The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke 9781472550910, 9780567313355, 9780567337962

Table of contents :
FC
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
Contributors
Introduction
1. Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative: Thomas L. Brodie
2. A Response to Thomas Brodie, “Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative”: Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr.
3. A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke as the Earliest Form of the Gospel: David Barrett Peabody
4. Reply to Robert Derrenbacker and David Barrett Peabody: Thomas L. Brodie
5. The Healing of Naaman (2 Kgs 5.1-19) as a Central Component for the Healing of the Centurion’s Slave (Luke 7.1-10): John Shelton
6. A Rhetorical-Critical Assessment of Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative: Alexander Damm
7. Imitation and Emulation, Josephus and Luke: Plot and Psycholinguistics: F. Gerald Downing
8. Toward an Intertextual Commentary on Luke 7: Dennis R. MacDonald
9. By Way of Epilogue: Looking Back at the Healing of Naaman and the Healing of the Centurion’s Slave—in Response to John Shelton: Joseph Verheyden
Bibliography
Index Nominum

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

493

Formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Mark Goodacre Editorial Board John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 1

23/08/2013 13:55

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 2

23/08/2013 13:55

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

Edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 3

23/08/2013 13:55

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018 UK USA www.bloomsbury.com

Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2014 © John S. Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden, with contributors, 2014 John S. Kloppenborg, Joseph Verheyden and contributors have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the authors. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: ePDF: 978-0-56733-796-2 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data John S. Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke / John S. Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden p.cm Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 978-0-5673-1335-5 (hardcover) Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 4

23/08/2013 13:55

Contents Contributors vii Introduction 1 John S. Kloppenborg 1 Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative   Thomas L. Brodie

6

2 A Response to Thomas Brodie, “Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative”   Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr.

30

3 A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke as the Earliest Form of the Gospel   David Barrett Peabody

37

4 Reply to Robert Derrenbacker and David Barrett Peabody  Thomas L. Brodie

61

5 The Healing of Naaman (2 Kgs 5.1-19) as a Central Component for the Healing of the Centurion’s Slave (Luke 7.1-10)  John Shelton

65

6 A Rhetorical-Critical Assessment of Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative   Alexander Damm

88

7 Imitation and Emulation, Josephus and Luke: Plot and Psycholinguistics   F. Gerald Downing 8 Toward an Intertextual Commentary on Luke 7  Dennis R. MacDonald 9 By Way of Epilogue: Looking Back at the Healing of Naaman and the Healing of the Centurion’s Slave—in Response to John Shelton  Joseph Verheyden

113 130

153

Bibliography 161 Index Nominum 169

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 5

23/08/2013 13:55

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 6

23/08/2013 13:55

Contributors Thomas L. Brodie has taught at seminaries and universities in the West Indies, United States, South Africa and Ireland. His books include The Crucial Bridge. The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels (Liturgical Press, 2000), The Birthing of the New Testament. The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield Phoenix, 2004), The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel (Oxford, 1993), and commentaries on John (Oxford, 1993) and Genesis (Oxford, 2001). Alexander Damm teaches religious studies at Wilfrid Laurier University. He is the author of Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem: Clarifying Markan Priority (Peeters, 2013), and the forthcoming study of Swami Vivekananda in The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (Walter de Gruyter, 2009–). He studies Christian traditions in both their Mediterranean and South Asian contexts. Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr. is an Associate Professor of Religious Studies and President at Thorneloe University, federated with Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. He is the author of Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (Peeters, 2005) and is Chair of the Synoptic Gospels Section in the Society of Biblical Literature. His interests include the Synoptic Problem and information technology and media in antiquity. F. Gerald Downing, now retired from (largely) Anglican ministerial training and parochial ministry; author of some dozen books and numerous articles, mostly on the Graeco-Roman context of early Christianity. John S. Kloppenborg is a Professor in the Department for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto. He is author of The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine (Mohr Siebeck, 2006), and Q, The Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Sayings and Stories of Jesus (Westminster John Knox, 2008) and co-author, with Richard S. Ascough, of Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary (Walter de Gruyter, 2011). Dennis R. MacDonald is the John Wesley Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Claremont School of Theology. He is the author or editor of a number of works, including Christianizing Homer (Oxford University

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 7

23/08/2013 13:55

viii

Contributors

Press), The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, and Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (both from Yale University Press) and most recently, Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’ Exposition of Logia about the Lord (Society of Biblical Literature). David Barrett Peabody teaches at Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln, and is the author of Mark as Composer (Mercer University Press, 1986) and co-author of Beyond the Q Impasse—Luke’s Use of Matthew: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies (Trinity Press International, 1996) and One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke (Trinity Press International, 2002). John Shelton is the Director of Biblical Studies at Emmaus Scripture School in Galway, Ireland. Joseph Verheyden studied theology, philosophy, and oriental languages at the KU Leuven and is currently professor of New Testament studies in the same institution. He recently co-edited The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013); Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts (with J. W. van Henten; Leiden: Brill, 2013); and The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition (with B. J. Koet and S. Moyise; Leiden: Brill, 2013).

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 8

23/08/2013 13:55

Introduction John S. Kloppenborg University of Toronto In 1927 Henry Cadbury wrote, Complicated as is the writing of Luke’s works when psychologically analyzed as a single event, it is scarcely more complicated than one of the component factors, that is, the material which he used, when the letter is taken by itself and examined as an historical development.1

Cadbury himself assumed the general outline of the Two Document Hypothesis and so presumed that Luke had before him both Mark and Q; he noted that these two documents accounted for only about half of Luke’s gospel. This inevitably raised the question, from whence came the other material that appears in Luke? Within the framework of the thesis of Markan priority, a number of answers have been given. Weizsäcker in 1864 had already argued that the material in the Lukan Travel Narrative (Luke 9.51–18.14) came to Luke in a block2—thus, in terms of the Two Document hypothesis a combination of “Q” and ‘L”. This view, as Joseph Verheyden has shown,3 is the predecessor of the so-called Proto-Luke hypothesis, first proposed by Paul Feine in 1891 and popular for another half-century.4 Since the mid-twentieth century, the hypothesis has been in decline, but makes regular reappearances in the work  1 Henry Joel Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (New York: Macmillan, 1927), p. 21.  2 Carl Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, ihre Quellen, und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung (Gotha: Rudolf Besser, 1864), p. 133.  3 Joseph Verheyden, “Proto-Luke and What Can Possibly Be Made of It,” in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. Paul Foster et al., BETL 239; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), pp. 617–54.  4 Paul Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte: eine Untersuchung (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1891). The hypothesis was endorsed by J. Vernon Bartlet (“The Sources of St. Luke’s Gospel,” in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem [ed. William Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911], pp. 315–63), B. H. Streeter (The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Dates [London: Macmillan & Co., 1924]), and Vincent Taylor (Behind the Third Gospel: A Study of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926]).

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 1

23/08/2013 13:55

2

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

of M.-E. Boismard and T. L. Brodie, to name only the most prominent of its advocates. The decline of the Proto-Luke hypothesis might be seen in another light too. Since the publication of William Farmer’s The Synoptic Problem,5 it can (or should) no longer be assumed that the Two Document hypothesis is an “assured result” of research. The Two Gospel (neo-Griesbach) hypothesis (2GH) has found strong advocates in Farmer and others,6 and since the late 1980s the so-called Farrer hypothesis (FH), once advanced by Enslin, Ropes and Farrer, has gained a foothold in the works of Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre.7 On both of these hypotheses, Luke had direct access to Matthew, which in turn means that the composition of Luke would look very different from 2DH Luke. While Goulder in particular was a strong advocate of Luke’s use of tropes taken from the Hebrew Bible, neither Goulder nor other advocates of the FG, nor advocates of the 2GH, needs to posit a Proto-Luke. One suspects that the impetus behind the first articulation of the Proto-Luke hypothesis was the supposition of older forms of synoptic scholarship that Luke was an editor in a rather narrow sense of that word, neither capable of composition ex nihilo of larger swathes of material, nor even able to cull from multiple and diverse oral and written sources the variegated materials that appear in the Infancy stories, the Travel Narrative and the non-Markan portions of the Lukan Passion narrative. To such a limited view of the editing of the gospels, the appeal of an extensive pre-Lukan source, combined with another pre-Lukan source (Mark), was both obvious and compelling. Since the advent of redaction criticism and the willingness to adopt the view of the synoptic evangelists as creative authors, the Proto-Luke hypothesis has lost some of its traction. But other bases for the hypothesis might be found. Or at least, the conceptualization of Luke’s compositional practices might be seen to be rather more complicated than what the simplest version of the Two Document hypothesis might imply: that Luke simply combined Mark with Q and bits of other “tradition” to form his gospel, as though he were an undergraduate pasting together his sources, modifying each to fit his stylistic and theological preferences. Since the advent of rhetorical criticism much more attention has been paid to the practice of rhetorical transformation of predecessor texts, and this, as it turns out, has provided new avenues to pursue in quest of Luke’s compositional practices. Important from a methodological point of view are many  5 William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1964 [repr. Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina Press, 1976]).  6 See Allan J. McNicol, Beyond the Q Impasse—Luke’s Use of Matthew: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies, in collaboration with David L. Dungan and David B. Peabody (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996).  7 Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; 2 vols; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); Mark S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (JSNTSup 133; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996); The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002).

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 2

23/08/2013 13:55



Introduction

3

works of Vernon Robbins, who has elaborated on the artistic manipulation of source materials by the synoptic authors,8 and in another way, the efforts of Dennis R. MacDonald, who has advocated in two major monographs the thesis that the Homeric epics and related stories served as a model for literary mimesis in the composition of the Gospels and Acts.9 Of course, the similarities between the Lukan infancy accounts and the birth stories in the Hebrew Bible had long been recognized, as well as the resonances between Luke 9.61–2 and the call of Elisha, to name only the most prominent examples. But it remained to develop these almost random allusions to the Hebrew Bible into a more comprehensive theory of Lukan composition. The idea that Luke imitated predecessor texts was mooted by T. L. Brodie as early as 1984,10 but subsequently developed into a more comprehensive compositional theory.11 It is fair to say that this view has not met with widespread or enthusiastic endorsement. There has, in fact, been little in the way of critical engagement. This chapters in this volume—all the product of a conference held in Limerick in 2008—focus not on the Proto-Luke hypothesis as a whole but only on one small aspect of it, Luke’s use and imitation of the ElijahElisha narratives. Thus, the textual loci that are in view are Luke 1.5-6; 7.1-10, 11-17; and 9.51-62, treated as test cases. For both Thomas Brodie and John Shelton, the Elijah-Elisha narrative forms the principal source of Luke’s material in these sections. The argument rests on both vocabularic resonances and the detection of common narrative patterns, and, in keeping with the recent turn toward rhetorical criticism, argues that Luke’s material in these sections represents a literary mimesis of elements of the Elijah-Elisha narrative. Since both Brodie and Shelton derive Luke in the first instance from 1–2 Kings, they have no immediate need for Q (on the 2DH) or Matthew (on the 2GH or FH). Evaluation of this (perhaps surprising) suggestion involves, then, an analysis of its principal supports: whether the degree of vocabularic agreement with the Elijah-Elisha narrative (henceforth, EEN) and whether the “patterns” detected by Brodie and Shelton offer more compelling evidence of literary dependence than the more common explanations of dependence  8 Among many contributions, see especially Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996) and The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (London; New York: Routledge, 1996).  9 Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000); Dennis R. MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003). 10 Thomas L. Brodie, “Greco-Roman Imitation of Texts as a Partial Guide to Luke’s Use of Sources,” in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. Charles H. Talbert; New York: Crossroad, 1984), pp. 17–46. 11 Thomas L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004).

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 3

23/08/2013 13:55

4

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

on Q (for the 2DH) or Matthew (for the 2GH, FH). In the view of Robert Derrenbacker, they do not, although Derrenbacker does not dispute that the EEN has had some influence on Luke’s formulations. David Peabody, with an eye to Brodie’s larger hypothesis of a Proto-Luke, notes that on his hypothesis, Luke is even more interested in Elijah than is Proto-Luke! This being the case, one might conclude that there is little reason to posit direct Lukan dependence on the EEN for Luke 7.1-17 and 9.51-62 when Luke’s manifest interest in Elijah as a figure might sufficiently account for the resonances that he has created in modifying Q (on the 2DH) or Matthew (on the 2GH, FH). Two of the chapters—by Alex Damm and F. Gerald Downing—examine the other part of the Brodie-Shelton hypothesis, namely the use of rhetorical paraphrase or mimesis. For the Brodie-Shelton hypothesis to be compelling, it is essential not only that the predecessor sources for Luke be delineated plausibly, but also that Luke’s mimetic procedures be transparent. Damm, himself an expert in rhetorical transformation of predecessor texts,12 concludes that 2 Kings 5.1-19 is more likely the model for Luke in Luke 7 than 1 Kings 17, as Shelton argues. Downing is even more skeptical of the direct and deliberate use of the text of the EEN by Luke, arguing instead from psycholinguistics that Luke’s Elijah-Elisha tropes exist at the level of the characterization of persons rather than at the level of the structure of extended narrative sequences—thus hardly requiring the kind of intense imitation of the EEN as proposed by Brodie and Shelton. Finally, the essay by Dennis R. MacDonald offers an alternative to Brodie’s Proto-Luke in the positing of Luke’s use of both an expanded version of Q (Q+) but also Papias’s Exposition of Logia about the Lord.13 MacDonald does not doubt that Luke 7 and presumably its Q+ predecessor are inspired by 2 Kings 5 and that Luke 7.11-17 is a creation from 1 Kgs 17.10-24. But unlike Brodie’s theory, MacDonald does not need to posit the direct dependence of Luke on 1–2 Kings since those sources have already been processed in his Q+. One cannot, however, call MacDonald’s Q+ a Proto-Luke redivivus since on his showing it contained not only Q and ‘L’ material, but stories and sayings normally assigned to Matthew and Mark. The Synoptic Problem is surely not a closed topic. We should recognize that the rather elegant simplicity of the 2DH or FH or 2GH disguises what was undoubtedly a much more complicated, and in most cases, unrecoverable, process of composition on the part of Luke. Interaction with other sources beyond Mark, Q (or Matthew) was likely a factor in Luke’s shaping of his stories and sayings. As the discipline moves beyond the rather simple editorial models assumed by redaction criticism, we must also take into account Luke’s 12 Alex Damm, “Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem,” in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. Paul Foster, et al., BETL 239; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), pp. 483–508. 13 This thesis is elaborated in much greater detail in Dennis R. MacDonald, Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’ Exposition of the Logia About the Lord (Early Christianity and Its Literature 8; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012).

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 4

23/08/2013 13:55



Introduction

5

practice of rhetorical paraphrase, expansion, and compression in the service of achieving a more compelling narrative and his use of loci communes for characterization and plot development. Some aspects of the composition of the synoptics will remain forever out of view, simply because we will never have access to their sources in the precise form in which they used them, and can only guess at the performative contexts in which they worked. But as our knowledge of the transformative practices of ancient authors improves, we may have a clearer understanding of the multiple factors that went into the act of literary composition.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 5

23/08/2013 13:55

Chapter 1 Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative Thomas L. Brodie Limerick, Ireland In discussing Luke-Acts and the Elijah-Elisha narrative (EEN), Part 1 summarizes the working outline provided by material published elsewhere; then, in Parts 2 and 3, I examine two texts to clarify that outline. Part 2 examines Luke’s beginning (1.5-25), and Part 3, Luke’s middle (9.51-62). The chapter concludes that Luke systematically adapted the beginning and middle of the EEN to provide important components for the gospel’s beginning and middle. I will argue, further, that the EEN and its early assimilation in the synoptic traditions stand at the beginning of the gospels themselves, a conclusion that will have significant implications for the synoptic problem.

