plundering the country without resistance” (4.6.9).11 He also acknowledged that wars and conquests bring honor to nations especially to the victors whose territories were enlarged (15.7.5). Cornelius Nepos describes the success of Artaxerxes Macrochir: 12 “Xerxes owes his fame in particular to having made war on Greece by land and sea with the greatest armies within the memory of man; but Macrochir is principally known for his imposing and handsome figure, which he enhanced by incredible valor in war; for no one of the Persians excelled him in deeds and arms” (Reg. 1.3–4). Diodorus Siculus measures the greatness of a conqueror by the breadth of land acquired by conquest; ascribing more honor to Sesoösis, whose expeditions not only led him to territories Alexander the Great would later conquer but also reached the regions the latter would not be able to see (e.g., the nation of Colchi [1.55.4]). Sesoösis’ military genius was the reason that the title “king of kings and lord of lords” (βασιλεὺς βασιλέων καὶ δεσπότης δεσποτῶν) was ascribed to him (1.55.7). A strong army and navy were sometimes needed to be masters over the desired land (e.g., Minos [4.60.3–4; 4.79.1; cf. 15.39.1]). Violent acquisition of other territories was a commonplace in Diodorus’ Library of Histories (5.13.3–4; 5.15.1–6; 12.41–45; 12.65.1–9; 12.72.4; 13.58.2; 15.68.4). Diodorus also observes the greed that motivated one nation to take the land of another (e.g., the Roman conquest of Iberia [5.36.3], and the Athenian conquest of Sicily because the land was fertile [12.54.1]).13 Nicolaüs described the greed of the Athenians thus: “For what utterly shameful deed have they not planned, what deed most shocking have they not perpetrated? It is a distinctive mark of greed that a man, not being content with his own gifts of Fortune, covets those which are distant and belong to someone else; and this these men have done” (13.30.1). Land was sometimes offered to mercenaries as payments for their service (14.78.1–3; cf. Xenophon, Hell.

11

Polybius considered peace, justice, and honor as the greatest of all possessions; yet peace cannot justify cowardice which Polybius deemed dishonorable (4.31.8). At times, death is more honorable than seeking foreign help (e.g., 2.47.1). 12 Cornelius Nepos distinguishes Artaxerxes Macrochir (or “long-hand”) from Artaxerxes Mnemon (or “good memory”). 13 In his attempt to glorify the Romans and condemn violence, Dionysius of Halicarnassus asserts that no nation has ever been found through violence and impiety; and he defended the Romans by insisting that the virtues of the Romans were the primary factor that catapulted them to world domination (Ant. rom. 1.5.1–3). Florus summarizes the Roman conquest, “Such are the events overseas of the third period of the history of the Roman people, during which, having once ventured to advance outside Italy, they carried their arms over the whole world” (1.47.1). For Florus, their expeditions, albeit characterized by much violence, should be considered a great achievement (1.47.4).

Chapter 8: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

167

3.1.6; Livy 4.36.2). Distribution of land also became a means by which a regent gained the support of his subjects (1.46.1–2; 4.7.4–5; cf. 4.11.5).14 In summary, there are three reasons ancient nations take another nations’ land: need, greed, and honor. Military prowess and violence were the means by which nations conquer other nations. The constant longing for peace is clear evidence that the ancients acknowledged the evils that accompany these conquests, which consequently raised the question concerning the legitimacy of land ownership and reign of kings. Hence, legitimizing conquests and hegemony became an important part of ancient GrecoRoman historiography. 15 The tracing of the ancestry of nations or kings was one of the most common ways to legitimize such claims.

Land and Genealogies Musaeus was given the credit as the first to compose the genealogy of the gods (Diogenes, Lives 1.3). The use of genealogies is a common element in Greco-Roman historiography. 16 Polybius classifies ancient historiographies according to contents and the types of audience they attract: (1) genealogies that appeal to those fond of stories; (2) accounts of colonies, foundation of cities, and ties of kindred that attract lovers of recondite lore; and (3) histories of cities, nations, and monarchs written for students of politics (9.1.4–5). Although genealogies undoubtedly appeal to readers who love ancient tales, examination of these genealogies reveals reasons other than 14 During the early part of the Roman Empire, land laws were also established that allowed plebeians to own lands. In Livy’s accounts, Spurius Cassius was the first to propose a law that divides the land among the Latins and the plebeians by giving the latter agrarian rights (2.41.1). The issue of land-laws continued during the consulship of Quintus Fabius who favored the distribution of land among the plebeians (3.1.1). Later, Spurius Maecilius and Marcus Metilius also proposed that lands captured from enemies should be divided among their citizens (4.48.1–2). Despite these laws, the struggle between the nobilities and the plebeians for land ownership continued (4.51.5–6). 15 J. Rufus Fears has convincingly shown that “the election by the gods served to legitimize monarchial power gained and held without prior sanction of human laws and institutions” (Princeps a Diis Electus: The Divine Election of Emperor as a Political Concept at Rome [PMAAR 26; Rome: American Academy, 1977], 317–28). There is, however, another means to legitimize a regent’s claim power, namely, by tracing his lineage to the gods. 16 T. P. Wiseman observes that historians were aware of the fictional character of legendary genealogies (“Legendary Genealogies in Late-Republican Rome,” GR 21, no. 2 [1974]: 158). In some cases, stories of triumphs and consulships were also invented (e.g., Livy 8.40.4; Cicero, Brut. 62). Asclepiades of Myrlea divided history into three categories: the true, the seeming-true, and the false. Only one type of history was placed under the third category – genealogies (Sextus Empiricus, Math. 1.252–53).

168

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

reader-appeal. It is common among ancient kings to trace their ancestry to gods or heroes. Den Boer summarizes this practice: Royal families seeing their ancestor in Heracles and through him in Zeus, made no demand for rational proof; the truth of the genealogical connection was simply accepted and experienced as meaningful. It was not as though the king considered his family-tree as a reality beyond the reality of terrestrial family – relationship though this, too, is the case – but simultaneously this relation was considered as a relation between father and son, having existed in time and given rise to the royal family…to religious man, every moment of human activity is a revelation of divine workings. That is, religious man lives in an unbroken world, in which the appearance of gods and the appearance of human beings both occur in history without a differentiation in their sphere of action (italics original).17

Three extended linear genealogies are found in Herodotus’ work. Herodotus traces Leonidas’ genealogy back to Heracles to make his point that this underestimated general was the most honorable among the Lacedaemonians (Hist. 7.204.1). Likewise, he traces the lineage of Leutychides to Heracles but distinguishes between two royal families, the line of Euryphon from which Leutychides descended and the line of Agis from which Leonidas descended (8.131.2). Xerxes traced his lineage back to Achaemenes while making a vow to avenge himself against the Athenians (7.11.2). He took this vow seriously by asserting his willingness to renounce any honor of having descended from the great Persian kings if he could not fulfill his promise. 18 These linear genealogies serve the same purpose, that is, to ascribe honor to oneself or another person for belonging to a distinguished clan.19 Herodotus provides other clues regarding the functions of genealogies. The legitimacy of a king’s reign and the legitimacy of an ethnic group’s occupancy of a land are two of the reasons lineage was traced. Herodotus does not provide a list of names as he traces the lineage of Croesus back to Gyges, leaving the responsibility of completing a five-generation name list to his audience.20 Nevertheless, he presents Croesus as “by birth a Lydian,” delineates the territories ruled by the earlier Lydian kings, and summarizes 17 Den Boer, “Historiography,” 61. On the epideictic function of genealogy, see Aristotle, Rhet. Alex. 1440b. 18 In this case, the genealogy functions as a swearing expression, similar to the phrase, “So may the gods do to me and even more, if I do not…” (e.g., 1 Kgs 19:2; 20:10). 19 M. J. Alden observes that genealogies can sometime be used to defend one’s honor and present one’s social standing (“Genealogy as Paradigm: The Example of Bellerophon,” Hermes 124, no. 3 [1996]: 257); just as coins carry, as Wiseman calls it, a “visual message” for the self-advertisement and propaganda of emperors, legendary genealogies were used to build up the image of emperors (“Legendary,” 159–60). 20 Croesus, son of Alyattes, son of Sadyattes, son of Ardys, son of Gyges (see Herodotus, Hist. 1.16.1; 1.26.1).

Chapter 8: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

169

how they invaded these lands (1.6.1). The legitimacy of the Lydian rule was further as Herodotus traces their lineage to Heracles. He explains that through an oracle, the Heraclidae were granted sovereign rule, and thus the Lydian kings, being also descendants of Heracles, were legitimate rulers (1.7.1–4). Lineages were not only traced by regents to legitimate their kingship, but also by ethnic groups to legitimate their occupancy of their territory. Two episodes in Herodotus’ work are illustrative of this: the episodes concerning the Scythians (4.5.1–12.3) and the Minyae (4.145.1–147.5). He presents three conflicting versions of Scythian origins (see 4.5.1–7.3; 4.8– 10; 4.11–12). However, one element remains the same, that is, all these stories were told to claim legitimacy of the Scythians’ occupancy of their land. Likewise, the Minyae claimed to be descended from the hero gods from whom the Lacedaemonians trace their ancestry in order to claim a share in the Laconian estate (4.145.4). In Thucydides’ History, rightful ownership of land belongs to inhabitants who occupied it for an extended period of time. Pericles, in a funeral oration to honor the Athenians who died in the earlier battle, claimed that they were rightful owners of Megara, which he considered as part of the territories bequeathed to them by their ancestors (2.36.1–2; cf. 2.62.3). The Melians refused to give up their land to the Athenians because, as they claimed, they had occupied their land for seven hundred years, so they were willing to trust Fortune and the Lacedaemonians for their deliverance (5.112.1). The Epidamnians also pointed to the presence of their ancestors’ sepulchers in Corcyra to request that they be restored to their land (1.26.3).21 In the writings of historians after Herodotus and Thucydides, tracing one’s ancestry to legitimize land ownership and reign of kings was quite common. P. A. Brunt summarizes this practice: “In general the Greek world did not distinguish legend from history, and there is no reason to think that such genealogies, which were actually used to justify territorial claims in the fourth century, were not believed.”22 Xenophon recounts the rift between Agesilaüs and his nephew Leotychides as they both claimed to be the legitimate successor of Agis. Question whether Leotychides was a real son of Agis was raised; since, as it was believed that Apollo revealed through an oracle that the kingship would become “lame” by having someone from a non-royal stock reign, they decided the right to the throne 21 Francesca Stavrakopoulou observes how burial sites can be used for territorial claim (Land of Our Fathers: The Role of Ancestral Veneration in Biblical Land Claims [LHB/OTS 473; London: T. & T. Clark, 2010], 3). 22 Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander (trans. P. A. Brunt; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), 464.

170

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

should only be given to one who is surely a descendant of Heracles. Hence, Agesilaüs was made king (Hell. 3.3.1–4). Inclusion of stories about lands bequeathed by the gods to their children is a common feature of the legendary era depicted by Diodorus Siculus.23 He relates the story of the two Zeuses who received the dominion of their ancestors. Zeus the Olympian became the king “over the entire world” (ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην) after his father Cronus, king of Sicily, Libya, and Italy. The other Zeus, the king of Crete, was said to have given the island of Idaea to his sons (3.63.1–3). Diodorus traces seven generations of Trojan kings and their accomplishments (4.75.1–6). Descended from Scamandrus (the river-god) from his father’s side and Zeus from his mother’s side, Erichtonius and his descendants could claim legitimacy to rule over the Trojans. Likewise, Evagoras’ reign over Cyprus was backed by his pedigree as a descendant of the founders of Salamis (14.98.1). 24 His claim to kingship over Cyprus was accompanied by the Salaminians’ claim as the rightful inhabitants of Cyprus. Evagoras and his people were banished by Abdemon king of Tyre, an ally of Artaxerxes king of Persia. When the original inhabitants of Salamis returned and regained their territories, Artaxerxes would not give up his claim over the island of Cyprus because of its strategic location. Evagoras, on the other hand, increased in power and his territories expanded until most of Cyprus was under him. By tracing Evagoras’ ancestry to the founders of Salamis, Diodorus may be implying that he was the legitimate king and the Salaminians were the rightful inhabitants of the island. During the war between the Athenians and the Persians, Datis, a Persian general and a Mede by descent, demanded that the Athenians return the sovereignty that originally belonged to the Medes. He based his claims on a Median tradition that the Athenians were descendants of Medus, the oldest ancestor of the Medes, who, having been deprived of kingship by the Athenians, was banished to Asia and established the kingdom of the Medes (10.27.1). Tracing the Roman pedigree is also an important theme in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ work. He defends the Romans from critics who decried the barbaric ancestry of the Roman people. These critics asserted that the Romans arrived at the height of power, not through reverence of the gods and 23

Land ownership was also determined based on the length of time a group occupied a land. For instance, after Medius’ victory over the Lacedaemonians, he allowed the Trachinians to return to Heracleia for a simple reason: “they were the most ancient settlers of this territory” (Diodorus 14.82.7; cf. 14.38.4–5). 24 Pausanias traced Evagoras’ ancestry to Teucer, the founder of Salamis (Descr. 1.3.2; 8.15.7; cf. Velleius Paterculus 1.1.1).

Chapter 8: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

171

the practice of justice, but through chance and the “injustice of Fortune” (Ant. rom. 1.4.2). Dionysius claims that the ancestors of the Romans were not vagabonds, robbers, and barbarians, as some historians claimed (1.10.1–3); he supports this by using the works of Porcius Cato and Gaius Sempronius who said that the inhabitants of Achaia migrated to Italy before the Trojan war (1.11.1). Hence, the Romans could trace their lineage to the Greeks, who were known for their bravery and virtue. With these Dionysius maintains that the Romans, having been descended from a brave and virtuous race, founded the empire and gained world domination also through bravery and piety (1.5.1–3). Land and ancestry are two inseparable themes in Dionysius’ Roman Antiquities. The saga of Oenotrus illustrates this. Dionysius notes that since the Arcadians were the first among the Greeks to cross the Ionian Gulf, the Aborigines 25 were very likely part of the Arcadian colonies. Under the leadership of Oenotrus, who traced his lineage to the first kings of Peloponnesus,26 the Arcadians sailed to Italy to build a colony (1.11.2). Lycaon II, Oenotrus’ father, had twenty sons; thus Lycaon II’s land had to be divided into twenty small portions. Dissatisfied with the small portion they would receive as inheritances, Oenotrus, his brother Peucetius, and many of their own people sailed to Italy to look for more land. Peucetius settled above the Iapygian Promontory, and Oenetrus in the western regions (1.11.4); he cleared the regions of the barbarians and built small towns (1.12.1). Dionysius found support from the historical accounts of Antiochus of Syracuse who writes about the history of Italy: “Antiochus, the son of Xenophanes, wrote this account of Italy, which comprises all that is most credible and certain out of the ancient tales; this country, which is now called Italy, was formerly possessed by the Oenotrians” (1.12.3). Aside from Antiochus of Syracuse, Cato and Sempronius, Dionysius identifies Pherecydes of Athens, whom he referred to as a “genealogist second to none” (γενεαλόγων οὐδενὸς δεύτερον), as another source for his work (1.13.1). 27 From Pherecydes’ genealogical accounts, Antiochus’ record 25 This term is used in this present work to refer to the ethnic group in ancient Italy, which Dionysius called ἀβοριγῖνες. 26 Dionysius traces five generations from the first kings of Peloponnesus until Oenotrus: (1) Aezeius and Phoroneus, the first kings; (2) Lycaon I was the son of Aezeius, and Niobê was the daughter of Phoroneus; (3) Deïanira was the daughter of Lycaon I, and Pelasgus was the son of Niobê by Zeus; (4) Lycaon II was born to Pelasgus and Deïanara; and (5) Oenotrus was the son of Lycaon II (Ant. rom. 1.11.2). 27 Pherecydes of Athens’ account was consistent with Dionysius’ other sources. Concerning the kings of Arcadia, the genealogist was said to have recorded, “Of Pelasgus and Deïanira was born Lycaon; this man married Cyllenê, a Naiad nymph, after whom Mount Cyllenê is named.” Dionysius notes that this was followed by the land inhabited by their descendants, and concerning Oenotrus and Peucetius it was written, “And Oeno-

172

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

concerning the origins of Oenotrians was confirmed; and from these two sources, Dionysius concludes, Such, then, are the accounts given by the ancient poets and writers of legends concerning the places of abode and the origin of the Oenotrians; and on their authority I assume that if the Aborigines were in reality a Greek nation, according to the opinion of Cato, Sempronius and many others, they were descendants of these Oenotrians. For I find that the Pelasgians and Cretans and the other nations that lived in Italy came thither afterwards; nor can I discover that any other expedition more ancient than this came from Greece to the western parts of Europe. (1.13.2)

He took a step further by opining that the Oenotrians, who occupied the land because it was bequeathed by Heaven (τοῦ δαιμονίου [2.1.2]), took their expeditions further and seized a portion of the country of the Umbrians; because they dwelled on the mountains, they were called “Aborigines” (1.13.3). After discussing the origins of the Oenotrians, a discussion concerning the portions of land inhabited by the Aborigines immediately followed (1.14.1–6). Another influx of migrants occurred after the Pelasgians were driven out of Thessaly and they, too, sailed to Italy. The Pelasgians, who traced their ancestral roots to king Pelasgus, were welcomed by Aborigines because of their common Greek ancestry (1.17.1–2). While at Thessaly (formerly called Haemonia), the Pelasgians also drove out the barbarians who earlier occupied the land. They inhabited the region for five generations before they were forced out of Thessaly. They first settled throughout the region, being dispersed in Crete, Cyclades, Hestiaeotis, Boeotia, Phocis, Euboea, Lesbos, and Dodona; when these lands could sustain them no longer, in obedience to an oracle of Saturnina, they sailed to Italy (1.18.1– 2). Heaven (τὸ δαιμόνιον), they claimed, was guiding them; hence, they reached Italy to be reunited with their kin (1.20.1–2). Dionysius used ancestry to legitimize land ownership by colonization. The intervention of “Heaven” (τὸ δαιμόνιον) and the supposed barbarism of the original inhabitants of Italy were enough to justify the conquests of the Oenotrians and Pelasgians. In Dionysius’ work, the conquerors, not the original inhabitants, were legitimate occupants of the land. In Livy, the reign of Ascanius and his descendants was secured by virtue of their lineage, which they trace back to Aeneas. After Aeneas established his reign (1.2.1–6), he performed the last of his mortal acts before his son Ascanius was ready to take on the government (1.2.6). Through temporary regency of his mother, the Latin state and the kingdom was secured for the son of Aeneas (1.3.1). Despite the questions raised about Ascanias’ identity, the fact that there is no question about his relationship to trus, after whom are named the Oenotrians who live in Italy, and Peucetius, after whom are named the Peucetians who live on the Ionian Gulf” (Ant. rom. 1.13.1).

Chapter 8: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

173

Aeneas made him a legitimate heir. A brief genealogical record is provided by Livy which listed the names of Ascanius’ descendants who ascended to the throne (1.3.7–11). This royal genealogy does not only include names of descendants or successors, but also information about colonies transplanted (e.g., Latins), bestowing of kingdoms (e.g., Sylvian kingdom), location of reign (e.g., Alban king), and redefinition of boundaries (e.g., Aventinus) – all of which are land-related matters. Moreover, the legitimacy of their kingship is implied by virtue of having been descended from Aeneas. This includes Ascanius, whose real identity is uncertain, and Amulius, who ascended to power despite his questionable morality. A monarch’s achievements sometimes give him the status of a divine descendant. 28 Plutarch, for instance, compares Theseus and Romulus on the basis of their accomplishments, namely, the founding of Athens and Rome, respectively. The historian acknowledges that both had obscure and uncertain parentage. Nonetheless, both had the reputation of having descended from the gods, and their works attested to this (Thes. 2.1). Plutarch traces Theseus’ paternal ancestry to Erechteus and maternal ancestry to Pelops, the strongest among the royal family in Peloponnesus and the one who scattered his sons to be city kings (3.1). Theseus’ ancestry explains why he deserved to be regent of Athens.29 Tracing one’s ancestry to the gods is evidently a common way of claiming the legitimacy of a monarch’s rule. In Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, pedigree is an essential requirement for an emperor to defend the legitimacy of his rule. In the eulogy for his aunt Julia, Julius Caesar claimed that her maternal line can be traced to Ancus Marcius and paternal ancestry back to Venus. Thus he concluded, “Our stock therefore has at once the sanctity of kings, whose power is supreme among mortal men, and the claim to reverence which attaches to the Gods, who hold sway of the kings themselves” (Jul. 6.1). Suetonius introduces Augustus’ biography by claiming that “the Octavian family was in days of old a distinguished one 28

Earlier records show that tracing one’s lineage to the gods had been a common practice for kings and historians. Cf. Ian S. Motyer, “Herodotus and an Egyptian Mirage: The Genealogies of the Theban Priest,” JHS 122 (2002): 70–90. Herodotus records how Hecataeus traced his genealogy to the gods and how this claim was refuted by the priests (Hist. 2.143.1–4). Moreover, Herodotus was aware of inconsistencies among some legends that it is more important to focus on the achievements of the person rather than the lineage (e.g., inconsistency of accounts of Perseus’ ancestry [6.54.1; cf. 7.150.1] is immaterial compared to his reign among the Dorians [6.55.1]). 29 Alexander the Great’s achievements also gave him the reputation similar to ancient heroes and demigods (Diodorus 17.1.3); his abilities further secured his leadership (17.7.2). Austin observes, “In Greek thought, monarchical power was associated with great personalities and great achievements, and these notions had a very long history well before the Hellenistic period” (“Kings,” 458).

174

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

at Velitrae” (Aug. 1.1). After tracing Tiberius’ paternal ancestry, he traces the maternal line and made sure he mentioned the distinguished members of the clan like Salinator and Drusi (Tib. 3.1). Suetonius betrays a particular interest in showing that these emperors came from illustrious families (e.g., Galb. 3.1; Nero 1.1; Otho 1.1–3).30 Aside from honor, vices could also be transmitted by natural heredity. Hence, the vices attached to Nero’s family were considered factors that result in his moral degeneration (Nero 1.2).31 Velleius Paterculus lists the founders of nations and cities;32 this serves as a brief but indubitably important record for the origins of the nations surrounding Mediterranean. There are several notable elements in Velleius’ account. First, the lands are identified with the inhabitants and the inhabitants were often named after their leaders or founders (e.g., Peloponnesus and the Pelops [1.2.1]; Ion and the Ionians [1.4.3]). Second, rulers and founders are identified by their ancestry, whether from an ancient ruler or a god (e.g., Hercules, Achilles, and Mars). Last, the gods are in a position to decide which nation would occupy which land, and who would reign over them. 33 These justify a group’s occupation of a particular land and the leadership of a king.34 30

The prominence of the family from which the emperor came was a criterion for testing the ruler’s qualification. In the case of Vitellius, for instance, Suetonius assumes that the conflicting records of his ancestry come from different groups – noble ancestry from his flatterers and ordinary ancestry from his detractors (Suetonius, Vit. 1.1). 31 Consul Valerius’ descent from liberators gave him the same reputation (Livy 3.41.2). 32 Epeus and Teucer founded Metapontum and Salamis, respectively (Velleius 1.1.1); Agamemnon, who was also given the title “king of kings” had three cities under him, Mycenae, Tegea, and Pergamum (1.1.2); the Peloponnesians established Megara, a city halfway between Athens and Corinth (1.2.2); a fleet from Tyre founded Cadiz and Spain (1.2.3); Aletes son of Hippotes, who claimed descent from Hercules, built Corinth (1.3.3); the colonies of Chalcis and Eretria in Euboea were established by the Athenians, while the Lacedaemonians built Magnesia (1.4.1); the Ionians had several cities under them including Ephesus, Miletus, Colophon, Priene, Ledebus, Myrus, Erythra, Clazomenae, Phocaea, Samos, Chios, Andros, Tenos, Paros, Delos, and other islands (1.4.3); the Aeolians took possession of Smyrna, Cyme, Larissa, Myrina, Mytilene, and other cities on the island of Lesbos (1.4.4); Sardanapalus, thirty-third generation from Ninus and Semiramis, founded Babylon but was overthrown by Arbaces the Mede (1.6.1); Lycurgus, an illustrious man or royal descent, ruled over Sparta (1.6.3); Elissa the Tyrian, who was also known as Dido, built Carthage (1.6.4); Caranus, eleventh generation from Hercules, became king of Macedonia and forefather of Alexander the Great, who also claimed lineage from Achilles through his mother (1.6.5); and Romulus, son of Mars, founded Rome (1.8.4). 33 After Hercules’ death, the Pelops drove his descendants from their land. Their sovereignty was recovered by Temenus, Cresphontes, and Aristodemus, the great grandsons of Hercules who, according to Velleius, had already “departed to be with the gods” (Vel-

Chapter 8: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

175

In summary, land, genealogy, and reign of kings are themes commonly woven together intricately in Greco-Roman historical accounts. 35 It was common for a nation, whether colonizers, returning migrants, or residents, to trace its ancestry to tribes or nations believed to be the original inhabitants of the land. This was done to claim land ownership. Likewise, kings traced their lineage to a god or ancient hero to boost their pedigree and find legitimacy for their reign. Divine will was used to justify conquests; national boundaries were determined and sometimes redefined as gods bequeath lands to other ethnic groups. The gods were not only involved in raising up heroes and leaders, but were also seen as decision makers as to which nation should occupy which territories, and which king should rule over them.

Reign of the Gods and Piety of the Kings Many of the gods worshipped in the Greco-Roman world were former rulers who had been deified because of their earthly exploits and other achievements (e.g., Heracles).36 Since these gods were often believed to be the ones who determined which king should rule over a nation, earthly kingdoms become an extension of the reign of these deified rulers. This divine rule on earth is seen particularly in the expectation that earthly rulers were to practice and promulgate virtues worthy of the gods, promote

leius 1.2.1). Likewise, after the death of the Athenian king Codrus, he was believed to have gained immortal glory; and through a Pythian oracle, his death secured their victory over the Lacedaemonians (1.2.1–2). 34 Even Alexander the Great’s consultation with the priests of Ammon (Arrian, Anab. 3.3.5; Diodorus 17.49.2), as C. A. Robinson Jr. suggests, was an attempt to confirm whether the Libyan desert was a frontier (“Alexander’s Deification,” AJP 64, no. 3 [1943]: 290). See also Ernst A. Fredricksmeyer, “Alexander, Zeus Ammon, and the Conquest of Asia,” TAPA 121 (1991): 199–214. 35 Even in the works of a poet like Hesiod, lands, genealogies, and reign of kings are inseparable. His Catalogues of Women and the Eoiae includes mythical genealogies and lists of ancient kings in various parts of Greece. See David L. Toye, “Dionysius of Halicarnassus on the First Greek Historians,” AJP 116, no. 2 (1995): 286. 36 Andrew Runni Anderson observes, “The divinities are immortal, but not omnipotent; they are rather to be regarded as supermen and superwomen. It was therefore thoroughly logical that the ranks of these should from time to time receive accessions from supermen and superwomen as they arose (“Heracles and His Successors: A Study of a Heroic Ideal and the Recurrence of the Heroic Type,” HSCP 39 [1928]: 7).

176

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

peace, and be instruments of the gods in executing the divine plans made known through various means of revelation.37 First, rulers were expected to practice and uphold virtues of piety and justice. The ancient belief in divine retribution against rulers who do not promote justice can be summarized using the words of Diodorus Siculus. Not only, we may note, do those who wickedly violate private contracts fall foul of the law and its penalties, but even among kings all who engage in acts of injustice meet with retribution from on high. Just as the law is the arbiter of men's deeds for the citizens of a democratic state, so is God the judge of men in positions of authority: to those who seek after virtue he grants rewards appropriate to their virtue, and for those who indulge in greed or any other vice he appoints prompt and fitting punishment. (28.4.1; cf. 34/35.18.1)

After their victory over the Athenians, Nicolaüs of Syracuse declared, “The people of the Athenians have received a punishment their own folly deserved, first of all from the hands of the gods and then from us whom they had wronged. Good it is indeed that the deity involves in unexpected disasters those who begin an unjust war and do not bear their own superiority as men should” (13.21.1–2). He continued by citing the Medes and the Persian king Cyrus as examples; Nicolaüs believed that the brutality of the Medes against other peoples caused their downfall and Cyrus’ humane character catapulted him to the highest power in Asia of his era (13.22.1).38 Part of practicing piety was the involvement of rulers in cultic rites, and political leaders often assumed religious duties as well. With a belief that the gods could not act ignorantly, 39 Dionysius explains the catastrophe that fell upon king Tullius Hostilius is an act of Heaven against him for neglecting his religious duties (Ant. rom. 3.35.1–6). During the reign of Marcius, he observed that the religious rites Numa established during his reign had already been neglected; thus he made attempts to revive them (3.36.1–4). Diodorus accords praises for rulers who practice piety. 40 He associates the expansion of Philip’s kingdom with his reverence to “the god” (16.38.2; 37 Piety was believed to be the means by which one could secure for himself the favor of the gods (Swain, “Plutarch,” 276); this favor could result in victories in war and extended reign. 38 Divine retribution does not always happen within the lifetime of the evildoer. Diodorus motivates his readers to practice piety by citing the “Thirty” as examples of those who did not receive their just punishment within their lifetime, but because their deeds were exposed after their death, their supposedly good legacy was marred by disgrace and bad reputation (14.1.1–3). 39 Dionysius was aware that not all of his contemporaries shared his religious views (Ant. rom. 3.35.5–6). 40 The sons of Aeolus, according to Diodorus, ruled the lands: Astyochus was lord over Lipara, Xuthus over Leontini, Androcles and Pheraemon over Sicily, Jocastus over

Chapter 8: Greco-Roman Historical Accounts

177

cf. 16.95.1–5). The benevolence and kindness of Attalus’ predecessors also secured their successes (34/35.3.1). Dionysius insists that the Romans founded their empire with virtues and customs (Ant. rom. 1.5.2); and he expressed his basic assumption that “no city has ever been founded through violence and impiety” (1.5.3).41 After Romulus’ death, Numa took over the affairs of the state. Aside from relieving the poor by distributing to them the lands possessed by Romulus, he began to inculcate the virtues of piety and justice with the belief that these invite the blessings of the gods, which result in the prosperity and greatness of a nation (2.62.5). Second, with so many wars and so much chaos in the ancient GrecoRoman world, rulers who were peace-loving gained the respect of the people and the favor of the gods. Diodorus records the reason king Ochus of Persia named himself after Artaxerxes II: the latter was well-respected for being “peace-loving and fortunate” (15.93.1). After defeating the Antemnates and the Caeninenses, Romulus made it clear to them that even though they deserved to suffer severe punishment, he chose clemency lest he suffer the same severity from the hands of the gods. Thus Dionysius spoke, We, however, have resolved for many reasons to treat them with moderation; for we not only fear the vengeance of the gods, which ever threatens the arrogant, and dread the illwill of men. But we also are persuaded that mercy contributes not a little to alleviate the common ills of mankind, and we realize that we ourselves may one day stand in need of that of others. (Ant. rom. 2.35.3)

The achievements of Romulus (e.g., victory over the Etruscans and reclaiming his grandfather’s territories), for Livy, are consistent with belief in his divine origin or deification after his death (1.15.6; cf. 1.16.3). Third, rulers were seen as divine agents to execute their plans. The rise and fall of a nation depended on the decision of the gods; 42 oracles and prophecies were considered divine speeches, and rulers were expected to Italy, and Agathyrnus over Agathyrnitis. The sons of Aeolus reigned for a long period of time, except in Sicily where quarrels arose between people who supported the factions led by two of Aeolus’ sons. Nonetheless, approbations were given to these sons, not only because of their father and their own achievements, but also for their piety (5.8.1–2). 41 It is noteworthy that Dionysius claims to be consciously selective of the materials to include in his historical narratives and at the same time claim that recording details of Roman administration is unnecessary and not beneficial (Ant. rom. 2.63.1). However, immediately after this claim, he discusses the details of the religious rites performed by the group that he calls the “commanders of the celeres” who were tasked to interpret signs sent by the gods and determine what they portend (2.64.3; cf. 3.36.1 [for Marcius], 3.46.1 [for Tarquinius]). 42 For instance, the same (unidentified) deity was behind the victory of the Scythians over the Persians, and vice versa. This god’s decision was believed to be crucial in determining who would emerge as victor in their war between these two nations (Herodotus, Hist. 4.119.1–4).

178

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

act accordingly. During Pisistratus’ battle against the Athenians, for instance, he met Amphylitus the diviner when he came out with his troop from Marathon. This meeting, as Herodotus describes it, was “by the providence of heaven” (Hist. 1.62.4).43 Through Amphylitus, who was “the inspired ones” (οἱ ἐνθεάζων), Pisistratus’ victory was proclaimed and his reign over the Athenians made secure (1.63.1). In Dionysius’ accounts, the Pelasgians claimed they were guided by Heaven (τὸ δαιμόνιον) to migrate to Italy and they were able to take the land of the Aborigines peacefully (Ant. rom. 1.20.1).

Summary and Conclusion Greco-Roman historians exhibited much discretion in choosing materials to include in their historical narratives. Stories were included because they were deemed significant, and stories were considered significant if they could be utilized didactically and the knowledge of these stories was considered beneficial for posterity. Much of what was considered important by ancient historians involved sagas of conquests and territorial expansion, reign of kings and their supposed contribution to humanity, and the migrations of ethnic groups. An important feature of these themes is the claim for legitimacy of a king’s reign and a people group’s occupation of a territory. The means by which a king finds legitimacy for his rule is by tracing his lineage to the gods and ancient heroes; ethnic groups claim legitimacy for their occupancy of a land also through their ancestry. Hence, genealogies became a useful tool for kings who needed to legitimize their reign and people groups who needed to legitimize land occupation. The decision of the gods was believed to be crucial in determining the course of history. The gods decided who should reign, which nations should rise or fall, and which people group should occupy which land. With the gods as the chief orchestrator of history, by implication, earthly kingdoms became an extension of the kingdom of these gods or the deified ancient heroes, who required earthly regents to promulgate piety, promote peace, and execute their purposes.

43

Pisistratus is described as “divinely sent” (θείῃ πομπῇ) to the Amphylitus.

Chapter 9

Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of God in Jewish Historical Accounts Like Greco-Roman writers, Jewish writers acknowledged the didactic purpose of history. This is implied in Paul’s statement that Israel’s histories “were written for our instruction” (1 Cor 10:11; cf. Rom 15:14). Josephus shares the same purpose for writing (Ant. Pref. 3 §14; 4 §20). Like GrecoRoman historians, Jewish historians are fond of accounts of conquest and migration.

Migrations, Conquests, and Territorial Claims Migration was a constant part of the lives of Israel’s patriarchs.1 Hence, for Israel, securing possession of the land believed to be God’s bequeathal is an important theme in both the canonical and extra-canonical Jewish literature. In the Deuteronomic history, Yahweh’s promise to Abraham is the basis for Israel’s claim of the land of Canaan (Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 30:20; 34:4; Josh 24:3–4; cf. 2 Chr 20:7). Israel’s deliverance from Egypt has their entry into Canaan as its goal (Deut 27:1–3; Josh 1:1–5). The wars Israel fought were not only the means for God to execute his justice through Israel (e.g., Exod 17:8–16), but were also necessary for Israel to claim the 1 Despite being the direct recipient of the promise and having a chance to live within the land, Abraham lived the rest of his life as a pilgrim. He had to sojourn (παροικῆσαι) in Egypt because of a famine (Gen 12:10); even after four decades of dwelling in that land, he referred to the Canaanites as a people “with whom [he] sojourned in their land” (ἐν οἷς ἐγὼ παροικῶ ἐν τῆς γῆς αὐτῶν [24:37]). In Yahweh’s renewal of the promise to Abraham, he referred to the land of Canaan as “the land of your sojourning” (τὴν γῆν ἥν παροικεῖς [17:8]). Jacob resided there as an alien (τὴν γῆν τῆς παροικήσεώς [28:4]). Isaiah referred to Israel’s 400-year history as slaves in Egypt as part of Israel’s pilgrimage (52:4). This idea of the nation’s sojourning was all the more emphasized because of the Babylonian exile. Ezekiel betrayed his confidence that the Israelites would go back to their land (20:38). Ezra referred to the exiles as the “sons of sojourning” (οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς παροικίας [8:35]). David’s prayer also reflects the Chronicler’s perception of the exile; he referred to Israel as resident aliens of the land of Israel during a period when the kingdom of David was already firmly established (1 Chr 29:15).

180

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

land of Canaan (e.g., 23:23; 33:1–3; 34:10–12). Even after taking possession of the land, they had constantly to assert their ownership.2 In the LXX, the covenant Yahweh made with Abraham was foundational for Israel’s claim. However, not all of Abraham’s progeny had equal claim to the Promised Land. In the biblical accounts, the promise was renewed only with Isaac and Jacob, only Abraham’s descendants through this line are the legitimate claimants. Hence there is need for Israelites from the later period to trace their ancestry.

Land and Genealogies The first biblical genealogy records the descendants of Cain according to their trades (Gen 4:17–26). Aside from providing an account of the origins of the various aspects of civilization, Robert Wilson suggests that this list was aimed to provide a religious contrast between the line of Cain and that of Seth, the forebear of Noah (Gen 5).3 The list of Esau’s descendants provides ethnographic and political information concerning the Edomites (Gen 36).4 The relationship of the twelve tribes is undoubtedly presented in the various genealogical accounts concerning Israel’s patriarchs (29:31– 30:24; 35:16–20, 22–26; 46:8–27). However, aside from these themes, genealogical records highlight the theme of legitimacy, whether legitimacy of land occupation or of an office. A segmented genealogy of Noah’s descendants is recorded in Gen 10. Unlike the record of the lineage from Adam to Noah (Gen 5), there is no 2 The biblical records consistently appeal to Yahweh’s promise to claim legitimate ownership of the land. For instance, when the Ammonites attempted to reclaim Gilead because, as the king of Ammon claimed, they were the original settlers of the land, Jephthah asserted the legitimacy of their ownership by virtue of Yahweh’s gift. For Jephthah, the gods/God have/has the final decision to whom a land should be given; Ammon owns only lands given by Chemosh, just as Israel can claim only the lands bestowed by Yahweh (Judg 11:12–28). 3 Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World [YNER 7; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977], 154–55). The place of Israel among the nations can also be seen in 1 Chr 1–9 as the Chronicler traced the emergence of Israel together with the other nations (Gary N. Knoppers, “Shem, Ham and Japheth: The Universal and the Particular in the Genealogy of the Nations” in The Chronicler as Theologian [ed. M. Patrick Graham, et al.; JSOTSup 371; London: T. & T. Clark, 2003], 31). In the rabbinic writings (e.g., m. Qidd. 4:1), genealogies are used to ensure that individuals are assigned to the correct class (cf. Moulie Vidas, “The Bavli’s Discussion of Genealogy in Qiddushin IV,” in Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Past in the Greco-Roman World [ed. Gregg Gardner and Kevin L. Osterloh; TSAJ 123; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008], 285–326). 4 Wilson, Genealogy, 167.

Chapter 9: Jewish Historical Accounts

181

observable pattern for the list in Gen 10. There is, however, an important feature of this record that provides clues as to its function. The record of Noah’s descendants does not only include names of his children, but also anecdotes and statements concerning some of his descendants. After listing the fourth generation descendants of Noah through Japheth, the historian states: “Of these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations” (10:5). Although the delineation of their territories is not detailed and their languages not specified, this statement shows that the concern of the genealogy is not only the interrelationship of the nations descended from Japheth, but also the allotments of lands. Similar statements concerning land division are made after listing the descendants of Ham (10:19–20) and Shem (10:30 –31). According to the historian, the land was divided when Peleg was born (10:25). The brief anecdote concerning Nimrod is also noteworthy. Nimrod is portrayed as a “mighty hunter” who established his kingdom in Shinar and Assyria (10:8–12); by implication, he was the first conqueror to subjugate other nations. The rough boundaries of Canaan’s territories were also defined (10:19) – the same territories that the descendants of Abraham would occupy. Hence, an explanation is necessary to justify Israel’s settlement in the land of the Canaanite tribes, and this is provided in Gen 12 wherein God promised to give the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendants. The author of Jubilees provides a similar justification.5 Although there are other important theological themes that can be traced in the book of Jubilees,6 more pertinent to our discussion is the Landtheologie of Jubilees.7 Jubilees begins with the exodus, wherein God gave the Law to Moses and reminded the Israelites of the promise he made to the patriarchs, notwithstanding their inclination to rebellion (1:7–8). Interestingly, the consequence of their rebellion was not death in the wilderness but exile (1:10, 13). This is followed by a message concerning their restoration (1:15b–18a; cf. Jer 29:14; 31:33; 32:38). The author of Jubilees reapplied the promise of God to the patriarchs for their generation. There is also an allusion to the exile reminiscent of the calamity experienced by a genera5 Genealogical records are also found in Tob 1:1 and Jdt 8:1, but these records are too brief to be pertinent to our discussion. 6 Cf. Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJ 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007); Gene L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees, (StPB 20; Leiden: Brill, 1971); Betsy Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (JSJ 60; Leiden: Brill, 1999); Doron Mendels, The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature (TSAJ 15; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987). 7 Cf. Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “Land and Covenant in Jubilees 14” in The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology (ed. Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos; VTSup 124; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 259–76.

182

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

tion from a more recent past. This claim to solidarity with the exodus generation, the exiles, and the returnees can be considered an indirect way of claiming God’s promise given to the patriarchs. In the next chapter, an angel instructed Moses to write a complete history of creation. Jubilees 2–8 rehashes the events recorded in Gen 1–6 with some revisions and with additions of what could be elements of early Jewish folklore. Particularly in Jub. 4 and 7, one can find a genealogy similar to Gen 5, 10, and 1 Chr 1. There are some notable characteristics exhibited in the genealogies in Jubilees when compared to biblical genealogies. First, aside from the time of birth of the antediluvian fathers (cf. Gen 5), the names of their wives are mentioned. The only record that comes close to this was Matthew’s genealogy which includes names of women. Second, similar to the scattered records in Genesis, the genealogies in Jubilees are embedded within the narrative – unlike 1 Chr 1–9 where these records are lumped together. Third, Jub. 7:7–19 includes the names of Noah’s sons, the cities they built, and the land they occupied (7:14–16). In the second half of Jub. 8, Noah divided the earth among his three sons and each allotment was further divided among Noah’s grandsons. This happened in the days of Peleg (8:8 cf. 1 Chr 1:19; see also Gen 10:25). Jubilees 9:14–15a concludes the chapter with this warning: “And thus the sons of Noah divided unto their sons in the presence of Noah their father, and he bound them all by an oath, imprecating a curse on every one that sought to seize the portion which had not fallen [to him] by his lot.” The land was divided so that, roughly, the sons of Japheth were allotted the lands to the north of the Great Sea, the sons of Ham to the south, and to the sons of Shem the “middle of the earth” (8:12), presumably the regions east of the Mediterranean. This division was clear, yet there is a stark difference between this account and that of Genesis.8 The author of Genesis acknowledged that some Hamite tribes originally occupied this “middle of the earth” portion.9 Canaan occupied the territory with Sidon, Gaza, and Lasha as boundaries (Gen 10:19). Mizraim was given the land between the portions of Cush and Put in Jub. 9:1–2. In Gen 10:14, he is also acknowledged as the progenitor of the Casluhim (Philistines), who are acknowledged as one of the early inhabitants of the “middle of the earth” (Josh 13:2–3). In the biblical account, Israel’s occupation of the Canaanite terri8 Philip S. Alexander observes that the “map” of Jubilees “is basically the old Ionian world map accommodated to the Bible” (“Geography and the Bible [Early Jewish],” ABD 2:980). Furthermore, he notes that this “map” is more than just cartography that reconciles the biblical lands with the known world of the author’s era; it is politically motivated geography that points to the Canaanites as the usurpers of the “land of Canaan” (2:982). 9 Although the division of the land was seen as Noah’s decision, the theme of promise was also present in Jubilees (14:18; 15:10; 17:3; 22:14; 32:19).