1. The Working Outline and its Implications Even at a distance Luke-Acts has a striking similarity with the Elijah-Elisha narrative (1 Kings 16.29–2 Kings 13), for the texts consist of balanced halves bridged by an ascent into heaven. The similarity is not explained satisfactorily as coincidence. It is otherwise known that Luke imitated the LXX; in fact his work has been described as a continuation of the LXX.1 It is difficult then to see how Luke would be unaware of the EEN—a narrative about as long as a gospel (19½ chapters). Unawareness is doubly unlikely because—and this is crucial—the EEN constituted a distinct synthesis of the LXX’s foundational history (Genesis— Kings, “the Primary History”), and so stood out, forming a ready-made model for any historiographer who wanted to build on LXX narrative.2 Is it possible the influence was unconscious? Perhaps the Elijah-Elisha narrative had once given Luke the general idea—a two-part narrative bridged by an ascent—but, when he came to writing, he was not concerned with  1 Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition. Josephus, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 44; Leiden, New York and Cologne: Brill, 1992), p. 363.  2 Thomas L. Brodie, The Crucial Bridge. The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), esp. pp. 29–78.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 6

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

7

where he had got the idea. However, the evidence indicates otherwise. In Luke’s very opening scene—a defining moment—the announcing angel mentions only one ancient figure, Elijah; and far from being relegated to the past, Elijah is seen as an inspiration for the future (Luke 1.17). And in Jesus’ inaugural speech at Nazareth—a further defining moment—Jesus gives an exemplary role to both Elijah and Elisha, and cites specific incidents from the Elijah-Elisha narrative (Luke 4.25-7). Thus, apart from reproducing the unique Elijah-Elisha structure, he explicitly sets its protagonists like signposts at two of its defining moments, signposts that set the tone for his own narrative, especially for its prophetic ethos. Overall structure and signposted ethos are no small features; they concern Luke-Acts as a whole, and they indicate a process that is deliberate, a definite connection of some kind. General structure and ethos do not necessarily impinge on the detail of specific episodes, however. Perhaps the influence consists of little more than ill-defined echoes. But a spot check begins to indicate otherwise. There are fairly clear links involving raising a widow’s son (1 Kgs 17.17-24; Luke 7.11-17), falsely accusing and stoning a just man (Naboth in 1 Kings 21; Stephen in Acts 6–7), and being taking up into heaven (2 Kings 2; Luke 24.51, Acts 1.2.9–11).3 These clear links emerge as tips of icebergs, tips of a distinctive systematic strand or network of literary connections that encompasses the entire EEN and that extends intermittently from Luke 1–2 into part of Acts.4 The following chart gives an initial outline of the connections. a. Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative in Luke-Acts Initial outline of passages where a systematic use of the EEN provides a component of Luke’s text (following Lukan order, with basic Hebrew Bible order in bold) A. A Great Prophet (Luke 1:5–17; 7:1–8:3) 1 Kgs 16:29–34: Evil couple 1 Kgs 17:1–16: Saving the doomed 1 Kgs 17:17–24: Raising a widow’s son 1 Kgs 22: Prophet Micaiah vindicated 2 Kgs 4:1–37: The indebted women 1 Kgs 18: Prophets; twelve; Baal worship

1:5–17: Good couple 7:1–10: Saving the centurion’s slave 7:1–17: Raising a widow’s son 7:18–35: John vindicated 7:36–50: The indebted woman 8:1–3: Twelve; Acts 14:8–18, False   worship

 3 Thomas L. Brodie, “Towards Unravelling Luke’s Use of the Old Testament: Luke 7.11‑17 as an Imitatio of 1 Kings 17.17–24,” NTS 32 (1986) 247–67; 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-Acts as an Imitation and Emulation of the Elijah‑Elisha Narrative,” in New Views on Luke and Acts, ed. Earl Richard (Wilmington: Glazier, 1983), pp. 78–85.  4 For initial discussion, see T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament. The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2004), pp. 84–97, 282–447.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 7

23/08/2013 13:55

8

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

B. Mission Journey to Death and Spirit (Luke 9:51–10:20; Luke 22– Acts 2) 2 Kgs 1–2: Death; setting out for ascent 1 Kgs 19: Journey: from desert to plowing 2 Kgs 2:16–ch 3: Mission to cities, places. War 2 Kgs 2:7–15: Jordan, assumption, spirit

9:51–56: Setting out for death/ascent. 9:57–62: Journey: homeless…plowing. 10:1–20: Mission to cities. Conflict. Luke 22–Acts 2: Death, ascent, Spirit   [omit 22:31–65].

C. Expansion Problems, some Damascus-related (Acts 5–11)

1 Kgs 20:1–21; 21:1–7: Greed: Ben/ 5:1–11: Fraud: Ananias/Sapphira. Ahab/Jezebel 1 Kgs 21:8–13: Naboth accused, 6:9–14; 7:58: Stephen stoned. stoned 1 Kgs 21:14–29: Sequel to greed and 8:15–26; 2:37–38: Response by/to Peter prophecy 2 Kgs 5: Namaan; Gehazi’s money 8:9–40: Simon’s money; the Ethiopian. --- --2 Kgs 6:8–23; 1 Kgs 20:22–34: 9:1–19a: Paul’s attack reversed … Attacks reversed 2 Kgs 8:7–9:13: Two commissionings … and Paul is commissioned. 9:19b–31: Murderous attacks on Paul. 2 Kgs 9:14–ch 11: Murderous attacks (Jehu … ) 9:32–43: Peter heals, raises (cf. 3:1–10). 2 Kgs 12–13: Repairs, resurrection, restoration 2 Kgs 6:24– ch 7: Famine; good news 10–11: Hunger; good news for   outsiders…. for lepers 2 Kgs 4:38–44: Famine: prophets and … and prophets deal with famine. food Final pieces (rearranged, as minor components) 1 Kgs 20:35–43: Ben-hadad’s escape Peter’s escape (Acts 12). 2 Kgs 6:1–7: Trees; lost axe restored Zacchaeus: tree, restoration   (Luke 19:1–10). 2 Kgs 8:1–6: Woman pleads for The widow and the judge (Luke justice   18:1–8).

Further analysis reveals other features. On the one hand, the distinctive strand cannot be extricated from the reworking of other LXX texts. In Luke’s opening scene, for instance, the picture of Zechariah and Elizabeth, which is based partly on the beginning of the EEN, cannot be separated from various LXX accounts of angelic appearances, especially in Judges. As a result, the outline of literary connections expands and the distinctive strand emerges as extending to Acts 15.35. This gives a total of about 25 chapters—around ten in the gospel and fifteen in Acts.5  5 Brodie, Birthing, pp. 96, 447–539.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 8

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

9

On the other hand, the distinctive strand can be extricated from the rest of Luke-Acts. When the twenty-five chapters are viewed on their own, they have remarkable unity and completeness, as though they once constituted an independent document. For convenience, this hypothetical document may be called Proto-Luke—the term used by some of the scholars who have long held that Luke or Luke-Acts once existed in a shorter version. Part of the unity of these 25 chapters is in their precise structure: eight blocks or units, each consisting of two complementary panels—a diptych— exactly the same structure as in the EEN.6 The eight Proto-Lukan units may be summarized as follows:7 Jesus’ infancy narrative: Luke 1–2 Jesus’ early ministry: 3:1–4:22a (except 3:7–9; 4:1–13); 7:1–8:3 Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem: 9:51–10:20; 16:1–9, 19–31; 17:11–18:8; 19:1–10 Jesus’ death and resurrection: chaps. 22–24 (except 22:31–65) The church’s beginnings: Acts 1:1–2:42 The church’s early ministry: 2:43–5:42 The church’s move away from Jerusalem: 6:1–9:30 The church’s transformation, integrating the Gentiles: 9:31–15:35

The process of distinguishing the distinctive strand, the material that is later found to constitute eight units, requires immense patience both from the one engaged in it and from those who are interested in understanding it. The outline of this process, as provided especially in The Birthing of the NT (282–537), is extensive and detailed, but it remains just that, an outline, and it requires years of further work, far more years than are likely to be available to the present writer. Amid the details of this evidence, it is essential to keep an eagle eye on the underlying logic that leads from one conclusion to the next, and so a summary of that logic has been provided elsewhere.8 Once Proto-Luke is in place the emergence of the other gospels becomes much more understandable. Proto-Luke, along with the EEN, provides key components for the narrative of Mark. Mark, in turn, when combined with many other sources, including Deuteronomy, opens the way for Matthew, and thence for John and canonical Luke-Acts. Thus the sequence of gospel development emerges:

 6 Brodie, Crucial Bridge, pp. 1–27.  7 For a brief analysis of the eight units as diptychs, see Brodie, Birthing, pp. 97–106; for a presentation of the biblical texts as in a way that facilitates discussion, see Brodie, Proto-Luke. The Oldest Gospel Account. A Christ-centered Synthesis of Old Testament modelled especially on the Elijah-Elisha Narrative (Limerick: Dominican Biblical Institute, 2006).  8 Brodie, Birthing, pp. 85–8.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 9

23/08/2013 13:55

10

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke Elijah-Elisha Narrative

Proto-Luke Mark

Matthew John Luke-Acts Each writer adapted or absorbed aspects of all the preceding gospel writings. Matthew, for instance, as well as using Mark, also used Proto-Luke. And canonical Luke-Acts, apart from absorbing Proto-Luke (unchanged) and most of Mark, also variously distilled Matthew and John. The above sequence reflects only a fraction of the dynamics—historical, literary, sociological and theological—that contributed to making the gospels. While the fraction is important—it forms a kind of compass through the complexity of gospel composition—it remains just a fraction. Much work remains to be done. Overall, then, the research process involves at least three stages: Stage (1) Reconnaissance that develops a working outline of the more straightforward aspects of Luke’s adaptation, a reconnaissance that lists leading connections and provides initial analysis of these connections. Stage (2) Detailed examination of Luke’s various elaborations, particularly: (i) the ways in which diverse parts of the EEN have been dispersed or combined; (ii) the ways in which use of the EEN has been inextricably interwoven with other sources, particularly from the LXX; and (iii) the way Luke has organized the resulting text into an eight-fold unit, and each unit into a diptych (e.g. Luke 1–2; Acts 1.1–2.42). Stage (3) Detailed analysis of the complex compositional process which led from one gospel to another. This includes, for instance, the details of how Matthew used Proto-Luke, and how, at a later stage, canonical Luke used Matthew. Of these three stages, only the first, the building of a working outline, has reached some form of completion. Enough research has been done that it is reasonable to form a working hypothesis that Luke used the entire EEN. However, even the working outline has its limitations. It indicates, for instance, that Elijah’s saving of the seemingly doomed widow and child(ren) from death (1 Kgs 17.1-16) provides a component for Luke’s account of Jesus saving the

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 10

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

11

centurion’s slave (Luke 7.1-10). This is true; but the component is small. As indicated by other researchers, especially John Shelton (in this volume), a greater role is played in Luke 7.1-10 by the story of Naaman (2 Kings 5). And further components of Luke 7.1-10 remain unidentified. In addition, the role of the Naaman story is dispersed in a way that the outline does not recognize. As one step in clarifying and testing the outline, this chapter will now look at two connections, those involving the gospel’s beginning and middle (or turning point).

2. Beginnings: Two Couples, Polar Opposites in Ways of Worship (1 Kgs 16.29–17.1; Luke 1.5-25) Luke’s narrative begins with the angel’s announcement to Zechariah (1.5-25). The EEN begins with the increasingly dark picture of Ahab, and of Hiel who rebuilt Jericho at the cost of his sons (1 Kgs 16.29-34). Only then does it mention Elijah (1 Kgs 17.1).9 At first sight these introductory texts look unrelated. However, the angel’s announcement does not start cold. Its foundation consists of a devout couple, the priest Zechariah and his wife, Elizabeth (Luke 1.5-10). As a result, the initial emphasis in both passages—LXX and Luke—falls not just on an individual—on Ahab or Zechariah—but on couples, on Ahab plus his wife Jezebel, and on Zechariah plus his wife Elizabeth. The couples seem poles apart, and so they are. They are precise opposites. For instance: (i) Ahab and Jezebel inaugurate new levels of misconduct and false worship; but Zechariah and Elizabeth are meticulous about the commandments and well-founded worship; (ii) Jezebel is the daughter of Ethbaal; but Elizabeth is a daughter of Aaron; (iii) the introduction to the reign of Ahab and Jezebel culminates with reference to a man who would kill his sons; but the announcement to Zechariah culminates with a picture of someone who would turn the hearts of the fathers towards their children. Despite the stark contrast, the narratives have a similar purpose. Both promote what is good, the LXX by condemning the bad, Luke by portraying the good. In that sense Luke is more positive. What is essential is that the huge differences do not exclude Luke’s use of the older text. The issue is not whether there are differences, but whether there are significant similarities and whether the differences are intelligible, interpretable. A further difference: Luke’s scene is much more complex. While compressing the Ahab scene, omitting some aspects, it contains features quite absent from the older text, particularly the angel. These features are indebted to other sources, especially to the angelic announcements in Judges 6 and 13, concerning Gideon and Samson respectively. Within Luke’s complex text,  9 On 1 Kgs 16.29-34 as introducing the EEN, see Charles Conroy, “Hiel between Ahab and Elijah-Elisha: 1 Kgs 16, 29–34 in Its Immediate Literary Context,” Bib 77 (1996), pp. 210–18.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 11

23/08/2013 13:55

12

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

therefore, the role of the EEN forms just one component. The relationship between the texts may first be simplified into six lines: 1. In the … year of Jehosaphat (king of Judah), Ahab son of Ambri became king (16.29)

1. In the days of Herod king of Judea … was a priest, Zechariah of … Abia,

2. He did evil before the Lord more than all before him…. (30) He walked in the sins of Jeroboam, [33: intensification of v. 30–1a.]

2 . His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was El-i-za-beth (1.5).

3. he took as wife Ie-za-b-el daughter of Ie-thab-aal (31b)

3. Both were just before God walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless (6)

4. He served Baal and worshipped him He set up an altar to Baal in the house of provocations in Samaria (31c–2). ------

4. In his priesting … before God…. (8) ------ in the shrine of the Lord … all the people praying (10). An angel stood at the altar (11).

5. In his days Hiel rebuilt Jericho at the cost of his sons (34).

5. There shall be joy and gladness … neither wine nor drink He shall be great before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah

6. Elijah said … As the Lord … of powers lives, [the Lord] before whom I stand, there shall be neither rain nor dew … (17.1).

6. to turn the hearts of fathers to their children (13–17).

This six-fold division may be analyzed briefly as follows: a. In the Days of the King of Judea: A Clear-cut Character and an Intimation of Contrast (1 Kgs 16.29; Luke 1.5a). The texts begin by referring their respective kings: LXX: ἐν ἔτει δευτέρῳ τῷ Ιωσαφατ βασιλεύει (16:29) Luke: Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας (Luke 1:5) LXX: “In the … reign of Jehoshaphat [king of Judah].” 10 Luke: “In the days of Herod king of Judea….”

Then an important character is introduced: LXX: Αχααβ υἱὸς Αμβρι ἐβασίλευσεν ἐπὶ Ισραηλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ Luke: ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά 10

The words “king of Judah” are found only in some manuscripts.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 12

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

13

LXX: “… Ahab, son of Ambri [Omri] reigned over Israel in Samaria….” Luke: “… there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah….”

Ahab will soon be associated with Baal and will emerge as a figure of evil and of false worship, the dark foil for much of the story of Elijah. Zechariah, however, will be seen as the very opposite—blameless and dedicated to true worship—and will help to prepare for the eventual emergence of John and Jesus. Within each text is an intimation of contrast: a contrast of Ahab with Jehoshaphat (later seen as essentially good; cf. 1 Kgs 22.7.29-51); and a contrast of Zechariah with Herod (later seen as evil, Luke 23.6-11; cf. Acts 12.1-4, 18-23). But while the LXX lays the initial emphasis on the one who is evil and involved in false worship, Luke emphasizes the one who is blameless, practicing true worship. What is important is that despite the stark difference between Ahab and Zechariah, both texts begin with characters who will highlight the issues of conduct and worship. Ahab will highlight these issues in a way that is negative; Zechariah in a way that is positive. Verbal links: LXX: 16:29: ἐν ἔτει δευτέρῳ τῷ Ιωσαφατ βασιλεύει Αχααβ υἱὸς Αμβρι Note v. 34: ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ Luke: 1:5: Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά,11

b. Walking in Sin or Justice (1 Kgs 16.30-1a, 33; Luke 1.6) The LXX gives two pictures of Ahab’s sinfulness, one before mentioning his wife (16.30-1a), the other after (16.33). These two pictures of sin are related; they have the same framing phrases (“and he did/made …”; “… more than all before him”), and they involve repetition and intensification. The sense of sin which was present before the marriage (v. 30) becomes worse afterwards. The implication: Jezebel helped to intensify his sin; she was a partner in sin. In Luke, partnership is not merely suggested; it is explicit: Zechariah and Elizabeth were “both just before God” (Luke 1.6). This partnership is further clarified through a modification of the order: Luke has moved the female figure towards the beginning of the passage so that she and her husband are introduced together. The reversal of the LXX is acute and precise. Instead of partners in sin and idolatry, Luke presents partners in justice and true worship. The LXX structure of repetition and intensification (16.30-1a, 33) is partly reflected in Luke’s brief account of the devout couple (1.6): they are “just”; they follow all the “commandments” and “ordinances”; and climactically, they are described as “blameless.” There are some verbal resonances: 11 The components of Zechariah’s name and section (Ζ αχα ρί ας Ἀβ ιά) have curious similarities to those of Ahab’s name and parentage (Αχα αβ Αμβ ρι).

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 13

23/08/2013 13:55

14

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

LXX: καὶ ἐποίησεν Αχααβ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον κυρίου … ὑπὲρ πάντας … τοῦ πορεύεσθαι ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις Luke: ἦσαν δὲ δίκαιοι … ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ, πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν τοῦ κυρίου. LXX: “Ahab did evil before the Lord more than all…to walk in the sins….” Luke: “They were…just before God walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord…”

c. The Woman: Wife and Daughter (Jezebel, 1 Kgs 16.31b; Elizabeth, Luke 1.5) Associated with the two men (Ahab; Zechariah) are their wives: LXX: καὶ οὐκ ἦν αὐτῷ … καὶ ἔλαβεν γυναῖκα τὴν Ιεζαβελ θυγατέρα Ιεθεβααλ βασιλέως Σιδωνίων. Luke: καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρὼν καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ.12 LXX: “He…took as wife Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians.” Luke: “His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.”

Again the contrast is sharp and precise. Jezebel’s father bears the name Baal; but Elizabeth’s ultimate father is Aaron (Aaron’s wife was called Elizabeth, Exod. 6.23). Jezebel is rooted in false worship; Elizabeth in true. And the texts show various verbal resonances. d. Worship in the House of Baal or God (1 Kgs 16.31c-2; Luke 1.8, 10 and 11) Both narratives introduce three basic elements: worship, temple, and altar. First, the worship. Ahab “served” and “worshipped” Baal (ἐδούλευσεν τῷ Βααλ καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ, 1 Kgs 16.31c). Zechariah was “priesting” (ἱερατεύειν) before God (Luke 1.8). Luke’s single verb, ἱερατεύειν, often translated “serve as priest,” manages to capture something of both LXX verbs: “serve” and “worship.” Then, the temple and the altar. Ahab set up a Baalite altar in the temple (literally, “house of provocations”) which “he built in Samaria” (1 Kgs 16.32). The LXX temple-and-altar picture tells of Samarian worship which is far from God—a house of provocations. Luke gives the precise opposite: a temple-and-altar picture which resonates true Jerusalem worship. The Jerusalem shrine is a house not of provocations (προσοχθισμάτων) but of people praying (προσευχόμενον). It is attended even by God’s angel; while Zechariah is in the temple (literally “shrine”), an angel of the Lord stands by the altar (Luke 1.9-11). Areas of verbal resonance: LXX: ἔστησεν θυσιαστήριον τῷ Βααλ ἐν οἴκῳ τῶν προσοχθισμάτων αὐτοῦ ὃν ᾠκοδόμησεν ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ Luke: εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ κυρίου … προσευχόμενον … ἄγγελος κυρίου ἑστὼς ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ θυμιάματος. 12 Components of Elizabeth’s name (Ἐλισ άβ ετ) have some similarity to those of Jezebel (Ιεζ αβ ελ). Whether the similarity is significant rather than coincidental can only be judged in the context of a wider study of the details of how Luke uses the LXX.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 14

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

15

LXX: [ALTAR:] “He set up an altar to Baal [TEMPLE:] in the house of provocations … which he built in Samaria.” Luke: [TEMPLE:] “… into the shrine of the Lord … people praying …. [ALTAR:] an angel of the Lord stood at the … altar.”

Luke’s adjustment of the order—moving the altar to the end—allows the final emphasis to fall on the figure near the altar, namely on the angel, who now begins to speak. e. Fathers and Their Children (1 Kgs 16.34; Luke 1.17b) Built into the fabric of the introduction to Ahab is the account of how Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho at the cost of two sons: the first-born and the youngest. An oath sworn before God had once effectively foretold that anyone rebuilding Jericho would lose his first-born and youngest sons (Josh. 6.26), but Hiel went ahead regardless. The manner of their death is obscure, and the emphasis falls on the relation of the deaths to the word of God. Thus God’s word seems involved with a father bringing death on his sons. Luke portrays the opposite: the angel foretells how the God-given spirit of Zechariah’s son will “turn the hearts of fathers to [their] children” (Luke 1.17b). Contravening God’s word meant a father brought death to his sons; but the God-given spirit has the opposite effect—it makes fathers attentive to their sons. It is necessary here to distinguish between Luke’s raw material and his wording. The raw material—the underlying inspiration—is the Hiel episode which immediately precedes the Elijah story. But the wording (“turn the hearts of fathers…”) is taken from a prophet (the Elijah-related prophecy of Mal. 3.23 [4.5]). In other words, in reshaping an LXX prose narrative, Luke has expressed it through the words of poetry or prophecy. This is an important clue to one of Luke’s procedures. f. Great before the Lord: the Power of Elijah (1 Kgs 17.1; Luke 1.13-17) The LXX account suddenly changes. The dark Ahab-Hiel introduction fades and the text erupts with the arrival of Elijah speaking God’s word in a way that commands creation: water—the source of life—shall depend on Elijah’s God-given word. Luke was already positive, so the sense of eruption is not as strong, yet the angel’s arrival does cause disturbance; Zechariah is disturbed, fearful (Luke 1.12). Then Elijah (LXX) and the angel (Luke) begin to speak—the first spoken words in either the EEN or Luke-Acts. In both cases the words are not uttered by God, yet they are divinely authoritative (spoken by Elijah in the Lord’s name; and by the angel of the Lord). Furthermore, the angel explicitly invokes Elijah: the future son “shall … go before [the Lord] in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1.15,17). In effect, Elijah’s pronouncement (17.1) provides part of the framework for the angel’s elaborate announcement (Luke 1.13-17). Some verbal echoes:

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 15

23/08/2013 13:55

16

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

LXX: καὶ εἶπεν Ηλιου … ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων … ᾧ παρέστην ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ εἰ ἔσται τὰ ἔτη ταῦτα δρόσος καὶ ὑετὸς ὅτι εἰ μὴ διὰ στόματος λόγου μου. Luke: εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ ἄγγελος … ἔσται γὰρ μέγας ἐνώπιον [τοῦ] κυρίου … ἐν πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει Ἠλίου (vv. 13, 15, 17)

Unlike Elijah—whose words seem directed towards the outside world, especially the rainfall—the angel is more attentive to a world that is internal, a world of abstinence, Spirit and heart (Luke 1.15,17). This shift—towards what is internal—accords with Luke’s larger strategy, found elsewhere, of internalization (or spiritualization).13 g. Assessing the Relationship between the Beginnings The foregoing analysis is incomplete—an almost inevitable situation in dealing with any complex literary reworking—and Luke’s dependence on 1 Kgs 16.29–17.1 is quite limited. The Ahab-Hiel text provides just one component, and that component’s negative energy has been reversed. Yet the relationship between the texts meets the three basic kinds of criteria for establishing literary dependence: (1) External accessibility and plausibility; (2) significant similarities; (3) interpretability, or intelligibility of the differences.14 1. External accessibility and plausibility: Luke’s literary imitation of the LXX, and Luke’s unique overall links with the structure and ethos of the EEN. 2. Persistent similarities. From the opening words, setting the story in the reign of a king of Judea, to the final dramatic image of the power of Elijah, the two texts show a steady stream of similarities—including similarities of theme (especially concerning conduct and worship), action (plot), linguistic detail, and, to some degree, order. 3. Interpretability, or intelligibility of the differences. The differences, great though they are, are not a meaningless muddle. They can largely be accounted for through specific strategies of transformation, strategies that are consistent in themselves and that Luke uses elsewhere. In particular, Luke has adapted the darkness of the LXX account to the requirements of his own more positive narrative. He took that component—the ominous LXX introduction—and integrated it with other material to form a new text which simultaneously honored and adapted the old. 13 For references regarding ancient strategies of reworking texts, see Brodie, Birthing, pp. 3–30, esp. 11. 14 For references to discussions of criteria, see Dennis MacDonald et al, “Problems of Method—Suggested Guidelines,” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles. Explorations of Theory and Practice, T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds) (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), pp. 284–96, esp. 291.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 16

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

17

Conclusion to Part II The evidence indicates that Luke used the beginning of the EEN as one component for his own opening scene.

3. The Death-Related Turning Points of Elijah and Jesus: Death, Reminders of God, and Followers’ Struggle to Learn (2 Kings 1–2; 1 Kings 19; Luke 9.51-62) Scholars generally maintain that much of Luke 7–9 (8.4–9.50) involves an adaptation of parts of Mark 3–9, often verbatim. Less noticed is another adaptation: the rest of Luke 7–9 (7.1–8.3 and 9.51-62) adapted parts of the EEN, rarely verbatim, as one component.15 In both adaptations the order of the underlying episodes is sometimes rearranged. To test further the link of Luke 7–9 with the EEN, the rest of this chapter examines Luke 9.51-62, a text of two brief episodes, first, Jesus’ departure for assumption (analēmpsis) and Jerusalem (9.51-6), and then his encounters with would-be followers (9.57-62). These episodes seem a promising place to investigate. Commentators have often noted that they have links with the EEN, especially shared references to departure on a journey to assumption (2 Kgs 2.1; Luke 9.51), to fire coming down from heaven to destroy (2 Kgs 1.9-14; Luke 9.54), and to followers associated with plowing (2 Kgs 19.19-21; Luke 9.62). Besides, the leading link, regarding assumption, is generally reckoned to be the middle or turningpoint both of Luke’s gospel and the EEN, so it has added significance; it is a link both of content and structure. Structure was important in ancient composition, particularly the beginning, middle and end.16 A connection at midpoint therefore is worth investigating. Luke’s use of the assumption text (2 Kings 2) at the gospel midpoint (9:51–6), as well as the midpoint of Luke-Acts as a whole (in Luke 24 and Acts 1), means the assumption text has been dispersed—its elements are used in diverse places.17 a. Introduction to 2 Kings 1–2: Death, Fire, and Learning The centre or turning point of the EEN revolves around the drama of Elijah’s journey to the Jordan and fiery ascent (2 Kings 2.1-18). It is essentially a positive, glorious, event, but it is not isolated; it is part of a larger unified

15 In the preceding outline on the overall use of the EEN, see references in italics to passages from Luke 7–9. For initial analysis of these passages, see Brodie, Birthing, pp. 290–364. 16 Vernon K. Robbins, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse. Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 50–3. 17 On a broad instance of dispersal, R. E. Brown, see “Incidents that are Units in the Synoptic Gospels but Dispersed in St. John,” CBQ 23 (1961), pp. 143–60.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 17

23/08/2013 13:55

18

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

block which sets the glory in the context of both death and learning—of seeking to understand, know, see. The block (2 Kings 1–2) consists of a two-panel unit, or diptych, where the panels complement one another in various ways.18 The first panel (2 Kings 1) focuses on the death of the king, Ahaziah; and the second on the assumption of Elijah (2 Kings 2). To follow Luke’s procedure it is necessary to engage the LXX text on its own terms. The account of the king’s death (2 Kings 1) highlights three elements: death, inquiring messengers, and fire. First, death surrounds the chapter, from the opening references to the death of Ahab and the fall of king Ahaziah off a balcony, to the repeated divine decree that he is going to die and finally did die (1.1-2a; 4b, 6b, 15-17). Then the messengers: the king sends messengers to inquire or gain knowledge about his fate, but they are blocked by Elijah because their quest for knowledge is misguided; they had been attempting to learn from a false god in Ekron (1.2b-8). And thirdly, there is the fire from heaven, called down by Elijah to destroy groups of fifty men sent to arrest him (1.9-14). The next chapter (2 Kings 2) recounts related elements but with different emphasis. First, there are hints of death in Elijah’s walk to the Jordan, a river with connotations of death;19 and the chapter ends with the boys’ death. Then, without sending messengers to any exotic place, there are quests for forms of knowledge, learning or understanding: the misguided forceful search of the fifty for the body of Elijah (2.15-18); the attentiveness of the brotherhood of the prophets (2.3-7); and the attentiveness of Elisha as he walks the full distance across the fateful Jordan and manages finally to see—and so receives the fallen mantle of Elijah (2.8-14). Thirdly, there is the heavenly fire, not to destroy but to carry Elijah away to heaven (2.11). The unity of the two chapters (2 Kings 1 and 2) is not immediately obvious. King Ahaziah’s fall may seem like a freakish accident unrelated to Elijah’s grandiose ascent. But there is increasing evidence that biblical episodes which at first sight may seem unrelated do in fact have a deep-seated unity,20 and the preceding summary of the two chapters—concerning death, messengers seeking knowledge, and heavenly fire—gives some initial sense of the continuity and complementarity between the two chapters.21 In essence, the diptych shows two sides of death: as negative, implacable, even apparently freakish, yet somehow linked to God’s word (note framing 18 On 2 Kings 1–2, Brodie, Crucial Bridge, pp. 16–18. 19 H. O. Thompson, “Jordan River,” ABD 3:953–8, esp. 957. Note also the whispered drama surrounding Elijah’s journey. 20 See Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1979), pp. 3–12, 26. 21 Like the death, the assumption is repeatedly described as something decreed or planned by God (2 Kgs 1.4, 6, 16; 2.1, 3, 5). And there are other interrelated motifs: identifying or recognizing Elijah (1.17; 2.10, 12); locating the true God, the God of Elijah (1.3; 2.14); and finally, a useless quest and a quest involving fifty people (1.2b, 5, 9, 11, 13; 2.7, 16-18). Even the mode of death—a fall (1.2)—provides a contrast to the image of the taking up.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 18

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

19

references to falling off a balcony, and being savaged by bears, 2 Kgs 1.2; 2.24-5); and as surrounded with some form of heavenly glory, even when it demands a steady walk across the fateful Jordan (2 Kings 2). Thus, the EEN centerpiece (2 Kings 1–2) sets Elijah in a drama where he faces his own earthly demise, but where he does so in a way that is glorious and that enables others, especially Elisha, to try to learn or understand what is going on. Facing demise concentrates the mind. Yet it was not the first time Elijah had done so, and to follow Luke’s procedure it is necessary to take account of a previous event. b. Introduction to Elijah’s earlier facing of death (1 Kings 19). Apart from 2 Kings 2, Elijah’s crossing of the wilderness to Horeb (1 Kings 19) is the only chapter where Elijah faced his own death and inaugurated handing over his mantle. The wilderness crossing is like a practice run for walking to the Jordan and ascent. The action has three scenes: 1. The wilderness: death threat, and long journey across the wilderness (19.1-8) When Jezebel vowed to kill Elijah, the frightened prophet left his serving– boy, journeyed into the wilderness, and lay under a furze bush to die. But “behold … at his head” food and water. Elijah learned, slowly, to respond, and eventually he walked on for forty days, across the wilderness to Horeb. 2. The mountain of God: from preoccupation with death to hearing a divine commission and to responding (19.9-18) As Elijah moaned repetitively, especially about death, an awesome sequence of events (wind, earthquake, fire) led to a whisper-like revelation of the Lord, and, instead of dwelling on death, Elijah accepted a divine commission to inaugurate a new regime including two new kings, and a new prophet. 3. Plowing (19.19-21) In contrast to the unsown wilderness, the third scene is full of the vitality and implied fruitfulness of plowing. Here for the first time the prophet’s mantle was placed on Elisha. The young plowman was resolute. He took leave of his father, told Elijah, “I will follow you,” and left his plowing to follow the prophet. Like the drama surrounding the ascent of Elijah (2 Kings 1–2), the threescene drama surrounding awesome Horeb (1 Kings 19) indicates how, in face of death, the splendor of God/the Lord becomes manifest, and humans learn: Elijah learns to hear and respond; and Elisha too begins to follow and learn. c. Luke 9.51-62 and the LXX texts: minimal outline. The continuity between the two dramas in which Elijah confronts his own death (1 Kings 19 and 2 Kings 1–2) clarifies the two brief episodes at the end of Luke 9. First, Luke uses the mid-point of the EEN (2 Kings 1–2), especially the moment of Elijah’s departure for assumption (2 Kings 2.1-18, esp. 2.1), as a component in describing Jesus’ departure for Jerusalem (9.51-6). Then

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 19

23/08/2013 13:55

20

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

as Jesus continues his journey and meets would-be followers, Luke uses the account of Elijah’s earlier learning experience in the wilderness to indicate what the would-be followers must learn. In minimal outline: Elijah journeys to death/assumption (2 Kings 1–2)

Jesus’ journey to death/assumption (9.51-6)

1. FALL. Death decreed (1.1-2a, 4, 6b, 15-17)

1. ASSUMPTION. Death implied (51).

2. Messengers sent; turned back (1.2b-8)

2. Messengers sent; not accepted (52-53).

3. Calling down heavenly fire Appeal to stop it (1.9-14)

3. Shall we call down heavenly fire? Rebuke (54-5)

4. ASSUMPTION Journeying from place to place (ch. 2)

4. Journeying to another village (56)

Elijah, facing death, gets and gives instruction (1 Kings 19)

Jesus, facing death, gives instruction (9.57-62)

1. Wilderness journey: cannot stay lying; food at head (1-8)

1. Restless journey: Jesus cannot lay down his head (57-8)

2. Horeb: from death to God and God’s mission (9-18).

2. Leave the dead and announce God’s kingdom (59-60)

3. Resolute young plowman turns and follows (19-21)

3. A follower is not to turn back from the plow (61-2)

The process involves rearrangement. 2 Kings 1–2 is used ahead of 1 Kings 19; in other words, the centre of the EEN (2 Kings 1–2) is moved to the beginning of Luke’s two passages (ahead of using 1 Kings 19). And in using 2 Kings 1–2, the central image of departure for assumption (esp. 2.1), is moved to the beginning in Luke (9.51). One effect is to place the most dramatic elements in the most prominent places of the text. The passages now need closer analysis. d. Death, Ascent, and Seeking to Learn/Understand (2 Kings 1–2; Luke 9.51-6) The closer analysis gives a more detailed outline, plus comment on each section: 2 Kings 1–2

Luke 9.51-6

1a. Ahab dead; king falls down;

1. As the time is fulfilled for his taking up … (51a)

his death is divinely decreed (1.1-2a, 4, 6b, 15-17)

… Jesus sets his face to go to Jerusalem (51b)

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 20

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

21

2. He sends messengers … from Samaria…

2. He sends messengers … to Samaria…

to inquire about his future (2b); they are turned back

… to prepare for him; he is not received

because of going to Ekron (2b-8)

because of going to Jerusalem (52, 53).