Chapter 9: Jewish Historical Accounts

183

tories follows God’s promise to the patriarchs concerning the land. In the OT, Canaan’s occupation of the land is never considered a form of usurpation; they were to be driven out because of their idolatry, not because they occupied a land that was not allotted to them. In Jubilees, however, Canaan is considered the chief culprit for desiring Shem’s portion, which resulted in chaos among Noah’s sons (Jub. 10:29–30).10 This made the ancient Semites the legitimate owners of the “middle of the land.” The region with Lebanon, the Red Sea, and Euphrates serving as borders was allotted to Arphaxad by lot (9:4). The polemic, however, does not end with the genealogical list. It is clear that part of the agenda of Jubilees was to eliminate all viable contenders for ownership of the land. 11 However, it does not suffice to present the Canaanite occupation as an encroachment and to present Arphaxad as the legitimate owner of the land because the Ishmaelites and the Edomites, being progenies of Arphaxad, could also claim the land.12 Revision of the canonical account became necessary. Jubilees recounts the covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants (Jub. 15). As in the OT, the recipient of this promise was Israel (15:19–20). Hagar and Ishmael were also driven out, thus the Ishmaelites mingled with the Arabs from Paran to the entrance to Babylon (22:12–13).13 As for the Edomites, when Isaac was about to die and he di10 Karin Andriolo notes that aside from the relational map of the world population, the OT gives some clues to account for the “traditional enemies of Israel.” This becomes a “charter for socio-political situations and attitudes; an ancestor is at fault when his descendants are viewed with suspicion and contempt and, eventually, must be defeated” (“A Structural Analysis of Genealogy and Worldview in the Old Testament,” AmAn 75 [1973]: 1659). In both canonical and non-canonical writings, Canaan was the chief culprit. His sexual misconduct in Genesis and his greed in Jubilees were given as the reasons for the loathsome character of the Canaanites. 11 Mendels suggests that the partition of the world which Jubilees presented was “aimed at demonstrating that the Jews had received a clear and well-defined geo-political locus standi within the family of nations, and that Canaan hindered their legitimate hold on their own possessions” (Land, 67). 12 Mendels sees the “Canaanites” as a general referent to any group that might have some claim on Jewish territories. For him, the “Canaanites” not only include the original inhabitants of the land before the conquest of Joshua, but also the Arabs and the Edomites (Land, 69). 13 The good relationship between the Jews and Arabs may be a reflection of the peaceful relationship between the two during the time of John Hyrcanus I (Mendels, Land, 74). The rift between the Edomites and the Jews is also reflected in Jub. 26 (cf. Gen 27). Both Jub. 26 and Gen 27 contain the accounts concerning Isaac’s blessings, the conspiracy between Rebekah and her younger son, and the successful execution of their plans. Both accounts also contain Isaac’s “blessings” of Esau which include being driven away from the fertile land, servitude, and their resistance against their enemies. Jubilees, however, adds a prophecy concerning the demise of Esau (27:34). Mendels considers this as a prophecy post eventum included to justify the Maccabean campaign against Edom in 163

184

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

vided the land among his sons, he still wanted to give a larger portion to Esau based on primogeniture, yet Esau refused to take this portion and he admitted to Isaac that he had already sold his birthright to Jacob (36:14). Thus Jacob remained in Hebron and Esau went to Seir (36:19).14 Jubilees reflects the intense longing of a nation that has a long history of struggle to have a land of its own.15 Halpern-Amaru highlights the expansionistic tendency of the work in contrast with a somewhat complacent and fatalistic expectation of the end time characteristic of the apocalyptic writings of the same era. 16 Noah, considered a “cosmic forefather,” was responsible for dividing the earth/land among his three sons. She summarizes: The inventive insertions serve a number of functions. First, the specific territory promised to the patriarchs, the descendants of Shem through Arphachshad, is set within the esteemed ancient world of Noah. Second, the retrojected allocation is buttressed against other claimants for all future times by the oath Noah required of his heirs. Third, as the writer himself informs, the tale of Canaan’s illegitimate seizure of Shem’s portion accounts for how “that land” came to be called “Canaan” (10:34). Last, and most significant, as a whole unit the rewriting makes acquisition of the Land in the subsequent patriarchal narratives a “return” rather than a theologically complex, if not troubled, claim to a land inhabited by others.17

A stark contrast can be drawn between Jubilees and 1 Chronicles. In Jubilees, land divisions and Jewish claims to the land trace their origins back to Noah, who was responsible for apportioning the land. Although there are scattered references to the promise given to Abraham (e.g., Jub. 1:7), this is not the basis for their claims. As Halpern-Amaru observes, “[The] allocation of the Land is placed, in nonpromissory form, into a created narrative that links the Land promise given to the patriarchs to an initial diviB .C. (Land, 80). Moreover, while the canonical account records Isaac’s displeasure on account of Esau’s foreign wives (Gen 28:1–9), Isaac never pronounced his hatred against Esau (cf. Jub. 35:13). The canonical account also recounts Esau forgiving Jacob for his deception (Gen 32), but in Jub. 36 (cf. 37:1–4), it was necessary for Isaac to intervene before Esau finally conceded. 14 Although Esau accepted the portion Isaac allotted to him, his descendants refused to take the smaller piece. This resulted in the war between the Edomites against the Jews (Jub. 37:5–24). Jubilees portrays the Jews to be on the defensive and the Edomite aggression made it necessary for them to press hard against the Edomites and force them to servitude as a sign of peace-making (38:10–11). 15 In comparison with 1 Enoch, Mendels found in Jubilees and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs a more realistic idea of the land which also reflected a “stubborn effort to demonstrate the legitimacy of reconquering the Land even though it was partly occupied at that time by other nations” (Land, 26). 16 Betsy Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994). 5. 17 Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting, 26.

Chapter 9: Jewish Historical Accounts

185

sion of the earth in the prepatriarchal era.”18 In the biblical accounts (e.g., 1 Chr 16:15–18), the Jews claim the land on the basis of God’s covenant with Abraham.19 The Chronicler’s interest in geographical matters is conspicuous, particularly in his genealogies.20 Like the genealogical record in Gen 10, anecdotes and parenthetical statements are embedded within the genealogies in 1 Chronicles. These short stories betray the Chronicler’s interest in the issue of land and the use of genealogies was the means by which he asserted his claims. These anecdotes seem to be classifiable into two basic types: anecdotes and statements related to land acquisitions and those related to land allotments. Several stories embedded in the Chronicler’s genealogical records concern land acquisition. First, as it is in Gen 10, Nimrod is presented as the mighty warrior in the earth. The record from 10:1–29 is supplemented by 11:10–26 in 1 Chr 1:1–27. 21 Nimrod’s account shows that even in early antiquity, cities were being built, peoples were being ruled, and lands were being occupied by nations with military powers. Second, the Chronicler highlights the occupation of sixty Judean cities by Geshur and Aram. First Chronicles 2:21–22 records Hezron’s departure from Bethlehem, the city that would later be occupied by the Calebites (2:50–55). Hezron migrated to Gilead and lived with his Manassite in-laws (2:21; cf. Gen 50:23); he fathered Jair and eventually lived in Gilead. This story explains why some descendants of Hezron occupied a portion of the 18

Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting, 26. Norman Habel notes that the land is presented as “family lots” in the OT. This ideology is primarily seen in the book of Joshua which “promotes the capacity of ancestral households and families to take initiative, claim their allotted land, and rely on YHWH as the divine warrior to overcome all odds” (The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 73). The same ideology can be observed in the genealogies in 1 Chronicles. Based on God’s promise to Abraham, their claim on the land was presented as a legitimate one. 20 Hugh G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 39. Moreover, as Japhet points out, in the form and content of these genealogies, the Chronicler provided answers to two important questions: (1) who were the people whose story will be told, and (2) where did they live (Ideology, 278–79). 21 The ages of the Semites when they fathered their progenies (cf. Gen 11:10–26), the legacy of Nimrod, and his relationship with the Babylonians (1:10–12) are not included in 1 Chronicles. The ages of the Semitic fathers could be a good starting point for reconstructing ancient history by providing a time reference for these names. However, the Chronicler showed no concern for constructing ancient chronology. Moreover, the Chronicler does not show any interest in presenting Babylon and Assyria as two of the earliest civilizations. Writing within an era wherein several nations were attempting to establish their empires, a record about Nimrod’s achievements could simply be a testimony that the aspiration of these nations for empire building is really nothing new. 19

186

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

Judean territory, while some of them lived in the territory of Manasseh. Numbers 32:39–42 tells us how the Manassites dispossessed the Amorites to take their land. Whereas the Calebites settled peacefully in Judah, the descendants of Jair were driven out by Geshur and Aram (1 Chr 2:23).22 Not much is said about the Geshurites in the Deuteronomic history, except that David married a Geshuritess Maacah, Absalom’s mother (2 Sam 3:3). If the first readers of Chronicles were aware of this, it should not be surprising if they understood this as a reference to a peaceful co-existence of the Geshurites and the Israelites within the land. Even though they conquered the descendants of Hezron, they were placed under the dominion of David. Third, the Chronicler portrays Jabez as an exemplar for non-violent acquisition of land (1 Chr 4:9–10).23 This made him more honorable than the Simeonites, Reubenites, Gadites, and Manassites, who applied force to acquire their territories.24 Moreover, Jabez’s supposed “destiny” (because of his name) was reversed because he cried to God. Not much was said about Jabez, except that he asked for a larger portion of the land and God granted his request, which draws the relationship between piety and land grants. Fourth, the censuses of the warriors of Issachar (1 Chr 7:1–5), Benjamin (7:6–13), and Asher (7:31–40) also pick up the non-violent land-acquisition theme of 1 Chr 4. Instead of the usual tribal clans, these genealogies record the families of their ἰσχυροὶ δυνάμει or “mighty men of valor” (7:2, 22 Ehud Ben Zvi notes some historical problems in the Chronicler’s accounts that could not be easily resolved (e.g., Judg 10:3–4 records that there are 30 cities in Gilead while 1 Chr 2:21 has only 23; Josh 13:13 hints that the Geshurites were the original inhabitants of Gilead, while 1 Chr 2:23 portrays them as aggressive invaders). Nonetheless, his advice to “read within rather than against its grain” is worth heeding (History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles [London: Equinox, 2006], 65). 23 R. Christopher Heard, “Echoes of Genesis in 1 Chronicles 4:9–10: An Intertextual and Contextual Reading of Jabez’s Prayer,” JHS 4 (2002): 1–28. 24 The Chronicler explains that the reason the Simeonites were given lands within the territory of Judah is because Simeon did not multiply as fast as Judah (1 Chr 4:27), and the territory of Judah was too large for them (cf. Josh 19:9). However, after David’s reign, the Simeonites increased in number (1 Chr 4:38), thus the need for a larger territory was a legitimate one. However, there is nothing in 1 Chr 4 to suggest the legitimacy of the Simeonites’ action. During the conquest of Canaan, the Israelites received Yahweh’s directive (Deut 1:21); the Simeonites took possession of the land of the Hamites because they “found rich and good pasture, and the land was broad and quiet and peaceful” (1 Chr 4:40). As for the Reubenites, there is no record of the war between them and the Hagrites in other canonical accounts except in 1 Chr 5:10. After the Reubenites won the “war of God” against the Hagrites during the reign of Saul (5:22), they occupied the land until the exile, which is over three centuries. Just as God gave the Hagrites into the hands of the Reubenites (5:20), he also gave the Israelites to the Assyrians because of their idolatry (5:26). This is part of the Chronicler’s attempt to explain why God’s chosen people were uprooted from the land promised to them.

Chapter 9: Jewish Historical Accounts

187

5, 7, 9, 11, 40; cf. 8:40). Four elements of ancient societies intertwine: army, land, wealth, and the gods.25 A strong army would be necessary for a nation to expand its borders, and the more land they acquire, the more prosperous it becomes. Even in Hellenistic historiographies, the decision of the gods is a crucial element in the whole process. For OT historians, the fourth element is the most important of all.26 The Chronicler repeatedly stresses Yahweh’s involvement in this whole dynamic (e.g., 9:1; 21:9). Within the list of the valiant warriors of Issachar, Benjamin, and Asher is a short genealogy of Manasseh. Three things about Joseph’s genealogy are worth noting: (1) the mention of Zelophehad’s daughter which recalls Yahweh’s instruction that land should be allotted to them (7:15; cf. Num 36:2); (2) the massacre of an Ephraimite clan by the warriors of Gath, who were able to take their possessions and even their lives, but not their land (1 Chr 7:20–24);27 and (3) the list of lands apportioned to the sons of Joseph (7:28–29). Aside from anecdotes and short statements related to land acquisitions, there are those that relate to land allotment. First, the birth of Peleg serves as the historical marker for the division of the land (1 Chr 1:19). Eber’s son was called Peleg (‫ ) ֶפּ לֶג‬because the land was divided (‫ )נׅ פְ לְ גָה‬when he was born (Gen 10:25).28 Moreover, a noticeable feature of 1 Chr 1 is that the names in this genealogy are the names of individuals who were most likely the patriarchs of their respective clans and whose descendants occupy territories named after them (e.g., Sidon, Canaan). Hence, for the 25 James T. Sparks highlights several themes including (1) the inseparability of people and land, (2) the importance of humility over military power, (3) rewards and retribution, (4) faithfulness of Yahweh, and (5) the possibility of restoration (The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1–9 [AcBib 28; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008], 207). 26 Jewish history shows that fidelity to God (adherence to Torah), possession of the land, political authority, and subjugation of foreigners combine to complete their settlement (cf. Mendels, Land, 26–27). 27 Although it appears that this disaster was caused by the lack of “mighty men of valor” in Manasseh, the author explicates that this was part of their “misfortune” (κακός, or “evil” [1 Chr 7:23]). The Chronicler consistently attributed κακός to God (e.g., 21:15; 2 Chr 7:22; 18:22; 34:24, 28). Even its reversal was considered an act of God (e.g., Jabez). The Chronicler did not elaborate why such evil befell the Ephraimite clan, but just like Jabez, there was also a reversal of fortune and the descendants of Beriah were able to take hold of Beth-horon to rebuild it. 28 More important than an obvious wordplay is the connection between the dispersions in Genesis and 1 Chronicles. The nation that feared dispersion in Gen 11:4 is the same nation that caused the dispersion of the people addressed by the Chronicler. Thus the memory of God’s judgment against a nation that refused to acknowledge his kingship is inevitably underscored, and this should have spoken powerfully to a nation longing for independence.

188

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

Chronicler, these names not only represent individuals in history and the people groups that originate from them, but these also point to the land they occupied. Second, the royal genealogy of the Edomites begins with a clear statement: these kings reigned, not in Israel, but in Edom (1:43). By implication, the descendants of Esau have Edom, not any portion in Israel, as their legitimate territory. The exile caused some of the returnees to think that God had abandoned them (cf. Mal 1:2–5). Added to this is the continuous hostility of the Edomites towards the Jews (e.g., Obad 1–21). First Chronicles reflects the struggle of the Jews to regain their identity as the recipient of God’s promises. Edom was considered an alternative to Israel, and 1 Chr 1 served as a polemic against it.29 The royal genealogy of Edom blocks any possible claim of Esau’s descendants even though they, too, were Abraham’s descendants (cf. Josh 24:4). Third, the inhabitants of Jabez are named (1 Chr 2:55). Like the inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah who were identified by their profession (potters), the people of Jabez were identified by their work (scribes). In Josh 19:5, the house of Rechab was given a portion among the Simeonites. Japhet suggests that these Kenites were descendants of Hammath who were originally from Beth-rechab and affiliated themselves to Judah through Jabez.30 Although there are some difficulties concerning their identity, it is clear that the Chronicler acknowledged them as one of the Judean clans who share a portion of the land among the Jews. Fourth, the Chronicler identifies the cities allotted for the Levite clans (1 Chr 6:54–81). 31 Portions of lands were allotted for the Levites (Josh 21:9–18; cf. 1 Chr 6:54–60). Although the Levites did not receive a contiguous portion, each Levite clan enjoyed the benefit of cultivating the lands assigned to them (6:60), which they occupied until the time of Jehozadak. Hence, it becomes necessary for the Chronicler to review their allotments so that the returnees may know which land portions were assigned to which Levite clan. Last, the sections concerning Manasseh and Benjamin list the names of the tribal members of Manasseh and Benjamin, and include the names of 29 Elie Assis, “From Adam to Esau to Israel: An Anti-Edomite Ideology in 1 Chronicles 1,” VT 56, no. 3 (2006): 302. 30 Japhet, Rivers, 90. 31 Based on the chiastic structure of 1 Chr 1–9 with the record of Levite genealogy and their land division at its center, Sparks suggests that the central theme of 1 Chr 1–9 is the cult (Genealogies, 31–32). To call it the “central” theme seems to be an overstatement considering the prominence of Judah’s lineage in 1 Chr 1–9 and the sheer amount of materials concerning the Davidic dynasty in the rest of the Chronicler’s work. Nonetheless, one can still maintain that the importance of religious observance necessary for their atonement and restoration to the land is emphasized.

Chapter 9: Jewish Historical Accounts

189

the cities/villages they occupied before they were taken to exile (7:28–29; 8:1–40). Japhet notes that 7:28 includes an “emphatically phrased heading [that] defines the purpose of the passage as recording the ‘possessions and settlements’” of the tribes of Joseph.32 Moreover, a clan from the tribe of Benjamin was said to have rebuilt Ono and Lod, and another clan occupied Aijalon. These were outside the territories originally allotted to Benjamin. 33 The Chronicler explains (cf. 8:8) that a certain Shaharaim abandoned his first two wives and migrated to Moab. The Benjamites, who were originally confined between two larger tribes, Ephraim and Judah, could also be in need of a larger portion. Some of them moved eastward and settled in Moab (e.g., Shaharaim), while some moved westward and settled in Lod and Ono.34 Some even settled in Jerusalem (8:32). One cannot be certain when this migration occurred, but the original inhabitants of Lod and Ono may have reoccupied the land after their return from exile (Ezra 2:33).35 Although one may reconstruct history through these genealogical records, 36 and the tribal connections can also be established, one must not overlook the land theme that permeates 1 Chr 1–9.37 The genealogical records in 1 Chronicles are not just lists of names that present tribal relations, their purpose is evidently to show which family is the legitimate owner of which land.38

32

Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster, 1993), 184. Ralph Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 251. 34 Japhet, Chronicles, 193. 35 Williamson, Chronicles, 84. 36 Roddy L. Braun, “1 Chronicles 1–9 and the Reconstruction of the History of Israel: Thoughts and Use of Genealogical Data in Chronicles in the Reconstruction of the History of Israel,” in The Chronicler as Historian (ed. M. Patrick Graham, et al.; JSOTSup 238; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 105. Wilson points out that although the purpose of ancient biblical and extra-biblical genealogies was not to convey historical information (they “seem to have been created and preserved for domestic, politico-jural, and religious purposes, and historical information is preserved in the genealogies only incidentally”), they can be used for historical research (Genealogy, 199–200). 37 See Magnar Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (ConBOT 28; Stockholm: Almquist & Wiskell, 1989). 38 Marshall D. Johnson observes the prominent place given to both Judah and Levi and how this accentuation reflects the Chronicler’s theology of Davidic theocracy and Levitical cult. His geographical interest in the land of Israel also reflects his conviction that the land over which David ruled, that is, “from Dan to Beersheba,” was the inheritance of David’s sons (The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969], 74–75). Robert North also points out that one of the main themes of Chronicles is its “Davidism,” that is, “the vehicle of the theocratic messianism was not Moses on Sinai but David on Zion” (“Theology of the Chronicler,” JBL 82 no. 4 [1963]: 369–70). 33

190

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

The first five chapters of Pseudo-Philo also contain a series of genealogical records. Aside from the prominence given to women in the lineage from Adam to Noah, not much alteration was done to Gen 5 in its rewriting in L.A.B. 1:1–22. The same attitude towards women is evident in Cain’s genealogy (2:1–10), yet more noteworthy is the presentation of Cain as a city builder of seven cities named after his seven sons (2:3).39 The survivors of the Flood were also divided according to clan; some of them were also identified according to their habitation (e.g., Persians and Medes [4:3]) and the cities they built (e.g., Sidon [4:8]). The relationship between genealogy and land settlement is also evident in a fragment of Cleodemus Malchus (cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.15.1 §§239–41). The fragment contains the names of Abraham’s children by Keturah and the countries named after them, as well as a statement concerning Heophre, the conqueror of Libya, whose descendants became settlers of the land. In summary, although tribal/international relationships are clarified through genealogies, like the genealogical records in the Greco-Roman writings, those from the Jewish literature were used to legitimize land claims. And because Israel had to struggle against foreign domination throughout much of their history, claims to land ownership were tied to claims of independence. In short, the question who is the legitimate owner of the land cannot be separated from the question who is their legitimate king.

Reign of the Gods and Piety of His Kings In Exodus, Israel’s deliverance from Egypt is a clear assertion of Yahweh’s power against rulers who refused to acknowledge his sovereignty (15:1–10). It also provides a glimpse of his eternal reign (15:18). God’s reign over Israel was made official at Sinai as Yahweh declared Israel to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” in relation to him (19:6); and without a human king installed, Yahweh was their king (Num 23:21; Deut 33:5).40 The Law served as the charter for this new nation and every citizen 39

Families were also distinguished according to trade (L.A.B. 2:5–10; cf. Gen 4:17–

26). 40 The OT contains language of Yahweh’s reign over his chosen people (e.g., Num 23:21; Deut 33:5; 1 Sam 12:12; 1 Kgs 22:19; 1 Chr 17:14; 28:5; 2 Chr 13:8; Pss 48:2; 59:13; Isa 33:22; 43:15; Jer 8:19) and even the whole world (e.g., 2 Kgs 19:15; 2 Chr 20:6; Pss 22:28; 24:7–10; 47:2, 7–8; 74:12; 93:2; 95:3–5; 96:13; 97:1; 99:1–5; 103:19; 145:11–13; Jer 46:18; 48:15; 51:57; Ezek 1:26–28; Dan 4:3; 5:21; Zech 14:16–17). This suggests that the idea of Yahweh’s kingship permeates the understanding of the Jews prior to the NT period and provides a background for the NT writers’ and even Jesus’ understanding of God’s kingdom.

Chapter 9: Jewish Historical Accounts

191

of this priestly kingdom was expected to abide by it. Although there was no human king, there are provisions in the Law that hint that they would not lack human rulers (e.g., Exod 22:28 [22:27, LXX]);41 other provisions anticipate the establishment of a monarchy in which the human king was expected to be the citizen par excellence by embodying the Torah (Deut 17:14–20). Citizens of this priestly kingdom were obliged to adhere to the Law; non-compliance would result not only in domination by their enemies (Lev 26:17), but also in a loss of the land within which Yahweh’s reign was supposed to materialize (26:31–33).42 God’s rule is idealized in Deut 17–18, where the historian presented a society with priests who execute justice and promulgate the Law (Deut 17:9–13), kings who uphold the standards of the Law (17:14–20), and prophets who speak on behalf of God (18:9–22). These functions reflect, to a great extent, the role of Yahweh as king of Israel, as expressed by Isaiah, “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king” (33:22). The importance of the human king’s role as Yahweh’s co-regent was further conveyed in the account of the judges. Although there are hints that during the period of the judges, the kingship of Yahweh was acknowl-

41

The command not to curse Yahweh was coupled with the command not to curse human rulers, perhaps suggesting that human rulers are God’s co-regents, so that cursing them is tantamount to cursing Yahweh who rules through them. 42 Betsy Halpern-Amaru observes the triad “God-People-Land” as the prominent theme in the biblical accounts (“Land Theology in Philo and Josephus,” in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspective [ed. Lawrence A. Hoffmann; UNDCSJCA 6; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986], 65–93). Yahweh’s covenant with Israel was never presented without a reference to the Promised Land, which is not only “good” (Num 14:7; Deut 1:25, 35; 4:21, 22; 6:18; 8:7, 10; 9:6; 11:17) and “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27; 14:8; 16:13, 14; Deut 6:3; 11:9; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20), but also “pollutable” by sins (Lev 18:24–30; 20:22–25; Num 35:34). Moreover, this land belongs solely to God – so that it neither belongs to the conquerors nor to the covenanted people who continue to sojourn the land (Lev 25:23). None of these aspects of Landtheologie are found in two of the most influential Hellenistic Jewish writers, Josephus and Philo. Philo’s allegorical approach to the sacred texts resulted in his interpretation of the land as a reference to something other than real estate. In Josephus, covenantal ideas are omitted in the rewriting of biblical accounts (e.g., Ant. 1.7.1 §157; 1.10.3 §§183–85; 1.10.5 §§191–92; 1.18.6 §272; 1.19.2 §282), which could be evidence of his attempt to universalize the special relationship between God and Israel. Halpern-Amaru points out, in view of the Jews in Diaspora, “Josephus’ problem with Land theology in the patriarchal stories is not limited with the covenant per se, but with a covenanted people limited to a covenanted Land” (73). Moreover, although Josephus linked land tenure to the Jews’ observance of the Torah, there is no direct connection with Torah legislation and covenant of land (Ant. 4.8.2 §§189–91; cf. Deut 4; 28); neither is their return and restoration linked with messianic prophecies regarding the house of David.

192

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

edged (e.g., Judg 8:22–23), the lack of a human king produced a chaotic nation (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). A new dimension to Yahweh’s theocratic rule came to the fore during the reign of David. As Yahweh’s vice regent, David assumed the role of a shepherd; this is affirmed both by the elders of Israel (2 Sam 5:2; cf. 1 Chr 11:2) and by God himself (2 Sam 7:7; cf. 1 Chr 17:6). In response to David’s plan to build a temple to house the ark of God, Yahweh appointed David’s successor to bring this plan to fruition (2 Sam 7:13; cf. 1 Chr 17:12). Together with this declaration is Yahweh’s promise of peaceful land settlement for the Israelites (2 Sam 7:10–11, 23; cf. 1 Chr 17:9–10) and establishment of a dynasty for David (2 Sam 7:12–13; cf. 1 Chr 17:11– 14). This promise, understood eschatologically, became the basis for believers of Jesus to confess him as the messiah.43 The Davidic dynasty was to be an extension of the kingdom of God on earth,44 and this idea was explicated through David’s confession as he announced the succession of Solomon to the throne, “He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel” (1 Chr 28:5; cf. 2 Chr 13:8). Solomon’s kingdom was considered βασιλείας κυρίου (1 Chr 28:5) and he was appointed as Yahweh’s representative king (29:22). Jonathan E. Dyck notes that ruling dynasty, central institution, people, and land are intertwining themes in the Chronicler’s account. 45 For the returnees, God’s promise to David is inseparable with his promise of restoration. HalpernAmaru notes: The patriarchal Land covenant is directly tied to the giving of the law. And while the actual occupation of the Land is dependent upon obedience to the law, the Land promise remains eternally covenanted and eternally viable in that repentance and return to God affect restoration to the Land. This return or restoration is then tied to the messianic prophecies regarding the House of David.46

Yahweh’s promise to establish an eternal dynasty for David was given new significance during the Second Temple era. The author of the Psalms of Solomon used this promise to advance his anti-Hasmonean propaganda (Ps. Sol. 17:4–6). Klein suggests that the “sinners” in this passage refer to the 43 Ralph W. Klein, “Aspects of Intertestamental Messianism,” CTM 43, no. 8 (1972): 507. Cf. Isa 9:6–7; 11:1–5; Jer 23:5–8; Mic 5:2–5a; Hag 2:21–23; Zech 3:8; 6:12; 9:9. 44 It is important to note how the Chronicler accentuated the idea that the Davidic dynasty was established, not to advance an earthly kingdom, but because this dynasty was to be an extension of the Yahweh’s kingdom on earth. Yahweh declared that he will establish “his (David’s successor) kingdom and throne” (1 Chr 17:11–12), and that David’s successor will be settled in “my (Yahweh) kingdom forever” (17:14). 45 Jonathan E. Dyck, The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 134. 46 Halpern-Amaru, “Land,” 81.

Chapter 9: Jewish Historical Accounts

193

Hasmoneans, Levites who usurped the Davidic monarchy. 47 This psalm ends with a prayer for David’s son to come and destroy the Romans using a string of OT quotations (Ps. Sol. 17:21–25; cf. 2 Sam 7; Ps 2; Isa 11). Concerning the function of the messiah, Klein further observes: In a sense he is only a sign of and a pointer to God’s reign since the psalm begins and ends with a prayer for God the king to come! For this reason little attention is given to the person of the king. Nor is mention made of his death or of a successor. God’s kingship is renewed through this earthly king. Yet the human king will have responsibilities both toward the nations and toward Israel. He will overthrow the oppressing nations by his rod of iron, but trust in God, and not armaments, is the real source of his power. 48

Similar elements are found in the vision in 4 Ezra 11:1–12:39; the lion (Davidic messiah?) rises up to destroy the eagle (the Roman Empire?). The rise of apocalypticism introduces other ideas about the messiah, e.g., his reign in the “new age” (1 En. 85–90) or during an interim period before the eschaton (4 Ezra 7:26–44).49 In summary, theocratic ideals are expressed in various ways in ancient Jewish writings. This concept of the kingdom of God cannot be separated from issues of Israel’s land, their faithfulness to Yahweh, foreign domination over God’s people, and the reign of the Davidic king(s). Isaiah’s statement concerning God’s rule over Israel encapsulates Yahweh’s relationship with his subject people, “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king” (33:22). The kingdom of Israel is the kingdom of Yahweh, and although it is virtually impossible to trace the origin of a more universalistic concept of the kingdom of God, it is clearly evident in many Psalms, in the prophets, and in Hellenistic Jewish writings like Josephus. Human kings are considered Yahweh’s vice regents who were expected to exemplify and implement the Torah, especially during the period after exile, when God’s promise to establish the Davidic dynasty to assume these tasks was given more emphasis. This promise is important especially in view of foreign oppression because God’s covenant with David is tied to the hope of the restoration of to live peacefully within the kingdom of Yahweh under the kingship of the Son of David.

47

Klein, “Messianism,” 509. Klein, “Messianism,” 509–10. 49 Cf. Jonathan Moo, “A Messiah Whom ‘the Many Do Not Know’? Rereading 4 Ezra 5:6–7,” JTS 58, no. 2 (2007): 525–36; Frank Zimmerman, “The Language, the Date, and the Portrayal of the Messiah in IV Ezra,” HS 26, no. 2 (1985): 203–18. 48

194

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

Summary and Conclusion Ancient Jewish writings exhibit some important similarities with their Hellenistic counterparts in their understanding of land, genealogies, and reign of the gods. In Hellenistic writings, a nation’s ownership of a land is dependent on the decision of the gods. Likewise, in Jewish writings that focus primarily on the land of Israel, their ownership of this land has as its foundation Yahweh’s promise to the patriarchs that this land was bequeathed to the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. Hence, genealogies are often used by later generations to trace their ancestry to these patriarchs to legitimize their land claims. Coupled with Yahweh’s promise of land, he purposed to establish Israel as a kingdom of priests over which he would rule. Yahweh’s rule over his people was to be materialized through the human king appointed by God to be his vice regent over this “kingdom of Yahweh” (1 Chr 28:5). God remained the ultimate owner of the land even after his people successfully occupied it (Lev 25:23), and the kingdom continued to belong to him even after his appointed kings were firmly established (1 Chr 17:11–14). Yahweh’s reign, however, was not limited to a geo-political entity. Many Jewish writers acknowledge his reign over all the nations of the earth; as the supreme ruler, it is within his power to subject one nation to another especially if the former refused to acknowledge his kingship, whether this subjected nation is Israel or another nation. Israel’s failure to observe the Torah resulted in subjugation to foreigners, halting the dynasty of David and leading to their loss of land. Hence, after their return from exile, the Jews found new meaning to Yahweh’s promise to David as they look forward to reclaim their independence and dwell peacefully under the rule of David’s descendants.

Chapter 10

Land, Genealogy, and the Reign of God in Luke-Acts Ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman histories share a number of similar features (see Chart 10A). First, ancient Jewish (e.g., Josephus, Ant. Pref. 3 §14, 4 §20) and Greco-Roman (e.g., Diodorus 1.2.2; Livy, Pref. 10; Polybius 1.1.12) historians wrote historical narratives with a didactic purpose – a purpose similar to that expressed by Luke: “so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4). Second, migrations and conquests were considered significant events worthy to be recorded. The primary difference is that in Jewish historical narratives, these accounts were recorded to emphasize God’s sovereign control over history. Third, both used genealogies to legitimize land claims and reign of kings. Fourth, divine bestowal of land is a common feature in both types of historical narratives. For Jewish historians, Palestine is the “holy” land bequeathed to them by God. Fifth, Greco-Roman and Jewish historical narratives both emphasize the reign of the gods/God through their chosen human regents. Piety was expected of these rulers. In Jewish historical narratives, the expectation is that a ruler would embody the Law of Yahweh. Chart 10A: Land, Genealogy, and Reign of the Gods Greco-Roman Histories

Jewish Histories

Purpose of writing historical narratives: complement, correct, and continue earlier narratives; didactic purposes

Purpose of writing historical narratives: didactic

Migrations and conquests considered significant events worthy of record

Migrations and conquests considered significant insofar as they relate to God’s sovereign control over history

Genealogy used to legitimize land claims and reign of kings

Genealogy used to legitimize land claims and reign of kings

Divine bestowal of land also used to legitimize land claims

Yahweh’s bestowal of land central in Israel’s land claims

Divine expectations of piety from rulers as evidence of reign of the gods

Divine expectations of piety from Davidic kings as evidence of reign of Yahweh

196

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

In this chapter, I aim to show that Luke-Acts exhibits these general features. The geographical movement in Luke-Acts is the closest equivalent of migration accounts of ancient narratives; the purpose of these accounts is to announce God’s sovereign control throughout the lands of the ruling empire and even beyond. God’s sovereignty implies that the God of Israel, not the Roman emperor, is the legitimate owner of “all the inhabited land,” with the Lord Jesus as his legitimate heir. Moreover, Jesus is the pious Davidic king through whom God reigns.

Land in Luke-Acts A significant portion of Conzelmann’s The Theology of St. Luke is devoted to discussing issues related to geography in the Third Gospel. Several key points in his chapter “Geographical Elements” are worth highlighting. First, he distinguishes between the territories where John the Baptist and Jesus ministered. Jesus’ activities were concentrated in Judea and Galilee; the “districts around the Jordan” were John’s place of ministry and the place of origin of Jesus’ followers.1 Second, he divides Jesus’ ministry into three major sections based on geography: (1) Galilee (Luke 4:1–9:50), (2) journey (9:51–12:27), and (3) Jerusalem (12:28–24:53). He claims that Galilee “has no fundamental significance for Luke as a region”;2 nonetheless, it is still considered part of Jewish territory (e.g., 4:44; 7:17; 23:5). Judea is important because of the temple. Moreover, he suggests that the account of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem “begins after the fact of suffering has been disclosed, but not yet fully understood.”3 Yet this period is important because it is when certain christological concepts were developed,4 thus preparing for the accounts of Jesus’ trial and death in Jerusalem. In response to Conzelmann’s idea of the “Holy Land” in Luke, W. D. Davies raises several issues in relation to Luke’s understanding of land.5 He notes that Luke aimed to confront Jewish hopes of regaining control 1 Conzelmann, Theology, 27, 31. By distinguishing the ministry locations of John the Baptist and Jesus, Conzelmann did not take into account the historical marker associated with John’s ministry location (Luke 3:3; cf. 3:1–2). This should be best understood as part of a series of historical and geographical markers (1:5; 2:1; 3:1–2). The purpose of these is to identify certain territories associated with earthly rulers, and Luke’s theology of land is best understood by taking these into consideration. 2 Conzelmann, Theology, 41. 3 Conzelmann, Theology, 65. 4 Conzelmann, Theology, 73. 5 W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 244–87. Cf. Conzelmann, Theology, 70.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

197

over the land. Luke’s concern for the issue of land is seen in his constant allusion to God’s promise to Abraham (Acts 3:12–16; 13:16–41).6 Nonetheless, Luke’s stress on the revelation, presence, and intervention of God “outside the land” (7:2–50), which Davies suggests, arose from questions facing the Diaspora Jews. However, this concern was submerged by other concerns because Gentiles far outnumbered the Jews when Luke wrote his work.7 There are two reasons Luke cannot avoid the discussion concerning land: (1) to avoid such discussion would undermine his purpose to show the theological continuity between gentile and Jewish Christianity; and (2) there is a political necessity to do so.8 Davies correctly points out that allusions to Abraham and references to God’s work “outside the land of Israel” evidence Luke’s interest in the theme of land. Nonetheless, Luke’s interest goes beyond the necessity of linking the Jewish and gentile communities. As I shall argue, the theme of land in Luke-Acts is inseparable from the theme of Jesus’ lordship, and God’s sole and universal sovereignty. Two other works are worth mentioning. Karen J. Wenell built on the work of Davies but focused on different aspects of the relationship between Jesus and the land. 9 Following Habel, she notes that there is no monolithic land ideology in Israel. Nonetheless, in Jewish sacred writings, “land” is more than a physical territory; it also represents the mythical relationship between God and his people.10 Furthermore, the temple, as a sacred area, is a contested space. With the assumption that power cannot be separated from space, she claims, “When Jesus speaks of the temple’s future destruction, this should be seen as related to the tearing down of authority structures that go with the present temple.”11 Jesus’ rejection of the temple was strengthened by his rejection of the Jewish purity laws that segregate various groups of people. 12 Even the Twelve were not given roles related to the temple. Nonetheless, as the Jewish idea of land is asso-

6

Davies, Gospel, 261, 265–66. Davies, Gospel, 269–71, 286. 8 Davies, Gospel, 286. 9 Karen J. Wenell, Jesus and Land: Sacred and Social Space in Second Temple Judaism (LNTS 334; Sheffield: T. & T. Clark, 2007). 10 Wenell, Jesus, 8. Cf. Habel, Land, 148. 11 Wenell, Jesus, 51, 58. 12 Wenell, Jesus, 103. Although it is true that Jesus did not bind himself to Jewish purity laws, to say that he rejected Jewish purity laws is incorrect (cf. Luke 5:14; 17:14). What Jesus rejected is not the purity laws but the marginalization of those perceived to be impure (e.g., lepers). As I shall argue, Jesus, as the embodiment of the law, clarified (not redefined) what defilement really entails. 7

198

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

ciated with the twelve tribes, the number creates an “anticipation of God’s action on behalf of his people to bring the kingdom.”13 Matthew Sleeman critiques the three major interpretations of Lukan geography because they reduce geography to (1) history (e.g., Conzelmann – geography manipulated by the redactor to fit theological ends), (2) cartography and tradition (e.g., James M. Scott – geography of Luke-Acts based on traditions of Jubilees), and (3) ontological dualism (e.g., Daniel J. Hays – dualism between space and ethnicity). 14 As an alternative, he proposes that the ascension of Jesus in Acts places Jesus in “heaven,” the space where he is “sovereignly independent of mortals,” consequently placing earthly spaces under “a Christological heaven.” 15 This “heavenly space” is not introduced only in Acts. Even in the Third Gospel, this transcendent space is presented as the “first portion” of the territories belonging to God, from where the “Lord of heaven and earth” reigns (cf. Luke 20:21; Acts 17:24). The geographical movement in Luke-Acts is evidence of Luke’s interest in the theme of land. His concern is not just to provide his readers with spatial information, but to claim these territories as belonging to God, over which the God of Israel is sovereign and within which the lordship of Christ must be proclaimed.

Territorial Claims: Not Just Historical Markers The three references to rulers in the first three chapters of Luke are often construed as historical markers for Luke’s narrative (1:5; 2:1; 3:1).16 However, as one examines the spatial territories associated with these rulers, it seems best to conclude that these references are not simply temporal his13

Wenell, Jesus, 135–36. Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts (SNTSMS 146; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 30–36. Cf. Conzelmann, Theology, 18– 94; James M. Scott, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees (SNTSMS 113; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 44–96; idem, “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” in The Book of Acts in Its Greco-Roman Setting (ed. David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf; A1CS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 483–544; Daniel J. Hays, From Every People and Every Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race (Leicester: Apollos, 2003), 167. 15 Sleeman, Geography, 78. 16 Darrell L. Bock, Luke (BECNT 3A; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 1:75, 201, 279; Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (2nd ed.; ABRL; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1993), 414–15; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:321–22, 393–94; Marshall, Luke, 96, 131; Nolland, Luke, 1:18, 103, 137; Robert C. Tannehill, Luke (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 77. 14

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

199

torical markers but indirect statements against these rulers’ claim to authority. Herod the Great and the Temple Luke’s use of the expression ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις followed by the regent’s name recalls the form of dating used in the OT.17 His description of Herod as “king of Judea” may suggest that Luke is interested in something more than identifying the temporal location of the events he is about to narrate, but he is also interested in identifying the spatial location of Herod’s reign. Wolter points out that the title “king of Judea” (if “Judea” is used as a reference to the land allotted to the tribe of Judah or the southern kingdom or the Persian province of Yehud) is not the most accurate description for Herod since he ruled over a much larger space. A more comprehensive use of the term “Judea” may include the lands inhabited mainly by the Jewish people (which include Galilee and Perea).18 The historical accounts of Josephus provide information concerning Herod and the first-century Jerusalem temple. Josephus recounts how Herod took Jerusalem by force (Ant. 15.1.1 §1). The historian also lists Herod among tyrants who installed and removed high priests; Antiochus Epiphanes removed Jesus and installed Onias, Aristoboulus removed Hyrcanus, and Herod removed Ananel because he was a former captive from beyond the Euphrates (15.3.1 §§39–41). The tyrant, who was credited for the rebuilding/renovation of the temple, attempted to restore the glory of Solomon’s temple because Zerubbabel failed to accomplish this feat. 19 Although Luke set the epiphany in the temple with the reign of Herod the Great as a temporal marker (Luke could have chosen other markers, e.g., Augustus as emperor), and Herod’s role in its building is significant, Luke never acknowledged Herod’s contribution but referred to the temple as the “temple of the Lord” (Luke 1:9; cf. Josephus, Ant. 15.11.1 §380).20 Josephus recounts how Herod took control of the priestly garments and the temple treasuries (15.11.4 §§404–408); this continued until Vitellius

17

Cf. Radl, Lukas, 1:45. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 72–73. 19 Green notes that the episode concerning the centurion’s servant (Luke 7:1–11) can be considered a “textbook illustration” of the patron-client system (Luke, 202). The centurion became a patron for building a synagogue in Capernaum (7:5); Herod’s rebuilding of the temple placed him in the same role. 20 A contrast can be observed between Herod, whose loyalty is to the power that installed him as king (e.g., Josephus, Ant. 15.1.2 §§5–8), and Zacharias, whose devotion was to the God of Israel (Luke 1:6). 18

200

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

became governor of Syria.21 It was through the priests’ hospitality towards the Syrian governor that the latter decided to appeal to Tiberius on their behalf so that their vestments would be “under their authority” once again (15.11.4 §405). With the priestly vestments under Roman custody, sacrifices on the Day of Atonement could be performed only with the Romans’ regulation.22 Thus, Herod’s act can be seen as an attempt to place even the God of Israel under the mercy of the Romans further subjugating the Israelites; that is, the Israelites can receive mercy from Yahweh only if and when the Romans showed “mercy” to the God of Israel by allowing the sacrifices to be offered to him. In Luke’s record, however, we find no mention of priestly garments. Instead, he focuses on the priestly routines set forth in Israel’s Scriptures; the priests performed their duties according to the service appointed by God (Luke 1:8; cf. 1 Chr 24:10, 19). Against the historical backdrop regarding the temple rites in first-century Jerusalem, Luke’s statement in 1:8–9 can perhaps be considered as a gentle resistance to Roman control over the temple rites and a reminder to Theophilus that the temple is God’s territory, not the Romans’, and it is the God of Israel who determines how and when worship should be conducted. The temple, thus, is under God’s jurisdiction, regardless of how the Romans exercise control, and this is further accentuated with the epiphany that followed (1:11–23). 23 For this reason, Zacharias was able to declare that through God’s intervention and deliverance from their “enemies,” they might be able to serve him “without fear” (1:71, 74). Augustus and “All Inhabited Earth” Another reference to a ruler that is mistakenly considered as a simple temporal historical marker is Luke’s comment concerning the reign of Augustus. Just as the temple is the territory associated with Herod, “all the inhabited earth” (πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην) is the space linked with the emperor.24 The phrase πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην suggests the extent of his rule, and the

21 Wenell notes, “Space and hegemonic powers are always connected, and therefore the connection between the current leadership and current spatial arrangements for the temple is significant” (Jesus, 58). 22 E. Mary Smallwood correctly points out that the Roman’s control of the priestly vestments emphasizes the high priest’s dependence on Roman goodwill (The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian [SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976], 149). 23 See discussion in Part 2 regarding epiphanies as a means by which the gods assert their authority. 24 Klein suggests that by placing Jesus’ birth in chronological relations with Augustus’ reign, Luke underscores die weltpolitische Bedeutung of the Jesus’ birth, the significance of which is seen in Luke’s presentation of it as an event in which even the Himmelskräfte participate (Lukasevangelium, 126).

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

201

census was a means to determine the number of people under his authority (Luke 2:1–2).25 The census served as a reminder that the Jewish nation must give their allegiance to the ruling empire, albeit unwillingly. 26 Daniel G. Reid enumerates how the Greco-Roman writers justify the Roman conquests by showing that this was divinely sanctioned:27 (1) Jupiter’s decision regarding the extent of the empire (Virgil, Aen. 1.257–96), (2) the birth of Augustus was accompanied with great signs and a prediction that he would rule the world (Suetonius, Aug. 94.1–12; Cassius Dio 45.1–2.4), (3) Augustus was considered as divine incarnate (Horace, Carm. 1.2), and (4) it was believed that Augustus returned to heaven upon his death (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 2.93–94). 28 Reid notes that the living Caesar was considered the de facto savior and lord of the world.29 These beliefs regarding the emperor were voided through the angel’s declaration, “in the city of David there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11), whose kingdom “will have no end” (1:33). Prior to Luke’s account concerning the census, a prophetic declaration was already made regarding the savior who would be born “in the house of David” (Luke 1:69; cf. Mic 5:2). Although this does not signal explicit defiance of the emperor’s wishes,30 this prophecy created an expectation that

25

This is done perhaps for taxation purposes (Tannehill, Luke, 65). Fitzmyer claims, “Luke depicts [Augustus] as an agent of God, who by his edict of registration brings it about that Jesus is born in the town of David” (Luke, 1:393). Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Augustus is depicted as an enemy of God whose attempt to usurp God’s authority over “all the inhabited world” was brought to naught by God’s sovereignty, because even through his own edict, he unknowingly participated in the fulfillment of God’s plan so that God’s co-regent could be born in the town of David. 26 Thompson, One, 63. Robbins observes that Luke records no appearance of any Roman emperor. Despite their absence, they were able to wield their power “from a distance” (“Mixed Population,” 205). 27 Daniel G. Reid, “Spirit-Empowerment as Resistance Discourse: An ImperialCritical Reading of Acts 2,” in Trajectories in the Book of Acts (ed. Paul Alexander, Jordan Daniel May, and Robert D. Reid; Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 26–30. 28 Pliny the Elder recounts Augustus’ recollection of the appearance of the “hairy star” (comet) during a game he sponsored to honor his adoptive father Julius. The appearance of the comet was interpreted as an omen that signaled Julius’ deification (Nat. 2.23; cf. Suetonius, Jul. 88; Cassius Dio 45.7.1). As Julius was deemed deified, consequently, Augustus claimed to be the “son of the deified” or divi filius. The Greek equivalent υἱὸς θεοῦ was also used as an imperial title in several inscriptions (cf. Tae Hun Kim, “The Anarthrous υἱὸς θεοῦ in Mark 15,39,” Bib 79, no. 2 [1998]: 230–32; Robert L. Mowery, “Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew,” Bib 83, no. 1 [2002]: 101–105). 29 Reid, “Spirit-Empowerment,” 43. 30 The couple is not portrayed as defiant against authorities. On the contrary, Luke portrays Mary as one who considered herself a “slave” (δούλος) submissive to God’s

202

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

explained the real reason for the journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. They travelled not to comply with the emperor’s order but in fulfillment of a prophecy concerning the house and family of David (Luke 2:4). “All the inhabited earth” (2:1), throughout which the census was conducted, represents the region under the emperor’s jurisdiction. Yet through epiphanies, prophetic utterances, and divine interventions, the God of Israel has once again shown that he is the true sovereign. Tiberius, Pilate, the Tetrarchs, the Priests, and the Districts Around the Jordan In Josephus’ Jewish Wars, he recounts Tiberius’ control of “the districts around the Jordan.” His control over the region was cemented through the governor and tetrarchs appointed in these regions.31 First, when Pilate was appointed as governor of Judea, he set Caesar’s ensigns in Jerusalem (2.9.2 §169).32 These images were removed only when some Jews showed steadiness in the face of Pilate’s threat to kill them for requesting the removal of the ensigns (2.9.2–3 §§169–74). Second, tetrarch Herod Antipas of Galilee built Tiberias in Galilee as his tribute to the emperor (2.9.1 §168).33 Third, tetrarch Philip of Iturea and Trachonitis built the city of Caesarea with the same purpose (2.9.1 §168). Fourth, tetrarch Lysanias of Abilene was appointed to govern a territory later given to Herod Agrippa I by Claudius Caesar (cf. 2.12.8 §247). 34 The governor and tetrarchs enumerated were plans (1:38). Jesus is also presented as one who was in subjection (ὑποτάσσω) to his parents who placed themselves under God’s authority (2:51; cf. 8:21). 31 Contrary to Radl’s observation, Luke’s synchronism cannot be compared to that found Hos 1:1. Luke provides a narrower time frame as the rulers mentioned held their respective offices contemporaneously (cf. Amos 1:1), whereas Hosea provides a list of regal succession whose reigns coincide with the period of the prophet’s ministry. Nonetheless, he is correct to say that in terms of form, one can find both biblical (Jewish) and extrabiblical (Greco-Roman) literary precedents for Luke’s method for identifying the temporal location of John the Baptist’s ministry (Lukas, 1:147). 32 Cf. Joan E. Taylor, “Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Judea,” NTS 52, no. 4 (2006): 555–82. 33 Jonathan Marshall notes how Antipas earned the title “friend of Caesar” because of this project (Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors [WUNT 2/259; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], 138). 34 Green points out that from a narrative-critical standpoint, it is difficult to understand the relevance of all the figures mentioned because not all of them play a significant role in Luke’s accounts; hence, the list should be considered a general critique against “the powerful” (Luke, 168). It should be noted, however, that this was not a random list of tetrarchs; they are the ones appointed to govern the peripheral provinces around the Jordan River (τὴν περίχωρον τοῦ Ἰορδάνου), which represents the region where John ministered (Luke 3:3). This suggests that the list of these tetrarchs serve more than just a temporal-historical marking purpose, but also a spatial identification that points to some of the territories within which the kingdom of God is to be proclaimed.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

203

appointed to rule over the regions where John announced the coming of the Lord and his salvation (Luke 3:5–6) and where God’s moral norms were declared (3:10–14). What, then, is the relevance of including Annas and Caiaphas; and what do they have to do with the land theme? 35 First, the presence of two high priests suggests anomalies clouding the Jewish priesthood. Klein proposes that Luke’s statement of two high priests were holding the same office at the same time is historically inaccurate and misleading. This is because Annas held office only from A.D. 6–15 and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, held the office from A.D. 18–36. This raises the question why Luke mentions two high priests in his account. Klein admits that even after his deposition, Annas continued to assert his influence over the priesthood. 36 Green suggests that the continuing presence of Annas points to his “overpowering influence.” He notes further, “As head of the temple and its cult, Caiaphas and Annas would have exercised virtually unrivaled power and privilege among the Jewish people.” 37 Second, the high priests are listed alongside political figures providing hints to their political roles. Josephus relates how the Roman procurators took charge of appointing the high priests; consequently, the high priesthood was no longer assumed by those who met the requirement of sacerdotal pedigree as prescribed in the Jewish laws (Ant. 18.2.2 §§33–35; 18.4.3 §95; 18.5.3 §123; cf. Exod 28:41–43), but by those whom the Romans see fit. As the Romans continued to exercise power to appoint high priests, the latter primarily functioned as client-priests, not as servants of the God of Israel. Third, as priests serve God (28:41; 29:1), they have the responsibility to educate Gods’ people in “all the statutes which the Lord has spoken to them through Moses” (Lev 10:11). The Israelites’ knowledge that they were “children of Abraham” but without “bearing fruits” (Luke 3:8) – the general neglect of the poor (3:10–11), and extortion and false witnesses being commonplace (3:12–14) – suggest that the priests neglected their duty to teach God’s statutes. Perhaps clearer evidence is their toleration of the injustices among their people and of the incestuous relationship in which their ruler was involved (3:19); these sins result in a “defiled land” (cf. Lev 18:24–30). Fourth, Annas and Caiaphas are later portrayed as Peter’s main opponents in his proclamation of Jesus as the only savior (Acts

35 Steve Mason’s statement best summarizes the incorrect notion: “Luke’s reference to the serving High Priest(s) (ἀρχιερεύς) at Luke 3:1 is simply a chronological marker” (“Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, and Sanhedrin in Acts,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting [ed. Richard Bauckham; A1CS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 143; emphasis added). 36 Klein, Lukasevangelium, 163. 37 Green, Luke, 169.