3. Calling fire from heaven. Appeal to stop it (9-14).

3. Shall we call fire from heaven? Rebuke (54-55)

1b. At the time of his assumption/ taking up, Elijah sets out to go (2.1, 9–11)

------

4. And they/he went from place to place, town to town

4. And they went to another village (56). (passim, esp. 1.2; 2.1, 6, and final verse, 2.25).

1. The Lord’s plan/s of death and assumption, and the departure (2 Kgs 1.1-2a, 4, 6b, 15-17; 2.1, 9-14; Luke 9.51) The LXX shows the Lord (κύριος) as having two plans: one for the imminent death of King Ahaziah, and the other for the taking up of Elijah. The image of someone dying is placed at the beginning and end of the chapter (vv. 1, 17); and the decree of death is spelled out, solemnly, three times: “Thus says the Lord … You shall surely die … .You shall surely die … You shall surely die” (vv. 4, 6b, 15-17). The repetitious references to death form a unity. The Lord’s second plan—for taking up Elijah—is recounted in 2.1: “Now when the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind….” And the text goes on to emphasize, in an account almost as repetitious as the death decree, that the Lord is really going to do it (cf. 2.3, 5), and it uses the verb “to take up” three times (2.9-11). Turning to Luke, Luke suggests the presence of a single plan, namely for the “taking up” (ἀναλήμψις) of Jesus: “When the days were drawing near [literally, “were being filled up,” ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι] for him to be taken up, he set his face….” Luke’s text involves adaptations. First, fusion. Instead of two plans or decrees, one for death and one for the taking up, he indicates a single plan which involves both. He does not explicitly refer to Jesus as going to his death, but the word “assumption” is sufficiently broad to include such a meaning, and the setting of the face, as well as the subsequent account, indicate that he was in fact taking the road to his death. Second, geographical adaptation. The journey, stage by stage to a location across the Jordan (cf. 2 Kgs 2.1-14), is adapted to suit Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem.22 22 Note some apparent abbreviation. Instead of a prolonged triple death decree, Luke gives a single phrase: “he set his face.” Curiously, however, he uses the word “face,” πρόσωπον,

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 21

23/08/2013 13:55

22

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

Thus, though within the Bible as a whole there are three other references to people being taken away (Enoch in Gen. 5.24; and Elijah in 1 Macc. 2.58 and Sir. 48.9), no biblical texts apart from 2 Kgs 2.1 and Luke 9.51 speak of the one soon to be assumed as journeying to the fated place. And no other biblical text places the image of assumption so close to the image or idea of death. The link is unique. Linguistic links: LXX: καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἀνάγειν κύριον τὸν Ηλιου ἐν συσσεισμῷ ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐπορεύθη…. Note: 2:9–11: ἀναλημφθῆναί με … ἀναλαμβανόμενον … ἀνελήμφθη…. Luke: Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήμψεως αὐτοῦ … τοῦ πορεύεσθαι…. LXX: And it happened, as the Lord was going to lead Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind as it were, he set out…. Luke: Now it happened, as the days were fulfilled for being taken up, that he set out….

Instead of the complex idea of leading someone up to heaven as if ἐν συσσεισμῷ, in a “whirlwind,” Luke uses the noun “taking up” (ἀναλήμψις, adapted from the verb “to take up” in 2.9-11). His refined phrasing synthesizes the OT text and fits into the pattern of his overall work; it prepares the way for the “taking up” of Jesus (Acts 1.2,11, 22). 2. The sending and turning back of the messengers (2 Kgs 1.2b-8; Luke 9.52-3) Faced with the prospect of death, the king sent messengers from Samaria to Ekron to inquire about his future, more specifically to ask if he would live. And as Jesus faced Jerusalem, he also sent messengers before him, and they went into a Samaritan village to prepare for him. Thus both texts tell of messengers who are concerned about the future of someone who is going to die. The theme of death, so explicit in 2 Kings 1, is rendered cryptically in Luke 9.51. The explanation, partly at least, seems to lie in the fact that Luke is adapting the theme to the larger requirements of his narrative. Within that narrative, death will indeed eventually become a major and explicit theme; in fact, along with the idea of resurrection and assumption, it will become, to some degree, the major focus of the gospel story. But for the moment it is in the distance, and it is appropriate that Luke introduce it gradually. The underlying text (2 Kings 1) has been adapted to Luke’s distinct narrative focus. three times (vv. 51, 52, 53)—a frequency not matched elsewhere in the NT; and Elijah was told not to fear the face of the man who asked him to come down to the dying king (2 Kgs 1.15). Did Luke take the idea of not fearing a face, turn it into that of a face which did not fear (“he set his face”), and then, in an echo of the triple death decree, use the word “face” three times? Rather similar adaptations may be found in Luke’s rewriting of other OT texts. The phrasing, “he set his face,” apart from its relationship to 2 Kings, may also reflect some other OT text(s). Furthermore, the association of Jesus’ (implied) death with the “filling up” of time seems to fit Luke’s larger strategy of associating Jesus’ death with providential fulfillment (cf. Luke 24.7, 26–7, 44–6). And the Lord is not the mere source of the plan/s (LXX), but is personally involved (Luke 9:54).

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 22

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

23

As the king’s messengers go from Samaria to Ekron, Elijah stops them and reproaches them for going (πορεύομαι) to consult such an alien deity. And when Jesus comes to the village of the Samaritans, he is not received because he is going (πορεύομαι) to Jerusalem. Both missions meet religious antagonism: Elijah could not accept the Ekron deity; and the Samaritans could not accept the worship of Jerusalem. Luke has replaced an ancient antagonism with one from the time of Jesus. Linguistic links: LXX: καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους … καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἐπερωτῆσαι δι᾽ αὐτοῦ…. Luke: καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ. καὶ πορευθέντες εἰσῆλθον … ὡς ἑτοιμάσαι αὐτῷ·

The simple phrase καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους, “and he sent messengers,” does not occur elsewhere in the NT. Even in the LXX it is rare—apparently just five other occurrences.23 And there is no other instance, even in the LXX, where the phrase “and he sent messengers” is followed by the verb πορεύομαι, “I go/journey.” Thus, ordinary as the words may be, the linguistic link between the texts is unique. 3. Calling fire from heaven (2 Kgs 1.9-14; Luke 9.54-5) When soldiers from Samaria approach Elijah, he twice calls down fire on them, but not on the third occasion when the captain asks Elijah to value them. In the NT, James and John suggest calling down fire on the Samaritans, but Jesus rebukes them. Luke’s account abbreviates and reverses, thus reducing an elaborate and frightening account to a brief picture of mercy that accords with Luke’s overall approach. Nowhere in the Bible, save in these two texts, is there quite the same image of calling down from heaven a fire which consumes. (The fire in Num 16.34 is not called in the same way.) As it happens, in both cases the (potential) victims are from the same area, Samaria. Verbal similarity: LXX: καταβήσεται πῦρ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ καταφάγεται (twice) κατέβη πῦρ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατέφαγεν…. καὶ νῦν ἐντιμωθήτω…. Luke: πῦρ καταβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἀναλῶσαι … ἐπετίμησεν…. OT: Fire shall descend from heaven and devour … and fire descended from heaven and devoured … [But] … let [my life] have value…. NT: [that] fire descend from heaven and destroy … But … he rebuked….

Luke has abbreviated the OT wording and has replaced καταφάγεται… κατέφαγεν, “devour,” with the synonymous ἀναλῶσαι, “destroy.”24 23 Judg. 9.31; 1 Sam. 19.21; 2 Sam. 3.26; 1 Chron. 19.2, 16. About 30 texts have minor variations on the phrase in question (e.g. cf. Num. 20.14; 22.10; Josh. 7.22; Judg. 7.24; 11.19). 24 In the LXX, the deathly fire is eventually stopped by the process of valuing lives, ἐντιμάω; in Luke it is blocked by rebuking deathly ideas, ἐπιτιμάω. Luke occasionally uses word-play elsewhere. For instance, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 23

23/08/2013 13:55

24

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

4. The journey from one place to another (2 Kgs 2.2-18; Luke 9.56) The final verse of the episode on Jesus’ impending assumption consists of just five words: καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς ἑτέραν κώμην, “and they journeyed on to another village” (Luke 9.62). The word πορεύομαι, “to go/journey,” is common, and colors both 2 Kings 1–2 and Luke 9.51-6 from beginning to end. The word is so frequent in Greek narrative that in itself it does not constitute a significant link between texts. Yet, as used in the 2 Kings 1–2 and Luke 9.51-6, especially verse 56, it is noteworthy. In both texts the journeying involves a protagonist and his disciple(s) who move to a deathrelated destination (Jordan, Jerusalem), and sooner or later that journey includes Jericho and “taking up” (2 Kings 2.4, 6, 9–11; Luke 9.51; 19.1). Within Luke’s narrative the exact formulation καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν is so close to the highly unusual “taking up” (ἀναλήμψις, Luke 9.51, 56) that in asking where Luke found it—it is unique in the NT—the first suspect has to be the similar conjunction of words in 2 Kings 2.6, 9–11 (καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν … ἀναλημφθῆναί με … ἀναλαμβανόμενον … ἀνελήμφθη. The use of καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς in Luke 9.56 as a conclusion coincides in part with the conclusion of 2 Kings 2 regarding Elisha: καὶ ἐπορεύθη … εἰς … εἰς Σαμάρειαν (2 Kgs 2.25). The idea of moving to another place, “to another village,” εἰς ἑτέραν κώμην, fits with the way Elijah and Elisha journey from place to place (2 Kings 2.2-8). The idea of journeying to an unnamed village, κώμη, keeps narrative continuity with Luke’s earlier references to unnamed villages (8.1, “by city and village”; 9.52, “a Samaritan village”). Overall, every element of 9.56 finds a precedent either in 2 Kings 2 or in the need to keep continuity with Luke’s larger narrative. The assessment of all these similarities (section A, between 2 Kings 1–2 and Luke 9.51-6), will be given at the end of the following section. e. Journey: from Wandering, to Hearing the Divine Mission, to Plowing (1 Kings 19; Luke 9.57-62). As already indicated, Luke’s brief texts distills 1 Kings 19: 1 Kings 19

Luke 9.57-62

Elijah, under death threat, receives divine instruction

Jesus, facing death, instructs would-be followers

1. Wilderness; he cannot stay lying down; food at head.

1. Wandering: he cannot lay down his head

2. Horeb: from death to hearing/ receiving God’s mission

2. Leave the dead and announce God’s kingdom

(AB 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 828, suggests the possible presence of a form of word-play when he says that the Greek word for “set” (“he set his face,” 9.51) seems to be “a takeoff” on a Hebrew word. However, until the entire phenomenon of word-play and image-play is studied more closely, it seems difficult to judge such details.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 24

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative 3. Young Elisha plowing; I will follow

25

3. I will follow; do not turn back from the plow

Luke basically follows the LXX order, but with minor rearrangements. In particular, the declaration “I will follow you,” which in 1 Kings 19 occurs dramatically at the end (v. 20), recurs in Luke from the beginning: “I will follow you wherever you go” (v. 57); “Follow me” (v. 59); “I will follow you wherever you go” (v. 61). The result is a striking form of poetic prose. While the content draws from Elijah’s three-part journey (1 Kings 19), the precise form, three pithy exchanges, adopts the form already used by Luke in describing John’s encounter with would-be doers (Luke 3.10-14), a passage unique to Luke. 1. Wilderness: having no place to lay one’s head (1 Kgs 19.1-8; Luke 9.57-8) Under the threat of death, Elijah journeys into the wilderness and lies down. His slave is now gone and Elijah is wandering alone. Yet he cannot stay where he is, cannot just lie down. “Someone” awakens him, first to indicate there is food at his head, and later, when the “someone” has become “a messenger of the Lord,” to say the food is for journeying, not lying down. The journey is through the wilderness to Horeb. As Jesus too journeys along, implicitly towards death, “someone” speaks to him. He replies that, unlike foxes and birds, he is wandering, and has nowhere to lay his head. Both texts share basic elements, especially the pictures of wandering, and of the head which in diverse ways is unable to lie down. Instead of simply playing with words, Luke is also playing with images. 2. From preoccupation with death to a mission regarding God and God’s realm (God’s nominated leaders or God’s kingdom) (1 Kgs 19.9-18; Luke 9.59-60) At the mountain, Elijah is still preoccupied by death. Twice he goes to a cave, and despite his high-flown rhetoric about jealous zeal for the God of Hosts, he is still preoccupied with forms of death (vv. 9-10, 13-14). However, as in the wilderness but more so, a two-fold repetitious pattern awakens Elijah first to the living God (vv. 11-12, a theophany), and then to God’s down-to-earth plans—the need to go forth and anoint kings and a prophet so that they will bring that living reality to others (vv. 15-18). In Luke, Jesus tells someone who is preoccupied with death—with burying the dead—to go announce the kingdom of God. The essential continuity between the texts is twofold. First, Elijah’s repetitious preoccupation with death is distilled into the snapshot of the person preoccupied with burying his father. Second, the striking account concerning God—God’s awesome appearance and the ensuing divine command involving kings and a prophet—is distilled into the command to go announce the kingdom of God. The focus on one’s fathers/father (τὸν πατέρα μου), which occurs in the middle of Luke’s text, occurs at the beginning and end of 1 Kings 19: “no

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 25

23/08/2013 13:55

26

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

better than my fathers,” τοὺς πατέρας μου, 19.4; “kiss my father,” τὸν πατέρα μου, 19.20). 3. Calling someone with the dedication of a plowman (1 Kings 19.19-21; Luke 9.61-2) The sense of life which had first been indicated by the food-ministering angel and then by the living God now finds powerful expression in human life, in the image of Elisha the plowman. In contrast to the preceding images of the (unsown) wilderness and the (dark) cave, the picture of the plowman is one which evokes energy and fruitfulness. Details accentuate this impression: there is not just one yoke of oxen but 12; Elisha is “in” or “with” the oxen, a detail that associates their energy with him; and at the touch of Elijah’s cloak, Elisha “ran” after him (vv. 19-20a)—a stark contrast to Elijah first wanting to lie down and die. Here again there is a two-fold repetition. Elisha’s initial positive response (vv. 19-20a) is followed immediately by an action in which that response is intensified (vv. 20b-1). Having declared “I will follow you,” he says good-bye to his father (the LXX omits his mother) and burns his oxen and plough—like burning one’s boats. But the repetition in this third scene (the plowman, vv. 19-21) is unlike that of the preceding sections. In these earlier passages, particularly in Elijah’s response at the cave, the repetition is wordfor-word—a reflection of Elijah’s death-centered paralysis (vv. 9-10, 13-14). But in the third scene, the two-part portrayal of Elisha’s response avoids any such mechanical repetition. Instead, the action and repetition move swiftly and unpredictably. Elijah’s demand seems to be intensified by that of Jesus. Elijah allows the plowman to say good-bye; Jesus does not. Yet, Elisha’s good-bye was extremely resolute. In burning his plow, he used it to cook his oxen and give his workers an apparently extravagant meal. Luke has taken the resoluteness implicit in the LXX text, and as with other LXX passages, has turned it into a form which is clear and vivid. Here, too, Luke employs essentially the same procedures that he used in reworking 2 Kings 1–2. The new text is brief and graphic. The image of the plow is retained, but in a context less tied to ancient agriculture. And the process of fusion is used with complexity and sophistication. The images of Elisha plowing and Elijah casting the cloak over him have been combined into the single image of throwing one’s hand to the plough (Luke 9.62). And in a touch of word-play and further fusion, the resoluteness of Elisha in following after Elijah (ὀπίσω … ὀπίσω … ὀπίσω) has been turned around to refer to a resoluteness which does not look backwards (εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω). The combination of “I will follow you” with the image of plowing is otherwise unknown in the Bible; the link is unique. Main verbal links in Section B as a whole (1 Kings 19; Luke 9.57-92)

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 26

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

27

4 καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπορεύθη ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ὁδὸν … ἡμέρας … τοὺς πατέρας μου

57 Καὶ πορευομένων αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ

5 καὶ ἰδού τις … εἶπεν αὐτῷ

εἶπέν τις πρὸς αὐτόν· ἀκολουθήσω σοι ὅπου …

6 καὶ ἰδοὺ πρὸς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ….

58 … ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν….

----

----

9 καὶ … πρὸς αὐτὸν … εἶπεν τί σὺ ….

59 Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς ἕτερον· ἀκολούθει μοι…. ἀπελθόντι πρῶτον θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.

1519 χρίσεις … εἰς βασιλέα … καὶ ἀπῆλθεν

60 σὺ δὲ ἀπελθὼν διάγγελλε τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

19 αὐτὸς ἠροτρία … ἐπέρριψε τὴν μηλωτὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν

61 ἀκολουθήσω σοι

20 καὶ εἶπεν καταφιλήσω τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ ἀκολουθήσω ὀπίσω σου.

62 ἐπιβαλὼν τὴν χεῖρα ἐπ᾽ ἄροτρον καὶ … εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω….

f. Assessing the Evidence The evidence is a mixture of elements, strong and weak. As in detective work, weak evidence obscures the central issue. Again, the key principle: insistence on what is weak, whether by someone presenting the case or someone questioning it, obscures the key issue: Is there strong evidence, strong enough to conclude that there is a substantial link between the texts in question? In this case, analysis is incomplete; as almost always, further detail is possible. Some of Luke’s material comes from other sources, and some connections are weak or scarcely significant. But there is strong evidence. First (the first criterion), before looking at the strong evidence, it is appropriate to note a form of circumstantial evidence—the context. It was central to ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish authors to rework older texts. More specifically, Luke had a close relationship to the LXX as a whole, and had a unique connection with the EEN. Luke is known to have been a littérateur. It would not surprise if he used a literary method. Second (and this second criterion is generally the most decisive)—there is the strong direct evidence, including similarities between elements/combinations that are unique, not otherwise found in the Bible, links as strong as clear fingerprints. For review purposes, the material may be placed under seven headings. 1. The plan/s of death and assumption (2 Kgs 1.1-2a, 4, 6b, 15-17; 2.1; Luke 9.51): Unique 2. The sending and stopping of the messengers (2 Kgs 1.2b-8; Luke 9.52-3): Unique 3. The question of calling down fire (2 Kgs 1.9-14; Luke 9.54-5): Unique

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 27

23/08/2013 13:55

28

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

4. Journeying from one place to another (2 Kgs 2.2-6, 25; Luke 9.56). 5. Wandering: no place to lay one’s head (1 Kgs 19.1-8; Luke 9.57-8) 6. Focus: from death to God, God’s kings/kingdom (1 Kgs 19.9-18; Luke 9.59-60) 7. “I will follow you:” the dedicated plowman (1 Kgs 19.19-21; Luke 9.61-2): Unique As direct links, all seven connections are strong, apart from number 4 (Luke 9.56), where the words are so ordinary and few (just five, καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς ἑτέραν κώμην) that, taken in isolation, one could not claim literary dependence on 2 Kings 2. Yet like the last elusive piece of a jigsaw puzzle, all five fit perfectly with 2 Kings 2—with its wording, movement, and conclusion—and with Luke’s preceding narrative (8.1; 9.52, κώμην). So, in number 4 the evidence is primarily circumstantial; as such it is strong. The various similarities examined above have a wide range—themes, actions, images, order, and linguistic details—and so go far beyond the range of coincidence. Third (the third criterion), the differences are interpretable or intelligible, not a meaningless jumble at odds with one another and with known literary practices. Rather, they follow well-established procedures for transforming and imitating texts and, in particular, they follow processes which Luke employs elsewhere in reworking the EEN.

Conclusion In attempting to account for the complex range of similarities and dissimilarities, the simplest hypothesis is that Luke, a first-century littérateur, employed a well-known literary procedure of the first century: he imitated part of the LXX account of Elijah. He used basic techniques of adaptation, and he sought, above all, to emulate the older text. In other words, he sought to produce a better account and to show that the Jesus of whom he spoke continued the work of Elijah and in some sense fulfilled it. One could say that it was Jesus himself who first sought to continue and fulfill Elijah. Some such tradition is well possible, but the way Luke has sought to express that tradition was literary—through the careful synthesizing and developing of the Elijah narrative. In fact, it is the literary explanation, and the literary explanation alone, which is primarily capable of doing justice to the number, uniqueness, complexity and subtlety of the similarities, and to the coherence or interpretability of the differences. Hence, the tradition about Jesus, whatever it was, seems to have been combined with a deliberate literary procedure. As well as integrating tradition about Jesus, Luke has also integrated certain other elements of history, scripture and tradition. For instance, he refers to James and John, and to the Samaritans’ antipathy towards Jerusalem. It is

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 28

23/08/2013 13:55



Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative

29

scarcely possible, however, to distinguish clearly what is historical and what is not. Rather, it seems better to say of Luke 9.51-62 what Fitzmyer said of Luke 1–2, 25 that whatever history it reflects “has been assimilated … to other literary accounts.” The LXX text, therefore, emerges not as a complete explanation of Luke’s departure account, but as a major component. Some of 9.51-62, particularly 9.57-60, is generally attributed to Q, and, to the extent that Luke 9:57–60 is explained by dependence on 1 Kings 19, its dependence on Q is modified. However, the modifying of the theory of Q belongs to another discussion.

25 Fitzmyer, Luke – IX, p. 309.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 29

23/08/2013 13:55

Chapter 2 A Response to Thomas Brodie, “Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative” Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr. Thorneloe University, Sudbury, Ontario In his chapter entitled “Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative,” Thomas Brodie seeks to demonstrate a conscious and “definite connection” between 1 Kings 16.29-2 Kings 13 and Luke 7–9. According to Brodie, this is more than an accidental or “unconscious” instance of Luke having a connection with the Elijah-Elisha Narrative (EEN).1 Rather, it is conscious and “deliberate, a definite connection of some kind,”2 reflecting a “relationship between the texts.”3 Brodie begins by laying out his case by arguing that Luke’s “relationship to” 1 Kings 16.29–17.1 in the opening section of Luke (Luke 1.5-17) “meets three basic kinds of criteria for establishing literary dependence”4: 1. “External accessibility and plausibility: Luke’s literary imitation of the LXX, and Luke’s unique overall links with the structure and ethos of the EEN [i.e. the Elijah-Elisha narrative].” 2. “Persistent similarities” between the EEN and Luke 7–9, “including similarities of theme (especially concerning conduct and worship), action (plot), linguistic detail, and, to some degree, order.” 3. “Interpretability, or intelligibility of the differences.” In other words, the differences between the EEN and Luke 7–9 “can largely be accounted for through specific strategies of transformation, strategies that are consistent in themselves and that Luke uses elsewhere.”5 Thus, it would appear that Brodie is advocating Luke’s literary dependence on the EEN, not unlike the conclusions of advocates of the 2DH and FH who maintain that Luke is literarily dependent on Mark.  1  2  3  4  5

Thomas Brodie, “Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative,” p. 6. Brodie, p. 7. Brodie, p. 12. Brodie, p. 16. Brodie, p. 16.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 30

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie

31

To suggest the influence of 1 and 2 Kings on Luke 9.51-62 is not new to Brodie. The following are potential “connections” with EEN that have been identified by a number of other commentators: 1. The use of ἀναλαμβάνω in Luke 9.51 || 2 Kings 2.10-11, which may also anticipate the “taking up” (ἀναλήμφθη) of Jesus in Acts 1:22.6 2. The expression πῦρ καταβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἀναλῶσαι αὐτούς (“…fire to come down from heaven and consume them”) in Luke 9.54 || 2 Kings 1.10, 14.7 This further verified by the scribal insertion “as also Elijah did” in some manuscripts at Luke 9.54.8 3. The saying of the would-be follower of Jesus in Luke 9.61 (“I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.”) parallels 1 Kings 19.19-21 where Elisha is allowed by Elijah to first say farewell to his family before following him.9 4. Jesus’ saying “No one who puts a hand to the plow (ἄροτρον) and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9.62) has a verbal connection with Elijah finding that Elisha “was plowing” (ἠροτρία) when he was called in 1 Kings 19.19. Brodie lists additional connections between the EEN and Luke 9.51-62, including the death of king Ahaziah (2 Kings 1.1-17 LXX) (which is juxtaposed to “[Jesus] set[ting] his face to go to Jerusalem” [9.51]), Elijah’s sending of messengers from Samaria to Ekron and their eventual turning back (2 Kings 1.2-6 LXX) (paralleled to Luke 9.52-3), Elijah and Elisha’s sojourn en route to the Jordan (2 Kings 2.2-6 LXX) (paralleled to Luke 9.56), and the themes of homelessness and death in 1 Kings 19, which correspond to Luke 9.57-62.10 There seems, then, to be two related issues that could be addressed in response to Brodie’s treatment: 1) the extent of the apparent “connections” between Luke 9.51-62 and the EEN, and 2) what these “connections” tell us about the potential literary relationship between the two.

 6 See R. Alan Culpepper, The Gospel of Luke (NIBC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), p. 215; Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 403; and, I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 405. Marshall states that there is an “Elijah typology” that Luke utilizes at this verse (p. 405).  7 See Green, Luke, p. 405 (Luke uses Elijah as a “type and antitype” here); Marshall, Luke, p. 407; and Robert J. Karris, “The Gospel According to Luke,” in R. E. Brown et al. (eds), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), p. 701.  8 A C D W D Q Ψ f 1.13, as well as a number of miniscules, add the phrase αὐτοὺς ὡς καὶ Ἠλιας ἐποίησεν at Luke 9:54.  9 See Culpepper, Luke, p. 217; Marshall, Luke, p. 412; F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (EKKNT 3; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989–2001), 2.33-4; and, Green, Luke, p. 407. 10 Brodie, pp. 24–8.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 31

23/08/2013 13:55

32

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

1. The extent of these apparent “connections” On the first issue, I see no reason to deny the four potential “connections” that Brodie and a number of other commentators note (see list above). There are compelling reasons to see these four as (minimally) allusions to the LXX that Luke takes up in his narrative, particularly given the common vocabulary shared and the common thematic affinity between them. In addition, the thematic and narratological connections between 1 Kings 19 and Luke 9.57-62 make some sense,11 particularly given the verbal connections between the two. However, I am less convinced that some of the other “connections” listed by Brodie are, in fact, connections between Luke and the EEN. For example, I am not convinced that King Ahaziah’s death (by falling from an upper-storey window [1 Kings 1.2]) functioned as Luke’s source and inspiration for his description of Jesus facing death resolutely (Luke 9.51). If anything, the verbal connections between Luke 9.51 and the LXX are stronger at Ezek. 6.2, 13.17, Jer. 3.12 and 21.10.12 Nor am I convinced that there is a connection between Ahaziah’s messengers from Samaria (Σαμαρεία, 2 Kings 1.2) and Jesus sending messengers into “a village of the Samaritans” (κώμην Σαμαριτῶν [Luke 9.52]). Besides, there are other potential “connections” between Luke 9.51-62 and portions of the LXX beyond the EEN. These include (but perhaps are not limited to) the following: 1. The Deuternomistic theme of prophetic rejection beyond the EEN, which is found in 9.52-8.13 2. As C. A. Evans notes, the phrase “he set his face” (αὐτὸς τὸ πρόσωπον ἐστήρισεν [9.51]) may connote a sense of prophetic judgment, particularly as seen in Ezekiel 20–1.14 3. Luke 9.58 shares some verbal parallels with Psalm 8, particularly in the expressions ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (“the Son of Man,” Ps 8.5 LXX) and τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (“birds of the air,” Ps 8.9 LXX). A complete analysis of Luke’s “sources” at 9.51-62 would, then, need to account for these potential “echoes” as well.

11 See Brodie, p. 28. 12 These texts include the verb στήριζω plus πρόσωπον as we see in Luke 9.51. 13 See a fuller discussion of this motif in David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 313–14. 14 As argued by C. A. Evans “‘He Set His Face’: A Note on Luke 9,51,” Bib 63 (1982): pp. 545–48; idem, “‘He Set His Face’: Luke 9.51 Once Again,” Bib 68 (1987): pp. 80–4. The phrase καὶ αὐτὸς τὸ πρόσωπον ἐστήρισεν (“and he set his face”) is verbally paralleled in a number of texts from the LXX including Isa. 50.7; Jer. 3.12; 21.10; Ezek. 6.2; 13.17; 20.46 (21.2 LXX); 21.2 (21.7 LXX).

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 32

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie

33

2. “Connections” between Luke and the EEN and literary relationships It is, perhaps, worth considering the varying degrees of “connection” between ancient texts, imagining a spectrum of “connection.” Perhaps this spectrum could be illustrated as follows, moving from minimal, secondary connections to strong, primary connections (e.g. scribal copying): 1. Subconscious allusion 2. Conscious allusion 3. Paraphrase, amplification and commentary on a text in different literary context (e.g. Midrash)15 4. Imitation (imitatio), which can include some copying, with supplementary new content, or recasting the exemplar text in a new form.16 5. Verbatim quotation a. From memory b. From visual contact with an exemplar text 6. Scribal reproduction In thinking about this spectrum, it is also worth pondering what the phrases “literary relationship” and “literary dependence” could mean.17 Perhaps a “literary relationship” should be imagined at every point on this spectrum; even a literary allusion constitutes a literary “relationship” (or “connection,” as Brodie puts it). However, “literary dependence” is, perhaps, limited to the last three (or four) points, if what we mean by “literary dependence” is something more than allusions or “echoes” of earlier written texts.18 Brodie, it would seem, is advocating some form of literary dependence between the EEN and Luke 7–9, something which is more than allusion or echo. Brodie appears to assume (and is certainly correct in his assumption) that there were extensively different ways of adapting texts in the ancient world. The above spectrum of literary relationships bears this out. However, the question for us is whether a written text would exhibit such a wide variety internally, particularly within a literary unit or episode. My own work on ancient compositional practices concludes that such a phenomenon is not typical of the methods employed by writers working with written source material.19 And as the table indicates below, as Luke interlaces Markan material with the EEN, he moves between two very different techniques 15 See R. A. Derrenbacker, Jr., Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (BETL 186; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), pp. 179–82. 16 Cicero, De Or. 2.32–33, 3.31.125; Quintilian, 10. 17 For further description and analysis on what is meant by “literary relationships,” see Andrew Gregory, “What is Literary Dependence?” in P. Foster, A. Gregory, J. S. Kloppenborg, and J. Verheyden (eds), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (BETL 239; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), pp. 87–114. 18 On the language of “echo,” see Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989). 19 See Derrenbacker, Ancient Compositional Practices.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 33

23/08/2013 13:55

34

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

of adaptation, both of which are apparently dictated by his source texts.20 But ancient writers tended to avoid interlacing source texts in a literarily dependent fashion, instead typically following one source at a time.21 And as Markan priorists recognize, Luke tends to follow the sequence of his Markan material as he finds it, only infrequently altering the order of the episodes of his source text Mark. So if Luke is also literarily dependent on the EEN, the compositional method he displays in such dependence is atypical, both in terms of what he is doing with Mark and in terms of the conventions of his literary contemporaries. Brodie also recognizes “that much of Luke 7–9…involves an adaptation of parts of Mark 3–9, often verbatim.”22 As well, Brodie argues that Luke 7–9 evidences another “[l]ess noticed…adaptation” where “parts of the EEN” are adapted, but “rarely verbatim” as they are with Mark 3–9.23 Thus, Brodie is positing Luke’s literary dependence on the EEN where minimal verbatim agreement exists, seeing the thematic affinities between Luke and the EEN as evidence of this possible literary dependence. In addition, Luke’s literary dependence on the EEN means some reordering of these episodes (again, see the table below). Since Brodie admits that the affinities between Luke 9.51-62 and the EEN are “rarely verbatim,” he must rely on thematic parallels between the two to demonstrate literary dependence. The fundamental question then is whether these thematic affinities are strong enough to suggest literary dependence between the two. As discussed above, there are clearly some affinities between the EEN and Luke 9.51-62, roughly four in number. The others listed by Brodie are, at best it would seem, no more that literary “echoes” of the EEN. The absence of stronger verbal connections between the EEN and Luke cause me to conclude that Luke’s dominant literary inspiration(s) come(s) from elsewhere, but may be secondarily influenced by some material Luke finds in the EEN.

Conclusion Advocates of other source-critical theories in competition with Brodie’s proto-Luke also acknowledge the influence of the EEN on Luke 9.51-62. Proponents of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis see Luke 9.59-62 representing “yet another parallel between the story of Jesus in Luke and the story of Elijah in 1–2 Kings.”24 Similarly, Michael Goulder states that “Luke’s mind” 20 In particular, see the third column that indicates the percentage of Lukan wording paralleled in his source texts (the “Morgenthaler Statistic”). For Mark, the range is 31–46 per cent; however, for the EEN, it is consistently less than 1 per cent, which hardly demonstrates a literary relationship. 21 See Derrenbacker, Ancient Compositional Practices, p. 116. 22 Brodie, p. 17. 23 Brodie, p. 17. 24 Allan J. McNicol, et al., Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), p. 158. McNicol states: “See 1 Kgs 19.19-21 where Elisha says, in response to Elijah’s calling of him as a disciple, ‘Let me kiss my father and my mother,

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 34

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie

35

is “set” on Elijah here, as it has been “for some time.”25 And on the 2DH, much of Luke 9.51-62 is comprised of Lukan Sondergut (i.e. 9.51-6), a definitive Q-text26 (i.e. Q 9.57-60), and a possible Q-text (i.e. Q 9.61-227). It should be noted that, even if one adopts the 2DH as the best explanation of the data for Luke 9.51-62 (for the sake of argument), this does not preclude the influence of the EEN on the text of Luke, which may be directly influential where Q is not paralleled, and indirectly influential through Q 9.57-60 (61-2).28 One could imagine the allusion to the EEN embedded in Q 9.57-60 (61-2) inspiring Luke to echo the EEN in his surrounding Sondergut. Thus, advocates of such a position might agree with Brodie in that the EEN played a role in the formation of Luke 9.51-62. However, these same individuals may disagree with Brodie’s argument that the EEN was the chief literary inspiration or “major component”29 for Luke 9.51-62, including proponents of the Two-Gospel, Farrer-Goulder, and Two-Document Hypotheses. Thus, it would seem that the existence of Q 9.57-60 (and potentially Q 9.61–2) could provide the primary explanation for Luke 9.57-60 (61-2), with the EEN having a secondary literary connection with Luke 9.51-62, both through its allusion by Luke and its indirect connection through Q.

and then I will follow you.’ This statement by Elisha is somewhat closer to the request made to Jesus by Luke’s third would-be disciple in Lk 9.61-2 than it is to the request made by Luke’s (and Mt’s) second would-be disciple in Lk 9.59-60//Mt 8.21-2. In this case, on the Two Gospel Hypothesis, Luke would have made the allusion to this story about Elijah more explicit than the source material he had used in Mt” (158). 25 Michael Goulder, Luke – A New Paradigm (JSNTSS 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), p. 459. 26 The “Morgenthaler Statistic” for this pericope is quite high at 81 per cent, indicating the percentage of the total Lukan wording that represents “minimal Q,” i.e. agreements in wording in the double tradition between Matthew and Luke (see Robert Morgenthaler, Statistische Synopse [Zürich/Stuttgart: Gotthelf, 1971], pp. 260–1). It is worth noting that John S. Kloppenborg has recently argued that such high verbatim agreement is not typical for texts like the Gospels, which is a “real problem [that needs] to be explained” since it places the Evangelists “in the rather interstichal position between the librarius-copyist and the genuine historian or biographer” (“Variation in the Double Tradition,” ETL 83 [2007]: p. 80). 27 While not believing this to be a text from Q, John S. Kloppenborg states the following about it as the possible Q 9.61-2: “Of all the Lukan Sondergut, this has the strongest probability of deriving from Q since it is found in a Q context, the saying coheres with the preceding sayings formally, and it envinces the same theology of discipleship typical of other Q sayings” (Q Parallels [Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988], p. 64). However, the reconstruction of Q by the International Q Project does not include this saying (see James M. Robinson et al. (eds), The Critical Edition of Q [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). 28 Joel Green states the following: “Not far below the surface of this text [Luke 9.51-62] are other texts, echoes of the OT stories of Elijah and Elisha and of such Lukan texts as the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth (4.16-30). Taken together, these motifs and reverberations all serve the one theme of this narrative unit – namely, the single-minded orientation that Jesus has, and that his followers must come to share, as he begins the divinely ordained journey to Jerusalem” (The Gospel of Luke, p. 402). 29 Brodie, p. 29.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 35