204

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

4:6, 12).38 This occurred in the temple, a territory Luke had earlier presented as under the jurisdiction of the God of Israel. John’s message calling people to repentance can be construed as a declaration of God’s authority through the restoration of his norms in the land (Luke 3:10–17).39 It seems that John’s proclamation (3:7–9), the people’s response, Herod Antipas’ incestuous relationship with his sister-in-law, and the high priests’ irresponsibility can be best understood together in light of Lev 18:24–30; 26:40–46. First, Yahweh sternly warned against any form of incestuous or immoral relationships (18:1–23). Commission of such sins would result in defilement of the one who sinned and defilement of the land, the consequence of which is banishment from the land: “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these nations which I am casting before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so that the land has spewed out its inhabitants” (18:24–25). 40 Herod Antipas’ act not only shows that he was unfit to rule the land, but it also made him the perfect epitome of one who “defiles the land” through immorality. 41 Second, the Israelites were expected to keep God’s statutes (18:26–30) and the priests were expected to teach them (10:11). The priests’ failure to stand up for righteousness resulted in continuous defilement of the land. Third, Yahweh promised his people that if they confessed their sins, he would not only remember his covenant with Abraham, he would also “remember the land” (26:42). Hence, the peoples’ response to John’s proclamation can be considered a turning point in Luke’s Gospel when God begins to cleanse his land.42

38 Luke repeatedly points to the chief priests as those responsible for the death of Christ (Luke 9:21; 19:47; 20:19; 22:34; 23:4; 24:20; Acts 5:30), thus presenting them as murderers, and by implication defilers of God’s land (cf. Num 35:33–35). They are also presented as those who actively hindered the continuous proclamation of Jesus’ lordship and resurrection (e.g., Acts 5:3; 9:1, 4; 22:5; 23:14; 24:1; 25:2, 15; 26:10, 12) and in the process of doing so they become enemies of God (cf. 5:38–39). 39 Fitzmyer correctly points out that John the Baptist’s proclamation is “to be understood against the OT background of prophetic preaching” (Luke, 1:464). His call for reform includes an eschatological motivation, that is, to escape the coming wrath; more importantly, it is a call to conform to God’s moral standards set in the Law. 40 Josephus considered incest as a violation of the Jews’ ancestral laws (e.g., Ant. 17.13.1 §341; cf. J.W. 2.7.4 §§114–16). 41 His unwillingness to listen to John aggravated his wrongdoings, as “listening” was part of God’s requirement for Israel so they could “live and go in and take possession of the land” (cf. Deut 4:1). Furthermore, his imprisonment of John added to his list of evil (Nolland, Luke, 1:156). 42 Hence it is unnecessary to take Conzelmann’s view that Luke 3:3 is a simple identification of John’s ministry location to distinguish it from that of Jesus (Theology, 27, 31).

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

205

Moreover, John’s ministry (Luke 3:4–6; cf. Isa 40:3) anticipates the time when the Lord God would rule and shepherd his people (40:10–11), judge the rulers of the earth (40:22–26), and bring justice and salvation to his people (40:27–31). It is the time when the God of Israel (cf. 41:17) is acknowledged as the “everlasting God, the Lord, the creator of the ends of the earth” (40:28), the “Holy One of Israel” (41:14, 16), and the “king of Jacob” (41:21). This began through John’s message of repentance and forgiveness in the “regions around the Jordan” (Luke 3:3). In summary, the three references to the rulers in Luke 1–3 need not be considered as mere temporal markers. Although Luke acknowledged the territories associated with these rulers to be under these earthly rulers’ jurisdiction, there is a subtle claim that these regions legitimately belongs to the God of Israel and he is Lord over these spaces. Through epiphanies and revelation in the temple, Luke shows that although the Roman client-king Herod was the benefactor, God remained sovereign in the temple. Moreover, although the emperor claimed authority over “all the inhabited earth,” God’s sovereignty is seen through the birth of the Davidic king, the real lord and savior. Finally, although the Romans claimed power over “the regions around the Jordan” through their appointed rulers, God’s authority over these regions was asserted through John’s preparation for the coming of the Lord and his proclamation of God’s norms. God’s authority over these spaces implies his rightful claim over them.

Son of God as Heir to His Father’s Land The theme of sonship binds the sections on Jesus’ baptism (Luke 3:21–22), genealogy (3:23–38), and temptation (4:1–13). This is evident in the repetitive language in these sections: (1) the Father’s declaration that Jesus is his beloved Son (3:22), (2) the ancestral list that presents him as Son of God (3:38), and (3) Satan’s question concerning his status as the Son of God (4:3, 9). The presentation of Jesus as the Son can be construed in connection with the theme of land that is developed in the earlier portions of the Third Gospel (1:5–3:20). After stressing God’s claim over the territories associated with the earthly rulers, Luke now shows Jesus as the legitimate heir and rightful possessor of his Father’s territories.

206

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

Baptism: Announcement of the Heir43 Language from Ps 2:7 reverberates in God’s declaration concerning Jesus (Luke 3:22; cf. 9:35).44 This psalm contains several themes that are worth noting: (1) the rebellion of the “kings of the earth” against God and his messiah (2:1–2); (2) the steadiness of God amidst the rebellion of these rulers (2:3–5); (3) the declaration of the anointed one (ὁ χριστός, 2:2) as God’s Son and legitimate king (2:6–7); (4) the promise to give the nations, even the “ends of the earth,” as an inheritance to the king (2:8–9); and (5) the call to all rulers of the earth to pay homage to God’s messiah (2:10–12). The first three themes are clearly reflected in the earlier portion of Luke’s Gospel. First, the emperor’s claim to absolute supremacy is construable as a rebellion against the God of Israel. The emperor’s placing of God’s people under his rule is evidence of his failure to acknowledge God’s rule over his people. Yamazaki-Ransom correctly uses the relationship between God, his people, and the rulers as an indicator to determine a writer’s portrayal of a particular ruler.45 The first two chapters of Luke also portray the emperor as an enemy of God.46 Second, despite the earthly rulers’ claims over certain territories, as argued earlier, God belied their claims by asserting his authority in various ways, e.g., epiphanies and the proclamation of his moral norms. Third, just as Ps 2:6–7 declares ὁ χριστός (cf. 2:2) as God’s Son and legitimate king, Jesus is also presented as the Christ (Luke 2:11, 26) and king (1:32–33, 69; cf. 2:1). Moreover, as shown earlier, Luke has expressed interest in issues of land and territories in relation to the reign of God. This suggests that Luke’s inclusion of the story of Jesus’ baptism with its allusion to Ps 2:7 reflects his purpose of presenting Jesus as the rightful heir to whom God promised the whole earth as an inheritance over which he would rule (cf. 2:8); thus it is only right that all the earthly rulers should acknowledge his authority. Genealogy: Legitimacy of the Heir Johnson highlights two major approaches in understanding Luke’s genealogy: (1) the apocalyptic approach that construes the seventy-seven names 43 The baptism of Jesus is often construed as preparation for Jesus’ Galilean ministry (e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:483). It should be pointed out, however, that this account cannot and should not be understood apart from Jesus’ genealogy and temptation where he was portrayed as Son of God. As we shall see, his sonship is inevitably tied to his status as heir of God’s land. 44 Cf. ch. 4 for discussion of Paul’s presentation of Jesus’ kingship (Acts 13:16–41) based on Ps 2. For the various understandings on the declaration of Jesus’ sonship in relation to his baptism, see Bock, Luke, 1:341–42. 45 Yamazaki-Ransom, Empire, 23. 46 Green, Luke, 58–59.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

207

as representing the “eleven world-weeks” (cf. 4 Ezra 14:10–12) that marks the beginning of the messianic age, and (2) the typological approach that points to Jesus as the Second Adam based on the similarity between the story of Jesus’ temptation and that of Adam in Apoc. Mos. 24.47 He notes that the textual variants containing only seventy-two names (e.g., B, N, U) make the first approach unlikely. 48 As for the second approach, Johnson lists three reasons for rejecting such an approach: (1) Luke does not develop the Second Adam theology; (2) although Jesus’ connection to Adam is seen both in the genealogy and in their comparable experience of temptation, Luke’s omission of Mark’s account concerning the beasts cuts this connection between Jesus’ temptation (Luke 4:1–13) and that of Adam (Apoc. Mos. 24); and (3) Luke’s genealogy does not end with Adam but with God. As an alternative, he proposes that the inclusion of Nathan in Jesus’ genealogy (Luke 3:31; cf. Zech 12:1–14) indicates Luke’s rejection of the royal line of Jesus to avoid any political overtones and to highlight Jesus’ role as a prophet.49 His proposal raises two questions: (1) it is unclear why of the many names in the genealogy, only Nathan was considered significant; and (2) the presentation of Jesus as the Son of God is inherently political considering the similar claims of the Caesars. William Kurz provides several helpful observations concerning Luke’s genealogy that are worth summarizing. First, the ascending order of Luke’s list was common in the Greco-Roman era.50 Most genealogies in the OT are in descending form (e.g., Gen 5:1–32; 10:1–32; 1 Chr 1–9; Ruth 4:18– 22), although some Jewish writings contain ascending lists (e.g., Ezra 7:1– 5; Jdt 8:1; Josephus, Ant. 1.3.2 §79; 2.9.6 §229), and some Greco-Roman writers used the descending form (e.g., Plutarch, Pyrrh. 1; Lyc. 1.4). Second, unlike Josephus, who followed the Greek form of the names (e.g., Ant. 1.3.2 §79), Luke employed the Semitic form based on the Greek Bible.51 Third, the seventy-generation linear genealogy is uncommon, but the genealogies in Genesis and 1 Chronicles provide a precedent for lengthy lists. Fourth, the tracing of one’s roots to the gods is not found in Jewish writ47 Johnson, Genealogies, 229–52. Cf. Karl Bernhard Bornhäuser, Die Geburts- und Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu: Versuch einer zeitgenössischen Auslegung von Matthäus 1 und 2 und Lukas 1–3 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1930), 20–22; Joachim Jeremias, ‘Adam’, TDNT 1:141–43. 48 Johnson, Genealogies, 232. It should also be noted that Luke could have arranged his genealogy similar to that of Matthew if his purpose is chronological periodization. Cf. Radl, Lukas, 215. 49 Johnson, Genealogies, 240. 50 William Kurz, “Luke 3:23–38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Genealogies,” in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. Charles H. Talbert; New York: Crossroad, 1984), 169–70. Cf. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 171. 51 Kurz, “Luke 3:23–38,” 170. Cf. Radl, Lukas, 212.

208

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

ings, but only in Greek and Roman accounts which is based on a belief in the relationship between gods and humans.52 Kurz explains that Luke’s list in which he traced his genealogy to God, may have been influenced by the sense of “genealogical relationships and solidarity” among the early nomads, such as the Jews, combined with their belief in one God.53 However, Luke’s presentation of Jesus as Son of God and heir (see discussion on Jesus’ baptism) propels us to look for other reasons for making sense of Luke’s reference to God in Jesus’ genealogy. As shown in ch. 8, tracing one’s genealogy to the gods in Greco-Roman writings was propagandistic in nature. It presents a regent as legitimate king because he derived his lineage from the gods. Moreover, both GrecoRoman and Jewish writings use genealogies to argue for the legitimacy of land occupation. Tracing kinship was not the main reason for listing a person’s ancestry.54 Hence, one can assume that Luke included Jesus’ genealogical list for the same reasons:55 (1) to present Jesus as legitimate king by virtue of being Son of God (Luke 3:38); and (2) as the Son, he is also a legitimate heir to all the territories that belong to God. The presentation of Jesus as king and the allusion to Christ’s heirship (cf. Ps 2:8) also point to these functions.56 The episodes that precede and follow Jesus’ genealogy emphasize his status as heir; hence, he has the right to claim the land. The legitimacy of his kingship and land ownership are alluded to both in the story of his baptism, as shown above, and in the story of his temptation, as we shall see in what follows.

52

Kurz, “Luke 3:23–38,” 171. Kurz, “Luke 3:23–38,” 171. Bock claims that by tracing Jesus’ roots to God, Luke demonstrates “Jesus’ relationship to all humankind as their representative” (Luke, 348). It is unclear, however, in what sense he was a “representative.” Marshall also suggests that the purpose of Luke’s genealogy was “to stress his universal significance of Jesus for the whole human race, and not merely for the seed of Abraham” (Luke, 161). This is plausible if we are to isolate this pericope and ignore the way Luke puts together the baptism, genealogy, and temptation of Jesus. These accounts consistently present Jesus as Son of God. 54 Kurz claims that the genealogy in Luke-Acts “shares the forms and functions of genealogies in Luke’s Greek Bible, with Greco-Roman modifications and additions” (“Luke 3:23–38,” 169). Considering the theme of land and kingship developing in Luke 1–3, Jesus’ genealogy may have been intended to debunk imperial claims to deity and universal sovereignty. 55 As Radl suggests, Luke’s genealogy is an exkursartigen (Lukas, 1:222). Although Luke seems to have digressed, the genealogy is an essential part of Luke’s theological presentation of Jesus as the Son of God, and hence, the legitimate owner/heir of God’s land. 56 Cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:489–90. 53

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

209

Temptation: Heir as the Rightful Possessor of the Land The story of Jesus’ temptation has been understood in various ways, 57 but as will be shown, this story completes the series of pericopae that portray Jesus as the Son and legitimate heir of the land of God. The land theme may not be immediately evident in this story, but it is the common thematic thread that holds together these passages from Deuteronomy which Jesus quoted.58 First, after forty days of fasting, the devil challenged Jesus’ sonship by asking him to show it by turning stone to bread (Luke 4:2–3). In response, Jesus quoted Deut 8:3, “[Humans] shall not live on bread alone” (Luke 4:4). This statement was made by God to remind the Israelites of his provision of manna while they were in the wilderness in order to teach them obedience (Deut 8:3). This is the principle by which the Israelites were expected to live when they take possession of the land: “All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall carefully do, that you may multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord swore to give to your forefathers” (8:1, emphasis mine). Israel failed to consistently remember this principle; hence, they lost possession of the land. By presenting Jesus as one who put obedience above his physical needs, Luke demonstrates that where Israel failed, Jesus excelled. His obedience, therefore, qualifies him as the rightful possessor of the land. Second, the devil offered to give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world with the condition that Jesus worship him (Luke 4:5–6).59 In response, Je57 Nolland cites some of the ways in which the account of the temptation is understood: (1) to prove Jesus by signs (Dupont); (2) to defend Jesus against accusations of black magic (Eitrem); (3) to present Jesus as the true Israel (Robinson); (4) to present Jesus as the new Adam (Feuillet); and (5) to portray Jesus’ temptation as a reflection of Church’s preoccupation with miracles (Fridrichsen) (Luke, 1:178). Don B. Garlington proposes that the temptation account highlights Jesus’ status as the unique Son of God, hence, emphasizing his messiahship (“Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful,” BSac 150 [1994]: 288). Luigi Schiavo compares Jesus’ ecstatic experience to those recounted in Qumran and apocalyptic literature (“The Temptation of Jesus: The Eschatological Battle and the New Ethic of the First Followers of Jesus in Q,” JSNT 25, no. 2 [2002]: 141–64). 58 The significance of Deut 6–8 is understood in various ways. Green sees the analogy between the testing of Jesus and that of Israel in the wilderness (Luke, 192); cf. Jeffrey B. Gibson, “A Turn on ‘Turning Stones to Bread’: A New Understanding of the Devil’s Intention in Q 4.3,” BR 41 (1996): 51–53. William Richard Stegner stresses the importance the literary context of Deut 6–8 in Luke 4:1–13 (“The Temptation Narrative: A Study in the Use of Scripture by Early Jewish Christians,” BR 35 [1990]: 7). However, it is unfortunate that he overlooked the circumstances surrounding the speeches in Deut 6–8, namely, Israel’s imminent entry into the land which was the basis for these commands. 59 F. Gerald Downing observes the allusion to Ps 2:8 in Satan’s offer to give the kingdoms of the world to Jesus. The devil is portrayed as a usurper of the authority that be-

210

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

sus quoted Deut 6:13: “You shall worship the Lord your God and serve him only” (Luke 4:8). Prolonged possession of the land is the product of Israel’s absolute loyalty and faithfulness to the Lord. They are expected to acknowledge no other God but him (Deut 6:4–15), and to keep his commandments: “Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the Lord your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it…and that your days may be prolonged” (6:1, emphasis mine). Once more, by showing Jesus’ faithfulness and loyalty to God through his refusal to worship another “god,” Luke shows that Jesus has the right to a prolonged possession of the land. Finally, the devil challenged Jesus to throw himself off the temple to experience God’s protection (Luke 4:9–11). 60 Jesus replied quoting Deut 6:16: “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (Luke 4:12). This command was part of Moses’ exhortation to the Israelites not to repeat the sin they committed at Massah (cf. Exod 17:1–7), but to diligently obey the commandments of the Lord (Deut 6:17). The commands were given with this promise: “You shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may be well with you and that you may go in and possess the good land which the Lord swore to give your fathers…” (6:18, emphasis mine). For the third time, by showing Jesus as one responsive to Yahweh’s command, Luke portrays him as the rightful possessor of God’s land. In summary, Luke presents Jesus as one who is obedient to Yahweh’s command – an embodiment of the righteousness expected of any Israelite who would enter the land. By overcoming the devil’s temptations three times and by virtue of his righteousness, Luke has proven that only Jesus has the right to take possession of the land; as the Son of God, he is the legitimate heir of the territories that belong to God.

longs only to God (“Psalms and the Baptist,” JSNT 29, no. 2 [2006]: 134). N. H. Taylor suggests that Agrippa I’s loyalty to Caligula and his appointment as ruler over the Jewish provinces is the story behind Jesus’ temptation. There was a severe persecution of Christians during the reign of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1–4), and instead of defending them, Agrippa I acquiesced and even encouraged Caligula’s claim of self-apotheosis (“The Temptation of Jesus on the Mountain: A Palestinian Christian Polemic against Agrippa I,” JSNT 83 [2001]: 48). Whether Taylor’s reconstruction is accurate, the political element in this story is clear. Satan offered Jesus πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς οἰκουμένης (Luke 4:5); this recalls the territories of Augustus, namely, πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην (2:1). The language is different from Matthew’s πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου (4:8). 60 The possible use of Ps 91 in exorcisms is demonstrated in Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and Evil Spirits in Light of Psalm 91,” BapT 1, no. 2 (2009): 43–58.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

211

The Year of the Lord’s Favor: Hope of Repossessing God’s Land The episode concerning Jesus’ temptation is one of a series of episodes that portray Jesus as the Son and legitimate heir of God’s land. This story is also followed by Jesus’ inaugural speech wherein he announced the direction of his ministry, including the proclamation of the “year of the Lord’s favor” or the jubilee (Luke 4:14–22).61 The ideal of the year of the jubilee is spelled out in Lev 25:10: “You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim a release through the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family.” Yahweh also explained why each parcel of land should return to its original owners: “The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with me” (25:23, emphasis added). Habel observes that as the landowner, Yahweh required Israel, his tenants, to observe Sabbaths for the land. He further notes that the requirements of the year of the jubilee provide security for one’s ownership and it ensures social order.62 Returning lands to their original owners is at the heart of the jubilee. The same hope is expressed in Isaiah’s prophecy, namely, that Israel may gain back the land they lost:63 “Instead of your shame you will have a double portion, and instead of humiliation they will shout for joy over their portion. Therefore they will possess a double portion in their land, everlasting joy will be theirs” (61:7, emphasis mine). 64 It is with this expressed hope that the prophet also declares, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me…to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord” (61:1–2). Does the prophet’s hope suggest that the exiled community may once again return to repossess their land? And should Jesus’ proclamation of the jubilee be understood as a hope of freedom for a community under Roman rule to repossess their land? Perhaps both questions should be answered in the affirmative.65 However, the issue of returning lands to their original owners

61 Walton notes, “For Jesus to read Isaiah 61:1ff. in the synagogue at Nazareth (4:16ff.) cannot be construed as apolitical, for it echoes jubilee legislation that presupposes Israel once again has control of her own land” (“State,” 17–18). 62 Habel, Land, 98, 105–106. 63 Michael A. Salmeier, Restoring the Kingdom: The Role of God as the “Ordainer of Times and Seasons” in the Acts of the Apostles (PrTMS; Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2011), 112. 64 Cf. Isa 26:1–2; 52:1; Joel 3:17; Zech 8:8; 1 En. 90:28–36; Jub. 1:28–29; Ps. Sol. 11. The “land” is where God reigns (Isa 60:14; Jer 3:17; Ezek 38–39; Ps. Sol. 17:23–27; Tob 13:11–12). 65 Israel’s continuous rejection of God’s works (e.g., Luke 4:28–31; 19:28–21:38), Jesus’ teaching about acknowledging ruling powers (e.g., 20:19–26), and his avoidance of

212

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

brings us back to the most basic question, Who is the real landowner? If the basic tenet of the jubilee provides the answer to this question, then the answer is clear; as God claims, “The land is mine” (Lev 25:23). This claim need not be limited to the land of Israel, because God is Lord over “all the inhabited earth.”66 Humans may claim ownership of parcels of lands, but Yahweh was and remains the sole owner of the whole earth/land. Hence, he has sole disposition regarding to whom he might grant his possession (cf. Luke 10:22). Jesus is the inheritor of God’s land. Jesus’ declaration concerning his appointed task was met with the people’s rejection (4:18– 19, 28–29). God’s ownership of the land and the rejection of the son are themes present in the parable of the wicked tenants as well. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: Rejection of the Rightful Heir The parable of the wicked tenants is one of the few materials found in all three Synoptic Gospels.67 In Luke’s account, the parable of the wicked tenants follows a series of unfriendly encounters between Jesus and the Jewish authorities: the Pharisees’ refusal to welcome Jesus as “king” as he entered Jerusalem (19:39; cf. 19:38), Jesus’ disruption of trading in the temple and the priests’ death plot (19:47–48), and a confrontation with the chief priests and scribes (20:1–8).68 Such hostility began after Jesus prodiscussion on this issue (e.g., Acts 1:6–8) raise some reservations against the second question. 66 See above discussion concerning territorial claims. 67 For a summary of the uniqueness of each synoptic versions, see Culpepper, “Parable,” 148–49; cf. John S. Kloppenborg, “Ideology and Ideological Readings of the Parable of the Tenants,” BCSBS 61 (2001): 8–10; idem, Tenants, 173–277. Culpepper also includes a short survey of previous studies on this parable (151–53). 68 This development in Luke’s narrative raises questions regarding James D. Hester’s claim. He argues that this parable need not be understood as “an allegorical prophecy of Jesus’ death.” Instead, he proposes that “the intention of this parable was to expose systems of group and class relations within the Jewish communities of first-century Palestine with respect to the theme of ‘land’ and ‘inheritance’” (“Socio-Rhetorical Criticism and the Parable of the Tenants,” JSNT 45 [1992]: 32, 56). Wolter correctly observes that the allegorical elements of the parable are visible, and that the consequent reaction of the chief priests and scribes in Luke 20:19–26 made it even clearer that they understood the wicked tenants in the parable to be a reference to them (Lukasevangelium, 643). Craig A. Evans posits several considerations that are worth summarizing: (1) to assume that the “original” parable was purely “revolutionary” and void of theological nuance would require deletion of important elements in the story (e.g., the allusion to Isa 5:1–2), the removal of the parables in their present contexts, and the disregard of the allegorical elements of the story; (2) first-century Palestinian “farmers” (γεωργός) are not necessarily land-hungry peasants who were always seeking opportunities to grab lands; and (3) the traditional image of farmers/farming in Jewish writings was by no means pejorative (“Jesus’ Parable of the Tenant Farmers in Light of Lease Agreements,” JSP 14 [1996]: 65– 83).

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

213

nounced woes against the Pharisees and scribes (11:53–54). Hence, the parable of the wicked tenants cannot be understood without considering this conflict.69 In Luke’s account, the landlord sent his servants to get his share of the produce, but the tenants beat the servants, treated them shamefully, and sent them away empty handed (20:10–12). This happened three times until the landowner finally decided to send his “beloved son” expecting the tenants to pay him respect (20:13);70 the tenants killed the son, however, with the plan of taking over his inheritance (20:14). Jesus concluded this parable by saying that those who killed the son will also be destroyed and the vineyard given to others (20:15). Hence, those who coveted the land would not be able to assume ownership. The parable presents an absentee landlord who rented out his vineyard to some tenants (20:9). Pliny the Younger’s letter provides some documentation regarding this practice (Ep. 10.8), which is said to be traceable to the era of the Ptolemies.71 The parable provides a glimpse of ancient oligarchy. 72 As landlords, they were entitled to a large portion of the produce (cf. Luke 20:10; Gen 47:24–26); as a result, they controlled much of their nation’s economy. Such a situation places the landed few in the role of the land owner maltreated by his tenants. The violence and shame brought on the messengers of the landlord, according to Hester, may not necessarily require such drastic action on the part of the landowner. However, the dishonor brought about by the death of the heir makes it necessary for the owner to act against his tenants.73 Although Hester’s attempt to highlight the importance of the theme of land in this parable is noteworthy, a few reasons can be cited why his conclusion is unacceptable.

69

Kloppenborg observes how Luke bracketed the parable with Jesus’ teaching in the temple (Luke 19:47; cf. 21:37–38) and how Luke underscored the rift between Jesus and the religious leaders. Luke emphasized the presence of the people as Jesus confronts the rulers (20:26). Jesus was accused of inciting the people to refuse paying taxes (23:2). When Jesus was crucified, the people went away beating their breast (23:48). Kloppenborg interprets their action as “a sign of their non-complicity in Jesus’ execution” (Tenants, 201). 70 Jesus’ status as the heir to God’s lands is inevitably associated with his identity as the “beloved Son” (Luke 3:20; cf. 9:35). 71 Culpepper, “Parable,” 153; cf. S. Applebaum, “Economic Life in Palestine,” in The Jewish People in the First Century (ed. Shemuel Safrai and Menahem Stern; CRINT Section 1, Volume 2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), 633. 72 Hester, “Tenants,” 35–36; James H. Charlesworth, Jesus in Judaism (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1988), 146; cf. Douglas E. Oakman, “The Countryside in Luke-Acts,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (ed. Jerome H. Neyrey; Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1991), 162. 73 Hester, “Tenants,” 53.

214

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

First, the brewing conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities in the previous sections of the Third Gospel (19:11–20:8) and the plot to kill Jesus (20:19) makes it clear that the religious leaders rejected the son. Edward H. Horne correctly points out that there is an “interpretive twist” wherein the temple authorities, who in reality are the landed elite, were placed in the position of the rebellious farmers. He further explains that in light of Isa 5, God is presented as the landowner.74 Second, God is portrayed consistently as a landowner in the first few chapters of the Third Gospel. Moreover, although Luke’s version lacks the verbal affinities with Isa 5:1–2 (cf. Mark 12:1; Matt 21:33), examining Luke in light of Isa 5 may still be fruitful.75 In Isaiah’s parable, the “beloved” landowner exhausted all means to cause his vineyard to produce good grapes (5:1–3). Instead of producing good fruit, it produced worthless ones, so the owner allowed the vineyard to be laid waste (5:4–6). The parable was immediately interpreted (5:7): the vineyard refers to Israel and Judah, from whom God expected to produce good fruits (i.e., justice and righteousness), but they produce worthless ones (i.e., bloodshed). This explanation was followed by a declaration of woes against those who relentlessly acquired properties through unjust means (5:8–10). Third, the passage concerning the rejected stone (Luke 20:17–18) is consistently interpreted in the NT as a reference to Jesus’ rejection that led to his death (Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 7).76 Finally, the account concerning the tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:19–26) discounts the possibility that Jesus intended to ignite civil disobedience, let alone a revolt against the landed authorities through this parable.77 Hence, one can conclude that the parable of the wicked tenants continues the theme of divine ownership of the land and the rejection of God’s Son presented in Luke 1–4. There is nothing in the parable that questions the legitimacy of the landowner’s claim on his estate. Thus, the right to 74

Edward H. Horne, “The Parable of the Tenants as Indictment,” JSNT 71 (1998):

113. 75 Charles A. Kimball III points out that the “exposition of the OT formed the basis of Jesus’ teachings and of many of his debates with his religious opponents” (“Jesus’ Exposition of the Scripture in Luke 20:9–19: An Inquiry in Light of Jewish Hermeneutics,” BBR 3 [1993]: 77). Kloppenborg suggests that the exclusion of Isaian description of the vineyard shifts the focus away from the lavish care of the vineyard to the deception of the tenants (Tenants, 204, 216). 76 Cf. Evans, “Farmers,” 69. 77 Contra Hester’s claim, “The parable portrays a concrete act of revolt, and asks the audience, who may have been tenant farmers or landless peasants, how they feel and what they think about it. Ultimately, it asks the audience whether it accepts the understanding of the inheritance to Israel (represented by the tenant farmers), and causes them to reflect upon their own experience in relation to the land/inheritance” (“Tenants,” 55).

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

215

own and the right to give ownership reside solely with the owner (cf. 20:16). It may seem odd that the real landed oligarchs are presented as tenants in the parable. These allegorical reversals (i.e., the landed elite represented by rebellious farmers) can perhaps be best understood as a mockery of a system in which the powerful elite can “add house to house” and “join field to field” (Isa 5:8) at the expense of the poor. God is the real landowner and he expects justice and righteousness to be promoted by those who dwell in his land. This means that regardless of how one amasses land, one cannot legitimately own these estates because God is ultimately the landowner. In the parable, injustice and unrighteousness were seen in the tenants’ rejection and murder of the heir. Acknowledging God’s ownership of the land is tantamount to acknowledging his sole sovereignty over those who live within his property. Thus, as far as Luke’s narrative is concerned, the religious leaders’ treatment of the heir places them in solidarity with the earthly rulers who do not recognize God’s sole sovereignty. In short, they, too, are considered enemies of God. In summary, Jesus’ genealogy cannot be understood apart from the accounts of Jesus’ baptism and temptation. These three accounts, read together as a complete unit, portray Jesus as the Son of God and the legitimate heir of God’s land. As demonstrated in chs. 8 and 9, genealogies in Greco-Roman and Jewish writings were used to legitimize the reign of kings or one’s ownership of lands. Both themes are also expressed in Luke’s narrative: Jesus as God’s appointed ruler and heir to God’s land. The theme of land continues in Jesus’ claim as herald of the jubilee, and in the same account, he was portrayed as the rejected one. Same themes are brought up in the parable of the tenants.

New Moses, Old Law Piety is the trait expected of the ruler through whom divine regents exercise their rule. This is true in both Greco-Roman and Jewish writings. In Jewish writings, God’s co-regents were expected to embody the Law of Yahweh (cf. Deut 17:14–20). Luke presents Jesus as the citizen par excellence in God’s land, the embodiment of the Law, and hence the one who is fit to rule on God’s behalf.

216

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

Jesus as the New Moses78 In Stephen’s speech, Jesus is presented as the “prophet like Moses” and the “Righteous One,” whose condemnation by the Jewish authorities is analogous to the Jews’ rejection of Moses, which resulted in a missed opportunity to enter the land (Acts 7:35–39, 51–53). Aside from this speech and the account of the Transfiguration (Luke 9:30, 33), all other explicit references to Moses in Luke-Acts associate him with the Law in Israel’s Scriptures (Luke 2:22; 5:14; 16:29, 31; 20:28, 37; 24:27, 44; Acts 6:11, 14; 13:39; 15:1, 5, 21; 21:21; 26:22; 28:23). The Third Gospel, nonetheless, contains a series of accounts concerning Jesus that are comparable to episodes in Moses’ narratives (see Chart 10B). Chart 10B: Jesus and Moses Jesus (Luke 9:1–10:24)

Moses (Num 11–14)

Twelve disciples sent and their reports (9:1–10)

Twelve spies sent and their reports (13:1– 33)

Feeding of the five thousand (9:11–17)

Feeding of the Israelites (11:31–35)

Murmuring about greatness and questions about Jesus’ identity: the disciples (9:18–48)

Murmuring about greatness and questions about Moses’ identity: Miriam and Aaron (12:1–16)

“Do not hinder” the exorcist (9:49–50)

“Do not hinder” the prophets (11:26–30)

Fire from heaven? (9:51–56)

Fire from heaven! (11:1–3)

Half-hearted followers of Jesus (9:57–62)

Half-hearted followers of Moses (11:4–6; 14:1–4)

Seventy disciples appointed as preachers (10:1–20)

Seventy elders appointed and they prophesied (11:16–25)

The concentration of anecdotes and episodes within Luke 9–10 comparable to those in Num 11–14 are noteworthy. 79 First, like Moses, Jesus sent twelve men on a mission (Luke 9:1–10; cf. Num 13:1–33). The names of Jesus’ messengers are listed in an earlier account (Luke 6:12–16); perhaps this is why Luke deemed it unnecessary to list their names again (cf. Num 13:4–16). The counterparts of Jesus’ twelve emissaries are representatives and leaders of their respective tribes (13:3); in the same way that Moses 78

Cf. Greg W. Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel (JSNTSup 198; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 329. 79 Several accounts in this set of Lukan materials find parallels in the other two Synoptic Gospels, and the arrangements of these materials in the three Gospels all differ. This observation is another reason to assume that Luke arranged these materials to draw a stronger connection with Num 11–14.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

217

gave instructions to them before they embarked on their mission (13:17– 20), Jesus instructed the disciples prior to their journey (Luke 9:3–5). Both groups gave accounts of their journeys (9:10; cf. Num 13:25–33), except that the spies’ report led the people’s rebellion against God (14:1–10) while the disciples’ ministry drew more followers for Jesus (Luke 9:11). Second, the feeding of the crowd with bread and fish in Luke’s account (9:12–17) is also reminiscent of God’s provision of manna and quail in the wilderness (Num 11:31–35).80 The primary difference between the two episodes is the precursor that led to these events. In Luke’s account, the beneficiaries of Jesus’ miracles were followers who come to Jesus to be healed and to listen to his preaching (9:10–11). The feeding in Num 11 came after the crowd’s grumbling against God and Moses (11:1–3). Nonetheless, given Luke’s placement of this story within the series of episodes that find correspondence with stories from Num 11–14, Luke’s feeding story could be an allusion to that in Num 11:31–35. Third, the question of Jesus’ identity and the power struggle among Jesus’ companions recall the attempt of Miriam and Aaron to defy Moses’ authority (Luke 9:18–48; cf. Num 12:1– 16). They were all striving to assume the top post (Luke 9:46–48; cf. Num 12:1–2). Epiphany was necessary in each account to make clear the identity of God’s chosen agents: Moses as the faithful servant of God (12:6–8) and Jesus as the beloved Son of God (Luke 9:35). Fourth, Luke records a brief story concerning an exorcist who was casting out demons in Jesus’ name though he was not part of the Twelve. Jesus’ response to John’s attempt to end this exorcist’s work recalls Moses’ reply to Joshua, who asked Moses to stop Eldad and Medad because they were not among those who gathered with Moses (Luke 9:49–50; cf. Num 11:26–30). Fifth, the offer of James and John to command “fire from heaven” because of the Samaritans’ rejection of Jesus may be linked with the incident wherein “fire from the Lord” was sent to consume the grumbling Israelites (Luke 9:51–56; cf. Num 11:1–3). Sixth, Luke records the account of three halfhearted followers of Jesus (9:57–62). This attitude is also evident in the Israelites’ grumbling and desire to go back to Egypt (Num 11:4–6; 14:1–4). Finally, Jesus appointed seventy disciples to share his task of proclaiming the kingdom of God (Luke 10:1–10). In the same manner, Moses appointed seventy elders to share his task of leading the Israelites (Num 11:16–25). 81 80 On the Judaic background of the story, see Roger David Aus, Feeding of the Five Thousand (Studies in Judaism; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2010). 81 The textual variants in Luke 10:1 raise an important question whether Jesus sent seventy or seventy-two of his disciples to proclaim the kingdom of God. The complexity of this problem had been discussed in Bruce F. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 67–76. It is beyond the scope of this present work to delve into this issue in detail. Nonetheless, four things are worth considering. First, similar “variants” are found in the table of nations in Gen 11.

218

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

One pair of parallel episodes may not be enough to argue for the connection between Luke 9–10 and Num 11–14, but the series of comparable accounts should not be overlooked. These connections accentuate Luke’s presentation of Jesus as the new Moses. However, Jesus is portrayed, not as one who gives the Law, but as one who lives the Law. This is important for two reasons. First, Israel was expected to observe the Law “when [they] enter the land” (Exod 12:25; Lev 14:34; 19:23; 23:10; Num 15:2, 18; 34:2; Deut 17:14; 18:9; 26:1). Second, the reign of God is realized in the rule of a pious king. By showing that Jesus is the embodiment of the Law, Luke also shows that Jesus is God’s chosen ruler, the only one fit to rule on God’s behalf (cf. Deut 17:14–20). Jesus as the Embodiment of the Law 1. Leprosy and blasphemy Luke records two healing accounts that were set “in one of the cities” (5:12): the healing of the leper (5:12–16) and the healing of the paralytic (5:17–26). The geographical setting of the first account is not specific, it happened ἐν μιᾷ τῶν πόλεων (5:12); the second account does not specify any location, just a vague temporal statement ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν (5:17). The lack of geographical movement in Luke is perhaps a good indicator that these two episodes should be read together. The first account involves a leper whom Jesus instructed to make an offering after he was cleansed The HB lists seventy nations while the Greek translation adds up to seventy-two (cf. Jub. 44:34). In short, both numbers (seventy and seventy-two) represent the number of known nations in early Jewish traditions. Second, on both occasions (Luke 9:1–2; 10:1), the disciples were sent for missionary reasons. Third, the twelve were given instructions concerning their mission (9:3–5); in the case of the seventy (or seventy-two), aside from instructions (10:2–12), Jesus expressed his reprobation of the Jewish cities who reject his message while acknowledging the gentile cities that could potentially welcome his message (10:13–15). Fourth, there is an anticipation that both Jews and Gentiles could be recipients of God’s redemption (2:32), and missions to both groups were carried out in Acts. These suggest that the numbers of disciple-missionaries sent on these two occasions may plausibly be construed in connection with the extent of Jesus’ missionary plan; twelve corresponds to the number of tribes in Israel and seventy (or seventy-two) represents the number of gentile nations. However, with the series of accounts in Luke 9–10 that find affinities with those in Num 11–14, I am more inclined to agree with Robert P. Menzies who proposes that the number “seventy” is not a reference to the number of known nations but an allusion to Moses’ appointment of seventy elders (“The Sending of the Seventy and Luke’s Gospel,” in Trajectories in the Book of Acts [ed. Paul Alexander, Jordan Daniel May, and Robert D. Reid; Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2010], 93–96). Moses’ wish that God’s people be prophets finds fulfillment in Acts 2 in the coming of the Spirit who was also present as the seventy elders prophesied (Num 11:24–30; cf. Acts 2:1–13). Nonetheless, Jesus’ visit to the Samaritan towns foreshadows the church’s mission to the Gentiles (Luke 9:53; 10:33–37; 17:11, 16–19).

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

219

(5:14). Cleansing requirements for lepers include ceremonial offerings before the priests can declare them clean (Lev 14:1–7), as well as bathing and shaving (14:8–9), and a presentation of guilt and sin offerings (14:10 – 32). This is part of the ordinance they should observe “when [they] enter the land” (14:34). The second account involves a paralytic to whom Jesus said, “Your sins are forgiven” (Luke 5:20). This statement elicits a negative reaction from the religious leaders who accused Jesus of blasphemy (5:21), which he implicitly denies (5:22–23). What draws these two accounts together? The relationship between leprosy and blasphemy may tie them together. The OT provides an account in which leprosy was a direct consequence of blasphemy. When Miriam spoke against Moses, Yahweh spoke on Moses’ behalf, and punished Miriam with leprosy (Num 12:1–15).82 The solemn warning in Deut 24:9, “Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam on the way as you came out of Egypt,” is an indicator of the severity of the offense. Considering this in relation to the two episodes in Luke, these two accounts are bound together by the link between leprosy and blasphemy. Jesus’ command to the leper to present an offering and his statement to the paralytic about being forgiven implies that their illnesses may be related to some form of sin. 83 However, Luke does not specify what sin the leper and paralytic had committed. Perhaps this reflects a changing theological understanding about the relationship between sin and sickness (cf. John 9:2–3), or perhaps Luke does not consider the sins of the leper and the paralytic relevant to his accounts. Luke seems more concerned to show that Jesus not only kept the Law by not blaspheming, but also that he had the power to reverse the consequences of blasphemy including leprosy. 2. Sabbath Luke recounts four confrontations between Jesus and the Jewish authorities related to the Sabbath (Luke 6:1–5; 6:6–11; 13:10–16; 14:1–6). The first resulted from the Pharisees’ censure of Jesus’ disciples for picking grains during the Sabbath (6:1–5). To this Jesus responded by recalling the incident in which Ahimelech did what can be deemed unlawful by allowing David and his men to eat consecrated bread (1 Sam 21:1–6). Human needs, in this case, hunger, was placed above religious regulations. It should be

82 In other instances, leprosy was the consequence for covetousness (e.g., Gehazi [2 Kgs 5:27]) and presumptuousness (e.g., Uzziah [2 Chr 26:19]). 83 Larry P. Hogan observes that in the Third Gospel, sicknesses are not only associated with sins but more often with demonic activities (Healing in the Second Tempel [sic] Period [NTOA 21; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1992], 247–50).