23/08/2013 13:55

36

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

Table 1: Luke’s Sources at Luke 7–9 according to Brodie Source Text

Luke Text

“Morgenthaler Statistic”30

1 Kings 17:1–16

Luke 7:1–10

Less than 1%

1 Kings 17:17–24

Luke 7:11–17

Less than 1%

1 Kings 22:1–38

Luke 7:18–35

Less than 1%

2 Kings 4:1–37

Luke 7:36–50

Less than 1%

1 Kings 18

Luke 8:1–3 (Acts 14:8–18)

Less than 1%

Mark 4:1–25

Luke 8:4–18

43%

Mark 3:31–35

Luke 8:19–21

44%

Mark 4:35–5:43

Luke 8:22–56

38%

Mark 6:6b–16

Luke 9:1–9

32%

Mark 6:30–44

Luke 9:10–17

31%

Mark 8:27–9:10

Luke 9:18–36

46%

Mark 9:14–41

Luke 9:37–50

41%

2 Kings 1:1–2:6

Luke 9:51–57

Less than 1%

1 Kings 19

Luke 9:58–62

Less than 1%

30 “Morgenthaler Statistics” are adapted from Robert Morgenthaler’s Statistische Synopse (see above) and indicate the percentage of Lukan wording paralleled in his source material.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 36

23/08/2013 13:55

Chapter 3 A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Lukeas the Earliest Form of the Gospel David Barrett Peabody Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln If one moves from the known to the unknown, in considering the possible influence of the Elijah-Elisha cycle on the work of the author of Luke-Acts, it seems to me that one should give, in descending order of importance, first attention to verbal identities and similarities in distinctive wording in Luke-Acts when compared to such comparable wording as appears in the Elijah-Elisha cycle. A second level of attention should be given to explicit references to material within the Elijah-Elisha cycle, including uses of the names, Elijah and Elisha, within Luke-Acts. A third level of attention should be given to apparent major structural similarities between the two works. A fourth level of attention should be given to identical or similar themes in both pieces of literature, and the least subsequent consideration should be given to other potential evidence of a relationship between these two works which is less obvious to all readers, such as the transformation of features in one document into their opposites in the other or other types of modifications from one to the other, such as shifting emphasis from physical relationships to spiritual or psychological ones. These last categories of evidence don’t seem to me to carry nearly the probative value for establishing literary dependence as do those categories of evidence which precede these in my list above.1 Although I put the items in this list in what is, in my view, a descending order of importance, a judgment about possible literary relationships between these two bodies of work may be synthetic, whereby comparative strength  1 In such areas, the critic, removed from the era in which these documents were written by space, time, and presuppositions, seems to me more likely to be misled into considering something as in relationship which is not. However, Professor Brodie and colleagues with interests parallel to his, such as Dennis MacDonald, John Kloppenborg and his former students, Alex Damm and Robert Derrenbacker, have all disciplined themselves to reading the ancient literature in terms of known literary styles, rules of composition, and physical constraints on the writing process, so these scholars are less likely to be misled, but none of us is completely capable of transcending our own historical context, time and spatial location, no matter how well read or sympathetic or empathetic we might be toward the presuppositions, style of writing, etc., of ancient historians, biographers or other authors of ancient literature.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 37

23/08/2013 13:55

38

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

of one category of evidence might compensate for comparative weakness in another or a greater quantity of evidence in one category might compensate for a comparative scarcity of evidence in another. In the work of literary criticism and history, it seems unreasonable to expect mathematical precision. However, with the aid of electronic texts and a good search engine, almost anyone can quickly find those verses in Luke-Acts in which the name of either Elijah or Elisha appears or, if one is a somewhat more sophisticated researcher, one can also fairly easily find language shared between any two or more documents. For instance, my own search for name of Elijah in the canonical Gospel of Luke resulted in a total of seven “hits” in five separable literary contexts. These hits were at Luke 1.17, 4.25-6 bis, 9.7-9, 9.18-20, and 9.30-3 bis. A search for the name, Elisha, resulted in only one hit, Luke 4.27, the same context which returned two hits for the name, Elijah, Luke 4.25-6 bis. It is notable that Professor Brodie only considers one of the verses in the immediately preceding list, Luke 1.17, to be part of what he has attempted to isolate and reconstruct as Proto-Luke,2 i.e. that running text, now (totally?) included in canonical Luke, which he believes provided source material for Mark, Matthew and canonical Luke, in that order of composition. If that idea should gain ascendancy in the guild of New Testament scholars, then one would have to conclude that the author of canonical Luke included the name of Elijah within canonical Luke six times more than did the author of protoLuke within Proto-Luke. Here follows the evidence and support for that claim.

1. The Explicit References to the Names, Elijah and Elisha, in Canonical Luke a. Luke 1:17 With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (Luke 1.17)

In this context we have three different, but related kinds of evidence. First, the only actual appearance of the name of “Elijah” in Proto-Luke.3 Second, wording which is close to that which appears in Mal. 4.6, which refers  2 According to a large booklet published by the Dominican Biblical Institute of Limerick, Ireland in 2006, which I received from Professor Brodie during his seminar at the Annual Meeting of the Catholic Biblical Association in Santa Clara, California during the summer of 2007, Proto-Luke, as reconstructed by Brodie, consists of Luke 1.1–4.22a (omitting the words of the speech of John the Baptist, Luke 3.7-9 and the temptation narrative at Luke 4.1-13); Luke 7.1–8.3; 9.51–10.20; 16.1-9, 19–31; 17.11–18.8, 19.1-10; 22.1-30 and 22.66–24.50.  3 The name of Elisha never appears in Brodie’s version of Proto-Luke.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 38

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke

39

explicitly to Elijah as one who, “will turn the hearts of parents to their children.” And, third, the language “he will go before him,” in this context, is also somewhat reminiscent of Mal. 3.1, “I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me” (cf. Luke 7.27 || Mt. 11.10). The referent of “he” in the opening of this sentence in Luke 1.17 in canonical Luke is presumably to John the Baptist who “with the spirit and power of Elijah…will go before him.” But would that be true of Proto-Luke as well? The author of canonical Luke makes a point of paralleling the birth and infancy narratives of John and his parents with that of Jesus and his parents in the first two chapters of Luke. The Annunciation of the Birth of John (Luke 1.5-25)

The Annunciation of the Birth of Jesus (Luke 1.26-38)

Mary Visits Elizabeth’s House (Luke 1.39-56) The Birth, Circumcision, and Disclosure of John’s Mission (Luke 1.57-80)

The Birth, Circumcision, and Disclosure of Jesus’ Mission (Luke 2.1-40)

Jesus Visits His Father’s House (Luke 2.41-52)

These connections would presumably also be true of the author of Proto-Luke, assuming that author was the source for the great bulk of Luke 1.1–4.22a, as Professor Brodie has concluded from his research. And this connection would be confirmed, in another portion of Proto-Luke, as isolated by Brodie, namely Luke 7.18-35, where such comparison between Jesus and John is continued. b. Luke 4:25–27 But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.

In personal correspondence (27 March 2008), Professor Brodie provided the following answer to my question about why he did not include Luke 4.25-7 in his reconstruction of Proto-Luke. I went over and back on this. At first, when tracing Proto-Luke, I stopped at 4.22a— on the basis of the relationship to a key underlying text (Nehemiah 8). Later, as I realized how helpful and even appropriate it would be to include Elijah/Elisha (4.22b-30) in the original, I put it in. But later again, when working on the detail of how canonical Luke composed, I concluded that 4.22b-30 was in fact a part of the later work. (That is a very general answer, and I realize the devil is in the detail.) (Birthing, 264 and 534, touches it).

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 39

23/08/2013 13:55

40

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

The only explicit reference to the name, Elisha, in the gospel of Luke is also in this context (Luke 4.27), which Professor Brodie, at the moment at least, does not include in the text of Proto-Luke. I appreciate his willingness to omit this section from his reconstruction, when he himself realizes how the inclusion of this passage might help his thesis.4 c. Luke 9.7–9 Now Herod the ruler heard about all that had taken place, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the ancient prophets had arisen. Herod said, “John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?” And he tried to see him.

This passage seems to me to be of one cloth with Luke 9.18-20, which, at least when the parallels in Matthew or Mark or both are compared to it, seems to be an edition of this saying which the author of canonical Luke modified to bring two confessions about Jesus, one on the lips of Herod and the other on the lips of Jesus’ disciples, into greater conformity.5 d. Luke 9.18–20 Once, when Jesus was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” They answered, “John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “The Messiah of God.”6

e. Luke 9.30–33 Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure (τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ), which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—[Peter] not knowing what he said.

These words are, of course, drawn from the so–called “Transfiguration” narrative, a pericope shared by all three synoptic Evangelists.7 As background for this synoptic pericope, it is worth noting that the same two prophets, Moses and Elijah, appear together not only in the transfiguration narrative, but also in adjoining sentences at the end of Malachi, to which allusion, if not  4 I once had occasion to compliment Charles Talbert for a similar kind of integrity in his scholarship when he presented a conclusion from his own NT research which I knew to be at odds with his own personal, theological beliefs. Would that all scholars had such integrity.  5 See the underlining in the two excerpts above and the accompanying Greek synopsis §35. Mark 6.14-16.  6 See Synopsis §35. Mark 6.14-16 || Mark 8.27-30.  7 See Synopsis §50. Mark 9.2-13.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 40

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke

41

quotation, was made already at Luke 1.17, and this is the only one of these seven explicit references to the name of Elijah which Brodie has assigned to Proto-Luke. Remember the teaching of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse. (Malachi 4.4-6)

Although all three Synoptics record the appearance of Elijah and Moses with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, only Matthew makes the explicit point, at the end of that pericope, that John the Baptist is to be identified with Elijah (Matt. 17.13). Matthew makes a similar point on two other occasions, once implicitly (by describing the clothing of John the Baptist at Matt. 3.4 || Mark 1.6 in the same terms as the clothing of Elijah is described at 2 Kings 1.8, details which are absent from the parallel in Luke 3.7) and once explicitly (Matt 11.14, “and if you wish to receive it, he [John the Baptist] is Elijah, the one about to come,”) wording which is comparably missing from Luke 7.30-1 in the parallel context and from Luke 16.16 where a parallel to Mt. 11.12-13 may be found. That is, on the assumption of Luke’s use of Mt. Luke has omitted all three of the passages in Mt. where Elijah is identified with John the Baptist. For Luke, it is Jesus, and not John, who is “a great prophet who has arisen” (Luke 7.16) whether in the line of Elijah or Elisha or Isaiah or Moses or others. Mark has few parallels to Luke 6.20–8.3 and this has given rise, on synoptic theories which presuppose Markan priority, that Luke has turned away from Mark and to another source at this point in his gospel. There are, however, numerous parallels to this section of Luke in Matthew. These include the sections Luke 6.20–7.1 || Mt. 5.1–7.28, Luke’s Sermon on the Plain || Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount;8 Luke 7.2-10 || Mt. 8.5-13, the Healing of the Centurion’s Slave;9 Luke 7.18-35 || Mt. 11.2-19, Messengers from John the Baptist; Luke 7.36-50 (compare and contrast Mt. 26.1-6 || Mark 14.1-11), the Sinful Woman Forgiven; and Luke 8.1-3 (cf. Mt. 9.35 || Mt. 11.1 || Luke 8.1 and Mt. 27.55-6 || Luke 8.2-3), the Assembly of Ministering Women. These, of course, on the Two Document Hypothesis, are potential candidates for inclusion in the Sayings Gospel, Q. On the Two Gospel (neo-Griesbach)  8 Luke’s Sermon on the Plain is parallel to Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount in content, but not in order. On the other hand, Luke’s Inaugural Sermon in Nazareth (Luke 4.16-27) is parallel in order, but not in content, with Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mt. 7.28b-9 || Luke 4.31-2 || Mark 1.22 and see the Synopsis to Luke 7.1.  9 See the synopses to Luke 7.1 and Luke 7.2-10, the synopsis to Luke 7.18-35, Luke 7.36-50, and Luke 8.1 plus 8.2-3.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 41

23/08/2013 13:55

42

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

or on the Farrer Hypothesis, however, these parallels would represent places where Luke has made use of Matthew. As a long time advocate of the 2GH, it is difficult for me to think that Luke first utilized the Elijah-Elisha narrative when the verbal identities and similarities in these parallel pericopae are so striking. Advocates of the Sayings Gospel, Q, are, of course, also struck by these extensive verbal agreements. It is, therefore, difficult for advocates of several alternative source theories (2DH, FH, or 2GH) to conclude that the evidence for Proto-Luke’s dependence on the Elijah-Elisha cycle, rather than on Matthew or on the Sayings Gospel, Q, is as impressive as these verbal identities and similarities between Matthew and Luke. Professor Brodie’s response, of course, is fully to acknowledge such data and to explain them as the result of the author of canonical Matthew, making use of Proto-Luke, which had, in its turn, made considerable and extensive use of the ElijahElisha cycle10 and, finally, of the author of canonical Luke making use of Matthew.

2. Evidence of a Single Editorial Hand in Luke 4.16-22a and Luke 7.18-35 According to Luke 4.16-22a, prior to Jesus’ inaugural speech in the synagogue at Nazareth, he read from the prophet Isaiah, (Isa 61.1-2) which indicates that the Lord, by His Spirit, has commissioned his anointed one 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

To evangelize the poor, and sent him To proclaim release to the captives, To restore sight to the blind, To send ones who have been oppressed into freedom, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Isaiah 61.1-2

Luke 4.17-20 4:17 καὶ ἐπεδόθη αὐτῷ βιβλίον τοῦ προφήτου Ἠσαΐου καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον εὗρεν τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον·

10 The author of canonical Luke also makes use of canonical Matthew, as well as Mark and Proto-Luke. This, according to Brodie, helps to explain the alleged fact that Matthew’s version of the material he shares with Luke is sometimes more primitive (the material which came from Proto-Luke) and sometimes less primitive (the material which Luke derived from Matthew, rather than Proto-Luke). Is this Brodie’s parallel to so-called Mark-Q overlaps on the Two Document Hypothesis?

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 42

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke 61:1 Πνεὐμα κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν

4:18 πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, ἀπέσταλκέν με, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν

61:2 καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτὸν καὶ ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως παρακαλέσαι πάντας τοὺς πενθοῦντας

4:19 κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν.

43

τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει,

4:20 καὶ πτύξας τὸ βιβλίον ἀποδοὺς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ ἐκάθισεν· καὶ πάντων οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦσαν ἀτενίζοντες αὐτῷ.

Following Jesus’ reading of this excerpt from the prophet Isaiah (in Greek?), he announces that “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears.” Later, in another excerpt from Proto-Luke (Luke 7.18-23), according to Brodie’s reconstruction, in response to the question, “Are you he who is to come or should we wait for another?” posed by John the Baptist through his disciples, Jesus answers with the words, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor are evangelized.”

In canonical Luke, most, if not all, of these activities by Jesus have been performed prior to Jesus’ response to John in Luke 7.22. Clearly, 1. Jesus’ giving sight to the blind is quickly mentioned and sandwiched (Luke 7.21) between John’s question (Luke 7.19-20) and Jesus’ answer (Luke 7.22). 2. Jesus’ earlier healing of a lame man has also been narrated prior to Luke 7.22 (Luke 5.18-26). 3. He had also cleansed a leper (Luke 5.12-13) prior to Luke 7.22. and

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 43

23/08/2013 13:55

44

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

4. He had raised a widowed mother’s son from the dead at Nain (Luke 7.11-17), prior to Luke 7.22. All of these fulfillments of Jesus’ claims about his activities clearly appear prior to Jesus’ response to John (Luke 7.22-3), but what about Jesus’ claims in numbers (4), “the deaf hear,” and (6), “the poor are evangelized (πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται)”? With regard to (6), one may observe that the first line of Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6.20) reads, “Blessed are you poor (οἱ πτωχοί), for yours is the kingdom of God.” Note the difference between the first line in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5.2), “Blessed are the poor (οἱ πτωχοί) in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The word, “poor” (πτωχοί) appears in only one other Lukan context prior to Luke 7.22, namely, within the excerpt from Isa. 61.1-2, read by Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth, according to Luke 4.17-20. Luke 4.18 reads εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, i.e. the same two vocabulary items which appear in Luke 7.22 and one verbal identity with Luke 6.20, πτωχοί. It therefore appears that the evangelization of the poor has also been fulfilled prior to Luke 7.22, if only in Jesus’ reading from Isaiah in the Nazareth synagogue (Luke 4.18-19 || Isa. 61.1-2), if not also in the first line in Jesus’ Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6.20). Finding fulfillment of the deaf hearing, κωφοὶ ἀκούουσιν (Luke 7.22) prior to Luke 7.22, is a bit more difficult, but perhaps not impossible to conceive in canonical Luke. To do so, however, it is important to recognize that κωφός can mean either “deaf” or “mute” and sometimes both.11 Once that is recognized, one may note that Zechariah is said to have remained κωφός, according to Luke 1.22, having been struck mute (σιωπῶν) and unable to speak (μὴ δυνάμενος λαλῆσαι, Luke 1.20), because of his doubts about the angel’s prophecy about his forthcoming son, John the Baptist. Zechariah’s inability to speak is repeated in Luke 1.22, οὐκ ἐδύνατο λαλῆσαι, not only in words similar to Luke 1.20, μὴ δυνάμενος λαλῆσαι, but also with the introduction of a new vocabulary item, κωφός, in the phrase, “he remained (διέμενεν) κωφός,” in that same verse. In support of the definition of κωφός as both deaf and mute or even only deaf, in this context, one may point to Luke 1.62 when the “neighbors and relatives” of Mary “began motioning (ἐνένευον) to him [Zechariah] to find out what name he wanted to give him [his son].” Why would they need to motion to him, if he could hear them? If Zechariah was deaf, however, as well as mute, such motioning would be an appropriate means of communication with him. On the other hand, when Zechariah wrote on a tablet, “His name is John,” his cure is described with the following words, “Immediately his mouth was opened and tongue was free, and he began to speak, praising God,”

11

Liddell and Scott, s. v. κωφóς.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 44

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke

45

emphasizing his former state as a mute and saying nothing about a restored ability to hear. Furthermore, the healing of Zechariah as κωφός, however that word may be defined, is not attributed to Jesus, whose own birth has yet to be recorded in canonical Luke/Proto-Luke. His birth is first recorded at Luke 2.7. However, no less than three prophecies in the book of Isaiah unite the giving of sight to the blind, which has been fulfilled by Jesus prior to Luke 7.22 at Luke 7.21 with restoring the hearing of the deaf (Isa. 29.18, 35.5 and 43.8). Perhaps, explicit reference to both of these types of healing was just a small oversight by the author of Luke 7.21. That is, any one of these prophetic passages from Isaiah could be the background for Luke 7.21, even if only one of the pair of thrice prophesied healings of blind and deaf persons actually made it into, perhaps, a quickly drafted text of Luke 7.21. However, one may give more intentionality to the author of canonical Luke, who, unlike the author of Proto-Luke, was able also to include the section, Luke 4.22b–6.49 or even through Luke 7.1, in his gospel, which includes stories about the healing of the lame (Luke 5.18-26), the cleansing of a leper (Luke 5.12-13), which serve to confirm Jesus’ statement to John at Luke 7.22, as they could not have for the author of Proto-Luke, as currently reconstructed by Brodie. With regard to the lack of a clear healing of a blind man prior to Luke 7.22, one may also take note of the fact that healing of the blind is also not one of the points included in Isa. 61.1-2 and, therefore, also not included in the excerpt from that prophet, which Jesus read and interpreted in the Nazareth synagogue (Luke 4.18-19). There is also no fulfillment of the prophecy to “proclaim the δεκτόν year of the Lord” (Isa. 61.2 || Luke 4.19) in Luke 7.22, but this might be accounted for shortly after Luke 4.19, when Jesus affirms at Luke 4.24, in Luke’s words, οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ. Although Brodie currently does not include Luke 4.24-7 in his reconstruction of Proto-Luke, the explicit references to Elijah and Elisha contained there explicitly refer to Elijah’s ministry to a Gentile widow in Zarephath in Sidon during a time of famine (Luke 4.25-6, cf. 1 Kings 17.17-24) and to the healing of a leprous Gentile, Naaman the Syrian, by Elisha (Luke 4.27, cf. 2 Kings 5.1-27, esp. 5.1-4). The broader context of the first reference, of course, also includes the raising of the Gentile widow’s son from death (1 Kings 17.17-24). These two stories, were they in Proto-Luke, as they certainly are in canonical Luke, serve to foreshadow Jesus’ healing of a leper in Luke 5.12-13, his raising of a dead person in Luke 7.11-17 and Jesus’ response to John’s question at Luke 7.22. What sense does the seemingly quick inclusion of Luke 7.21 make, which attempts to provide for an example of Jesus giving sight to the blind, just prior to Luke 7.22, in the context of a Proto-Luke, which does not include Luke 4.23–6.49 and, therefore, did not include Luke 5.12-13, the healing of a leper, and Luke 5.18-26, the healing of a lame man, which would need to be included in order for Luke 7.21 to provide noticeable

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 45

23/08/2013 13:55

46

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

last-minute support for Jesus’ answer to John at Luke 7.22, by supplying the last (but one?) of the elements needed to complete the complement of deeds listed in Luke 7.22? Without Luke 5.12-13 and 5.18-26 for prior support, Luke 7.21 would seem to serve no particularly significant purpose in the context of Professor Brodie’s currently reconstructed text of Proto-Luke. Although Luke 7.21 is just one verse, it serves a large and important purpose in the context of the composition of the entire section of canonical Luke 1.1–7.22. It seems unlikely to me, therefore, that Luke 7.21 stood in Proto-Luke, at least as currently reconstructed by Professor Brodie.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 46

23/08/2013 13:55

Mt. 14.1-2

Mark 6.14-16 (Cf. Synopsis ¶ 3) ‹6.14›

‹14.1›

Luke 9.7-9

Luke 9.18-20 ‹9.18›

Mark 8.27-30 ‹8.27›

‹16.13›

‹9.7› cf. Lk. 3.19 ,

‹14.2› ,

,

cf. Mk 6.16

cf. Lk. 9.9

,

,

,

47

23/08/2013 13:55

Please visit http://www.bloomsbury.com/the-elijah-elisha-narrative-in-the-composition-of-luke-9780567313355 and click on ‘Online Resources’ to access these tables in colour.

A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke

,

O

Mt. 16.13-16



9780567313355_txt_print.indd 47

¶ 35. Mk 6.14-16. Herod Thinks John the Baptist Has Been Raised From the Dead

48

,

.

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 48

, ‹16.15› , ‹8.29› , ‹9.20›

, , , ,

. . . .

, ‹9.8›

, , ,

, ] [ ,

‹16.16› ‹6.16› ‹14.3›

. ‹6.15› .

‹16.14› ‹8.28› ‹9.19›

23/08/2013 13:55



9780567313355_txt_print.indd 49

cf. Synopsis ¶ 47

A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke

. .

. . cf. Mk 6.3 cf. Mt 13.55

. , cf. Mt 14. 2

‹8.30›

, , , , See Luke 3.18-20

‹9.9› ,

49

23/08/2013 13:55

50

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke ¶ 50. Mk 9.2-13. The Transfiguration Mt. 17.1-13

Mark 9.2-13

ã17.1Ã Kai; meq

ã9.2Ã Kai; meta;

hJmevra" e}x paralambavnei oJ Ihsou'" to;n Pevtron

hJmevra" e}x paralambavnei oJ Ihsou'" to;n Pevtron

kai; Iakvwbon kai; to;n Iakvwbon kai; Iwavnnhn kai; to;n Iwavnnhn to;n ajdelfo;n aujtou' kai; ajnafevrei aujtou;" kai; ajnafevrei aujtou;" ei" j o[ro" uJyhlo;n ei" j o[ro" uJyhlo;n kat idjia kat idj ia v n. v n movnou". ã17.2Ã kai; metemorfwvqh kai; metemorfwvqh cf. Mt. 21.22//Mk 9.29 and Synopsis ¶ 51 e[mprosqen aujtw'n, e[mprosqen aujtw'n, kai; e[lamyen to; provswpon aujtou' wJ" oJ h{lio", ta; de; im J avtia aujtou' ã9.3Ã kai; ta; im J avtia aujtou' ejgevneto leuka; ejgevneto stilvbonta leuka; wJ" to; fw'". lia v n oia | gnafeu;" ejpi; th'" gh'" ouj duvnatai ou{tw" leuka'nai. ã17.3Ã kai; idjou; ã9.4Ã kai; w[fqh aujtoi" ' w[fqh aujtoi'" Mwu>sh'" kai; Hlia v " Hliva" su;n Mwu>sei', sullalou'nte" kai; h\san sullalou'nte" met aujtou'. tw/' Ihsou'.

ã17.4Ã ajpokriqei" ; de;

ã9.5Ã kai; ajpokriqei;"

oJ Pevtro" ei\pen tw/' Ihsou', Kuvrie, kalovn ejstin hJma'" w|de ei\nai: eij qevlei", poihvsw w|de trei" ' skhnav", soi; mia v n kai; Mwu>sei' mia v n kai; Hlia v / mia v n.

oJ Pevtro" levgei tw/' Ihsou', ÔRabbi,v kalovn ejstin hJma'" w|de ei\nai,

ã17..5Ã e[ti aujtou' lalou'nto" idjou; nefevlh fwteinh; ejpeskia v sen aujtouv", cf. Mt. 17.6

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 50

kai; poihvswmen trei" ' skhnav", soi; mia v n kai; Mwu>sei' mia v n kai; Hlia v / mia v n. ã9.6Ã ouj ga;r hd/[ei tiv ajpokriqh,/' e[kfoboi ga;r ejgevnonto. ã9.7Ã kai; ejgevneto nefevlh ejpiskiavzousa aujtoi" ' , cf. Mk 9.6

Luke 9.28-36 ã9.28Ã Egevneto de; meta; tou;" lovgou" touvtou" wJsei; hJmevrai ok j twv, ªkaiº; paralabw;n Pevtron kai; Iwavnnhn kai; Iak v wbon ajnevbh ei" j to; o[ro" proseuvxasqai. ã9.29Ã kai; ejgevneto ejn tw/' proseuvcesqai aujto;n to; ei\do" tou' proswvpou aujtou' e{teron kai; oJ iJmatismo;" aujtou' leuko;" ejxastravptwn.

ã9.30Ã kai; idjou; cf. Lk. 9.31 a[ndre" duvo sunelavloun aujtw'/, oi{tine" h\san Mwu>sh'" kai; Hlia v ", ã9.31Ã oi} ojfqevnte" ejn dovxh/ e[legon th;n e[xodon aujtou', h}n h[mellen plhrou'n ejn Ierousalhvm. ã9.32Ã oJ de; Pevtro" kai; oiJ su;n aujtw/' h\san bebarhmevnoi u{pnw/: diagrhgorhvsante" de; ei\don th;n dovxan aujtou' kai; tou;" duvo a[ndra" tou;" sunestw'ta" aujtw./' ã9.33Ã kai; ejgevneto ejn tw/' diacwriz v esqai aujtou;" ajp aujtou' ei\pen oJ Pevtro" pro;" to;n Ihsou'n, Epistavta, kalovn ejstin hJma'" w|de ei\nai, kai; poihvswmen skhna;" trei" ' , mia v n soi; kai; mia v n Mwu>sei' kai; mia v n Hlia v /, mh; eidjw;" o} levgei. ã9.34Ã tau'ta de; aujtou' levgonto" ejgevneto nefevlh kai; ejpeskia v zen aujtouv": ejfobhvqhsan de;

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke

kai; idjou; fwnh; ekj th'" nefevlh" levgousa, Ou|tov" ejstin oJ uioJv" mou oJ ajgaphtov", ejn w/| eujdokvhsa: akjouvete aujtou'. ã17.6Ã kai; akjouvsante" oiJ maqhtai; e[pesan ejpi; provswpon aujtw'n kai; ejfobhvqhsan sfovdra. ã17.7Ã kai; prosh'lqen oJ Ihsou'" kai; aJyavmeno" aujtw'n ei\pen, jEgevrqhte kai; mh; fobeis ' qe. ã17.8Ã ejpavrante" de; tou;" ojfqalmou;" aujtw'n oujdevna ei\don eij mh; aujto;n Ihsou'n movnon.

ã9.8Ã kai; ejxavpina peribleyavmenoi oukjevti oujdevna ei\don ajlla; to;n Ihsou'n movnon meq eJautw'n.

ã17.9Ã Kai;

ã9.9Ã Kai;

katabainovntwn aujtw'n ekj tou' o[rou" ejneteilvato aujtoi" ' oJ Ihsou'" levgwn, Mhdeni; eip [ hte to; o{rama

katabainovntwn aujtw'n ekj tou' o[rou" diesteilvato aujtoi'" in{a

e{w" ou| oJ uioJ;" tou' ajnqrwvpou ekj nekrw'n ejgerqh'/.

ã17.10Ã kai; ejphrwvthsan aujto;n oiJ maqhtai; levgonte", Tiv ou\n oiJ grammatei'" levgousin o{ti Hlivan dei' ejlqein' prw'ton… ã17.11Ã oJ de; ajpokriqei" ; ei\pen, Hliva" me;n e[rcetai kai; ajpokatasthvsei pavnta: cf. Mt. 17.12 ã17.12Ã levgw de; uJmin' o{ti Hliva" h[dh h\lqen, kai; oujk ejpevgnwsan aujto;n ajlla; ejpoih v san ejn aujtw' o{sa hjqevlhsan: ou{tw" kai; oJ uioJ;" tou' ajnqrwvpou mevllei pavscein uJp aujtw'n. ã17.13Ã tovte sunhk'an

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 51

kai; ejgevneto fwnh; ekj th'" nefevlh", Ou|tov" ejstin oJ uioJ" v mou oJ ajgaphtov", akjouvete aujtou'.

cf. Mk 9.6

51

ejn tw/' eis j elqein' aujtou;" ei" j th;n nefevlhn. ã9.35Ã kai; fwnh; ejgevneto ek j th'" nefevlh" levgousa, Ou|tov" ejstin oJ uioJ" v mou oJ ek j lelegmevno", aujtou' ak j ouvete. ã9..36Ã kai; ejn tw/' genevsqai th;n fwnh;n cf. Lk. 9.34

euJrevqh Ihsou'" movno". kai; aujtoi; ejsig v hsan kai; oujdeni; ajphvggeilan ejn ek j eivnai" tai'" hJmevrai" oujde;n w|n eJwvrakan. ã9.37Ã Egevneto de; th'/ eJxh'" hJmevra/ katelqovntwn aujtw'n ajpo; tou' o[rou" sunhvnthsen aujtw'/ o[clo" poluv".

mhdeni; a} ei\don dihghvswntai, eij mh; o{tan oJ uioJ;" tou' ajnqrwvpou ekj nekrw'n ajnasth'./ ã9.10Ã kai; to;n lovgon ekjravthsan pro;" eJautou;" suzhtou'nte" tiv ejstin to; ekj nekrw'n ajnasth'nai ã9.11Ã kai; ejphrwvtwn aujto;n levgonte", ”Oti levgousin oiJ grammatei" ' o{ti Hlivan dei' ejlqein' prw'ton… ã9.12Ã oJ de; e[fh aujtoi'", Hliva" me;n ejlqw;n prw'ton ajpokaqistavnei pavnta: kai; pw'" gevgraptai ejpi; to;n uioJ;n tou' ajnqrwvpou in{a polla; pavqh/ kai; ejxoudenhqh…/' ã9.13Ã ajlla; levgw uJmin' o{ti kai; Hlia v " ejlhvluqen, kai; ejpoih v san aujtw/' o{sa h[qelon, kaqw;" gevgraptai cf. Mk 9.12 ejp aujtovn.

23/08/2013 13:55

52

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

oiJ maqhtai; o{ti peri; Iwavnnou tou' baptistou' ei\pen aujtoi" ' .

Luke 7.1

Mt. 7.28-9

                            



9780567313355_txt_print.indd 52

Luke 4.31-2 

           

                                 

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke Mt. 8.5-13 ã8.5Ã Eis j elqovnto" de; aujtou' ei" j Kafarnaou;m prosh'lqen aujtw/' ekJatovntarco" parakalw'n aujto;n ã8.6Ã kai; levgwn, Kuvrie, oJ pai" ' mou bevblhtai ejn th/' oikjia v / paralutikov", deinw'" basanizovmeno". ã8.7Ã kai; levgei aujtw,/' Egw; ejlqw;n qerapeuvsw aujtovn.