220

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

noted, however, that there was some flexibility in the Jews’ observance of the Sabbath.84 In the second account, Jesus purposefully healed a man in a synagogue during Sabbath in the presence of the Pharisees and scribes (Luke 6:6–11). Jesus’ concern for the welfare of the sick was actually consistent with the Jewish leaders’ motivation for being flexible in applying the Sabbath rules (cf. m. Šabb. 9:5), so the Jewish leaders’ reaction against Jesus raises some questions. It is clear, however, that the Jewish leaders had been seeking opportunities to accuse him (Luke 6:7), and they used the Sabbath to raise doubts about Jesus’ identity, his works, and his teachings. As in the previous episode, Jesus placed human needs, in this case, physical infirmity, above the Sabbath rules.85 The last two episodes also highlight the same principle. In both accounts, Jesus pointed out that the needs of animals, such as thirst (13:15) and safety (14:5), necessitate actions even on a Sabbath. More importantly, by presenting Jesus as the “Lord of the Sabbath” (6:5), Luke also stresses Jesus’ role as God’s agent who has the authority to determine what is appropriate during the Sabbath. 3. The Marginalized Significant provisions in the Law protect and uphold the welfare of the poor, widows, orphans, and aliens. 86 These provisions are perhaps best summarized in these statements: “[Yahweh] executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows his love for the alien by giving him food and clothing” (Deut 10:18), and “Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow” (27:19). Several accounts in Luke portray Jesus as the epitome of justice and righteousness, but for our purposes, only two accounts that highlight Jesus’ services to an alien and a widow will be discussed (Luke 7:1–17). Luke’s account concerning the centurion in the Gospel provides a precedent for gentile mission in Acts. It also exemplifies a relationship be84

The Jews were not inflexible in their observance of the Sabbath, especially when someone’s life is in jeopardy. First, some considered it lawful to defend oneself during Sabbath when there is threat to their lives (e.g., 1 Macc 2:41; cf. 9:43–49; 2 Macc 5:24– 27; 8:22–29; 12:38). Second, the Mishnah shows some flexibility in their observance of the Sabbath law when health is a concern (e.g., m. Šabb. 9:5). Third, Matthew, Luke, and John record some incidents that suggest that even during the time of Jesus, the Jews had been flexible in the observance of the Sabbath (Matt 12:11; Luke 13:15; 14:5; John 7:22– 23). 85 Cf. Green, Luke, 253–54. 86 E.g., poor (Exod 22:25–27; 23:2–3; Lev 19:15; 25:24–30, 35–49; Deut 15:7–15; 24:10–15), widows and orphans (Exod 22:22–24; Deut 10:18; 24:17–22; 26:12; 27:19), and aliens (Exod 22:21; 23:9, 12; Lev 19:9–10, 33–34; 23:22; Deut 10:18–19; 24:14–15, 17–22; 26:12–13; 27:19).

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

221

tween an Israelite and an alien by showing elements that are both ideal yet undesirable. It is ideal because race was not a barrier for a foreigner to participate in the Jews’ religious life (cf. Deut 16:10–14); yet it is undesirable because for an Israelite, having a foreigner lead them could be a sign of God’s curse (cf. 28:43). This undesirable element in this relationship is plausibly the reason the centurion’s message to Jesus elicited such commendation (Luke 7:6–9). The attitude of this “stranger in the land” reaped such praise because, although he could exercise authority over these Israelites (including Jesus), he recognized Jesus as the higher authority. Likewise, Jesus’ response to the Jews’ request is noteworthy. His willingness to attend to the needs of the centurion’s servant typifies the ideals of the Law by considering the welfare of both servants (Deut 24:14) and aliens (Exod 23:9; Lev 19:10, 33–34; Deut 10:19; 24:19–21; 26:12–13). Aside from provisions concerning aliens and strangers, the Law also contains commands that protect widows from oppression. Although Israel’s concept of extended family may serve as a form of safety net for widows, there is no guarantee that their needs would be provided for sufficiently. 87 Nonetheless, living children are the widows’ best safeguard against poverty and oppression, and this is plausibly the reason Luke had to emphasize that the dead child is an “only son” (7:12). By raising this son, Jesus gave back to the widow protection against oppression.88 4. Summary These two episodes portray Jesus as one who promotes justice for the marginalized. The sheer number of commands in the Law that uphold the welfare of the poor, aliens, orphans, and widows is enough to show that their protection is an important element of God’s justice. As one whose ministry focused on the welfare of those in need, Jesus met God’s expectation for every Israelite entering the land. Moreover, he exemplified the character of Yahweh the king (Ps 99:4) and the anticipated ruler who is to come (Isa 9:7; 32:1; Jer 23:5; Zech 9:9; cf. 1 Kgs 3:28; 10:9). Israel’s kings are expected to be model citizens. Luke portrays Jesus as the one who faithfully met the requirements of the Law. By portraying Jesus as the embodiment of the Law, Luke presents him as the pious king through whom God rules his people. 87 Cf. the NT witnesses to the difficulties of ancient widows (e.g., Acts 6:1; 1 Tim 5:3–15). 88 Joseph B. Tyson highlights the generally positive portrayal of widows in Luke-Acts and how Luke relates the care for widows with piety (“Acts 6:1–7 and Dietary Regulations in Early Christianity,” PRSt 10 [1983]: 158). Nonetheless, he proposes that the issue Acts 6:1–7 is more than just the care of widows but a revision of dietary provisions necessary before gentile mission can take place (160–61).

222

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

Trespassers of God’s Law, Trespassers in God’s Land Luke’s portrayal of Jesus as the pious ruler fit to reign on God’s behalf raises questions regarding the portrayal of other rulers in Luke-Acts. Jesus’ presentation as the one who met God’s requirements from those who would “enter the land” creates a framework by which the other rulers in Luke-Acts can be assessed. The brief survey below shows a stark contrast between Jesus as heir of God’s land and the other rulers in Luke-Acts. It was noted earlier how Antipas’ relationship with his sister-in-law brought defilement to God’s land (Luke 3:7–9; cf. Lev 18:24–25).89 The portrayal of other religious and political authorities in Luke-Acts is no different. Jewish Leaders: The Pharisees, the Scribes, and the Chief Priests The hospitality of the Pharisees on several occasions places them on a positive light (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1).90 In one instance, they even warned Jesus about Herod Antipas’ plot against him (13:31). 91 Gamaliel is por-

89 Wenell notes how “unclean space” is associated with the demonic. She also distinguishes Jesus from the Pharisees who were more concerned about practice of ritual purity in the land that they are unwilling to fellowship with the “unclean” people (Jesus and Land, 100–101). Aside from this, the evangelists seem to be concerned about the deeds of the religious leaders that defile the land as well. 90 David B. Gowler suggests that the Pharisees “serve as instruments of legitimation for Jesus and his followers both positively and negatively” (Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke-Acts [ESC 2; New York: Peter Lang, 1991], 178–79); positively because even Pharisees can become believers, and negatively because the authority of Jesus become clearer when contrasted with that of the Pharisees 91 Gowler summarizes the dominant interpretations of the Pharisees’ warning: (1) Pharisees’ warning was authentic and well-intentioned (J. Sanders, Brawley, Fitzmyer, Tannehill, Rese, Arndt, Tyson, Schweizer), (2) Pharisees used Herod’s threat to get rid of Jesus (Schmid, Caird, Easton), and (3) there was no real threat because Herod is simply curious about Jesus (Denaux). Gowler points out that Herod’s murder of John the Baptist makes his supposed “curiosity” suspect (Luke 3:19–20). As for the first two views, Gowler stresses that text does not reveal the Pharisees’ motives for announcing Herod’s threat. Nonetheless, the Pharisees are still characterized as those who do not understand that Jesus must suffer and die (Portraits, 236–41). John A. Darr stresses the importance of sequential reading to understand Luke’s characterization of any individual or group in his narrative (Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization [JSNTSup 163; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 67). This implies that the negative portrayal of Pharisees in Luke 1–12 means that suspicions must be raised about the Pharisees’ warning (Luke 13:31–35). Although there is a good reason for considering the linear development of a narrative, flat stereotyping raises some difficulties. Darr’s suggestion does not allow for character transformation in any narrative such as what happened to Paul, the Pharisee turned missionary to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 23:6; 26:5).

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

223

trayed as a sensible teacher (Acts 5:34–40).92 Many of them even believed in Jesus (15:5).93 However, Luke’s overall portrayal of the Pharisees is far from ideal. 94 They are thieves (Luke 11:39), unjust (11:42), hypocrites (12:1–2), self-aggrandizing (14:7–11; 18:9–14), and avaricious (16:14).95 Likewise, the scribes are portrayed as murderers (11:47–48), honor seekers (20:46), and oppressors (20:47).96 Similarly, the role of the high priests in the death of Jesus is undeniable (22:2; 23:13–25; cf. Acts 4:10; 7:51–53).97 92 In another work, Darr proposes that the various groups in Luke-Acts (e.g., Sanhedrin, Pharisees) should be considered as a single entity having a collective character (“Irenic or Ironic? Another Look at Gamaliel before the Sanhedrin [Acts 5:33–42],” in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts [ed. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998], 130–32). He also considers Luke’s description of Gamaliel as one “honored by all the people” (Acts 5:34) as a negative remark suggesting that Gamaliel was one damned by Jesus’ earlier remark, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you” (Luke 6:26). Darr’s conclusion concerning Gamaliel is unnecessary because although the “Pharisees” are to be taken collectively, exhibiting shared characteristics, Gamaliel is presented as a distinct character within the narrative (cf. Paul [Acts 23:6; 26:5]). 93 Gowler notes how the Christian Pharisees’ insistence on the necessity of circumcision was rebuffed by Peter (Portraits, 300), which contributes to the negative portrayal of Pharisees. 94 Brawley’s warning against oversimplifying the Pharisees’ portrayal is worth heeding, although his conclusion that they are portrayed favorably is unnecessary considering the “character flaws” of the Pharisees, which Brawley readily admits (Conflict, 84). 95 The Law contains prohibitions against stealing/robbery and disrespect of other’s properties (e.g., Exod 20:15; 22:1–15; Lev 6:2, 4; Deut 5:19) and the use of money that promotes injustice (e.g., Exod 22:25; cf. Ezek 18:8, 13; Mic 3:11). The Israelites were expected to abide by these laws when they enter the land (Lev 19:11, 13; Deut 16:20; cf. 23:19–20; 24:17; 25:16; 27:19). Murder was prohibited (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17) because it defiles the land (Num 35:33–34). 96 The scribes are portrayed as those who “devour widows’ houses” (Luke 20:47), which is immediately followed by the story of the widow’s offering. Turid Karlsen Seim (“Feminist Criticism,” in Methods for Luke [ed. Joel B. Green; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010], 59–64) cites a few examples on how the widow’s offering is interpreted: (1) the widow who gave her all prefigures Jesus’ offering his all on behalf of others (e.g., Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, “The Poor Widow in Mark and Her Poor Rich Readers,” CBQ 53 [1991]: 589–604), (2) the widow presented as exemplary character or symbol (e.g., Addison G. Wright, “The Widow’s Mites: Praise or Lament? A Matter of Context,” CBQ 44 [1982]: 256–65), (3) the widow as a victim of exploitation (e.g., Stephen Moore, Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament [Sheffield: Phoenix, 2006], 41–43), and (4) the story has no particular meaning (e.g., Barbara Reid, Choosing the Better Part? Women in the Gospel of Luke [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996], 197). The immediate context favors Moore’s interpretation. The story served as an illustration of how the scribes “devour widows’ houses” (20:47). Jesus observed the rich give offerings from their surplus while the widow offered her means for survival (21:1–2). Contrary to Ðỗ’s claim that there was no criticism of the rich in this episode (Lucan Journey, 245), his comments about the scribes suggests that his observa-

224

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

The list of the religious leaders’ sins provides a basis for contrast between them and Jesus: (1) the sins of the Jewish leaders contributed to the defilement of God’s land (Num 35:33–34), (2) their sins show their failure to meet God’s expectation from those who would enter the land (Lev 19:11, 13, 15; Deut 11:22, 29; 16:20; 23:19–20), and (3) this also disqualifies them from rightfully possessing the land (6:1, 18; 8:1; cf. Luke 4:1–13). In a few instances, Jewish religious authorities are also associated with Satan and the demonic powers. On one occasion, a synagogue official openly criticized Jesus for healing on a Sabbath.98 Jesus responded by pointing out Satan’s role in the woman’s predicament (13:16). 99 Jesus’ words indirectly implicated the Jewish leader for acting as an obstruction to God’s work and thus as an accessory to the devil. 100 On another occasion, Luke stressed Satan’s role in the death of Jesus when he “entered into Judas” (22:3). Judas’ (or perhaps more accurately, Satan’s) connivance with the chief priests and scribes made the Jewish religious leaders willing participants in Satan’s plans and active partners with him in his attempt to thwart God’s work (22:2–6).101 A more explicit indictment against the Jewish rulers was asserted by Jesus prior to his arrest: “While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours” (22:53).

tion is not so much about the generosity of the poor widow, as it is a critique against a culture of oppression where the rich can fake their religiosity by offering their excesses while the needs of the poor go unmet. 97 Cassidy provides accounts of the priests’ involvement in injustices and corruption (Society, 8, 32, 61–65). Brawley correctly observes that there is a distinction between the ordinary priests (e.g., Zachariah) and the high priests in that only the latter are presented negatively (Conflict, 111). 98 Green suggests that the temporal and spatial setting (Sabbath and synagogue) of the story “function as symbols of Jewish exclusivity” that segregated the needy and kept from receiving divine help (“Daughter,” 649). 99 M. Dennis Hamm aptly observes that demonic activities and healing are inseparable (“The Freeing of the Bent Woman and the Restoration of Israel,” JSNT 31 [1987]: 32–33). Cf. Hogan, Healing, 247–50. 100 Hamm (“Bent,” 27) points out that the essence of Sabbath observance is the remembrance of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt (Deut 5:15). This implies that Jesus’ words concerning the necessity that the woman be liberated on a Sabbath should be seen as his attempt to stress the essence of the Law (Luke 13:16). Kee associates Jesus’ healing with the defeat of God-opposing powers (Christian World, 155). In this case, the religious leaders, because they kept the woman from experiencing God’s freedom, are functioning as instruments of bondage; hence, they, too, are enemies of God. 101 The participation of both Romans and Jewish authorities shows that they both are under the rule of Satan (ὁ σατανᾶς, i.e., the enemy). Cf. Yamazaki-Ransom, Empire, 97.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

225

Pontius Pilate Pilate’s lack of conviction in Jesus’ trial demonstrated by his caving in to the high priests’ demands also made him an ally of the devil (23:4–5, 13– 24). Ironically, a convicted insurrectionist and murderer was released instead of Jesus (23:19). This decision demonstrates the magnitude of the injustice done against God’s co-regent. Peter construed the agreement of the Jewish authorities, Pilate, and Herod Antipas as a fulfillment of Ps 2:2, wherein “the kings of the earth” and the “rulers” collaborated against the anointed one of God (Acts 4:26–27; cf. Luke 23:1–24).102 At first glance, Pilate’s disposition toward Jesus seemed very positive – declaring Jesus innocent twice (23:4, 14–15). His verdict, however, need not be considered favorable. Helen K. Bond notes that the seriousness of the charges (treason) against Jesus should have led Pilate to take the investigation further. Yet he chose to pass the responsibility of deciding on the case to Herod Antipas.103 Pilate actively promoted of the imperial cult in Judea.104 This appears incongruent with his passivity despite the seriousness of the charges against Jesus. It is plausible that his pronouncement of Jesus’ innocence reflects his perception of Jesus’ “harmlessness” despite his regal claim.105 His arrogance did not allow him to see Jesus as a real threat and blinded him from the truth about Jesus’ identity; his attitude disqualifies this ruler from being an heir to God’s land (cf. Ps 37:11). Moreover, Pilate is portrayed as a murderer (Luke 13:1). In God’s sight, this is one of the sins that cause the land to be polluted (Num 35:33–34). Herod Antipas Luke’s brief comment about Herod Antipas’ incestuous relationship made it clear that the tetrarch was one of the reasons God’s land was defiled (Luke 3:19–20; cf. Lev 18:24–25).106 His murder plot against Jesus only 102

Yamazaki-Ransom, Empire, 112–13. Bock observes that most Jews would assume that these enemies of God are Gentiles (Acts, 206). Luke has shown, however, that there is collaboration between Jewish “rulers” and Gentile “kings of the earth.” 103 Helen K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in the History of Interpretation (SNTSMS 100; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 153. She demonstrates the variegated portrayal of Pontius Pilate in the ancient sources (Pilate, 204–207). He can be contemptible and oppressive (Philo), insensitive and bloodthirsty (Josephus), weak and vacillating (Mark and Luke), indifferent (Matthew), or manipulative and derisive (John). Cf. Brian C. McGing, “Pontius Pilate and the Sources,” CBQ 53 (1991): 416–38. 104 Taylor, “Pontius Pilate,” 556. 105 Yamazaki-Ransom, Empire, 112. Cf. Green, Luke, 799; Warren Carter, Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003), 123. 106 The recurring theme of land in Luke 1–4, the presentation of Jesus as the one who met God’s requirements from those who would “enter the land” (4:1–13), the contrast created by this episode between Jesus and the Jews (cf. 3:7–18), and the anecdote con-

226

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

aggravated his iniquity (Luke 13:31; cf. Num 35:33–34).107 Although Luke does not elaborate what motivated Antipas, he makes clear that this Herodian’s participation in the death of Jesus qualified him as an enemy of God (Acts 4:25–28; cf. Luke 23:7–12). Antipas’ association with Rome is little developed in Luke-Acts;108 his association with the evil forces is much clearer, which is seen in the temptation of Jesus. Satan offered to give Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world” (4:5), namely, “all the inhabited world” over which the emperor ruled (cf. 2:1), including the domain assigned to Antipas (3:1). Yamazaki-Ransom sums it up well: “Antipas thus belongs to the kingdom of Satan, which is in conflict with the kingdom of God.”109 Herod Agrippa I Luke candidly describes Herod Agrippa I as an enemy of the church, hence, an enemy of God (Acts 12:1). Agrippa I not only arrested the believers, but

cerning Antipas that immediately follows it (3:19–20) impels us to interpret Herod Antipas’ acts in relation to the theme of land. 107 Upon learning about the plot, Jesus called Herod Antipas a “fox” (Luke 13:32). Marshall suggests that a contrast between Antipas (the fox) and Sepphoris (or Zippori, which means “little bird” in Hebrew) was intended here (Patrons, 139, 187). The lack of reference to Sepphoris in Luke 13 poses some questions unless one assumes Theophilus was familiar with Antipas’ association with Sepphoris and knew Hebrew. Harold W. Hoehner summarizes the way the image of the fox is used in ancient Mediterranean writings (Herod Antipas [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972], 343–47). “Fox” can portray one as being: (1) destructive (e.g., Song 2:15; Ezek 13:4); (2) insignificant and inferior (e.g., ʾAbot 4.15; b. Sanh. 37a); (3) foolish (e.g., b. Ber. 61b); (4) wise (e.g., Archilochus, Fragments 197; various Aesop’s fables); (5) cunning (e.g., Pliny the Elder, Nat. 8.42.103; Plutarch, Sol. 30.1–3; Sull. 28.1–3); or (6) greedy (e.g., Suetonius, Vesp. 16.3). With the exception of no. 4, all the other uses of the metaphor are pejorative. Hoehner suggests that Luke 13:32 is a ridicule of Antipas’ insignificance because he lacks the power and dignity to achieve his aims except through deceit (347). Darr focuses on the destructive character of the fox (Herod, 182). It is difficult to conclude with certainty which of these images is being used. Nonetheless, Antipas’ murder of John and his plot against Jesus seems to favor Darr’s view. Interestingly, the destructive nature of the fox is seen in Ezekiel’s indictment against the false prophets in exile whom he called “foxes among ruins” (13:4) and against whom Yahweh declared: “They will have no place in the council of my people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel, that you may know that I am the LORD God” (13:9b, emphasis mine). 108 Marshall notes that Antipas was less driven to advance his relationship with Rome than the other Herodians (Patrons, 145–49). This does not mean that he was not loyal to Rome, but it explains why his actions against John and Jesus seem to be motivated more by personal issues than by his allegiance to Caesar. 109 Yamazaki-Ransom, Empire, 172.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

227

also murdered James, the brother of John (12:2);110 and when he saw that the unbelieving Jews approved of his actions, he imprisoned Peter as well (12:3; cf. 5:18–19).111 O. Wesley Allen Jr. observes that Agrippa I’s persecution of the church is evidence of his failure to recognize God’s providence and work in the church.112 Agrippa I’s attempt to nip the Christian movement in the bud reaped an unintended result because the Christian movement, instead of withering, flourished as “the word of the Lord continued to grow and to be multiplied” (12:24) and consequently leading the first intentional mission to the Gentile-dominated regions outside the land of the Jews (13:2). The intervention of God in this account accentuates Agrippa I’s character as God’s enemy (12:6–11). His action, which prompted God’s response, recalls Zachariah’s prophecy about God’s salvation from the “hand of those who hate us,” in this case, the “hand of Herod” (Luke 1:71; cf. Acts 12:11). The death of Agrippa I further accentuates God’s act in this account (12:21–23). Herod did not solicit the crowd’s recognition of him as divine, but his failure to reject the crowd’s accolade is tantamount to his acceptance of it (12:22; cf. 10:25–26; 14:13–17). Allen sums it up well: “Herod fails to recognize what God has done because he himself has arrogantly trespassed into the realm that belongs only to God.”113 The similarities between Acts 12 and Daniel’s accounts are also worth noting.114 First, in both accounts, God’s angels were instrumental in rescuing God’s servants (Acts 5:18; 12:7; cf. Dan 3:28; 6:22). Second, God’s servants were persecuted because of their absolute commitment to the God of Israel (Acts 5:29–32; 12:1–3; cf. Dan 3:8–18; 6:4–5). Third, both Luke and Daniel recounted the stories of rulers with a disproportionate sense of personal greatness deemed comparable to that of a deity (Acts 12:20–23; cf. Dan 3:1–7; 4:28–30). 115 Finally, although the nature of divine judgment 110

Once again, the theme of murder is present in Agrippa I’s account, making him another Herodian who was a polluter of the land (Num 35:33–34). In this account, he ordered not only the killing of James, but also the execution of the soldiers who were on duty when the angel rescued Peter (Acts 12:19). 111 Josephus informs us that Agrippa I enjoyed much support from the Jewish people by being beneficent and generous towards them (Ant. 19.7.3 §§328–31). His attempt to maintain such support from the Jews “explain[s] his hostility to the new movement that the Jewish leadership so opposed” (Bock, Acts, 424). See also Pervo, Acts, 122–23; Marshall, Patrons, 165–70. 112 O. Wesley Allen Jr., The Death of Herod: The Narrative and Theological Function of Retribution in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 158; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 197; Cf. Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa I (TSAJ 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 146. 113 Allen, Death, 92. 114 Cf. Yamazaki-Ransom, Empire, 178–80. 115 Cf. Ps 37:11.

228

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

differs for Nebuchadnezzar and Agrippa I, God’s retribution accentuates God’s sovereignty (Acts 12:23; Dan 4:31–37; cf. 3:28–30). Sergius Paulus Sergius Paulus, a proconsul residing in Paphos, was one of the few Roman officials portrayed positively alongside the unnamed centurion (Luke 7:1– 10) and Cornelius (Acts 10:1–11:18). 116 The account concerning Sergius Paulus witnesses to the encounter between the Spirit of God and the devil, and the struggle between Paul and Elymas to win the allegiance of the Roman proconsul – the former to the God of Israel and the latter to the devil. Elymas was named Bar-Jesus (Βαριησοῦς), which in Aramaic means “son of Jesus.” Ironically, the “son of Jesus” was actually the “son of the devil” (13:10). Johnson correctly observes that this clearly portrayed “the conflict between the kingdom of God and the counter-kingdom of Satan.” 117 His work strongly opposed the work of God’s servants, such as John the Baptist, who was called to “make [the Lord’s] paths straight” (Luke 3:4). Elymas “made crooked the straight ways of the Lord” (Acts 13:10). This account also includes a display of power that prevented the false prophet’s attempt to keep the proconsul from giving his allegiance to the Lord.118 Gallio Paul’s experiences of night vision attest to God’s work through him. In one account, God assured the apostle of his protection and ordered him to continue preaching (18:9–10). However, he was not spared by his Jewish accusers who brought him to Gallio (18:12). Like Pilate, Gallio saw nothing in Paul’s action that violated Roman laws. Hence he refused to decide on anything that concerns Jewish laws.119 116 Yamazaki-Ransom remarks that one of the determining factors in the portrayal of a gentile ruler in earlier Jewish writings is the relationship between the ruler, God, and God’s people. The ruler’s fidelity to their religion is taken positively by Jewish writers (Empire, 23). 117 Johnson, Acts, 224. 118 The OT and the NT record a number of “power encounters” that yield both positive responses (e.g., Israelites with Elijah at Mount Carmel [1 Kgs 18:20–35], Jews at Capernaum [Luke 4:31–37], and Sergius Paulus [Acts 13:6–12]) and negative ones (e.g., Pharaoh as witness to the ten plagues [Exod 7–14], Jews of Gerasenes [Luke 8:26–39], and masters of the clairvoyant slave [Acts 16:16–21]). 119 Cf. Yamazaki-Ransom, Empire, 129. Hans Conzelmann incorrectly claims that the proconsul prudently shows “disinterest…in Christianity” (Acts of the Apostles [Hermeneia; trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 154). Irresponsibility was never a sign of prudence.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

229

Luke’s account takes a significant turn when Sosthenes, a synagogue official, was beaten in front of Gallio. This development raises questions regarding Sosthenes’ identity and that of the rioters,120 but Luke demonstrated more interest in portraying Gallio as an irresponsible proconsul who showed no concern for those who were unjustly treated. 121 Hence, he was also culpable for these injustices.122 Felix In Luke’s account of Paul’s trial, he highlights the guilt of the Jewish authorities who sent their lawyer, Tertullus, to witness falsely against Paul (Acts 24:1–8),123 and the Jews approved of their leaders’ actions (24:9; cf. Exod 23:2). 124 Luke portrays Felix as one who has a more thorough

120

Why did the rioters beat Sosthenes instead of Paul? Was this the same Sosthenes who was Paul’s companion (1 Cor 1:1)? If he was someone else, was he a believing Jew? Were the rioters Jews (as witnessed in mss. 36 453 pc) or Greeks (as witnessed in mss. D E Ψ 33 1739, etc.)? Did the Jews beat Sosthenes to deter the other Jews from believing or because the chaos has brought so much shame to the Jewish community in Corinth? Or did the Jews beat an unbelieving Sosthenes because as a synagogue official (presumably with Crispus [Acts 18:8]), he should not have welcomed Paul in the first place? Or did the Greeks beat Sosthenes the believer because in their perception, Christians were causing so much trouble in Achaia? Or did the Greeks beat Sosthenes the Jew to deter the other unbelieving Jews from prolonging this chaos? Luke did not give a clear answer to any of these questions. It is clear, though, that the proconsul had been irresponsible for not taking any actions about the incident. 121 Bruce Winter attempts to “rehabilitate” judgment (perhaps more accurately, “misjudgment”) of Gallio in Acts 18:14–15 by arguing that his refusal to collude with the Jews reflects his steadiness not to succumb to political pressures (“Rehabilitating Gallio and His Judgement in Acts 18:14–15,” TynBul 57, no. 2 [2006]: 301). He further explains Gallio’s silence about the Jews’ motivations by appealing to Seneca the Younger’s (Gallio’s brother) description of Gallio: “He would not unmask you, but he would reject you” (Nat. 4A, Pref. 10). He insists that the proconsul was an astute judge who only refused to hear the case brought by the Jews before him because it was groundless (305). Winter’s attempt to redeem Gallio introduces more problems. The proconsul’s task of maintaining peace within the empire (which Winter readily admits, 304) is incongruent with his indifference while Sosthenes was being beaten “in front of the judgment seat” (Acts 18:17). 122 His indifference is contrary to Yahweh’s expectations for a righteous ruler (cf. 2 Sam 8:15; 1 Kgs 3:11, 28; 10:9; 1 Chr 18:14; 2 Chr 9:8; Prov 8:15; 31:9). Even Philo criticized Flaccus for his indifference and irresponsibility (Flacc. 1.6 §§39–40). 123 This conspiracy is a direct violation of God’s command not to bear false witness (Exod 20:16; Deut 5:20; cf. Exod 23:1, 7; Deut 19:16–19), a command that the Israelites should make sure to observe when they enter and possess God’s land (Deut 5:33; 19:1, 8–10). 124 Ironically, by linking Paul with Jesus (Acts 24:5), who was earlier shown to be innocent of insurgency, what was supposed to be an indictment became favorable evidence that the accusation against Paul was false (cf. Osvaldo Padilla, The Speeches of Outsiders

230

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

knowledge of the early Christian movement and as one who exercised discretion in making judgments (Acts 24:22). Moreover, Luke records how Felix took seriously the accusations against Paul by not minimizing the charges to simple questions concerning the Jewish laws (unlike Gallio).125 Luke, however, does not whitewash the procurator’s flaws; he mentions that Felix was expecting a bribe from Paul (24:26)126 and kept Paul in prison for two years to please the Jews (24:27). Festus The Jewish authorities continued with their hostility against Paul even after Festus replaced Felix as procurator (Acts 25:2–4). One of the observable traits of the Roman procurators as Luke portrayed them is their willingness to participate in injustice in order to win the favor of the majority and more influential people under their rule. The veracity of the charges seemed to be irrelevant for them as long as they could please the crowd (Pilate [Luke 23:22–24], Felix [Acts 24:27], and Festus [25:9]; cf. Exod 23:2). Unlike Felix, who is painted as one familiar with the Way (Acts 24:22), Festus was at a loss when it comes to matters concerning the Jewish religion (25:20). Despite Festus’ prudence in following administrative procedures (25:14–27), he was shown to be imprudent when he refused to take actions for someone whom he knew was innocent (25:25; 26:31).127 Thus, Cassidy is correct to observe that Paul’s appeal to Caesar can be considered as an indirect rebuke against Festus, who demonstrated that he can no longer handle the case impartially (25:11–12, 21; cf. 26:32).128

in Acts: Poetics, Theology and Historiography [SNTSMS 144; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008], 223). 125 Rowe, World, 76. 126 Although Felix demonstrated several positive traits (e.g., knowledge of the Way [Acts 24:22], willingness to listen to Christian teaching [24:25], and perhaps a sign of being convicted of wrongdoings [24:26]), his desire to take bribes marked him as an enemy of God (cf. Exod 23:8; Deut 16:19; 27:25; cf. 10:17; Pss 15:5; 26:10; Prov 15:27; 17:8, 23; 21:14; 29:4); it is one of the sins that invite God’s curse. Those who enter the land are expected to keep this command (Deut 27:1–3, 25). 127 Acts suggests that Festus had the power to set Paul free (Haenchen, Acts, 667), but his concern for his reputation may have kept him from doing so (Brian Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody [A1CS 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 188). 128 Cassidy, Society, 109. Regardless of Festus’ motivation, his partiality made him a trespasser of the Law (Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17; 10:17; 16:19).

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

231

Herod Agrippa II Paul’s appeal to Caesar prevented Agrippa II from setting the apostle free (26:32);129 hence, he claimed that his hands were also tied to administer proper justice. Paul’s appearance before the king was anticipated in Jesus’ statement: “They will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name's sake. It will lead to an opportunity for your testimony” (Luke 21:12–13). Jesus’ warning was given with a promise that he would grant utterance and wisdom to his messengers (21:14–15). The way Paul acknowledged Agrippa II’s religious upbringing is noteworthy (Acts 26:27).130 His appeal to their shared beliefs is evident in the way Paul used the first person plural pronouns in his address to the king: “our religion” (26:5), “promise made to our fathers” (26:6), and “our twelve tribes hope to attain” (26:7). The king’s understanding of the Jewish faith allowed him to respond differently from Festus (26:28; cf. 26:24). 131 Nonetheless, Agrippa II’s response to Paul is contrasted with Paul’s response to Jesus – the king was not fully persuaded (πείθω) to Paul’s testimony (26:28) while Paul was not disobedient (ἀπειθής) to the revelation of the risen Lord (26:19). This revelation allows us to see this episode as an encounter not simply between a missionary and a ruler, but between God and Satan.132 This is explicated in Jesus’ words concerning Paul’s mission to both Jews and Gentiles, “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God – that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in me” (26:18). Luke’s concept of two kingdoms is clear in this statement: either one belongs to the dominion of Satan or to the dominion of God.

129 Luke explains that Paul’s trip to Rome remained part of God’s orchestration so that Paul could stand as his witness in the imperial capital (Acts 23:11). A. N. Sherwin-White notes that Agrippa II could have freed Paul if he so desired. His decision “is not a question of law, but of the relations between the emperor and his subordinates, and of that element of non-constitutional power which the Romans called auctoritas, ‘prestige’, on which the supremacy of the Princeps so largely depended” (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963], 65). 130 Josephus presents Agrippa II as an advocate of the Jews (e.g., J.W. 2.12.7 §245; Ant. 20.6.3 §135), yet at the same time an ally of Rome because of his belief that Rome came to power by the will of God (e.g., J.W. 2.16.4 §§344–407). 131 Festus considered belief in the resurrection evidence of insanity (Acts 26:24), but Agrippa II claimed to be almost persuaded (26:28), which implies that he remained “unpersuaded” (ἀπειθέω), hence still an unbeliever (cf. 14:2). 132 Yamazaki-Ransom calls this the “cosmic framework” of the story (Empire, 152).

232

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

The Kingdom of Caesar and the Dominion of Caesar Luke’s statement, “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all” (23:8), is more than a description of this Jewish group. Throughout the events that he records in Luke-Acts, Luke betrays his theological affinity with the Pharisaic group on these issues. Luke demonstrates the Sadducees’ lack of a theological framework that allowed them to embrace such beliefs. Ironically, the rising interest in anti-imperial ideology in contemporary NT studies has allowed some scholars to conveniently explain the NT references to demonic entities as coded language addressed against the empire.133 The association of earthly powers with the demonic is evident in several passages in Luke-Acts, e.g., Satan and the emperor shared authority over the “inhabited earth” (οἰκουμένη [Luke 2:1; 4:5]), and Luke’s use of the Roman military term “legion” (λεγίων) as a name for a demonic troop (8:30). That the anti-imperial use of language related to the demonic is undeniable. However, it should be emphasized that Luke is doing more than using coded language whenever he recount demonic activities. On two occasions, Jesus made statements regarding the existence of the two kingdoms. First, when Jesus was accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, he replied by pointing out that the ruler of demons was not settling a coup d’état within the demonic ranks; his expulsion of demons was instead evidence of theophraxis, a manifestation of “the finger of God” (11:14–26). This implies that the real battle is between the kingdoms of God and Satan. Second, Paul bore witness to the words of the risen Lord concerning the two kingdoms in his reply to Agrippa II (Acts 26:18). The apostle expressed his hope that, through faith, the king might pledge allegiance to the real king, namely, Yahweh. Luke also attributed many events directly to Satan and/or the demonic forces, e.g., kept some from hearing the word of God (Luke 8:12), oppressed a “daughter of Abraham” with illness (13:16; cf. Acts 10:38), “entered” Judas to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3), attempted to “sift” Simon “like wheat” (22:31), “filled the heart” of Ananias with evil (Acts 5:3), associated with counterfeiters (13:10), and ruled over those who do not belong to the kingdom of God (26:18). It would require some degree of exegetical gymnastics to explain away the reality of spiritual elements in Luke’s accounts by saying that all these refer merely to earthly realities. Nonetheless, the oppressive nature of these demonic activities and the oppression and injustices rampant within the empire made an association between Satan’s kingdom and the emperor’s domain possible. Satan and his kingdom are not mere covert language to refer to Caesar and the Roman Empire; for 133

E.g., Beck, Cryptograms, 5–6.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

233

Luke, the earthly rulers’ failure to acknowledge the reign of God is evidence of the reign of Satan over them. The conflict is between God (through Jesus and his followers) and Satan (through those who belong to his dominion – the Jewish and Roman conspirators who were obstacles to the proclamation of God’s sole sovereignty and usurpers of God’s authority). 134 Portraits of Jewish and Roman Authorities In summary, with the exception of a few Jewish and Roman officials (e.g., Sergius Paulus, Cornelius, the unnamed centurion, Gamaliel), “kings,” “rulers,” and “authorities” in Luke-Acts are typically portrayed as trespassers of God’s Law. As trespassers of God’s Law, they are also trespassers in God’s land. This is because they have committed sins (e.g., murder, incest) that defile the land; they have also violated God’s Law (e.g., injustice, false witness) so as to disqualify them from possessing God’s land. Moreover, Luke portrayed the Jewish and Roman authorities in connivance against Jesus and his followers; hence, Luke emphasized their solidarity against God as well. Through the accounts of conflict between Jesus and the earthly rulers, Luke also introduced the cosmic dimension of his historical accounts.

Geographical Movements and God’s Land Claims In Luke-Acts, the closest equivalent to the accounts of migrations and conquests in the Greco-Roman and Jewish writings is the narrative’s geographical movements. Accounts of migrations and conquests in GrecoRoman writings demonstrate how nations or regents gain new territories; in Jewish writings, similar accounts relate the universal sovereignty of the God of Israel and the fulfillment of God’s promise of land to Israel. In Luke-Acts, geographical movements are not accounts concerning a king expanding his jurisdiction, but about the king’s agents going through different territories to announce who is the real king. The themes of God’s claim over the imperial territories and Jesus’ lordship over them continue in Acts. When the disciples asked Jesus regarding the time of the restoration of Israel, he diverted their attention from Israel’s national independence to their universal mission (1:7–8). Thomas S. Moore summarizes various interpretations of the geographical list in Acts 1:8 under two categories, namely, physical geography and

134

Cf. Rowe, World, 111.

234

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

ethnic. 135 Even among those who interpret the passage as a reference to physical geography, the “end of the earth” is understood in varied ways:136 Rome (Haenchen), beyond Rome (van Unnik), Ethiopia (Thornton), Spain (Ellis), and Palestine (Schwartz). 137 Others see an ethnic significance of these places (Dupont); thus, the “end of the earth” is seen as a reference to the Gentiles. 138 Moore aptly notes that there is little evidence in Luke’s work that should limit us to a purely geographical reading of Acts 1:8; hence, he concludes that the “end of the earth” refers to both geographical and ethnic “extremities.”139 This suggests that even “Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria” carry more than a geographical sense. It is noteworthy, however, that whether these locations carry a geographic or ethnic sense, Jesus’ agents focused on declaring the universal sovereignty of the God of Israel 135 Thomas S. Moore, “‘To the End of the Earth”: The Geographical and Ethnic Universalism of Acts 1:8 in Light of Isaianic Influence on Luke-Acts,” JETS 40, no. 3 (1997): 389–99. 136 The phrase is often used as a reference to a geographical location in both GrecoRoman and Jewish writings. In Greco-Roman writings, the “end of the earth” refers to remote places that are difficult to reach. The phrase may be used metaphorically; perhaps it reflects the extent of the writer’s geographical knowledge as well. What is clear is that there is no single region that represents “the end of the earth.” Similar phrases are used to refer to regions to the north (e.g., τῶν τοῦ κόσμου περάτων is the northern border of Europe [Strabo, Geogr. 2.4.2]), east (e.g., terratum ultimos finis is the eastern border of the Indian Ocean [Livy 45.9.5]), south (e.g., τὰ ἔσχατα γῆς is Ethiopia [Herodotus, Hist. 3.25]), and west (e.g., extremas terras is Rome [Tacitus, Annals 2.81–82]). In the OT, phrases equivalent to “the end of the earth” are often used metaphorically to refer to remote and unidentified regions (e.g., Deut 30:4; 33:17; 1 Sam 2:10; Job 28:24; 37:3; 38:13; Pss 48:10; 65: 5, 8; 67:7; 98:3; 135:7; Prov 17:24; 30:4; Isa 5:26; 24:16; 40:28; 41:5, 9; 43:6; 45:22; 52:10; Jer 16:19). Several passages used the phrase to allude to the extent of God’s reign (e.g., Pss 2:8; 22:27; 59:13; 72:8; cf. Zech 9:10). 137 Haenchen, Acts, 144; Willem C. van Unnik, “The ‘Book of Acts’: The Confirmation of the Gospel,” ΝονΤ 4 (1960): 39–40; Thornton, “To the End of the Earth,” ExpT 89 (1977–78): 374–75; E. Earl Ellis, “‘End of the Earth’ (Acts 1:8),” BBR 1 (1991): 128; D. R. Schwartz, “The End of the ΓΉ (Acts 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision?” JBL 105, no. 4 (1986): 669–76. Cf. Moore, “Universalism,” 389–91. 138 Jacques Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 18–19. The geographical outline as programmatic summary of the mission in Acts cannot be denied (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles [AB 31; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1998], 200), but these may represent something more. Pervo suggests that Jerusalem is the “navel” of Israelite “earth,” Judea represents Jewish mission, Samaria as transitional phase, and “end of the earth” as reference to gentile mission (Acts, 43). 139 Moore, “Universalism,” 393. Jervell insists that “the end of the earth” primarily refers to the mission to Diaspora Jews (Apostelgeschichte, 115). Ellis submits that the use of Isa 49:6 in Acts 13:47 suggests that the phrase “end of the earth” is more than just a geographical reference; it is unclear, however, how he came to conclude that such nuance is absent in Acts 1:8 (“End,” 123–24).

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

235

and the lordship of Jesus; they continued Jesus’ work that accompanied his preaching of the kingdom of God, and their work continued to flourish despite opposition. This can be illustrated through the episodes below. Jerusalem and Judea: Local and Diaspora Jews Craig S. Keener correctly observes that the Pentecost and subsequent incidents (Acts 2) are tied to Jesus’ commission, the prayer of the disciples, and choice of Judas’ replacement (Acts 1).140 The missiological themes of Acts 1–2 have as their basis God’s universal rule. The appointment of Matthias (1:12–26), the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost (2:1–13), the sermon of Peter (2:14–36), and the “harvest” of believers (2:37–47) center on Luke’s presentation of the universal sovereignty of God and the kingship of Jesus. 1. Appointment of Matthias Zwiep explains that although Judas’ betrayal cannot be erased from the history of the church, the disgrace caused by his betrayal is resolved through the divine act of choosing a replacement. 141 It should be noted, however, that the relationship between the episode concerning the choice of Matthias and the subsequent mission-related events that followed suggests that the story is not a cover-up for the embarrassment caused by the betrayal of Judas. The purpose of Matthias’ appointment relates to Israel’s restoration and this has been acknowledged in many previous studies of Acts 1.142 For instance, Turner remarks, “If there is ambivalence in 1.7–8, then, it is not a denial of an important future for ‘Israel’, but a change of emphasis from Israel’s kingship to her task as servant bringing the light of God’s salvation to the nations.”143 Pao relates the language of 1:17 (the necessity of choosing one who is κατηριθμημένος ἧν ἐν ἡμῖν [“numbered among us”]) to that of Luke 22:3 where Judas is described as “one of the twelve” (ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν δώδεκα).144 Another point needs to be underscored, namely, the list of names in Acts 1:13 naturally recalls the

140 Craig S. Keener, “Power of Pentecost: Luke’s Missiology in Acts 1–2,” AJPS 12, no. 1 (2009): 47–48. 141 Zwiep, Judas, 124. 142 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf insists that the completion of the number twelve witnesses to Jesus’ messiahship and God’s approval of the mission to Israel. However, his proposal concerning the “narrow” boundary of the church’s mission is unnecessary (“The Election of Matthias: Acts 1.15ff.,” in Current Issues in New Testament Studies [ed. William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder; London: SCM, 1962], 185–89). 143 Turner, Power, 301. 144 Pao, Isaianic, 124.

236

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

appointment of the original Twelve (Luke 6:14–16) and the mission assigned to them, which is the proclamation of the kingdom of God (9:1–2). 2. The Giving of the Spirit The completion of the apostolic roster is followed by the account of the giving of the Spirit. There may be other believers who received the Spirit together with the Twelve, nonetheless, Luke focuses on “Peter…with the eleven” (Acts 2:14) as those who received the Spirit and spoke in various languages before the Jews from other parts of the world. Three things are worth noting regarding this episode: (1) the significance of the day of Pentecost, (2) the manifestation of the Spirit, and (3) the presence of representatives from various nations. First, Pentecost (or the Feast of Weeks) is one of the feasts the Israelites were commanded to celebrate (Exod 34:22; cf. Num 28:26; Deut 16:10, 16; 2 Chr 8:13).145 This command was given after the Lord promised to drive out the inhabitants of the land of Canaan to give their land to the Israelites (Exod 34:11–17). Regardless of the actual day this feast was celebrated,146 its celebration presumes Israel’s liberation from Egypt with the expectation that they would possess the land of Canaan and live under God’s rule. Second, while the Jews were gathered in Jerusalem for the feast, the Spirit came upon the Twelve who spoke in the languages of the nations represented by the Diaspora Jews (Acts 2:5–12). The significance of the story of Babel is highlighted in a number of works on Acts 2. These works focused on whether the gift of tongues is a “reversal” or “recapitulation” of Babel.147 Several elements in Gen 11 and Acts 2 inevitably link the two.148 145 For a more detailed discussion on the celebration of the Feast of Weeks, see Jud Davis, “Acts 2 and the Old Testament: The Pentecost Event in Light of Sinai, Babel and the Table of Nations,” CTR 7, no. 1 (2009): 31–33; Joel B. Green, “‘In Our Own Languages’: Pentecost, Babel, and the Shaping of Christian Community in Acts 2:1–13,” in The Word Leaps the Gap (ed. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 207. 146 Davis lists the dissonant views regarding the actual day of the feast (“Acts 2,” 33 n. 15). Robert O’Toole denies that there is a connection between the Sinai covenant and Luke’s account of the Pentecost; nonetheless, he admits that Luke intends some connection between the Jewish Pentecost and the Christian Pentecost (“Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” JBL 102, no. 2 [1983]: 245). 147 Craig S. Keener, “Why Does Luke Use Tongues as a Sign of the Spirit’s Empowerment,” JPT 15, no. 2 (2007): 181 n. 13; cf. Davis, “Acts 2,” 29–30 nn. 2–4. 148 Despite Glen Menzies’ attempt to dissociate Acts 2 from the story of Babel by suggesting the Merkabah account in 1 En. 14 and 71 provides the backdrop for Acts 2 (“Pre-Lucan Occurences of the Phrase ‘Tongue[s] of Fire’,” JSPS 22, no. 1 [2000]: 58– 60), there is no reason to ignore some elements that connect the two stories. Catherine González and Justo González cite a few: the element of language and communication, the inclusion of a table of nations, and ascent of humans and descent of the Spirit (“Babel

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

237

In ch. 3, I noted that the story of Babel can be seen as an early attempt by humans to establish a kingdom under one human ruler independent from God. 149 The unity of humans under Rome resulted from conquest and is seen in the areas of communication, commerce, and politics; this is reminiscent of the “sin of Shinar.”150 The unity of believers under Jesus results from the Spirit’s being given after Jesus’ exaltation (2:38) and is manifest in their devotion to the apostles’ teachings, communal life, and onemindedness (2:42–47). Third, although it is difficult to ascertain why certain nations are included and others excluded in Luke’s list, it is clear that these nations represent “every nation under heaven” where Jews were present (2:5). Moreover, Luke focuses on the communication done through the use of the local dialects of the nations represented (2:8). Green notes that this diversity of language reflects attempts by people from different regions to maintain their identities amidst Roman domination, and shows that the “basis of unity among these persons was not to be identified with the cultural and linguistic assimilation that energizes colonial impulse of any age.” 151 Unity comes from their acknowledgement that Jesus is Lord, and their reception of the Holy Spirit (2:36–39). 3. Peter’s Sermon Luke records Peter’s bipartite sermon – the first part as a response to the accusation that they were drunk and the second part as an elaboration of God’s rule through Jesus. Peter explains the phenomenon in Acts 2 as a fulfillment of Joel 2:28–30 (3:1–3, LXX). Joel’s prophecy anticipates a day of judgment against Israel’s foreign oppressors; the extent of their rampage is illustrated: “The land is like the garden of Eden before them but a desolate wilderness behind them” (2:3). Yahweh offered his people a hope of redemption with repentance as the primary requirement (2:12–13; cf. Acts 2:38–39), followed by a promise of salvation from their enemies and an era of peace and abundance (Joel 2:19–26). The purpose of all these is for the people to acknowledge Yahweh’s sole sovereignty (2:27; cf. Acts

and Empire: Pentecost and Empire [Preaching on Gen 11:1–9 and Acts 2:1–12],” JP 16, no. 4 [1993]: 22). Nonetheless, one can agree with Menzies that the phenomenon in Acts 2 can be considered a sign of divine accreditation of the Twelve (“Occurences,” 59). 149 Cf. Marlowe, “Shinar,” 35–36. 150 Cf. Keener, “Tongues,” 182; Green, “Languages,” 210. The lists of nations in some Greco-Roman writings (e.g., Pliny the Elder, Nat. 5.132–33; 7.98; Diodorus 40.4; Virgil, Aen. 6.780–82; 8.714–28) present the nations under Roman rule (cf. Thompson, One, 69). 151 Green, “Languages,” 210.

238

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

2:36),152 and the outpouring of the Spirit would be the manifestation of this (Joel 2:28–29 [3:1–2, LXX]; cf. Acts 2:1–4, 17–21). Reid sums it up well: The Spirit-filling that occurred unified and inaugurated a new race, as it were, a new people, loyal to a different emperor, and heralding an alternative empire, the empire of God. The so-called “table of nations” in Acts serves as a counter to the lists of Roman imperial conquest, articulating the conquests of new and dominant empire empowered by the Spirit of God. Peter’s citation of Joel appropriates and resignifies Joel’s vision of God uprooting foreign oppressors, defeating them in battle, establishing a new era of peace (contra Rome’s “peace and security”), and vindicating the righteous by relocating such expectation in the accession and enthronement of Jesus. 153

Peter’s defense against the accusation of drunkenness segues into his exposition of Jesus’ confirmation by God. First, Luke stresses that Jesus’ miracles are acts which “God performed through him” (2:22). As I argued in ch. 4, the miracles of Jesus are integral to his proclamation of God’s rule. They also serve a revelatory function, namely, to show the supremacy of God and his co-regent. Second, Luke points to Jesus’ resurrection as part of God’s confirmation. The idea of resurrection in the Jewish writings carries the idea of restoration of Israel (e.g., Hos 6:1–3; Ezek 37:1–14), their return from exile (e.g., Isa 26:19), and eschatological judgment (e.g., Dan 12:1–3; 2 Macc 7). Kevin L. Anderson summarizes the Jews’ hope of resurrection as “a hope that [Israel’s] wicked oppressors will be laid low and that he will once again be ‘raised up.’”154 Moreover, Peter’s quotation of Ps 110:1 (109:1, LXX) points to their expectation that as Jesus is exalted and his lordship acknowledged, they will experience victory over their enemies (cf. Acts 2:34–35). This victory is made possible through repentance and forgiveness. 4. The Harvest of Believers The use of harvest metaphor in relation to the proclamation of the kingdom of God is explicit in Luke 10:2 (cf. Matt 10:37–38; John 4:35), and implicit in the parable of the wicked vine-growers (Luke 20:9–16; cf. Mark 12:1– 11; Matt 21:33–40). The landlord sent his servants to get his share of the produce; the workers’ refusal to give the landlord his share of the harvest is tantamount to their refusal to acknowledge the owner’s lordship. The occasion of the Feast of Weeks in Acts 2 implicitly brings out this idea as 152 Thompson notes that the universal authority claimed by Rome is expressed in the list of nations brought under one ruler. The emphasis on Jesus’ exaltation as Lord and Christ with a subsequent claim on the unity of his people was Luke’s way of presenting the fallacy of Rome’s claim (One, 63–70). 153 Reid, “Spirit-Empowerment,” 44. 154 Kevin L. Anderson, ‘But God Raised Him from the Dead’: The Theology of Jesus’ Resurrection in Luke Acts (London: Paternoster, 2006), 90.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

239

well; just as the offerings presented during this feast are in recognition that God is the Lord of the land who drove out the “enemies,” namely, the Canaanites, to give the land to Israel (Exod 34:22–24), Pentecost is a reminder that God is the Lord of the land who is able to drive out their new “enemies,” namely, the Romans (cf. Acts 2:35). For the ancient Jews, unfaithfulness to the covenant results in the loss of land, whether through exile or foreign domination. Repentance and forgiveness are necessary for their restoration (2:36–39). Earlier empires, including Rome, attempted to unite, perhaps more accurately subjugate, other nations under one ruler.155 The giving of the Spirit subsequent to Jesus’ exaltation (2:38) and the unity that results from this (2:42–47) underscore the universal lordship of Jesus (2:33–36).156 5. Summary Jesus’ commission in Acts 1:8 includes the proclamation of God’s reign to different geographical areas and to various ethnic groups. This is first accomplished among the Jews. The choice of Matthias recalls the initial appointment of the original Twelve and their mission to proclaim the kingdom of God (Luke 6:15–16; 9:1–2). His replacement of Judas serves as a precursor to the first record of the ministry of the Twelve, led by Peter (Acts 2:14, 37), as they continued the work of Jesus. Pentecost recalls not only Israel’s liberation from Egypt, but also their imminent occupation of God’s land under God’s rule (Exod 34:11–17).The confusion caused by the Galileans speaking in foreign languages (Acts 2:6–7) recalls the story of Babel (confusion) and human attempts to establish kingdoms independent from God. The use of diverse languages tramples the ideology of unity based on common means of communication. The giving of the Spirit provides the basis for true unity, namely, being part of a community that acknowledges the universal lordship of Jesus.

155 E.g., Plutarch, Alex. 45.1–3; 47.3; Them. 27.2–3; Dio Chrysostom, 3 Reg. 3.67; 4 Reg. 4.49; Polybius 39.8.7; Seneca, Lucil. 94.63; 3 Macc 6:5. Cf. Keener, “Tongues,” 182; Thompson, One, 19–38. 156 Peter stresses that the promise of forgiveness is not only for the “men of Israel” he was addressing but even for their children and “those who are far off” (Acts 2:39). Whether “those who are far off” refers to the Diaspora Jews (e.g., Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998],153–54), the Gentiles (e.g., Huub van de Sandt, “The Fate of the Gentiles in Joel and Acts 2: An Intertextual Study,” ETL 66, no. 1 [1990]: 73), the future generations, or all of the above, Peter’s remark implies the universal lordship of Jesus.

240

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

Samaria (and the Coastal Regions): Samaritans and Gentiles Luke illustrates his idea of God’s universal rule through accounts of gentile conversions (Acts 13:46–48; 14:1; 15:3, 7, 14–21; 18:16; 21:19; 22:21; 26:17, 20). Prior to these accounts, he records the conversions of the Samaritans and the Ethiopian, important breakthroughs in fulfillment of the disciples’ mission to witness to the “end of the world” (1:8). Proclamation was no longer confined in the land of Judea or to the Jews. 1. The Samaritans in Samaria Luke recalls the persecution in Jerusalem that resulted in the dispersion of many believers who became evangelists. One particular account that Luke chose to record is that of Philip, whose work among the Samaritans inevitably recalls Jesus’ commission, which specifies the region of Samaria (1:8). Luke mentions that Philip ministered in (the) city of Samaria (8:5), perhaps to illustrate that Jesus’ commission to have witnesses in the whole region was being fulfilled through the presence of his witnesses in one of its cities (cf. language in Luke 5:12). The exact location to which Luke refers may be difficult to ascertain,157 and perhaps it is unnecessary. What is more important is that the good news, through the work of Philip, was moving beyond Jerusalem and reaching non-Jews.158 Philip’s work focuses on proclaiming Jesus (Acts 8:5), and the miracles he performed (8:7) point back to Jesus’ own work among the lame (e.g., Luke 7:22), the paralyzed (e.g., 5:17–26), and those with unclean spirits (e.g., 4:33–37; 6:17–19; 8:29; 9:42). Such works accompanied his preaching of the kingdom of God (4:40–43).159 The same can be said of Philip’s work (cf. Acts 8:12). Luke highlights the power struggle between God and, 157

Acts 8:5 specifies that Philip went to “[the] city of Samaria” ([τὴν] πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας). External evidences favors the anarthrous reading (cf. Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [London: United Bible Society, 1971], 355–56). The problem is that the ancient city of Samaria no longer exists in Luke’s day (cf. Samkutty, Samaritan, 88). Hence, there are proposals that “the city of Samaria” refers to the Hellenistic city of Sebaste (e.g., Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts [London: SCM, 1987], 147), Shechem (e.g., Haenchen, Acts, 307), or Gitta (e.g., C. S. C. Williams, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles [BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1957], 115). 158 Cf. Spencer, Portrait, 53. The same can be said with regard to how Samaritans should be classified, whether Jews (e.g., Jervell, People, 113–27; Böhm, Samarien, 309– 11) or Gentiles (e.g., John Bowman, The Samaritan Problem: Studies in the Relationship of Samaritans, Judaism, and Early Christianity [PTMS 4; Pittsburg: Pickwick, 1975], 69–70). Even if one considers them “Israelites,” they are still, to some degree, “outsiders.” 159 Salmeier notes the inseparability of healing and proclamation (cf. Luke 4:31–41; 8:1, 10–18). He concludes, “healings illustrate the contents of this kingdom proclamation before Jesus explains the kingdom” (Restoring, 81).

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

241

presumably, Satan through the account involving Simon Magus (8:9–13). Although there is no explicit reference to demonic activities in this episode, the comparable account involving Elymas, 160 whom Paul called “son of the devil” (13:10), and who was involved with magic (cf. 19:11–20), suggests this. The positive response of the Samaritans to Philip’s message concerning the kingdom of God (8:12), and even Simon’s “conversion” (8:13), attest to Philip’s “victory,”161 and by implication God’s, in this struggle. Like the Twelve (2:4) and other Jewish believers (2:38), the Samaritans also received the Holy Spirit; this occurred only after Peter and John went to Samaria and laid hands on them (8:14–17), however. This need not be interpreted as evidence that only the Jerusalem apostles can confer the Spirit,162 neither is it necessary to consider Philip’s ministry as inferior.163 There is nothing in the story that suggests that the faith of the Samaritans was inadequate,164 neither is there anything that requires a distinction between the reception of the Spirit and the activation of spiritual gifts.165 The continuity between the missions in Jerusalem and Samaria is made difficult because of the rift between the Jews and Samaritans; an intervention is needed.166 Johnson reasons that Luke is interested to show that the mission

160

Both Simon and Elymas are presented as counterfeits who were only nominally associated with the apostle Peter (Simon) and Jesus (Bar-Jesus); Elymas and Simon are called Bar-Jesus (Acts 13:6) “Great Power of God” (8:10), respectively. Both were very influential; Simon had influence over the Samaritans until Philip came (8:19) and Elymas over Sergius Paulus until Paul came (13:6–7). Both are magicians (8:9; 13:8) who received judgments for their deceit (8:20–23; 13:9–12). Aside from murder (Num 35:33–34) and immorality (Lev 18:24–30), spiritism was also a cause of a “defiled land” (19:26, 31); hence the severity of the punishment (20:6, 27) and the stern command was given to the Israelites so that “when [they] enter the land,” they should not do as the dispossessed nations do (Deut 18:9–14). 161 Spencer, Portrait, 94–95. 162 Contra W. Dietrich, Petrusbild der lukanischen Schriften (BWANT 14; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972), 249–50; Fitzmyer, Acts, 400. The Spirit can be given through an intermediary (e.g., Ananias [Acts 9:17–19a], Paul [19:6–7]) or even without one (e.g., 2:38). Peter’s role as Jesus’ successor, nonetheless, is underscored in this account (see discussion in ch. 7). 163 Tannehill describes the Samaritan mission as a “cooperative mission” so that Philip’s mission is “incomplete” without, not “inferior” in comparison to, the apostles’ work (Narrative Unity, 2:102–104). 164 Contra James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Holy Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (London: SCM, 1970), 65. 165 Contra George R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Exeter: Paternoster, 1962), 118–19. 166 For a detailed discussion on the relationship between the Jews and Samaritans during the Second Temple through the NT era, see Samkutty, Samaritan, 57–98.

242

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

to Samaria was validated by the apostles.167 The church’s potential for early schism is already seen in the conflict between the “Hebrews” and “Hellenists” (6:1). The long history of antagonism between the Jews and Samaritans would have divided the church even before they acknowledged each other as belonging to the same community. The unity between the Jews and the Samaritans further attests that Jesus is the real peace maker under whose lordship conflicting communities can be one. 2. The Eunuch from Ethiopia Philip’s mission to Samaria opened the way not only for the Samaritan believers to be incorporated with the Jerusalem community, but also for the apostles’ mission in Samaria (8:25b). Philip followed the Lord’s instruction to go to the desert road connecting Jerusalem and Gaza (8:26). Luke recounts Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading Isaiah on his way to Jerusalem (8:27–35). The instruction from the angel of the Lord (8:26) and the Spirit’s seizing of Philip (8:39) point to God’s supernatural guidance over Philip’s work. As I have discussed in chs. 2–4, in both Greco-Roman and Jewish writings, divine instructions and interventions are not only means by which the gods enlist humans to participate in their plans, but also means by which the gods assert their authority. In recounting Philip’s meeting with the Ethiopian eunuch, Luke provides important information about the latter. First, the recipient of God’s message was an Ethiopian. Gay L. Byron observes that, in ancient GrecoRoman and early Christian writings, “Ethiopia/Ethiopians,” alongside “Egypt/Egyptians” and “black/blackness,” is to be considered ethnopolitical rhetoric; such terms are “forms of political invective and cultural signifiers that address the problems of sinful beliefs and practices, sexual temptations and bodily passions, and heretical movements within Christianity.” 168 She suggests that the “Ethiopian,” as someone belonging to a remote people group, “symbolized the moral and political extremes to which Christianity could extend.”169 167 Johnson, Acts, 148. He also notes that this continuity is twofold: (1) Philip’s continuation of Jesus’ proclamation and miracles, and (2) the Samaritans’ link to Jerusalem through the validation of the apostles (151). Cf. Marshall, Acts, 157. 168 Gay L. Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature (London: Routledge, 2002), 126. Clarice J. Martin criticizes the neglect of the Ethiopian’s ethnographic identity and geographical provenance in Lukan studies (“A Chamberlain’s Journey and the Challenge of Interpretation for Liberation,” Semeia 47 [1989]: 105–35). 169 Byron, Blackness, 11. Ethiopia is one of the places considered extremely remote in the ancient writings (e.g., Strabo, Geogr. 1.2.27–28; 2.2.2). This led some to conclude that Ethiopia is the “end of the earth” to which Acts 1:8 refers (e.g., Thornton, “End,” 35;

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

243

Spencer summarizes the biblical portrait of Ethiopia: The biblical tradition portrays Ethiopia as a remote and distant land (Ezek. 29.10; Esth. 1.1; 8.9; cf. Jdt. 1.10) renowned for its wealth (Job 28.19; Isa 45.14), military prowess (2 Kgs 19.9; 2 Chron. 14.9–13; Isa. 37.9; Jer. 46.9) and dark-complexioned people (Jer. 13.23). The prophets repeatedly class Ethiopia with the other wicked nations of the world, such as Egypt and Sheba, who have opposed God’s people and merited his judgment (Isa. 20.3–5; 43.3; Ezek. 30.1–9; Nah. 3.9; Zeph. 2.11–12). However, a more positive note is also sounded, in that Ethiopians are reckoned among those foreign peoples destined to be converted and acknowledge the true God of Israel.170

The Psalter anticipates a time when Ethiopia would “quickly stretch out her hands to God” (Ps 68:31 [67:31, LXX]). Likewise, Ethiopia (alongside Rahab, Babylon, Philistia, and Tyre) is mentioned as a nation who will know the Lord (Ps 87:4 [86:4, LXX]). Second, the Ethiopian was a eunuch, a reference to his socio-religious background. Eunuchs might be expected to have a high social standing.171 A typical eunuch’s work as servant of kings and queens (cf. Esth 1:10, 12, 15; 2:3, 14, 15; 4:4–5; 6:2, 16; 7:9; Josephus, Ant. 8.15.4 §§ 403–404; 9.6.4 §122; 10.2.2 §190; 11.6.1 §191; 11.6.2 §§200–201; 11.6.7 §§223–24, 227–28; 11.6.10 §249; 11.6.11 §§257, 259–60; 15.7.4 §226; 16.8.1 §§23– 31; J.W. 1.24.7 §488) allowed him to constantly rub elbows with the rich and powerful.172 For the Ethiopian eunuch to own a copy of Isaiah’s work during a time when production of such was very expensive says much about his social status. Matthew mentions three kinds of eunuch (19:12): (1) eunuchs by birth (cf. b. Yebam. 20b; 75a; 79b; 81a), (2) man-made eunuchs (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.8.40 §290; 10.2.2 §33; 10.9.5 §186; b. Yebam. 79b), and (3) eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God. Luke does not categorize the Ethiopian according to Matthew’s taxonomy, but Luke’s reference to the Ethiopian’s castration recalls Yahweh’s earlier injunction against emasculated men joining a worship assembly (cf. Deut 23:1).173 In cf. David M. Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003], 25). 170 Spencer, Portrait, 149. In the OT, Ethiopia was the enemy of Judea during the reign of Asa (2 Chr 14:9–15). 171 Spencer, Portrait, 158–60. In another work, Spencer points out the “master status” of the eunuch (“The Ethiopian Eunuch and His Bible: A Social Science Analysis,” BTB 22, no. 4 [1992]: 155–56). Cf. Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Conflict in LukeActs: Labelling and Deviance Theory,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (ed. Jerome H. Neyrey; Peabody, Mass.: Hendricken, 1991), 101. 172 Cf. Abraham Smith, “‘Do You Understand What You are Reading?’: A Literary Critical Reading of the Ethiopian (Kushite) Episode (Acts 8:26–40),” JITC 22, no. 1 (1994): 67; Spencer, “Ethiopian,” 155. 173 The prophet Isaiah could be referring to this prohibition when he announced the LORD’S declaration: “Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the L ORD say, ‘The LORD will surely separate me from His people.’ Nor let the eunuch say, ‘Behold, I am a

244

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

short, the Ethiopian’s identity as a eunuch suggests that he was rich and emasculated. This results in his paradoxical stature; his social standing made him respectable, while his physical condition made him despicable (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.8.40 §290).174 Third, the Ethiopian eunuch was a court official of Candace. “Candace” is derived from its Meroitic equivalent which means “great woman” and is used as a title for the Nubian regnants of Meroë. 175 Pliny the Elder recounts how the island of Meroë was ruled by the Candaces and how, during the period of Ethiopian dominion, the land enjoyed great renown (Nat. 6.35). Fluehr-Lobban notes that in addition to African legends, there were also historical accounts of “women who founded cities, led migrations, and conquered kingdoms.” 176 Both Strabo (Geogr. 17.1.54) and Pliny (Nat. 6.35) recount the war between the Romans (led by Petronius) and the Ethiopians (led by the generals of an unnamed Candace). Although the Nubian princes were forced to retreat to Meroë, either to consolidate an old kingdom or establish a new one, the Romans were not able to subjugate them totally. The Ethiopians during the first century, as E. A. Wallis Budge points out, “ruled their country without the interference from the Romans.”177 Although the Romans had plans to gain control of Meroë, these never came to fruition (cf. Seneca, Nat. 6.8.3; Tacitus, Ann. 15; Cassius Dio 68.8.1). Hence, Byron suggests, Ethiopia can be considered a political threat to Rome,178 although not an ally of the Jews. Fourth, the Ethiopian eunuch was a worshipper of the God of Israel. Luke does not specify whether the eunuch was a proselyte or a God-fearer. On several occasions, the religious status of a person is made clear (e.g., proselytes [Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43], God-fearer [10:2, 22]), although some

dry tree.’ For thus says the LORD, ‘To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, and choose what pleases me, and hold fast my covenant, to them I will give in my house and within my walls a memorial, and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off’” (Isa 56:3–5). 174 His physical defect can also be considered a form of “uncleanness” (cf. Lev 21:17– 23; 22:18–25). Bruce Malina classifies eunuchs alongside social outcasts in Jewish society (The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology [3rd ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 174–75). 175 Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, “Nubian Queens in the Nile Valley and Afro-Asiatic Cultural History” (paper presented at the Ninth International Conference for Nubian Studies, Boston, Mass., 20–26 August 1998), 1. 176 For examples, see Fluehr-Lobban, “Nubian Queens,” 1. 177 E. A. Wallis Budge, Cook’s Handbook for Egypt and Sudan (London: Cook & Son, 1906), 737; F. F. Bruce, “Philip and the Ethiopian,” JSS 34, no. 2 (1989): 380. Interestingly, the Egyptian name for the region south of Egypt is Cush (cf. Goldenberg, Curse of Ham, 17), which was named after the father of Nimrod (Gen 10:8; 1 Chr 1:10). 178 Byron, Blackness, 111.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

245

God-fearers were not labeled as such (e.g., Luke 7:5; Acts 14:1; 18:4).179 An accurate designation of the religious status of the eunuch seems less important; perhaps this is the reason for Luke’s silence about this. Whether the eunuch was a proselyte or a God-fearer, he remained, to some degree, a “religious outsider” according to the standards of the Jewish religion. Finally, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading the prophecy of Isaiah. This attests to his devotion to the God of Israel. His devotion is further attested in his willingness to travel a great distance and to invest in a copy of the prophet’s writing. Philip assumes the role of an interpreter of the Scriptures who explained to the eunuch the meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy (Acts 8:30–35). It should be noted that Isaiah not only prophesied the suffering of God’s servant (cf. Isa 53:7b–8),180 but also the redemption that results from it (53:11).181 The prophet also foresees the restoration of God’s people (54:7–8), their resettlement in desolated cities (54:3), and the recognition of the God of Israel in all the earth (54:5).182 The eunuch not only responded to the invitation to be baptized, he also acknowledged that Jesus is the Son of God (Acts 8:37).183 The information Luke provides underscores the “otherness” of the Ethiopian: ethnic (Ethiopian), social (eunuch), political (affiliated with Candace), and religious (worship of the God of Israel as an “outsider”). His “otherness” posited no hindrance to acknowledging Jesus as Son of God. There is no record in Acts of a south bound missionary movement; nonetheless, the eunuch’s return to the southern “end of the earth” suggests that 179

Cf. Spencer, Portrait, 160–65. It should be noted that there is more to the quotation of Isa 53:7–8 than just an apologetic purpose to show that Jesus is the suffering servant (cf. Kenneth Litwak, “The Use of Quotations from Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the New Testament,” JETS 26, no. 4 [1983]: 392; F. F. Bruce, “Philip,” 382–83). Often ignored is the theme of God’s universal reign (cf. Isa 54:5). R. J. Porter aptly notes that Luke’s statement, “beginning with this Scripture” (Acts 8:35), suggests that Philip’s exposition was not limited to this passage (“What did Philip Say to the Eunuch?” ExpT 100, no. 2 [1988]: 54). 181 Spencer observes how Luke underscores the extent of the eunuch’s redemption by pointing to the sufferings of God’s servant (“Ethiopian,” 157–58). Both the physical (emasculation) and the social (unclean, outcast) stature of the eunuch are shared by the Suffering Servant who was bruised (physical) and shamed (social). 182 The Greek version of Isa 54:5b reads: καὶ ὁ ῥυσάμενός σε αὐτὸς θεὸς Ισραηλ πάσῃ τῇ γῇ κληθήσεται, which could be translated “And the one who redeems you, he will be called the God of Israel in all the earth.” Cf. NASB: “And your redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, who is called the God of all the earth.” 183 As was repeatedly shown earlier in this chapter, Jesus’ status as Son of God is best understood as a reference to him as heir and rightful possessor of God’s land. As “Lord of heaven and earth” (Luke 10:21; Acts 17:24), Israel’s God is the true owner of all the territories both within and outside the Roman Empire including Ethiopia. For the eunuch to acknowledge Jesus as Son of God was to recognize Jesus’ claim over their land and the sole sovereignty of the God of Israel. 180

246

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

the message of God’s kingdom extends even to the remote regions of the earth and that Jesus is acknowledged as Son of God, legitimate heir of God’s land, even beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire. In other words, even the one who need not acknowledge Caesar as king confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, the real king. 3. Mission to the Coastal Regions Luke mentions Philip’s miraculous transport to Azotus. Azotus (or Ashdod) used to be a territory of the Anakim (Josh 11:22). It was apportioned to Judah (15:46–47; cf. Josephus, Ant. 5.1.22 §87), but became a stronghold of the Philistines (1 Sam 5:1–7; 6:7; 2 Chr 26:6; Jer 25:20; Amos 1:8; 3:9; Zeph 2:4; 9:6).184 The Persians under Sargon conquered the city (Isa 20:1), which was destroyed by Jonathan the Maccabee (1 Macc 10:84; 11:4), came under the rule of the Herodians;185 and later the Romans took control of it under Vespasian (Josephus, J.W. 4.3.2 §130). Philip preached in the surrounding cities until he reached Caesarea, also a stronghold of the emperor. 186 It seems unnecessary to conclude, as Hengel did, that Philip’s mission was to Hellenistic cities like Caesarea while Peter’s mission was confined to Jewish settlements like Joppa. 187 Nothing in Acts suggests some form of missionary “territories.” Philip served among the Jews (Acts 6:1–6), and Peter preached among the Samaritans (8:25) and Gentiles in Caesarea (10:1). Luke’s account of the centurion’s strengthened allegiance to the God of Israel in a land that is supposed to honor the emperor betrays his agenda to show God’s claim over Caesar’s territories. 4. Summary The geographical movement from the regions of Jerusalem (Acts 1–7) to the region of Samaria and other coastal provinces (Acts 8) serves as a turning point in Luke’s account so that proclamation of God’s reign is no longer confined to the Jewish capital and among the Jews. Philip’s mission in “[the] city of Samaria” (and Peter’s work in the other cities [8:25]) partial184 Although there are prophecies of destruction against the remnants of the Philistines, the OT mentions Philistia together with Ethiopia as those who would “know the LORD” Ps 87:4 (86:4, LXX). 185 Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 113. 186 The city was built by Antipater in honor of Augustus; it contained important symbols of Roman’s authority, including building connected with the imperial cult (David W. J. Gill, “Acts and Roman Policy in Judaea,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting [ed. Richard Bauckham; A1CS 4; Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1995], 23; Marshall, Patrons, 106–109). 187 Contra Bruce, “Philip,” 385.

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

247

ly fulfills Jesus’ commission. The hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans necessitates the delay of the coming of the Holy Spirit, who was given to the Samaritans only after the apostles laid hands on them (8:14– 17). This account underscores the unity that was brought about by Jesus through the Spirit,188 thus portraying Jesus as the ideal king who was able to bring about unity of his people. The account concerning the Ethiopian eunuch takes a different spin as it points to the “otherness” of the eunuch in various areas: ethnic, social, political, and religious. His “otherness” was not a hindrance to his acknowledgment of Jesus as the Son of God. Philip’s ministry in Caesarea and the Ethiopian’s return to his land with the confession that Jesus is Son of God suggest that God reigns supreme within and beyond Roman imperial boundaries. End of the Earth: Rome and the Gentiles Paul’s proclamation that Jesus is Son of God began immediately after the Damascus road experience (9:20). The universal sovereignty of God is clearly stated in Paul’s message to the Athenians: “The God who made the world and all things in it…is Lord of heaven and earth” (17:24). The kingdom of God was also proclaimed in the remainder of Luke’s account of Paul’s ministry (14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). In this last section, I shall focus on Paul’s visit to Rome. 1. Rome as the “End of the Earth” The geographical element in Luke’s use of the phrase “end of the earth” in Acts 1:8 is significant. As mentioned above, this phrase has been construed as a reference to Ethiopia, Spain, Palestine, and Rome. Ellis critiqued Thornton’s suggestion that the “end of the earth” refers to Ethiopia based on four grounds:189 (1) the eunuch, who is the “evangelist” to Ethiopia, is not a major character in Acts; (2) the episode concerning the eunuch is placed within the narrative of Christian mission to “Judea and Samaria”; (3) Luke did not develop the story of Christian mission to the south; and (4) Luke’s focus is the westward movement of Christianity. 190 Ellis’ suggestion that the “end of the earth” is a reference to Spain based on Strabo (Geogr. 3.1.8) and Diodorus (25.10.1) is not more convincing. Although this may possibly find support in Luke’s relationship with Paul and his

188

Cf. Thompson, One, 70, 75. Ellis, “End,” 128; Thornton, “End,” 374–75. 190 Cf. Bertram L. Melbourne, “Acts 1:8 Re-examined: Is Acts 8 Its Fulfillment?” JRT 57, no. 2 (2001): 3. 189

248

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

knowledge of the latter’s plan to go to Spain,191 this view ignores both the literary development of Acts that concludes with Paul’s arrival at Rome. Schwartz’s proposal that the “end of the earth” refers to Palestine raises a number of questions. Although γῆ is sometimes used unambiguously as a reference to the land of Israel (e.g., Luke 4:25; 21:23; 23:44), his distinction between γῆ and οἰκουμένη is unnecessary. 192 This is because the word ‫ אֶ ֶרץ‬is sometimes translated γῆ in the LXX to refer to the inhabited world.193 Moreover, Acts 13:47 does not exclude the Jews,194 neither does it include only the Jews. Finally, one may ask why Luke includes the account of Paul’s mission outside the land of Israel if he is interested to show only the eleven’s mission within the Palestinian territories. Haenchen proposes that the “end of the earth” refers to Rome on the basis of Ps. Sol. 8:15 which points to Pompey’s coming to Jerusalem from the “end of the earth.”195 Contrary to van Unnik’s claim,196 Rome plays a significant function in Acts. Paul not only expresses interest in going to Rome (Acts 19:21), but also claims that this is part of his divine mandate (23:11). Van Unnik correctly observes that Paul did not bring the gospel to Rome. Paul, nonetheless, had a prolonged mission in the imperial capital (28:30–31). Paul’s ministry in a city where there is already a Christian presence does not diminish his work there.197 His arrival at Rome, as far as the narrative

191

Moore, “Universalism,” 391. Schwartz, “End,” 671. 193 Melbourne, “Acts 1:8,” 4 n. 19. 194 Schwartz, “End,” 672. 195 Haenchen, Acts, 144. Conzelmann seconded this proposal (Acts, 7). A number of later works, however, dispute his claim. Pervo suggests that Acts 1:8 should be understood as “salvation-historical” rather than geographical (Acts, 43; cf. “theopolitical” understanding of Pao, Isaianic, 93–94). Witherington suggests that the phrase points to the worldwide mission of the church (Acts, 111) and James D. G. Dunn claims that Paul’s arrival at Rome is nothing but a “significant step” in bringing the gospel to the end of the earth (The Acts of the Apostles: A Narrative Commentary [Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press, 1996], 11). Beverly Roberts Gaventa also suggests that the political importance of Rome should make it the “center,” and not the “edge” of the world (Acts [ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2003], 65; cf. Salmeier, Restoring, 116; Mittelstaedt, Lukas, 170). There are two problems with the view that the “end of the earth” could not refer to Rome. First, there seems to be no single reference in the Greco-Roman writings that refers explicitly to the imperial capital as the “center” of the world. Second, granting that Rome also claimed that it was the “center” of the earth, to say that Luke could not refer to Rome as the “end” implies that Luke agreed with this Roman propaganda; and to do so is to nullify all his efforts to present the supremacy of God over the ruling empire. It is more consistent to Luke’s aim of presenting the sole sovereignty of the God of Israel to show that the imperial capital was not actually the “center” but the “end” of the earth. 196 Van Unnik, “Confirmation,” 39–40. Cf. Barrett, Acts, 1:80. 197 Van Unnik, “Confirmation,” 39–40. 192

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

249

of Acts is concerned, concludes Luke’s account of the mission of God’s agents. 2. Mission to the Gentiles Rengstorf presents a narrow reading of the church’s mission that includes only the Jews.198 This view has been challenged by others.199 Paul defines his mission: “I have placed you as a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the end of the earth” (13:47; cf. Isa 49:6; see also Luke 2:32; Isa 42:6; 46:13). 200 The poetic parallelism of the statement in Isa 49:6 suggests that the servant’s task as “light” is to “bring salvation”; this salvation is to be brought to “end of the earth,” in which the beneficiaries of this mission are “the nations” (τό ἔθνος). 201 The “distance” between these nations and the Jews is not only spatial; but also socio-religious and ethno-cultural.202 Paul, however, did not exclude the Jews in his missionary work.203 This is seen particularly in his missionary custom, namely, to visit

198

Rengstorf, “Election,” 186–87. E.g., Stephen G. Wilson, The Gentile and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 23; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 91–92. Van de Sandt aptly points out that Luke’s allusion to OT passages (Acts 13:33b [cf. Ps 2:7b]; Acts 13:34b [cf. Isa 55:1–13]; Acts 13:41 [cf. Hab 1:1–11]; Acts 13:47 [cf. Isa 49:1–6]) underscores God’s intention to include the Gentiles (“Quotations in Acts 13,32–52,” 54). Cf. Meek, Gentile Mission, 53–55; Markus Öhler, “‘Licht für the Völker’: Jes 49,6 im lukanischen Doppelwerk,” WJT 8 [2010]: 43–53); Jordan Daniel May, “Is Luke a Reader-Response Critic? Luke’s Aesthetic Trajectory of Isaiah 49.6 in Acts 13.47,” in Trajectories in the Book of Acts (ed. Paul Alexander, Jordan Daniel May, and Robert Reid: Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 59–86. 200 Paul claims that their mission to the Gentiles was “commanded to us” (Acts 13:47, emphasis added); nonetheless, he preserves the singular “you” in his quotation of Isa 49:6. Pierre Grelot clarifies that Paul and Barnabas are not the “light”; based on Paul’s own claim (Acts 26:23), Christ is the “light” to the nation that Paul and Barnabas proclaimed (“Note Sur Actes XIII, 47,” RB 88 [1981]: 371). Although there is no question that Jesus is the content of the proclamation of both Jesus and his messengers, Grelot misses the focus of Isaiah’s prophecy, namely, the role of the messenger, not the content of the message. In Isaiah, Israel is the light that aids the vision of the “blind” (cf. 42:6b– 7). This is a collective effort that is being fulfilled through Jesus and his followers. 201 This parallelism stresses the “remoteness” of the Gentiles from Israel: I have placed you as a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth. 202 On the relationship between spatial and social boundaries, see Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts: ‘They Turn the World Upside Down,’” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (ed. Jerome H. Neyrey; Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1991), 271–304. 203 Paul’s description of his mission, wherein he placed a people group alongside geographical names (Acts 26:20), points to the inseparability of land and its people. 199

250

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

synagogues and preach to the Jews upon his arrival at a city (Acts 17:3; cf. 13:14; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8). Paul’s arrival at Rome is unique compared to his arrival at other cities during his “missionary journeys” (13:4–26:32). He arrived as a Roman prisoner; consequently, he is not free to visit Jewish synagogues. Nonetheless, the Romans exercised some laxity towards Paul. This may reflect the Romans’ assessment of Paul as a prisoner. Rapske suggests that the Romans did not consider Paul’s case to be high profile; they also saw no grounds for granting Paul’s request to have a hearing before Caesar.204 Unlike the other accounts of Paul’s missionary travels wherein he visited Jewish communities, we see the opposite in Rome wherein representatives of the Jewish community came to visit him (28:17). Haenchen raises a concern about the ignorance of the Jews in Rome who heard about Christianity only through hearsay. 205 Conrad Gempf correctly notes that the Jews’ interest in hearing more about Paul is consistent with other accounts involving people who showed interest in knowing more about Paul’s teaching (e.g., Athenians [17:19–20], Sergius Paulus [13:7], Jews of Psidian Antioch [13:15]).206 However, Gempf’s attempt to “de-emphasize” the element of evangelization in 28:17–31 seems unnecessary. 207 Paul’s invective (28:26–28) is in response to the Jews’ rejection of his evangelistic efforts. Moreover, Acts closes with an account of Paul’s continuing effort to evangelize while under Roman custody (28:30 –31). The similarity between the conclusions of the Third Gospel and Acts is suggestive that the latter was not ended abruptly. Worth noting is the exposition of “the Law of Moses and the Prophets [and the Psalms]” by Jesus and Paul (Luke 24:44; Acts 28:23).208 Jesus expounds the Scriptures while focusing on his death and resurrection, forgiveness of sins, and the mission 204

Rapske, Custody, 188. Haenchen, Acts, 728. Haenchen ignores earlier accounts of missions to the Gentiles (e.g., Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch [Acts 8:25–40], Peter to Cornelius [10:1–11:18]) when he suggests that through Paul’s ministry, the “road is finally open to the Gentiles” (729). Luke, nonetheless, portrays Paul as the major player in the mission to the Gentiles. 206 Conrad Gempf, “Luke’s Story of Paul’s Reception in Rome,” in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (ed. Peter Oakes; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 54. 207 Gempf observes the similar function of Acts 15:12 and 28:23–24 within their immediate context by suggesting that these indirect speeches de-emphasize a theme. In the same way that Luke de-emphasized Paul’s role by relating his words only through indirect discourse (15:12) while highlighting that of Peter (15:7–11) and James (15:13–21), the indirect discourse in 28:23–24 de-emphasize Paul’s evangelistic efforts (“Reception,” 46–49). 208 Charles B. Puskas explains this structural similarity as a means by which Luke presents Paul as one who “completes the work of Christ and fulfills his commands” (The Conclusion of Luke-Acts: The Significance of Acts 28:16–31 [Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2009], 88, 138). 205

Chapter 10: Luke-Acts

251

to nations that follows (Luke 24:46–47). Luke provides no detail regarding Paul’s exposition of the Scriptures except to say that only some Jews were persuaded. Nonetheless, Luke provides some hints. Paul claims that he was in chains because of the “hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). This may be the same hope to which Paul earlier referred (26:6–7), namely, Israel’s restoration, which requires an acknowledgement of God and his Christ, repentance, and receiving forgiveness. Some of the Jews were not persuaded by Paul’s message, and Paul quoted Isa 6:9–10 against them. 209 Israel was supposed to be the light to the nations (42:6–7), but they themselves were not able to see the redemption God was offering them, let alone the role they were to assume among the Gentiles (cf. Acts 28:28). 3. Summary Luke’s use of the phrase “end of the earth” is best seen as multivalent. It refers geographically, as well as socio-religiously, to a people who are “distant” from the Jews, namely, the Gentiles. The similarity between the endings of the Third Gospel and Acts suggests that the latter was not concluded abruptly. With the narrative concluding with Paul’s evangelistic efforts in a Roman prison, and Rome being the remotest area reached in the narrative, from a narrative standpoint, the geographical reference of the “end of the earth” in Acts 1:8 is plausibly Rome. In Acts 28, there are two references to the preaching of the kingdom of God, once to the Jews (28:23), and once to “all who came to Paul,” presumably both Jews and Gentiles (28:31). Although Paul desired to have Caesar as his audience, there is nothing in Luke’s account that indicates that Paul’s desire came to fruition. Nonetheless, Luke is still able to convey his message concerning God’s universal rule powerfully by showing that the message of God’s reign was proclaimed within the imperial capital unhindered (28:31).

Summary and Conclusion In the Third Gospel, God’s claim over all the territories under the emperor’s jurisdiction was made clear through the territories associated with earthly rulers (Luke 1:5; 2:1–2; 3:1–2). God’s rule over these territories would be realized through his Son, whose legitimacy as heir was stressed in several accounts (baptism, genealogy, temptation, Jesus claim as herald of “the year of the Lord’s favor,” and the parable of the wicked tenants). 209 On another occasion, God called his servant blind and deaf (Isa 42:19–20) resulting in punishment (42:23–25). Israel was supposed to be the light to the nations (42:6–7), but they themselves were not able to see God’s offer of salvation.

252

Part 4: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

Luke’s presentation of Jesus as the embodiment of the Law, a stark contrast with his presentation of the earthly rulers, makes it clear that Jesus is the only one who qualifies as God’s co-regent in God’s land. Moreover, these earthly rulers’ association with the demonic forces made them enemies of God. The theme of God’s sole sovereignty continues throughout Acts. Christ’s commission (Acts 1:8) includes geographical, ethnic, and sociocultural diversities. This mandate was first accomplished among the Jews in Jerusalem. Subsequent to Matthias’ appointment comes the Twelve’s public proclamation of God’s reign. Not only does the Pentecost recall God’s liberation of Israel from Egypt, the giving of the Spirit is reminiscent of humans’ early attempts to establish a kingdom independent from God. The giving of the Spirit becomes the mark of unity among the believers, a sign that they are under the lordship of Christ. This unity marker is emphasized in the delay of the giving of the Spirit in Acts 8. The same account also serves as a turning point in Acts so that the message of God’s reign is no longer exclusively proclaimed in Jerusalem, but also in Samaria. The account concerning the Ethiopian eunuch illustrates how the proclamation of the kingdom crossed ethnic, social, political, and religious lines, and highlights God’s supremacy beyond the Roman imperial territories. Finally, Acts 28:16–31 presents how the kingdom of God was proclaimed to both Jews and Gentiles in the “end of the earth.” Luke’s message of God’s lordship is further accentuated as the kingdom of God was proclaimed in Rome unhindered.

Summary and Conclusion to Part 4

Luke-Acts as a Jewish Ideological Writing In this section, I explored a number of features that both ancient GrecoRoman and Jewish historiographies share. First, both share the same basic purpose for writing historical narrative – a didactic purpose. Second, migrations and conquests were integral to both types of writings. Third, as lands were occupied, genealogies were used for two main purposes, to argue for the legitimacy of land occupation and to argue for the legitimacy of the reigning king. Divine bestowal of land and divine appointment of rulers were used to claim the legitimacy of land ownership and a king’s reign. Finally, the expectation of a pious king is present in both Greco-Roman and Jewish historical narratives. Like other ancient historical accounts, Luke-Acts was written with a didactic purpose (Luke 1:4). The geographical movement in Luke-Acts is perhaps the closest equivalent to accounts of migrations and conquests in other historical narratives. Other ancient histories account for the expansion of a ruler’s kingdom. The journeys in Luke-Acts are not accounts of the king’s gaining new territories, but the king’s agents going through different territories to announce the real king, namely, the God of Israel who reigns through his co-regent. As seen in the last two chapters, Luke’s idea of God’s sole and universal sovereignty is shared with ancient Jewish historians. A corollary of this idea is the conviction that the whole earth belongs to Yahweh. This is best expressed in the words, “the land is mine” (Lev 25:23) and “The earth (land) is the Lord’s” (Ps 24:1). Like many ancient historical accounts, the Third Gospel contains a list of genealogy. Greco-Roman and Jewish historical accounts evidently share the same purpose for including genealogies, that is, to legitimize land claims and reign of kings – a purpose which Luke apparently share. Luke’s interest in the issue of land and kingship is evident in the pericopae surrounding Jesus’ genealogy, where he is presented as the legitimate king to whom God promised the whole earth as inheritance (baptism) and the one whose faithfulness to God’s commands made him the rightful possessor of God’s land (temptation). The piety of Jesus is accentuated through a subtle comparison between Jesus and several Jewish and Roman rulers in Luke-Acts. Jesus is portrayed as the only one who met God’s requirements for those who would

254

Part IV: Land, Genealogies, and the Reign of the Gods

dwell in God’s land. Other rulers (with few exceptions) are typically portrayed as those who defile the land through their actions. Luke betrays his Jewish ideological stance through his presentation of the God of Israel as the “Lord of heaven and earth,” thus defying the emperor’s claim to sovereignty over “all the inhabited world.” Luke never endorsed active defiance against earthly authorities. Nonetheless, one thing is conspicuous in LukeActs – Rome may claim absolute rule over “all the inhabited world” and many Jewish leaders may acquiesce to this claim, but there is a greater authority above these usurpers. These rulers are in reality subject to the Righteous One who never brought defilement to God’s land, and to the one who has the rightful claim to rule over God’s kingdom. The geographical movement in Luke’s sequel highlights the migration of God’s agents, not to conquer new territories, but to announce their real king. The Spirit is given as a mark that unites the people of God. This movement began in Jerusalem among the Jews, and continued in Samaria and in the coastal regions of Palestine. The account concerning the Ethiopian eunuch’s conversion clearly points to God’s universal reign, which stretches even beyond the regions Rome subdued by force. The conclusion of Acts underscores Luke’s message of God’s territorial claim as God’s agent continues to proclaim the kingdom of God in Caesar’s stronghold.

Part 5

Summary and Conclusion In Part 1, it was observed that in the history of Lukan studies, an unnecessary wedge was placed between Luke’s theology and literature with the result that scholars can conveniently examine Luke’s theology in light of Jewish writings and the Lukan writings in comparison with Greco-Roman literature. This approach to the study of Luke-Acts has dominated much the field. After examining Luke-Acts in light of both Jewish and GrecoRoman writings in the areas of theology, literature, and ideology, we are now ready to draw our conclusions.

Chapter 11

Where Can We Go from Here? In this work, it was observed that Luke’s theology was typically examined in connection with Jewish writings and Luke’s literature in light of GrecoRoman works. The result of this practice was an unnecessary disjunction between Luke’s theology and literature. It was affirmed that Luke’s Doppelwerk exhibits many elements found in both Greco-Roman and Jewish works. Ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish historical narratives share many things in common. This is true whether we examine their theologies (Part 2), literature (Part 3), or ideology (Part 4). Despite many similarities, Jewish writings exhibit certain features not found in their Greco-Roman counterparts. These deviations place Luke-Acts on the side of Jewish historical narratives rather than on the side of their Greco-Roman counterparts.

Luke-Acts and Jewish Theological Histories In Part 2, it was demonstrated that ancient historical narratives are theological in nature. Whether one agrees with their theology is another thing, but one cannot discount the fact that divine and human activities were typically woven together in ancient historical narratives. The gods have a supreme role in the orchestration of historical events, they direct the course of history through various forms of revelation, and they rule through divinely appointed rulers. Hence, history and theology are inseparable. In this sense, ancient historical accounts can be considered theological histories, whether Jewish or Greco-Roman in origin. Divine orchestration of history demonstrates divine rule. This is true for both Greco-Roman and Jewish histories. The kingship of the gods/God is seen in the rise and fall of nations. Divine authority is asserted through revelations (oracles, theophanies, visions, dreams), rewards, and retributions. Greco-Roman writers present the gods as deified rulers, and by implication their involvement in human affairs suggests an extension of their reign. Jewish writers portray Yahweh as the divine ruler by virtue of being the creator. Some Greek historians demonstrated a reluctance to include the accounts involving the gods in their historical accounts. The acts of the gods

258

Part 5: Summary and Conclusion

were nonetheless woven together with human acts in their historical accounts. The same is true of other Greco-Roman historians, many of whom reluctantly name the gods who work behind history, calling them Fate or Fortune. The Jewish writers have no qualms identifying the God of Israel as the divine orchestrator of history and integrating his acts in their historical records. In this sense, their history is confessional in nature. Luke locates his accounts within the larger historical milieu. Like the GrecoRoman and Jewish historians, Luke has woven accounts of theopraxis into his narrative. Nonetheless, he clearly placed his accounts along the trajectory of the Jewish historians by showing that his accounts are a continuation of Yahweh’s work from the past.

Luke-Acts and Jewish Succession Narratives In Part 3, the literature of Luke-Acts was examined in light of GrecoRoman and Jewish writings with a particular focus on the relationship between literary parallels and succession narratives. Although the influence of Greco-Roman writings on the literature of Luke-Acts is affirmed, I have argued that Luke utilizes one particular feature found in the Jewish Scriptures to present succession from Jesus to Peter and Paul, namely, literary parallels. The term “parallel” has been used in a variety of ways. In Greco-Roman works, for instance, it may refer to a collection of independent biographies (e.g., Diogenes Laertius, Suetonius, Cornelius Nepos, and Plutarch). The purpose for using this type of “parallel” is σύγκρισις, that is, to compare two or more individuals. It is also used to evaluate a person based on a preset standard. Another form of “parallel” can be found in the accounts of MosesJoshua and Elijah-Elisha in the Jewish Scriptures. I have argued that the use of parallels in these narratives is to present the succession of MosesJoshua and Elijah-Elisha. Even among the Jewish writers, succession is not always presented through the use of literary parallels. In the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha narratives, the successors were presented as those who replicate and continue the tasks of their predecessors. These narratives contain episodes concerning the successors that clearly draw the attention of readers to the similarities between the predecessors and the successors. Occasionally, even the minutest and seemingly insignificant details are similar. The purpose of these is to show that the successors were continuing or even completing the work of their predecessors. The structure of the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha narratives provides the literary precedent for the structure of Luke-Acts: acts of the predeces-

Chapter 11: Where Can We Go from Here?

259

sor – “ascension” of the predecessor – acts of the successor(s). The account of Jesus’ ascension serves as a pivot to transition from a record of Jesus’ works (Luke) to his successors’ works (Acts). Like the succession narratives of Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha, Luke-Acts contains JesusPeter and Jesus-Paul parallels in order to present them as Jesus’ successors who replicate and continue God’s work after Jesus’ ascension.

Luke-Acts and Jewish Ideological Writings In Part 4, it was shown that some Greco-Roman writers are clear about their intentions in writing history. Some of them were written to complement, correct, or continue earlier historical accounts; some were written with a didactic purpose. Jewish histories were written with teaching purposes as well; and so is Luke-Acts. Greco-Roman writers consider accounts of migrations and conquests as significant events worthy to be recorded. Hence much was written about wars and nations’ quests for new land, and reign of kings. Greco-Roman writers used a number of ways to legitimize land claims and reign of kings, and the use of genealogies is one of them. These claims are legitimized through assertions of divine bestowal of lands and divine appointment of kings who were expected to exhibit piety. Accounts of migrations and conquests are also found in Jewish histories, and these accounts are considered significant insofar as they relate to Yahweh’s universal control. Genealogies are also used in Jewish writings, not only to show tribal kinships, but also to legitimize land claims and reigns of kings. For the Jewish writers, the God of Israel is the “real landowner” who owns all the earth (Exod 19:5; Lev 25:23), and he alone has the authority to give the portions of his land to whomever he wishes. Yahweh’s promise to bequeath the land of Israel to his people is used as a basis for Israel’s land claims and his promise to David is used to legitimize the rule of David’s descendants, who were expected to show piety. The idea that God is the “real landowner” is also seen in Luke-Acts. Luke associated certain territories with earthly rulers through the use of historical markers and God’s claim over these territories is spelled out in Luke 1:5; 2:1–2; 3:1–2. The legitimacy of Jesus as God’s heir is stressed through Luke’s account of his baptism, genealogy, and temptation. In continuity with God’s promises to David, Jesus is presented as the pious Davidic king. In comparison with the other rulers in Luke-Acts, Jesus is presented as the embodiment of the Law, hence the ideal ruler who could reign alongside God. In Acts, the message of God’s kingship and Jesus’ co-regency is proclaimed throughout the earth. His divine sonship is

260

Part 5: Summary and Conclusion

acknowledged even by those who live beyond boundaries of the Roman Empire. Acts also accounts for the “migrations” of God’s agents, not to take new territories through military might, but to announce the real landowner and king.

Where Can We Go from Here? I began this work with a simple observation about the general direction of Lukan scholarship, namely, that Luke’s theology is commonly examined in light of Jewish writings while Luke’s literature is typically explored in connection with Greco-Roman works. There seems to be an unspoken agreement among Lukan scholars that this is the direction to take, even though the explanation for such practice is elusive. This disjunction means that there remains a huge unexplored ground in the Lukan scholarship. In this work, I have demonstrated that ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish historical narratives share a number of theological, literary, and ideological elements. There are features, however, that distinguished Jewish histories from their Greco-Roman counterparts. Where discrepancies can be observed, Luke-Acts exhibits greater affinities with earlier Jewish writings. I have explored Luke’s concept of divine involvement in history in relation with the ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish understanding of divine rule. Moreover, I have looked into the Third Evangelist’s ideological stance concerning the divine kingship over the Roman territories and beyond. I have also examined one type of literary feature in light of Jewish writings, namely, the use of parallels to present succession and the importance for Jesus to have successors who would continue the proclamation of God’s reign. What this suggests is that although Luke’s theology, literature, and ideology can be examined independently, these three aspects of Luke’s work need not be studied as if they are mutually exclusive, and more works are necessary to understand Luke-Acts in light of its Jewish background within the larger Hellenistic milieu.

Bibliography Achtemeier, Paul J. “The Lucan Perspective on the Miracles of Jesus: A Preliminary Sketch.” Pages 153–66 in Perspective on Luke-Acts. Ed. Charles H. Talbert. Perspectives in Religious Studies 5. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978. Adams, Sean. Review of Patricia Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence. European Journal of Theology 20, no. 1 (2011): 81– 82. Alden, M. J. “Genealogy as Paradigm: The Example of Bellerophon.” Hermes 124, no. 3 (1996): 257–63. Aletti, Jean-Noël. Quand Luc Raconte: Le Récit Comme Théologie. Lire La Bible 115. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2012. Alexander, Loveday. “Acts and Ancient Intellectual Biography.” Pages 31–53 in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. –. Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles. Library of New Testament Studies 298. London: T. & T. Clark, 2005. –. “Marathon or Jericho? Reading Acts in Dialogue with Biblical and Greek Historiography.” Pages 92–125 in Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies. Ed. D. J. A. Clines and S. D. Moore. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 269. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. –. “The Acts of the Apostles as an Apologetic Text.” Pages 15–44 in Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Ed. Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman, and Simon Price. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Alexander, Philip S. “Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish).” Pages 977–88 in vol. 2 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Allen, O. Wesley, Jr. The Death of Herod: The Narrative and Theological Function of Retribution in Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 158. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Anderson, Andrew Runni. “Heracles and His Successors: A Study of a Heroic Ideal and the Recurrence of the Heroic Type.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 39 (1928): 7–58. Anderson, Kevin L. ‘But God Raised Him from the Dead’: The Theology of Jesus’ Resurrection in Luke Acts. London: Paternoster, 2006. Applebaum, S. “Economic Life in Palestine.” Pages 631–700 in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section 1, Volume 2. Ed. Shemuel Safrai and Menahem Stern. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976.

262

Bibliography

Andriolo, Karin. “A Structural Analysis of Genealogy and Worldview in the Old Testament.” American Anthropologist 75 (1973): 1657–69. Arrian. Anabasis of Alexander. Translated by P. A. Brunt. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976–83. Ashley, Evelyn. “The Miracles of Jesus.” Pages 395–416 in The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition. Ed. Mark Harding and Alanna Hobbs. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Assis, Elie. “From Adam to Esau to Israel: An Anti-Edomite Ideology in 1 Chronicles 1.” Vetus Testamentum 56, no. 3 (2006): 287–302. Attridge, Harold W. “Historiography.” Pages 157–84 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Ed. Michael E. Stone. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity 8. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. Aus, Roger David. Feeding of the Five Thousand. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2010. Austin, M. M. “Hellenistic Kings, War, and the Economy.” Classical Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1986): 450–66. Baban, Octavian. On the Road Encounters in Luke-Acts: Hellenistic Mimesis and Luke’s Theology of the Way. Paternoster Biblical Monograph.Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2006. Balch, David. “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political History?” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1990): 5–19. –. “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ.” Pages 139–88 in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse. Ed. Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 20. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Barrett, C. K. Acts. International Critical Commentary. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994–98. –. Luke the Historian in Recent Study. London: Epworth, 1961. –. “Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit.” New Testament Studies 28, no. 3 (1982): 303– 20. Bauckham, Richard. The Jewish World around the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. –. “Peter, James and the Gentiles.” Pages 91–142 in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity. Eds. Bruce Chilton and Craig Evans. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 115. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Baur, F. C. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003. Bauspieß, Martin. Geschichte und Erkenntnis im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu einer christlichen Perspektive auf Geschichte. Arbeiten zur Bibel und Ihrer Geschichte 42. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Beasley-Murray, George R. Baptism in the New Testament. Exeter: Paternoster, 1962. Beck, Norman A. Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Symbolic Messages of Hope and Liberation. Westminster College Library of Biblical Symbolism 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1997. Begg, Christopher T. “The Ai-Achan Story [Joshua 7–8] According to Josephus.” Jian Dao 16 (2001): 1–20. Ben-Barak, Zafrira. Inheritance by Daughters in Israel and Ancient Near East: A Social, Legal and Ideological Revolution. Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications, 2006. Ben Zvi, Ehud. History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles. London: Equinox, 2006.

Bibliography

263

Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Bieberstein, Sabine and Klaus Bieberstein. “Angesichts des Todes das Leben formulieren: Abschiedsworte Sterbender in der biblischen Literatur.” Jahrbüch für Biblische Theologie 19 (2004): 3–47. Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance. Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Bird, Michael F. Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission. Library of New Testament Studies 331. Sheffield: T. & T. Clark, 2006. –. “The Unity of Luke-Acts in Recent Discussion,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29, no. 4 (2007): 425–48. Blomberg, Craig. “When Is a Parallel Really a Parallel? A Test Case: The Lucan Parables.” Westminster Theological Journal 46 (1984): 78–103. Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. –. Luke. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 5. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994–96. –. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Böhm, Martina. Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Bond, Helen K. Pontius Pilate in the History of Interpretation. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Bonz, Marianne Palmer. The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Bornhäuser, Karl Bernhard. Die Geburts- und Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu: Versuch einer zeitgenössischen Auslegung von Matthäus 1 und 2 und Lukas 1–3. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1930. Bostock, D. G. “Jesus as the New Elisha.” Expository Times 92 (1980): 38–41. Bovon, François. Luke the Theologian. 2nd ed. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006. –. Luke 1. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Bowker, J. W. “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form.” New Testament Studies 14, no. 1 (1967): 96–111. Bowman, John. The Samaritan Problem: Studies in the Relationship of Samaritans, Judaism, and Early Christianity. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 4. Pittsburg: Pickwick, 1975. Bradley, K. R. “Introduction.” Pages 1–30 in Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914. Brady, J. R. “Do Miracles Authenticate the Messiah?” Evangelical Review of Theology 13, no. 2 (1989): 101–109. Braun, Roddy L. “1 Chronicles 1–9 and the Reconstruction of the History of Israel: Thoughts and Use of Genealogical Data in Chronicles in the Reconstruction of the History of Israel.” Pages 92–105 in The Chronicler as Historian. Ed. M. Patrick Graham, et al. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Brawley, Robert L. Centering on God: Method and Messages in Luke-Acts. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1990. –. Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

264

Bibliography

Brent, Allen. “Diogenes Laertius and the Apostolic Succession.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44, no. 3 (1993): 367–89. Brodie, Thomas L. “The Accusing and Stoning of Naboth (1 Kgs 21:8–13) as One Component of the Stephen Text (Acts 6:9–14; 7:58a).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 417–32. –. “Again Not Q: Luke 7:18–35 as an Acts-Orientated Transformation of the Vindication of the Prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22:1–38).” Irish Biblical Studies 16 (1994): 2–32. –. The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006. –. The Crucial Bridge. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999. –. “The Departure for Jerusalem (Luke 9,51–56) as a Rhetorical Imitation of Elijah’s Departure for the Jordan (2 Kgs 1,1–2,6).” Biblica 70, no. 1 (1989): 96–109. –. “Luke 7,36–50 as an Internalization of 2 Kgs 4,1–37: A Study in Luke’s Use of Rhetorical Imitation.” Biblica 64 (1983): 457–85. –. “Luke 9:57–62: A Systematic Adaptation of Divine Challenge to Elijah (1 Kings 19).” Pages 237–46 in Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers. Ed. David J. Lull. SBLSP 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. –. “Luke-Acts as an Imitation and Emulation of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative.” Pages 78– 85 in New Views on Luke and Acts. Ed. Earl Richard. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990. –. “Luke the Literary Interpreter: Luke-Acts as a Systematic Rewriting and Updating of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative.” Ph.D. diss. Rome: Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1981. –. “A New Temple and a New Law: The Unity and Chronicler-Based Nature of Luke 1:1–4:22a.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 5 (1979): 21–45. –. “Towards Unraveling Luke’s Use of the Old Testament: Luke 7.11–17 as an Imitatio of 1 Kings 17.17–24.” New Testament Studies 32, no. 2 (1986): 247–67. –. “Towards Unraveling the Rhetorical Imitation of Sources in Acts: 2 Kgs 5 as One Component of Acts 8,9–40.” Biblica 67 (1986): 41–67. Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 2nd ed. Anchor Bible Reference Library. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1993. Bruce, A. B. The Miraculous Elements in the Gospels. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1886. Bruce, F. F. “Philip and the Ethiopian.” Journal of Semitic Studies 34, no. 2 (1989): 377– 86. Buckwalter, H. Douglas. The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Budge, E. A. Wallis. Cook’s Handbook for Egypt and Sudan. London: Cook & Son, 1906. Burnside, Jonathan. “Flight of the Fugitives: Rethinking the Relationship between Biblical Law (Exodus 21:12–14) and the Davidic Succession Narrative (1 Kings 1–2).” Journal of Biblical Literature 129, no. 3 (2010): 418–31. Burridge, Richard A. “The Genre of Acts – Revisited.” Pages 3–28 in Reading Acts Today. Ed. Steve Walton, et al. London: T. & T. Clark, 2011. –. What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biographies. Second Edition; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Byron, Gay L. Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature. London: Routledge, 2002. Cadbury, Henry J. The Book of Acts in History. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955.

Bibliography

265

–. The Making of Luke-Acts. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. Carlson, R. A. “Élisée – Le Successeur D’Élie.” Vetus Testamentum 20 (1970): 385–405. Carroll, John T. Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 92. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Carroll, R. P. “The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel.” Vetus Testamentum 19 (1963): 400–15. Carter, Warren. Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003. Cassidy, Richard J. Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987. Chance, J. Bradley. Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988. Charlesworth, James H. Jesus in Judaism. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1988. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–85. Clark, Andrew C. Parallel Lives: The Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the Lucan Perspective. Paternoster Biblical Monograph. Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2001. Coats, George W. “The Ark of the Covenant in Joshua: A Probe into the History of Tradition.” Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985): 137–57. Cohn, Robert L. “Form and Perspective of 1 Kings V.” Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983): 171–84. –. “The Literary Logic of 1 Kgs 17–19,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101, no. 3 (1982): 333–50. Coleridge, Mark. The Birth of Lukan Narrative: Narrative as Christology in Luke 1–2. Journal for the Study of New Testament Supplement Series 88. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Collins, John J., and Gregory E. Sterling, ed. Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. –. The Theology of St. Luke. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1960. Cotter, Wendy. Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity. New York: Routledge, 1999. Craddock, Fred B. Luke. Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Croatto, J. Severino. “Jesus, Prophet Like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher Like Moses in Luke-Acts.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 3 (2005): 451–65. Cronauer, Patrick T. The Stories about Naboth the Jezreelite: A Source, Composition, and Redaction Investigation of 1 Kings 21 and 2 Kings 9. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 424. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005. Crump, David. Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke-Acts. Biblical Studies Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Culpepper, R. Alan. “Parable as Commentary: The Twice-Given Vineyard [Luke 20:9– 16].” Perspectives in Religious Studies 26, no. 2 (1999): 147–68. Darr, John A. Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 163. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. –. “Irenic or Ironic? Another Look at Gamaliel before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:33–42).” Pages 121–39 in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts. Ed. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998. Daube, David. The Exodus Pattern in the Bible. London: Faber and Faber, 1963. Davenport, Gene L. The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees. Studia Post-Biblica 20. Leiden: Brill, 1971.

266

Bibliography

Davies, W. D. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. Davis, Jud. “Acts 2 and the Old Testament: The Pentecost Event in Light of Sinai, Babel and the Table of Nations.” Criswell Theological Review 7, no. 1 (2009): 29–48. Den Boer, W. “Graeco-Roman Historiography in Its Relation to Biblical and Modern Thinking.” History and Theory 7, no. 1 (1968): 60–75. Denova, Rebecca I. The Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 141. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. DeSilva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. –. “Paul’s Sermon in Antioch of Pisidia.” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (1994): 32–49. Dibelius, Martin. Studies in the Acts of the Apostle. Ed. Heinrich Greeven. London: SCM, 1956. Diefenbach, Manfred. “Das ‘Sehen des Herrn’ vor Damaskus: Semantischer Zugang zu Apg 9,22 und 26.” New Testament Studies 52, no. 3 (2006): 409–418. Dietrich, W. Petrusbild der lukanischen Schriften. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 14. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972. Dillon, Richard J. From Eye-witnesses to Ministers of the Word. Analecta Biblica 82. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. –. “The Prophecy of Christ and His Witnesses According to the Discourses of Acts.” New Testament Studies 32, no. 4 (1986): 544–56. Dionisotti, A. C. “Nepos and the Generals.” Journal of Roman Studies 78 (1988): 35–49. Ðỗ, Maria Thị Yến. The Lucan Journey: A Study of Luke 9:28–36 and Acts 1:6–11 as an Architectural Pair. European University Studies 23/895. Bern: Peter Lang, 2010. Doble, Peter. “Luke 24.26, 44 – Songs of God’s Servant: David and His Psalms in LukeActs.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28, no. 3 (2006): 267–83. –. The Paradox of Salvation: Luke’s Theology of the Cross. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Donaldson, T. L. “Parallels: Use, Misuse and Limitations.” Evangelical Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1983): 193–210. Downing, F. Gerald. “Common Ground with Paganism in Luke and Josephus.” New Testament Studies 28, no. 4 (1982): 548–51. –. “Psalms and the Baptist.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29, no. 2 (2006): 131–37. Drury, John. Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel: A Study in Early Christian Historiography. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976. Duff, Timothy E. Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Duling, Dennis C. “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David.” Harvard Theological Review 68, no. 3 (1975): 235–52. Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Holy Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today. London: SCM, 1970. –. The Acts of the Apostles: A Narrative Commentary. Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press, 1996. Dupont, Jacques. The Salvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. Dyck, Jonathan E. The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Bibliography

267

Edwards, Douglas R. “Surviving the Web of Roman Power: Religion and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles, Josephus, and Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe.” Pages 179– 201 in Images of Empire. Ed. Loveday Alexander. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 122. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Ehrhardt, Arnold. “Construction and Purpose of the Acts of the Apostles.” Studia Theologica 12 (1958): 45–79. Ellis, E. Earl. “‘End of the Earth’ (Acts 1:8).” Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991): 123–32. Evans, Craig A. “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 15, no. 1 (2005): 48–75. –. “Jesus and Evil Spirits in Light of Psalm 91.” Baptistic Theologies 1, no. 2 (2009): 43–58. –. “Jesus’ Parable of the Tenant Farmers in Light of Lease Agreements.” Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 14 (1996): 65–83. –. “Luke’s Use of the Elijah/Elisha Narratives and the Ethics of Election.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106, no. 1 (1987): 75–83. Evans, Howard Heber. St. Paul the Author of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Third Gospel. London: Wyman, 1884. Eve, Eric. The Healer from Nazareth: Jesus’ Miracles in Historical Context. London: SPCK, 2009. –. The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles. Journal for the Study of New Testament Supplement Series 231. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Farris, Stephen. The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives: Their Origins, Meaning and Significance. Journal for the Study of New Testament Supplement Series 9. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Fears, J. Rufus. Princeps a Diis Electus: The Divine Election of Emperor as a Political Concept at Rome. Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 26. Rome: American Academy, 1977. Feldman, Louis H. “How much Hellenism in the Land of Israel?” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 33, no. 3 (2002): 290–313. –. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. –. Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Leiden, Brill, 2000. –. “Josephus’ Portrait of Elijah.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8, no. 1 (1994): 61–86. –. “Josephus’ Portrait of Elisha.” Novum Testamentum 36, no. 1 (1994): 1–28. –. “Philo’s Version of the Biblical Episodes of the Spies.” Hebrew Union College Annual 73 (2002): 29–48. Fitzgerald, John. “The Ancient Lives of Aristotle and the Modern Debate about the Genre of the Gospel.” Restoration Quarterly 36, no. 4 (1994): 209–21. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. Anchor Bible 31. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1998. –. The Gospel According to Luke. Anchor Bible 28. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981–85. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. “Nubian Queens in the Nile Valley and Afro-Asiatic Cultural History.” Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference for Nubian Studies. Boston, Mass., August, 20–26 1998. Forbes, Greg W. The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 198. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

268

Bibliography

Fredricksmeyer, Ernst A. “Alexander, Zeus Ammon, and the Conquest of Asia.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991): 199–214. Frein, Brigid Curtin. “Predictions, OT Prophecies and Luke’s Sense of Fulfillment.” New Testament Studies 40, no. 1 (1994): 22–37. Fridrichsen, Anton. The Problem of Miracle in Primitive Christianity. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972. Frolov, Serge. “Succession Narrative: A ‘Document’ or a Phantom?” Journal of Biblical Literature 121, no. 1 (2002): 81–104. Gagnon, Robert A. J. “Luke’s Motives for Redaction in the Account of the Double Delegation in Luke 7:1–10.” Novum Testamentum 36, no. 2 (1994): 122–45. Garlington, Don B. “Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful.” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (1994): 284–308. Gärtner, Bertil. The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiskells, 1955. Gasque, W. Ward. A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. Acts. Abingdon New Testament Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003. Geller, Stephen A. Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry. Harvard Semitic Monograph 20. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. Gempf, Conrad. “Luke’s Story of Paul’s Reception in Rome.” Pages 42–66 in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church. Ed. Peter Oakes. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Gen, Raymond M. “The Phenomena of Miracles and Divine Inflictions in Luke-Acts: Their Theological Significance.” Journal of Pentecostal Studies 11, no. 1 (2009): 3– 19. Gertel, Elliot B. “Moses, Elisha and the Transferred Spirit.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2002): 73–79. Gibson, Jeffrey B. “A Turn on ‘Turning Stones to Bread’: A New Understanding of the Devil’s Intention in Q 4.3.” Biblical Research 41 (1996): 37–57. Gill, David W. J. “Acts and Roman Policy in Judaea.” Pages 15–26 in The Book of Acts in Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4. Ed. Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1995. Gnuse, Robert. “Vita Apologetica: The Lives of Josephus and Paul in Apologetic Historiography.” Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 13, no. 2 (2002): 151–69. Goldenberg, David M. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2003. González, Catherine and Justo González. “Babel and Empire: Pentecost and Empire (Preaching on Gen 11:1–9 and Acts 2:1–12).” Journal for Preachers 16, no. 4 (1993): 22–26. Gorman, Heather, and Mikeal Parsons. Review of Patricia Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74, no. 1 (2011): 179–80. Gould, John. “Herodotus and Religion.” Pages 91–106 in Greek Historiography. Ed. Simon Hornblower. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994 Goulder, Michael. “David and Yahweh in Psalms 23 and 24,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30, no. 3 (2006): 463–73. –. Type and History in Acts. London: SPCK, 1964. Gowler, David B. Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in LukeActs. Emory Studies of Early Christianity 2. New York: Peter Lang, 1991.

Bibliography

269

Green, Joel B. “‘In Our Own Languages’: Pentecost, Babel, and the Shaping of Christian Community in Acts 2:1–13.” Pages 198–213 in The Word Leaps the Gap. Ed. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. –. “Internal Repetitions in Luke-Acts.” Pages 283–99 in History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts. Ed. Ben Witherington, III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. –. “Jesus and the Daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:10–17): Test Case for Lucan Perspective on Jesus’ Miracles.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51, no. 4 (1989): 643–54. –. Luke. New International Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. –. Review of Patricia Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence, Review of Biblical Literature (http://www.bookreviews.org) (2009). –. “‘She and her household were baptized’ (Acts 16.15): Household Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles.” Pages 72–90 in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 234. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. –. The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. New Testament Theology. Cambridge, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Green, Joel B., and Michael C. McKeever. Luke-Acts and New Testament Historiography. IBR Bibliographies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Grelot, Pierre. “Note Sur Actes XIII, 47.” Revue Biblique 88 (1981): 368–72. Gunn, D. M. “Traditional Composition in the ‘Succession Narrative.’” Vetus Testamentum 26, no. 2 (1976): 214–29. Habel, Norman C. The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Hadas, Moses, “Livy as Scripture.” American Journal of Philology 61 no. 4 (1940): 445– 56. Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. Hall, Robert G. Revealed Histories: Techniques for Ancient Jewish and Christian Historiography. Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 6. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Hall, Sarah Lebner. Conquering Character: The Characterization of Joshua in Joshua 1– 11. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 512. London: T. & T. Clark, 2010. Halpern-Amaru, Betsy. The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees. Journal for the Study of Judaism 60. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. “Land Theology in Philo and Josephus.” Pages 65–93 in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspective. Ed. Lawrence A. Hoffmann. University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 6. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986. –. Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994. Hamm, M. Dennis. “Acts 3,1–10: The Healing of the Temple Beggar.” Biblica 67, no. 3 (1967): 305–19. –. “The Freeing of the Bent Woman and the Restoration of Israel.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1987): 23–44. Hauser, Alan J. and Russell Gregory. From Carmel to Horeb: Elijah in Crisis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 85. Sheffield: Almond, 1990. Hawk, L. Daniel. Joshua. Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000.

270

Bibliography

Hays, Daniel J. From Every People and Every Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race. Leicester: Apollos, 2003. Heard, R. Christopher. “Echoes of Genesis in 1 Chronicles 4:9–10: An Intertextual and Contextual Reading of Jabez’s Prayer.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 4 (2002): 1–28. Hekster, Olivier. “Reversed Epiphanies: Roman Emperors Deserted by the Gods.” Mnemosyne 63 (2010): 601–15. Hemer, C. J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Ed. Conrad Gempf. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Hengel, Martin. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. –. Between Jesus and Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Hester, James D. “Socio-Rhetorical Criticism and the Parable of the Tenants.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 45 (1992): 27–57. Hiebert, Theodore. “The Tower of Babel and the Origins of the World’s Cultures.” Journal of Biblical Literature 26, no. 1 (2007): 27–58. Hobbs, T. Raymond. “2 Kings 1 and 2: Their Unity and Purpose.” Studies in Religion 13, no. 3 (1984): 327–34. Hoehner, Harold W. Herod Antipas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Hogan, Larry P. Healing in the Second Tempel [sic] Period. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1992. Holladay, Carl. “Acts and the Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Historians.” Pages 171–98 in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel. Luke the Interpreter of Israel 1. Ed. David Moessner. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1999. –. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. 4 vols. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983–96. Horne, Edward H. “The Parable of the Tenants as Indictment.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 71 (1998): 111–16. Horsley, G. H. R. “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts.” New Testament Studies 32, no. 4 (1986): 609–14. Horsley, Richard A. The Liberation of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives in Social Context. New York: Continuum, 1993. Inowlocki, Sabrina. “Josephus’ Rewriting of the Babel Narrative (Gen 11:1–9).” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 37, no. 2 (2006): 161–91. Japhet, Sara. I and II Chronicles. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster, 1993. –. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006. –. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentum 9. Berlin: Peter Lang, 1997. Jeremias, Joachim. “Adam.” Pages 141–43 in vol. 1 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Jervell, Jacob. Die Apostelgeschichte. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 3. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. –. Luke and the People of God. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 1972. Jipp, Joshua W. “Luke’s Scriptural Suffering Messiah: A Search for Precedent, A Search for Identity.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72 (2010): 255–74. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992.

Bibliography

271

–. Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church: The Challenge of Luke-Acts to Contemporary Christians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Kahl, Werner. New Testament Miracle Stories in Their Religious-Historical Setting: A Religiongeschichtliche Comparison from a Structural Perspective. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Kartveit, Magnar. Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 28. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiskell, 1989. Kee, Howard C. Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph 55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. –. Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study in Sociohistorical Method. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983. Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. –. Miracles: The Credibility of New Testament Accounts. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. –. “Power of Pentecost: Luke’s Missiology in Acts 1–2.” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 12, no. 1 (2009): 47–73. –. “Why Does Luke Use Tongues as a Sign of the Spirit’s Empowerment.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15, no. 2 (2007): 177–84. Kim, Tae Hun. “The Anarthrous υἱὸς θεοῦ in Mark 15,39.” Biblica 79, no. 2 (1998): 221–41. Kimball, Charles, A., III. “Jesus’ Exposition of the Scripture in Luke 20:9–19: An Inquiry in Light of Jewish Hermeneutics.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993): 77– 92. Klauck, Hans-Josef. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to GraecoRoman Religions. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Klein, Hans. Das Lukasevangelium. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 1/3. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Klein, Ralph. 1 Chronicles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. –. “Aspects of Intertestamental Messianism.” Concordia Theological Monthly 43, no. 8 (1972): 507–17. Kloppenborg, John S. “Ideology and Ideological Readings of the Parable of the Tenants.” Bulletin of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies 61 (2001): 5–24. –. The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 195. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Klutz, Todd. The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Knoppers, Gary N. “Shem, Ham and Japheth: The Universal and the Particular in the Genealogy of the Nations.” Pages 13–31 in The Chronicler as Theologian. Ed. M. Patrick Graham, et al. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 371. London: T. & T. Clark, 2003. Koet, Bart J. “Isaiah in Luke-Acts.” Pages 51–79 in Dreams and Scripture in Luke-Acts: Collected Essays. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 42. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Koopmans, William T. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 93. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

272

Bibliography

Koskenniemi, Erkki. The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/206. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Kugel, James L. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981. Kuhn, Karl A. “The Point of Step-Parallelism in Luke 1–2.” New Testament Studies 47, no. 1 (2001): 38–49. Kurz, William. “Luke 3:23–38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Genealogies.” Pages 169– 97 in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar. Ed. Charles H. Talbert. New York: Crossroad, 1984. –. “Luke-Acts and Historiography in the Greek Bible.” Pages 283–300 in Society of Biblical Literature 1980 Seminar Papers. Ed. Paul Achtemeier. SBLSP 19. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980. –. “Promise and Fulfillment in Hellenistic Jewish Narratives.” Pages 147–70 in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel. Luke the Interpreter of Israel 1. Ed. David Moessner. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1999. Lampe, G. W. “Some Notes on Miracles in the Old Testament.” Pages 165–78 in Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History. Ed. C. F. D. Moule. London: Mowbray, 1965. Lane, Thomas J. Luke and the Gentile Mission: Gospel Anticipates Acts. European University Studies 23/571. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996. Lattimore, Richmond. “Portents and Prophecies in Connection with the Emperor Vespasian.” Classical Journal 29, no. 6 (1934): 441–49. Laurentin, Rene. Structure et théologie de Luc 1–2. Paris: Gabalda, 1957. Lazarus, Francis M. “Fortuna and Rhetorical Structure in Livy.” Classical Journal 74, no. 2 (1978/1979): 128–31. Lee, Doohee. Luke-Acts and ‘Tragic History.’ Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/346. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Levine, Nachman. “Twice as Much of Your Spirit: Pattern, Parallel, and Paranomasia in the Miracles of Elijah and Elisha.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 85 (1999): 25–46. Levison, John R. The Spirit in First Century Judaism. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 29. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan. “Paul the Miracle Worker: Development and Background of Pauline Miracle Stories.” Pages 180–99 in Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment. Ed. Michael Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte. Library of New Testament Studies 288. London: T. & T. Clark, 2006. Litwak, Kenneth Duncan. Echoes of Scripture in Luke Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005. –. “The Use of Quotations from Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the New Testament.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26, no. 4 (1983): 385–94. Long, Herbert S. “Introduction.” Pages xv–xxvi in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. Lord, Louis E. “The Biographical Interest of Nepos.” Classical Journal 22, no. 27 (1927): 498–503. Lüdemann, Gerd. “Acts of Impropriety: The Imbalance of History and Theology in LukeActs.” Toronto Journal of Theology 24 (2008): 65–79.

Bibliography

273

Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. “The Poor Widow in Mark and Her Poor Rich Readers.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 589–604. Malina, Bruce. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Third Edition. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome H. Neyrey. “Conflict in Luke-Acts: Labelling and Deviance Theory.” Pages 97–122 in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Ed. Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, Mass.: Hendricken, 1991. Mallen, Peter. The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts. London: T. & T. Clark, 2008. Manns, Frédéric. “Luc 7,47 et les traditions juives sur Rahab.” Revue des sciences religieuses 61, nos. 1–2 [1987]: 1–16. Marguerat, Daniel. Lukas, der erste christliche Historiker: Eine Studie zur Apostelgeschichte. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 92. Zürich: TVZ, 2011. Marlowe, W. Creighton. “The Sin of Shinar (Gen 11:4).” Evangelical Journal of Theology 20, no. 1 (2011): 29–39. Marshall, I. Howard. Acts. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1980. –. Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. –. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971. Marshall, Jonathan. Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/259. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Martin, Clarice J. “A Chamberlain’s Journey and the Challenge of Interpretation for Liberation.” Semeia 47 (1989): 105–35. Mason, Steve. “Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, and Sanhedrin in Acts.” Pages 115– 78 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Ed. Richard Bauckham. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Mattill, A. J. “The Jesus-Paul Parallels and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: H. H. Evans Reconsidered.” Novum Testamentum 17, no. 1 (1975) 15–46. –. “The Purpose of Acts: Schneckenburger Reconsidered.” Pages 108–22 in Apostolic History and the Gospel. Ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. May, Jordan Daniel. “Is Luke a Reader-Response Critic? Luke’s Aesthetic Trajectory of Isaiah 49.6 in Acts 13.47.” Pages 59–86 in Trajectories in the Book of Acts. Ed. Paul Alexander, Jordan Daniel May, and Robert Reid. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2010. McCarthy, Thomas G. “The Content of Cornelius Nepos’ ‘De viris illustribus.’” Classical World 67, no. 6 (1974): 383–91. McGing, Brian C. “Pontius Pilate and the Sources.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 416–38. Meek, James A. The Gentile Mission in the Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutics, and Purpose. Library of New Testament Studies 385. London: T. & T. Clark, 2008. Meeks, Wayne A. “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity.” Pages 17–28 in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Melbourne, Bertram L. “Acts 1:8 Re-examined: Is Acts 8 Its Fulfillment?” Journal of Religious Thought 57, no. 2 (2001): 1–18. Mendels, Doron. The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987.

274

Bibliography

Menzies, Glen. “Pre-Lucan Occurences of the Phrase ‘Tongue[s] of Fire.’” Journal for the Society of Pentecostal Studies 22, no. 1 (2000): 27–60. Menzies, Robert P. Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. –. “The Sending of the Seventy and Luke’s Gospel.” Pages 87–113 in Trajectories in the Book of Acts. Ed. Paul Alexander, Jordan Daniel May, and Robert D. Reid. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2010. Metzger, Bruce F. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Society, 1971. –. Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. Miller, Patricia Cox. Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997. Miscall, Peter D. “Elijah, Ahab, and Jehu: A Prophecy Fulfilled.” Prooftexts 9 (1989): 73–83. Mittelstaedt, Alexander. Lukas als Historiker: zur Datierung des lukanischen Doppelwerkes. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 43. Tübingen: Francke, 2006. Moessner, David P., ed. Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy. Luke Interpreter of Israel 1. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity University Press, 1999. Momigliano, Arnaldo. “Greek Historiography.” History and Theory 17, no. 1 (1978): 1– 28. Moo, Jonathan. “A Messiah Whom ‘the Many Do Not Know’? Rereading 4 Ezra 5:6–7.” Journal of Theological Studies 58, no. 2 (2007): 525–36. Moore, Stephen. Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament. Sheffield: Phoenix, 2006. Moore, Thomas S. “‘To the End of the Earth’: The Geographical and Ethnic Universalism of Acts 1:8 in Light of Isaianic Influence on Luke-Acts.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 3 (1997): 389–99. Morgenthaler, Robert. Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis: Gestalt und Gehalt der Kunst des Lukas. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 14–15. 2 vols. Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1949. Motyer, Ian S. “Herodotus and an Egyptian Mirage: The Genealogies of the Theban Priest.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 122 (2002): 70–90. Mowery, Robert L. “Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew.” Biblica 83, no. 1 (2002): 100–110. Myllykoski, Matti. “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part 1).” Currents in Biblical Research 5, no. 1 (2006): 73–122. –. “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part 2).” Currents in Biblical Research 6, no. 1 (2007): 11–98. Murphy, Frederick J. Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Na’aman, Nadav. “Naboth’s Vineyard and the Foundations of Jezreel.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33, no. 2 (2008): 197–218. Nassen, Paula. “A Typology of Pronouncement Stories in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of Diogenes Laertius.” Pages 273–84 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1977. Ed. Paul Achtemeier. SBLSP 11. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977.

Bibliography

275

Nassen Poulos, Paula. “Form and Function of the Pronouncement Sayings in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives.” Semeia 20 (1981): 53–63. Neagoe, Alexandru. The Trial of the Gospel: An Apologetic Reading of Luke’s Trial Narratives. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Neirynck, Franz. “The Miracle Stories in the Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction.” Pages 169–213 in Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie. Ed. J. Kremer. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 48. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1970. Newell, Jane E., and Raymond R. Newell. “Parable of the Wicked Tenants.” Novum Testamentum 14, no. 3 (1972): 226–37. Neyrey, Jerome H. “The Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts: ‘They Turn the World Upside Down.’” Pages 271–304 in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Ed. Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1991. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” Pages 89–156 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Ed. Michael E. Stone. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Nolland, John. Luke. Word Biblical Commentary 35. 3 vols. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1989–93. North, Robert G. “Theology of the Chronicler.” Journal of Biblical Literature 82, no. 4 (1963): 369–81. Novick, Tzvi. “Succeeding Judas: Exegesis in Acts 1:15–26.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129, no 4 (2010): 795–99. Oakman, Douglas E. “The Countryside in Luke-Acts.” Pages 151–79 in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Ed. Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1991. Öhler, Markus. “‘Licht für the Völker’: Jes 49,6 im lukanischen Doppelwerk.” Wiener Jahrbuch für Theologie 8 (2010): 43–53. Omerzu, Heike. “Apostelgeschichte als Theologiegeschichte: Apg 19 als Beispiel Konstruktiver Paulusrezeption.” Pages 81–174 in Réception du Paulinisme dans les Actes des apôtres. Ed. Daniel Marguerat. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 229. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. O’Toole, Robert. “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102, no. 2 (1983): 245–58. –. “How Does Luke Portray Jesus as Servant of YHWH.” Biblica 81, no. 3 (2000): 328– 46. –. “Parallels between Jesus and His Disciples in Luke-Acts: A Further Study.” Biblische Zeitschrift 27, no. 2 (1983): 195–212. –. “Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts VIII 25–40).” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 5 (1983): 25–34. –. The Unity of Luke’s Theology: An Analysis of Luke-Acts. Good News Studies 9. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1984. Padilla, Osvaldo. The Speeches of Outsiders in Acts: Poetics, Theology and Historiography. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Palmer, Darryl. “Acts and Ancient Historical Monograph.” Pages 1–29 in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting: Ancient Literary Setting. Ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke. Acts in First Century Setting 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.

276

Bibliography

Parsons, Mikeal C., and Richard I. Pervo. Rethinking the Narrative Unity of Luke and Acts. Minneapolis: Augsberg Fortress, 1993. Paschke, Boris A. “The Mystery of the Vanishing Sources: How New Testament Scholars Superficially and Uncritically Identified the Ancient Background of Luke 8:43–48, Acts 5:15, and Acts 19:12.” Biblische Notizen 129 (2006): 71–87. Penner, Todd. In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography. Emory Studies in Christianity. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Penney, John Michael. The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Perdue, Leo G. “‘Yahweh Is King over All the Earth’: An Exegesis of Psalm 47.” Restoration Quarterly 17, no. 2 (1974): 85–98. Pervo, Richard I. Acts. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. –. Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. –. Review of Patricia Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence, Review of Biblical Literature (http://www.bookreviews.org) (2009). Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Phillips, Thomas. “The Genre of Acts: Moving toward a Consensus.” Currents in Biblical Research 4, no. 3 (2006): 365–96. Pigott, Susan M. “The Kingdom of the Warrior God: The Old Testament and the Kingdom of Yahweh.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 40 (1998): 5–20. Plevnik, Joseph. “‘The Eleven and Those with Them’ According to Luke.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 205–11. Plümacher, Eckhard. Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. –. “Wirklichkeitserfahrung und Geschichtsschreibung bei Lukas.” Pages 85–107 in Geschichte und Geschichten: Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte und zu den Johannesakten. Ed. J. Schröter and R. Brucker. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 170. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Plutarch. Parallel Lives. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972–26. Porter, R. J. “What Did Philip Say to the Eunuch?” Expository Times 100, no. 2 (1988): 54–55. Porter, Roy. “The Succession of Joshua.” Pages 103–34 in Proclamation and Presence. Ed. Gwynne Henton Davies. London: SCM, 1970. Puskas, Charles B. The Conclusion of Luke-Acts: The Significance of Acts 28:16–31. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2009. Praeder, Susan. “Jesus-Paul, Peter-Paul, and Jesus-Peter Parallelisms.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Paper 1984. SBLSP 23. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984. Radl, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 2 Vols. Freiburg: Herder, 2003–10. –. Paulus und Jesus im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Untersuchungen zu Parallelmotiven im Lukasevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte. Bern: Lang, 1975. Ramsay, William M. Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898. Raphals, Lisa. “Fate, Fortune, Chance, and Luck in Chinese and Greek: Comparative Semantic History.” Philosophy East and West 53, no. 4 (2003): 537–74.

Bibliography

277

Rapske, Brian. Paul in Roman Custody. The Book of Acts in First Century Setting 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Ravens, D. A. S. “Luke 9.7–62 and the Prophetic Role of Jesus.” New Testament Studies 36, no. 1 (1990): 119–29. Reid, Barbara. Choosing the Better Part? Women in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. Reid, Daniel G. “Spirit-Empowerment as Resistance Discourse: An Imperial-Critical Reading of Acts 2.” Pages 21–45 in Trajectories in the Book of Acts. Ed. Paul Alexander, Jordan Daniel May, and Robert D. Reid. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2010. Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. “The Election of Matthias: Acts 1.15ff.” Pages 178–92 in Current Issues in New Testament Studies. Ed. William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder. London: SCM, 1962. Rese, Martin. Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas. Studien zum Neuen Testament 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1969. Rice, Gene. “Elijah’s Requirement for Prophetic Leadership [2 Kings 2:1–18].” Journal of Religious Thought 59/60, nos. 1/2 (2006/2007): 1–12. Richardson, Alan. The Miracle-Stories of the Gospels. New York: Harper, 1942. Robbins, Vernon K. “Luke-Acts: A Mixed Population Seeks a Home in the Roman Empire.” Pages 202–21 in Images of Empire. Ed. Loveday Alexander. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 122. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002): 675–86. Roberts, Kathryn L. “God, Prophet, and King: Eating and Drinking on the Mountain in First Kings 18:41.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 632–44. Robinson, Bernard P. “Rahab of Canaan – and Israel.” Scandinavian Journal of Theology 23, no. 2 (2009): 257–73. Robinson, C. A., Jr. “Alexander’s Deification,” American Journal of Philology 64, no. 3 (1943): 286–301. Ross, J. P. “Some Notes on Miracles in the Old Testament.” Pages 45–60 in Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History. Ed. C. F. D. Moule. London: Mowbray, 1965. Rothschild, Clare. Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/175. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Rowe, C. Kavin. Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 139. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. –. “Luke-Acts and the Imperial Cult: A Way through a Conundrum?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27 (2005): 279–300. –. World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Ruddick, C. T., Jr. “Birth Narratives in Genesis and Luke.” Novum Testamentum 12, no. 4 (1970): 343–48. Sabourin, Leopold. “Old Testament Miracles,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 1, no. 3 (1971): 227–61. Salmeier, Michael A. Restoring the Kingdom: The Role of God as the “Ordainer of Times and Seasons” in the Acts of the Apostles. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2011. Samkutty, V. J. The Samaritan Mission in Acts. Library of New Testament Studies 328. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006.

278

Bibliography

Sanders, Jack T. The Jews in Luke-Acts. London: SCM, 1987. Sanders, James A. “Isaiah in Luke.” Pages 14–25 in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts. Ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. –. “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4.” Pages 46–69 in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts. Ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81, no. 1 (1962): 1–13. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, Christa. “‘Josua’ und ‘Elischa’ – eine biblische Argumentation zur Begründung der Autorität und Legitimat des Nachfolgers.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 101, no. 2 (1989): 206–10. Schiavo, Luigi. “The Temptation of Jesus: The Eschatological Battle and the New Ethic of the First Followers of Jesus in Q.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25, no. 2 (2002): 141–64. Schiffner, Kerstin. Lukas liest Exodus: Eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme ersttestamentlicher Befreiungsgeschichte im lukanischen Werk als Schrift-Lektüre. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 12. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008. Schmidt, Daryl. “The Historiography of Acts: Deuteronomistic or Hellenistic?” Pages 417–28 in Society of Biblical Literature 1985 Seminar Papers. Ed. Kent Harold Richards. SBLSP 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Schmidt, K. L. “Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturgeschichte” Pages 50–134 in vol. 2 of Eucharisterion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. 2 volumes. Ed. Hans Schmidt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923. Schneckenburger, Max. Über den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte: Zugleich eine Ergänzung der neueren Commentare. Bern: Fisher, 1841. Schröter, Jens. “Paulus als Modell Christlicher Zeugenschaft.” Pages 53–80 in Réception du Paulinisme dans les Actes des apôtres. Ed. Daniel Marguerat. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 229. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Schulte, Hannelis. “The End of the Omride Dynasty: Social Ethical Observations on the Subject of Power and Violence,” Semeia 66 (1994): 133–48. Schwartz, Daniel R. Agrippa I. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 23. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. –. “The End of the ΓΉ (Acts 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision?” Journal of Biblical Literature 105, no. 4 (1986): 669–76. Schweizer, Eduard. “πνεῦμα, πνευματικός.” Pages 389–455 in vol. 6 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Scott, J. Julius, Jr. “The Cornelius Incident in Light of Jewish Setting.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34, no.4 (1991): 475–84. Scott, James M. Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. –. “Luke’s Geographical Horizon.” Pages 483–544 in The Book of Acts in Its GrecoRoman Setting. Ed. David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Seccombe, David. “Luke and Isaiah.” New Testament Studies 27, no. 3 (1981): 252–59. Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. Journal for the Study of Judaism 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Bibliography

279

Seim, Turid Karlsen. “Feminist Criticism.” Pages 42–73 in Methods for Luke. Ed. Joel B. Green. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Selman, Martin J. “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament.” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989): 161–83. Shauf, Scott. “Locating the Eunuch: Characterization and the Narrative Context of in Acts 8:26–40.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009): 762–75. –. Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neuentestamentliche Wissenshcaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 133. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005. Shepherd, William. The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in LukeActs. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 147. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2009. Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. Sherwood, Aaron. “A Leader’s Misleading and a Prostitute’s Profession: A Reexamination of Joshua 2.” Journal for the Study of Old Testament 31, no. 1 (2006): 43–61. Siebert-Hommes, Jopie. “The Widow of Zarepath and the Great Woman of Shunem: A Comparative Analysis of the Two Stories.” Pages 231–50 in On Reading Prophetic Texts. Ed. Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Siker, Jeffrey S. “‘First to the Gentiles’: A Literary Analysis of Luke 4:16–30.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111, no. 1 (1992): 73–90. Sleeman, Matthew. Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 20. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Smith, Abraham. “‘Do You Understand What You are Reading?’: A Literary Critical Reading of the Ethiopian (Kushite) Episode (Acts 8:26–40).” Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 22, no. 1 (1994): 48–70. Smith, W. Alan. “Naaman and Elisha: Healing, Wholeness, and the Task of Religious Education.” Religious Education 89, no. 2 (1994): 205–19. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Ed. Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984. Snodgrass, Klyne. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Inquiry into Parable Interpretation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Sparks, James T. The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards and Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1–9. Academia Biblica 28. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Spencer, F. Scott. “The Ethiopian Eunuch and His Bible: A Social Science Analysis.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 22, no. 4 (1992): 155–65. –. The Portrait of Philip: A Study of Roles and Relations. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 67. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Squires, John T. The Plan of God in Luke-Acts. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 76. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Stavrakopoulou, Francesca. Land of Our Fathers: The Role of Ancestral Veneration in Biblical Land Claims. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 473. London: T. & T. Clark, 2010.

280

Bibliography

Stegner, William Richard. “The Temptation Narrative: A Study in the Use of Scripture by Early Jewish Christians.” Biblical Research 35 (1990): 5–17. Stepp, Perry L. Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle. New Testament Monograph 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Sterling, Gregory. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992. –. “Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography.” Pages 326–42 in Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers. Ed. David J. Lull. SBLSP 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Strauss, David L. The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Štrba, Blažeh. Take off Your Sandals from Your Feet! An Exegetical Study of Josh 5,13– 15. Österreichische Biblische Studien 32. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2008. Strelan, Rick. “Recognizing the Gods (Acts 14.8–10).” New Testament Studies 46, no. 4 (2000): 488–503. –. Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the Apostles. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 126. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of Luke. Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1984. –. The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Swain, Simon. “Plutarch: Chance, Providence, and History.” American Journal of Philology 110, no. 2 (1989): 272–302. Sweeney, James P. “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2–53): Is It as ‘Anti-Temple’ as is Frequently Alleged?” Trinity Journal 23 (2002): 185–210. Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974. –. Reading Luke-Acts in Its Mediterranean Milieu. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 107. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –. “The Lukan Presentation in Galilee.” Review and Expositor 64 (1967): 485–97. –. “Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of Religious Propaganda in Mediterranean Antiquity.” Pages 1619–51 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung 2.16.2. Ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978. Talbert, Charles H. and Perry L. Stepp. “Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity, Part 1: The Lukan Milieu.” Pages 148–68 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1998. Ed. Mary E. Shields, John F. Kutsko, and Dexter E. Callender. 2 vols. SBLSP 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. –. “Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity, Part 2: Luke-Acts.” Pages 169–79 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1998. Ed. Mary E. Shields, John F. Kutsko, and Dexter E. Callender. 2 vols. SBLSP 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Tannehill, Robert C. “The Composition of Acts 3–5: Narrative Development and Echo Effect.” Pages 217–40 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1984. Ed. Kent Harold Richards. SBLSP 23. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984. –. Luke. Abingdon New Testament Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. –. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986–90. Taylor, Joan E. “Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Judea.” New Testament Studies 52, no. 4 (2006): 555–82.

Bibliography

281

Taylor, N. H. “The Temptation of Jesus on the Mountain: A Palestinian Christian Polemic against Agrippa I.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 83 (2001): 27–49. Thompson, Alan J. One Lord, One People: The Unity of the Church in Acts in Its Literary Setting. Library of New Testament Studies 359. London: T. & T. Clark, 2008. –. The Acts of the Risen Lord: Luke’s Account of God’s Unfolding Plan. London: T. & T. Clark, 2011. Thornton, Claus-Jürgen. Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Thornton, Τ. C. G. “To the end of the earth: Acts 1:8.” Expository Times 89 (1977–78): 374–75. Tiede, David L. Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Toye, David L. “Dionysius of Halicarnassus on the First Greek Historians.” American Journal of Philology 116, no. 2 (1995): 279–302. Troftgruben, Troy M. A Conclusion Unhindered. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/280. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Turner, Max. Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus: The Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999. Tyson, Joseph B. “Acts 6:1–7 and Dietary Regulations in Early Christianity.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 10 (1983): 145–61. Unger, Michael. “Johannes, der Prophet: Eine Persönlichkeitsskizze.” Protokolle zum Bibel 4, no. 1 (1995): 41–47. Van de Sandt, Huub. “The Fate of the Gentiles in Joel and Acts 2: An Intertextual Study.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 66, no. 1 (1990): 56–77. –. “The Quotations in Acts 13, 32–52.” Biblica 75, no. 1 (1994): 26–58. Van Ruiten, Jacques T.A.G.M. “Land and Covenant in Jubilees 14.” Pages 259–76 in The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology. Ed. Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Van Unnik, Willem C. “Luke-Acts, a Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship.” Pages 15–32 in Studies in Luke-Acts. Ed. Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. –. “The ‘Book of Acts’: The Confirmation of the Gospel.” Νονum Τestamentum 4 (1960): 26–59. Verheyden, Josef. “The Unity of Luke-Acts: What Are We Up To?” Pages 1–26 in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Ed. Josef Verheyden. Bibliotheca ephemeridium theologicarum lovaniensium 142. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Vidas, Moulie. “The Bavli’s Discussion of Genealogy in Qiddushin IV.” Pages in 285– 326 Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Past in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. Gregg Gardner and Kevin L. Osterloh. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 123. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Vorter, Willem S. “Readings, Readers and the Succession Narrative: An Essay on Reception” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98, no. 3 (1986): 351–62. Wagenaar, Jan. “The Cessation of Manna: Editorial Frames for the Wilderness Wandering in Exodus 16,35 and Joshua 5,10–12.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 112 (2000): 192–209.

282

Bibliography

–. “Crossing of the Sea of Reeds [Exod 13–14] and the Jordan [Josh 3–4]: A Priestly Framework for the Wilderness Wandering.” Pages 461–70 in Studies in the Book of Exodus. Ed. Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Wagner, J. Ross. “Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread.” Pages 154–78 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Walaskay, Paul W. ‘And So We Came to Rome’: The Political Perspective of St. Luke. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Walker, William O., Jr. “Acts and Pauline Corpus Reconsidered.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (1985): 3–23. Wall, Robert W. “Peter, ‘Son’ of Jonah: The Conversion of Cornelius in the Context of the Canon.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987): 79–90. Walsh, P. G. Livy: His Historical Aims and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Walters, Patricia. The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Waltke, Bruce K. “The Irruption of the Kingdom of God.” Criswell Theological Review 2, no. 1 (2004): 3–13. Walton, John H. “The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implication.” Bulletin of Biblical Research 5 (1995): 155–75. Walton, Steve. “The State They Were in: Luke’s View of the Roman Empire.” Pages 1– 41 in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church. Ed. Peter Oakes. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Weaver, John B. Plots of Epiphany: Prison-Escape in Acts of the Apostles. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 131. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Wedderburn, A. J. M. “Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity.” New Testament Studies 34, no. 2 (1988): 161–82. Wenell, Karen J. Jesus and Land: Sacred and Social Space in Second Temple Judaism. Library of New Testament Studies 334. Sheffield: T. & T. Clark, 2007. Wenk, Matthias. Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Wesselius, J.W. “Joab’s Death and the Central Theme of the Succession Narrative [1 Samuel ix 1–1 Kings ii].” Vetus Testamentum 40, no. 3 (1990): 336–51. Wilcox, Max. “The Judas-Tradition in Acts I. 15–26.” New Testament Studies 19, no. 4 (1973): 438–52. Williams, C. S. C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Black’s New Testament Comentary. London: A. & C. Black, 1957. Williamson, H. G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Wilson, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. Yale Near Eastern Researches 7. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977. Wilson, Stephen G. The Gentile and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Winter, Bruce. “Rehabilitating Gallio and His Judgement in Acts 18:14–15.” Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 2 (2006): 291–308.

Bibliography

283

Wischmeyer, Oda. “Stephen’s Speech before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7).” Pages 341–58 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History. Eds. Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. Wiseman, Donald J. 1 & 2 Kings. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Wiseman, T. P. “Legendary Genealogies in Late-Republican Rome.” Greece and Rome 21, no. 2 (1974): 153–64. Witherington, Ben, III. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Wolter, Michael. Das Lukasevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Woods, Edward J. The ‘Finger of God’ and Pneumatology in Luke-Acts. Journal for the Study of New Testament Supplement Series 205. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Woudstra, Marten H. The Book of Joshua. The New International Commentary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. Wray Beal, Lissa M. The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu [2 Kings 9 and 10]. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 478. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007. Wright, Addison G. “The Widow’s Mites: Praise or Lament? A Matter of Context.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 256–65. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Yamazaki-Ransom, Kazuhiko. The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative. Library of New Testament Studies 404. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010. Yeung, Maureen W. Faith in Paul and Jesus: A Comparison with Special Reference to ‘Faith that Can Remove Mountains’ and ‘Your Faith Has Healed/Saved You.’ Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/147. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Zakovitch, Yair. “Humor and Theology, or The Successful Failure of Israelite Intelligence: A Literary-Folkloristic Approach to Joshua 2.” Page 75–98 in Text and Tradition: the Hebrew Bible and Folklore. Ed. Susan Niditch. Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Zimmerman, Frank. “The Language, the Date, and the Portrayal of the Messiah in IV Ezra.” Hebrew Studies 26, no. 2 (1985): 203–18. Zwiep, Arie W. Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/293. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15–26. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/187. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

Scripture Index Old Testament Genesis 1–6 1–11 1:1 1:2 1:10–12 3 4:17–26 5 5:1–32 6 10 10:1–29 10:1–32 10:5 10:8 10:8–10 10:8–12 10:14 10:19 10:19–20 10:25 10:30–31 11 11:1–9 11:4 11:6–8 11:7–9 11:10–26 11:30 12 12:1–3 12:2 12:2–3 12:7 12:10 15:1–11 15:12–16 15:14 15:18

182 36 35 35 185 36 190 180, 182, 190 207 36 180–82, 185 185 207 181 237, 244 39 181 182 181–82 181 181–82, 187 181 39, 217, 236 237 39–40 40 40 185 52 181 36 40 40 36 179 37 37 46 65

17:1–8 17:4 17:6 17:8 18:1–33 18:18–19 21:18 24:37 27 28:1–9 28:4 28:10–17 29:31–30:24 32 32:24–32 35:16–20 35:22–26 36 37:1–17 46:8–27 47:24–26 50:23

37 40 40 40 52 40 151 179 183 184 179 37 180 184 37 180 180 180 37 180 213 185

Exodus 3:1–4:31 3:5 3:6–10 3:7–9 3:7–9 3:8 3:12 3:13–22 3:16–25 3:17 6:2–8 6:7 6:8 6:8–13 7–14 7:1

37 98–99 37 92 125 191 122 123 125 123, 191 125 123–24 92 126 228 60

286 7:5 7:17 8:10 8:19 8:22 9:29 10:2 12 12:3 12:25 13–16 13:1 13:1–2 13:2–3 13:3 13:5 13:9 14 14–16 14:1–4 14:4 14:14 14:25 14:15–18 14:16 14:18 14:21 15–16 15:1–10 15:3 15:8 15:18 15:22 15:22–27 16:4 16:6 16:12 16:31 17 17:1–7 17:8–16 17:9 17:11–12 17:12 17:14 18:11 19:5 19:5–6 19:6 20:1–5

Scripture Index 124 124 124 11 124 124 124 98–99 96 218 96 96 95 96 95 191 95 95 95 125 95–96, 124 37, 125 37 125 95–97 95–96, 124 95–96, 125 96 190 37 95–96 37, 198 96 96 96 124 124 96 95, 97 210 96, 179 97 95 97 101 124 259 37 49, 190 124

20:11 20:13 20:15 20:16 22:1–15 22:21 22:22–24 22:25 22:25–27 22:28 23:1 23:2 23:2–3 23:3 23:7 23:8 23:9 23:12 23:23 24 28–29 28:3 28:41 28:41–43 29:1 29:46 31:1–11 31:2–5 31:6–11 31:13 31:17 31:18 32:11–14 33:1–3 33:3 34:10–12 34:11–17 34:22 34:22–24 35:30–32 35:33–35

35 223 220 229 223 220 220 223 220 48, 191 229 229 220 230 229 230 220–21, 230 220 179–180 108 119 38 203 203 203 124 119 38 38 124 35 11 99 180 191 180 236, 239 236 239 38 38

Leviticus 6:2 6:4 10:11 14:1–7 14:8–9 14:10–32 14:34

223 223 203 219 219 219 218–19

Scripture Index 18:1–23 18:24–25 18:24–30 18:26–30 19:9–10 19:11 19:13 19:15 19:10 19:23 19:26 19:31 19:33–34 20:6 20:22–25 20:24 20:27 21:17–23 22:18–25 23:10 23:22 25:10 25:23 25:24–30 25:35–49 26:17 26:31–33 26:40–46 26:42

204 204, 222, 225 204 204 220 223–24 223–24 220, 224, 230 221 218 241 241 220–21 241 191 191 241 244 244 211 220 211 191, 194, 211–12, 253, 259 220 220 191 191 204 204

Numbers 3–4 11 11–14 11:1–3 11:4–6 11:11–17 11:16–25 11:24–30 11:25 11:25–29 11:26–30 11:31–35 12:1–2 12:1–15 12:1–16 12:6–8 13 13–14

119 217 216–18 216–17 216–17 38 216–17 218 129 60 216–17 216–17 212 219 216–17 217 93, 97 93

13:1 13:1–33 13:2 13:2–3 13:3 13:4–15 13:4–16 13:17–20 13:21 13:25–33 13:27 14:1–4 14:1–10 14:6–9 14:6–10 14:7 14:8 14:20–23 14:24 15:2 15:18 16:13 16:14 20:12 21:7 22–24 23:18 23:21 25:16–25 27:18 27:1–15 27:12–23 27:18 27:18–22 27:23 28:26 32:28–42 32:39–42 33 34:2 35 35:1–5 35:6–34 35:33–34 35:33–35 35:34 36:1–13 36:2

287 93, 97 216 92, 98–99 93 216 93–94 216 93–94, 100, 217 93–94 217 191 216–17 217 93 94 191 191 92 98–99 218 218 191 191 92, 126 98 37 151 190 39 38 98–99 99 38, 91, 119–20, 129 101 119–20 236 98–99 186 48 218 100 98 98 223–27, 241 204 191 98–99 187

288 Deuteronomy 1:8 1:17 1:21 1:23 1:25 1:28 1:30 1:35 1:38 2:1–24 3:18–22 3:28 4 4:1 4:21 4:22 5:15 5:17 5:19 5:20 5:33 6–8 6:1 6:1 6:3 6:4–15 6:10 6:13 6:16 6:17 6:18 7:12 8:1 8:1–35 8:3 8:7 8:10 9:5 9:6 9:10 9:12 10:17 10:18 10:18–19 10:19 11:9 11:17 11:22 11:29

Scripture Index

179 230 186 216 191 94 125 191 101 92 101 101 191 204 191 191 224 223 223 229 229 79 210 224 191 210 179 210 210 210 191, 210, 224 221 209, 224 92 209 191 191 179 191 11 151 229–30 220 220 191 191 191 224 224

13:1 15:7–15 16:10 16:10–14 16:16 16:19 16:20 17–18 17:9–13 17:14 17:14–15 17:14–20 17:18–19 17:20 18:9 18:9–14 18:9–22 18:18 19:1 19:8–10 19:16–19 23:1 23:19–20 24:9 24:10–15 24:14 24:14–15 24:17 24:17–22 24:19–21 25:16 26:1 26:9 26:12 26:15 26:12–13 27–28 27:1–3 27:1–8 27:3 27:8 27:11–28:68 27:19 27:25 28 28:43 29–31 29:1 29:2–4 29:4

63 220 236 221 236 230 223–24, 236 191 191 218 49 191, 215–16, 218 40 49 218 241 191 60 229 229 229 243 223–24 219 220 221 220 223 220 221 223 218 191 220 191 221, 230 97 179, 230 97 97–98, 191 97–98 97–98 220, 223 230 191 221 101 100 100–101 125

289

Scripture Index 29:5–6 29:7–8 29:9–13 29:10 29:14–21 29:19 29:21 29:23 29:26 30:4 30:15–20 30:20 31:1–2 31:3 31:3–6 31:6 31:7 31:14 31:19 31:20 31:21 31:23 31:23–30 31:24–29 32 32:15–18 33:5 33:17 33:22 34 34:1 34:1–12 34:4 34:5–6 34:9 34:9–12 34:10

100–101 100–101 100–101 101 100–101 101 101 101 101 234 100–101 179 100–101 101 100–101 100 101 101 101 191 101 126 92, 123 101 94 101 37, 190 234 191 128 121–23, 128 143 179 121 38, 91, 93, 101, 119–20, 129 91 46

Joshua 1–2 1:1 1:1–2 1:1–5 1:2 1:2–9 1:5 1:6 1:12–15 1:12–17

93 93 92 179 38, 119–20 101 122, 126, 129 38, 92 101 94

1:17 1:17–18 1:18 2 2:1 2:3 2:9 2:11 2:24 3 3–4 3–5 3:1 3:1–17 3:5 3:7 3:8 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:13, 16 4:3 4:19 4:23–24 4:24 5 5:10 5:12 5:15 6 6:6–11 7:6–9 7:10 8 8:18 8:26 8:30–32 8:30–35 8:32 10:25 11:22 13:2–3 13:13 13:8–32 14 14:6–15 15–19 15:46–47 17:3–6 18:2–7

101 119–20 93–94 92–94 92–94, 97 93 94 94 94 95 94 95–96 95–96 92 95–96 95 95 161 98–99 96, 161 95–96 98–99 96 95–96 96 99 98–99 96 98–99 96 95 98–99 151 97–98 97 97 97 97–98 97–98 100 246 182 186 100 98–99 99 98, 100 246 99 98, 100

290

Scripture Index

19:5 19:9 20 20–21 21 21:9–18 23–24 23:2 23:3 23:4 23:5 23:6–11 23:14 23:12–16 24:2–13 24:3 24:3–4 24:4 24:14–15 24:19 24:20 24:22 24:25–27 24:27 24:29–43

188 186 98 100 98 188 101 100–101 100–101, 129 101 100–101 100–101 100–101 100–101 100–101 37 101, 179 65, 188 100–101 101 101 101 102 101 143

Judges 1:1–36 3:9–10 4:4–10 6:7–10 6:34 8:22–23 10:3–4 11:12–28 11:29 13:1 13:1–25 13:2 13:3 13:3–5 13:5 13:5–7 13:8–9 13:9 13:14 13:19–20 13:22–23 13:25 14:6

144 38 62 61 38 191 186 186 38 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 38 38

14:19 15:14 17:6 18:1 19:1 21:25

38 38 191 191 191 191

Ruth 4:18–22

207

1 Samuel 1:1–28 2:1 2:4 2:10 5:1–7 6:7 8:4–6 8:6–9 10:6 10:10 11:6 12:12 13:13–14 16:13–14 19:20 19:20–23 19:23 21:1–6 22:3–6 23:4 28:6 28:15

52 65 65 65 246 246 41 41 38, 60 38, 60 38 190 41 38 38 60 38 219 62 151 60 60

2 Samuel 3:3 5:2 7 7:2 7:4–16 7:7 7:10–11 7:11 7:12 7:12–13 7:12–16 7:13 7:16 7:18–29 7:19

186 41, 192 193 48 49 192 192 49 65 192 49 50, 192 50 49 50

Scripture Index 7:23 7:23–26 8:15 12:1–14 22 22:3 22:18 22:51 23:2 24:10–14

192 49 41, 229 62 63 62, 65 62 41, 229 38 62

1 Kings 2:1–4 3:11 3:28 8:27 8:39 10:9 11:29–39 11:30–35 12:24 13:11–19 13:33–34 14:4–18 16:1–5 16:7 16:12 16:25–26 16:25–17:7 16:31–34 16:32–33 17 17–19 17:1 17:1–7 17:1–16 17:1–22:53 17:8–21 17:8–24 17:9 17:12 17:14 17:14–16 17:16 17:17 17:17–24 17:18 17:19 17:21 17:24

41 229 221, 229 46 105 221 61 41 151 60 41 61 41 62 62 103 104 57 103 80, 105 106 122 61 56 122 103–104 106–107 151 107 107 107–108 107, 125 103 54, 63, 107 107–108 107–108 107–108 58, 107–108

18 18–20 18:1 18:1–16 18:1–26 18:2 18:3–4 18:4 18:5 18:17–19 18:17–46 18:18–21 18:20–24 18:20–35 18:20–46 18:21 18:30–31 18:36 18:36–39 18:39 18:43 18:46 19 19:1 19:1–21 19:2 19:5 19:15 19:15–17 19:15–18 19:16 19:16–17 19:17–21 19:19 20 20:1–34 20:10 20:13–15 20:13–25 20:18 20:21–24 20:35–43 21:8–13 21:17–19 21:17–24 21:20–24 21:20–26 20:21–24 20:35–43 21

291 105, 108 105 125 104, 108 109 108–109 108 110 108–109 110 104–105 105 62 228 102, 124 109 108–109 109 109 109 109 109–111 105 110–111 104 110–111, 168 151 119–120 119 38, 102, 111, 123 111, 120 126 110–111 120 106 104 168 61 110 151 111 60, 110 80 123–24 110 125 41 111 60, 110 105

292

Scripture Index

21:1–16 21:17–24 21:17–29 22 22:1–28 22:4 22:5 22:6 22:7 22:13–40 22:17 22:19 22:19–23 22:19–28 22:27 22:29–40 22:29–41 22:41–53

104 62 104 106 104 119 119 119 119–20 37 119 190 119 61 110 119 104 104

1 Kgs 16:25– 2 Kgs 2:25

104

2 Kings 1:1–18 1:1–13:25 2 2–9 2:1–6 2:1–25 2:7–14 2:8 2:9 2:9–14 2:11 2:13–15 2:14 2:14–15 2:15 2:16–18 3:1–27 3:1–13:25 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:11 3:12 3:14–20 3:15 3:16–19 3:20–27

104 122 102 123 111 104, 143 128 111, 122 129 123 121–22 119–20 111, 122 122 38, 102, 120, 122 121 104 104 119 119 119 111, 119 119 61 111, 119 119 119

4 4:1–7 4:1–37 4:1–44 4:2 4:7 4:8–17 4:8–37 4:9 4:10 4:17 4:19 4:28 4:35 4:38 4:38–44 4:38–5:14 4:38–5:27 4:39–40 4:43 5 5:1–14 5:1–27 5:3 5:10 5:10–14 5:14 5:15 5:17 5:21 5:27 6–7 6:1–23 6:8–10 6:8–23 6:24–7:20 6:30–31 7 7:1–2 7:1–20 8 8–9 8:1 8:1–6 8:7–15 8:16–18 8:16–9:26 8:24–26 9 9:1–10

107 103 63, 104, 107 107 107 107 54 103 107–108 107–108 107–108 107–108 107–108 107–108 109 104–105 108 105 108–109 108–109 105, 108 63 56, 104–105 108–109 109 77, 109 109 57, 105, 109 109 109 219 106 104 111 105 104 111 105 111 61 106 106 151 104 104, 111 106 104 106 106 119–20

Scripture Index 9:5–10 9:25 9:27–10:33 9:27–10:27 9:36–37 10:28–29 10:28–33 10:34–13:13 13:14–25 14:25 17:7–23 17:13 17:23 19:9 19:15 20:16–19 21:10–15 22:14–20 24:2 25:17 1 Chronicles 1 1–9 1:1–27 1:10 1:19 1:43 2:21 2:21–22 2:23 2:50–55 2:55 4 4:9–10 4:27 4:38 4:40 5:10 5:20 5:22 5:26 6:54–60 6:54–81 6:60 7:1–5 7:2 7:5 7:6–13

38 37 104 102 111 102 41 104 104, 143 61 41, 143 61 61 243 35, 190 61 61 61 61 109

182, 187–88 180, 182, 188–89, 207 185 244 182, 187 188 183, 186 185 186 185 188 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 188 188 188 186 186–87 186–87 186

7:7 7:9 7:11 7:15 7:20–24 7:23 7:28 7:28–29 7:31–40 7:40 8:1–40 8:8 8:32 8:40 9:1 11:2 12:18 16:15–18 17:1 17:6 17:9–10 17:11–12 17:11–14 17:12 17:14 18:14 21:9 21:15 22:16 24:10 24:10, 19 28:5

293

29:15 29:21–24 29:22

186–87 186–87 186–87 187 187 187 189 187, 189 187 186–87 189 189 189 187 187 192 38 185 48 192 192 192 192, 194 192 190, 192 229 187 187 151 51 200 49, 190, 192, 194, 207 179 160 192

2 Chronicles 2:12 6:18 6:41 7:22 8:13 9:8 12:5 13:8 14:9–13 14:9–15 15:1 15:1–7

35 46 151 187 236 229 61 37, 49, 190, 192 243 243 38, 60, 62 62

294

Scripture Index

18:8–24 18:22 18:22–27 20:6 20:7 20:37 21:12–15 24:19 24:20 25:14–16 26:6 26:19 28:8–15 34:22–30 34:24 34:28 36:12 36:15–16

37 187 61 191 179 61 61 62 38 62 246 62 62 61 187 187 62 243

Ezra 2:33 7:1–5 8:35 9:10–11

189 189 179 62

Nehemiah 9:6 9:26 9:30

35 38 38

Esther 1:1 1:10 1:12 1:15 2:3 2:14 2:15 4:4–5 6:2 6:16 7:9 8:9 Job 16:15 28:19 28:24 33:4 37:3

38:13 Psalms 2 2:1–2 2:2 2:3–5 2:6 2:6–7 2:7

243

243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243

2:8–9 2:10–12 16:8–11 16:10 18:2 18:17 22:21 22:27 22:28 24:1 24:7–10 26:10 37:11 47:2 47:7–8 48:2 48:10 59:13 65:5 65:10 67:7 68:31 72:8 74:12 75:4–5 75:10 87:4 89:17 89:24 89:29

50, 193 206 206, 209 206 56, 206 206 50, 56, 193, 206, 209 56, 206, 208–209, 234 206 206 63 50, 67 62, 65 62 65 234 190 253 190 230 225, 237 190 190 190 234 190, 234 234 234 234 243 234 190 65 65 246 65 65 49

243 243 243 35 243

89:36–37 91 92:10 93:2 95:3–5 96:13

49 210 65 190 190 190

2:8

Scripture Index 97:1 98:3 99:1–5 99:4 103:19 104:30 106:10 110:1 110:1–2 110:5–6 112:9 115:15 118:5–6 118:20 121:2 124:8 132:11–17 132:17 134:3 135:7 145:11–13 146:6 148:14

190 234 190 221 190 210 62 238 67 32 65 35 136 136 35 35 49 65 35 234 190 35 65

Proverbs 8:15 15:27 17:8 17:23 17:24 21:14 29:4 30:4 31:9

229 230 230 230 234 230 230 234 229

Isaiah 3:14–15 5 5:1–2 5:1–3 5:4–6 5:7 5:8 5:8–10 5:26 6:1 6:5 6:9–10 8:14 9:6–7

66 214 212, 214 214 214 214 215 214 234 66 66 251 124 192

9:7 10:2 10:11 11 11:1–5 11:4 14:2 20:1 20:3–5 24:16 26:1–2 29:19 32:1 33:17 33:22 37:9 37:16 40 40:3 40:3–5 40:5 40:10–11 40:22–26 40:27–31 40:28 41:1–2 41:5 41:9 41:14 41:16 41:17 41:21 42 42:4 42:6 42:6–7 42:7 42:8 42:9–10 42:19–20 42:23–25 43:3 43:6 43:15 43:16 44:6 45:5 45:9 45:14 45:22

295 221 66 47 193 192 66 66 246 243 234 211 66, 238 221 66 66, 190 243 36 138 138, 148, 205 138 138 205 205 205 205, 234 66 234 234 205 205 205 66, 205 66 66 63, 66, 124, 249 251 66 66 124 251 251 243 124, 234 66, 190 63 66 124 124 243 124, 234

296

Scripture Index

46 46:1 46:3 46:12–13 46:13 48:20 49 49:1 49:5 49:1–6 49:1–7 49:3–4 49:6 49:9 51:17 52:1 52:4 52:7 52:10 53 53:7 53:7–8 53:11 54:3 54:5 54:7–8 55:1–13 55:3 55:3–4 56:3–5 60:12 60:14 61:1 61:1–2 61:2 61:3 61:7 62:11 66:1 66:1–2

66 66 66 66 66, 124, 249 124 66 66 66 249 67 66 63, 66, 124, 249 66, 234 151 211 179 66–67 124, 234 67 139 138, 245 245 245 245 245 249 50 50 214 66 211 66 56, 66, 124 66 66 211 124 66, 148 46

Jeremiah 3:17 8:19 12:15 13:4 13:6 13:23 16:19 18:2

211 191 9 151 151 243 234 151

23:5 23:5–8 25:11–12 25:20 29:10 29:14 31:33 32:38 46:9 46:18 48:15 51:57

221 192 63 246 63 181 181 181 243 191 65, 191 191

Ezekiel 1:26–28 3:22 13:4 13:9 18:8 18:13 20:38 29:10 30:1–9 34:21 37:1–14 37:15–28 38–39

151 151 226 226 223 223 179 243 243 65 160 160 211

Daniel 2:35 2:44 3:1–7 3:1–30 3:8–18 3:28 3:28–30 4:3 4:28–30 4:31–37 5:21 6:22 6:4–5 9:2 12:1–3 Hosea 1:1 6:1–3 Joel 2:3

136 136 228 40 227 227 228 191 228 228 191 227 227 63 238 202 238

238

297

Scripture Index 2:12–13 2:19–26 2:27 2:28–29 2:28–30 2:28–32 3:1 3:17

238 238 238 238 238 63, 147 148 211

6:1

151

Nahum 3:9

243

Zephaniah 2:4 2:11–12 9:6

246 243 246

Amos 1:1 1:8 3:9 9:11–12

202 246 246 63

Haggai 2:21–23

192

Zechariah 1:21 3:8 6:5 6:12 8:8 9:9 9:10 12:1–14 14:16–17

65 192 161 192 211 192, 221 234 207 190

Malachi 1:2–5 3:1

188 62

Obadiah 1–21

188

Jonah 1:2 3:2

151 151

Micah 2:10 3:11 4:13 5:2 5:2–5

151 223 151, 161 201 192

New Testament Matthew 3:3 4:8 4:12 4:23 7:3 8:5 8:5–13 9:6 9:35 10:37–38 11:1 12:11 19:12 21:33 21:33–40

138 210 141 134 133 133 132 150 134 238 134 220 243 214 238

21:42

214

Mark 1:2–3 1:10–11 1:14 6:17–18 9:5 9:9 9:10 9:11 10:6 12:1 12:1–11 12:10 13:9

138 140 141 140 150 150 150 150 35 214 238 214 35

298 Luke 1 1–2 1–3 1–4 1–12 1:1 1:4 1:5 1:5–7 1:5–25 1:5–3:20 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:8–9 1:8–23 1:9 1:11 1:11–23 1:12 1:13 1:15 1:15–17 1:16 1:17 1:20 1:24–25 1:25 1:26–27 1:28 1:28–38 1:31–33 1:31–35 1:32 1:32–33 1:33 1:37–38 1:38 1:39–56 1:43 1:45 1:46 1:57–58 1:57–80 1:58 1:59–66 1:66 1:67

Scripture Index

73, 139 73 139, 205, 208 214, 225 222 25 78, 195, 253 45, 51, 67, 196, 198, 251, 259 73 51–52 205 52, 57, 199 52 200 200 73 57, 199 52, 57 200 52 52, 50 52, 57 64 57 52, 62 51, 269 73 57 73 57 73 205 56 57 65, 206 201 63 57, 202 73 57 57 57 73 63 57 73 57 60

1:67–79 1:68 1:68–75 1:69 1:69–75 1:70 1:71 1:74 1:76 1:76–80 1:78 1:80 2 2:1 2:1–2 2:1–3 2:1–20 2:2 2:4 2:4–7 2:6 2:8–9 2:8–20 2:9 2:9 2:10–15 2:11 2:11 2:15 2:15–20 2:21–24 2:21–29 2:22 2:23 2:24 2:25 2:25–27 2:25–38 2:25–39 2:26 2:27 2:29 2:29–32 2:32 2:36 2:38 2:39

73 57, 63 65 65, 201, 206 62 63 200, 227 65, 200 57 61 65 73 73, 139 51, 196, 198, 202, 206, 210, 226, 232 45, 67, 201, 251, 259 65 73 131 202 51 132 20 65 132 57 53 57 206 57 51 73 63 57, 216 57 57 126 63 123 73 57, 206 60 57 136 63, 65–66, 120– 21, 232, 249 61 61 57

Scripture Index 2:40–52 2:51 3 3:1 3:1–2 3:1–18 3:1–23 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:4–6 3:5–6 3:6 3:8 3:7–9 3:7–18 3:10–11 3:10–14 3:10–17 3:12 3:12–14 3:16 3:18 3:18–19 3:19 3:19–20 3:20 3:21 3:21–22 3:21–23 3:22 3:23 3:23–38 3:31 3:36 3:38 4 4:1 4:1–13 4:1–9:50 4:14 4:18 4:2–3 4:3 4:4 4:5

73 202 73, 150 198, 203 45, 51, 67, 196, 251, 259 137–38 139 138, 140 140, 196, 202, 204– 205 57, 63–64,228 138, 205 203 138, 148 37, 203 204, 222 225 203 140 204 126 203 139, 146 138 137 203 140, 222, 225–26 138, 140, 213 138 56, 140–41, 205 155 56, 136, 138, 140, 150, 205–206, 138, 140 23, 56, 205 207 36 36, 205, 208 57–58, 73, 137, 142 122, 126 56, 58, 209 196 122 126 209 205 209 226, 210, 232

4:5–6 4:8 4:9 4:9–11 4:12 4:13 4:14 4:14–22 4:15 4:16 4:16–7:17 4:16–8:56 4:17 4:18 4:18–19 4:18–19 4:19 4:21 4:22 4:23–27 4:24 4:24–27 4:25 4:27 4:28–31 4:28–29 4:28–44 4:31–37 4:31–41 4:31–44 4:33 4:34 4:35 4:36 4:38 4:38–39 4:39 4:40 4:40–41 4:40–43 4:41 4:42–43 4:43 4:43–44 4:44 5:1–11 5:8

299 209 210 205 210 57 144 126, 129, 132 211 138, 141 150, 152 73 77 63 57 64, 66–67, 123– 24, 155–56 59 57 59 56 57 61 63, 125 248 63 211 212 126 58, 228 56 56, 58 152 57–58 58 55, 58, 126, 129, 142 142 58, 127 58 142 58 240 58, 142, 240 58, 67 23, 124–25, 129, 132, 142–43 124 152 127 120

300 5:10 5:12 5:12–16 5:14 5:15 5:17 5:17–26 5:17–7:50 5:18–26 5:20 5:21 5:22–23 5:24 5:27–39 5:31–32 5:32 6:1–5 6:5 6:6 6:6–11 6:7 6:9 6:12–16 6:13–16 6:14 6:14–16 6:15–16 6:17–19 6:19 6:23 6:26 6:40 7 7:1 7:1–2 7:1–10 7:1–11 7:1–17 7:2 7:2–5 7:3 7:4–5 7:5 7:6 7:6–8 7:6–9 7:8 7:9 7:9–10

Scripture Index 120, 123, 127, 155 120, 218, 240 218 216, 218 132, 218 126, 129, 218 240 130 150 219 219 219 151 297 126 126 219 220 152 219–20 220 143 216 120 126 236 239 127, 240 126, 129 63 63, 223 145 130, 132–33, 136, 152 132 131 130, 132, 136, 228 199 220 131 132 131–32 133 131, 199, 245 131, 133 133 221 131 131, 133 133

7:11–17 7:12–16 7:15 7:16 7:17 7:18–35 7:18–8:56 7:20 7:22 7:26 7:27 7:33 7:36 7:36–50 7:37 8:1 8:1 8:10–18 8:12 8:21 8:22–56 8:26–39 8:27–28 8:28 8:29 8:30 8:39 8:43–48 8:45 8:46 8:49–56 8:51 8:52 8:55 9–10 9:1 9:1–2 9:1–6 9:1–10 9:1–48 9:1–50 9:1–10:24 9:2 9:3–5 9:8 9:8–26 9:10 9:10–11 9:11 9:11–17

54, 80, 107 150–51 151 63 196 135 73 137 240 61 60 137 222 94, 107 63 124–25, 127 240 240 232 202 127 228 58 58 240 232 58 150–51 127 126, 129 150, 152 127 152 152 218 120–21, 126, 129 125, 218, 236, 239 120, 127 216, 218 73 73 216 126 217–18 63 72 217 217 126, 217 47

Scripture Index 9:11–36 9:12–17 9:18–48 9:19 9:21 9:22 9:28 9:30 9:30 9:31 9:32 9:33 9:35

9:35–36 9:35–45 9:42 9:44 9:46–48 9:49–50 9:51 9:51–53 9:51–56 9:51–12:27 9:51–19:46 9:51–23:44 9:53 9:55–56 9:57–62 10:1 10:1–10 10:1–20 10:2 10:2–12 10:9 10:13–15 10:18 10:19 10:21 10:21–11:30 10:22 10:33–37 11:14–26 11:15–20 11:18 11:20 11:37 11:39 11:42

73 47 216–17 63 204 25, 22 126 53 216 50 127, 150 127, 150, 216 50–51, 53, 58, 121, 155, 206, 213, 217 150 58 240 58, 126 217 216–17 124, 126 143–44 216–17 196 14 74 218 126 216 125, 217–18 217 216 238 218 126 218 144 126, 129 25, 245 73 212 218 232 144 144 11, 126 222 223 223

11:47–48 11:47–50 11:53–54 12:1–2 12:12 12:28–24:53 12:41 13 13:1 13:10 13:10–16 13:15 13:15–16 13:16 13:18–21 13:31 13:31–35 13:32 14:1 14:1–6 14:1–18:30 14:3 14:5 14:7–11 16:14 16:16 16:29 16:31 17:11 17:16–19 17:26–27 18:9–14 18:28 18:31 18:31–33 19:10 19:11–20:8 19:28 19:28–21:38 19:38 19:39 19:47 19:47–48 20 20:1 20:1–8 20:1–18 20:1–45 20:2

301 223 63 213 223 126–28 196 127 152 225 152 219 152, 220 150 58, 132, 144, 224, 232 152 222, 226 222 226 222 219 73 134 220 223 223 48 216 216 218 218 36 223 127 64 143–44, 146 126 214 143–44, 146 211, 214 212 212 143, 204, 213 212 136 134, 144 212 130 146 134

302 20:3–4 20:5–6 20:6 20:7 20:9 20:9–16 20:9–19 20:10 20:10–12 20:13 20:14 20:15 20:16 20:17 20:17–18 20:19 20:19–26 20:21 20:26 20:28 20:37 20:46 20:47 21:1–2 21:3–36 21:12–13 21:14–15 21:23 21:37–38 22–23 22:2 22:2–6 22:3 22:6 22:7–23:16 22:31 22:34 22:42 22:43 22:47–71 22:47–23:25 22:53 22:54–65 22:54–23:25 22:55–62 22:64 22:66–71 23–24 23:1 23:1–24

Scripture Index 134–35 134–35 61 134–35 214 238 214 210 213 213 213 213 216 134, 136 214, 136 204, 214 211–12, 214 198 213 216 216 223 223 223 59 231 231 248 213 77, 137 223 224 144, 224, 232, 235 144 73 144, 232 204 126 50 146 146 224 146 74 127 63 144 71 73, 144 225

23:1–25 23:2 23:2–5 23:4 23:14–15 23:4–5 23:5 23:6–7 23:7 23:7–12 23:8–11 23:13–23 23:13–24 23:13–25 23:14 23:19 23:22 23:22–24 23:24–25 23:44 23:48 24 24:4–7 24:8 24:13 24:13–34 24:15–19 24:17 24:19 24:19–20 24:20 24:25 24:25–27 24:26 24:27 24:32 24:33–52 24:43 24:44 24:44–46 24:44–47 24:45 24:45–49 24:46–47 24:49 24:50–53 24:51

75 145–46, 213 73 145–46, 204, 225 225 225 145–46, 196 73 145–46 226 73 73 225 223 145–46 225 145–46 230 73 248 213 139 50 51 139 139 139 139 63, 126 139 204 63, 139 64 139 63, 216 63, 139 73 53 25, 64, 216, 250 66 139 63 129 251 129 123 122, 124, 139

John 4:35

238

Scripture Index 7:22–23 9:2–3 Acts 1 1–2 1–7 1–8 1–12 1:1–3 1:2 1:3–11 1:3–12 1:5 1:6–7 1:6–8 1:6–11 1:7–8 1:8

1:9 1:9–11 1:11 1:12–26 1:13 1:15 1:15–5:42 1:16 1:17 2 2:1–4 2:1–13 2:1–36 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:5–12 2:6–7 2:8 2:10 2:14 2:14–36 2:16 2:16–21 2:17

187 219

77, 235 235 246 137 73 25, 78 122 73 73 146–47 137 212 72 126–27, 129, 235 56, 147, 120–21, 125, 129, 234, 239–40, 242, 247– 48, 251–53 122, 124 123 122 235 126, 235 127 126 25, 60, 63 235 146–47, 160, 218, 235–37 238 218, 235 139 128 126–28, 147–48, 241 147–48, 237 236 239 237 244 120–21, 127–28, 236, 239 127–28, 235 63 147–48 148

2:17–21 2:17–36 2:22 2:22–24 2:22–40 2:24 2:29–36 2:30 2:33 2:33–36 2:34–35 2:35 2:36 2:36–39 2:37 2:37–47 2:38 2:38–39 2:39 2:41 2:41–42 2:42–47 3 3:1 3:1–11:18 3:2 3:4 3:6 3:8 3:9 3:12 3:12–16 3:15 3:18 3:21–22 3:22 3:24 3:26 4 4:1–2 4:1–12 4:1–31 4:2 4:5–6 4:6 4:7 4:8 4:10

303 63–64, 147, 238 63 129, 149, 238 147, 149 64 25, 122 125 67 147 239 238 239 145, 147, 149, 237–38 237, 239 127, 239 235 147, 149, 237, 239, 241 237 229 147, 149 137 147, 149, 237, 239 151, 153 150 130 151 151 127 25, 151 151 151 197 145 63–64 63 60–61, 63 61 25, 122 134–36 134, 151 130 128 134 134 134, 203–204 134 127, 129 134–35, 220

304 4:11 4:12 4:13–14 4:15–17 4:19–20 4:21 4:24 4:25 4:25–28 4:26–27 4:32–5:16 4:33 5 5:1–11 5:3 5:8–9 5:14 5:15 5:18 5:18–19 5:19 5:20 5:29–32 5:30 5:34 5:34–40 5:38–39 5:39 5:42 6–7 6:1 6:1–6 6:1–7 6:1–8:1 6:2–3 6:3–5 6:5 6:7–15 6:8 6:8–10 6:8–15 6:11 6:11–14 6:12 6:14 7 7:1–53 7:1–9:25 7:2

Scripture Index 134–35, 14 145, 203–204 127 134–35 134 134–35 36 60, 63 226 225 160 129 152 150 127, 144, 152, 204, 232 127 152 127 227 226 51 51, 53 227 204 204 223 204 127 134 17 221 246 17, 221 75 128 128 128, 244 140 129 128 17 46, 216 45 128 46–47, 216 17, 47, 67, 280 35 140 47

7:2–50 7:2–53 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:10 7:14 7:17 7:25 7:32 7:34 7:35 7:35–36 7:35–37 7:35–39 7:36 7:36–37 7:37 7:38–44 7:42 7:44 7:46 7:46–47 7:47–51 7:48 7:49–50 7:51 7:51–53 7:52 7:52–53 7:54–8:1 7:54–8:3 7:55 7:56 7:59 8 8–9 8:1 8:1–3 8:4 8:4–8 8:4–8 8:4–24 8:4–25 8:4–40

197 45, 128, 280 133 47 47 47 46–47, 280 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 56 46–47 216 47, 280 63 47, 54, 60, 63, 280 47 47 47 46 48 46 63 46, 48 48 47, 54, 216, 223 47, 49, 63 47 140 17 48 48 48 46, 94, 139–40, 147–48, 246, 252 137–38 140 140 147–48 140 128 137 137 140

Scripture Index 8:5 8:7 8:9 8:9–13 8:9–40 8:10 8:12 8:13 8:14 8:14–15 8:14–17 8:14–24 8:17 8:18–21 8:19 8:20–23 8:22 8:25 8:25–40 8:25–9:20 8:26 8:26–40 8:27 8:27–35 8:27–39 8:29 8:30–35 8:31 8:32 8:32–33 8:35 8:36 8:37 8:38 8:39 9 9:1 9:1–2 9:3 9:3–4 9:3–18 9:4 9:4–7 9:7 9:10–19 9:15 9:15–16 9:17

133, 240 240 241 240 149 241 128, 140, 147, 149, 240–41 241 140 120–21 147–48, 241 126 147–48 147, 149 241 241 147, 149 147, 149, 242, 246 128, 137, 139, 150 139 50, 138–39, 242 53, 138 128, 139 242 51 138 245 139 63 64, 138–39 63, 245 139 245 138 139, 242 150 244 140–41 138 150 140–41 244 138 150 139, 148, 241 120–21, 123, 128, 138, 140, 144, 155 64 129, 138

9:17–18 9:17–19 9:20 9:23–25 9:31–32 9:32 9:32–43 9:32–12:19 9:34 9:41 10 10:1 10:1–47 10:1–48 10:1–11:18 10:2 10:2 10:3 10:4 10:5 10:5–8 10:7 10:10–18 10:20 10:22 10:25–26 10:28 10:31 10:33 10:36 10:38 10:41 10:42 10:43 10:45–48 11 11:1–3 11:2–18 11:3 13:4–12 11:9 11:13 11:13–18 11:16 11:17–18 11:19–20 11:27–28 11:27–30 11:28 12

305 120–21 241 138, 140–41, 247 144 137 129 150–51 126 150–51 151 94, 130, 132, 136 131, 246 53 130 130, 228, 250 131, 133 244 50,151 131, 133 51 133 131–32 131 133 244 227 131, 133, 148 131, 133 131, 133 133 55, 126, 129, 232 145 145 64 147 150 132 131 132 150 150 50 132, 136 146 148 137 61 61 63 227

306 12:1 12:1–3 12:1–4 12:2 12:3 12:5–6 12:6–11 12:7 12:8–10 12:11 12:19 12:20–23 12:21–23 12:22 12:23 12:24 13 13–21 13–28 13:1 13:1–2 13:2 13:4–26:32 13:5 13:6 13:6–7 13:6–12 13:7 13:8 13:8–11 13:9 13:9–12 13:10 13:12 13:13–43 13:14 13:14–15 13:15 13:16–41 13:17 13:17–22 13:17–23 13:17–43 13:18 13:19 13:20 13:21 13:21–22 13:22 13:23

Scripture Index 226 227 210 226 226 137 227 227 51 227 227 227 227 227 228 227 14, 48, 67, 152 129 73 61–62 120–21 227 250 152 241 241 228 250 241 152 122, 128 241 228, 232, 241 152 128 250 152 48, 62, 250 48–49, 197, 206 48 48 48 35 48 48 48, 61 48 49 48–49 48–49

13:25 13:26 13:27 13:30 13:31–33 13:33 13:34 13:35 13:37 13:39 13:40 13:41 13:43 13:46–48 13:47 14 14:1 14:2 14:3–4 14:8 14:9 14:10 14:11 14:13 14:13–17 14:14–17 14:22 14:26 14:27 15:1 15:1–18:11 15:3 15:3–4 15:5 15:7 15:7–11 15:12 15:13–18 15:13–21 15:14 15:14–21 15:15 15:16–17 15:21 15:30–31 15:32 15:35 16:6–10 16:7

25 49 25 48, 145 48, 128 48, 50, 249 48, 50, 145, 249 48, 50 48 216 63 249 244 240 120–21, 131, 234, 248–49 21, 151 152, 240, 245, 250 231 137 151 151 150–51 151 151 227 151 247 25 130 216 73 240 137 216, 223 127, 131, 240 250 129–30, 250 63 250 120–21, 131 240 63 9, 46 216 137 59, 62 134 160 127

Scripture Index 16:16–21 16:17 16:20 16:31 17 17:1 17:2 17:3 17:10 17:12–13 17:17 17:17–18 17:19–20 17:24 17:24–26 17:31 18:4 18:8 18:9–10 18:12 18:12–21:26 18:14–15 18:16 18:17 18:19 18:26 18:28 19 19:1–10 19:4–6 19:5 19:6 19:6–7 19:8 19:8–12 19:10 19:11 19:11–20 19:12 19:13–15 19:18 19:19 19:21 19:21–23 19:21–28:31 19:25 19:32–33 19:38–39 20:7–12

228 58 128 59 21 152–53, 250 152 145, 250 152–53, 250 137 152–53, 250 137 250 198, 245, 247 36 145 153, 245, 250 229 128, 228 45, 67, 228 73 228 240 229 153, 250 153 63, 129 147–48 139 149 147 60, 147–48 241 147, 149, 152, 247, 250 128 147–48 129 241 150 147, 149 147, 149 147, 149 25, 248 143 74 147, 149 137 137 150, 152

20:9 20:12 20:23 20:25 21:4 21:8 21:9 21:9–14 21:10 21:10–12 21:10–14 21:11 21:13–14 21:13–15 21:19 21:21 21:27–22:30 22:5 22:10 22:20 22:21 22:30–26:32 23–26 23:1 23:1–11 23:6 23:8 23:11 23:12–35 23:14 23:18–19 23:31–32 23:31 23:33 24:1 24:5 24:1–8 24:5–6 24:9 24:22 24:22–27 24:25 24:26 24:27 25:1 25:1–2 25:1–26:32 25:2 25:2–4 25:2–12

307 152 152 63 247 63 137 61 63 64 144, 146 61 60, 63 146 144 129–30, 240 216 144, 146 204 155 75 120–21, 130, 240 74 137, 146 128 144, 146 222–23 232 121, 155, 231, 248 145 204 137 137 245 128 146, 204 229 229 145–46 229 230 145–46 230 230 230 73 128, 145–46 73, 75 204 230 73

308 25:4 25:9 25:11–12 25:13–27 25:14–27 25:15 25:20 25:21 25:23 25:25 25:31 26:1–23 26:5 26:6 26:6–7 26:7 26:10 26:12 26:15–18 26:16–18 26:17 26:18 26:19 26:20 26:22 26:23 26:24 26:24–29 26:27 26:28 26:30–32 26:31 26:32 28 28:4 28:5–6 28:6 28:7

Scripture Index 137 230 230 73, 145–46 230 204 230 230 128 230 146 73 222–23, 231 231 251 231 204 204 155 121, 128 240 231–32 231 240, 249 216, 231 120–21, 249 231 73 231 231 74 230 230–31 137, 141–42, 151 141–42 137 142 142

28:8 28:9 28:10 28:16–31 28:17 28:17–31 28:20 28:23 28:23 28:23–24 28:25 28:26–28 28:28 28:30–31 28:31

142 142 142 252 250 250 251 216, 250–51 247 250 60–61, 63 250 130, 251 248, 250 247

Romans 1:20 5:12–14 15:14

35 305 121

1 Corinthians 1:1 10:11

229 121

2 Corinthians 11:3

36

1 Timothy 5:3–15

221

1 Peter 2:4 2:7

214 214

2 Peter 3:4

35

Index of Greco-Roman Writings Appian Hist. rom. (Historia Pref. 1–5 Pref. 13 2.1–13 3.4.2 4.1.5 6.8.42 9.19 9.19.1 13

Romana) 161 164 89 30 165 165 29 30

Aristotle Ath. pol. (Athēnaīn politea) 28.1–4 88 Pol. (Politica) 1293a.13–30

88

Rhet. Alex. (Rhetorica ad Alexandrum) 1440b 168 Soph. elench. (Sophistici elenchi) 34.30–31 §183b 87 Arrian Anab. (Anabasis) 2.3.3–5 3.3.5 4.9.7

31 175 29

Athenagoras Leg. (Legatio pro Christianis) 37.2 87 Aulus Gellius Noct. att. (Noctes atticae) 13.5 88, 166 Cassius Dio Roman History 41.48.1

81

44.34.5 45.7.1 45.1–2.4 49.17.6 53 53.31.3 68.8.1

87 201 201 87 88 87 244

Cicero Brut. (Brutus or De claris oratoribus) 62 167 Nat. d. (De natura deorum) 1.10.25–26 87 Cornelius Nepos De Viris Illustribus Ag. (Agesilaus) 4 85 Arist. (Aristides) 3

85

Cat. (Cato) 2

85

Eum. (Eumenes) 3 8

85 85

Han. (Hannibal) 13.4

85

Milt. (Miltiades) 8

85

Paus. (Pausanias) 1

85

Reg. (De regibus) 1.3–4

166

310

Index of Greco-Roman Writings

Them. (Themistocles) 8 85 27.2–3 239 Dio Chrysostom Exil. (De exilio [Or. 13]) 13.9 155 3 Reg. (De regnio iii [Or. 3]) 3.67 229 4 Reg. (De regnio iv [Or. 4]) 4.49 239 Troj. (Trojana [Or. 11]) 11.124.6 87 2 Fort. (De fortuna ii [Or. 64]) 64.20–22 88 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 1.1.3 1.2.2 1.2.4–5 1.25.1–2 1.42.1–68.6 1.45.1–3 1.45.3 1.45.4–6 1.50.3–7 1.53.1 1.53.5–10 1.55.4 1.55.7 1.60.1–10 1.61.1–3 1.62.2–8 1.62.5–6 1.64.1–6 1.65.1–8 1.67.1–7 1.68.1–6 3.63.1–3 4.31.4 4.60.3–4 4.61.2–3 4.62.1 4.64.1 4.67.1

29, 163 54, 175 163 29 88 89 89, 164 89 89 163 89 166 166 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 170 31 166 32 32 31 32

4.75.1–6 4.79.1 4.82.1 4.83.3 4.84.4 5.1.1–4 5.8.1–2 5.13.3–4 5.15.1–6 5.31.5 5.32.6 5.36.3 10.27.1 11.66.4 11.89.5 12.41–45 12.54.1 12.58.5–6 12.65.1–9 12.72.4 13.1.1 13.3.2 13.16.7 13.18.4 13.21.1–2 13.21.1–7 13.22.1 13.30.1 13.42.5 13.58.2 14.1.1–3 14.38.4–5 14.76.3 14.78.1–3 14.82.7 14.84.67 14.98.1 14.117.8–9 15.8–11 15.33.3 15.39.1 15.60.4 15.68.4 15.93.1 16.1.6 16.26.1–6 16.33.1–4 16.38.2 16.57.3 16.58.6

170 166 31 32 31 164 177 166 166 32 32 166 170 87 29 166 166 31 166 166 164 32 32 32 176 32 32, 176 166 163 166 176 170 30 166 170 163 170 163 88 30 166 87 166 88, 177 32 31 31 176 30 30

311

Index of Greco-Roman Writings 16.61.1 16.64.1 16.95.1–5 17–18 17.1.1–2 17.1.3 17.1–118 17.7.2 17.10.1–6 17.20.1 17.49.2 18.1.6 18.2.1 18.20.1 18.24.6 18.42.1 18.67.5 19.2.8–9 19.8.4 19.53.3 25.10.1 27.18.1 28.4.1 30.9.2 34/35.2.7–8 34/35.3.1 34/35.18.1 37.4.1 37.17.1 40.4

30 30 177 88 89 173 88 173 31 32 175 87 87 29 29 29 29 31 163 164 247 33 176 87 31 177 176–77 163 33 237

Diogenes Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.3 167 1.13–14 84 1.60 83 1.115 83 2.6 83 2.12 83 2.13 83 2.19 83 2.39 83 2.54 83 2.75 83 2.82 83 2.98 83 2.116 83 3.4 83 4 84 4.1 89

4.1 4.6 4.11 4.16 4.21 4.27 4.28 4.47 4.59 4.62 4.67 5 5.2 5.58 5.62 5.65 5.67 5.86 6.2 6.77 6.80 6.82 7.37 7.168 7.179 7.185 8.8 8.24 8.86 8.90 9.6 9.25 9.27 9.35 9.61 9.110 9.115 10.3 10.9 10.13 10.14

84 89 89 89 84, 89 89 89 90 84, 90 83, 90 88, 90 84 84 84 87 84 87 83 84 83 83 84 87 84 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 88 88 83 88 83 83

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. (Antiquitates romanae) 1.1.2 164 1.1.4 164 1.1.5 164 1.2.1–6 172 1.2.6 172 1.3.1 172

312 1.3.1–3 1.4.2 1.5.1–3 1.5.2 1.5.3 1.6.1–2 1.6.5 1.7.1 1.8.1 1.10.1–3 1.11.1 1.11.1–3 1.11.2 1.11.4 1.12.1 1.12.3 1.13.1 1.13.2 1.13.3 1.14.1–6 1.17.1–2 1.18.1–2 1.20.1 1.20.1–2 1.23.1 1.24.3 1.53.4 1.56.1–3 1.59.5 1.64.3 1.65.1 1.70.1 1.73.1–5 1.77.1–3 1.77.3 2.1.2 2.4.2 2.5.1–2 2.6.1–4 2.7.1 2.18.3 2.22.3 2.35.3 2.62.5 2.63.1 2.64.3 2.68.2 3.35.1–6 3.35.5–6 3.36.1

Index of Greco-Roman Writings 164 171 166, 171 177 177 163 164 163 28 171 171 163 171 171 171 171 171–72 172 172 172 172 172 29, 31, 178 172 29–30 30 87 31 30 89 89 89 89 31, 133 28 172 32 32 32 32 28 32 177 177 177 177 28 30, 176 176 177

3.36.1–4 3.46.1 4.34.3 4.63.1 4.83.4 5.46.1 6.1.3 6.6.2 6.73.2 6.79.3

176 177 87 29, 31 29 31 31 31 29 29

Eusebius Praep. ev. (Praeperatio evangelica) 9.31–33 87 Florus Epitome Rerum Romanorum 1.1.2 29 1.1.4 89 1.1.5–7 89 1.47.1 166 1.47.4 166 Herodotus Hist. (Historiae) 1.1.1 1.6.1 1.7.1–4 1.16.1 1.26.1 1.62.4 1.63.1 1.111.1 1.118.2 1.124.1–2 1.210 2.3.2 2.65.2 2.143.1–4 3.17–26 3.25 3.40.1–43.2 3.42.4 3.53 3.124.1–126.1 4.5.1–7.3 4.5.1–12.3 4.8–10 4.11–12 4.119.1–4

163 28, 169 169 168 168 178 178 32 32 32 29 27 227 173 114 234 30 30 88 29 169 169 169 169 177

313

Index of Greco-Roman Writings 4.145.1–147.5 4.145.4 5.90–92 6.54.1 6.55.1 7.8.1 7.12.1–19.3 7.12–19 7.11.2 7.150.1 7.204.1 8.131.2

169 169 88 173 173 32 31 115 168 173 168 168

Horace Carm. (Carmina) 1.2

201

Iamblichus Vit. Pyth. (De Pythagorica vita) 36 87–88 Justinian Dig. (Digesta) 1.2.40 1.2.2.1–53 Livy History of Rome Pref. 3 Pref. 10 1.2.1–6 1.2.6 1.3.1 1.3.7–11 1.9.3 1.15.6 1.16.3 1.46.1–2 2.41.1 3.1.1 3.7.8 3.8.1 3.11.2 4.7.4–5 4.11.5 4.36.2 4.48.1–2 4.51.5–6 8.40.4 23.27.9–12

87 88

163 178 172 172 172 173 30 177 177 167 167 167 31 31 174 167 167 167 167 167 167 88

26.34.13 26.41.14 45.9.5

30 30 174

Lucian Alex. (Alexander) 5 60

87 88

Hist. conscr. (Historia conscribenda) 1 64, 262 39 164 47 164 58 164 60 28 Pausanias Descr. (Graeciae description) 7.12 88 1.3.2 170 8.15.7 170 Plato Apol. (Apologia) 17

135

Leg. (Leges) 6.769c

88

Pliny the Elder Nat. (Naturalis historia) 2.23 201 2.93–94 201 5.132–33 237 6.35 244 7.98 237 8.42.103 226 Pliny the Younger Ep. (Epistulae) 10.8

213

Plutarch Parallel Lives Alex. (Alexander) 45.1–3 47.3

239 239

Exil. (De exilio) 14

87

314

Index of Greco-Roman Writings

Lyc. (Lycurgus) 1.4

207

Num. (Numa) 7.2–3

31

Oth. (Otho) 4.4

175

Pyrrh. (Pyrrhus) 1

207

Sol. (Solon) 30.1–3

226

Sull. (Sulla) 28.1–3

226

Them. (Themistocles) 27.2–3 239 Thes. (Theseus) 2.1 3.1 3.3 15.1

173 173 31 29

Vit. X orat. (Vitae decem oratorum) 850C 87 Polybius Histories 1.1.2 1.1.5 1.1.12 1.4.1 1.13.6–7 1.14.1 2.47.1 4.6.9 4.31.8 6.11–18 9.1.4–5 15.7.5 38.4.1–8 39.8.7

Seneca Lucil. (Ad Lucilium) 94.63 239 Nat. (Naturales quaestiones) 4A, Pref. 10 229 6.8.3 244 Sextus Empiricus Math. (Adversus Mathematicos) 1.252–53 167 Strabo Geogr. (Geographica) 1.2.27–28 242 2.2.2 242 2.4.2 234 3.1.8 247 11.13.9 88 13.1.3 88 16.4.4 114 17.1.54 244 Suetonius Lives of the Twelve Caesars Aug. (Divus Augustus) 1.1 173–74 65.1 30 94.1–12 201 Claud. (Divus Claudius) 46.1 31

163 164 195 28 164 163 166 165–66 166 160 167 166 164 239

Quintilian Inst. (Institutio oratoria) 10.1.131 239

Galb. (Galba) 3.1 4.3 10.1–5

174 31 32

Jul. (Divus Julius) 6.1 88

173 32

Nero (Nero) 1.1 1.2 36.1

174 174 31

Otho (Otho) 1.1–3

174

315

Index of Greco-Roman Writings Tib. (Tiberius) 3.1

174

Vesp. (Vespasianus) 16.3 226 Vit. (Vitellius) 1.1

174

Tacitus Ann. (Annales) 2.81–82 15 15.62

174, 234 244 88

Hist. (Historiae) 1.1 1.10 2.1 4.17 4.52

163 32 32 33 32

Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 1.2.2 165 1.15.2 165 1.26.3 169 1.75.3 165 1.97.1–2 163 2.36.1–2 169 2.62.3 169 2.64.2 29 4.21.3 165 4.64.1–2 32 4.92.3 165 4.92.7 33 4.95.1 165 5.18.3–4 165 5.47.2–4 165 5.79.4 165 5.104.1 33 5.112.1 169 6.68.4 165

8.18.1 8.37.1 8.58.1

165 165 165

Velleius Paterculus History of Rome 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.1–2 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3.3 1.4.1 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.6.1 1.6.3 1.6.4 1.6.5 1.8.4

170, 174 174 174–75 175 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174

Virgil Aen. (Aeneid) 1.275–96 1.257–96 6.780–82 6.788–96 8.714–28

160 160 237 160 237

Xenophon Anab. (Anabasis) 2.3.21–24 3.1.42 3.2.11–14

32 32 32

Hell. (Hellenica) 3.1.6 3.3.1–4 6.3.1–20 6.4.30 7.1.31 7.2.20

166–67 169–70 165 31 31 32

Index of Jewish Writings Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 1 En. (1 Enoch) 14 71 85–90 90:28–36 91:1

236 236 193 211 61

2 Esd (2 Esdras) 2:38 6:13

151 151

4 Ezra (4 Ezra) 7:26–44 11:1–12:39 14:10–12 14:22

15:35

193 193 207 207

1 Macc (1 Maccabees) 1:10 38 1:16–19 38 1:21–26 38 1:30–40 38 2:1–14 38 2:15–25 39 2:41 220 2:68 116 5:18 39 5:55–62 39 9:43–49 220 10:84 246 11:4 246 2 Macc (2 Maccabees) 4:7–10 36 5:24–27 220 7 238 8:22–29 220 9:4 36 12:38 30 15:4–5 36

36

3 Macc (3 Maccabees) 2:2 35 2:2–3 36 2:21–22 36 3:5–7 36 3:9 35 6:5 239 4 Macc (4 Maccabees) 4:1–14 36 4:19–20 36 Apoc. Mos. (Apocalypse of Moses) 24 207 Bar (Baruch) 5:5

151

Jdt (Judith) 1:10 8:1 18:8

243 181, 207 47

Jub. (Jubilees) 1:7 1:7–8 1:10 1:13 1:15–18 1:28–29 2–8 4 4:15 7 7:7–19 7:14–16 7:20–21 8

184 181 181 181 181 211 182 182 36 182 182 182 36 182

317

Index of Jewish Writings 8:3 8:8 8:12 9:1–2 9:4 9:14–15 10:4–7 10:29–30 10:34 14:18 15 15:10 15:19–20 17:3 22:12–13 22:14 26 27:34 31:12 32:19 35:13 36 36:14 36:19 37:1–4 37:5–24 38:10–11 44:34

36 182 182 182 183 182 36 183 184 182 183 182 183 182 183 182 183 183 61 182 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 218

6:1–18 9:10 10.1–2 10.3–6 20:2 28:6 31:9 48:1

190 61 115 115 115 61 61 114

Mart. Isa. (Martyrdom of Isaiah) 1:7 40 5:15 40 Pss. Sol. (Psalms of Solomon) 8:15 248 8:7 35 11 211 17:4–6 192 17:21–25 193 17:23–27 211 Sir (Sirach) 25:24 48:24

36 61

T. Abr. (Testament of Abraham) 2:8 151 3:6 151 4:14 151

L.A.B. (Liber antiquitatum biblicarum) 1:1–22 190 2:1–10 190 2:3 190 2:5–10 190 4:3 190 4:8 190

Tob (Tobit) 1:1 13:11–12

181 211

Wis (Wisdom of Solomon) 14:8 211

Hellenistic Jewish Writings Josephus Ant. (Jewish Antiquities) Pref. 3 §14 179, 195 Pref. 4 §20 179, 195 1.3.1 §72 39 1.3.2 §79 207 1.4.1–3 §§109–19 39–40 1.4.2 §114 39 1.6.5 §§148–53 37

1.7.1 §155 1.7.1 §157 1.10.3 §§183–85 1.10.5 §§191–92 1.15.1 §§239–41 1.18.6 §272 1.19.2 §282 2.6.8 §241 2.9.6 §229

39 191 191 191 190 191 191 113 207

318 2.12.1 §268 2.10.2 §243 2.11.1 §255 2.13.2 §282 2.12.1 §268 3.1.1 §2 3.1.3 §§11–12 3.1.6 §28 3.2.3 §§49–50 3.3.1 §65 3.4.1 §67 3.5.1 §78 3.6.1 §102 3.6.1 §105 3.12.6 §302 3.14.1 §304 3.14.2 §305 4.2.1 §11 4.4.7 §82 4.7.2 §165 4.8.2 §177 4.8.2 §§189–91 4.8.2 §194 4.8.40 §290 4.8.48 §329 5.1.3 §16 5.1.3 §§18–19 5.1.11 §34 5.1.22 §87 8.15.4 §§ 403–404 9.6.4 §122 10.2.2 §33 10.2.2 §190 10.8.5–6 §§143–50 10.8.6 §§151–53 10.9.5 §186 11.6.1 §191 11.6.2 §§200–201 11.6.7 §§223–24 11.6.7 §§227–28 11.6.10 §249 11.6.11 §257 11.6.11 §§259–60 15.1.1 §1 15.1.2 §§5–8 15.3.1 §§39–41 15.7.4 §226 15.11.1 §380 15.11.4 §§404–408

Index of Jewish Writings 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 114 114 114 114 114 114 93 113 113 113 113 114 114 191 113 243–44 114 113 113 113 246 243 243 243 243 115 115 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 199 199 199 243 199 199

15.11.4 §405 16.8.1 §§23–31 17.13.1 §341 18.2.2 §§33–35 18.4.3 §95 18.5.3 §123 18.6–9 §§211–37 19.3–4 §§212–73 19.7.3 §§328–31 20.6.3 §135 20.8.1–2 §§148–53

200 243 204 203 203 203 115 309 227 231 115

Apion (Contra Apionem) 1.26 §238 113 1.28 §261 113 2.16 §156 113 2.17 §158 113 2.17 §159 113 J.W. (Jewish Wars) 1.24.7 §488 2.7.4 §§114–16 2.9.1 §168 2.9.2 §169 2.9.2–3 §§169–74 2.12.7 §245 2.12.8 §247 2.16.4 §345 2.16.4 §§344–407 3.7.3 §141 4.2.3 §97 4.3.2 §130 4.9.8 §543 5.1.1 §2 5.2.2 §§60–61 18.6.9–10 §§211–37

243 204 202 202 202 231 202 361 231 36 36 246 36 36 36 88

Cleodemus Malchus (Cl. Mal.) Frag. 1a 37 Frag. 1b 37 Philo Flacc. (In Flaccum) 1.6 §§39–40 229 Mos. (De vita Mosis) 2.88 47 Virt. (De virtutibus) 217 62

319

Index of Jewish Writings

Other Jewish Writings Qumran 1QS (Rule of the Community) 8:16 61 9:16–21 10

Targum Tg. Neof. (Targum Neofiti) Exodus 2:12 61

CD (Damascus Document) 2:12 61

Tg. Ps.-J. (Targum Pseudo Jonathan) Exodus 33:16 61

Mishnah b. Yebam. (Yebamot) 20b 243 75a 243 79b 243 81a 243 m. Qidd. (Qiddušin) 4:1 180 m. Šabb. (Šabbat) 9:5 220

Tg. Neb. (Targum of the Prophets) 2 Samuel 23:1–2 61 2 Kgs 5:26

61

Ezek 8:1–3 11:15 37:1 40:1–2

61 61 61 61

Index of Modern Authors Achtemeier, P. J. 55 Adams, S. 3 Alden, M. J. 176 Aletti, J.-N. 53, 72–73, 81, 85, 139, 145, 152 Alexander, L. C. A. 4, 13, 22, 28–29, 33, 79, 156, 159 Alexander, P. S. 182 Allen, O. W. 227 Anderson, A. R. 175 Anderson, K. L. 238 Applebaum, S. 213 Andriolo, K. 184 Ashley, E. 55 Assis, E. 188 Attridge, H. W. 38, 116 Aune, D. E. 13 Aus, R. D. 217 Austin, M. M. 165, 173 Baban, O. 139 Balch, D. 13 Barrett, C. K. 4, 15, 17, 143, 164, 248 Bauckham, R. 131, 148 Baur, F. C. 4 Bauspieß, M. 19, 48 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 241 Beck, N. A. 58, 232 Begg, C. T. 97 Ben-Barak, Z. 100 Ben Zvi, E. 186 Berlin, A. 72 Bieberstein, S. 100 Bieberstein, K. 100 Bilde, P. 113 Bird, M. 3, 137 Blomberg, C. 72 Bock, D. 10, 142, 198, 206, 208, 225, 227 Böhm, M. 9, 240 Bond, H. K. 225

Bonz, M. P. 21, 44 Bornhäuser, K. B. 208 Bostock, D. G. 112 Bovon, F. 4, 8–9, 74, 141 Bowker, J. W. 14, 22 Bowman, J. 240 Bradley, K. R. 86 Brady, J. R. 64 Braun, R. L. 189 Brawley, R. L. 10, 59, 222–24 Brent, A. 84, 154 Brodie, T. L. 14, 23, 59, 77, 80–81, 103, 107, 112, 129, 149, 151, 156–57, 264 Brown, R. E. 198 Bruce, A. B. 56 Bruce, F. F. 244–46 Buckwalter, H. D. 10–11 Budge, E. A. W. 244 Burnside, J. 81 Burridge, R. A. 13 Byron, G. L. 242, 244 Cadbury, H. J. 12, 14 Carlson, R. A. 102 Carroll, J. T. 9 Carroll, R. P. 102 Carter, W. 225 Cassidy, R. J. 159–60, 224, 230 Chance, J. B. 9 Charlesworth, J. H. 26, 213 Clark, A. C. 73, 75–78, 84, 137, 139–40 Coats, G. W. 95 Cohn, R. L. 103, 105–106 Coleridge, M. 8 Collins, J. J. 26 Conzelmann, H. 6, 48, 78, 127, 196, 198, 204, 228, 248 Cotter, W. 54 Craddock, F. B. 141 Croatto, J. S. 59

Index of Modern Authors Cronauer, P. T. 105 Crump, D. 10 Culpepper, R. A. 136, 212–13 Darr, J. A. 222–23, 226 Daube, D. 92, 94 Davenport, G. L. 181 Davies, W. D. 196–97 Davis, J. 236 Den Boer, W. 28, 168 Denova, R. I. 76 DeSilva, D. A. 39, 49–50 Dibelius, M. 5, 12, 14 Diefenbach, M. 128 Dietrich, W. 241 Dillon, R. J. 59, 127 Dionisotti, A. C. 85 Ðỗ, M. T. Y. 72, 121, 124, 150, 223 Doble, P. 10, 67 Donaldson, T. L. 72 Downing, F. G. 17, 209 Drury, J. 45, 59 Duff, T. E. 86 Duling, D. E. 64 Dunn, J. D. G. 241, 248 Dupont, J. 209, 234 Dyck, J. E. 192 Edwards, D. R. 160–61 Ehrhardt, A. 15, 22 Ellis, E. E. 234, 247 Evans, C. A. 112, 152, 210, 212, 214 Evans, H. H. 74–76, 78, 137 Eve, E. 54–55, 57 Farris, S. 66, 77 Fears, J. R. 167 Feldman, L. H. 26, 93, 113–14 Fitzgerald, J. 79 Fitzmyer, J. A. 67, 198, 201, 204, 206, 208, 222, 234, 241 Fluehr-Lobban, C. 244 Forbes, G. W. 214 Fredricksmeyer, E. A. 175 Frein, B. C. 59, 62 Fridrichsen, A. 55, 209 Frolov, S. 81 Gagnon, R. A. 132–33 Garlington, D. B. 209

321

Gärtner, B. 14–15, 22 Gasque, W. W. 4 Gaventa, B. R. 248 Geller, S. A. 72 Gempf, C. 250 Gen, R. M. 50 Gertel, E. B. 126 Gibson, J. B. 209 Gill, D. W. J. 246 Gnuse, R. 77 Goldenberg, D. M. 243–44 González, C. 236 González, J. 236 Gorman, H. 3 Gould, J. 27 Goulder, M. 76, 78, 41 Gowler, D. B. 222–23 Green, J. B. 3–4, 7, 9, 13, 44, 51, 55–56, 65, 67, 73, 77–78, 131–32, 139, 140–42, 144, 199, 202–203, 206, 209, 220, 223–25, 236–37 Gregory, R. 105 Grelot, P. 249 Gunn, D. M. 81 Habel, N. C. 185, 197, 211 Hadas, M. 30, 164 Haenchen, E. 135, 230, 234, 240, 248, 250 Hall, R. G. 8, 18–19 Hall, S. L. 92, 94–96 Halpern-Amaru, B. 181, 184–85, 191– 92 Hamm, M. D. 55, 224 Hauser, A. J. 105 Hawk, L. D. 99 Hays, D. J. 198 Heard, R. C. 186 Hekster, O. 32 Hemer, C. J. 4, 16 Hengel, M. 6–8, 13, 246 Hester, J. D. 212–14 Hiebert, T. 39 Hobbs, T. R. 102 Hoehner, H. W. 226 Hogan, L. P. 219, 224 Holladay, C. 4, 21, 26 Horne, E. H. 214 Horsley, G. H. R. 12–13 Horsley, R. A. 65

322

Index of Modern Authors

Inowlocki, S. 40 Japhet, S. 35, 39, 185, 188–89 Jeremias, J. 207 Jervell, J. 9, 44, 142, 159, 234, 240 Jipp, J. W. 67 Johnson, L. T. 61, 142, 228, 241 Johnson, M. D. 189, 206–207 Kahl, W. 54–55 Kartveit, M. 189 Kee, H. C. 54, 151, 224 Keener, C. S. 13, 53–54, 60, 74, 235–37, 239 Kim, T. H. 201 Kimball, C. A. 214 Klauck, H.-J. 54 Klein, H. 65, 133, 144, 200, 203, 207 Klein, R. 189, 192–93 Kloppenborg, J. S. 136, 212–14 Klutz, T. 57–58 Knoppers, G. N. 180 Koet, B. J. 66 Koopmans, W. T. 100 Koskenniemi, E. 55, 60 Kugel, J. L. 72 Kuhn, K. A. 77 Kurz, W. 4, 15, 20–22, 207–208 Lampe, G. W. 55 Lane, T. J. 75, 124 Lattimore, R. 32 Laurentin, R. 77 Lazarus, F. M. 29 Lee, D. 13 Levine, N. 108, 110 Levison, J. R. 37, 63 Lietaert Peerbolte, B. J. 128 Litwak, K. D. 10, 44, 59, 243 Long, H. S. 83 Lord, L. E. 85 Lüdemann, G. 6 Malbon, E. S. 223 Malina, B. J. 243–44 Mallen, P. 66 Manns, F. 94 Marguerat, D. 4, 17, 26, 33, 41, 56, 68 Marlowe, W. C. 39–40, 237

Marshall, I. H. 4, 6–8, 22, 49, 67, 132, 208, 242 Marshall, J. 202, 226–27, 246 Martin, C. J. 242 Mason, S. 203 Mattill, A. J. 73–75, 78, 137 May, J. D. 249 McCarthy, T. G. 85 McGing, B. C. 225 McKeever, M. C. 4 Meek, J. A. 126, 249 Meeks, W. A. 26 Melbourne, B. L. 247–48 Mendels, D. 181, 183–84, 187 Menzies, G. 236–37 Menzies, R. P. 11, 128–29, 218 Metzger, B. F. 217, 240 Miller, P. C. 54 Miscall, P. D. 106 Mittelstaedt, A. 3, 22, 60, 143, 248 Momigliano, A. 27 Moo, J. 193 Moore, S. 223 Moore, T. S. 233–34, 248 Morgenthaler, R. 14 Motyer, I. S. 173 Mowery, R. L. 201 Murphy, F. J. 115–16 Myllykoski, M. 155 Na’aman, N. 106 Nassen, P. 84 Nassen Poulos, P. 83 Neagoe, A. 159 Neirynck, F. 76 Newell, J. E. 137 Newell, R. R. 137 Neyrey, J. H. 243, 249 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 115 Nolland, J. 56, 132, 199, 204, 209 North, R. G. 189 Novick, T. 63 Oakman, D. E. 213 Öhler, M. 257249 Omerzu, H. 68 O’Toole, R. 9, 53, 73, 75, 77–78, 81, 145, 156, 236

Index of Modern Authors Padilla, O. 229 Palmer, D. 13 Pao, D. W. 10, 13, 44, 138, 235, 238 Parsons, M. C. 3 Paschke, B. A. 54, 151 Penner, T. 13, 17–18, 45–46, 78 Penney, J. M. 11, 128 Perdue, L. G. 41 Perrin, B. 85–86 Pervo, R. I. 3, 13, 59, 141–44, 227, 234, 248 Peterson, D. G. 144 Phillips, T. 93 Pigott, S. M. 37, 65 Plevnik, J. 63 Plümacher, E. 15–16 Porter, R. J. 245 Porter, R. 91 Puskas, C. B. 250 Praeder, S. 78 Radl, W. 52–53, 133, 137, 144, 199, 202, 207, 209 Ramsay, W. M. 4 Raphals, L. 29 Rapske, B. 230, 250 Ravens, D. A. S. 59, 112, 150 Reid, B. 223 Reid, D. G. 201, 238 Rengstorf, K. H. 235, 249 Rese, M. 10, 22 Rice, G. 102 Richardson, A. 55 Robbins, V. 4, 160–61, 201 Roberts, J. J. M. 42 Roberts, K. L. 109 Robinson, B. P. 93 Robinson, C. A. 176 Ross, J. P. 55 Rothschild, C. 18, 29, 59, 78–79 Rowe, C. K. 57, 160–61, 230, 233 Ruddick, C. T. 77 Sabourin, L. 55 Salmeier, M. A. 211, 240, 248 Samkutty, V. J. 148, 240–41 Sanders, J. T. 233, 240 Sanders, J. A. 166 Sandmel, S. 72 Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 91, 102

323

Schiavo, L. 209 Schiffner, K. 10 Schmidt, D. 15, 22 Schmidt, K. L. 7 Schneckenburger, M. 78 Schröter, J. 4, 121 Schulte, H. 111 Schwartz, D. R. 234, 228, 248 Schweizer, E. 129, 223 Scott, J. J. 132 Scott, J. M. 198 Seccombe, D. 68 Segal, M. 181 Seim, T. K. 223 Selman, M. J. 37 Shauf, S. 8, 12, 53, 143–44 Shepherd, W. 11, 63 Sherwin-White, A. N. 231 Sherwood, A. 94 Siebert-Hommes, J. 104, 107 Siker, J. S. 125 Sleeman, M. 198 Smallwood, E. M. 200 Smith, A. 243 Smith, W. A. 105 Smyth, H. W. 137 Snodgrass, K. 130 Soards, M. L. 48 Sparks, J. T. 187–88 Spencer, F. S. 137, 139–40, 148, 240– 41, 243, 245 Squires, J. T. 16–17, 19, 25, 50–52, 54, 60, 69, 159 Stavrakopoulou, F. 169 Stegner, W. R. 209 Stepp, P. L. 87–88 Sterling, G. 4, 19–20 Strauss, D. L. 59, 65, 67 Štrba, B. 99 Strelan, R. 54, 151 Stronstad, R. 11, 62–63, 75, 127, 130 Swain, S. 31, 176 Sweeney, J. P. 46–47 Talbert, C. H. 13–14, 55, 72–73, 76–81, 83–84, 87–88, 90, 112, 118–19, 127, 130, 153–56, 207 Tannehill, R. C. 4, 76, 78, 198, 201, 222, 241 Taylor, J. E. 202, 225

324

Index of Modern Authors

Taylor, N. H. 210 Thompson, A. J. 59, 65, 159–61, 201, 237–38, 240, 247 Thornton, C.-J. 4, 13, 16, 29, 234, 242 Thornton, Τ. C. G. 234, 247 Tiede, D. L. 59, 135 Toye, D. L. 175 Troftgruben, T. M. 74 Turner, M. 11, 61–62, 129, 235 Twelftree, G. H. 55 Tyson, J. B. 221–22 Unger, M. 52 Van de Sandt, H. 49, 239, 249 Van Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M. 181 Van Seters, J. 124 Van Unnik, W. C. 15, 22, 234, 248 Verheyden, J. 25 Vidas, M. 180 Vorter, W. S. 81 Wagenaar, J. 92, 95, 99 Wagner, J. R. 133–36 Walaskay, P. W. 145 Walker, W. O. 130 Wall, R. W. 132 Walsh, P. G. 163 Walters, P. 3 Waltke, B. K. 37 Walton, J. H. 39 Walton, S. 159, 211

Weaver, J. B. 53 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 148 Wenell, K. J. 197–98, 200, 222 Wenk, M. 11 Wesselius, J. W. 81 Wilcox, M. 63 Williams, C. S. C. 240 Williamson, H. G. M. 185, 189 Wilson, R. 180, 189 Wilson, S. G. 249 Winter, B. 229 Wischmeyer, O. 45 Wiseman, D. J. 107 Wiseman, T. P. 167–68 Witherington, B. 239, 248 Wolter, M. 4, 45, 48, 57, 74, 130 199, 212 Woods, E. J. 11, 126 Woudstra, M. H. 99 Wray Beal, L. M. 111 Wright, A. G. 223 Wright, N. T. 45, 52 Yamazaki-Ransom, K. 44, 206, 224–28, 231 Yeung, M. 54 Zakovitch, Y. 93 Zimmerman, F. 193 Zwiep, A. W. 63, 75, 77–78, 130, 141, 235

Subject Index Abraham 36–37, 179–90, 197 Apologetics 16–21, 78, 159–60

Geographical movements 23–24, 196, 198, 218, 233–51

Biographies, ancient 7–8, 13–14, 78–81, 83–90, 53, 153–57, 173–74, 258

Herodians 199–200, 202–205, 225–28 Historicity (see Historiography) Historiography – ancient conventions 7 – confessional/sacred history 19 – events and narratives, relationship 14 – historicity 4–6, 12 – history and theology, separation 8– 21, 49 68–69 – Jewish and Hellenistic, differences 68–69, 156–57, 253–54 – rhetoric 17–19, 77, 84, 242 – speeches, function 14–18, 45–50, 57, 61–66, 79, 100–102, 177–78, 211 History of salvation 6–7, 44, 60, 75–77 Human participation 27–33, 37–41, 64– 67

Centurion 130–33, 220–21 Christology (see Davidic king, Identity [Jesus], OT in Luke-Acts [Stone], Theology [Christology]) Continuity/discontinuity with OT (see OT in Luke-Acts) 8–12 Covenant 96–98, 125, 179–93 Crossing the waters 94–98, 115, 125 Davidic king 48–50, 191–96, 200–202 Deified rulers 31–33, 175–78 Deuteronomic historian/history 41, 81, 112, 116, 118–19, 129–30, 150, 153, 155–57, 159, 179 Dichotomy – Hellenistic and Jewish 25–26, 68–69, 72 Divine appointment/task 38, 41, 62, 66, 71–72, 91–92, 119–21, 123, 126, 154–55 Ecclesiology (See Theology) Elijah 38, 56–58, 61–63, 102–12, 114– 15, 119–30, 153 Elisha 38, 56–58, 61, 102–12, 114–15, 119–30, 153 End of the earth 124–25, 233–35, 245– 51 Epiphany 16–17, 27–28, 50–53, 199– 202, 217 Fate 20, 26, 29–30, 258 Fortune 26–33, 166, 169, 171, 258 Genealogies 167–75, 180–90, 206–208

Identity – Israel as a nation 8–10, 19–21, 188, 216–18 – Jesus 10–11, 50–64, 141–43 Isaiah 65–67, 211, 214, 243–45 Jewish national history 20, 35, 38 John the Baptist 51–53, 61, 64, 73, 135, 137–41, 146, 196, 203, 228 Joshua 38, 91–102, 112–14, 119–30, 153 Kings/kingdoms/empires (passim) Kingship of Yahweh/kingdom of God (passim) Land, theology of 196–215 Legitimacy – land claims 167–175, 180–90, 198– 215

326

Subject Index

– king’s reign167–78, 180–97, 215–21 Literary artistry and style 15–16 Magic 149, 151, 241, 209, 241 Mimesis 15–16 Miracles – healing 53–59, 63–64, 105–109, 126–133, 141–43, 150–51, 218–20 – raising the dead 103–106, 122, 135, 150–52 Mission to Gentiles 9–10, 50, 64, 75–77, 121, 123–24, 129–32, 140–41, 146– 49, 220, 227, 234, 240–51 Moses 38, 91–102, 112–16, 119–30, 153, 215–18 OT in Luke-Acts (see Continuity/Discontinuity with OT) – ascension (Elijah, Moses) 121–30 – baptism of Jesus (Ps 2) 206 – epiphanies in Luke 1:5–25 (angels, barren women, nazirite vows, Samson) 51–53 – giving of the Spirit in Acts 2 (Babel, Pentecost, Joel’s prophecy) 236–39 – healing in Luke 4:31–44 (Elijah, Elisha, Gentile mission, God’s universal/sole sovereignty) 56–57 – new Moses in Luke 9–10 (Num 11– 14) 216–21 – Paul’s speech in Acts 13 (David, OT history) 48–50 – proclamation of the Jubilee in Luke 4 (Lev 25) 211 – prophets/prophecy in Luke-Acts 60– 63 – Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 (Abraham, David, Moses, OT history, “restored tent”) 45–48 – Stone in Luke 20; Acts 4 (Ps 118) 133–36 – succession (Elijah, Elisha, Joshu, Moses) 118–21 – temptation in Luke 4 (Deut 6–8) 209–10 Parallels – circumstantial 98–100, 110–11, 150– 53 – episodic 92–98, 106–109, 130–49

– miscellaneous types 13–14 – literary purpose 153 – structural 102–106 – synkrisis 84–87, 90 – verbal 100–101 Pentecost 235–239 Pharisees 212–213, 219–24 Philip the Evangelist 53, 128, 137–41, 147–49, 240–47 Piety 32, 38, 51–52, 89, 116, 171, 175– 78, 197, 218–19 Pneumatology (see Theology [pneumatology]) Politics (see Kings/kingdoms/empires) Proclamation/kerygma 8–9, 23–24, 53– 67, 122–130, 136, 139–41, 146–49, 154, 211–12, 233, 236–49, 247 Prophecy/oracles/prophesy/prophets 11, 18–19, 30–31, 37–39, 47–48, 50–64 Providence 16, 21, 28–29, 31, 36, 52, 103, 178, 227 Rewritten Bible/biblical accounts – Josephus on Elijah 114 – Josephus on Elisha 114 – Josephus on Joshua 112–14 – Josephus on Moses 112–14 – Jubilees on biblical genealogies (Gen 5, 10) 182–185 – Jubilees on the patriarchs 181 – Pseudo-Philo on Moses 115–16 Revelations and divine communications 31–33, 37–39, 49–53, 59–60, 150 Rewards and retributions 30–31, 43–44 Roman empire (see Kings/kingdoms/ empires) Roman officials – Felix 145–46, 229–30 – Festus 145–46, 230–31 – Gallio 228–29 – Pontius Pilate 145–46, 202–205, 225 – Sergius 152, 228, 241, 250 Sadduccees 232 Samaritan 75, 127–28, 139, 147–48, 217–18, 240–42 Son of God (see Davidic king, Identity [Jesus], OT in Luke-Acts [Stone], Theology [Christology]) 24, 56–58, 205–15, 245–47

Subject Index Speeches (see Historiography) Spirit (see Theology [pneumatology]) Stone, Christ the (see Theology [Christology], OT in Luke-Acts [Stone]) Succession (see OT in Luke-Acts [succession]) 84–155 Temple 9, 23, 44–48, 144, 153, 192, 197, 199–200, 203 Theology – Christology (see OT in Luke-Acts [Stone], Son of God) 8–12, 59–60, 216–18

327

– ecclesiology 8–10 – divine acts/theopraxis 8–12, 25–29, – salvation 7–12, 14, 45, 53, 65–67, 75, 77–80, 133–38, 203–205, 226– 28, 237–38, 249–51 – pneumatology 11, 37–39, 60–64, 120, 126–30, 146–49 Trials 143–46 Typology 10, 76, 78, 207 Universal history 28, 35