ã8.8Ã kai; ajpokriqei;" oJ ek J atovntarco" e[fh, Kuvrie, oujk eim j i; ikJano;" in{a mou uJpo; th;n stevghn eis j evlqh/", ajlla; movnon eip j e; lovgw/, kai; ia j qhvsetai oJ pai'" mou. ã8.9Ã kai; ga;r ejgw; a[nqrwpov" eim j i uJpo; ejxousia v n, e[cwn uJp ejmauto;n stratiwvta", kai; levgw touvtw/, Poreuvqhti, kai; poreuvetai, kai; a[llw/, “Ercou, kai; e[rcetai, kai; tw/' douvlw/ mou, Poih v son tou'to, kai; poiei.' ã8.10Ã akjouvsa" de; oJ Ihsou'" ejqauvmasen kai;

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 53

53

Luke 7.2-10

[cf. Lk. 7.1 above.] ã7.2Ã ÔEkatontavrcou dev tino" dou'lo" kakw'" e[cwn h[mellen teleuta'n, o}" h\n aujtw/' e[ntimo". ã7.3Ã akjouvsa" de; peri; tou' Ihsou' ajpevsteilen pro;" aujto;n presbutev rou" tw'n Ioudaiw v n ejrwtw'n aujto;n o{pw" ejlqw;n diaswvsh/ to;n dou'lon aujtou'. ã7.4Ã oiJ de; paragenovmenoi pro;" to;n Ihsou'n parekavloun aujto;n spoudaiw v " levgonte" o{ti “Axiov" ejstin w/| parevxh/ tou'to: ã7.5Ã ajgapa/' ga;r to; e[qno" hJmw'n kai; th;n sunagwgh;n aujto;" wk/jodovmhsen hJ min'. ã7.6Ã oJ de; Ihsou'" ejporeuveto su;n aujtoi" ' . h[dh de; aujtou' ouj makra;n ajpevconto" ajpo; th'" oikjia v " e[pemyen filvou" oJ eJkatontavrch" levgwn aujtw,/' Kuvrie, mh; skuvllou, ouj ga;r ikJanov" eim j i in{a uJpo; th;n stevghn mou eis j evlqh/": ã7.7Ã dio; oujde; ejmauto;n hjxiw v sa pro;" se; ejlqein': ajlla; eip j e; lovgw/, kai; ia j qhvtw oJ pai" ' mou. ã7.8Ã kai; ga;r ejgw; a[nqrwpov" eim j i uJpo; ejxousia v n tassovmeno" e[cwn uJp ejmauto;n stratiwvta", kai; levgw touvtw/, Poreuvqhti, kai; poreuvetai, kai; a[llw/, “Ercou, kai; e[rcetai, kai; tw/' douvlw/ mou, Poih v son tou'to, kai; poiei.' ã7.9Ã akjouvsa" de; tau'ta oJ Ihsou'" ejqauvmasen aujtovn kai; strafei" ;

23/08/2013 13:55

54

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke

ei\pen toi" ' akjolouqou'sin Amh;n levgw uJmin', par oujdeni; tosauvthn pis v tin ejn tw/' Israh;l eu|ron. ã8.11Ã levgw de; uJmin' o{ti polloi;

ajpo; ajnatolw'n kai; dusmw'n h{xousin kai; ajnakliqhvsontai meta; Abraa;m kai; Isaak; kai; Iakw;b ejn th/' basileia v / tw'n oujranw'n, ã8.12Ã oiJ de; uioJi; th'" basileia v " ek j blhqhvsontai ei" j to; skovto" to; ejxwvteron:

ek j ei' e[stai oJ klauqmo;" kai; oJ brugmo;" tw'n ojdovntwn. ã8.13Ã kai; ei\pen oJ Ihsou'" tw/' ek J atontavrch/, ”Upage, wJ" ejpis v teusa" genhqhvtw soi. kai; ia j vqh oJ pai'" ªaujtou'º ejn th/' w{ra/ ekjeinvh/.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 54

tw'/ akjolouqou'nti aujtw/' o[clw/ ei\pen, Levgw uJmin', oujde; ejn tw/' Israh;l tosauvthn pis v tin eu|ron. Luke 13.28-29 ã13.28Ã ejkei' e[stai oJ klauqmo;" kai; oJ brugmo;" tw'n ojdovntwn, o{tan o[yhsqe Abraa;m kai; Isaa;k kai; Iakw;b kai; pavnta" tou;" profhvta" ejn th/' basileia v / tou' qeou', uJma'" de; ekjballomevnou" e[xw. ã13.29Ã kai; h{xousin ajpo; ajnatolw'n kai; dusmw'n kai; ajpo; borra' kai; novtou kai; ajnakliqhvsontai ejn th/' basileia v / tou' qeou'. ã7.10Ã kai; uJpostrevyante" ei" j to;n oi\kon oiJ pemfqevnte" eu|ron to;n dou'lon uJgiainvonta.

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke Matthew 11.2-6

ã11.2Ã ÔO de; Iwavnnh" ajkouvs a" ejn tw/' desmwthrivw/ ta; e[rga tou' Cristou' pevmya" dia; tw'n maqhtw'n aujtou' ã11.3Ã ei\pen aujtw,/' Su; ei\ oJ ejrcovm eno" h] e{teron prosdokw'men…

ã11.4Ã kai; ajpokriqei;" oJ Ihsou'" ei\pen aujtoi'", Poreuqev nte" ajp aggeivlate Iwavnnh/ a} ajkouvete kai; blevp ete: ã11.5Ã tufloi; ajnablevp ousin kai; cwloi; peripatou'sin, leproi; kaqarivzontai kai; kwfoi; ajk ouvousin, kai; nekroi; ejgeivrontai kai; ptwcoi; eujaggelivz ontai: ã11.6Ã kai; makavriov" ejstin o}" eja;n mh; skandalisqh/' ejn ejmoiv.

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 55

55

Luke 7.18-23 ã7.18Ã Kai; ajp hvggeilan Iwavnnh/ oiJ maqhtai; aujtou' peri; pavntwn touvtwn. kai; proskalesavmeno" duvo tina;" tw'n maqhtw'n aujtou' oJ Iwavnnh" ã7.19Ã e[pemyen pro;" to;n kuvrion levgwn, Su; ei\ oJ ejrcovm eno" h] a[llon prosdokw'men… ã7.20Ã paragenovmenoi de; pro;" aujto;n oiJ a[ndre" ei\p an, Iwavnnh" oJ baptisth;" ajpevsteilen hJm a'" pro;" se; levgwn, Su; ei\ oJ ejrcovm eno" h] a[llon prosdokw'men… ã7.21Ã ejn ejkeivnh/ th/' w{ra/ ejqeravpeusen pollou;" ajpo; novs wn kai; mastivgwn kai; pneumavtwn ponhrw'n kai; tufloi'" polloi'" ejc arivsato blevp ein. ã7.22Ã kai; ajpokriqei;" ei\pen aujtoi'", Poreuqev nte" ajp aggeivlate Iwavnnh/ a} ei[dete kai; hjk ouvsate tufloi; ajnablevp ousin, cwloi; peripatou'sin, leproi; kaqarivzontai kai; kwfoi; ajk ouvousin, nekroi; ejgeivrontai, ptwcoi; eujaggelivz ontai: ã7.23Ã kai; makavriov" ejstin o}" eja;n mh; skandalisqh/' ejn ejmoiv.

23/08/2013 13:55

56

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke Mt. 11.7-16a

ã11.7Ã Touvtwn de; poreuomevnwn h[rxato oJ Ihsou'" levgein toi'" o[cloi" peri; Iwavnnou, Tiv ejxhvlqate eij" th;n e[rhmon qeavsasqai… kavlamon uJp o; ajnevm ou saleuovmenon… ã11.8Ã ajlla; tiv ejxhvlqate ijdei'n… a[nqrwpon ejn malakoi'" hjmfiesmevnon… ijdou; oiJ ta; malaka; forou'nte" ejn toi'" oi[k oi" tw'n basilevwn eijsiv n. ã11.9Ã ajlla; tiv ejxhvlqate ijdei'n… profhvthn… naiv levgw uJmi'n, kai; perissovteron profhvtou. ã 11.10Ã ou|tov" ejstin peri; ou| gevgraptai, Idou; ejgw; ajp ostevllw to;n a[ggelov n mou pro; proswvpou sou, o}" kataskeuavs ei th;n oJdovn sou e[mprosqevn sou. ã11.11Ã ajmh;n levgw uJmi'n: oujk ejghvgertai ejn gennhtoi'" gunaikw'n meivzwn Iwavnnou tou' baptistou': oJ de; mikrovtero" ejn th/' basileiva/ tw'n oujr anw'n meivzwn aujtou' ejstin.

ã11.12Ã ajpo; de; tw'n hJmerw'n Iwavnnou tou' baptistou' e{w" a[rti hJ basileiva tw'n oujranw'n biavzetai, kai; biastai; aJrpavz ousin aujthvn. ã11.13Ã pavnte" ga;r oiJ profh'tai kai; oJ novmo" e{w" Iwavnnou ejprofhvteusan:

ã11.14Ã kai; eij qevlete devxasqai, aujtov" ejs tin Hliva" oJ mevllwn e[rcesqai. ã11.15Ã oJ e[cwn w\ta ajk ouevtw. ã11.16Ã Tivni de; oJm oiwvsw th;n genea;n tauvthn…

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 56

Luke 7.24-31; (Luke 16.16) 7.24Ã Apelqovntwn de; tw'n ajggevl wn Iwavnnou h[rxato levgein pro;" tou;" o[clou" peri; Iwavnnou, Tiv ejxhvlqate eij" th;n e[rhmon qeavsasqai… kavlamon uJp o; ajnevm ou saleuovmenon… ã7.25Ã ajlla; tiv ejxhvlqate ijdei'n… a[nqrwpon ejn malakoi'" iJmativoi" hjmfiesmevnon… ijdou; oiJ ejn iJmatismw'/ ejndovxw/ kai; trufh/' uJpavrconte" ejn toi'" basileivoi" eijsivn. ã7.26Ã ajlla; tiv ejxhvlqate ijdei'n… profhvthn… naiv levgw uJmi'n, kai; perissovteron profhvtou. ã7.27Ã ou|tov" ejstin peri; ou| gevgraptai, Idou; ajp ostevllw to;n a[ggelov n mou pro; proswvp ou sou, o}" kataskeuavs ei th;n oJdovn sou e[mprosqevn sou. ã7.28Ã levgw uJmi'n, meivzwn ejn gennhtoi'" gunaikw'n Iwavnnou oujdeiv" ejstin: oJ de; mikrovtero" ejn th/' basileiva/ tou' qeou' meivz wn aujtou' ejstin. ã7.Ú29Ã Kai; pa'" oJ lao;" ajk ouvs a" kai; oiJ telw'nai ejdikaivwsan to;n qeovn baptisqevnte" to; bavptisma Iwavnnou: ã7.30Ã oiJ de; Farisai'oi kai; oiJ nomikoi; th;n boulh;n tou' qeou' hjqevthsan eij" eJautouv" mh; baptisqevnte" uJp aujtou'.

[ ã16.16Ã ÔO novm o" kai; oiJ profh'tai [ mevcri Iwavnnou: [ ajp o; tovte [ hJ basileiva tou' qeou' eujaggelivzetai [ kai; pa'" eij" aujth;n biavzetai.

ã7.31Ã Tivni ou\n oJmoiwvs w tou;" ajnqrwvp ou" th'" genea'" tauvth" kai; tivni eijsi; n o{m oioi…

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke Mt. 11.16b-19

oJmoiva ejsti;n paidivoi" kaqhmevnoi" ejn tai'" ajgorai'" a} prosfwnou'nta toi'" eJtevroi" ã11.17Ã levgousin, Hujl hvsamen uJmi'n kai; oujk wjrchvsasqe, ejqrhnhvs amen kai; oujk ejkovyasqe. ã11.18Ã h\lqen ga;r Iwavnnh" mhvte ejsqivwn mhvte pivnwn, kai; levgousin, Daimovnion e[cei. ã11.19Ã h\lqen oJ uiJo;" tou' ajnqrwvpou ejsqivwn kai; pivnwn, kai; levgousin, Idou; a[nqrwpo" favgo" kai; oijnopovth", telwnw'n fivlo" kai; aJm artwlw'n. kai; ejdikaiwvq h hJ sofiva ajpo; tw'n e[rgwn aujth'".

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 57

57

Luke 7.32-5 ã7.32Ã o{moioiv eijsin paidivoi" toi'" ejn ajgora'/ kaqhmevnoi" kai; prosfwnou'sin ajllhvl oi" a} levgei, Hujl hvsamen uJmi'n kai; oujk wjrchvsasqe, ejqrhnhvs amen kai; oujk ejklauvs ate. ã7.33Ã ejlhvluqen ga;r Iwavnnh" oJ baptisth;" mh; ejsqivwn a[rton mhvte pivnwn oi\non, kai; levgete, Daimovnion e[c ei. ã7.34Ã ejlhvluqen oJ uiJo;" tou' ajnqrwvp ou ejsqivwn kai; pivnwn, kai; levgete, Idou; a[nqrwpo" favgo" kai; oijnopovth", fivlo" telwnw'n kai; aJm artwlw'n. ã7.35Ã kai; ejdikaiwvq h hJ sofiva ajpo; pavntwn tw'n tevknwn aujth'".

23/08/2013 13:55

58

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke (Mt. 26.6-11)

ã26.6Ã Tou' de; Ihsou' genomevnou ejn Bhqania v / v wno" tou' leprou', ejn oikjiva/ Sim ã26.7Ã prosh'lqen aujtw/' gunh;

v ou e[cousa ajlavbastron muvrou barutim

kai; katevceen ejpi; th'" kefalh'" aujtou' ajnakeimevnou.

ã26.8Ã idjovnte" de; oiJ maqhtai; hjganakvthsan levgonte", Ei" j tiv hJ ajpwvleia au{th… ã26.9Ã ejduvnato ga;r tou'to praqh'nai pollou' kai; doqh'nai ptwcoi'". ã26.10Ã gnou;" de;

oJ Ihsou'" ei\pen aujtoi'",

Luke 7.36-40 ã7.36Ã Hrwvta dev ti" aujto;n tw'n Farisaiw v n i{na favgh/ met aujtou', kai; eis j elqw;n ei" j to;n oi\kon tou' Farisaiovu katekliqvh. ã7.37Ã kai; idjou; gunh; h{ti" h\n ejn th/' povlei aJmartwlov", kai; ejpignou'sa o{ti katavkeitai v / tou' Farisaiovu, ejn th/' oikjia komis v asa ajlavbastron muvrou ã7.38Ã kai; sta'sa ojpis v w para; tou;" povda" aujtou' klaivousa toi" ' davkrusin h[rxato brevcein tou;" povda" aujtou' kai; tai" ' qrixin; th'" kefalh'" aujth'" ejxevmassen kai; katefilvei tou;" povda" aujtou' kai; h[leifen tw/' muvrw/. ã7.39Ã idjw;n de; oJ Farisaio'" oJ kalevsa" aujto;n ei\pen ejn eJautw'/ levgwn, Ou|to" eij h\n profhvth", ejginvwsken a]n tiv" kai; potaph; hJ gunh; h{ti" a{ptetai aujtou', o{ti aJmartwlov" ejstin. ã7.40Ã kai; ajpokriqei" ; oJ Ihsou'" ei\pen pro;" aujtovn, Sim v wn, e[cw soiv ti eip j ein'. oJ dev, Didavskale, eip j ev, fhsivn.

Tiv kovpou" parevcete th/' gunaiki…v e[rgon ga;r kalo;n hjrgavsato ei" j ejmev: ã26.11Ã pavntote ga;r tou;" ptwcou;" e[cete meq eJautw'n, ejme; de; ouj pavntote e[cete:

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 58

23/08/2013 13:55



A Response to Thomas Brodie’s Proto-Luke (Mt. 26.12-13)

ã26.12Ã balou'sa ga;r au{th to; muvron tou'to ejpi; tou' swvmatov" mou pro;" to; ejntafiavsai me ejpoih v sen. ã26.13Ã ajmh;n levgw uJmin', o{pou eja;n khrucqh/' to; eujaggevlion tou'to ejn o{lw/ tw/' kovsmw/, lalhqhvsetai kai; o} ejpoih v sen au{th ei" j mnhmovsunon aujth'".

9780567313355_txt_print.indd 59

59

Luke 7.41-50 ã7.41Ã duvo creofeilevtai h\san danisth/' tini: oJ ei|" w[feilen dhnavria pentakovsia, oJ de; e{tero" penthkvonta. ã7.42Ã mh; ejcovntwn aujtw'n ajpodou'nai ajmfotevroi" ejcaris v ato. ti" v ou\n aujtw'n plei'on ajgaphvsei aujtovn… ã7.43Ã ajpokriqei;" Sim v wn ei\pen, ÔUpolambavnw o{ti w/| to; plei'on ejcaris v ato. oJ de; ei\pen aujtw,/' Orqw'" e[krina". ã7.44Ã kai; strafei;" pro;" th;n gunaik'a tw'/ Sim v wni e[fh, Blevpei" tauvthn th;n gunaik'a… eis j h'lqovn sou eij" th;n oikjia v n, u{dwr moi ejpi; povda" oukj e[dwka": ' dakvrusin au{th de; toi" e[brexevn mou tou; " povda" kai; tai" ' qrixin; aujth'" ejxevmaxen. ã7.45Ã filvhmav moi oukj e[dwka": au{th de; ajf h|" eis j h'lqon ouj dievlipen katafilou'sav mou tou;" povda". ã7.46Ã ejlaiw v / th;n kefalhvn mou oukj h[leiya": au{th de; muvrw/ h[leiyen tou;" povda" mou. ã7.47Ã ou| cavrin levgw soi, ajfevwntai aiJ aJmartia v i aujth'" aiJ pollai,v o{ti hjgavphsen poluv: w/| de; ojlig v on ajfievtai, ojlivgon ajgapa./' ã7.48Ã ei\pen de; aujth,/' Afevwntaiv sou aiJ aJmartia v i. ã7.49Ã kai; h[rxanto oiJ sunanakeivmenoi levgein ejn eJautoi" ' , Ti" v ou|tov" ejstin o}" kai; aJmartiva" ajfih v sin… ã7.50Ã ei\pen de; pro;" th;n gunaik'a, ÔH pis v ti" sou sevswkevn se: poreuvou ei" j eirjhvnhn.

23/08/2013 13:55

60

The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke Mt. 9.35

Luke 8.1

Mt. 11.1

Kai; perih'gen oJ Ihsou'"

Kai; ejgevneto ejn tw/' kaqexh'" kai; aujto;" diwvdeuen

ta;" povlei" pavsa" kai; ta;" kwvma" didavskwn ejn tai" ' sunagwgai'" aujtw'n kai; khruvsswn

kata; povlin kai; kwvmhn

to; eujaggevlion th'" basileiva"

eujaggelizovmeno" v n th;n basileia tou' qeou' kai; oiJ dwvdeka su;n aujtw'/, cf. Lk 8.2

kai; qerapeuvwn pa'san novson kai; pa'san malakia v n. Mt. 27.55-6

khruvsswn kai;

ã27.55Ã «Hsan de; ekjei' gunaik'e" pollai; ajpo; makrovqen qewrou'sai, ait { ine" cf. Mt. 9.35 hkjolouvqhsan tw/' Ihsou' ajpo; th'" Galilaia v " diakonou'sai aujtw'/: