The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary 9783631667200, 9783653062786, 3631667205

Table of contents :
Cover
Acknowledgments
Contents
Introduction
Luke and Paul
Luke and Mark, Josephus, and other works
Implied author
Literary genre
Date of composition
Sequential hypertextuality
Chapter 1. Lk 1:1–9:50 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal 1:1–3:1
1.1 Lk 1:1–4 (cf. Gal 1:1–3)
1.2 Lk 1:5–12 (cf. Gal 1:4–10)
1.3 Lk 1:13–25 (cf. Gal 1:11–15b)
1.4 Lk 1:26–38 (cf. Gal 1:15c–16a)
1.5 Lk 1:39–80 (cf. Gal 1:16b–17)
1.6 Lk 2:1–40 (cf. Gal 1:18–21)
1.7 Lk 2:41–52 (cf. Gal 1:22–24)
1.8 Lk 3:1–2a (cf. Gal 2:1)
1.9 Lk 3:2b (cf. Gal 2:2a)
1.10 Lk 3:3–11 (cf. Gal 2:2bc)
1.11 Lk 3:12–13 (cf. Gal 2:2d–f)
1.12 Lk 3:14 (cf. Gal 2:3)
1.13 Lk 3:15 (cf. Gal 2:4)
1.14 Lk 3:16–17 (cf. Gal 2:5a)
1.15 Lk 3:18 (cf. Gal 2:5b)
1.16 Lk 3:19–20 (cf. Gal 2:6)
1.17 Lk 3:21–22 (cf. Gal 2:7ab)
1.18 Lk 3:23–38 (cf. Gal 2:7c)
1.19 Lk 4:1–13 (cf. Gal 2:8a)
1.20 Lk 4:14–21 (cf. Gal 2:8b)
1.21 Lk 4:22–44 (cf. Gal 2:9a–c)
1.22 Lk 5:1–11 (cf. Gal 2:9c–e)
1.23 Lk 5:12–6:19 (cf. Gal 2:9fg)
1.24 Lk 6:20–26 (cf. Gal 2:10a)
1.25 Lk 6:27–38 (cf. Gal 2:10bc)
1.26 Lk 6:39–49 (cf. Gal 2:11–12a)
1.27 Lk 7:1–17 (cf. Gal 2:12b)
1.28 Lk 7:18–30 (cf. Gal 2:12c–f)
1.29 Lk 7:31–35 (cf. Gal 2:13–14)
1.30 Lk 7:36–50 (cf. Gal 2:15–17c)
1.31 Lk 8:1–3 (cf. Gal 2:17de)
1.32 Lk 8:4–9:22
1.33 Lk 9:23–27 (cf. Gal 2:19–20)
1.34 Lk 9:28–36 (cf. Gal 2:21–3:1)
1.35 Lk 9:37–50
Chapter 2. Lk 9:51–24:53 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal 1–6
2.1 Lk 9:51–56 (cf. Gal 1:1–14)
2.2 Lk 9:57–62 (cf. Gal 1:15–16a)
2.3 Lk 10:1–16 (cf. Gal 1:16b–17a)
2.4 Lk 10:17–22 (cf. Gal 1:17bc)
2.5 Lk 10:23–24 (cf. Gal 1:18ab)
2.6 Lk 10:25–37 (cf. Gal 1:18c–19a)
2.7 Lk 10:38–11:13 (cf. Gal 1:19b–20)
2.8 Lk 11:14–26 (cf. Gal 1:21–23)
2.9 Lk 11:27–28 (cf. Gal 1:24)
2.10 Lk 11:29–32 (cf. Gal 2:1)
2.11 Lk 11:33–36 (cf. Gal 2:2a–c)
2.12 Lk 11:37–54 (cf. Gal 2:2d–f)
2.13 Lk 12:1–12 (cf. Gal 2:3)
2.14 Lk 12:13–14 (cf. Gal 2:4–5)
2.15 Lk 12:15–21 (cf. Gal 2:6a–e)
2.16 Lk 12:22–31 (cf. Gal 2:6fg)
2.17 Lk 12:32–34 (cf. Gal 2:7ab)
2.18 Lk 12:35–40 (cf. Gal 2:7c)
2.19 Lk 12:41–48 (cf. Gal 2:8–9b)
2.20 Lk 12:49–53 (cf. Gal 2:9cd)
2.21 Lk 12:54–57 (cf. Gal 2:9e)
2.22 Lk 12:58–59 (cf. Gal 2:9e)
2.23 Lk 13:1–5 (cf. Gal 2:9fg)
2.24 Lk 13:6–9 (cf. Gal 2:10a)
2.25 Lk 13:10–17 (cf. Gal 2:10b)
2.26 Lk 13:18–21 (cf. Gal 2:10c)
2.27 Lk 13:22–30 (cf. Gal 2:11–12b)
2.28 Lk 13:31–33 (cf. Gal 2:12c-f)
2.29 Lk 13:34–35 (cf. Gal 2:12f)
2.30 Lk 14:1–6 (cf. Gal 2:13a)
2.31 Lk 14:7–11 (cf. Gal 2:13b)
2.32 Lk 14:12–14 (cf. Gal 2:14a-c)
2.33 Lk 14:15–24 (cf. Gal 2:14d-g)
2.34 Lk 14:25–33 (cf. Gal 2:15–3:3)
2.35 Lk 14:34–35 (cf. Gal 3:4–5)
2.36 Lk 15:1 (cf. Gal 3:6–9)
2.37 Lk 15:2 (cf. Gal 3:10–11)
2.38 Lk 15:3–10 (cf. Gal 3:12–14)
2.39 Lk 15:11–32 (cf. Gal 3:15–18)
2.40 Lk 16:1–9 (cf. Gal 3:19–22)
2.41 Lk 16:10–15 (cf. Gal 3:23–24)
2.42 Lk 16:16 (cf. Gal 3:25–29)
2.43 Lk 16:17 (cf. Gal 4:1–11)
2.44 Lk 16:18 (cf. Gal 4:12–20)
2.45 Lk 16:19–31 (cf. Gal 4:21–31)
2.46 Lk 17:1–2 (cf. Gal 5:1–3)
2.47 Lk 17:3–4 (cf. Gal 5:4)
2.48 Lk 17:5–6 (cf. Gal 5:5a)
2.49 Lk 17:7–10 (cf. Gal 5:5b)
2.50 Lk 17:11–19 (cf. Gal 5:6)
2.51 Lk 17:20–37 (cf. Gal 5:7–21)
2.52 Lk 18:1–8 (cf. Gal 5:22–23)
2.53 Lk 18:9–14 (cf. Gal 5:24–26)
2.54 Lk 18:15–43
2.55 Lk 19:1–10 (cf. Gal 6:1–2)
2.56 Lk 19:11–28 (cf. Gal 6:3–10)
2.57 Lk 19:29–24:12
2.58 Lk 24:13–35 (cf. Gal 6:11–15)
2.59 Lk 24:36–49 (cf. Gal 6:16–17)
2.60 Lk 24:50–53 (cf. Gal 6:18)
General conclusions
Bibliography
Primary sources
Israelite-Jewish
Graeco-Roman
Early Christian: New Testament
Secondary literature
Index of ancient sources

Citation preview

Bartosz Adamczewski

The Gospel of Luke A Hypertextual Commentary

European Studies in T heolog y, Philosophy and Histor y of Religions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

This commentary demonstrates that the Gospel of Luke is a result of twofold, strictly sequential, hypertextual reworking of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. The ideas of this letter were sequentially illustrated by Luke with the use of numerous literary motifs, taken from other Pauline and post-Pauline letters, the letters of James, Peter, and Jude, the Gospel of Mark, well-known classical Greek and Hellenistic works, the Septuagint, the Damascus Document, and the works of Flavius Josephus. Consequently, the Lucan Jesus narratively embodies the features of God’s Son who was revealed in the person, teaching, and course of life of Paul the Apostle. The Gospel of Luke should therefore be regarded as a strictly theological-ethopoeic work, rather than a biographic one.

Bartosz Adamczewski is Associate Professor of New Testament exegesis at Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw (Poland). He has published several books on the relationships between biblical writings themselves, and between them and historical facts.

The Gospel of Luke

EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

VOL. 13

Bartosz Adamczewski

The Gospel of Luke A Hypertextual Commentary

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Adamczewski, Bartosz, author. Title: The gospel of Luke : a hypertextual commentary / Bartosz Adamczewski. Description: 1 [edition]. | New York : Peter Lang, 2016. | Series: European studies in theology, philosophy, and history of religions, ISSN 2192-1857 ; Vol. 13 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015049147 | ISBN 9783631667200 Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Luke–Commentaries. | Bible. Galatians– Commentaries. | Bible. Luke–Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Galatians–Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS2595.53 .A33 2016 | DDC 226.4/07–dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015049147 The publication of this book was supported by Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw. ISSN 2192-1857 ISBN 978-3-631-66720-0 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-653-06278-6 (E-Book) DOI 10.3726/ 978-3-653-06278-6 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Frankfurt am Main 2016 All rights reserved. Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH. Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Acknowledgments I thank my dear Mother, Jolanta Adamczewska, MSc; my relatives and friends; my Diocese of Warszawa-Praga; and the community of the Catholic Parish of St Mark in Warsaw for their encouragement, prayers, and spiritual support during my writing this book. My thanks also go to the staff of the Tübingen University Library for their help during my summer bibliographical research. Last but not least, I want to thank Mr Łukasz Gałecki and the members of the staff of the Publisher who helped turn the electronic version of the text into a book.

5

Contents Introduction............................................................................................................13 Luke and Paul.....................................................................................................13 Luke and Mark, Josephus, and other works....................................................19 Implied author....................................................................................................20 Literary genre......................................................................................................22 Date of composition..........................................................................................23 Sequential hypertextuality................................................................................24

Chapter 1. Lk 1:1–9:50 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal 1:1–3:1........................................................35 1.1

Lk 1:1–4 (cf. Gal 1:1–3)..........................................................................35

1.2

Lk 1:5–12 (cf. Gal 1:4–10)..................................................................40

1.3

Lk 1:13–25 (cf. Gal 1:11–15b)...............................................................43

1.4

Lk 1:26–38 (cf. Gal 1:15c–16a).............................................................45

1.5

Lk 1:39–80 (cf. Gal 1:16b–17)...............................................................49

1.6

Lk 2:1–40 (cf. Gal 1:18–21)...................................................................54

1.7

Lk 2:41–52 (cf. Gal 1:22–24).................................................................62

1.8

Lk 3:1–2a (cf. Gal 2:1)............................................................................65

1.9

Lk 3:2b (cf. Gal 2:2a)..............................................................................67

1.10 Lk 3:3–11 (cf. Gal 2:2bc)........................................................................68 1.11 Lk 3:12–13 (cf. Gal 2:2d–f)...................................................................71 1.12 Lk 3:14 (cf. Gal 2:3)................................................................................72 1.13 Lk 3:15 (cf. Gal 2:4)................................................................................73 1.14 Lk 3:16–17 (cf. Gal 2:5a)........................................................................74 1.15 Lk 3:18 (cf. Gal 2:5b)..............................................................................75 1.16 Lk 3:19–20 (cf. Gal 2:6)..........................................................................75 7

1.17 Lk 3:21–22 (cf. Gal 2:7ab)......................................................................77 1.18 Lk 3:23–38 (cf. Gal 2:7c)........................................................................78 1.19 Lk 4:1–13 (cf. Gal 2:8a)..........................................................................81 1.20 Lk 4:14–21 (cf. Gal 2:8b)........................................................................82 1.21 Lk 4:22–44 (cf. Gal 2:9a–c)....................................................................84 1.22 Lk 5:1–11 (cf. Gal 2:9c–e)......................................................................88 1.23 Lk 5:12–6:19 (cf. Gal 2:9fg)...................................................................89 1.24 Lk 6:20–26 (cf. Gal 2:10a)......................................................................91 1.25 Lk 6:27–38 (cf. Gal 2:10bc)....................................................................92 1.26 Lk 6:39–49 (cf. Gal 2:11–12a)...............................................................94 1.27 Lk 7:1–17 (cf. Gal 2:12b)........................................................................96 1.28 Lk 7:18–30 (cf. Gal 2:12c–f)..................................................................99 1.29 Lk 7:31–35 (cf. Gal 2:13–14)..................................................................102 1.30 Lk 7:36–50 (cf. Gal 2:15–17c)................................................................103 1.31 Lk 8:1–3 (cf. Gal 2:17de).........................................................................105 1.32 Lk 8:4–9:22................................................................................................107 1.33 Lk 9:23–27 (cf. Gal 2:19–20)..................................................................109 1.34 Lk 9:28–36 (cf. Gal 2:21–3:1).................................................................110 1.35 Lk 9:37–50.................................................................................................111

Chapter 2. Lk 9:51–24:53 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal 1–6.................................................................113

8

2.1

Lk 9:51–56 (cf. Gal 1:1–14)....................................................................113

2.2

Lk 9:57–62 (cf. Gal 1:15–16a)................................................................116

2.3

Lk 10:1–16 (cf. Gal 1:16b–17a)..............................................................117

2.4

Lk 10:17–22 (cf. Gal 1:17bc)..................................................................120

2.5

Lk 10:23–24 (cf. Gal 1:18ab)..................................................................121

2.6

Lk 10:25–37 (cf. Gal 1:18c–19a)............................................................122

2.7

Lk 10:38–11:13 (cf. Gal 1:19b–20)........................................................124

2.8

Lk 11:14–26 (cf. Gal 1:21–23)................................................................128

2.9

Lk 11:27–28 (cf. Gal 1:24).......................................................................130

2.10 Lk 11:29–32 (cf. Gal 2:1).........................................................................130 2.11 Lk 11:33–36 (cf. Gal 2:2a–c)..................................................................131 2.12 Lk 11:37–54 (cf. Gal 2:2d–f)..................................................................132 2.13 Lk 12:1–12 (cf. Gal 2:3)...........................................................................134 2.14 Lk 12:13–14 (cf. Gal 2:4–5)....................................................................136 2.15 Lk 12:15–21 (cf. Gal 2:6a–e)..................................................................137 2.16 Lk 12:22–31 (cf. Gal 2:6fg).....................................................................138 2.17 Lk 12:32–34 (cf. Gal 2:7ab)....................................................................139 2.18 Lk 12:35–40 (cf. Gal 2:7c).......................................................................140 2.19 Lk 12:41–48 (cf. Gal 2:8–9b)..................................................................141 2.20 Lk 12:49–53 (cf. Gal 2:9cd)....................................................................142 2.21 Lk 12:54–57 (cf. Gal 2:9e).......................................................................144 2.22 Lk 12:58–59 (cf. Gal 2:9e).......................................................................144 2.23 Lk 13:1–5 (cf. Gal 2:9fg)..........................................................................145 2.24 Lk 13:6–9 (cf. Gal 2:10a).........................................................................146 2.25 Lk 13:10–17 (cf. Gal 2:10b)....................................................................147 2.26 Lk 13:18–21 (cf. Gal 2:10c).....................................................................150 2.27 Lk 13:22–30 (cf. Gal 2:11–12b).......................................................... 152 2.28 Lk 13:31–33 (cf. Gal 2:12c–f)................................................................155 2.29 Lk 13:34–35 (cf. Gal 2:12f).....................................................................156 2.30 Lk 14:1–6 (cf. Gal 2:13a).........................................................................157 2.31 Lk 14:7–11 (cf. Gal 2:13b)......................................................................159 2.32 Lk 14:12–14 (cf. Gal 2:14a–c)................................................................161 2.33 Lk 14:15–24 (cf. Gal 2:14d–g)................................................................162

9

2.34 Lk 14:25–33 (cf. Gal 2:15–3:3)...............................................................163 2.35 Lk 14:34–35 (cf. Gal 3:4–5)....................................................................165 2.36 Lk 15:1 (cf. Gal 3:6–9).............................................................................166 2.37 Lk 15:2 (cf. Gal 3:10–11).........................................................................167 2.38 Lk 15:3–10 (cf. Gal 3:12–14)..................................................................167 2.39 Lk 15:11–32 (cf. Gal 3:15–18)................................................................169 2.40 Lk 16:1–9 (cf. Gal 3:19–22)....................................................................172 2.41 Lk 16:10–15 (cf. Gal 3:23–24)................................................................174 2.42 Lk 16:16 (cf. Gal 3:25–29).......................................................................175 2.43 Lk 16:17 (cf. Gal 4:1–11).........................................................................176 2.44 Lk 16:18 (cf. Gal 4:12–20).......................................................................177 2.45 Lk 16:19–31 (cf. Gal 4:21–31)................................................................177 2.46 Lk 17:1–2 (cf. Gal 5:1–3).........................................................................180 2.47 Lk 17:3–4 (cf. Gal 5:4).............................................................................181 2.48 Lk 17:5–6 (cf. Gal 5:5a)...........................................................................182 2.49 Lk 17:7–10 (cf. Gal 5:5b).........................................................................183 2.50 Lk 17:11–19 (cf. Gal 5:6).........................................................................183 2.51 Lk 17:20–37 (cf. Gal 5:7–21)..................................................................185 2.52 Lk 18:1–8 (cf. Gal 5:22–23)....................................................................187 2.53 Lk 18:9–14 (cf. Gal 5:24–26)..................................................................189 2.54 Lk 18:15–43...............................................................................................190 2.55 Lk 19:1–10 (cf. Gal 6:1–2)......................................................................190 2.56 Lk 19:11–28 (cf. Gal 6:3–10)..................................................................192 2.57 Lk 19:29–24:12..........................................................................................195 2.58 Lk 24:13–35 (cf. Gal 6:11–15)................................................................196 2.59 Lk 24:36–49 (cf. Gal 6:16–17)................................................................199 2.60 Lk 24:50–53 (cf. Gal 6:18).......................................................................201

10

General conclusions...............................................................................................203 Bibliography...............................................................................................................211 Primary sources....................................................................................................211 Israelite-Jewish.....................................................................................................211 Graeco-Roman.....................................................................................................211 Early Christian: New Testament.......................................................................212 Secondary literature.............................................................................................213

Index of ancient sources......................................................................................237

11

Introduction This commentary greatly differs from other modern commentaries on the Gospel of Luke. The difference results from the particular methodological approach which has been adopted therein. Instead of explaining the Lucan Gospel in historical-critical terms as a result of redactional use of earlier sources or traditions, in narratological terms as a set of narrative-organizing devices, etc., this commentary aims at explaining it as a result of twofold sequential hypertextual reworking of the Pauline Letter to the Galatians. This methodological approach, unlike many others, does not originate from any particular literary theory. It rather reflects the recent discovery of the phenomenon of the sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in numerous biblical writings. This phenomenon occurs in the writings of both the Old and the New Testament: Gen, Exod-Lev-Num, Deut, Sam-Kgs, Chr; Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Acts, Rom, Gal, Eph, 2 Thes, Hebr, 2 Pet, and Rev.1 These writings, taken together and measured by their extent, constitute almost a half of the Christian Bible. Accordingly, it is fully justified to perform a thorough analysis of the Lucan Gospel, taking this important literary discovery into consideration.

Luke and Paul The problem of the relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline letters cannot be solved only by means of analysing the similarities and the differences between their respective presentations of various theological ideas 1 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 227–399, 419–430; id., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 83–132; id., The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 39–121; id., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 55–66, 79–86, 99–103, 117–119, 129–163; id., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 25–280; id., Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (EST 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 14–62; id., The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 31–196.

13

(the law, the significance of the cross, the apostles, etc.),2 not least because such ideas were at times presented quite differently in various letters of the Apostle (cf. e.g. Rom and Gal) and Luke’s presentation of them is also not always very consistent (cf. e.g. Lk  16:16.17). Therefore, a literary solution to this problem should finally be found. Leaving aside the question of the use of Paul’s letters in the Acts of the Apostles,3 modern scholars generally reject the hypothesis of the use of Paul’s letters in the Gospel of Luke, usually without offering any detailed justification of their opinion.4 Nevertheless, in the last few decades some scholars opted for a limited literary use of the Pauline letters in the Lucan Gospel.5 For example, Gilbert Bouwman has tentatively suggested Luke’s dependence on Paul’s letters, especially First Corinthians, on the basis of some thematic and 2 See e.g. S. Grindheim, ‘Luke, Paul, and the Law’, NovT 56 (2014) 335–358. 3 It is not sure whether Acts was written together with the Gospel, and consequently it should not be assumed that the possible use of Paul’s letters in Acts was identical with their possible use in the Gospel. Cf. A. Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BHT 58; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1979), 161. However, G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; E. J. Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1992), 333–336 argues that the proleptic conclusion of Lk and the relocations from Mk-Lk to Acts imply that Acts was already in mind when its author wrote Lk. 4 Cf. e.g. C. Schaefer, Die Zukunft Israels bei Lukas: Biblisch-frühjüdische Zukunftsvorstellungen im lukanischen Doppelwerk im Vergleich zu Röm 9–11 (BZNW 190; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012), 11–12, 15. 5 For recent suggestions concerning some use of the Pauline letters in the Acts of the Apostles, see e.g. H.S. Kim, Die Geisttaufe des Messias: Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu einem Leitmotiv des lukanischen Doppelwerks: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie und Intention des Lukas (SKP 81; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1993), 193–194, 198; P. N. Tarazi, Galatians: A Commentary (OBS; St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1994), 5–7; D. Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel (JSNTSup 119; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1995), 175–179; P. Elbert, ‘Paul of the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians: Critique and Considerations’, ZNW 95 (2004) 258–268 (esp. 264–265); M. C. Parsons, Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2007), 129–139; W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources’, NTS 54 (2008) 479–495; R. I. Pervo, ‘The Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Letters: Aspects of Luke as an Interpreter of the Corpus Paulinum’, in D. Marguerat (ed.), Reception of Paulinism in Acts / Réception du Paulinisme dans les Actes des Apôtres (BETL 229; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 141–155 (esp. 147–155); R. S. Schellenberg, ‘The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul’s Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts’, JBL 134 (2015) 193–213.

14

linguistic correspondences between these works (virginity in Lk  1:27.34 and 1 Cor 7:38; widowhood in Lk 2:37 and 1 Cor 7:40; not being worried in Lk 10:41 and 1 Cor 7:32–34; etc.).6 Morton S. Enslin has noticed some similarities between the Gospel of Luke and the Letter to the Galatians in their respective literary structures. He has suggested that the sequence of some events which are described in the Lucan Gospel (Jesus’ baptism in Judaea, then his return to his hometown Nazareth, and only thereafter his widespread mission in Galilee) corresponds to the sequence of events which are known from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Paul’s first visit in Jerusalem, then his return to Tarsus in Cilicia, and only thereafter his widespread mission among the Gentiles).7 Although these correspondences are rather vague, the very idea that Luke assimilated the narrative story of Jesus to the story of Paul is certainly insightful. In the opinion of William O.  Walker, Jr., some verbal parallels between the Lucan work and Paul’s letters suggest that Luke used Paul’s letters in the Acts of the Apostles and in his Gospel.8 However, Walker has also noted that the usual scholarly approach to these parallels consists in suggesting that Paul knew the Jesus tradition in its Lucan form.9 According to Michael D. Goulder, the presence of several clusters of common matter (comprising words and occasionally also ideas) in 1 Cor and 1 Thes, in which they well suit Paul’s rhetoric, and in the Lucan Gospel, in which they are at times used quite strangely, implies that Luke knew and used 1 Cor and 1 Thes in the composition of his Gospel, and not that Paul used some synoptic traditions.10 Goulder’s rejection of the hypothesis that Luke also used other Pauline letters (e.g. Rom) was based on the widespread theory that Luke used Q, and consequently the scholar looked for traces of the Lucan use of the Pauline letters

6 Cf. G. Bouwman, Das dritte Evangelium: Einübung in die formgeschichtliche Methode, trans. H. Zulauf (Patmos: Düsseldorf 1968), 98–112. 7 Cf. M. S. Enslin, ‘Luke, the Literary Physician’, in D. E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Festschrift A. P. Wikgren (NovTSup 33; E. J. Brill: Leiden 1972), 135–143 (esp. 140–141). 8 Cf. W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered’, JSNT 24 (1985) 3–23 (esp. 13). 9 Cf. ibid. 22 n. 53. 10 Cf. M. D. Goulder, ‘Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline Letters?’, PRSt 13 (1986) 97–112 (esp. 98–109); id., Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989), [vol. 1] 132–143.

15

only in the postulated Lucan redaction of Q.11 However, Goulder’s criterion for ascertaining the existence and direction of literary dependence between the Lucan Gospel and Paul’s letters on the basis of the presence of some strange features in the Gospel’s fragments which have some parallel in Paul’s letters (e.g. στρατευόμενοι in Lk 3:14 cf. 1 Cor 9:7), together with the absence of such strange features in the linguistically and thematically corresponding fragments of Paul’s letters (e.g. στρατεύεται in 1 Cor 9:7), is certainly valid. Similarly, in the opinion of Wolfgang Schenk linguistic criteria of literary dependence (the existence of three or more common words within a short space etc.) reveal several cases in which Luke was most probably dependent on Paul’s letters (esp. Lk 6:28 cf. Rom 12:14; Lk 10:8 cf. 1 Cor 10:27; Lk 10:38–42 cf. 1 Cor 7:32–35; Lk 22:19–20 cf. 1 Cor 11:23–25; Lk 24:34 cf. 1 Cor 15:5).12 The German scholar has argued that Luke created his own rhetorical images of both Paul and Jesus, which do not have much in common with the real Paul and Jesus, but which suit Luke’s presentation of the origins of Christianity in terms of harmonic accord and integration.13 According to Anthony J. Blasi, Paul’s authentic letters were evidently known to those who imitated them (in the Deutero-Pauline letters), and consequently they must have been widely circulating. Therefore also Luke, who made Paul the principal character in the Acts of the Apostles, must have known at least some of them. However, Blasi has rightly noticed that literary dependence does not necessarily consist in copying the source, but it may also be expressed in some compatibility with the ideas of the source. Accordingly, in Luke’s Gospel scholars should look for Pauline views, and not only Pauline wording.14 In Blasi’s opinion, a number of such detectable compatibilities, like Paul and Luke’s common presentation of both Abraham and Adam as the background to Jesus (Lk 3:23–38; cf. e.g. Rom 4:13; 5:14), implies that Luke in his redactional composition of the Gospel used most of Paul’s authentic letters, with the surprising exception of Galatians.15

11 Cf. id., Luke, [vol. 1] 143. 12 Cf. W. Schenk, ‘Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on his Reception’, in S. Draisma (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, Festschrift B. van Iersel (Kok: Kampen 1989), 127–139 (esp. 132–138). 13 Cf. ibid. 139. 14 Cf. A. J. Blasi, Making Charisma: The Social Construction of Paul’s Public Image (Transaction: New Brunswick · London 1991), 40–41. 15 Cf. ibid. 50–61, 63–65, 67.

16

In fact, however, Blasi’s argument against Luke’s knowledge of Galatians, namely the different use of the datival phrase concerning the promise ‘to Abraham and to his seed’ (τῷ… Ἀβραὰμ… καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ) in Gal 3:16 and Lk 1:55,16 is rather unconvincing, especially in view of the fact that this datival phrase rather awkwardly follows the preceding pronominal phrase (πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν) in Lk 1:55. Paul N.  Tarazi has noticed and described a great number of linguistic and thematic connections between the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline letters. Consequently, he has at length argued that Luke extensively used the Pauline letters in the composition of his Gospel.17 According to Thomas L.  Brodie, in the text concerning Jesus’ last supper (Lk  22:14–30) Luke sequentially used the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 11:16–34. In fact, Brodie’s argument from the common order of correspondences enabled him to discern some thematic, and not only linguistic, correspondences between the two writings.18 Paul Elbert has argued that Luke in his use of pneumatological motifs borrowed from Paul’s letters might have worked quite freely, in the expected tradition of ancient narrative-rhetorical composition, which was described, for example, by Theon of Alexandria.19 Quite recently, Richard I.  Pervo has strongly argued for Luke’s use of the First Letter to the Corinthians, having noticed several thematic and linguistic correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and this Pauline letter, as well as disproving other explanations of these correspondences (Lk 3:14 cf. 1 Cor 9:7a; Lk 10:38–42 cf. 1 Cor 7:32–35; Lk 12:41–48 cf. 1 Cor 4:1–2; Lk 18:11 cf. 1 Cor 6:9–10; Lk 22:17–18 cf. 1 Cor 10:16–17; Lk 22:19–20 cf. 1 Cor 11:23–25; Lk 22:24 cf. 1 Cor 11:16; Lk 24:34 cf. 1 Cor 15:4–5).20 Moreover, on similar grounds, he has argued for creative use of Josephus’ Antiquitates in the Lucan Gospel (Lk 2:1–7

16 Cf. ibid. 60–61. 17 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001), 6–8, 25–184. 18 Cf. T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (NTM 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 139–143. 19 Cf. P. Elbert, ‘Possible Literary Links between Luke-Acts and Pauline Letters Regarding Spirit-Language’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 226–254 (esp. 232–243). 20 Cf. R. I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge: Santa Rosa, Calif. 2006), 64–70, 139, 225–227.

17

cf. Ant. 18.1–5; Lk 3:1–2 cf. Ant. 18.237; 20.138; Lk 3:10–14 cf. Ant. 18.117; Lk 3:19 cf. Ant. 18.109–119; Lk 19:11–27 cf. Ant. 17.222–342).21 It is worth noting that Pervo’s analyses point to the cases of Luke’s highly creative reworking of earlier texts. Pervo does not use the notion of hypertextuality, but his suggestions concerning Luke’s compositional techniques evidently lead in this direction. For example, according to Pervo the Pauline text 1  Cor 5:3–5 was used in Acts 5:1–11 in such a way that the latter story can be classified as ‘a narrative inspired by 1 Corinthians 5:3–5’.22 Likewise, the use of Josephus’ story of a Jewish magician from Cyprus in the entourage of a Roman governor (Ant. 20.141–143) in Luke’s story of Elymas (Acts 13:6–12) must have been highly creative because there are also numerous significant differences between the two stories (the characters involved, the reasons for the activity of the magician, etc.).23 Somewhat similarly, Simon Butticaz has recently argued that the use of Paul’s letters in the Lucan Gospel and Acts can best be explained in Gérard Genette’s category of hypertextual derivation.24 In the opinion of Butticaz, Luke’s use of the Pauline letters can be classified in terms of (a) narrativizing the Pauline tradition, (b) commenting on some Pauline errors, and (c) negatively reworking Pauline ideas.25 Accordingly, the reception of Paul’s letters in the Lucan work was creative, and not archiving.26 This short presentation of the previous research on the literary dependence of the Lucan Gospel on the Pauline letters reveals that twentieth-century scholars who favoured such dependence (e.g. M. D. Goulder and W. Schenk) mainly concentrated on the linguistic argument from the presence of several Pauline clusters of words in the Lucan Gospel. However, the number of such clusters is 21 22 23 24

Cf. ibid. 158–161, 178–179, 183–185, 197. Ibid. 73. Cf. ibid. 186–187. Cf. S. Butticaz, ‘“Has God Rejected His People?” (Romans 11.1): The Salvation of Israel in Acts: Narrative Claim of a Pauline Legacy’, in D. P. Moessner [et al.] (eds.), Luke the Interpreter of Israel, vol. 2, Paul and the Heritage of Israel: Paul’s Claim upon Israel’s Legacy in Luke and Acts in the Light of the Pauline Letters (LNTS 452; T&T Clark: London 2012), 148–164 (esp. 163); id., ‘La relecture des lapsi pauliniens chez Luc: Esquisse d’une typologie’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10–12 juin 2010 (BETL 248; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 319–330 (esp. 319). 25 Cf. id., ‘Relecture’, 320–329. 26 Cf. ibid. 329.

18

evidently too low to persuade other scholars that Luke knew and used the Pauline letters, especially in view of the fact that there are also more or less evident differences between the Lucan theology and the Pauline ideas. In line with the development of modern research on intertextuality, especially in the aftermath of Gérard Genette’s introduction of the concept of hypertextuality,27 more recent scholars point to the possibility of Luke’s highly creative use of Paul’s letters, which should not be limited to mere repetition of some particular words, but which could include free reworking of Paul’s (and Josephus’) texts in the Lucan stories.

Luke and Mark, Josephus, and other works Modern scholars working on the so-called synoptic problem generally accept the hypothesis of Marcan priority, according to which Luke in his literary activity used the Gospel of Mark. However, the use of the Marcan Gospel by Luke was by no means slavish and uniform. Detailed analyses of the Lucan use of the Marcan material reveal that Luke knew the whole Marcan Gospel (Mk 1:1–16:8, including the so-called ‘Big Omission’: Mk 6:45–8:26) and that he used this material not only in its original order, form, and wording, but also in the form of isolated motifs,28 which were creatively reworked and used by Luke in various other sections of his work (including the so-called ‘Big Interpolation’: Lk 9:51–18:14).29 Accordingly, at times Luke rather faithfully reproduced the Marcan story. However, at times he reworked the Marcan accounts quite freely: ‘Luke repeatedly excises a pericope from its Markan location, strategically advances the pericope to an earlier location in the narrative sequence, and retains only key traces of the original pericope’s basic structure.’30

27 Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982). 28 For a discussion concerning the intertextual use of earlier literary motifs in the Lucan work, cf. J. M. Morgan, ‘How Do Motifs Endure and Perform? Motif Theory for the Study of Biblical Narratives’, RB 122 (2015) 194–216 (esp. 204–206, 210). 29 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ und ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ: Eine exegetische Untersuchung der Texte des sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium (BZNW 101; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2001), 51–55. 30 G. Carey, ‘Moving Things Ahead: A Lukan Redactional Technique and Its Implications for Gospel Origins’, BibInt 21 (2013) 302–319 (here: 318). Cf. also M. J. Kok, ‘The Flawed Evangelist (John) Mark: A Neglected Clue to the Reception of Mark’s Gospel in Luke-Acts?’, Neot 46 (2012) 244–259 (esp. 246–249).

19

Consequently, it is difficult to prove that in his literary activity Luke used any oral traditions: ‘When one takes seriously the larger patterns of redaction—rather than assessing things one passage at a time—the argument for independent streams of memory simply fails to persuade.’31 Moreover, Barbara Shellard has argued that Luke most likely used Josephus’ Bellum, quite likely used Antiquitates, and possibly used Contra Apionem.32 The hypothesis of Luke’s creative use of the works of Josephus is also strongly supported by Steve Mason33 and Richard I. Pervo.34 Besides, Karl A. Kuhn has recently suggested that Luke knew some texts contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls.35 My own research has suggested that Luke, especially in the composition of the Acts of the Apostles, used not only Paul’s authentic letters, but also post-Pauline letters, including the Pastoral Letters, as well as the ethopoeic letters of James and Peter, Josephus’ writings, some Greek classical writings, and some texts known to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.36 The problem of the relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew, including the hypothesis of the existence of the so-called ‘Q source’, will not be discussed here because the research of myself and other scholars reveals that the Gospel of Luke was used in the Gospel of Matthew, and there was no ‘Q source’.37

Implied author The implied author of the Lucan Gospel is rather difficult to identify. The vague ‘me’ in the preface to the Gospel (Lk 1:3) yields no particular clue as to his identity. However, if the hypothesis of the intended unity of the Lucan Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles is accepted, the implied author of the Gospel can be identified indirectly through his identification with the implied author of Acts.

31 G. Carey, ‘Moving’, 318. 32 Cf. B. Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (JSNTSup 215; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002), 31–34. 33 Cf. S.  Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (2nd edn., Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2003), 251–295. 34 Cf. R. I. Pervo, Dating, 158–161, 178–179, 183–185, 197. 35 Cf. K. A. Kuhn, Luke: The Elite Evangelist (Paul’s Social Network: Brothers and Sisters in Faith; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 2010), 11. 36 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 79, 87, 91, 95, 105, 112, 142–145, 148–152. 37 Cf. ibid. 153–155; id., Hypertextuality, 80–85.

20

Traditionally, the third canonical Gospel has been attributed to Luke, one of Paul’s co-workers. This attribution can be explained as resulting from the facts that (a) Phlm 24 mentions Luke together with the imprisoned Paul, (b) Col 4:14 likewise presents Luke as the companion of the imprisoned Paul and refers to him as ‘beloved’ by the Apostle, and (c) 2 Tim 4:11 similarly refers to Luke as the only faithful companion of Paul during his Roman imprisonment. In antiquity, these features came to be regarded as compatible with the features of the narrative ‘we’ in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). Consequently, they led to the assumption that the third canonical Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, which are anonymous in themselves, were written by Luke.38 The first explicit identification of the author of the third canonical Gospel with Luke, the companion of Paul, can be found in Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1 (c. ad 180?).39 In fact, the Acts of the Apostles presents itself as having been written by a close companion of Paul’s missionary activity, especially of Paul’s last journey to Jerusalem and to Rome (Acts 27:1–28:16). This impression is created by means of the literary device of the narrator’s identification with the character of the narrative ‘we’ in Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16. However, a close analysis of the particular features and movements of this narrative character reveals that they generally correspond to those of the character of Titus in the letters of Paul the Apostle. In particular, according to Gal 2:1.3 Titus (and consequently also the narrative ‘we’ in Acts) was the only person who, apart from Barnabas, accompanied Paul in his second journey to Jerusalem. Moreover, according to 2 Cor 8:6.16.23; Gal 2:1.3 Titus (and consequently also the narrative ‘we’ in Acts) was the only person who, unlike Barnabas, (John) Mark, and Silvanus/Silas, had access to both Paul and Peter in the critical period of Paul’s missionary career, namely during the organization and delivery of the Gentile Christian collection for the Jerusalem ‘saints’. For this reason, in the Acts of the Apostles Titus became a reliable, although anonymous, ethopoeic transmitter of Peter and Paul’s apostolic tradition (Acts 1:1; cf. Lk 1:2–3) and a narrative witness of the important events which took place in Troas, Philippi, Jerusalem, Crete (cf. Tit 1:4–5), and Rome (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16).40 The identification of the implied author of the Acts of the Apostles with the ethopoeic character of Titus also partly explains the phenomenon of the abrupt ending of Acts (Acts 28:30–31). According to 2 Tim 4:10.16, Titus was present 38 Cf. U. Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830; 8th edn., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2013), 312, 315. 39 Cf. ibid. 311. 40 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 121–124; id., Constructing, 147.

21

with Paul in Rome, but left Rome before Paul’s trial. Therefore, also the narrative ‘we’ is present in Acts  27:1–28:16, but absent in the concluding section Acts  28:17–31, apparently not knowing what happened to Paul after his twoyear-long stay in Rome. Moreover, since according to Gal 2:2–3 Titus personally knew not only Paul, but also the Jerusalem community, including James the Lord’s brother (hence the presence of the narrative ‘we’ in Acts 21:17–18), thanks to this contact the implied author of Acts could have obtained some family-related information concerning Jesus’ birth and childhood (Lk 1–2; cf. 1:2), as well as that concerning the beginnings of the Jerusalem community (Acts 1–12). Accordingly, the third canonical Gospel should be called the ‘Gospel of Titus’ or, more adequately, the Gospel of Pseudo-Titus. Nevertheless, in this commentary the traditional terms: ‘Luke’, ‘Lucan’, etc. will be used for the sake of clarity.

Literary genre The Gospel of Luke cannot be adequately construed as biography because the character of Jesus is presented therein in a highly sophisticated intertextual way, with the use of a lot of allusions to the Septuagint,41 Paul’s letters, Greek literature, etc. Accordingly, the Gospel of Luke should not be interpreted as a simple biography, but rather as a literary work in which complex intertextual references to other works are presented in the well-known form of biography. In fact, the Lucan work should be categorized, similarly to the Gospel of Mark, as ‘scriptural biography’ because of its authoritative status for the believers, its sequential hypertextual use of earlier theological texts, its apparently biographic form, and its very loose connection with the historical facts.42 However, in comparison to the Marcan Gospel, the Gospel of Luke evidently has much more features of literary biography. To the narrative framework of the Marcan Gospel, which only apparently resembled a Hellenistic biography,43 Luke added several topics and motifs which could be found in Graeco-Roman biographies: preface (Lk  1:1–4), birth (Lk  2:1–39), childhood and education

41 Cf. D. P. Moessner, ‘How Luke writes’, in M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge University: Cambridge · New York 2005), 149–170 (esp. 161). 42 Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel (OACB: St Paul, Minn. 2012), 201–220, who argues for the genre of ‘scriptural historiography’ in the similar case of the Gospel of Mark. 43 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 17, 33–34.

22

(Lk 2:40–52), ancestry (Lk 3:23–38), appearances after the death (Lk 24:13–50), and ascension into heaven (Lk  24:51).44 In this way, he created a work which came to be regarded as a true, historically reliable biography of Jesus.

Date of composition The terminus a quo of the composition of the Lucan Gospel is determined by the date of the composition of the Gospel of Mark, which was in turn written after the writings of Flavius Josephus, so not earlier than c. ad 100–110, maybe even as late as c. ad 130–135.45 On the other hand, the terminus ad quem is constituted by the extensive use of the Lucan Gospel by Marcion, so presumably not later than c. ad 145,46 and in Justin’s Apologia I (cf. e.g. 1 Apol. 33.4–5 and Lk 1:35.26–28.31–32; 1 Apol. 50.12 and Lk 24:25–27.49.51), so presumably not later than c. ad 153.47 Accordingly, the Gospel of Luke was most likely written c. ad 120–140.48

44 Cf. R. A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (SNTSMS 70; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1992), 133–134, 146, 161–162, 178–180; id., ‘Biography’, in S. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 b.c.–a.d. 400 (Brill: Boston · Leiden 2001), 371–391 (esp. 379–381, 383); M. W. Martin, ‘Progymnastic Topic Lists: A Compositional Template for Luke and Other Bioi?’, NTS 54 (2008) 18–41 (esp. 36–38); S. A. Adams, The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography (SNTSMS 156; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2013), 257–260, 264–278. 45 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 110 n. 12, 158–159 n. 140, 202 n. 17. 46 The fact that Marcion seems to have protested against the pro-Jewish ‘falsification’ of the Pauline gospel in the Gospel of Luke, with its theological combination of the gospel with the Law and the Prophets, especially in Lk 1:1–4:30 (cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27.2; Tertullian, Marc. 4.5.4–4.7.1), suggests that the Lucan Gospel appeared not long before ad 144, when Marcion left the Christian community and ‘censured’ the Lucan work. On the relative priority of the canonical Gospel of Luke against Marcion’s Gospel, see recently D. T. Roth, The Text of Marcion’s Gospel (NTTSD 49; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015), 437–438. 47 Cf. Justin, Apologie pour les chrétiens, ed. C. Munier (SC 507; Cerf: Paris 2006), 28. 48 Cf. C. Mount, Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (NovTSup 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 168: ‘sometime before about ad 130’. For a similar dating of Acts, see recently W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘Portrayal’, 495: in the middle of the second century ad; R. I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 2009), 5, 20: c. ad 115; id., ‘Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists’, in T. E. Phillips (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Acts (Mercer University: [s.l.] 2009), 29–46 (esp. 46: c. ad 110–130).

23

Sequential hypertextuality The research on the sequential hypertextual relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline letters is difficult mainly due to the lack of universally accepted methods of research on the phenomenon of intertextuality. The problems already begin with the use of the concept of intertextuality. Some scholars, on the grounds of a particular ideological origin and context of the use of the term ‘intertextuality’ in literary criticism, strongly object to the use of this term for an analysis of the presence of allusions to an earlier text in a later text.49 However, these scholars seem to forget what they are arguing for, namely that the authorial intent in coining a given term is not decisive for its meaning. Accordingly, even if Julia Kristeva’s intent in coining the term ‘intertextuality’ may have been quite particular, it does not preclude using this term in ways which somehow differ from her authorial intent,50 especially if a number of biblical scholars agree to apply this term to a method of analysing literary connections between two texts, and not to a particular ideology in literary criticism. Such a diachronic concept of intertextuality51 was developed by Gérard Genette, who argued for using the term hypertextuality in the cases of loose intertextual relationships. According to the French scholar, hypertextuality can be defined as any relationship uniting a text B (which is in such a case called hypertext) to an earlier text A (which is called hypotext), upon which it grafts itself in a manner that is not that of commentary.52 In the case of a truly hypertextual relationship between two given texts, a high degree of literary creativity and imagination on the part of the author of the hypertext should be allowed for. For example, the authors of hypertexts frequently make various kinds of thematic, diegetic, and pragmatic transposition,53 especially 49 See e.g. D. I. Yoon, ‘The Ideological Inception of Intertextuality and its Dissonance in Current Biblical Studies’, CBR 12 (2012) 58–76. 50 Cf. L. A. Huizenga, ‘The Old Testament in the New, Intertextuality and Allegory’, JSNT 38.1 (2005) 17–35 (esp. 25). 51 Cf. J. Barton, ‘Déjà lu: Intertextuality, Method or Theory?’, in K. J. Dell and W. Kynes (eds.), Reading Job Intertextually (LHBOTS 574; Bloomsbury: New York [et al.] 2013), 1–16 (esp. 7–9, 12, 14–15); W. Kynes, ‘Intertextuality: Method and Theory in Job and Psalm 119’, in K. J. Dell and P. M. Joyce (eds.), Biblical Interpretation and Method, Festschrift J. Barton (Oxford University: Oxford 2013), 201–213 (esp. 202–206). 52 Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 13: ‘Hypertextualité [:] J’entends par là toute relation unissant un texte B (que j’appellerai hypertexte) à un texte antérieur A (que j’appellerai, bien sûr, hypotexte) sur lequel il se greffe d’une manière qui n’est pas celle du commentaire.’ 53 Cf. ibid. 418.

24

by using the sophisticated procedures of transdiegetization,54 interfigurality,55 internymic deviation,56 transsexuation,57 temporal translation,58 spatial translation,59 transpragmatization,60 transmotivation,61 transvalorization,62 elaboration, compression, conflation, substitution of images and ideas, and form-change.63 In fact, numerous examples of very subtle, at times hardly identifiable allusions to earlier texts, as well as highly creative reworkings of them, can be found both in classical literature64 and in biblical writings.65 The ancient metaphor of bees producing honey from various flowers, so that the product clearly differs from its sources, aptly illustrates the ancient hypertextual procedure of rhetorical aemulatio.66

54 Cf. ibid. 419–421. 55 Cf. W. G. Müller, ‘Interfigurality: A Study on the Interdependence of Literary Figures’, in H.  F.  Plett (ed.), Intertextuality (RTT 15; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1991), 101–121; K. Schiffner, Lukas liest Exodus: Eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme ersttestamentlicher Befreiungsgeschichte im lukanischen Werk als Schrift-Lektüre (BWANT 9.12; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2008), 40–42. 56 Cf. W. G. Müller, ‘Interfigurality’, 104–105. 57 Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 423–424. 58 Cf. ibid. 431. 59 Cf. ibid. 60 Cf. ibid. 442. 61 Cf. ibid. 457. 62 Cf. ibid. 483. 63 Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 10–13. Cf. also T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter, ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method—Suggested Guidelines’, in eid. (eds.), Intertextuality, 284–296 (esp. 288–290), who list 39 techniques of literary adaptation and group them into the categories of basis adaptation techniques, combinations and rearrangements, focus techniques, transformation, and substitution. 64 Cf. S.  Hinds, Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry (RLIC; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1998), esp. 17–47, 99–122; E. Finkelpearl, ‘Pagan Traditions of Intertextuality in the Roman World’, in D. R. MacDonald (ed.), Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (SAC; Trinity International: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 78–90 (esp. 82–90); T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 8–17. 65 Cf. M.-É. Kiessel, ‘Intertextualité et hypertextualité en Jn 11,1–12,11’, ETL 81 (2005) 29–56; D.  Ziegler, Dionysos in der Apostelgeschichte – eine intertextuelle Lektüre (Religion und Biographie 18; Lit: Berlin 2008), passim; S. Butticaz, ‘Has God’, 148–164; J. Descreux, ‘Apocalypse 12 ou de l’art d’accommoder les mythes’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures, 345–359 (esp. 355–356). 66 Cf. K.  O.  Sandnes, The Gospel ‘According to Homer and Virgil’: Cento and Canon (NovTSup 138; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 39–41.

25

The research on hypertextuality is fascinating because ‘in this process, every sign in a text can trigger an intertextual relation. Once a marker is recognized, other texts come into focus and readers can look for further elements proving or supporting their first association.’67 This phenomenon was very well known to the Fathers of the Church, who interpreted biblical texts as closely related to other biblical texts, even if at times the existence of such a relationship was postulated on the basis of just one particular association.68 The second problem with the use of the concept of hypertextuality concerns methodology. In the related project concerning the relationship between the Marcan Gospel and the Pauline letters, its leading scholars maintain that ‘further progress with regard to the question about the Mark/Paul relationship will have to rely, not on scholars’ imaginative powers or on their capacities for reading the texts, but on their achieving the utmost clarity concerning theoretical and methodological framework with which they as scholars approach the issue.’69 However, if biblical scholarship should not rely on scholars’ capacities for reading the texts, then on what should it ultimately rely: on abstract methods, devised in other fields of research, mainly to analyse interpretatively much simpler texts? With all due respect for the quest for scholarly objectivity, methods should be adequate to the object of study, and not vice versa. Therefore, especially in the humanities, obsession with following abstract methods is not always advisable. In this area, the capacity to interpret the objects of study is much more important. Moreover, in the case of biblical scholarship, the old maxim, already somehow known to the Fathers of the Church, should be taken into due methodological consideration: ‘What was written with imagination must be read with imagination’.70 Again, with all due respect for the quest for methodological clarity, nothing can substitute for the use of imagination in analysing works of culture and art in which earlier motifs were reworked in highly creative ways. In fact, the way of reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the Lucan Gospel is very creative, resembling a haggadic midrash illustrating legal matters rather 67 S. Gillmayr-Bucher, ‘Intertextuality: Between Literary Theory and Text Analysis’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), Intertextuality, 13–23 (here: 19). 68 Cf. J. Barton, ‘Déjà lu’, 1–2. 69 E. -M. Becker, T. Engberg-Pedersen, and M. Müller, ‘Mark and Paul – Introductory Remarks’, in eid. (eds.), Mark and Paul: Comparative Essays Part II: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 1–10 (here: 10). 70 L. Alonso Schökel with J. M. Bravo, A Manual of Hermeneutics, trans. L. M. Rosa, ed. B. W. R. Pearson (BibSem 54; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998), 170.

26

than a simple reproduction of the Pauline letter, with the use of its key words etc. For this reason, it should not be categorized as ‘rewritten Scripture’, ‘parascriptural literature’, etc., but it should rather be analysed within the broader category of ‘hypertextuality’.71 Neither should Luke’s intertextual procedures be limited to those of mimesis and direct citation.72 Rather, Luke’s sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the form of biography of Jesus should be compared with Luke’s literary models, namely the sequentially organized hypertextual-historiographic Scriptures (Gen-Kgs),73 as well as the sequentially organized hypertextual-biographic Gospel of Mark.74 Luke evidently wanted to compose a confessional narrative (cf. Lk 1:4), and therefore he followed the scriptural and Marcan, sequential-hypertextual confessional models, rather than pagan ones.75 Accordingly, the analysis of the use of Paul’s letters in the Lucan Gospel should not be limited to finding intertextual allusions or echoes, regarded as repetitions of some words or phrases,76 or even clusters of words and ideas, as it was done 71 For recent discussions concerning the definitions and application of these terms, see e.g. A. Lange, ‘In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature’, in P. S. Alexander, A. Lange, and R. J. Pillinger (eds.), In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 3–40 (esp. 13–19); A. K. Petersen, ‘Textual Fidelity, Elaboration, Supersession or Encroachment? Typological Reflections on the Phenomenon of Rewritten Scripture’, in J. Zsengellér (ed.), Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes (JSJSup 166; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 13–48 (esp. 19–31); J. G. Campbell, ‘Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment’, in J. Zsengellér (ed.), Rewritten, 49–81 (esp. 51–69). 72 Pace A.  W.  Pitts, ‘Source Citation in Greek Historiography and in Luke(-Acts)’, in S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (TENT 9; Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context 1; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 349–388 (esp. 378–388). 73 Cf. G. E. Sterling, Historiography, 357–363. For an analysis of the sequentially organized, hypertextual features of these Scriptures, see B. Adamczewski, Retelling, passim. 74 Cf. G. E. Sterling, Historiography, 350–352. For an analysis of the sequentially organized, hypertextual features of the Marcan Gospel, see B. Adamczewski, Mark, passim. 75 Pace U. Luz, ‘Die Geburtsgeschichten Jesu und die Geschichte’, in P. von Gemünden [et al.] (eds.), Jesus – Gestalt und Gestaltungen: Rezeptionen des Galiläers in Wissenschaft, Kirche und Gesellschaft, Festschrift G. Theißen (NTOA 100; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2013), 167–191 (esp. 187). 76 Cf. J. Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (University of California: Berkeley · Los Angeles · London 1981), 62–132.

27

by previous scholars,77 but it should also include tracing echoes regarded more broadly as ‘structuring an account along the lines of a specific tradition, while not expressly using any common vocabulary’.78 However, it should not be axiomatically assumed that Luke intended his audience to ‘hear’ his echoes and allusions,79 including those to the Pauline letters. As was noticed above, scholars have traced a number of allusions to Paul’s letters in the Lucan work, but given Luke’s evident avoidance of any direct reference to these letters, it is by no means certain that he expected his readers, at least all of them, to recognize such allusions. Rather, it seems that he envisaged two kinds of reading of his narrative: a ‘catechetic’ one, intended to convey Pauline and post-Pauline ideas in a narrative form to more general audience (cf. Lk 1:4b), and an ‘apologetic’ one, offering an edifying interpretative key to Paul’s letters for those who might be unsettled by their highly polemical contents (cf. Lk 1:1–4a). Accordingly, the task of tracing the literary interplay between the Lucan narrative and Paul’s letters, the Septuagint, Josephus’ writings, other Jewish works, classical literature, etc. was most probably intentionally reserved for the most curious and most educated readers. The same, however, also refers to other biblical writings, with their hidden allusions to the prophetic writings in Deuteronomy, to the Mesopotamian literature in Genesis, etc.80 Therefore, even if the research on intertextual allusions in the Lucan Gospel methodologically resembles skating over thin ice, it is worth undertaking because Luke was evidently fond of making literary allusions to earlier authoritative texts, for example to the Septuagint.81 In any truly scholarly research on hypertextuality in the Gospels, some relatively reliable criteria for detecting intertextual allusions should be applied.

77 Cf. e.g. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 132–143; W. Schenk, ‘Luke’, 132–138. 78 K. D. Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (JSNTSup 282; T&T Clark: London · New York 2005), 55. Cf. S. Holthuis, Intertextualität: Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption (Stauffenburg Colloquium 28; Stauffenburg: Tübingen 1993), 91–94, 140–147, 214–215; R. Reuter, ‘Clarifying the Issue of Literary Dependence’, in K. Liljeström (ed.), The Early Reception of Paul (SESJ 99; Finnish Exegetical Society: Helsinki 2011), 23–35 (esp. 24–30). 79 Pace K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 61, 64. 80 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Retelling, 25–181. 81 Cf. A.  Denaux, ‘Old Testament Models for the Lukan Travel Narrative: A  Critical Survey’, in id., Studies in the Gospel of Luke: Structure, Language and Theology (TTS 4; Lit: Münster 2010), 39–70 (esp. 41).

28

Otherwise, this kind of research would consist in offering merely subjective interpretative proposals. Among the criteria for detecting a hypertextual relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians, those proposed by Dennis R. MacDonald82 seem to be particularly useful. The criterion of accessibility is met if it is likely that the author of the Lucan Gospel had access to the letters of Paul the Apostle. The criterion of analogy is met if it can be shown that other authors used the Letters to the Galatians in a similar way. The criterion of density is met if it can be demonstrated that the correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians are numerous enough to postulate the existence of a truly literary connection. The criterion of order is met if the correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians in both works appear in the same order. The criterion of distinctive traits is met if some correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians are peculiar to them both, and not simply generic. The criterion of interpretability is met if the understanding of the Lucan Gospel gains something when this Gospel is viewed against the background of the Letter to the Galatians. In fact, the most important criterion for detecting hypertextual relationships, at least between biblical writings, is the criterion of order. If two given works reveal thematic or other correspondences which follow a sequential pattern, it is reasonable to suppose that the author of one of these works in a hypertextual way reworked the other work, preserving the basic sequence of its themes, ideas, and at least selected literary motifs.83 In such a case, the relationship between these works may be called sequential hypertextuality. With the use of this criterion, Christopher F. Evans has suggested that the content of the Lucan ‘central section’ (Lk 9:51–18:14) is modelled on the content of the Book of Deuteronomy (esp. Deut 1–26).84 However, the thematic and verbal

82 Cf. D. R. MacDonald, ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s Imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), Intertextuality, 211–225 (esp. 212). 83 Cf. e.g. ibid.; A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LNTS 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), 21. 84 Cf. C. F. Evans, ‘The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel’, in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift R. H. Lightfoot (Basil Blackwell: Oxford 1955), 37–53 (esp. 42–50).

29

correspondences postulated by him and some other scholars are mostly nonspecific and quite vague.85 In other fields of biblical research, Beate Kowalski has argued that the Book of Revelation is a sequentially organized reworking of the Book of Ezekiel.86 Likewise, David P. Wright has argued that the Covenant Code is a sequentially organized revision of the Laws of Hammurabi.87 Quite recently, Annette Steudel has argued that the Damascus Document closely follows the textual organization of 1QS V–VII.88 It is interesting to note that according to her intertextual analysis, the correspondences between the two works may be of a very divergent nature, so that (a) sometimes both texts show a close, even literal relationship; (b) sometimes the later text is largely elaborating the earlier one; (c) at other times, much harder to see, a link through keywords builds a connection between the two texts; and (d) sometimes both texts simply share the same topic.89 Accordingly, the spectrum of sequential literary reworking in Jewish literature of the turn of the era could range from an almost verbatim quotation (as it often also happens in Luke’s reworking of the Gospel of Mark) to a vague thematic correspondence with no verbal link between the two texts (as it often also happens in Luke’s reworking of the Letter to the Galatians and other works).90 In the cases in which the level of verbal agreement between fragments of two given texts (a feature which in biblical scholarship usually functions as a token of literary dependence) is very low, and consequently the relationship between both texts is truly hypertextual, the criterion of order is particularly useful. In such cases, the weakness of purely linguistic signals of literary dependence (quoted 85 Cf. A. Denaux, ‘Old Testament’, 43–44, 46–48. 86 Cf. B. Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes (SBB 52; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2004), 307–426, 464–472. 87 Cf. D. P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University: New York 2009), passim (esp. 347). 88 Cf. A. Steudel, ‘The Damascus Document (D) as a Rewriting of the Community Rule (S)’, RevQ 25 (2012) 605–620. 89 Cf. ibid. 608. 90 The recognition of this spectrum is important in the context of modern tendencies to restrict scholarly analyses of allusive use of earlier texts to cases in which there is some significant or extensive verbal parallelism: cf. e.g. P. Foster, ‘Echoes without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent Scholarly Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament’, JSNT 38.1 (2005) 96–111 (esp. 109). Understandably, in cases of low verbal agreement other criteria of allusive use of another text (order etc.) should be taken into due consideration.

30

or imitated sentences, reproduced characteristic phrases, etc.) is recompensed by the consistency of strictly sequential reworking of the conceptual elements (ideas, images, arguments, references to time, directions of movement, functions of characters, etc.) of one work in the other one. The criterion of order is particularly compelling if it refers not only to larger sections or pericopes, but also to individual sentences or even clauses, phrases, and words. In such cases, its argumentative force is very high, even if the level of verbal or formal agreement between the compared texts is very low. It is namely true that the detection of a sequence of several similar elements, something which is at times used in scholarship for postulating the existence of various chiastic, concentric, and parallel patterns in biblical texts, can be regarded as more or less subjective. However, the degree of interpretative subjectivity is much lower if the common sequence of conceptually corresponding elements consists of tens or hundreds of sequentially arranged items.91 Another criterion which is very important for detecting hypertextual relationships, at least between biblical writings, is the criterion of interpretability. In case the literary features of a given writing can be understood better if it is regarded as a reworking of an earlier text, than this type of analysis should not be regarded as purely subjective92 and consisting in merely looking for parallels (‘parallelomania’). This criterion is particularly convincing if both major, well-known literary problems and small, rarely noticed, not easily perceivable surprising features of a given literary work can be explained by the hypothesis that this work is an imperfect reworking of an earlier text, in which such problems and surprising features are absent.93 In fact, every reworking of something else leaves some traces, and even a gifted and creative reworker, such as Luke, is not always capable of eliminating all of them, especially if they are barely noticeable.94 Paying due

91 Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 45. 92 On the other hand, it should be noticed that interpretation is always an art, and there are no criteria which would provide absolute objectivity and reliability of a given interpretative proposal. 93 Cf. B.  Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 201–202. Cf. also the use of this criterion in M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 132–143 for ascertaining not only the existence, but also the direction of literary dependence between the Lucan Gospel and Paul’s letters. 94 Pace G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 555, who has argued that the hypertext, being semantically autonomous, does not contain any perceivable internal ‘agrammaticality’. Genette’s general idea does not always refer to all minor details of the hypertext because the inevitable tension between the intratextual and intertextual levels of the meaning of

31

attention to such small, intriguing literary ungrammaticalities, which are usually neglected or only superficially explained by most commentators,95 may give important clues to the discovery of a hypertextual relationship of a given text to a hypotext.96 Therefore, there is no other way for good exegesis than being curious and patient, and not being deceived by merely hypothetical, easily manipulable solutions offered by many scholars (lost sources, numerous redactional strata, widely circulating oral traditions, insufficient knowledge on the part of the author, only later attested customs,97 not adequately proven events,98 complicated narrative strategies, etc.). In fact, the criterion of interpretability is particularly reliable if it explains not only the presence, but also the function of the allusions to other texts in the hypertext.99 In such cases, the danger of mere ‘parallelomania’ is greatly reduced. Accordingly, in such cases the criterion of interpretability can be regarded as decisive for ascertaining the existence of a hypertextual relationship between two given writings.

the hypertext often results in some consciously or unconsciously created disruptions to its intratextual logic. On the other hand, the hypertext does not necessarily contain aberrant features, ungrammaticalities, anomalies, inconsequences, non sequiturs, the loss of narrativity, etc. which are so evident that they function as really sylleptic, and consequently compulsory in their impelling the reader to pursue the search for a hypotext, as it has been argued by M. Riffaterre, Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd edn., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993), 90–91. 95 Cf. D.  Seccombe, ‘Incongruity in the Gospel Parables’, TynBul 62 (2011) 161–172 (esp. 162, 171). However, there is no adequate reason for attributing such intriguing and bizarre details to the historical Jesus, and not to the evangelist. 96 Cf. R. L. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts (ISBL; Indiana University: Bloomington · Indianapolis 1995), 14. 97 It should be noted that, for example, rabbinic traditions which refer to various Jewish customs cannot be regarded as by definition uninfluenced by the New Testament writings. 98 In biblical scholarship, the historical facticity of many events is often postulated on the basis of the biblical writings which somehow refer to them. However, such a procedure is based on the erroneous presupposition concerning the historical value of the biblical works as relatively faithfully reflecting the historical realities. See B. Adamczewski, Constructing, passim; id., Retelling, passim. 99 Cf. A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization, 22. Cf. also T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 46, who uses the criterion of the intelligibility of the differences between both texts.

32

The main aim of this commentary consists in analysing the sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the Gospel of Luke. Therefore, other Lucan allusions will only be analysed here in a selective way, in order not to overload the work with mentioning all possible intertextual references. It is also evident that this commentary has been written from a particular interpretative perspective. As such, it resembles modern commentaries which are based on a particular interpretative approach: reader-response, receptionhistorical, social-scientific, feminist, etc.100 Therefore, it significantly differs from ‘traditional’ commentaries, which aim at describing and evaluating various scholarly solutions to all problems that are posed by the commented text.101 Nevertheless, it answers the most basic questions which are discussed in every commentary: the meaning of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, pericopes, and ultimately the meaning of the whole book.102

100 For a discussion on such a way of writing commentaries, see M. Y. MacDonald, ‘The Art of Commentary Writing: Reflections from Experience’, JSNT 29.3 (2007) 313–321 (esp. 317–320). 101 For this type of commentary, see e.g. B. Adamczewski, List do Filemona, List do Kolosan: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz (NKBNT 12; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006). 102 Cf. M. Y. MacDonald, ‘Art’, 320.

33

Chapter 1. Lk 1:1–9:50 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal 1:1–3:1 The first instance of sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the Lucan Gospel can be found in the first great section of the Lucan work, namely Lk 1:1–9:50, which precedes the so-called Lucan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51–19:28). As the detailed intertextual analysis of this great section shows, it is a result of sequential hypertextual reworking of the introductory section of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:1–3:1).

1.1  Lk 1:1–4 (cf. Gal 1:1–3) The preface to the Lucan Gospel (Lk 1:1–4) seems to be a self-standing part of the Lucan work. Its literary form and motifs apparently primarily link it with prefaces to Hellenistic and Roman historiographic works.1 However, its thematic structure also closely reflects the sequence of the themes which are contained in the main part of the opening formula of Paul’s letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:1–3): some people from the Jerusalem community, the apostles being witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, Paul’s unnamed co-workers, a datival reference to the Gentile addressees, and the basic teaching about Jesus. The opening remark concerning many people (πολλοί), presumably closely related to the Jerusalem community, who already before the writing of the Lucan Gospel tried to compose a narrative version of the gospel, a story which was considered unsatisfactory by the author of the writing (Lk  1:1),2 is somewhat strange because it creates the image of many people trying to compose one narrative version of the gospel (διήγησιν), and not many different accounts (diff. e.g.

1 See e.g. A. D. Baum, ‘Lk 1,1–4 zwischen antiker Historiografie und Fachprosa: Zum literaturgeschichtlichen Kontext des lukanischen Prologs’, ZNW 101 (2010) 33–54; A. W. Pitts, ‘Source Citation in Greek Historiography and in Luke(-Acts)’, in S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (TENT 9; Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context 1; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 349–388 (esp. 375). 2 Cf. M. C. Parsons, Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2007), 46–47; F. Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2013), 123.

35

διηγήματα: Jos. B.J. 1.1; cf. B.J. 1.2, 17). Such a remark by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality thematically reflects Paul’s opening remark concerning some people (pl. ἄνθρωποι) and a human (sing. ἄνθρωπος), who were presumably closely related to Jerusalem and who already before Paul tried to disseminate their interpretation of the gospel, an interpretation which was considered unsatisfactory by the author of the writing (Gal 1:1a; cf. 1:6–7). Luke’s disparaging remark concerning previous attempts to compose an account of the matters which have been fulfilled, somewhat surprisingly,3 ‘among us’ (Lk 1:1), that is in the realm of life of Luke and his Greek-speaking Christian audience,4 in fact refers to earlier, unsatisfactory attempts to describe the evangelistic activity of Paul the Apostle. This meaning is additionally confirmed by Luke’s surprising use of the verb πληροφορέω (‘fulfil’: Lk  1:1c),5 which in the Pauline and post-Pauline terminology refers not to the ‘happening’ of events (diff. e.g. Jos. B.J. 1.13: γίνομαι), but rather to Paul’s activity of preaching the gospel (2 Tim 4:17; cf. 1 Thes 1:5; 2 Tim 4:5). The subsequent, thematically positive remark concerning those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, and who handed on to us the tradition concerning Jesus’ activity, so presumably the gospel-preaching apostles (Lk 1:2), is somewhat surprisingly inserted into the negative assessment of Luke’s story-making predecessors (Lk  1:1; diff. e.g. Jos. B.J. 1.2). This positive remark by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent positive presentation of himself as someone who became an apostle through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Jesus Christ from the dead (Gal 1:1b). The thematic link between Lk 1:2 and Gal 1:1b is strengthened by a linguistic connection. Although Luke’s remark concerning ‘those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word’ (Lk 1:2b) apparently refers to the

3 Cf. C.P. März, ‘Die theologische Interpretation der Jesus-Gestalt bei Lukas: Anmerkungen zur theologischen Intention des lukanischen Doppelwerkes’, in C. Kähler, M. Böhm, and C. Böttrich (eds.), Gedenkt an das Wort, Festschrift W. Vogler (Evangelische: Leipzig 1999), 134–149 (esp. 135 n. 7). 4 Cf. D. Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel (JSNTSup 119; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1995), 179–180; B.  Adamczewski, Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (EST 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 104–105. 5 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28; Doubleday: Garden City, NY 1981), 293; L.  Alexander, The preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary convention and social context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1993), 113.

36

Twelve,6 in Luke’s terminology it was Paul (and not, for example, Peter or John Mark) who fulfilled all the conditions of (a) spending his life from the beginning (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς + γενομεν*) among his people in Jerusalem (Acts 26:4), (b) being an eyewitness who saw (ὁράω) Jesus Christ (Acts 9:17.27; 26:16; cf. 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8), and (c) becoming a preaching servant (ὑπηρέτης) of the things which he saw (Acts 26:16; cf. 1 Cor 4:1).7 Moreover, the Lucan terminology of having seen Jesus and becoming a servant (ὑπηρέτης) of the gospel (Acts 26:16) applies not to being with Jesus during his earthly life, but to being sent by the risen Jesus Christ, whom God raised from the dead (Acts 26:8.13–16.23). The evangelist also linguistically alluded to the apostolic tradition ‘just as’ it was ‘handed on to’ his audience (καθὼς παρέδ* *μῖν) by Paul, and not by the Twelve (Lk 1:2a; cf. 1 Cor 11:2).8 This apostolic tradition, which was handed on to the Lucan audience by Paul (παρέδ* + *μῖν), particularly concerned Jesus’ resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:3–11). Precisely for these reasons, the terminology which was used in Lk 1:2b illustrates Paul’s idea of his being an apostle of Jesus Christ, whom God raised from the dead (Gal 1:1b). The subsequent appearance of the unnamed narrative ‘me’ (*μοί: Lk  1:3a; cf. Acts 1:1), which later becomes the narrative ‘we’ (Acts 16:10 etc.), finally travelling with Paul to Rome (Acts 27:1–28:16), so apparently thence recounting and writing the whole biographic story about Jesus and Paul (Lk 1:3bc; cf. Acts 1:1; 28:30–31), creates the image of Paul’s close co-worker, who was present with the Apostle and his other co-workers at the latest stage of Paul’s life, namely during his imprisonment in Rome.9 In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, it alludes to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning his unnamed co-workers, who were present with ‘me’ (ἐμοί) during his writing the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:2a), presumably from Rome (cf. οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί elsewhere

6 Cf. R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerd­ mans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2006), 123, who misleadingly suggests that Lk 1:2 corresponds ‘rather precisely’ to Acts 1:21–22. 7 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001), 25; E. K. C. Wong, Evangelien im Dialog mit Paulus: Eine intertextuelle Studie zu den Synoptikern (NTOA 89; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012), 174; B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 105. 8 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989), [vol. 1] 203. 9 Cf. É. Nodet, ‘Théophile (Lc 1,1–4; Ac 1,1)’, RB 119 (2012) 585–595 (esp. 591–592).

37

used by Paul only in Phlp 4:21),10 and participating in the recounting and writing of Paul’s biographic story about his life with Jesus Christ (Gal 1:2a; cf. 1:13–21; 4:13–15; 6:11). The subsequent datival (σοι: ‘to you’) reference to Theophilus, the presumably Gentile addressee of the narrative, whose name conveys the idea of being beloved by God (Θεό-φιλος: Lk 1:3c; cf. Acts 1:1),11 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to Paul’s subsequent datival (ὑμῖν: ‘to you’) reference to the Gentile addressees of his letter, who should enjoy grace and peace from God (θεός: Gal 1:2b-3). The subsequent remark concerning knowing the certainty of the basic teaching about Jesus (Lk  1:4), which in Luke’s terminology (*γινώσκω + ἀσφαλ*) points to Jesus as the Lord (κύριος) and the Messiah/Christ (χριστός: Acts 2:36), alludes to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning Jesus as the Lord and the Messiah/Christ (Gal 1:3). This basic pattern of sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal  1:1–3 in Lk  1:1–4 was enriched with the use of the motifs which were borrowed from prefaces to Hellenistic writings, especially the writings of Flavius Josephus.12 The use of Josephus’ writings in the Lucan Gospel13 was fully justified because Josephus was a well-known imperial propagandist ‘expert’ on Jewish matters in Hellenistic-Roman historiography around ad 80–120.14 The opening conjunction ἐπειδήπερ (‘since’: Lk 1:1a) is a more formal version of Josephus’ opening conjunction ἐπειδή (B.J. 1.1; cf. ἐπειδήπερ in a similar function in B.J. 1.17). The verb ἐπιχειρέω (‘attempt’), disparagingly used (cf. Acts 9:29; 19:13) to describe the author’s literary predecessors or rivals (Lk  1:1a; cf. Gal  1:1a),15 was

10 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 61. 11 Cf. Origen, Hom. Luc. I.6; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 26; M. C. Parsons, Luke, 55. 12 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 103–105. 13 For Luke’s use of Josephus’ writings, see B. Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (JSNTSup 215; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002), 31–34; S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (2nd edn., Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2003), 251–295; R. I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge: Santa Rosa, Calif. 2006), 158–161, 178–179, 183–185, 197. 14 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 92–96. 15 Cf. M. J. Kok, ‘The Flawed Evangelist (John) Mark: A Neglected Clue to the Reception of Mark’s Gospel in Luke-Acts?’, Neot 46 (2012) 244–259 (esp. 248).

38

probably borrowed from Josephus’ similarly formulated apologetic statements (C.Ap. 1.53, 56). The rare verb ἀνατάσσομαι (‘compose’), surprisingly used to refer to composing a previous, unsatisfactory narrative (Lk 1:1b; diff. Plutarch, Mor. 968c),16 seems to originate from a conflation of Josephus’ similarly used verbs ἀναγράφω (‘write down’: B.J. 1.1) and συντάσσω (‘compose’: B.J. 1.3, 17). The syntactically related noun διήγησις (‘account’: Lk  1:1b) seems to have likewise been borrowed from Jos. B.J. 1.1 (διήγημα: ‘story’). The use of the noun πράγματα (‘matters’) as referring to contested matters from the past, in which the author was also somehow involved (‘among us’: Lk 1:1c; cf. Gal 1:1a), is likewise typical of Josephus’ apologetic prefaces to his works (B.J. 1.1–2, 6, 9, 12–14, 16; Ant. 1.3–4; cf. also Vita 40; C.Ap. 1.6, 15, 47, 56). The apologetic statement αὐτόπται… γενόμενοι (‘having been eyewitnesses’: Lk 1:2b; cf. Gal 1:1b; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) almost verbatim reflects the similar, apologetic statement of Josephus (αὐτόπτης γενόμενος: ‘having been an eyewitness’: C.Ap. 1.55).17 The compound pronoun κἀμοί (‘also to me’: Lk 1:3a), used in a comparison with previous authors (cf. Lk 1:1), was most probably borrowed from Jos. Ant. 1.4 (cf. 1.3). This literary borrowing caused the not easily perceivable confusion in the internal (in fact censuring-commending) logic of the Lucan preface (‘Since many have attempted to compose… I also resolved to write accurately’: Lk  1:1.3),18 especially if it is compared with the rhetorically straightforward, black-and-white (censuring-correcting) logic of Josephus’ preface to his Bellum (‘Many have written, but not accurately… therefore I resolved’: B.J. 1.1–3) and to the likewise straightforward logic of the Lucan preface to the ethopoeic letter of the Jerusalem leaders (‘Many have troubled you… therefore we resolved’: Acts 15:24–25). The rather rare perfect participle active masculine singular verb form παρηκολουθηκότι (‘having followed’), as referring to following again past events, in which the author of the writing was somehow personally involved

16 Cf. L. Alexander, Preface, 110. 17 Cf. B. Shellard, New Light, 33 n. 91. 18 Cf. L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991), 27, 29–30; G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; E. J. Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1992), 341–345; L. Alexander, Preface, 115–116. It should be noted that none of the prefaces analysed by A. D. Baum, ‘Lk 1,1–4’, 35–53 contains such confused internal logic.

39

(Lk  1:3b; cf. Gal  1:2a), reflects Josephus’ similar use of this verb in C.Ap. 1.53 (παρηκολουθηκότα).19 The syntactically related adverb ἀκριβῶς (‘accurately’: Lk 1:3b) was likewise borrowed from Jos. C.Ap. 1.53 (cf. also B.J. 1.2, 6, 9, 17; Ant. 1.17).20 The vocative address form κράτιστε Θεόφιλε (‘most excellent Theophilus’), used in the preface to refer to the person to whom the writing is dedicated (Lk 1:3c), closely resembles Josephus’ similarly used vocative address form κράτιστε ἀνδρῶν Ἐπαφρόδιτε (‘most excellent among men Epaphroditus’: C.Ap. 1.1; cf. Vita 430). A similar vocative address form (without κράτιστε) was used again in the preface to the second volume of Luke’s work (Acts 1:1), just as a similar form was used again in the second volume of the work of Josephus (C.Ap. 2.1; cf. 2.196). Therefore, Luke’s address to the otherwise unknown, most excellent (κράτιστος) Theophilus, with no other specific reference to him as a particular person (Lk 1:3c; cf. Acts 1:1), most likely emulates Josephus’ address to his benefactor, most excellent (κράτιστος) Epaphroditus (C.Ap. 1.1; cf. 2.1). Luke’s particular reworking of Josephus’ dedication consisted in the use of the hypertextual procedure of internymic deviation, by substituting the entirely pagan name of Ep-aphroditus (‘named after [the goddess] Aphrodite’: C.Ap. 1.1; 2.1) with the semantically related name Theo-philus (‘beloved by God’: Lk 1:3c; Acts 1:1), which much better suited Luke’s intended audience, consisting of people believing in the graceful and peace-giving God (cf. Gal 1:3). Since Josephus repeatedly stated that the name Theophilus was used in the families of Jewish high priests (Jos. Ant. 17.78; 18.123; 19.297; 20.223),21 Luke could in this way present his writing as addressed not only to post-Pauline Gentile Christians, but also to noble Jews, who were somehow sympathetic towards Christianity (cf. Acts 5:34–39; 6:7; 23:9; 26:26–32 etc.).

1.2  Lk 1:5–12 (cf. Gal 1:4–10) The section Lk 1:5–12, with its main themes of sacrificial worship, being blameless in the time of evil, Jewish permanent worship of God, God’s grace and calling, and an angel from the Lord suddenly terrifying the believer, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:4–10. 19 Cf. B. Shellard, New Light, 33 n. 91. 20 Cf. ibid. 21 Cf. C. Heil and T. Klampfl, ‘Theophilos (Lk 1,3; Apg 1,1)’, in C. G. Müller (ed.), „Licht zur Erleuchtung der Heiden und Herrlichkeit für dein Volk Israel“: Studien zum lukanischen Doppelwerk (BBB 151; Philo: Hamburg 2005), 7–28 (esp. 24).

40

The opening statement concerning the identity of John the Baptist’s parents surprisingly presents his father as a priest and his mother as a member of the priestly clan of Aaron (Lk  1:5),22 although Josephus knew nothing about any priestly connections of John, who was active somewhere in Transjordan, in the south-eastern part of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, most probably in the region of Machaerus (Jos. Ant. 18.116–119).23 Such a presentation, by means of the rhetorical procedure of personification of an abstract idea, evokes the priestly image of sacrificial worship of God, which alludes to the idea of Jesus’ sacrifice for the sake of the believers (Gal 1:4a). The names and narrative functions of John’s priestly-prophetic parents,24 namely Zacharias as the penultimate scriptural prophet and Elizabeth as the Aaronite wife (Lk 1:5; cf. 1:67), are evidently scriptural (cf. Zech 1:1; Exod 6:23 LXX).25 The subsequent idealistic image of John’s parents as living in the evil days of Herod,26 the king of Judaea,27 and nevertheless being righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and regulations of the Lord, and being blameless (Lk 1:6; cf. 1:5a),28 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent image of the believers as being freed from sins and 22 Cf. C. G. Müller, Mehr als ein Prophet: Die Charakterisierung Johannes des Täufers im lukanischen Erzählwerk (HBS 31; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2001), 93; D. Gerber, «Il vous est né un Sauveur» La construction du sens sotériologique de la venue de Jésus en Luc-Actes (MdB 58; Labor et Fides: Genève 2008), 42. 23 Cf. É. Nodet, ‘Machéronte et Jean-Baptiste’, RB 121 (2014) 267–282 (esp. 269, 276, 281). 24 Cf. H. Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnis des Tempels: Studien zur Bedeutung des Tempelmotivs im lukanischen Doppelwerk (NTAbh, nf 36; Aschendorff: Münster 2000), 101–103 rightly notes that Zacharias and Elizabeth function in the Lucan narrative not as historical individuals, but as representative and exemplary figures. 25 Cf. G. E. Sterling, Historiography, 353; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 28. 26 It should be noted that in the Lucan Gospel, in difference to the Gospel of Matthew, Herod is not related to any events related to the birth of Jesus (cf. Lk 2:1–2: Augustus and Quirinius). In the Lucan story, the character of Herod only functions as providing a negative background to the blameless life of Zacharias and Elizabeth (Lk 1:5–6). 27 The presentation of King Herod as an evil, tyrannical ruler is particularly championed in Josephus’ Antiquitates: cf. S. Mason, Josephus and the NT, 156–157. Accordingly, in his remark concerning King Herod (Lk 1:5) Luke relied on this presentation of Herod by the Jewish historian. Matthew later considerably developed this Josephus-based idea of King Herod as an evil, tyrannical ruler (Mt 2:1–9.12–18). 28 Cf. A. Kuecker, The Spirit and the “Other”: Social Identity, Ethnicity and Intergroup Reconciliation in Luke-Acts (LNTS 444; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011), 52–53, 57; C. Blumenthal, ‘Kontinuität und Anfang bei Lukas: Göttliches Handeln an der Zeitwende’, NovT 54 (2012) 236–257 (esp. 243).

41

delivered from the present evil age, so that they might live according to the will of God (Gal 1:4b). The particular idea of the believers walking as blameless (ἄμεμπτοι) before God (ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ: Lk  1:6) is based on the scriptural image of Abram, who was called to walk as blameless before God (θεός + ἐναντίον + ἄμεμπτος: Gen 17:1 LXX).29 The description of John’s parents as having no child (τέκνον) because Elisabeth was barren (ἦν + στεῖρα), and their both being advanced in their days (προβεβηκότες + ἡμέραι: Lk 1:7; cf. 1:18) likewise reflects the scriptural image of Abram and his wife (Gen 11:30; 17:16; 18:11 LXX).30 The subsequent image of Jewish permanent worship of God, which was performed every day (ἐφημερία) according to the order of levitical and priestly divisions (Lk 1:8; cf. 1 Chr 23:6–24:19; 28:13.21 LXX etc.), and which primarily consisted in praising and confessing to the Lord (cf. 1 Chr 23:30 LXX), by means of the hypertextual procedure of narrativization illustrates Paul’s subsequent praiseful confession of glory to God as offered permanently, forever and ever (Gal 1:5). The subsequent remark concerning the otherwise unknown custom of choosing a particular priest by lot, that he might be granted the privilege of entering the sanctuary of the Lord, in difference to all other people (Lk 1:9–10; diff. 1 Chr 24:5–19: only choosing the order of priestly divisions), by means of the hypertextual procedure of narrativization illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of God’s calling the believers in grace (Gal 1:6c).31 The subsequent image of a suddenly appearing angel (ἄγγελος) of the Lord (ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος κυρίου: cf. Exod 3:2 LXX),32 standing, as Luke redundantly remarks, not in the direction of worship, but at the right side of the altar of incense, thus diverting Zacharias’ attention sideward from his calling to enter the sanctuary (Lk 1:11; diff. Lev 16:12), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that the believers were

29 Cf. K. D. Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (JSNTSup 282; T&T Clark: London · New York 2005), 73; A. Kuecker, Spirit, 55; P. Mallen, ‘Genesis in Luke-Acts’, in M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), Genesis in the New Testament (LNTS 466; T&T Clark: London · New York 2012), 60–82 (esp. 63). 30 Cf. K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 74; D. Gerber, Il vous, 40 n. 31; P. Mallen, ‘Genesis’, 63–64. 31 This intertextual link suggests that the lectio brevior χαριτι without Χριστου is original in Gal 1:6 (𝔓46vid et al.; cf. 1:15). 32 Cf. J. Rindoš, He of Whom It Is Written: John the Baptist and Elijah in Luke (ÖBS 38; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 47.

42

quickly diverted from God and his calling in grace by someone who could even resemble an angel from heaven (Gal 1:7–10). The related idea that Zacharias was terrified (ταράσσω) by the angel (Lk 1:12) linguistically alludes to Paul’s related thought that the diverters terrify the believers (Gal 1:7). The particular motif of a particular priest (ἱερ*) offering incense (θυμιάω) in the temple (ναός) and receiving there an audible divine revelation, while the whole multitude (πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος) was outside the temple (Lk 1:9–13), was borrowed from Jos. Ant. 13.282–283.

1.3  Lk 1:13–25 (cf. Gal 1:11–15b) The section Lk  1:13–25, with its main themes of revealing good news to the believer, surpassing many in Judaism, being exceedingly zealous for Jewish traditions, being separated from one’s mother’s womb, and the fathers lacking faith, in an almost consistently sequential way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:11–15b. The opening description of the angel as talking to Zacharias and revealing him good news (Lk 1:13–14; cf. εὐαγγελίζομαι: Lk 1:19)33 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of making known to the believers that the good news which he preached to them (εὐαγγελίζομαι) did not originate from humans, but through a revelation (Gal 1:11–12). The particular thought that the name of John was revealed in a special way (Lk 1:13e; cf. 1:59–63), resembling that of revealing the name of Jesus (Lk 1:31), likewise illustrates Paul’s idea of receiving a revelation through Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12c). In general, the fact that the angel Gabriel’s annunciation to Zacharias (Lk 1:11–20) is later narratively paralleled to his annunciation to Mary (Lk 1:26–38) by means of the hypertextual procedure of narrativization illustrates Paul’s idea that there is no other true gospel than that revealed through Jesus Christ (Gal 1:7.11–12). The subsequent thought that John will be great in the sight of the Lord (Lk 1:15a), predominantly in a Jewish-style way (cf. Lk 1:15b), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of his surpassing others in Judaism (Gal 1:13). Luke evidently did not want to develop here the theme of persecuting the Church (Gal 1:13bc), but rather stressed the continuity between John and Jesus (Lk 1:5–80).

33 Cf. H. Ganser-Kerperin, Zeugnis, 112.

43

The subsequent instruction that John should not drink wine or other alcoholic drink (οἶνον καὶ σίκερα + μὴ + πίνω: Lk 1:15b), which is an evident reworking of the scriptural motif of being a religiously zealous Nazirite (Judg 13:14 LXX; cf. Num 6:2–4; Judg 13:4.7),34 by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that he advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his nation, being more exceedingly zealous for Jewish traditions (Gal 1:14). The subsequent promise that John will be filled with the Holy Spirit (cf. Judg 13:25; Sir 48:12 LXX)35 even from his mother’s womb (ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ: Lk 1:15c; diff. Judg 13:5 LXX: ἀπὸ τῆς κοιλίας) linguistically, in an almost verbatim way, alludes to Paul’s statement that God set him apart from his mother’s womb (ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου: Gal 1:15b). The image of John as turning many (πολλούς) Israelites, presumably weaker than him in faith, to God (Lk 1:16) again illustrates Paul’s statement that he advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his nation (Gal 1:14a). The subsequent image of John as resembling the scriptural, zealous, powerful prophet Elijah, together with the scriptural motif of his turning the heart of the father to the children (ἐπιστρέψαι + καρδία + πατήρ: Lk 1:17ab; cf. Sir 48:10 LXX; cf. also Mal 3:24[23] LXX),36 which was somewhat surprisingly reworked by Luke to use the plural form ‘fathers’ (πατέρες: Lk  1:17b; diff. Sir  48:10; Mal 3:24[23] LXX), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that he was exceedingly zealous, apparently like the prophet Elijah (ζηλ*: cf. 1 Kgs 19:10.14; Sir 48:2 LXX), for the traditions of his fathers (pl. πατρικῶν: Gal 1:14b). The non-scriptural, added thought that in his Elijah-like zeal John will turn the disobedient to the mind of the righteous (Lk 1:17c) seems to allude to Paul’s thought that in his zeal for Judaism he was persecuting the Church (Gal 1:13).

34 Cf. K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 90; J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 50–51; S. Uytanlet, Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography: A Study on the Theology, Literature, and Ideology of Luke-Acts (WUNT 2.366; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014), 52. 35 Cf. H. Klein, Das Lukasevangelium (KEK 1/3; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2006), 89. 36 Cf. M.  Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 80; K. Pfremmer De Long, Surprised by God: Praise Responses in the Narrative of LukeActs (BZNW 166; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2009), 153; J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 53–54, 63.

44

The scriptural name of Gabriel (Lk 1:19c) was borrowed from Dan 8:16; 9:21 LXX,37 but his self-presentation (ἄγγελος + ἐγώ εἰμι + proper name + παρίστημι + ἐνώπιον + God + ἀποστέλλω: Lk 1:19cd) reflects the self-presentation of Raphael (Tob 12:14–15 S).38 Luke’s choice of the scriptural character of Gabriel rather than that of Raphael was most probably motivated by Gabriel’s role as announcing the future of the whole people of Israel (Dan 8:15–26; 9:20–27),39 and not just helping a few people. The announcement that John’s father will be mute (σιωπάω) and will not be able to speak (δύναμαι + λαλῆσαι) because he did not believe (Lk  1:20; cf. Dan  10:15–17 LXX),40 although he was a righteous and blameless man (cf. Lk 1:6), seems to allude to Paul’s idea that the Jewish traditions of his fathers did not lead him to true faith (Gal 1:14b; cf. 1:15–16). The related thought that Zacharias saw a vision (ὁράω + ὀπτασία: Lk 1:22) was probably borrowed from Dan 10:7–8 θ’. The concluding thought that the wife conceived (συλλαμβάνω) a son and that the Lord took away her disgrace (ἀφαιρέω + ὄνειδος: Lk 1:25) is likewise scriptural (cf. Gen 30:23 LXX).41

1.4  Lk 1:26–38 (cf. Gal 1:15c–16a) The story about Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary (Lk  1:26–38), with its main themes of a city in the north, being called by grace, and revealing God’s Son in a human person, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:15c-16a. The sophisticated literary technique of biographic juxtaposition of two correlated scenes of Gabriel’s annunciation to Zacharias (Lk 1:5–25) and to Mary (Lk 1:26–38), with the addition of a shorter scene comparing (syncrisis) the two characters of John and Jesus (Lk  1:39–45),42 seems to have been borrowed by 37 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 28. 38 Cf. F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 1 (EKKNT 3/1; Benzinger: Zürich and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989), 59. 39 Cf. J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 71. 40 Cf. G. Rossé, Il Vangelo di Luca: Commento esegetico e teologico (3rd edn., Città Nuova: Roma 2001), 44 n. 32. 41 Cf. K. Pfremmer De Long, Surprised, 168, 170; J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 72; F. Mickiewicz, Ewangelia według św. Łukasza, vol. 1 (NKBNT 3/1; Święty Paweł: Częstochowa 2011), 104. 42 Cf. G. Nassauer, ‘Gegenwart des Abwesenden: Eidetische Christologie in Lk 1.39–45’, NTS 58 (2012) 69–87 (esp. 71); S. Artyushin, Raccontare la salvezza attraverso lo sguardo: Portata teologica e implicazioni pragmatiche del «vedere Gesù» nel Vangelo di Luca

45

Luke from Plutarch’s Βίοι παράλλελοι (Vitae parallelae). Since the Gospel of Luke was evidently written later than the Gospel of Mark, which was in turn composed after the works of Josephus, so c. ad 100–110 or even later, c. ad 130–135,43 then it is quite plausible that Luke, who must have written his Gospel c. ad 120–140,44 knew the works of Plutarch, who was active c. ad 60–120. The opening remark concerning Nazareth, which was surprisingly presented as a city (πόλις: diff. Mk  1:9) in the northern country of Galilee (Lk  1:26; cf. 2:4.39; 4:29),45 notwithstanding the fact that such a toponym was not even mentioned by Josephus, who very well knew all towns of Galilee,46 by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation alludes to Paul’s remark concerning his calling (Gal 1:15c), which took place in the well-known northern city of Damascus (cf. Gal 1:17c; Acts 9:3.6). The Lucan version of the name of Nazareth (Ναζαρέθ: Lk 1:26; 2:4.39.51; Acts 10:38) seems to be a Hebraizing correction of the Marcan name Ναζαρέτ (Mk 1:9). The motif of a virgin betrothed to a man (παρθένος ἐμνηστευμένη ἀνδρί), a virgin who was supposed not to have sexual relationships with men yet (Lk 1:27; cf. 1:34), was borrowed from Deut 22:23–24 LXX (cf. Deut 20:7).47 The motif of Jesus’ origin from the house of David (Lk 1:27; cf. 1:32; 2:4; 3:31; Acts 13:32–33) is evidently post-Pauline (cf. Rom 1:3; Mk 10:47–48).48 Accordingly, the scriptural, but on the other hand typically Israelite (northern) name

43 44

45 46

47 48

46

(TGST 203; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2014), 45–48; T. Frauenlob, Die Gestalt der Zwölf-Apostel im Lukasevangelium: Israel, Jesus und die Zwölf-Apostel im ersten Teil des lukanischen Doppelwerks (FB 131; Echter: Würzburg 2015), 46–47. Cf. B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 110 n. 12, 158 n. 140, 202 n. 17. Cf. C. Mount, Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (NovTSup 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 168 (suggesting the date ‘sometime before about ad 130’). For a similar recent dating of Acts, see e.g. R. I. Pervo, ‘Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists’, in T. E. Phillips (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Acts (Mercer University: [s.l.] 2009), 29–46 (esp. 46, suggesting the date c. ad 110–130). Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 48; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 96. Cf. C. Böttrich, ‘Was kann aus Nazaret gutes kommen? Galiläa im Spiegel der Jesusüberlieferung und bei Josephus’, in C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (eds.), Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.–28. Mai 2006, Greifswald (WUNT 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 295–333 (esp. 321 n. 120, 323–324). Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 343; L. T. Johnson, Luke, 36. Cf. A. T. Lincoln, ‘Luke and Jesus’ Conception: A Case of Double Paternity?’, JBL 132 (2013) 639–658 (esp. 640–641).

of Joseph (Lk  1:27; cf. 2:4.16; 3:23) reflects the idea of Jesus’ scriptural origin (Rom 1:3 etc.), but also that of his being the deliverer of all Israel (Rom 11:26; cf. Mk 6:3; Lk 3:30 etc.). Likewise, the Lucan version of the name of Mary (Μαριάμ: Lk 1:27.30.34.38–39.46.56; 2:5.16.19.34; Acts 1:14; cf. Lk 10:39.42), which evokes the name of Miriam, the sister of Moses (Exod 6:20; 15:20–21 LXX etc.),49 is a scripturalized correction of the Marcan name Μαρία (Mk 6:3; cf. 15:40.47; 16:1). The subsequent image of the angel as surprisingly calling Mary by the word ‘favoured with grace’ (χαριτόω: Lk 1:28; cf. 1:29),50 which is later explained as referring to her having found favour/grace (χάρις) with God (Lk 1:30; cf. Gen 18:3 LXX etc.: εὑρίσκω + χάριν),51 in a post-Pauline way (cf. εὐδοκία + χάρις + χαριτόω: Eph 1:5–6)52 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that it pleased God (εὐδοκέω) to call him through his grace (χάρις: Gal 1:15c). The angel’s greeting formula: ‘The Lord is with you’ (κύριος μετὰ σου: Lk 1:28) is scriptural (cf. Judg 6:12 LXX).53 The subsequent revelation concerning Mary’s conceiving in her womb and bearing God’s Son (υἱός: Lk 1:31–32.35) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transsexuation (in this case, feminization) illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that God revealed his Son in Paul’s human person (Gal  1:16a). This statement was further elaborated by Luke according to the scheme of the double identity of Jesus as God’s Son (υἱός: Rom 1:3), as it was explained by Paul in Rom 1:3–4.54

49 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 344; K. Schiffner, Lukas liest Exodus: Eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme ersttestamentlicher Befreiungsgeschichte im lukanischen Werk als Schrift-Lektüre (BWANT 9.12; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2008), 219–220, 260; F. S. Spencer, Salty Wives, Spirited Mothers, and Savvy Widows: Capable Women of Purpose and Persistence in Luke’s Gospel (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2012), 67. 50 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20 (WBC 35A; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1989), 50; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 88. 51 Cf. A. Denaux, ‘The Theme of Divine Visits and Human (In)hospitality in Luke-Acts: Its Old Testament and Graeco-Roman Antecedents’, in J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts (BETL 142; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1999), 255–279 (esp. 274); K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 99; D. Gerber, Il vous, 62 n. 36. 52 It is possible that the Letter to the Ephesians was used in the Gospel of Luke, just as the Letter to the Colossians had earlier been used in the Gospel of Mark: cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 67, 95, 97–98. 53 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 346; K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 98–99; D. Gerber, Il vous, 63. 54 Cf. W. Radl, Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Kommentar, vol. 1 (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2003), 57–58.

47

The scriptural thought that behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb and bear a son, ‘and you will call his name N.’ (ἰδού + ἐν γαστρί + καί + τίκτω + υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ: Lk 1:31; cf. Is 7:14 LXX; cf. also Gen 16:11; 17:19; Judg 13:3.5 LXX),55 a thought which originally referred to the Davidic dynasty, together with the scriptural promises that Jesus will be great (μέγας), son (υἱός) of the Most High, to whom the Lord (κύριος) God will give the throne (θρόνος) of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας), so that of his kingdom (βασιλεία) there will be no end (Lk  1:32–33; cf. 2 Sam 7:8–16 LXX etc.)56 reflect Paul’s statement concerning the identity of Jesus as born of the royal seed of David according to the flesh (Rom 1:3).57 The idea of Jesus’ being born of a virgin, without the participation of her husband (Lk 1:34; cf. 1:27.31), is a reworking of the Pauline idea of Jesus’ being born of a woman, with no mention of a fleshly father (Gal 4:4). On the other hand, the subsequent declaration concerning Jesus as the supernatural (cf. Lk 1:34), holy (ἅγιον) Son of God (υἱὸς θεοῦ), thanks to the activity of the holy Spirit (πνεῦμα ἅγιον) and of God’s power (δύναμις: Lk 1:35; cf. 1:37),58 reflect Paul’s subsequent reference to the identity of Jesus as declared to be Son of God (υἱὸς θεοῦ) with power (δύναμις) according to the Spirit of holiness (πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης) by the supernatural resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4).59

55 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 346–347; O. Mainville, ‘Le messianisme de Jésus: Le rapport annonce / accomplissement entre Lk 1,35 et Ac 2,33’, in J. Verheyden (ed.), Unity, 313–327 (esp. 321); K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 77. 56 Cf. J. Schröter, ‘Heil für die Heiden und Israel: Zum Zusammenhang von Christologie und Volk Gottes bei Lukas’, in C. Breytenbach, J. Schröter, and D. S. Du Toit (eds.), Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift E. Plümacher (AJEC 57; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2004), 285–308 (esp. 289); K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 94–96; D. Gerber, Il vous, 84–85. 57 Cf. M. L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology (JSNTSup 110; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1995), 88–92. 58 The lack of articles before πνεῦμα ἅγιον and δύναμις ὑψίστου in Lk 1:35 is somewhat surprising: cf. C. Clivaz, ‘Beyond the Category of “Proto-Orthodox Christianity”: An Enquiry Into the Multivalence of Lk 1.35)’, in C. Clivaz, A. Dettwiler, and L. Devillers [et al.] (eds.), Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities (WUNT 281; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 161–186 (esp. 164–166). However, it can be explained in terms of reworking of the similarly anarthrous πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης and δύναμις + θεός in Rom 1:4. 59 Cf. M. L. Strauss, Davidic, 90–92.

48

The presentation of the Levitical character of Elisabeth (cf. Lk 1:5) as a relative of the character of Mary (Lk 1:36)60 conveys the Lucan idea of some priestly elements in the predominantly royal messianic identity of Jesus (cf. Lk 3:24.29; cf. also Acts  1:15.26; 4:35 etc.). The statement that nothing will be impossible with God (ἀδυνατέω + παρά + θεός + ῥῆμα), which refers to God’s causing a miraculous conception of a son by an elderly woman (Lk 1:37), is a reworking of the thematically and linguistically similar rhetorical question Gen 18:14 LXX.61 The concluding self-presentation of Mary as a slave (δούλη) of the Lord (Lk 1:38) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transsexuation alludes to the self-presentations of Paul as a slave (δοῦλος) of Christ Jesus (Rom 1:1; Gal 1:10; Phlp 1:1).

1.5  Lk 1:39–80 (cf. Gal 1:16b–17) The section Lk 1:39–80, with its main themes of going to the mountain country in the south, but not to Jerusalem, to preach there good news in a way understandable to the Gentiles, and then returning to the home city in the north, in an almost consistently sequential way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:16b-17. The opening, pleonastic remark that Mary arose (ἀνίστημι: Lk 1:39a),62 which evokes the idea of supernatural resurrection (ἀνίστημι: cf. 1 Thes 4:14.16; Lk 8:55; 9:8.19; 16:31; 18:33; 24:7.46 etc.), in a graphic way illustrates Paul’s statement that he did not confer with flesh and blood (Gal 1:16b), that is with the perishable human realm which cannot take part in the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:50). The related, narratively redundant chronological remark that Mary’s rising happened ‘in those days’ (ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις: Lk 1:39a),63 as though she had been waiting for several days before rising, which is quite strange in the context of her later acting with haste (Lk 1:39b), probably also alludes to the three days

60 According to Lk 1:27; 2:4; 3:31, it was Joseph who was of the house and family of David, so that Jesus could be presented as commonly held to be born of the seed of David according to the flesh (Lk 1:31–33; cf. Rom 1:3; Lk 3:23). Cf. A. T. Lincoln, ‘Luke’, 640–641. 61 Cf. K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 101; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 118; P. Mallen, ‘Genesis’, 64 n. 12. 62 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 362; M. Zugmann, ‘Lukas liest LXX: Septuaginta-Rezeption und -Mimesis des dritten Evangelisten’, PzB 23 (2014) 41–63 (esp. 56–57). 63 Cf. I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Paternoster: Carlisle and William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1979), 79.

49

between Jesus’ death and resurrection (cf. Lk  24:18), and consequently to the Pauline idea of not conferring with flesh and blood (Gal 1:16b). The likewise superfluous remark that after the annunciation Mary went with haste (μετὰ σπουδῆς: Lk 1:39b), which conveys the idea of acting immediately (cf. εὐθὺς μετὰ σπουδῆς: Mk  6:25), illustrates Paul’s related thought that after the revelation which he had received, he acted immediately (εὐθέως: Gal 1:16b). The subsequent statement that Mary went from Galilee (cf. Lk 1:26) southward to a city of Judah, which was evidently not the city of Jerusalem (Lk 1:39b; diff. 2:22.25.41–45 etc.), by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that he departed from Damascus southward (Gal  1:17b; cf. 1:17c), but he did not go up to Jerusalem (Gal  1:17a). For the same reason, the surprising topographical remark concerning a city of Judah (πόλις + Ἰούδα: Lk  1:39b),64 and not, as was typical of Luke, Judaea (Ἰουδαία: Lk 1:5.65; 2:4 etc.), alludes to the scriptural lists of the cities of Judah (πόλις + Ιουδα: Josh 15:21–62; 21:9–16; cf. Judg 17:8 LXX), in which Jerusalem was not included (Josh 15:63; cf. Judg 1:8.21 LXX). Thus, it additionally illustrates Paul’s thought concerning his going south, but not to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17a). The related, narratively superfluous, geographical remark that Mary went to the mountain country (ὀρεινή: Lk 1:39b) by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his going to the mountain country of Arabia (Gal 1:17b). Luke was aware of the fact that for Paul Arabia was mainly known not as the location of a wilderness (diff. Ezek 47:8 LXX etc.), but as the location of the mountain (ὄρος) of Sinai (Gal 4:25). Therefore, Luke could illustrate Paul’s statement concerning going to Arabia with the use of the idea of going to the mountain country (ὀρεινή: Lk 1:39b; cf. Josh 11:21; 15:48–60 LXX etc.). On the other hand, Luke clearly avoided presenting Jesus and the Twelve as travelling outside the land of Israel (cf. the correction of the location of the Gerasene episode in Lk 8:26.39; the omission of Mk 6:45–8:26; the avoidance of mentioning Antioch in Acts 12:17 etc.). Therefore, Luke kept the extent of Mary’s journey southward within the confines of the land of Israel. Consequently, he presented Mary as travelling not to Arabia, but to the southern territory of Judah (Lk 1:39b). The image of greeting Elisabeth, with the effect of her being filled with the Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα ἅγιον), crying out with a loud voice, confessing Jesus as her Lord (κύριος), and joyfully blessing Mary as the one who believed (πιστεύσ*): 64 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 363.

50

all these things doing in response, as it is repeatedly stressed in the text, only to the sound of the orally pronounced words audibly reaching both Elisabeth and the baby in her womb (Lk 1:40–45),65 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of orally preaching good news (Gal 1:16b), presumably concerning Jesus as the Lord (cf. 1 Thes 1:3 etc.), believed and confessed as such on the basis of oral preaching (cf. Rom 10:8–9) with the assistance of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 12:3). The related statement that Mary entered the house of Zacharias, but surprisingly greeted the woman Elisabeth, and not the male host, the Jewish priest Zacharias (Lk 1:40),66 by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transsexuation illustrates Paul’s related idea that he preached good news to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16b), presumably living in Arabia (Gal 1:17b), and not to the Jews (Gal 1:16c-17a). The particular motif of a female hero being blessed among women (εὐλογέω + ἐν γυναιξίν: Lk 1:42c) was borrowed from Judg 5:24 LXX (cf. Jdt 13:18).67 Mary’s hymn of praise (Lk 1:46–55), in its thematic flow, which starts from God’s grace to the person of Mary (Lk 1:46–49), then passes through God’s dealing with other humble people in the world (Lk  1:50–53), and only thereafter comes to God’s dealing with Israel (Lk 1:54–55),68 illustrates Paul’s thought that after the revelation given to him (cf. Gal 1:16a) he preached good news to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16b.17b), and not to the Jews (Gal 1:16c–17a). The particular motif of status reversal,69 which concerns hungry people as opposed to mighty kings (Lk 1:50–53), additionally illustrates Paul’s idea of preaching good news to the poor Arabians, living in the wilderness (cf. Deut 2:4–8), and not to the Jews with their royal city of Jerusalem, who were hitherto favoured by God (Gal 1:16b–17b). The idea of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles was additionally elaborated by

65 Cf. G. Nassauer, ‘Gegenwart’, 74–75; S. Artyushin, Raccontare, 59–61. 66 Cf. F. S. Spencer, Salty, 76. 67 Cf. J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 1997), 96; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 72; K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 102. 68 Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 43; H. J. Sellner, Das Heil Gottes: Studien zur Soteriologie des lukanischen Doppelwerks (BZNW 152; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2007), 23–24; D. Gerber, Il vous, 53. 69 Cf. C. M. Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics: A Study in Their Coherence and Character (WUNT 2.275; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010), 102–107; R. J. Dillon, The Hymns of Saint Luke: Lyricism and Narrative Strategy in Luke 1–2 (CBQMS 50; Catholic Biblical Association: Washington 2013), 38–45; D. Marguerat, ‘Meals in Acts’, in id., Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters (WUNT 310; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 148–161 (esp. 156).

51

Luke with the use of his favourite motif of the Gentiles who fear God (θεός + φοβέομαι: Lk 1:47.50; cf. Acts 10:2.22; 13:16.26 LXX).70 Extensive use of scriptural motifs in Lk 1:46–55 (cf. Ps 69[68]:31; Deut 10:21; Ps 89[88]:2; Gen 42:18; Jdt 13:18; Deut 26:8; Ps 89[88]:11; Jdt 9:3; Ezek 21:31; Ps 107[106]:9; Gen 31:42; Is 41:8–9; Ps 98[97]:3; Gen 17:3.7–8.22–23; 13:15 LXX etc.),71 especially those of feminine prayer and praise (cf. 1  Sam 1:11; 2:1–10; Gen 30:13 LXX),72 is fairly evident. The narratively superfluous statement concerning Mary’s remaining about (!) three (τρεῖς) months in the south (Lk 1:56a), in Judaea (cf. Lk 1:39), with the result that she surprisingly did not help Elisabeth at her giving birth (γεννάω: Lk 1:57; cf. 1:56b),73 by means of the hypertextual procedure of temporal translation illustrates Paul’s idea of his remaining apparently three years (cf. Gal 1:18a) in the south, in Arabia (Gal 1:17b), presumably with no great evangelistic success, that is no ‘giving birth’ (cf. 1 Cor 4:15; Phlm 10) there. The subsequent statement concerning Mary’s returning to (καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς) her home (Lk 1:56b), which was located in the northern ‘city’ of Nazareth (cf. Lk 1:26), by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of his returning to (καὶ… ὑπέστρεψα εἰς) his home city in the north, namely to the city of Damascus (Gal 1:17c).74 The remark concerning Elisabeth’s Jewish joyful, believing neighbours and relatives (συγγενής: Lk  1:58; cf. Rom  9:3; 16:7.11.21) introduces the allusive, idealistic presentation of the life of the Jewish Christian believers in Judaea,

70 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 82; H. J. Sellner, Heil, 30; R. J. Dillon, Hymns, 28–29. 71 Cf. K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 105–109. 72 Cf. K. Pfremmer De Long, Surprised, 168–170; M. Bauspieß, Geschichte und Erkenntnis im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu einer christlichen Perspektive auf Geschichte (ABG 42; Evangelische: Leipzig 2012), 317, 319; R. J. Dillon, Hymns, 23–26, 33. 73 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1 (BECNT; Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994), 161; G. Rossé, Luca, 74; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 84. 74 It should be noted that the idea that Paul was born in the city of Tarsus, which was well known in antiquity as a place of good education (cf. Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.13–15), was only later introduced by Luke in Acts (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3). Cf. M. S. Enslin, ‘Luke, the Literary Physician’, in D. E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Festschrift A. P. Wikgren (NovTSup 33; E. J. Brill: Leiden 1972), 135–143 (esp. 138–141). In the Marcan allusion to Damascus as the main hero’s home city (Mk 2:1; cf. Gal 1:17c), this idea was not yet present. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 51 n. 68.

52

especially Cephas (cf. Gal 1:18b), between Paul’s return to Damascus (Gal 1:17c) and his going up to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18a). The scriptural phrase ‘the Lord magnified his mercy’ (μεγαλύνω + κύριος + ἔλεος: Lk 1:58b; cf. Ps 57[56]:10–11 LXX) illustrates the scriptural way of praising God by the Jewish Christian community, especially by Cephas (cf. Gal 1:18b), in a way which was idealized by Luke, namely as being open to the idea of the evangelization of the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:18c; Ps 57[56]:10 LXX). The related idea of hearing (ἀκούω) and rejoicing (συγχαίρω) with the formerly barren woman at what the Lord (κύριος) made to her (Lk 1:58) was borrowed from Gen 21:6 LXX.75 The scriptural idea of circumcising (περιτέμνω) the child on the eighth day (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ: Lk 1:59a-c; cf. Gen 17:14; Lev 12:3 LXX)76 illustrates the importance of the Mosaic law for the Jewish Christian community. On the other hand, the repeatedly stressed thought that the newborn son should be differing from his cognates and be prophetically called (καλέω) John (Lk 1:60–63; cf. 1:13e.76),77 which means ‘Yahweh has been gracious’, alludes to Paul’s idea of being prophetically separated from his mother’s womb and being called by God’s grace (Gal 1:15bc; cf. Jer 1:5 LXX). In this way, it balances the idea of strict adherence to the Mosaic law and its stress on being circumcised (Lk 1:59a-c; cf. Gal 5:2–4b etc.) with the typically Pauline idea of the importance of grace (Lk 1:59d-63; cf. Gal 5:4c etc.). Thus, it again alludes to the positive attitude of Peter to Paul (cf. Gal 1:18bc; cf. later Acts 15:11). It should be noted that Josephus knew nothing about any particular significance of John’s name. For the Jewish historian, it was interesting that John was surnamed ‘immerser’ (Jos. Ant. 18.116). Against this background, Luke’s stress on calling the boy by a special name is particularly striking, and consequently it requires an adequate explanation.78 The presentation of Zacharias as passing from writing (γράφω) to blessing (εὐλογ*) God (Lk  1:63–64; cf. 1:68) illustrates the Pauline idea of the passage from the written law to spiritual faith and blessing in the manner of Abraham (Gal 3:1–14 etc.), and consequently it can also allude to the favourable attitude of Peter towards Paul and his theology (Gal 1:18bc). The related idea of people 75 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 108; C. G. Müller, Mehr, 126; T. Muraoka, ‘Luke and the Septuagint’, NovT 52 (2012) 13–15 (esp. 15). 76 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 380; L. T. Johnson, Luke, 45; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 92. 77 Cf. K. A. Kuhn, ‘Deaf or Defiant? The Literary, Cultural, and Affective-Rhetorical Keys to the Naming of John (Luke 1:57–80)’, CBQ 75 (2013) 486–503 (esp. 501–502). 78 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 85.

53

placing in their hearts the things (τὰ ῥήματα + ἔθεντο + ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν) which were commonly said about a future Jewish hero (Lk 1:65–66) is scriptural (cf. 1 Sam 21:13 LXX).79 On the other hand, the evidently abbreviated (zeugmatic) statement that the man’s mouth and, surprisingly, tongue were opened, so that he spoke (ἀνοίγω + καί + γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐλάλει: Lk 1:64),80 was borrowed from Mk 7:35. Zacharias’ hymn of praise (Lk 1:68–79), clearly differing from that of Mary (cf. Lk  1:46–55) in its reversed thematic flow, which starts from blessing the scriptural God of Israel and proclaiming the fulfilment of the oath which God swore to Abraham (Lk 1:68–75) and concludes with the idea of God’s mercy to Israel and also to the Gentiles (Lk 1:76–79),81 illustrates Paul’s idea of the spiritual blessing promised to Abraham and concerning also the Gentiles (Gal 3:8–9.14 etc.). Accordingly, by means of the rhetorical technique of ethopoeia, it creates an idealized image of the Jewish Christian community, especially of Peter (cf. Gal 1:18b), as stressing the importance of the scriptural prophets (and not of the law; cf. Rom 1:2) and as being open to the idea of the evangelization of the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:18c). Zacharias’ hymn of praise (Lk  1:68–79) was evidently composed with the use of numerous scriptural motifs (cf. 1 Kgs 1:48; Exod 4:31; Ps 18[17]:3; 1 Chr 17:24; Ps 106[105]:10; Lev 26:42; Gen 26:3; Ps 18[17]:1; Wis 9:3; Josh 6:13; Is 40:3; Ps 102[101]:20; 107[106]:10; 40[39]:3 LXX etc.).82 The concluding motif of a child (παιδίον) growing (αὐξάνω) and living in the wilderness (ἔρημος: Lk 1:80) is also scriptural (cf. Gen 21:20 LXX).83

1.6  Lk 2:1–40 (cf. Gal 1:18–21) The section Lk  2:1–40, with its main themes of going up from the city in the north to Judaea and to Jerusalem, unwelcome reception in Judaea, lodging with positively presented shepherds related to flocks, completing a certain number of days in Judaea, briefly seeing a righteous messianic slave related to Israel’s tribes

79 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 80; G. Rossé, Luca, 77 n. 152; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 110. 80 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 102. 81 Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 48; A. Kuecker, Spirit, 61–67; R. J. Dillon, Hymns, 56–57. 82 Cf. M. L. Strauss, Davidic, 98–107; J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 79–97; F. G. Lang, ‘Abraham geschworen – uns gegeben: Syntax und Sinn im Benediktus (Lukas 1.68–79)’, NTS 56 (2010) 491–512 (esp. 504–510). 83 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 242.

54

in the diaspora, and returning to the northern country with its ‘city’, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:18–21. The opening remark concerning the reason for going up to Judaea, namely being compelled by Gentile political authorities (Lk  2:1–3),84 alludes to Paul’s reason for going up to Judaea (Gal 1:18a), namely being compelled by Gentile political authorities (2  Cor 11:32–33).85 The particular, in fact historically implausible remark concerning a ruler of Syria as involved in compelling people to go up from the northern country of Galilee (which was under the rule of Herod the Great and then of Herod Antipas) to Judaea (Lk 2:2–3.5)86 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s remark concerning a ruler in the Syrian city of Damascus as involved in compelling Paul to go up from the northern country of Syria to Judaea (2 Cor 11:32–33; Gal 1:18a). This narrative Lucan reworking of the Pauline reason to go up to Judaea (2  Cor 11:32–33; Gal  1:18a) caused the well-known chronological problem of the time of the rule of Quirinius in Syria (Lk 2:2), who according to Josephus was sent there after the deposition of Herod’s son Archelaus, so in ad 6/7 (Jos. Ant. 17.355; 18.1–2.26; 20.102; cf. B.J. 2.433; 7.253), but according to Luke he officiated there during the reign of King Herod, so before 4 bc (cf. Lk 1:5a).87 As was already noticed, Luke’s presentation of the birth of Jesus as taking place in the time of Herod (Lk 1:5a) had a purely intertextual function, illustrating the idea of living blamelessly in an evil time (cf. Gal 1:4b). The same refers to the Lucan remark concerning the census under Augustus and Quirinius (Lk 2:1–3), 84 Cf. S. Schreiber, Weihnachtspolitik: Lukas 1–2 und das Goldene Zeitalter (NTOA 82; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009), 78–79. 85 The otherwise surprising persecution of Paul in the Syrian city of Damascus by the ethnarch of the Nabataean king Aretas (2 Cor 11:32) was evidently caused by the Apostle’s earlier activity in Arabia (Gal 1:17b), which was ruled by that Nabataean king. Therefore, after three years spent in Arabia and in Damascus (Gal 1:17), having been forced to escape from that city (2 Cor 11:33), Paul finally resolved to visit Jerusalem for the first time after his calling (Gal 1:18a). Luke later reworked the same connection of events in Acts 9:23–26, substituting the ethnarch of King Aretas (2 Cor 11:32) with ‘the Jews’ (Acts 9:23). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 45–46, 58–60, 94–95, 110. 86 Cf. S. Mason, Josephus and the NT, 276; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 162. 87 Cf. S. Mason, Josephus and the NT, 275; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 132–133. Cf. also J. Lambrecht, ‘“In Those Days” (Luke 2,1): A Reply to Michael Wolter’, ETL 87 (2011) 419–423 (esp. 420–422).

55

which in fact illustrates the reason for Paul’s going from the country in the north to Judaea, as caused by Gentile political authorities (Gal 1:18a). Nevertheless, Luke seems to have been aware of the ensuing chronological discrepancy in his narrative. Therefore, in order to conceal it, he changed the Roman name of Quirinius (Κυρίνιος), as it was attested in Josephus’ writings (Jos. B.J. 2.433; 7.253; Ant. 17.355; 18.1–2.26.29; 20.102), to the artificial one of Cyrenius (Κυρήνιος: Lk  2:2), which resembles the toponymic form Cyrenian (Κυρηναῖος: Lk 23:26; Acts 6:9; 11:20; 13:1; cf. Mk 15:21).88 The surprisingly used motif of the first one among several Augustan censuses in the whole Roman Empire (Lk 2:1–2a) was most probably borrowed by Luke from the writings of Suetonius. If Luke in his story relied on the official presentation of Augustus’ life,89 he would have known that the first Augustan census took place in 28 bc (cf. Res gest. divi Aug. 8), so much earlier than the narrated time of the Lucan account.90 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Luke in his story relied on the writings of Suetonius, who only stated that Augustus had conducted three censuses of Roman citizens in the whole empire, without giving any precise dates for them (censum tamen populi ter egit, primum ac tertium cum collega, medium solus: Suetonius, Aug. 27.5).91 On the other hand, the motif of the census (ἀπογραφή) taken by Quirinius in Judaea (Lk  2:2; cf. Acts  5:37) was borrowed by Luke from the writings of Josephus (Jos. B.J. 7.253; Ant. 18.3; cf. B.J. 2.433; Ant. 17.355; 18.1–2.26; 20.102). From the works of this Jewish historian, Luke knew about the only one Roman census which took place in Judaea, namely ‘the census’ (ἡ ἀπογραφή), which was conducted by Quirinius and which triggered the revolt of Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37; cf. Jos. B.J. 2.433; Ant. 20.102).92 Accordingly, the allusions to the Pauline ideas contained in Gal  1:4b and Gal  1:18a adequately explain the well-known chronological problem of the Lucan dating of the first Augustan census (Lk 2:1–2a [28 bc]) and the census

88 Luke was evidently capable of practising this type of the hypertextual procedure of internymic deviation, as can be seen in his coining of the artificial name Σαῦλος (Acts 7:58 etc.) as a neologistic mid-term between the Roman name Παῦλος (1 Thes 1:1; Acts 13:9 etc.) and the scriptural name Σαουλ (1 Sam 9:2 etc.). 89 Cf. J. Moles, ‘Luke’s Preface: The Greek Decree, Classical Historiography and Christian Redefinitions’, NTS 57 (2011) 461–482 (esp. 472). 90 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 120–121. 91 This fact implies that the Lucan Gospel was written after the work of Suetonius, so c. ad 120 or later. 92 Cf. S. Mason, Josephus and the NT, 276–277; R. I. Pervo, Dating, 158–160.

56

under Quirinius (Lk  2:2 [ad 6/7]) to the time of Herod, the king of Judaea (Lk 1:5 [before 4 bc]). The idea of going up (ἀναβαίνω) from the alleged ‘city’ in the north to a city in Judaea (Lk 2:4), and then to Jerusalem (εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα: Lk 2:22), by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and spatial translation illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his going up (ἀνέρχομαι) from the city in the north, namely Damascus, to Jerusalem (εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα: Gal 1:18a). The motif of Jesus’ origin from the house of David (Lk 2:4; cf. 1:27.32; 3:31; Acts  13:32–33) is evidently post-Pauline (cf. Rom  1:3; Mk  10:47–48).93 Luke narratively elaborated this motif (Lk 2:4–7a.11.15) with the use of the scriptural motifs of Bethlehem (Βηθλέεμ) as the city of David (πόλις + Δαυίδ: 1  Sam 16:1–13; 20:6.28 LXX)94 and the originating ‘house’ (οἶκος) of the messianic ruler of Israel, who was predicted to be born (τίκτω) of a heavily pregnant woman at her appointed time (Mic 5:1–2 LXX).95 The motif of a woman giving birth to her firstborn son (υἱός + πρωτότοκος: Lk  2:7a) was borrowed from Gen  25:24–25 LXX,96 most probably in order to allude to the Pauline motifs of Christ as the Son and as the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29; cf. Col 1:15.18). Otherwise, the Lucan stress on the fact that Jesus was Mary’s firstborn son (Lk 2:7a) would be redundant against the background of the previous use of the motif of a virgin giving birth to a son (Lk 1:27.31; cf. Is 7:14 LXX). The narratively superfluous, surprisingly repeated motif of the mother having wrapped the newborn son in swaddling clothes (σπαργανόω: Lk 2:7), so that he would subsequently be recognized by others (cf. Lk 2:12), was borrowed from Euripides’ Ion, in which it is likewise repeated as the key motif of unexpected recognition in the course of the tragedy (Ion 955; cf. 32, 918, 1351, 1490, 1598). By means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality Luke reworked the classical set of characters: god’s son Ion, his mother Creusa, and his apparent human father Xuthus into his own set of characters: God’s Son Jesus, his mother 93 Cf. A. T. Lincoln, ‘Luke’, 640–641. 94 Cf. M.  Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 124; K.  D.  Litwak, ‘A Coat of Many Colors: The Role of the Scriptures of Israel in Luke 2’, in T. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 3, The Gospel of Luke (LNTS 376; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 114–132 (esp. 116); F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 162. 95 Cf. M. L. Strauss, Davidic, 09–112; K. D. Litwak, ‘Coat’, 116; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 162. 96 Cf. J.  Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 105; J.  B.  Green, Luke, 128; F.  Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 163.

57

Mary, and his apparent human father Joseph. In this way, Luke explained the idea of God’s Son being born as a messianic child of a virgin (Lk 1:27.31.34–35; cf. Rom 1:3; Is 7:14 LXX) in a way which was understandable to the Greeks,97 thus alluding to the arrival of the Apostle to the Nations, bearing God’s Son in himself (cf. Gal 1:16ab), from the realm of the Gentiles (Gal 1:18a; cf. 1:17c). The surprising idea that Jesus was laid in a manger (cf. Lk  2:12.16), because there was no place for them in the guest room (κατάλυμα: Lk 2:7cd; cf. Mk 14:14),98 in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s idea that he was generally not welcomed by the apostles in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 1:19a). In contrast to this general lack of hospitality, the subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced characters of shepherds (ποιμήν: Lk 2:8–20), who were keeping watch over their flock (ποίμνη) at night (Lk 2:8),99 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality allude to the subsequently mentioned character of Cephas/Peter (Gal 1:18b), who in the ethopoeic letter attributed to him was presented as an elder who encouraged other elders to shepherd (ποιμαίνω) the flock (ποίμνιον) willingly and eagerly, as good shepherds (*ποίμην) do (1 Pet 5:2–4). Likewise, the somewhat surprising, repeatedly highlighted link between the shepherds and the newborn babe (βρέφος: Lk  2:12.16; diff. Lk  2:17.27.40: παιδίον) alludes to the epistolary, ethopoeic character of Peter as referring to newborn babes (1 Pet 2:2). Similarly, the repeatedly highlighted link between the shepherds and the saying (ῥῆμα: Lk 2:15.17; cf. 2:19) of the Lord (κύριος: Lk 2:15), which was announced to them as good news (εὐαγγελίζομαι: Lk 2:10), reflects the similar link in the ethopoeic letter attributed to Peter (1 Pet 1:25). Accordingly, the positively presented characters of shepherds, who received a biblical-style revelation (Lk 2:9; cf. Exod 3:1–2 LXX etc.), which contained the gospel (εὐαγγελ*) for the people of Israel (Lk 2:10) and concerned the Davidic 97 Cf. T. E. Phillips, ‘Why Did Mary Wrap the Newborn Jesus in “Swaddling Clothes”? Luke 2.7 and 2.12 in the Context of Luke-Acts and First-Century Literature’, in S. Walton [et al.] (eds.), Reading Acts Today, Festschrift L. C. A. Alexander (LNTS 427; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011), 29–42 (esp. 32–35); J. D. M. Derrett, ‘Oracles, Myth, and Luke’s Nativity Story’, NovT 54 (2012) 258–268. 98 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 107; J. B. Green, Luke, 128–129. Pace S. C. Carlson, ‘The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7’, NTS 56 (2010) 326–342, all pertaining texts (Mk 14:14; Lk 9:12; 19:7; 22:11) refer to being a guest in the house of someone else. 99 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 113. Cf. also M. Wolter, ‘Die Hirten in der Weihnachtsgeschichte (Lk 2,8–20)’, in id., Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und Lukas (WUNT 236; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 355–372 (esp. 368–370).

58

Messiah (Lk 2:11),100 but which was also open to the Gentiles (Lk 2:12–14) of goodwill (εὐδοκία: Lk 2:14; cf. Phlp 1:15; 2:13; 2 Thes 1:11),101 allude to the positively presented character of Cephas (Gal 1:18b), who was keen for the scriptural tradition (cf. Gal 2:12c-f) and for preaching the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) to the circumcised (cf. Gal 2:7–8), but who also accepted the Pauline idea of the evangelization of the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:8–9.12b.14de). The narrative presentation of the shepherds as the only ones in Bethlehem who resolved to get to know Jesus (Lk 2:15–19) illustrates the Pauline presentation of Cephas as the only one in Jerusalem who resolved to get to know Paul (Gal 1:18b). The subsequent, repeatedly used, chronological motif of a certain number of days, namely eight (ἡμέραι ὀκτώ: Lk 2:21; diff. Lk 1:59; Lev 12:3 LXX: τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ) and forty, as completed in Judaea (Lk 2:21–22; cf. Lev 12:2–4),102 by means of the hypertextual procedure of temporal translation alludes to Paul’s subsequent chronological remark concerning fifteen days (ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε) as spent by him in Jerusalem (Gal  1:18c). Moreover, these and the following references to the law (νόμος) of Moses and of the Lord (Lk  2:22–24.27.39; cf. Exod 13:2; Lev 5:11; 12:8 LXX)103 illustrate the Pauline thought that Christ was born under the law (Gal 4:4). The subsequent account of seeing (ὁράω: Lk 2:26.30),104 although only briefly (Lk 2:26.29), a righteous and devout man in Jerusalem (Lk 2:25–35; cf. 2:22–24) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent remark concerning briefly seeing James, the righteous Jewish Christian in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19b). Luke depicted the features of James by means of the rhetorical procedure of ethopoeia. The scriptural name of Simeon (Συμεών: Lk  2:25.34; cf. Gen  29:33 LXX etc.),105 which was related to one of the twelve tribes of Israel that were dispersed during its history (cf. Gen 49:7 LXX etc.), as well as the remarks that

Cf. M. L. Strauss, Davidic, 113–117; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 171. Cf. A. Kuecker, Spirit, 68; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 173. Cf. K. D. Litwak, ‘Coat’, 119–120; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 179. Cf. D. Kotecki, ‘Księga Kapłańska w Nowym Testamencie’, ColT 80 (2010) no. 4, 135–154 (esp. 136–138); K. D. Litwak, ‘Coat’, 120–121; A. García Serrano, The Presentation in the Temple: The Narrative Function of Lk 2:22–39 in Luke-Acts (AnBib 197; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012), 163–165, 169–170, 255. 104 The motif of seeing is crucial in the story Lk 2:25–35. Cf. S. Artyushin, Raccontare, 81–84. 105 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 136.

100 101 102 103

59

Simeon was righteous (δίκαιος) and that he looked forward for a consolation of Israel (Lk 2:25; cf. 2:32),106 illustrate the main features of James, as they were presented in the ethopoeic letter attributed to him, namely as interested in the fate of the twelve tribes of Israel in dispersion (Jas 1:1; cf. Συμεών: Acts 15:14) and in righteousness (δικαιο*: Jas 1:20; 2:21–25; 3:18; 5:6.16). Likewise, the fact that the character of Simeon was interested in seeing the Messiah of the Lord (Χριστός + κύριος: Lk 2:26)107 and that he referred to himself somewhat vaguely as a slave (δοῦλος) of the Master (Lk  2:29) alludes to James’ ethopoeic self-presentation as a slave of both God and the Lord Jesus, the Messiah (Jas 1:1).108 The statement that Jesus is destined (κεῖμαι + εἰς) to cause an internal soteriological division in Israel (Lk 2:34c) alludes to Paul’s similar description of the divisive effects of his evangelistic activity among Roman Christians, who were largely influenced by Jewish Christianity (Phlp  1:15–17). Likewise, the understanding of the evangelistic activity as meeting opposition (ἀντιλέγω: Lk 2:34d) in Luke’s post-Pauline terminology (cf. Rom 10:21) mainly refers to Jewish opposition against the proclamation of the gospel, especially the gospel which was preached by Paul (Lk 20:27; Acts 4:14; 13:45; 28:19.22).109 Similarly, the idea of the thoughts of the hearts (διαλογισμός + καρδία: Lk 2:35b) in the Lucan Gospel mainly refers to Jewish Christian leaders (Lk 9:46–47; 24:38; cf. 3:15). Therefore, Simeon’s predictions (Lk 2:34–35) narratively depict the ambivalent attitude of Jewish Christians towards Paul’s evangelistic activity (cf. Acts 21:20–25). The related character of Anna (Lk 2:36–38) with the use of the Lucan preferred male-female gendered pattern110 complements the Lucan image of Israelite believers briefly meeting Jesus in the Jerusalem temple, thus again, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, alluding to some members of the

106 Cf. H. Ganser-Kerperin, Zeugnis, 123–125. 107 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 427; M. L. Strauss, Davidic, 117. 108 The motif of James’ interest in the scriptural name of Simeon (Συμεών), the fulfilment of prophecies concerning restoration (ἀνα*) in Israel, the Davidic Messiah, and the glory of the people (λαός) of Israel among the nations (ἔθνη: Lk 2:25–27.31–32.34) was later developed in Acts 15:14–17. 109 Cf. G. Wasserberg, Aus Israels Mitte – Heil für die Welt: Eine narrativ-exegetische Studie zur Theologie des Lukas (BZNW 92; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998), 146–147; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 142; R. J. Dillon, Hymns, 134. 110 Cf. A. García Serrano, ‘Anna’s Characterization in Luke 2:36–38: A Case of Conceptual Allusion?’, CBQ 76 (2014) 464–480 (esp. 475).

60

Jerusalem community, but not the apostles, as briefly meeting Paul somewhere in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19b). The ethopoeic features of Anna, namely bearing an Israelite name (Ἅννα: cf. 1 Sam 1:2–25 LXX);111 being a female prophet; being associated with Penuel, the place of Jacob-Israel’s meeting God (cf. Gen 32:29.31–32);112 representing Israel’s northern lost tribe of Asher (cf. 2 Chr 30:11;113 cf. also the southern lost tribe of Simeon in Lk 2:25–35);114 living 7 years with the husband since her virginity, thereafter being a widow, now being 12 times 7 years old,115 so symbolically embodying the main periods of Israel’s initially glorious and then tragic history up to the ‘fullness of time’ (cf. Gal  4:4);116 Israelite-style worshipping God with fastings and prayers night and day (cf. Acts 26:7);117 and looking for the redemption of Jerusalem (Lk  2:36–38; cf. 2:25)118 illustrate the prophetic idea of Israel’s ‘remnant’ (Rom 11:1–5), which was regarded by Paul as a sign of hope for salvation of all Israel, brought by the Deliverer who would come out of Zion to Jacob (Rom 11:26). The Lucan image of Anna as a believing widow (χήρα: cf. Lk  7:12; 18:3.5; Acts 6:1; 9:39.41), who was really a widow, who had been the wife of one man (ἀνδρός), who was more than sixty years old (ἐτῶν + *ήκοντα), and who continued in prayers (δεήσεις) night and day (νύξ + καί + ἡμέρα: Lk 2:36–37), is likewise post-Pauline (cf. 1 Tim 5:3.5.9;119 cf. also 1 Cor 7:8.34).

111 112 113 114 115

116 117 118 119

Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 430; D. Ravens, Luke, 46. Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 260; A. García Serrano, ‘Anna’s Characterization’, 468. Cf. F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 190–192. Cf. S. Butticaz, ‘Lk 1–2: Auftakt einer tragischen Geschichte? Christliche Identität im Gespräch mit Israel’, in C. Clivaz, A. Dettwiler, and L. Devillers [et al.] (eds.), Infancy, 328–350 (esp. 342). The roughly contemporary texts 4 Ezra 14:11; 2 Bar. 27:1–15; 53:6.11 also present 12 time-units, presumably ‘weeks’ (cf. 2 Bar. 28:2), as preceding the final redemption of Israel. Cf. D. Dimant, ‘4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature’, in M. Henze, G. Boccaccini, and J. M. Zurawski (eds.), Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall (JSJSup 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 31–61 (esp. 46–47). Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 261; A. García Serrano, ‘Anna’s Characterization’, 470–472. Cf. H.  Ganser-Kerperin, Zeugnis, 127–128; M.  Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 144; A. García Serrano, ‘Anna’s Characterization’, 472 n. 36. Cf. A. García Serrano, ‘Anna’s Characterization’, 476–479. Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 260; D. Ravens, Luke, 46; G. Rossé, Luca, 103 n. 110.

61

The subsequent idea of returning, after finishing the matters in Judaea, to the northern region of Galilee and to the home ‘city’ of Nazareth (Lk 2:39) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and spatial translation illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of his returning, afterward, to the northern region of Syria, so presumably to his home city of Damascus, and to Cilicia (Gal 1:21; cf. 1:17c), which in Luke’s presentation was the location of the home city of the Apostle (cf. Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3; 23:34). The related, pedagogic image of the child (παιδίον) as growing, becoming strong, and being filled with wisdom (σοφία: Lk 2:40; diff. Lk 1:80)120 likewise illustrates the period of the Apostle’s remaining for some time in Cilicia (Gal 1:21), so according to Luke’s description of Paul’s life in the city of Tarsus (Acts 9:30–11:25), which was well known in antiquity as a place of good education (παιδεία), especially studying philosophy (φιλοσοφία: cf. Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.13–15).

1.7  Lk 2:41–52 (cf. Gal 1:22–24) The section Lk  2:41–52, with its main themes of the main hero disappearing from the sight of the believers in Judaea, his having caused great pain to the believers in Judaea, and the Jews hearing the matters related to faith in Jesus’ resurrection after three days, in a partly sequential way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:22–24. The fact that the Pauline sequence of themes in Gal 1:22–24 was only partly preserved in Lk 2:41–52 mainly results from the presence of temporal retrospections in Gal 1:23. The opening remark concerning Jesus’ parents as going every year to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover (Lk 2:41; cf. 2:42b) seems to present them as obedient to the Mosaic law (cf. Gal  4:4; Lk  2:22–24.27.39). However, if Luke really wanted to present them as fulfilling the precepts of the law, he would have described them as going to Jerusalem three times a year, for the three main festivals described in the Pentateuch (cf. Deut 16:1–17 etc.).121 Therefore, the remark concerning the particular festival of the Passover (ἡ ἑορτή + πάσχα) has yet another narrative and intertextual function. It proleptically points to the similar Lucan remark concerning the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Lk 22:1). Thus, it narratively introduces the motif of being unseen for three days (Lk 2:46), which likewise alludes to Jesus’ death and resurrection (cf. Mk 8:31; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:3–7.21.46; Acts 9:9 etc.). Consequently, this remark (Lk 2:41), 120 Cf. Origen, Hom. Luc. XVIII.2. 121 Cf. B. Heininger, ‘Familienkonflikte: Der zwölfjährige Jesus im Tempel (Lk 2,41–52)’, in C. G. Müller (ed.), Licht, 49–72 (esp. 61).

62

by pointing to the main contents of the Pauline preaching (cf. 2  Cor 5:15; Rom 8:34 etc.), allusively refers to the Apostle’s statement concerning the faith which was preached by him (Gal 1:23c). The narratively superfluous remark concerning Jesus’ being twelve years old (Lk 2:42a) is in fact quite strange. In Judaism of Jesus’ times, the age of twenty was considered a threshold to adult life: in social, marital, and religious terms (cf. 1QSa 1:8–11). Josephus tells a similar story about himself being praised by high priests because of his exact knowledge of the laws when he was only around fourteen years old (Vita 9).122 Moreover, before the time of the composition of the Lucan Gospel there is no attestation of the Jewish religious initiation ceremony of bar mitzvah for boys at the age of thirteen.123 Therefore, the Lucan remark concerning Jesus’ being twelve years old (ἐτῶν δώδεκα: Lk  2:42a) evidently has a symbolic meaning. Similarly to Mk  5:42 (cf. Lk 8:42), which illustrates the idea of Jesus’ resurrection, as it was preached by Paul to the Gentiles and reported to the believers and leaders in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 2:2b-d),124 this remark points to the main contents of the faith which was preached by Paul in Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:23c; cf. 1:21), as it was reported in Israelite terms to the Judaean believers (Gal 1:23a). The statement concerning Jesus’ staying behind in Jerusalem, away from his parents, in such a way that Jesus’ parents did not know (negation + ἔγνωσαν: Lk 2:43) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and spatial translation illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his being unknown (ἀγνοούμενος) by sight to Christ’s believers in Judaea (Gal  1:22). The repeatedly stressed fleshly relationship between Jesus and his Jewish relatives (Lk 2:41.43–44.48) alludes to Paul’s remark concerning the churches of Judaea which are in Christ, that is in the fleshly, Jewish Messiah (Gal 1:22; cf. Rom 1:3). The subsequent account of Jesus’ Jewish relatives searching for him (ἀναζητέω: Lk 2:44–45) in the Lucan terminology alludes to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning the Jewish believers somehow searching for news concerning him in Syria 122 For literary remarks concerning extraordinary wisdom of some famous persons in the age of twelve, see W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 136; B. S. Billings, ‘“At the Age of 12”: The Boy Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41–52), the Emperor Augustus, and the Social Setting of the Third Gospel’, JTS, ns 60 (2009) 70–89 (esp. 73–75). 123 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 155 n. 6; B. Heininger, ‘Familienkonflikte’, 62 n. 45. In fact, it can be argued that the later Jewish idea of a religious initiation ceremony for boys at the age of thirteen emerged under the influence of the Lucan account concerning the religious activity of Jesus at the age of twelve. 124 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 79.

63

and Cilicia (Gal 1:23a; cf. Acts 11:25). The narrative description of this searching as consisting, somewhat surprisingly, in going first northward from Jerusalem among Jewish travellers (Lk 2:44; cf. 2:51) and then returning southward to Jerusalem (Lk 2:45) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the thought that the Jews, who must have travelled from Judaea northward to Syria and Cilicia, brought news concerning Paul from Syria and Cilicia back to Jerusalem (Gal 1:23a). The presentation of the searching for Jesus as for some time causing great pain to his parents (Lk 2:44–45; cf. 2:48) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s subsequent remark that he was formerly persecuting the believers in Judaea (Gal 1:23b). The subsequent idea of Jesus’ being found after three days (μετὰ ἡμέρας τρεῖς) of being unseen (Lk 2:46ab; cf. 24:3–7.10) evidently alludes to Jesus’ rising after three days (cf. μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας: Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).125 Consequently, by pointing to the main contents of the Pauline preaching (cf. 1 Thes 4:14; 1 Cor 15:4), this idea allusively refers to Paul’s subsequent statement concerning the faith which was preached by him (Gal 1:23c). The story about the twelve-year-old child (παῖς) Jesus’ (cf. Lk 2:43) meeting in the Jerusalem temple with the teachers, presumably of the law (cf. Lk  5:17; Acts  5:34), so that all (πάντες) were amazed at his understanding (σύνεσις) and answers (Lk 2:46c–47), is an emulating reworking of Josephus’ story about himself as a fourteen-year-old child (ἀντίπαις) who was praised by all (πάντες) understanding (συνίημι) high priests and Jerusalem leaders, when he was questioned by them, because of his exact knowledge of the laws (Jos. Vita 9). However, in difference to that didactic story, Luke surprisingly highlighted the fact that Jesus was listening (ἀκούω) and asking (Lk  2:46de), and the Judaeans were hearing (ἀκούοντες) Jesus (Lk 2:47b),126 presumably for three days (cf. Lk 2:46a). This thought, which was not borrowed from Josephus, illustrates Paul’s statement that the Judaeans were hearing the matters concerning Paul’s preaching of the gospel (Gal 1:23a.c), presumably especially those related to Jesus’ resurrection on the third day (cf. 1 Cor 15:4). For this reason, the remark that people were astonished (ἐξίστημι: Lk 2:47a) linguistically points to the idea of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. Mk 2:12; Mk 5:42 par. Lk 8:56; Lk 6:48–51; Lk 24:22; Acts 12:7–16).

125 Cf. L.  T.  Johnson, Luke, 59, 61–62; P.  N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 36 n. 55; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 204. 126 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 148.

64

The retrospective reproach of Christ’s Jewish believers, namely that he was formerly causing them great pain (Lk 2:48c-f; cf. 2:44–45), in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s similarly retrospective remark that he was formerly persecuting the believers in Judaea (Gal 1:23b.d). The motif of necessity (δεῖ) to be in the matters of Jesus’ Father (Lk  2:49) originates from the Gospel of Mark (Mk 8:31; cf. Lk 9:22; 17:25; 24:7.26.44–46). The motif of the Jewish disciples’ incomprehension, pointing to the fact that they did not understand (οὐ + συνῆκαν) what Jesus spoke to them (Lk 2:50; cf. 18:34; Acts 7:25), is also Marcan (Mk 6:52; cf. 8:17.21). On the other hand, the motif of being subject to the superior authority of the parents (Lk 2:51c) is post-Pauline (Rom 13:1.5; cf. 1 Pet 5:5). The subsequent motif of the main hero’s (αὐτοῦ) parent as keeping (διατηρέω) in the heart (ἐν + καρδίᾳ) the matters (ῥῆμα) concerning the son’s greatness (Lk 2:51d; cf. 2:19; cf. also 24:8) is scriptural (cf. Gen 37:11; Dan 7:28 LXX).127 Thus, it illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that in him the Jewish believers glorified God, presumably in a scriptural way (δοξάζω + θεός: Gal  1:24; cf. Exod 15:1–2.11 LXX etc.), which was also presumably hesitant and concealed (cf. Gal 2:4.12; Acts 21:20–21). The concluding, didactic motif of Jesus’ coming back to (ἔρχομαι + εἰς) the northern ‘city’ of Nazareth (Lk 2:51b) and increasing there in wisdom (σοφία: diff. Lk 1:80) and in years, and in grace with God and humans (Lk 2:52; cf. 2:40) again alludes to Paul’s statement concerning his coming back for a presumably lengthy stay to the northern regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21), that is, according to Luke’s presentation of Paul’s life, back to the city of Tarsus (Acts 9:30–11:25), which was well known in antiquity as a place of good education, especially studying philosophy (φιλοσοφία: cf. Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.13–15).

1.8  Lk 3:1–2a (cf. Gal 2:1) The section Lk 3:1–2a, with its main themes of things happening in the fifteenth year, as well as mentally passing from the whole world to Jerusalem rulers, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:1. The opening chronological remark concerning things which happened in the fifteenth year (ἔτος: Lk 3:1a) by means of the hypertextual procedure of temporal translation illustrates Paul’s opening chronological remark concerning things which happened after fourteen years (Gal 2:1a), that is presumably in the fifteenth year.

127 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 156 n. 53.

65

In fact, the apparently historically reliable Lucan remark that the activity of John the Baptist began ‘in the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius’ (Lk  3:1a) is in fact almost certainly unhistorical. As can be deduced from Jos. Ant. 18.116–119, the execution of John the Baptist in the Transjordanian fort of Machaerus took place by the time of Herod Antipas’ war against Aretas in that region, so c. ad 36.128 Since according to the Jewish historian some Jews saw a connection between the destruction of Herod Antipas’ army and the death of John the Baptist (Jos. Ant. 18.116), not only the place, but also the time of John’s activity and imprisonment must have been close to that of Antipas’ war against Aretas. People would hardly have interpreted Antipas’ defeat as a divine punishment for killing John the Baptist if John had been killed more than five years before that war.129 Likewise, since the Baptist’s activity was regarded by the ruler as politically very dangerous (Jos. Ant. 18.118), it almost certainly could not last for 7–8 years, and therefore it could not start as early as in ad 28–29. Accordingly, the Lucan chronological remark ‘in the fifteenth year’ (Lk 3:1a) should be explained not in historical, but in intertextual terms, as a reworking of the semantically corresponding Pauline chronological remark ‘after fourteen years’ (Gal 2:1a).130 The subsequent list of rulers, which starts with Emperor Tiberius, the Gentile ruler of the whole Roman world (Lk  3:1a; cf. 2:1), and ends with Annas and Caiaphas, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (Lk 3:2a),131 by means of the hypertextual procedure of form-change illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement concerning his coming from the mission among the Gentiles, which was carried out in the whole Roman world, symbolized by Titus with his Roman and Emperorrelated name, to Jerusalem, with its Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:1; cf. 2:2d–f). Most probably in order to illustrate the idea of the plurality of Jewish Christian leaders (cf. Gal  2:2d), Luke introduced the surprising idea of two Jewish 128 Pace É. Nodet, ‘Machéronte’, 274, who in his early dating of the execution of John the Baptist relies on the evidently harmonizing, Christian additions to Josephus’ Bellum in its Slavonic version. 129 Cf. W. Eckey, Das Markusevangelium: Orientierung am Weg Jesu: Ein Kommentar (2nd edn., Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008), 228; B. Mahieu, Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and His Sons in Their Struggle for Recognition: A Chronological Investigation of the Period 40 BC-39 AD With a Time Setting of New Testament Events (OLA 208; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 415; B. Adamczewski, Mark, 15, 36, 42–43, 84–85. 130 Consequently, this Lucan remark is irrelevant for reconstructing the absolute chronology of the life of the historical Jesus. 131 Cf. J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 103–104; K. Yamazaki-Ransom, The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative (LNTS 404; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 77–79.

66

high priests, Annas and Caiaphas, apparently officiating at the same time as one high priest (Lk 3:2a; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.34–35).132 Most probably in order to conceal the difference between his remark (Lk 3:2a) and Jos. Ant. 18.34–35, Luke by means of the hypertextual procedure of internymic deviation changed the name of the high priest Ananos (Ἄνανος: Jos. Ant. 18.26, 34, 95 etc.) to Annas (Ἅννας: Lk 3:2a).133 However, the surprising idea of two Jewish high priests officiating at the same time (Lk 3:2a) was later artificially justified by Luke in Acts 4:6,134 and thereafter also artificially explained in Jn 18:13. The full title ‘Pontius Pilate’ (Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος: cf. Acts  4:27; diff. Mk  15:1– 15.43–44), as well as the name of his office of the governor of Judaea (ἡγεμ* + τῆς Ἰουδαίας: Lk  3:1b) were most probably borrowed from Jos. Ant. 18.35, 55 (cf. also 1 Tim 6:13). Likewise, the very rare verb ‘be tetrarch’ (τετρααρχέω: Lk  3:1c-e) was borrowed from Jos. B.J. 2.178 as referring to Herod in Galilee (Lk 3:1c) and from Jos. B.J. 3.512 as referring to Philip in Trachonitis (Lk 3:1d). Similarly, the name of Trachonitis (Τραχωνῖτις) as that of the tetrarchy of Philip (Lk 3:1d) was most probably borrowed from Jos. Ant. 17.189; 18.237; 20.138. For the same reason, the statement concerning Lysanias (Λυσανίας) as the tetrarch of Abilene (Ἀβιληνή: Lk 3:1e) originates from Josephus’ remarks concerning Lysanias as the ruler of Abila (Ἄβιλα: Jos. Ant. 19.275)135 and Lysanias as the tetrarch of Abella (Ἀβέλλα: Jos. Ant. 20.138). Luke surprisingly placed the tetrarchs Philip and Lysanias together (Lk 3:1de; diff. Jos. Ant. 15.92: Lysanias was killed by Mark Antony) because they were also mentioned together in Jos. Ant. 18.237; 20.138.136

1.9  Lk 3:2b (cf. Gal 2:2a) The section Lk 3:2b, with its main theme of receiving a private revelation, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:2a. The non-Marcan presentation of the activity of John the Baptist as resulting from his having received a particular private revelation (ἐγένετο ῥῆμα θεοῦ ἐπὶ

132 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 155–156. 133 It should be noted that Luke similarly, and for similar reasons, changed the name of Quirinius to Cyrenius (Lk 2:2). 134 Cf. S. Mason, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2009), 355. 135 Cf. id., Josephus and the NT, 282–283. 136 Cf. R. I. Pervo, Dating, 161.

67

Ἰωάννην: Lk 3:2b; diff. Mk 1:4a: ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of his having received a particular private revelation (Gal 2:2a). Luke stylistically elaborated this Pauline idea with the use of the well-known Septuagintal model referring to the prophet Jeremiah (ἐγένετο + ῥῆμα + θεοῦ + ἐπί + the name of the prophet + τὸν + the name of the prophet’s father: cf. Jer 1:1 LXX;137 cf. also Gen 15:1; 1 Sam 15:10; 2 Sam 7:4; 1 Kgs 17:2.8 LXX etc.). This particular scriptural model could have been suggested to the evangelist by Paul’s autobiographical presentation of his calling (Gal  1:15.16b) in scriptural terms alluding to the autobiographical presentation of the calling of the prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5 LXX).138 Moreover, because of the linguistic use of the model of the private revelation given to Jeremiah, who dwelt in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin (ἐν Αναθωθ ἐν γῇ Βενιαμιν: Jer 1:1 LXX), the Marcan phrase ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (‘in the wilderness’), which originally solely referred to the place of John’s activity (Mk  1:4b), was surprisingly used by Luke as referring to the place of the prophet’s permanent dwelling (Lk 3:2b),139 as though John for 30 years, during his whole childhood, youth, and adulthood, dwelt in the wilderness (cf. Lk 1:80).

1.10  Lk 3:3–11 (cf. Gal 2:2bc) The section Lk 3:3–11, which presents that which was preached to all flesh as also preached to the Jewish crowds, in a reversed, but chronologically corresponding way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:2bc. The first part of this section, which describes John’s preaching (κηρύσσω) salvation to all flesh (Lk  3:3–6), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of his preaching the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2c), which in fact occurred before his communicating the gospel to the Jewish Christians (cf. Gal 2:2b). In difference to Mark, who presented John as baptizing and preaching in the wilderness (Mk 1:4), so that the Jews came to him to the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Luke presented John as coming from the wilderness, in which he had formerly received a private revelation (cf. Lk  3:2b), to all the region around the Jordan

137 Cf. W.  Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 147; M.  Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 156; K.  YamazakiRansom, Roman, 77. 138 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 39. 139 Cf. J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 110.

68

(Lk 3:3a).140 The non-Marcan phrase ‘all the region around the Jordan’ (πᾶσαν [τὴν] περίχωρον τοῦ Ἰορδάνου: Lk  3:3a; diff. Mk  1:4ab) was borrowed by Luke from the scriptural text describing the region of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 13:10–11 LXX).141 In this way, by means of the allusion to the scriptural motif of evil and sinful people who lived as Gentiles (cf. Gen 13:12–13 LXX), Luke illustrated Paul’s idea of his activity among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2c). The related post-Marcan statement concerning John’s preaching (κηρύσσω) a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: Lk 3:3b; cf. Mk 1:4c)142 illustrates Paul’s idea of his preaching the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2c). In the Lucan theology, the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Lk 3:3b) was addressed to all nations, but beginning from Jerusalem, so in continuity with the spiritual heritage of Israel (cf. Lk 24:47; Acts 5:37). The Lucan quotation from Is 40:3–5 LXX differs from the similar quotation in Mk 1:2–3 not only in the corrective elimination of its non-Isaian part (Mk 1:2bc) and in the change of its narrative location to that clearly illustrating the preceding statement concerning John’s preaching (Lk 3:4–6; diff. Mk 1:2–3),143 but also in the addition of the fragment concerning ‘all flesh’ as seeing the salvation of God (Lk 3:5–6; cf. Is 40:4.5b LXX).144 In this way, it further illustrates Paul’s idea of his preaching the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal  2:2c),145 which in Luke’s theology always begins from preaching to the Jews (Lk 3:4–5).

140 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 123; J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 110–112; M. E. Fuller, ‘Isaiah 40.3–5 and Luke’s Understanding of the Wilderness of John the Baptist’, in T. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation, vol. 3, 43–58 (esp. 52). 141 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 156; J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 112. 142 Cf. T. Schramm, Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (SNTSMS 14; Cambridge University: London · New York 1971), 35; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 166; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 156. 143 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 154, 157. 144 Cf. P. Mallen, The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts (LNTS 367; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 70; R. B. Hays, ‘The Liberation of Israel in Luke-Acts: Intertextual Narration as Countercultural Practice’, in R. B. Hays, S. Alkier, and L. A. Huizenga (eds.), Reading the Bible Intertextually (Baylor University: Waco, Tex. 2009), 101–117 (esp. 105); M. Zugmann, ‘Lukas’, 45–47. 145 Cf. C. G. Müller, ‘“Nicht in einer Ecke” (Apg 26,26): Anmerkungen zum universalen Horizont des lukanischen Erzählwerks’, in Z. Godlewski (ed.), Przemawiaj do nich moimi słowami, Festschrift R. Rumianek (Stampa: Warszawa 2007), 413–443 (esp. 422–423) [also in id., Lukas als Erzähler und Charakter-Zeichner: Gesammelte Studien zum lukanischen Doppelwerk (HBS 69; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2012), 53–102

69

The second part of the section, which presents John’s preaching as directed to the Jewish crowds (Lk 3:7–11), illustrates Paul’s idea of his communicating the gospel to the Jewish Christians (Gal 2:2b), which in fact occurred after his preaching the gospel among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:2c). The surprising, narratively unprepared thought that crowds came out (ἐκπορεύομαι) to John, with no clue as to their place of origin (Lk 3:7b),146 is of course post-Marcan (cf. Mk 1:5a),147 just as is the statement that the crowds were baptized by John (βαπτίζω + ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ: Lk 3:7c; cf. Mk 1:5b).148 John’s speech to the crowds (Lk 3:7d-11) is evidently directed mainly to the Jews (esp. Lk 3:8).149 On the other hand, it contains typically Pauline ideas, which were in an almost consistently sequential way borrowed from the Letter to the Romans: (a) the Jews trying to escape (*φεύγω) God’s judgment (Lk 3:7e; cf. Rom 2:3);150 (b) God’s future wrath (ὀργή) coming upon the Jews (Lk 3:7e; cf. Rom 2:5.8;151 3:5; 4:15; cf. also 1 Thes 2:16); (c) the Jews being called to repentance (μετάνοια), which should be demonstrated in doing (ποι*) good deeds (Lk 3:8a; cf. Rom 2:4.7.13); (d) the Jews in vain appealing to their Abrahamic circumcision and to Abraham (Ἀβραάμ) as their father (πάτ*: Lk  3:8b-d; cf. Rom  2:25.27–28; 4:1–2.9–10); (e) new children (τέκνα) of the father (πατήρ) Abraham (Ἀβραάμ), brought into being from dead stones through faith in God’s power (δυνα*) to raise (ἐγείρω) from the dead (Lk 3:8e-g; cf. Rom 4:11–12.16–25; 9:7–8);152 (f) all unfruitful trees,

146 147

148 149 150 151 152

70

(esp. 71–73)]; E. V. Dowling, ‘“To the Ends of the Earth”: Attitudes to Gentiles in LukeActs’, in D. C. Sim and J. S. McLar (eds.), Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (LNTS 499; Bloomsbury: London [et al.] 2013), 191–208 (esp. 193); J. Smit, ‘The Function of the Two Quotations from Isaiah in Luke 3–4’, in B. J. Koet, S. Moyise, and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition, Festschrift M. J. J. Menken (NovTSup 148; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 41–55 (esp. 51). Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 127 n. 32; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 164. Cf. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 35; F. Neirynck, ‘The Reconstruction of Q and IQP / CritEd Parallels’, in A. Lindemann (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (BETL 158; Leuven University: Leuven and Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Sterling, Va. 2001), 53–147 (esp. 82); H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 160 n. 8. Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Reconstruction’, 82. Cf. Origen, Hom. Luc. XXIII.1; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 161. The image of a viper (ἔχιδνα) fleeing from (ἀπό) fire (πυρ*: Lk 3:7; cf. 3:9) is typically Lucan because it was also used in a completely different context in Acts 28:3. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 40. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 465; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 41. The metonymic depiction of the realm of death as related to stones (λίθοι: Lk 3:8) is also post-Pauline (2 Cor 3:7; cf. Mk 5:5; 15:46; 16:3–4).

presumably with their branches, both Jewish and Gentile, threatened to be cut off (ἐκκόπτω) from their Israelite root (ῥίζα [surprisingly used in singular]:153 Lk 3:9; cf. Rom 11:16–22);154 and (g) doing (ποιέω) good by sharing (μεταδίδωμι) material things, including food, with those who are poor (Lk 3:10–11; cf. Rom 12:8.20; 15:26), in this way bearing material fruits (καρπός) of spiritual conversion (cf. Lk 3:8; Rom 15:27–28). In fact, the Letter to the Romans as a whole presents Paul’s Gentile gospel in Jewish terms in the prospect of his journey to Jerusalem. Therefore, Luke sequentially used its main ideas in Lk 3:7d–11 to illustrate the content of Paul’s gospel which was preached among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:2c), just as it was communicated by the Apostle, presumably in terms used in that letter, to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2b).

1.11  Lk 3:12–13 (cf. Gal 2:2d–f) The section Lk 3:12–13, with its main theme of declaring the gospel to the Jewish social elite, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:2d–f. The account of John’s preaching to tax collectors, who came to be baptized (βαπτισθῆναι) and asked what they should do (τί ποιήσωμεν: Lk  3:12–13), is evidently related to the preceding account of John’s preaching to the crowds, who also came to be baptized and asked what they should do (Lk 3:7–11). However, in difference to that preceding account, Lk 3:12–13 depicts John as preaching no more widely to the Jewish crowds, but in a more particular way to the social elite, namely to tax collectors. In this way, Lk 3:12–13 illustrates Paul’s idea of his communicating the gospel no more in public to all Jerusalemites (cf. Gal 2:2bc), but in private to the Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:2d–f). The allusive presentation of the Jewish Christian leaders, especially Cephas, as ‘tax collectors’ (τελῶναι: Lk 3:12) was borrowed by Luke from the Gospel of Mark (Mk 2:14–16; cf. 12:14–17), which in this way alluded to the demand of Cephas and the Jerusalem leaders concerning their receiving financial support from Gentile believers (Gal 2:10a), a request that could be regarded as collecting an imposed Church ‘tax’.155 The thematically corresponding exhortation not to request unjustified taxes (Lk 3:13) in a negative way further alludes to the financial request of the Jerusalem leaders, which resembled an unjustified tax imposed upon Gentile believers 153 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 129. 154 Cf. Origen, Hom. Luc. XXIII.2; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 41. 155 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 53–54, 148–149.

71

(Gal  2:10a). Luke reinterpreted Paul’s negative presentation of this request (Gal 2:10bc)156 by noting that, in agreement with Paul’s teaching, the Jewish Christian leaders were entitled to receive that what the Lord had ordered (διέταξεν) for their sustenance (1 Cor 9:14). For this reason, Luke described the tax collectors as likewise entitled to collect that what had been ordered (διατεταγμένον) for them (Lk 3:13). The Lucan statement that the tax collectors should request nothing more (μηδὲν πλέον) than that which was necessary (Lk 3:13) evidently corresponds to his later presentation of the idealized behaviour of the Jerusalem leaders during their meeting with Paul (Acts 15:28). This thematic and linguistic correspondence between Lk 3:13 and Acts 15:28 additionally confirms the hypothesis that Lk 3:13 allusively refers to Paul’s meeting with the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:2d–f).

1.12  Lk 3:14 (cf. Gal 2:3) The section Lk  3:14, with its main themes of acting as soldiers, as well as not shaking violently, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:3. The account of John’s preaching to soldiers, who asked what they should do (τί ποιήσωμεν: Lk 3:14), is evidently related to the preceding accounts of John’s preaching to the crowds and to tax collectors, who also asked what they should do (Lk  3:10–11.12–13). Accordingly, it further illustrates Paul’s description of his meeting with the Jerusalem community and its leaders (cf. Gal 2:2b–f), now referring to the attitude of the Jerusalem believers towards Titus (Gal 2:3). The remark concerning those who acted as soldiers (στρατευόμενοι: Lk 3:14a) is quite strange because they are not simply identified as soldiers (στρατιῶται), as Luke used to call such people (Lk  7:8; 23:36; Acts  10:7; 12:4.6.18; 21:32.35; 23:23.31; 27:31–32.42; 28:16).157 The particular image of people acting as soldiers, although they were not regular soldiers (Lk 3:14a), alludes to Jewish militant messianism (cf. Jos. B.J. 2.521, 582 etc.), which provoked the Jewish war against the Romans, who were led by Titus. Accordingly, this image illustrates the opposition of James, the brother of the Jewish Messiah (cf. Gal 2:4), against 156 For an analysis of Gal 2:10 as analeptically referring to the already accomplished collection for the Jerusalem ‘saints’, see id., Heirs, 15–18, 25–38, 48–55. 157 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 129 n. 40; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 220. Pace L. Brink, Soldiers in Luke-Acts: Engaging, Contradicting, and Transcending the Stereotypes (WUNT 2.362; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014), 100, Luke does not use the term στρατευόμενοι in Acts 23:27.

72

Titus, who came to Jerusalem (Gal 2:3a), and whose name after ad 70 evoked the memory of the Roman military commander who entered Jerusalem. The subsequent exhortation directed to those who acted as soldiers, namely to shake no one violently (διασείω: Lk 3:14e),158 by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that the Jews who opposed him, especially the followers of James (cf. Gal 2:4), did not violently force Titus to be circumcised (Gal 2:3b). The thematically corresponding idea of doing (ποιέω) good by not requesting money in an unjust way (Lk 3:14; cf. 3:12) again alludes to the unjust financial request of the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:10a) and to Paul’s response that he had already done good to the poor (Gal 2:10bc). The particular motif of those acting as soldiers (στρατεύομαι) as being paid with their wages (ὀψωνίοις: Lk 3:14) was borrowed from 1 Cor 9:7.159 Accordingly, the two particular exhortations given no more to the Jewish crowds in general, but to tax collectors and to those who acted as soldiers (Lk 3:12–14), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrate Paul’s idea of his communicating the gospel no more to the Jerusalem community as a whole, but to the Jerusalem leaders, especially Cephas and James (Gal 2:2d–3).

1.13  Lk 3:15 (cf. Gal 2:4) The section Lk 3:15, with its main theme of John apparently prevailing over Jesus as the Messiah/Christ, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:4. The non-Marcan narrative introduction (Lk 3:15) to the statement of John (Lk 3:16; cf. Mk 1:7–8)160 conveys the idea of Jewish expectations and considerations regarding possible identification of John as the Messiah/Christ (Χριστός), and consequently the Jews’ temptation to follow Jesus’ apparent cousin John (cf. Lk 1:36) rather than Christ Jesus. In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, Luke illustrated Paul’s statement concerning the Jewish Christians’ temptation to follow Jewish ‘false brothers’, presumably with their fleshly claims to Jewish messianism, rather than Christ Jesus (Gal 2:4). Luke described these Jewish considerations with the use of the verb διαλογίζομαι (Lk 3:15), which in his Gospel usually has the negative meaning of 158 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 313; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 176; L. Brink, Soldiers, 101. 159 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 140–141; R. I. Pervo, Dating, 69. 160 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 130.

73

doubting in Christ’s message and salvific activity (Lk 1:29; 2:35; 5:21–22; 20:14; cf. also 6:8; 9:46–47; 24:38). In this way, the evangelist also illustrated the Pauline thought that siding with the ideas of ‘false brothers’ was tantamount to restricting the freedom which is in Christ Jesus (Gal 2:4).

1.14  Lk 3:16–17 (cf. Gal 2:5a) The section Lk 3:16–17, with its main theme of being powerful towards the Jews, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:5a. The Lucan version of the statement of John (Lk 3:16) was generally borrowed from Mk 1:7–8, but it was reformulated by means of the addition of the contrasting particle μέν (Lk 3:16c; diff. Mk 1:8a), the change of the distancing aorist form ἐβάπτισα (Mk 1:8a) to the correlating present form βαπτίζω (Lk 3:16c), the omission of the spatially distancing phrase ὀπίσω μου (Lk 3:16d; diff. Mk 1:7c), the omission of the chronologically distancing aorist participle κύψας (Lk 3:16f; diff. Mk 1:7e), and the surprising addition of the image of Jesus’ fire as contrasted with John’s water (Lk 3:16g; diff. Mk 1:8b; Acts 1:5; 11:16).161 In this way, it depicts John and Jesus as simultaneously acting, but strongly contrasted persons.162 Likewise, the Lucan addition of the non-Marcan images of a winnowing shovel and burning fire as symbolizing the power of Jesus (Lk 3:17) conveys the idea of the superiority of the universally judging power of Jesus in comparison to the slavish weakness of his apparent cousin John (Lk 3:16). Therefore, the whole statement Lk 3:16–17 by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s idea of his powerfully, fiercely not yielding submission to the secretly introduced Jewish false brothers and their attempt to enslave him (Gal 2:5a; cf. 2:4). The image of judging the opponents’ works and burning (κατακαίω) them with fire (πῦρ: Lk  3:17d) was borrowed from 1  Cor 3:13.15. The phrase ‘unquenchable fire’ (πῦρ + ἄσβεστος: Lk 3:17d; diff. Exod 12:10; 29:14.34 LXX etc.: κατακαίω + πυρί), which in Lk 3:17d surprisingly refers to burning mere chaff, was borrowed from Mk  9:43, where it understandably referred to the eternal destruction of sinful humans.

161 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 181; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 157. It should be noted that in antiquity fire and water were regarded as mutually opposing basic elements of the world. 162 Cf. M. L. Strauss, Davidic, 201; J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 128, 133.

74

1.15  Lk 3:18 (cf. Gal 2:5b) The section Lk 3:18, with its main themes of encouraging and preaching the gospel to the people, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:5b. The Lucan remark concerning John’s encouraging or comforting others (Lk 3:18a), which is really surprising in the context of John’s preceding, gravely threatening utterance (Lk 3:17), illustrates Paul’s idea of the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:5b). This truth was earlier presented by the Apostle as tantamount to freedom, and not to slavery (Gal 2:4). Therefore, the evangelist also described John as encouraging and comforting his audience (Lk 3:18a), and not as threatening them (cf. Lk 3:17). The subsequent, likewise non-Marcan remark concerning John’s constantly preaching the gospel (imperf. εὐηγγελίζετο: Lk  3:18b) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of constantly preserving the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον: Gal 2:5b). The subsequent Lucan reference to the people, that is to John’s audience (Lk 3:18b), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent reference to his audience (Gal 2:5b).

1.16  Lk 3:19–20 (cf. Gal 2:6) The section Lk 3:19–20, with its main themes of rebuking the Jewish ruler for his past evil deeds, as well as the Jewish ruler adding a restriction to John’s freedom, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:6. The Lucan surprising, thematically negative, but on the other hand only allusive statement concerning John’s rebukes to the Jewish ruler Herod for his not precisely stated past faults, namely ‘because of Herodias, his brother’s wife’, as though the reader should know what was wrong with her (cf. Mk 6:17–18),163 and ‘because of all the evil things that Herod did’, as though the reader should know what all these evil things consisted in (Lk 3:19),164 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s allusive rebuke to the Jewish Christian leaders, especially Cephas, for their not precisely stated past faults: ‘What sort of people they once were makes no difference to me, God does not show partiality for any human person’ (Gal 2:6a–e).

163 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 156; C. G. Müller, Mehr, 196; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 196. 164 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 156; J. B. Green, Luke, 183.

75

The idea of allusively rebuking Cephas for his marriage-related concerns (Lk 3:19a) is post-Marcan (Mk 1:30–31 cf. 1 Cor 9:5; Mk 6:17–18 cf. Gal 2:11bc).165 On the other hand, the description of Herod as a tetrarch (Ἡρῴδης ὁ τετραάρχης: Lk 3:19a), and not as a king (diff. Mk 6:14.22.24–27), is a Lucan correction of the corresponding Marcan remark. This correction could be based on the data given by Josephus (Ant. 18.109 etc.).166 The subsequent statement concerning shutting John up in prison (Lk  3:20) evidently destroys the internal logic of the narrative, which was borrowed from the Gospel of Mark, because it almost absurdly describes John as having already been imprisoned when Jesus was baptized (Lk 3:20–21; diff. Mk 1:9.14; 6:17).167 In fact, this statement, which is preceded by the remark concerning the Jewish ruler as adding (προστίθημι) a restriction to John’s freedom (Lk  3:20a; cf. 3:18), in a negative way alludes to Paul’s subsequent, similarly formulated remark concerning the Jewish Christian leaders as adding (προσανατίθημι) nothing restrictive to his gospel (Gal 2:6fg).168 Luke narratively reworked this Pauline remark with the use the Apostle’s earlier thought that Jewish Christian additions to his gospel were tantamount to restricting the freedom of the believers and of the proclaimed gospel (cf. Gal 2:4–5). Therefore, by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization, the evangelist described Herod as restricting the freedom of John and of his proclamation (Lk 3:19–20). The motif of shutting John up in prison (ἐν φυλακῇ: Lk  3:20; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.119) is of course post-Marcan (cf. Mk 6:17).169

165 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 49, 86. 166 Cf. R. I. Pervo, Dating, 184. 167 Cf. C.  G.  Müller, Mehr, 197–198; P.  N.  Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 43; H.  Klein, Lukasevangelium, 168. 168 Luke evidently changed the typically Pauline verb προσανατίθημι (Gal 1:16; 2:6) to his favourite προστίθημι (Lk 3:20; cf. 12:25.31; 17:5; 19:11; 20:11–12 etc.). However, the untypical syntax προσέθηκεν + τοῦτο + indic. κατέκλεισεν (Lk 3:20), instead of the more natural προσέθηκεν + inf. κατακλεῖσαι (cf. Acts 12:3: προσέθετο συλλαβεῖν), seems to originate from a conflation of the Pauline phrase προσανέθεντο + οὐδέν (Gal 2:6e) with the Marcan indicative form ἔδησεν (Mk 6:17). 169 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 167. Luke evidently changed the Marcan phrase δέω + ἐν φυλακῇ (Mk 6:17; cf. δέσμιος: Jos. Ant. 18.119) to his favourite one κατακλείω + ἐν φυλακῇ (Lk 3:20; cf. Acts 26:10).

76

1.17  Lk 3:21–22 (cf. Gal 2:7ab) The section Lk 3:21–22, with its main themes of numerous Jews joining Jesus in his baptism, seeing a particular apparition of the Spirit, and witnessing the revelation of God’s Son in Jesus, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:7ab. The Lucan account of the baptism of Jesus (Lk 3:21–22) is evidently based on the thematically corresponding Marcan account (Mk 1:9–11),170 but on the other hand it significantly differs from it in at least three important details. The first important difference consists in the Lucan presentation of Jesus’ baptism not as a private event which involved only Jesus and John (diff. Mk 1:9), but as a public event which was witnessed by the whole Jewish people,171 who behaved similarly to Jesus (Lk 3:21a–c), and not according to the expectations of the evil Jewish ruler Herod (cf. Lk 3:20). In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality Luke illustrated Paul’s idea that his evangelistic activity was positively evaluated by several Jews (Gal 2:7a), notwithstanding evil Jewish suggestions to add some restrictions to it (cf. Gal 2:6). The second important difference consists in the subsequent Lucan presentation of the aftermath of Jesus’ baptism not in terms of a private revelation given to Jesus (diff. Mk 1:10; cf. Gal 1:15a.16a), but in terms of a public, visual apparition, which was seen by numerous Jews, namely of their seeing the Holy Spirit descending in a bodily ‘sight’ (εἶδος) upon Jesus, thus pointing to Jesus in a particular way (Lk 3:22a; diff. 10:18).172 This surprising Lucan reformulation of the Marcan text narratively illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that several Jews saw (ἰδόντες) his spiritual features, namely that he had been particularly entrusted with the gospel (Gal 2:7ab). The third important difference consists in the subsequent Lucan presentation of the intimate words of the divine entrustment and election of Jesus, consisting in the revelation of God’s Son in him (cf. Mk 1:11), as heard by numerous Jews

170 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘The Minor Agreements and Q’, in R. A. Piper (ed.), The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (NovTSup 75; E. J. Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 53–72 (esp. 66–67); H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 169. 171 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 170; A. Kuecker, Spirit, 76–77. 172 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 338; G. Rossé, Luca, 135; M. Reichardt, ‘Vom Jordan nach Ephesus: Taufe und Geistempfang im Markusevangelium und im lukanischen Doppelwerk’, in R. Hoppe and M. Reichardt (eds.), Lukas – Paulus – Pastoralbriefe, Festschrift A. Weiser (SBS 230; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2014), 13–38 (esp. 29).

77

(Lk  3:22b–d; diff. 10:21–22).173 In this way, Luke illustrated Paul’s subsequent idea that several Jews noticed that he had been particularly entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7b). Luke conflated here Paul’s idea of entrusting to him the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7b) with the thematically related one, namely that of revealing God’s Son in the Apostle in order that he might preach him among the Gentiles (Gal 1:16ab). Accordingly, Luke could use in Lk 3:22b–d the Marcan image of revealing God’s Son in Jesus (Mk 1:11; cf. Gal  1:15a.16a) as illustrating the idea of the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7b). Additionally, Luke conformed the striking Marcan image of the heavens as being torn apart (Mk 1:10c) to the standard Septuagintal model of the heaven as having been opened (ἀνοίγω: Lk 3:21d; cf. Ezek 1:1 LXX).174 Thus, with the use of the typically Jewish, scriptural motif, Luke could better illustrate the idea of the Jews evaluating the Pauline gospel in their Jewish, presumably scriptural terms (Gal 2:7ab).

1.18  Lk 3:23–38 (cf. Gal 2:7c) The section Lk 3:23–38, with its main theme of a Davidic, Abrahamic, and Adamic genealogy of Jesus, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:7c. After the presentation of Jesus in highly spiritual terms of his being God’s Son according to the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:21–22; cf. Rom 1:4), the insertion of the fleshly genealogy of Jesus as being born of the seed of David (cf. Rom  1:3)175 and of Adam, and consequently being God’s Son in a fleshly way (Lk 3:23–38), is really surprising. Such a patrilineal genealogy could be understandable at the beginning of the narrative (cf. 1 Chr 1–9; Jos. Vita 1–8; etc.), and not after the description of Jesus as an adult man (Lk 3:23a),176 who was born of a virgin without the participation of Joseph, his apparent fleshly father (cf. Lk 1:27.34–35).

173 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 136; M. Reichardt, ‘Vom Jordan’, 29–30. 174 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 480; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 44; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 232. 175 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 216; A. T. Lincoln, ‘Luke’, 640–641. 176 Cf. K.-H. Ostmeyer, ‘Die Genealogien in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Vita des Josephus: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmung ihrer Charakteristika, Intentionen und Probleme’, in C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (eds.), Josephus, 451–468 (esp. 457–458).

78

In fact, the Lucan sequential correlation of two different presentations of Jesus as God’s Son, namely according to the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:21–22) and according to the flesh (Lk 3:23–38), reflects the Pauline sequential correlation of two different versions of the gospel, namely that directed to the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7b) and that directed to the circumcised (Gal 2:7c). The rather untypical of the scriptural tradition, ascending genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:23–38), which highlights the importance of the characters of Salathiel, David, Abraham, and Adam by placing them at numerically important positions in its heptadic scheme,177 in a particular Lucan way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of form-change, illustrates the Pauline remark concerning the gospel which was entrusted to Peter and directed to the circumcised (Gal 2:7c). According to Luke, the gospel which was entrusted to the Jerusalem community (cf. Gal 2:7c) was directed stepwise to Jerusalem, the whole Judaea, the whole Israel, and the whole world (Acts 1:8). In particular, it was Peter who was primarily responsible for the passage of the gospel from Jerusalem and Judaea (Acts  1:12–5:42) to the whole Israel (Acts  8:14–25) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 9:32–11:18; 15:7–11). The genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:23–38) in its internal structure, including Salathiel representing Jerusalem and Judaea (Lk 3:27), then David representing the whole Judaea and Israel (Lk 3:31), then Abraham representing the whole Israel and all circumcised people (Lk 3:34), and then Adam representing the whole humankind (Lk 3:38),178 reflects this Lucan understanding of the gospel which was entrusted to Peter (Gal 2:7c) as gradually broadening from Jerusalem and the Jews to the whole Israel and then to the Gentiles. The Lucan genealogy (Lk 3:23–38) also conveys the Pauline idea of a ‘fleshly’, messianic gospel for the circumcised (Gal  2:7c), that is for the whole Israel. Luke illustrated this idea by means of reworking of the Jewish ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’,179 which calculated the elapse of time from the beginning of the world to the messianic era as comprising 7 ‘weeks’ (4Q212; 1 En. 93:3–10; 91:10–11).180 Luke reworked the Jewish 7 ‘weeks’ to 11×7 generations (by ‘inflating’ the last 2 weeks from the ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’ into 3+3 weeks), most probably in order

177 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 283–288; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 212–213; K.-H. Ostmeyer, ‘Genealogien’, 453. 178 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 219; J. Smit, ‘Function’, 53. 179 Cf. K. Bornhäuser, Die Geburts- und Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu: Versuch einer zeitgenössischen Auslegung von Matthäus 1 und 2 und Lukas 1–3 (BFCT 2.23; C. Bertelsmann: Gütersloh 1930), 21–22. 180 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 283–288.

79

to make the idea of the ‘fullness of time’ at the time of Jesus (cf. Gal 4:4) more easily perceivable.181 Moreover, Luke illustrated the idea of the gospel for the circumcised (Gal  2:7c), that is for the whole Israel, by means of (a) introducing ‘northern’ names as those of Jesus’ direct predecessors (Joseph, Heli: Lk 3:23; diff. Mk 6:3: no patronymic);182 (b) introducing the names of the prophets of both Israel and Judah (Amos, Nahum: Lk  3:25); (c) introducing the names of the peripheral and central, northern and southern, priestly and royal tribes of the whole Israel (Semein, Josech, Joda:183 Lk 3:26; Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph: Lk 3:29–30); and (d) introducing the general symbolic name of Melchi (Lk 3:28) in place of those of the pre-exilic Judaean kings, who were at least partly responsible for the division of the whole Israel (Lk 3:27–31).184 Besides, the Hebraizing change of names in comparison to the genealogies of the Septuagint (esp. in Lk 3:32–33)185 may additionally illustrate the idea of the gospel for the circumcised (Gal 2:7c). Additionally, Luke seems to have borrowed the idea of the main hero being about thirty (τριακο*) years (ἔτος) old at the beginning of his public activity in Israel (Lk 3:23) from Jos. Vita 80.186 181 Luke used the chronological heptadic scheme from the ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’, and not simply from the Septuagint, since in his genealogy of Jesus he placed David, if counted from the beginning of the world, exactly at the 35th (5×7) place (by artificially introducing in Lk 3:33 two generations of Admin and Arni in place of one generation of Arran/Aram in Ruth 4:19; 1 Chr 2:9–10 LXX, but with preserving the scriptural alliterative scheme of several generations beginning with the letter A), and Salathiel exactly at the 56th (8×7) place. Cf. R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1990), 316–317, 324–325, 371–373 (although he has applied the whole scheme of 10 ‘weeks’, and not only 7 pre-messianic ‘weeks’, to Lk 3:23–38). 182 The names of Matthat, Levi, Melchi, Jannai, and Mattathias (Lk 3:24–25) evidently allude to the priestly-royal (hence Levi and Melchi) Hasmonean dynasty, with its founder: Mattathias (Ματταθιας: cf. 1 Macc 2:1 etc.) and its most powerful representative: Alexander Jannaeus (Ἰαναῖος: cf. Jos. Ant. 13.320 etc.). 183 The linguistic proximity of the ‘northern’ name Josech and the ‘southern’ name Joda (Lk 3:26), substituting the scriptural ones: Joseph and Judah (cf. Lk 3:30), additionally conveys the idea of the unity of the whole Israel. 184 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 281–282; id., ‘Koniec teorii źródeł? Genealogie Rdz 4,17 – 5,32 i ich przepracowanie w Nowym Testamencie’, ColT 83 (2013) no. 4, 47–74 (esp. 65–69). 185 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 214. 186 Cf. K.-H. Ostmeyer, ‘Genealogien’, 459–460; B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 281.

80

1.19  Lk 4:1–13 (cf. Gal 2:8a) The section Lk 4:1–13, with its main themes of God’s working effectively in Jesus, as well as his acting on behalf of Israel, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:8a. The fact that the elaborated Lucan account of the temptations of Jesus (Lk 4:1–13) illustrates the Pauline idea of God’s working effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised (Gal 2:8a) is especially visible in the differences between this account and its Marcan prototype (Mk 1:12–13). The introduction to the Lucan account (Lk  4:1–2) evidently highlights the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit in Jesus. Whereas Mark described the Spirit as an external force driving Jesus out to (εἰς) the wilderness, where he was thereupon tempted by Satan, and where he was only externally assisted by the angels and not by the Spirit (Mk 1:12–13), Luke described the Holy Spirit as being active in the person of Jesus by filling him and leading him in (ἐν) the wilderness all the time when he was tempted by the devil (Lk 4:1–2a).187 Moreover, Luke reworked the scriptural motif of Moses’ eating nothing for forty days (ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα + οὐκ ἔφαγεν: cf. Exod 34:28 LXX)188 by describing Jesus as being spiritually very powerful: the Lucan Jesus surprisingly became hungry only when the scriptural time of fasting was over (Lk 4:2b–d). In this way, with the use of scriptural motifs and of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization, Luke illustrated the Pauline idea of God’s acting effectively in the person of the Jewish apostle Peter (Gal 2:8a). The subsequent non-Marcan scriptural discussion, which presents Jesus as a pious Jew who overcomes the temptations of Israel throughout its history (Lk 4:3–12), illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of Peter’s acting effectively on behalf of the circumcised (Gal 2:8a), that is of Israel. Specific allusions to the Jewish apostle Peter (Πέτρος: Gal 2:8a), whose name means ‘stone’ (πέτρος), can be found in all three parts of the dialogue: (a) in the non-scriptural reference to a stone (λίθος: Lk 4:3; diff. Deut 8:3 LXX);189 (b) in the likewise non-scriptural reference to suddenly exercising authority over the Gentile world (Lk  4:5–7;

187 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 143; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 227–228; A. Kuecker, Spirit, 78–79. 188 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 197; R. L. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts (ISBL; Indiana University: Bloomington · Indianapolis 1995), 18; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 46. 189 Cf. D. Rusam, ‘Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts’, in M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), Deuteronomy in the New Testament (LNTS 358; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 63–81 (esp. 65).

81

diff. Deut 6:13;190 10:20 LXX; cf. Lk 2:1);191 and (c) in the narratively absurd,192 repeated reference to a stone (λίθος: Lk 4:11; cf. Ps 91[90]:11–12 LXX). The scriptural content of the dialogue, which depicts overcoming in a scriptural way the temptations which Israel had throughout its history (Lk  4:3–12; cf. Deut 8:3; 6:13; 10:20; Ezek 8:3; Ps 91[90]:11–12; Deut 6:16 LXX),193 likewise illustrates the Pauline idea of Peter’s acting effectively, presumably in a scriptural way, on behalf of the circumcised (Gal 2:8a), that is of Israel. Luke again allusively presented the history of Israel (Lk 4:3–12; cf. 3:23–38) according to the periodization of time taken from the ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’, namely as comprising three main scriptural epochs (cf. 1 En. 93:6–10): the journey through the wilderness (Lk 4:3–4), the pre-exilic monarchy (Lk 4:5–8), and the postexilic temple (Lk 4:9–12). The concluding image of the tempting devil departing from (ἀφίστημι ἀπ᾽) the main hero (Lk 4:13) was borrowed from 2 Cor 12:7–8.

1.20  Lk 4:14–21 (cf. Gal 2:8b) The section Lk  4:14–21, with its main theme of God’s working effectively in the power of the same Spirit for the Gentiles, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:8b.

190 Cf. ibid. 66–67. 191 According to the discussion reported in Gal 2:8–9, Peter agreed that he should exercise authority only over the circumcised, and not over the Gentiles. Consequently, Peter’s temptation, in the Lucan ethopoeic reconstruction, consisted in the wish to receive in a moment the authority over the whole world: over both Jews and Gentiles. 192 For a man throwing himself down from the pinnacle of the temple (cf. Lk 4:9), there are greater problems than striking his foot against a stone (Lk 4:11), especially because in such a situation his foot has no contact with any stony road. Therefore, understandably for such a situation, Luke omitted in Lk 4:10 the reference to ways (ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς σου) from Ps 91[90]:11b LXX. He could likewise omit the semantically related text concerning a stone (μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου: Ps 91[90]:12b LXX), retaining only the narratively suiting fragment concerning being carried on the angels’ hands (ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε: Ps 91[90]:12a LXX). However, since Luke surprisingly retained the scriptural reference to a stone (λίθος: Lk 4:11; cf. Ps 91[90]:12b LXX), he must have had a particular reason for doing it. 193 Cf. R. L. Brawley, Text, 19–23; K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 112–113; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 181–185.

82

The account of Jesus’ powerful activity in Galilee (Lk 4:14–21) illustrates Paul’s idea of God’s working effectively in him for the apostleship to the uncircumcised (Gal 2:8b). The motif of Galilee as the symbolic region of the Gentiles (Lk  4:14; cf. Gal  2:8b) is evidently post-Marcan (Mk  1:14 cf. Gal  1:16a etc.).194 Against this background, the non-Marcan remarks that Jesus was filled with the power of the Spirit (πνεῦμα: Lk 4:14.18; diff. Mk 1:14), which evidently correlates this episode with the preceding one (cf. Lk 4:1–2),195 in a narrative way illustrates the Pauline correlative idea that God was effectively operating in Paul for the apostleship to the Gentiles (Gal  2:8b), just as he was effectively operating in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised (cf. Gal 2:8a). However, the Lucan correlation also points to the fact that whereas the activity in the wilderness of Judaea, which alluded to the apostolic activity of Peter among the circumcised (Gal 2:8a), had no visible outcome (Lk 4:1–13), the activity in Galilee, which alludes to the apostolic activity of Paul among the Gentiles (Gal 2:8b), was very successful (Lk 4:14–15; cf. Mk 1:28). In line with the post-Pauline principles of Luke’s theology (cf. Rom  1:16), Luke described Jesus’ activity in the Gentile region of Galilee as starting with visits in synagogues (Lk 4:15–16; cf. Mk 1:21.27). Contrary to the opinion of some scholars,196 the strange name form Ναζαρά (Lk 4:16) should not be regarded as a traditional or Lucan version of a Semitic name of the type of Γάζα because in prepositional phrases Luke inflected such names (cf. εἰς Γάζαν: Acts 8:26), and consequently in Lk 4:16 he would also have used the accusative form Ναζαράν. Therefore, in the context of the hypertextual reworking of Gal 2:8b-9c in Lk 4:16–30, in which the ‘city’ of Nazareth represents Jerusalem (cf. Lk 4:29), and not Damascus (cf. Lk 2:39.51), the phrase εἰς Ναζαρά (Lk 4:16a) formally alludes to the Pauline phrase εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (Gal 2:1). In subsequent parts of his work, Luke developed the adjective form Ναζωραῖος (Lk 18:37; Acts 2:22 etc.; diff. Ναζαρηνός: Mk 1:24 etc.), most probably regarding it as related to the substantival form Ναζαρά (Lk 4:16a). The long scriptural quotation from Is 61:1–2 LXX, which describes the Lord as sending (ἀποστέλλω) the main hero to proclaim the gospel (εὐαγγελίζω) to

194 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 43. 195 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 204–205; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 181; A. Kuecker, Spirit, 79–80. 196 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 420–421; G. Rossé, Luca, 152 n. 36; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 252 n. 69.

83

the marginalized, blind, and indebted ones (Lk 4:18–19),197 illustrates not only the Marcan general idea of Jesus’ preaching the gospel in Galilee (Mk 1:14), but also, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, Paul’s particular thought that God operated in him in his being sent (ἀποστολή) with the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) to the Gentiles (Gal 2:8b; cf. 2:7b). Moreover, Luke not only quoted the text of Is 61:1–2 LXX, but also significantly reworked it (Lk 4:18–19) in order to illustrate the content of the hypotext Gal 2:8b. In particular, Luke omitted the idea of healing the broken in heart (Lk 4:18; diff. Is 61:1 LXX),198 which had no allusive meaning related to the Gentiles.199 On the other hand, into the quotation from Is 61:1 LXX the evangelist surprisingly inserted a fragment borrowed from Is  58:6 LXX, which refers to sending (ἀποστέλλω) the oppressed in release (Lk 4:18),200 and thus linguistically alludes to the Pauline idea of being sent (ἀποστολή) to the Gentiles (Gal 2:8b). Moreover, the evangelist changed the scriptural idea of calling the favourable year of the Lord (Is 61:2 LXX) to that of preaching (κηρύσσω) such a year (Lk 4:19),201 thus again alluding to the Pauline idea of being sent to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Gal 2:8b; cf. 2:2c). The thought that the scriptural prophecy has been fulfilled (πεπλήρωται) at the narrated time in the ears of the audience (Lk 4:21) was borrowed by Luke from Mk 1:15 (cf. Mk 14:49).202

1.21  Lk 4:22–44 (cf. Gal 2:9a–c) The section Lk 4:22–44, with its main themes of Jewish initial recognition, but later rejection, of the grace given to Jesus, with the use of a sequential pattern illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:9a–c.

197 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 211–213; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 192; E. V. Dowling, ‘To the Ends’, 193. 198 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Luke 4,16–30 and the Unity of Luke-Acts’, in J. Verheyden (ed.), Unity, 357–395 (esp. 380); B. J. Koet, ‘Isaiah in Luke-Acts’, in id., Dreams and Scripture in Luke-Acts: Collected Essays (CBET 42; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2006), 51–79 (esp. 57). 199 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 255–256; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 191–193. 200 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 210; F. Neirynck, ‘Luke 4,16–30’, 380; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 191. 201 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Luke 4,16–30’, 380; B. J. Koet, ‘Isaiah’, 57; M. Wolter, Lukasevan­ gelium, 191. 202 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 259.

84

The story about the rejection of Jesus as a prophet in his hometown (Lk 4:22–30) is evidently based on the similar Marcan account Mk 6:2–6.203 In Luke’s narrative theology, the idea of the rejection of the gospel by the Jews (Lk  4:23–30; cf. Mk 6:3–6) justifies the passage to unclean people, who symbolize the Gentiles (Lk 4:31–44).204 However, the use of the Marcan account about the rejection of Jesus in his hometown (Mk 6:2–6) already at this point of the gospel narrative (and not after Lk 8:56), as well as several non-Marcan details of the Lucan story about Jewish initial recognition, but later rejection of Jesus in the place where he was brought up, presumably with his siblings (Lk 4:22–30; cf. 4:16),205 imply that Luke, by means of the hypertextual procedure of conflation, also illustrated here the ideas of initial recognition and later rejection of Paul and his gospel by the Jewish Christian leaders, especially James, the Lord’s brother (Gal 2:9a–c; cf. 2:12). The opening statement that all the Jews in the synagogue marvelled at the words of grace (χάρις)206 which came from Jesus’ mouth (Lk 4:22a–c) illustrates Paul’s opening idea that the Jewish leaders recognized the grace which had been given to him (Gal 2:9ab). In order to allude more specifically to the subsequently mentioned person of James (Gal  2:9c), the Lucan Jews, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrating the Pauline character of Jesus’ brother, subsequently asked about Jesus as one of Joseph’s sons (‘Is this not a son of Joseph?’: Lk 4:22e),207 and not about Jesus’ identity related to his trade, mother, brothers, and sisters (‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary…’: Mk 6:3).208 In the post-Marcan story about the Jewish rejection of the gospel (Lk 4:23–30; cf. Mk 6:3–6), Luke added a narratively surprising statement concerning the Jewish hesitantly positive evaluation of, as they heard, Jesus’ previous activity elsewhere 203 Cf. G. Wasserberg, Aus Israels, 158–159; M. J. Kok, ‘Flawed’, 246; G. Carey, ‘Moving Things Ahead: A Lukan Redactional Technique and Its Implications for Gospel Origins’, BibInt 21 (2013) 302–319 (esp. 308–309). 204 Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 81–82; F. Neirynck, ‘Luke 4,16–30’, 372–374; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 268–270. 205 Cf. J. C. Poirier, ‘Jesus as an Elijianic Figure in Luke 4:16–30’, CBQ 71 (2009) 349–363 (esp. 362); R. Nadella, Dialogue not Dogma: Many Voices in the Gospel of Luke (LNTS 431; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011), 35–38. 206 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 186; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 260–261; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 190. 207 Cf. A. T. Lincoln, ‘Luke’, 641. 208 The Lucan Jews, in fact symbolizing James, understandably did not ask about Jesus’ brothers.

85

(Lk  4:23).209 In this way, Luke again illustrated Paul’s idea that the Jewish leaders, including James, hesitantly recognized the grace which had been given to Paul (Gal 2:9ab) and which, as they heard, had previously brought much fruit elsewhere (cf. Gal 2:2). Likewise, the non-Marcan scriptural examples of God’s sending his prophets not to Israel, but to the Gentiles (Lk 4:25–27; cf. 1 Kgs 17:1.8–24; 2 Kgs 5:1–19),210 illustrate the specifically Pauline idea of his being sent to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16b). This particular apostleship constituted the grace which had been given to Paul by God (cf. Gal 1:15) and which was presented by Paul, presumably with the use of scriptural arguments, to the Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:9ab). On the other hand, the surprising non-scriptural idea that the famine lasted for three years and six months (τρεῖς + καὶ μῆνας ἕξ: Lk 4:25), a motif which was borrowed from the ethopoeic letter attributed to James (Jas 5:17; diff. 1 Kgs 18:1 LXX: ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῷ τρίτῳ), additionally alludes to the character of James (Gal 2:9c). The subsequent non-Marcan remarks concerning the Jews as ultimately rejecting Jesus in their ‘city’, which was allegedly built on a precipitous cliff (κρημν*) of a mountain (Lk 4:29),211 allusively, by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and spatial translation, present the subsequently mentioned characters of the Jewish Christian leaders (Gal  2:9c), who lived in the city of Jerusalem, which according to Josephus was built on a precipitous cliff (κρημνός: Jos. B.J. 5.141), as in fact ultimately rejecting Paul and his gospel (cf. Gal 2:12). The post-Marcan section Lk 4:31–44 (cf. Mk 1:21–39) in several non-Marcan details, apart from evident stylistic corrections and improvements, further illustrates the Pauline idea of the attitude of James towards the grace which was given to Paul (Gal 2:9a-c). The Lucan statements that Jesus’ word was with authority and power (Lk  4:32.37.39) better than the Marcan statements that Jesus had authority

209 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 157–158; A. Kuecker, Spirit, 92. Luke described Jesus’ visit to Capernaum only later (Lk 4:31–41; cf. Mk 1:21–34), although in order to avoid a clear break of the narrative logic he previously inserted a general remark concerning Jesus’ preaching activity in Galilee (Lk 4:14–15). 210 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 197–198; A. Kuecker, Spirit, 93–94; R. Fabris, ‘La rilettura profetica delle Scritture in Luca’, in G. Benzi, D. Scaiola, and M. Bona­rini (eds.), La profezia tra l’uno e l’altro Testamento, Festschrift P. Bovati (AnBibSt 4; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2015), 311–326 (esp. 315). 211 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 538; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 192; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 198.

86

(Mk  1:22.27.31)212 illustrate the idea that the Jewish Christian leaders recognized the grace, presumably of oral preaching, which had been given to Paul (Gal 2:9ab). The omission of the Marcan remark concerning Galilee (Lk  4:37; diff. Mk  1:28)213 allusively points to the leaders in Jerusalem, who recognized the grace which was given to Paul (Gal 2:9a–c). The Lucan omission of the characters of Andrew, James, and John in the description of the reception of Jesus in the house of Simon (Lk 4:38; diff. Mk 1:29)214 illustrates the variegated attitude of James, Cephas, and John to Paul (Gal 2:9a–c), as it was earlier revealed in the positive reception of Paul in the house of Cephas, but not in those of James and other apostles (cf. Gal 1:18–19). Likewise, the omission of the Marcan remark that the whole city was gathered at the door (Lk 4:40; diff. Mk 1:33)215 alludes to the particular attitude of the Jewish Christian leaders towards Paul (Gal 2:9a–c). The Lucan remarks that the demons confessed Jesus as the Son of God and that they knew that he was the Messiah (Lk 4:41; diff. Mk 1:34)216 illustrate Paul’s idea that James and other Jewish Christian leaders recognized the grace which had been given to Paul (Gal 2:9a–c). In the Lucan interpretation, it was the grace of the revelation of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, in him (cf. Gal 1:12c.16a). The dialogue of Jesus with the crowds about the evangelization (εὐαγγελίζω) of other cities and about being sent (ἀποστέλλω) for this purpose, without the participation of Simon and other apostles (Lk  4:42–43; diff. Mk  1:36–38: κηρύσσω, ἐξέρχομαι),217 further illustrates the particular grace of apostleship to the Gentiles which was given to Paul (Gal 2:9ab; cf. 2:7–8). On the other hand, the surprising Lucan substitution of the geographically correct remark concerning Galilee (Mk  1:39) with that concerning Judaea (Lk 4:44; cf. 4:37), although Luke evidently knew the difference between these regions (cf. Lk 1:26.39.65; 2:4; 3:1; 5:17 etc.), again illustrates the idea of the leaders in Judaea, who recognized the grace which was given to Paul (Gal 2:9a–c).

212 213 214 215 216 217

Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 201. Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 218; J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 208; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 279. Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 164; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 279; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 203. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 552; J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 213; L. T. Johnson, Luke, 84. Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 219; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 281; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 200. Cf. F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 277.

87

1.22  Lk 5:1–11 (cf. Gal 2:9c–e) The section Lk 5:1–11, with its main themes of Simon, James, and John (but not Andrew), and their becoming partners in the evangelistic work, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:9c–e. The Lucan account of the evangelistic calling of the three first disciples, namely Simon Peter, James, and John (but not Andrew: Lk  5:1–11; diff. Mk  1:16–20; Lk  6:14), is surprisingly displaced in comparison to its Marcan prototype (Mk 1:16–20).218 The plot of the narrative evidently requires making acquaintance with Simon before (Mk 1:16–20; diff. Lk 5:1–11) and not after the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law (Lk 4:38–39 par. Mk 1:29–31).219 In fact, the Marcan account Mk 1:16–20 was displaced by Luke to Lk 5:1–11 in order that it might function as a narrative, hypertextual illustration of Paul’s statement concerning the three Jerusalem ‘pillars’: James, Cephas, and John as entering into evangelistic partnership with Paul (Gal 2:9c–e). The Lucan consistent presentation of Gennesaret as a lake (λίμνη: Lk  5:1–2; 8:22–23.33), and not as a ‘sea’, as it was consistently called by Mark (Mk  1:16 etc.), corresponds to the geographical realities and to the correct terminology of Josephus (λίμνη: B.J. 1.326; 2.573; 3.57, 463, 506; Ant. 18.28, 36; Vita 349).220 Accordingly, Luke probably relied here on the works of the Jewish historian. The opening, narrative presentation of Jesus’ relationship with Simon Peter as close, trustful, evangelistically open, and based on grace (Lk  5:3–6; cf. 5:8– 9.10c–e), but that with James and John as much more distanced (Lk 5:7.10ab), notwithstanding the common remarks concerning all three apostles in the introduction to the account (Lk  5:2) and in the conclusion thereof (Lk  5:11), reflects the similar difference in Paul’s presentation of his close relationship with Cephas (Gal 1:18; 2:7–8.12b), but a much more distanced one with James and John (Gal 1:19; 2:12a), notwithstanding the common reference to all three ‘pillars’ in Gal 2:9c. Accordingly, whereas Paul’s generally negative relationship with James, who was mentioned as the first one in Gal 2:9c, was allusively depicted in Lk 4:22–44, Paul’s positive relationship with Cephas, who was subsequently mentioned in Gal 2:9c, is subsequently depicted in Lk 5:1–11.

218 Cf. M. Böhm, ‘Nachfolge als Erfahrung: Redaktionskritische Beobachtungen zur Berufung der ersten Jünger bei Markus und Lukas’, in C. Kähler, M. Böhm, and C. Böttrich (eds.), Gedenkt, 24–33 (esp. 24–25); M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 203, 209. 219 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 203. 220 Cf. C. Böttrich, ‘Was kann’, 308, 310.

88

The surprising description of the fishermen’s boats as ‘standing’ by the lake (Lk 5:2), just as Jesus stood there (Lk 5:1),221 may illustrate Paul’s remark concerning James, Cephas, and John as regarded to be, presumably standing, pillars (Gal  2:9cd). Besides, the motif of Jesus’ teaching (ἐδίδασκεν) the crowds (ὄχλος) while sitting in a boat (πλοῖον + κάθημαι: Lk 5:1.3) was borrowed from Mk 4:1–2.222 The particular motif of fishermen (ἁλιεῖς) working hard for a long time, but catching (λαμβάνω) nothing (οὐδέν) during their catch (ἄγρα: Lk 5:2–5), seems to have been borrowed from Aesop, Fab. 22. It illustrates the generally negative outcome of the evangelistic activity of James, Cephas, and John, who were apparently satisfied with merely being regarded as ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:9cd). The subsequent non-Marcan image of the partners as giving their hands (συλλαμβάνω: ‘take together’) to help in the catch of fish (Lk 5:7.9) by means of the hypertextual procedure of substitution of images illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of giving the right hand as a sign of partnership in the common evangelistic work (Gal 2:9e). The Lucan depiction of the amazingly positive result of catching fish together (Lk 5:7.9; diff. 5:5) illustrates Paul’s positive presentation of the potential outcome of his agreement with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:9e). The motif of catching fish as a symbol of evangelistic work (Lk 5:4–7.9–10) is evidently post-Marcan (cf. Mk 1:17).223 The subsequent non-Marcan remark that James and John (cf. Mk 1:19) were partners (κοινωνοί) of Simon (Lk  5:10; cf. 5:7; diff. Mk  1:19)224 linguistically alludes to Paul’s subsequent statement concerning his partnership (κοινωνία) with the three ‘pillars’: James, Cephas, and John (Gal 2:9e).

1.23  Lk 5:12–6:19 (cf. Gal 2:9fg) The section Lk 5:12–6:19, with its main theme of going both to the Gentiles and to the Jews, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:9fg. The section Lk 5:12–6:19 is generally post-Marcan (cf. Mk 1:40–3:19). However, it also in a narrative way illustrates the Pauline idea of going both to the

221 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 212. 222 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 228, 232; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 210; R. Hoppe, ‘Lk 5,1–11 unter anthropologischem Aspekt’, in J. Verheyden, G. Van Belle, and J. G. van der Watt (eds.), Miracles and Imagery in Luke and John, Festschrift U. Busse (BETL 218; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2008), 35–45 (esp. 36–37). 223 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 294, 300–301. 224 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 567–568.

89

Gentiles and to the circumcised (Gal  2:9fg). Luke alluded to this Pauline idea by means of minor non-Marcan details which particularly refer to the Jews, although the plot of the story generally refers to Jesus’ outreach to unclean people, so symbolically to the Gentiles. The account of the healing of a leper, who evidently symbolizes the unclean Gentiles (Lk 5:12–16; cf. Mk 1:40–45), narratively alludes to Paul’s remark concerning his going to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9f). The subsequent surprising statement concerning the Pharisees and teachers of the law as having come ‘from every village of Galilee, Judaea, and Jerusalem’ (Lk 5:17; diff. Mk 2:1; 3:22; 7:1)225 changes the Marcan Galilean audience, with its local opposition of experts in Scripture against Jesus (Mk 2:1–2.6; cf. Lk 5:21), into a more Judaean and Jerusalemite one. Accordingly, this Lucan statement alludes to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning the Jerusalem leaders and their circumcised, so presumably Judaean audience (Gal 2:9g). In the post-Marcan parable concerning the relationship between the new and the old (Lk  5:36–38; cf. Mk  2:21–22),226 Luke added a non-Marcan statement that no one, having drunk old wine, desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good’ (Lk 5:39). This statement is very awkward in the context of the logic of the preceding parable, which points to the power of the new (Lk 5:36–38).227 In difference to that logic, the statement Lk 5:39 metaphorically illustrates and somewhat ambiguously evaluates the enduring attachment of Jewish Christians to Jewish piety.228 Accordingly, if the parable Lk 5:36–38 allusively refers to Paul’s remark concerning his mission among the Gentiles (Gal 2:9f), the subsequent statement Lk 5:39 allusively refers to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning the mission of the Jerusalem leaders among the Jews (Gal 2:9g), and it narratively explains their reluctance to appreciate the mission among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:12). The surprising substitution of Thaddaeus (Mk  3:18) with Judas of James (Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου), who is located at the penultimate, so in fact last positive place on the list of the apostles (Lk 6:16; cf. Acts 1:13),229 implies that Luke knew the letter of Jude, the brother of James (Ἰούδας… Ἰακώβου: Jud 1; diff. Mk 6:3), and 225 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 234; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 221. 226 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 193; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 333; A. Damm, Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem: Clarifying Markan Priority (BETL 252; Peeters: Leuven · Paris Walpole, Mass. 2013), 207–215. 227 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 232. 228 Cf. R. H. Stein, Luke (NAC 24, Broadman & Holman: Nashville, Tenn. 1992), 186; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 337; A. Damm, Ancient, 182. 229 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 243.

90

therefore he included the character of Jude at the last acceptable place in his list of the apostles. The concluding account of the healing of the multitude (Lk 6:17–19), which is relocated and significantly shortened in comparison to its Marcan prototype (Mk  3:7–12),230 presents Jesus’ audience as consisting of two main groups of people: the Jews from Judaea and Jerusalem, and the Gentiles from the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon (Lk 6:17),231 with no mention of Galilee, Idumaea, and Trans­ jordan (diff. Mk  3:7–8). In this way, the Lucan account again alludes to Paul’s remark concerning the mission among two main groups of people: the Gentiles and the Jews (Gal 2:9fg).232

1.24  Lk 6:20–26 (cf. Gal 2:10a) The section Lk 6:20–26, with its main theme of the poor being remembered in the future, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:10a. The non-Marcan blessing for the poor (οἱ πτωχοί: Lk 6:20), together with the thematically related blessings and woes which commonly predict future retribution to two contrasted categories of people (Lk 6:20–26),233 illustrates Paul’s remark concerning remembering the poor in the future (Gal 2:10a).234 Since the request concerning the poor (Gal 2:10a) was expressed by the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (cf. Gal  2:9), therefore from the ethopoeic letter attributed to James, one of the Jerusalem ‘pillars’, Luke borrowed, generally preserving their original sequence in the letter, the ideas of (a) the poor (οἱ πτωχοί) as heirs of the kingdom of God (βασιλεία + θεός: Lk 6:20cd; cf. Jas 2:5), (b) the hungry as filled (χορτάζω: Lk 6:21ab; cf. Jas 2:16), (c) the rich (οἱ πλούσιοι) as doomed to lose their wealth (Lk  6:24; cf. Jas  5:1–3), and (d) those who now laugh (γελ*) as doomed to mourn and weep (πενθέω + καί + κλαίω: Lk 6:25cd; cf. 6:21cd; Jas 4:9). Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 622; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 331–332. Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 286; E. V. Dowling, ‘To the Ends’, 194. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 57. Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 244, 249–250; A. Inselmann, Die Freude im Lukas­ evangelium: Ein Beitrag zur psychologischen Exegese (WUNT 2.322; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 220–221; D. Marguerat, ‘«Il a comblé de biens les affamés et renvoyé les riches les mains vides» (Lc 1,53): Riches et pauvres, un parcours lucanien’, in F. Bianchini and S. Romanello (eds.), Non mi vergogno del Vangelo, potenza di Dio, Festschrift J.N.  Aletti (AnBib 200; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012), 327–350 (esp. 332–333). 234 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 58.

230 231 232 233

91

Likewise, from the ethopoeic letter attributed to Peter, one of the Jerusalem ‘pillars’, Luke borrowed the idea of the disciples being blessed (μακάριοι) if they are reviled (ὀνειδίζω) because of their name (ὄνομα) in Christ, so that they should rejoice (χαίρω + a verbal synonym) now and in the future (Lk 6:22–23c; cf. 1 Pet 4:13–14).235 For the same ethopoeic reason, by means of the hypertextual procedure of form-change, Luke illustrated the Jewish Christian request concerning the poor (Gal 2:10a) with the use of the scriptural forms of blessings (Lk 6:20–23; cf. Ps  84[83]:5 LXX etc.)236 and woes (Lk  6:24–26; cf. Sir 41:8 LXX etc.), as well as other scriptural motifs, especially in Lk  6:21ab (πεινάω + χορτάζω: cf. Ps  107[106]:9 LXX),237 Lk  6:21cd (κλαίω: cf. Ps  126[125]:6 LXX),238 and Lk 6:25ab (πεινάσετε: cf. Is 65:13 LXX).239 Moreover, in order to illustrate Paul’s disapproval of the financial request of the Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:10a; cf. 2:10bc), Luke used the typically Pauline apologetic motif of receiving a future reward, and not a present financial one (μισθός: Lk 6:23c; cf. 1 Cor 3:8.14; 9:17–18.23).240 The statement that the prophets were persecuted by former generations of the Jews (Lk  6:23d; cf. 6:26bc) was likewise borrowed by the evangelist from Paul’s statement concerning his relationship with his Jewish opponents (1 Thes 2:15).

1.25  Lk 6:27–38 (cf. Gal 2:10bc) The section Lk 6:27–38, with its main theme of doing good to the enemies and to the poor already now, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:10bc. The surprisingly introduced as a response (ἀλλά: ‘but’: Lk  6:27a) to the preceding section (Lk  6:20–26), repeated exhortations to do good (*ποιέω: Lk 6:27.31.33.35) to the enemies and to the poor already now, and not in the future (Lk 6:27–38; diff. 6:20–26),241 illustrate Paul’s response that he had already 235 Pace B. Estrada, ‘The Last Beatitude: Joy in Suffering’, Bib 91 (2010) 187–209 (esp. 203, 207), the evident correspondences between Lk 6:22–23c and 1 Pet 4:13–14, together with the lack of signs of dependence of 1 Pet on Lk, imply that Lk 6:22–23c depends on 1 Pet 4:13–14. 236 Cf. F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 337–338. 237 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 284; D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 576. 238 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 284; D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 577. 239 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 221 n. 136; P. Mallen, Reading, 107; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 343. 240 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 58. 241 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 586.

92

been eager to do good to the poor in the Jerusalem community,242 which was generally hostile to him (Gal 2:10bc). Luke additionally illustrated this Pauline response to the Jerusalem leaders, namely that he had already gathered funds for the poor in Jerusalem (Gal 2:10bc), with the use of Pauline exhortations borrowed from the Letter to the Romans, which was indirectly addressed to the Jerusalem community when Paul prepared himself for his journey to Jerusalem with the collection for the poor in Jerusalem: ‘but’ (ἀλλά) doing good to the enemies (ἐχθροί) by loving (ἀγαπάω) them (Lk 6:27.35; cf. Rom 12:20; 13:8–9),243 as well as blessing (εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς) and not cursing (καταράομαι) the enemies (Lk  6:28; cf. Rom  12:14).244 Somewhat later, Luke used similar motifs of imitating God’s being kind (χρηστός) to evil people (Lk 6:35; cf. Rom 2:3–4), as well as not judging (κρίνω) and not condemning (κατα*) the enemies (Lk 6:37; cf. Rom 2:1.3). Accordingly, the evangelist evidently used here thematic clusters of material from the Letter to the Romans, although not in a sequential way (Rom 12:14–20 in Lk 6:27–28; Rom 2:1–4 in Lk 6:35–37), a feature which implies that the Letter to the Romans did not function as the structure-giving hypotext for Lk 6:27–37. The statement that Paul had been eager to do the very same thing which was requested from him, although he regarded the financial request concerning permanent support for the poor in Jerusalem as unjust (Gal 2:10bc), was further narratively illustrated by the evangelist with the use of the exhortations to offer more than was requested by evil and poor people (Lk 6:29), to give the very same things which were requested by poor and evil people (Lk 6:30–31), and to give more than was requested by evil and poor people (Lk 6:32–38). Such exhortations were additionally illustrated with the use of scriptural motifs, which could be understood by the Jerusalem leaders: offering both cheeks (σιαγών) to blows (Lk  6:29ab; cf. Is  50:6 LXX),245 not demanding (ἀπαιτέω) goods which were asked for or taken away (Lk 6:30; cf. Deut 15:2 LXX), lending

242 For this interpretation of Gal 2:10bc, see B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 17. 243 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 61. 244 Cf. W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered’, JSNT 24 (1985) 3–23 (esp. 13); W. Schenk, ‘Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on his Reception’, in S. Draisma (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, Festschrift B. van Iersel (Kok: Kampen 1989), 127–139 (esp. 133–134); P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 60–61. 245 Cf. R. H. Stein, Luke, 207; G. Rossé, Luca, 224.

93

(δανίζω) to those who may not repay the debt (Lk  6:34–35; cf. Deut  15:8–10 LXX),246 and God’s being merciful (οἰκτίρμων: Lk 6:36; cf. Exod 34:6 LXX etc.).247 Moreover, Luke also used in this function the ethopoeic Petrine motif of doing good (ἀγαθοποιέω) to the enemies (Lk 6:33.35; cf. 1 Pet 2:15.20; 3:17), as well as the Pauline idea of a future reward (μισθός: Lk 6:35; cf. 1 Cor 3:8.14; 9:17–18). The concluding statement, ‘For with the measure that you measure, it will be measured back to you’ (ᾧ… μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε *μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν: Lk 6:38de) was evidently borrowed from Mk 4:24de and preceded with the image of abundant measure (Lk 6:38c).

1.26  Lk 6:39–49 (cf. Gal 2:11–12a) The section Lk 6:39–49, with its main themes of sharply rebuking a blind leader of blind people, rebuking a condemning hypocrite, knowing something by its fruit, rebuking for merely calling Christ as the Lord, and falling under an external devastating influence, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:11–12a. The rebuke to a blind leader of blind people (Lk  6:39) illustrates Paul’s rebuke to Cephas, the Jewish Christian leader, among the Gentiles in Antioch (Gal 2:11a). The particular image of the Gentiles as blind people (τυφλός) led (ὁδηγ*) by a Jew (Lk 6:39bc) was borrowed from Rom 2:19. In order to adapt it more closely to his allusion to the Jewish leader Cephas, Luke supplemented it with the scriptural motif of falling into a pit (εἰς βόθυνον + ἐμπίπτω: Lk 6:39d; cf. Is 24:18; 47:11; Jer 48[31]:44 LXX).248 The subsequent rebukes to a disciple who exalts himself above his teacher (Lk 6:40) and to someone who sees the faults in the eyeball of his brother, but fails to see his faults in his own eyeball (Lk  6:41), and who is consequently blamed for being a hypocrite (ὑποκριτής: Lk 6:42), illustrates Paul’s subsequent rebuke to the Jewish Christian leader Cephas, which was made while standing eyeball to eyeball (Gal 2:11b), to the one who saw the faults of only Paul and the Gentiles, but not his own faults (Gal 2:12de.14–17), and was consequently blamed for hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισις: Gal 2:13). The particular image of the Jewish Christian leaders as disciples (μαθητής) of Jesus, who was regarded as their teacher (διδάσκαλος: Lk 6:40), is evidently post-Marcan (Mk 13:1; 14:14). 246 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 601. 247 Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 604; W.  Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 414 n. 466; F.  Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 355. 248 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 333 n. 22.

94

The subsequent proverbial instructions concerning knowing (γινώσκω) the tree by its evident fruit (Lk 6:43–44) and knowing the heart by the external deeds and words (Lk 6:45) illustrate the subsequent Pauline statement that Cephas stood self-condemned (καταγινώσκω: Gal 2:11c), so that his internal attitudes were discernible by his external actions and words. The particular image of gathering figs (σῦκα) or grapes from another plant (Lk 6:44b) was borrowed from Jas 3:12, so from the ethopoeic letter of another Jewish Christian leader. The subsequent rebuke for coming (ἔρχομαι) to Jesus but not doing what he says (Lk 6:46–47) alludes to Paul’s subsequent statement concerning the coming of the followers of James, who opposed Paul’s views (Gal 2:12a). Luke negatively used here the ethopoeic image of James as repeatedly calling Jesus Christ as the Lord (κύριος: Lk  6:46a; cf. Jas  1:1; 2:1), as well as exhorting the believers not only to hear (ἀκούω), but also to do (ποι*) the word (λόγος) which they receive, in order to be like someone (dat.) metaphorically presented in a both negative and positive way (dat. part. ὅμοιος… ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομοῦντι: Lk 6:46b-47.49; cf. Jas 1:18–19.22–25: ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι). The related images of having and not having built (*οἰκοδομέω) a house upon a previously laid (τίθημι) solid foundation (θεμέλιον: Lk 6:48–49) is an evident reworking of Paul’s similar image, metaphorically depicting the future disclosure of the outcome of his apostolic work as contrasted to that of other apostles (1 Cor 3:10–15).249 Consequently, the initial positive (diff. the negative-positive order in Jas 1:23–25) image of a house built on a rock (πέτρα: Lk 6:48), in line with the well-known principle nomen est omen, which was already earlier used in a similar way in 1 Pet 2:4–8, alludes to Cephas’ Greek name Peter (Πέτρος) and illustrates his idealized behaviour as agreeing with Paul in his attitude to the Gentiles and resisting the frightening and destructive external influence upon him (Gal 2:12). The subsequent negative image of a house whose bad construction was revealed during a natural disaster (Lk 6:49) alludes to Cephas’ real behaviour during the coming of the followers of James, namely to his yielding to the destructive external influence upon him (Gal 2:12). The particular image of a house destroyed by a flooding river (Lk 6:49) well suits the location of Antioch on the Orontes,250 so the city in which the destructive external influence upon Cephas really took place (cf. Gal 2:11a). 249 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 373; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 62. 250 Cf. F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 367. Luke may have alluded in Lk 6:49 to the great earthquake and the following inundation at Antioch on the Orontes in ad 115. On the other hand, Israel is not a country which suffers from inundations: cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 435; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 367.

95

1.27  Lk 7:1–17 (cf. Gal 2:12b) The section Lk 7:1–17, with its main theme of more and more direct contact with unclean Gentiles in various cities, so that the Judaeans heard about it, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:12b. The two pericopes Lk 7:1–10.11–17, which are narratively based on scriptural models concerning the activity of Israelite prophets in favour of the Gentiles, commonly illustrate the idea of the Jewish apostle Cephas’ initially open activity among the Gentiles (Gal 2:12b). The fact that Luke used the scriptural models in a reversed order (2  Kgs 5:1–14; 2  Kgs 4:32–37; 1  Kgs 17:17–24)251 implies that the scriptural text 1–2 Kgs did not function as the structure-giving hypotext for Lk 7:1–17. In fact, such a main hypotext can be found in the Pauline statement which suggests Cephas’ more and more direct contact with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12b). The story about the healing of the centurion’s slave (Lk 7:1–10) is somewhat surprisingly located in the northern city of Capernaum (Lk 7:1; cf. 4:31). This northern city, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation, alludes to the northern, Syrian city of Antioch (cf. Gal 2:11a), where Cephas showed his openness towards the Gentiles (Gal  2:12b), presumably having completed his preaching among the circumcised (Lk 7:1a; cf. Gal 2:7–9). This hypothesis is further corroborated by the fact that the scriptural model used by the evangelist in Lk 7:1–10, namely the story about the healing of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:1–14),252 refers to a Syrian (2 Kgs 5:1–2.5 LXX). The Lucan character of the presumably Roman centurion (ἑκατοντάρχης: Lk 7:2.6; cf. 23:47; Acts 10:1.22; 21:32 etc.),253 and not simply a Gentile military leader (ἄρχων: 2 Kgs 5:1 LXX), also alludes to

251 Pace T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (NTM 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 294–311, who claims that Lk 7:1–10 is based on 1 Kgs 17:1–16. 252 Cf. A. Kyrychenko, The Roman Army and the Expansion of the Gospel: The Role of the Centurion in Luke-Acts (BZNW 203; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 161; J. Shelton, ‘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)’, in J. S. Kloppenborg and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke (LNTS 493; Bloomsbury: London · New York 2014), 65–87 (esp. 71–87); A. Damm, ‘A RhetoricalCritical Assessment of Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative’, in ibid. 88–112 (esp. 100–108). 253 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 444; A. Kyrychenko, Roman, 154–155.

96

Antioch (cf. Gal 2:11a) as the place of permanent stationing of Roman legions (cf. Jos. B.J. 2.186, 500; 3.29 etc.).254 The correlated characters of the highly honoured, gravely ill slave (δοῦλος) of a Gentile military officer, who sent (*ἀποστέλλω) a message to the Israelite Jesus, so that thanks to Jewish mediation concerning his gifts for Israel, thanks to his Gentile-style faith (obeying military orders), and thanks to Jesus’ word (λόγος), the slave was healed on the way back with no direct contact with Jesus at home (οἰκ*: Lk 7:2–3.6–10), commonly reflect the features of the scriptural character of the gravely ill Gentile military officer and servant Naaman, who was sent with a message and gifts to the Israelite prophet Elisha, and who thanks to Israelite mediation, thanks to the Gentile-style faith of his slaves, and thanks to the prophet’s word, was healed on his way back with no direct contact with the prophet at home (2 Kgs 5:1–14 LXX).255 In this narrative way, Luke provided the openness of the Jewish apostle Cephas towards the Gentiles (Gal 2:12b) with a scriptural justification. In his reworking of the scriptural story, Luke replaced the static character of Elisha, to whom the Gentile came (2 Kgs 5:8–10 LXX), with the character of Jesus as moving towards the Gentile, who was presented as staying at home (Lk 7:6–7). In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, the evangelist illustrated the Pauline idea of Cephas’ moving towards the Gentiles at Antioch (Gal 2:12b; cf. 2:11a). On the other hand, Luke thus achieved the narrative effect of the main hero not immediately coming into direct contact with the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:12b), although they had a certain Gentile-style faith in the power of the authoritatively pronounced word (Lk 7:7–9). Besides, the particular narrative motif of first earnestly begging Jesus that he should (παρακαλέω + αὐτόν + λέγων* ὅτι) come and heal (*σώζω) an important, gravely ill (*ως ἔχω) child (παῖς) of an officer (ἀρχ*) related to a synagogue (συναγωγ*), but then, in the presence of a crowd accompanying Jesus (ἀκολουθέω + αὐτῷ + ὄχλος), refraining from troubling (σκύλλω) Jesus to make him go to the house with the child, who was nevertheless saved thanks to the officer’s faith (πιστ*: Lk 7:2–7.9), was borrowed from Mk 5:22–24.35–36

254 It should be noted that Luke evidently avoided describing Jesus and his Jewish apostles, including Peter, as leaving the land of Israel (e.g. Acts 12:17 diff. Gal 2:11a). In this geographical, irenical way (cf. also Acts 2:9–11 etc.), Luke reworked the idea of the partition of the world between the circumcised and the uncircumcised ones, which was agreed upon in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9). 255 Cf. L. Brink, Soldiers, 130; J. Shelton, ‘Healing’, 78–84.

97

(cf. Lk 8:51.54: παῖς).256 The use of the motif which was borrowed from the first part of the Marcan story of the raising of Jairus’ daughter in the presence of Peter (Mk 5:22–24.35–37) similarly to that Marcan text illustrates the Pauline idea of Cephas’ coming to the Gentiles as a witness to the halachically liberating power of Jesus’ resurrection (Gal 2:12b). In the second part of his work, Luke again used the story about a Roman centurion to illustrate the same idea of Peter’s coming to the Gentiles and sharing meals with them (Acts 10; cf. Gal 2:12b).257 This fact additionally proves the hypothesis that Lk 7:1–10 alludes to Gal 2:12b. The story about the raising of the widow’s son (Lk 7:11–17) is located in the otherwise unknown, walled, apparently Judaean city of Nain (Lk  7:11–12.17), which has some features of the walled city of Ain/Nain on the Judaean-Idumaean border (Jos. B.J. 4.511, 517).258 Accordingly, this Lucan story illustrates the idea that the followers of James in Judaea somehow received the news about Cephas’ activity among the Gentiles in the northern city of Antioch (cf. Gal 2:12ab). The same idea was later illustrated by Luke in Acts 11:1–3, which likewise follows the story about Peter’s activity among the Gentiles (Acts 10). On the other hand, the story about the raising of the widow’s son (Lk 7:11–17) presents Jesus as directly touching the unclean coffin with the dead boy (Lk 7:14; cf. Num 19:11–16),259 thus illustrating the Pauline idea of Cephas’ finally coming into direct contact with unclean people (Gal 2:12b). Luke illustrated the Pauline statement that the Jewish apostle Cephas came into direct contact with unclean Gentiles, presumably as a witness to the halachically liberating power of Jesus’ resurrection (Gal 2:12b), with the use of two narratively correlated scriptural stories which justify such behaviour: the story of the raising of the lying dead (τεθνηκός) only son (υἱός) of a woman by the prophet Elisha through physical contact with the child (2 Kgs 4:32–37 LXX)260 and the story about the raising of the dead only son (υἱός) of a widow (χήρα),

256 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 377–378; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 441, 446. 257 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 441, 446–447; M. C. Easter, ‘“Certainly This Man Was Righteous”: Highlighting a Messianic Reading of the Centurion’s Confession in Lk 23:47’, TynBul 63 (2012) 35–51 (esp. 42–43). 258 Cf. B.  Shellard, New Light, 31; H.  Klein, Lukasevangelium, 276 n. 9. The idea of locating Nain somewhere in Galilee (with initially differing views concerning its exact location) emerged later, in the patristic period. 259 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 651; B. J. Koet, ‘Purity and Impurity of the Body in LukeActs’, in id., Dreams, 81–95 (esp. 90); F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 381. 260 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 254; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 451; D. Gerber, Il vous, 153.

98

who was met at the gate of the city (πυλ* τῆς πόλεως) by the prophet Elijah, through physical contact with the child, who uttered a cry, so that the prophet gave him to his mother (καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ), and the audience praised God (1 Kgs 17:9–10.17–24 LXX).261 Additionally, Luke used here the motifs which were borrowed from the ending of the Marcan story of the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mk 5:38–42; cf. the earlier use of Mk 5:22–24.35–37 in Lk 7:2–9), especially those of weeping (κλαίω: Lk 7:13; cf. Mk 5:38–39), Jesus’ touching the dead child (Lk 7:14; cf. Mk 5:41), the command to the child: ‘I say to you, arise!’ (σοὶ λέγω + ἐγείρω: Lk 7:14; cf. Mk 5:41), and the statement that the child rose up (ἀνα*: Lk 7:15; cf. Mk 5:42).262 With the use of this Marcan story of the raising of Jairus’ daughter in the presence of Peter, Luke again illustrated the idea that Cephas, similarly to Paul, came to Antioch as a witness to the liberating power of Jesus’ resurrection (Gal 2:12b; cf. 1 Cor 15:4–5).263 The same idea was later, in a similar way, illustrated by Luke in Acts 9:32–42.264

1.28  Lk 7:18–30 (cf. Gal 2:12c–f) The section Lk 7:18–30, with its main themes of the coming of some people from a devout Jew, responding to them in the matter of the contact with unclean people, and showing respect to the withdrawing devout Jew, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:12c–f. The opening statement concerning the disciples of John in Judaea (cf. Lk 7:17) reporting to John on Jesus’ activity among unclean people (Lk 7:18a; cf. 7:1–16) illustrates the idea that the followers of James in Judaea somehow heard about Paul and Cephas’ activity among the Gentiles in Antioch (cf. Gal 2:12b; cf. later Acts 11:1). Notwithstanding his earlier remark concerning the imprisonment of John (Lk 3:20), Luke surprisingly presented John as being in a position to receive and send his potentially dangerous (cf. Lk 3:19) disciples with the likewise politically dangerous task of looking for the coming Messiah (Lk 7:18–19). Such a

261 Cf. M.  Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 274–276; F.  Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 378; A. Damm, ‘Rhetorical-Critical’, 108–111. 262 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 384. 263 For the resulting links between Lk 7:11–17 and the Lucan story of Jesus’ resurrection (Lk 24), see M. De Santis, ‘La visita di Dio alla vedova di Nain (Lc 7,11–17) e la risurrezione di Gesù (Lc 24)’, RivB 62 (2014) 49–74 (esp. 57–73). 264 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 357.

99

description of John breaks the narrative logic of the Lucan work, but it well illustrates the position of James in the Judaean church (cf. Gal 2:12a). The statement concerning John’s calling to himself some (τινάς) two of his disciples (Lk  7:18b) linguistically alludes to the Pauline statement concerning some people from James (Gal 2:12a). The description of their coming to Jesus (Lk  7:19–20) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline statement concerning the coming of these ‘some’ to Cephas and Paul in Antioch (Gal  2:12c). The doubting question of these disciples (Lk  7:19cd.20ef), notwithstanding John’s earlier declaration of allegiance to the coming one (Lk  3:16),265 illustrates the censuring attitude of the followers of James towards Cephas and Paul (Gal 2:12c; cf. 2:12d–f; cf. later Acts 11:2–3). The subsequent response of Jesus (Lk  7:22–23), which points both to his miracle-working and preaching activity among various evil and unclean people (Lk  7:21; cf. Lev  21:18; 22:4 LXX) and to the implicit scriptural justification thereof (Lk  7:22: τυφλοί + ἀναβλέπω, κωφοί + ἀκούω, χωλός walking: cf. Is 29:18; 42:18; 35:5–6 LXX;266 λεπρός + καθαρίζω: cf. 2 Kgs 5:1–14 LXX;267 νεκροί + ἐγείρω: cf. Is 26:19 LXX;268 πτωχοί + εὐαγγελίζω: cf. Is 61:1 LXX),269 is an idealizing reworking of the subsequent Pauline description of the reaction of the Jewish apostle Cephas to the coming of the likewise Jewish followers of James (Gal 2:12de). By means of the hypertextual procedure of transvalorization (in this case, partial rehabilitation), Luke allusively presented Cephas’ reaction as though he defended his and Paul’s border-breaking and preaching activity among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:12b) with the use of both factual and scriptural arguments. A similar idealized response of Peter to the Judaean believers was later presented by Luke in Acts 11:4–17.

265 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 462–463. 266 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 282; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 280; R. B. Hays, ‘Liberation’, 109–110. 267 Cf. R. H. Stein, Luke, 227. 268 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 464; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 280. Pace C. Pogor, ‘Deux expressions portant sur la résurrection des morts: Étude de cas sur 4Q521 2 ii 5–8; 12–13 et Mt 11,5 par. Lc 7,22’, in G. Van Oyen and T. Shepherd (eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue (BETL 249; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 345–359 (esp. 352), the choice of the verb ἐγείρω (and not ἀνίστημι from Is 26:19 LXX) was caused by the use of this verb in the preceding, thematically related text Lk 7:14 (cf. Mk 5:41). 269 Cf. D. Gerber, Il vous, 106; R. B. Hays,‘Liberation’, 109–110; J. Rindoš, He of Whom, 174.

100

The related, conditionally formulated blessing for everyone, unless he is led into sin (σκανδαλίζω) because of Jesus (Lk  7:23), recalls the Marcan description of the blameworthy behaviour of Peter as led into sin by abandoning and denying Jesus (Mk 14:27–31). Consequently, it alludes to Paul’s description of the blameworthy behaviour of Cephas, who withdrew and separated himself from Paul and the Gentiles, thus in fact abandoning and denying them (Gal 2:12de). The subsequent praiseful discourse concerning John the Baptist, who was described in a post-Marcan way as a very devout Jew who withdrew himself from the luxuries of human civilization (Lk 7:24–28b; cf. Mk 1:6),270 alludes to Paul’s subsequent statement that Cephas showed respect to those of the circumcision, presumably with their leader James (Gal 2:12f; cf. 2:12a). On the other hand, the concluding post-Marcan and post-Pauline statements concerning the Jewish prophet John as not entering the kingdom of God (Ἰωάννης + ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ: Lk 7:28c; cf. Mk 1:14–15), the sinful tax collectors as receiving God’s justification by being baptized with the baptism of John (τελῶναι + δικαιο* + βαπτίζω + βάπτισμα + Ἰωάννης: Lk 7:29; cf. Mk 2:15–17; 1:4–5), and the Jewish Pharisees and experts in the law as rejecting the graceful will of God for themselves and thus rejecting God’s justification (δικαιόω + ἀθετέω + τὴν… τοῦ θεοῦ: Lk 7:29–30; cf. Gal 2:16–17.21) reveal Luke’s real, postPauline attitude towards James and his Jewish Christian followers as strongly opposing the evangelistic activity among the Gentiles (Gal 2:12f). Besides, the scriptural quotation concerning John the Baptist: γέγραπται… ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου (Lk 7:27b–d) was borrowed from Mk 1:2, where it constituted the non-Isaian part of the allegedly Isaian quotation (Mk 1:2–3), a fragment which was understandably omitted by Luke in Lk 3:4.271 The concluding, added phrase ‘before you’ (ἔμπροσθέν σου: Lk  7:27d), concerning sending God’s angel (ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου: Lk 7:27c), was borrowed from Gen 24:7 LXX, thus evoking the idea of going away from the land of Israel (cf. Gal 2:12). The scriptural phrase ‘born of a woman’ (γεννητὸς γυναικός: Lk  7:28b; cf. Job 11:2.12; 14:1; 15:14; 25:4 LXX)272 likewise broadens the scope of the evangelistic activity to the whole humankind, and not merely to the Jews (cf. Gal 2:12).

270 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 282. 271 Cf. ibid. 282–283. 272 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 286; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 283; R. Martínez, The Question of John the Baptist and Jesus’ Indictment of the Religious Leaders: A Critical Analysis of Luke 7:18–35 (James Clarke: Cambridge 2011), 119 n. 128.

101

Moreover, the non-Marcan derogative term denoting an expert in the Mosaic law (νομικός: Lk 7:30; cf. 10:25; 11:45–46.52; 14:3) was borrowed from the postPauline text Tit  3:13 (cf. 3:9), which presents Titus as instructed to send such ‘experts in the law’ gently away from the community of ‘our people’, who love Paul and his co-workers (cf. Tit 3:14–15).273

1.29  Lk 7:31–35 (cf. Gal 2:13–14) The section Lk 7:31–35, with its main themes of evil people resembling someone, stage-playing, and rebuking the audience for their neither following Jewish piety nor eating with sinners, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:13–14. The semantically broadening remark concerning the presumably evil people of this generation (ἡ γενεά αὕτη: cf. Gen 7:1; Ps 12[11]:8 LXX),274 presented as resembling someone (Lk  7:31), alludes to Paul’s remark concerning the other Jews, presented as resembling Cephas (Gal 2:13a). The particular bipartite question concerning comparing (ὁμοιώσω* + τίνι: Lk  7:31), followed by a parable (cf. Lk  7:32), was borrowed from Mk  4:30 (cf. 4:31–32).275 The subsequent metaphoric description of the evil people (Lk 7:32) illustrates Paul’s subsequent metaphoric statement concerning Barnabas and the other Jews (Gal 2:13b). The particular image of calling others to dance according to the statement (‘as it is said’), ‘We played the flute to you, and you did not dance’ (αὐλέω + οὐκ ὀρχέομαι: Lk 7:32ef), was borrowed from the widely known text of Aesop, Fab. 24.276 Its negative counterpart concerning insincerely playing mourners who failed to induce others to weep (θρηνέω + οὐκ + κλαίω: Lk 7:32gh) was likewise borrowed from Aesop, Fab. 310. In Lk 7:32 these images of ineffectively playing in order to influence the behaviour of others illustrate the Pauline idea of Cephas, the other Jews, and Barnabas behaving like poor play-actors (ὑπόκρισις: Gal 2:13b). The subsequent rebuke to the audience for their neither following Jewish piety (Lk 7:33; cf. Mk 1:6)277 nor eating (ἐσθίω) with tax collectors and sinners, who

273 274 275 276 277

102

Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 74. Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 286; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 394. Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 286. Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 300. Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 290.

narratively represent the Gentiles (Lk 7:34; cf. Mk 2:15–17),278 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent rebuke to Cephas for his following neither the Jewish lifestyle (Gal 2:14a-e) nor the practice of eating with the Gentiles (Gal 2:14fg; cf. 2:12b). The concluding statement that all believers, leading both Jewish and Gentile lifestyles (cf. Lk 7:33–34), acknowledge God’s wisdom (σοφία) in Jesus’ behaviour as righteousness (δικαιο*: Lk  7:35) linguistically alludes to Paul’s similar idea (1 Cor 1:24.30).

1.30  Lk 7:36–50 (cf. Gal 2:15–17c) The section Lk 7:36–50, with its main themes of being with a Jew and not with an unclean sinner, knowing the way to Jesus, not being justified by the works of the law, loving and believing in Jesus, being justified not on account of one’s works, not being justified by the works of the law, and being found a sinner while seeking justification, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:15–17c. The opening post-Marcan image of Jesus’ accepting the invitation of a Jewish Pharisee named Simon (cf. Lk  7:40.43–44) to have a common meal with him (Lk 7:36; cf. Mk 14:3),279 which is quite surprising in the context of the preceding description of Jesus as criticizing the Pharisees and eating with tax collectors and sinners (Lk 7:29–34),280 illustrates Paul’s statement that both he and Cephas were Jews by nature (Gal 2:15a). The narrative substitution of the names of Cephas/ Peter with that of Simon is post-Marcan (cf. Mk 3:16; 14:37). The subsequent image of a presumably unclean female sinner (ἁμαρτωλός: Lk 7:37a) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent remark concerning Gentile sinners (Gal 2:15b).281 The subsequent statement concerning the woman as having known (part. ἐπιγνοῦσα) that (ὅτι) she can come to Jesus (Lk 7:37bc) illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement concerning himself as having known (part. εἰδότες) that (ὅτι) every person should believe in Jesus (Gal 2:16a; cf. 2:16bc).

278 Cf. ibid. 291. 279 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 398; G. Carey, ‘Moving’, 309–311. 280 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 494; G. Hotze, Jesus als Gast: Studien zu einem christologi­ schen Leitmotiv im Lukasevangelium (FB 111; Echter: Würzburg 2007), 144; S. Mason, Josephus, Judea, 344. 281 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 66.

103

The subsequent post-Marcan image of the woman as bringing an alabaster jar of perfume (ἀλάβαστρον μύρου: Lk 7:37d; cf. Mk 14:3),282 which evokes the idea of female sensual attraction (cf. Song 1:12 LXX), as well as her standing behind at Jesus’ feet, weeping, and washing Jesus’ feet with tears (Lk 7:38a–d), and wiping them with the hair of her head (Lk 7:38e), thus showing that she still considered herself a sinner, illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that no person is justified by the works of the law (Gal 2:16b). The subsequent image of the woman as kissing Jesus’ feet and anointing them with the perfume (Lk 7:38fg), actions of love for Jesus which are later interpreted as revealing her faith (πίστις: Lk 7:50), illustrates Paul’s subsequent statements that every person is justified through faith in Jesus Christ, so that we have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Christ (Gal 2:16c–e). The particular image of an unclean woman (γυνή) touching (ἅπτω) Jesus from behind (ὀπισ*: Lk 7:38–39) is post-Marcan (Mk 5:27). The subsequent discussion concerning the sinful woman presented as a debtor being forgiven not on account of her works but on account of the creditor’s grace (χαρι*: Lk 7:39–43), illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that we are justified not by the works of the law (Gal 2:16f), but only by the grace of God (cf. Gal 2:21a). The particular idea of owing (ὀφείλω) to others only loving (ἀγαπάω), and not Roman money (denarii: Lk 7:41–42), and thus fulfilling the obligations of the law (Lk 7:47), was borrowed from the Letter to the Romans (Rom 13:8). The Pauline presentation of love as both an obligation for the justified ones (Rom  13:8ab) and a reason for being justified in terms of the law (Rom 13:8cd) resulted in the evidently inconsistent Lucan presentation of love as both a reason for the forgiveness of sins (Lk 7:47bc) and a result thereof (Lk 7:47de). The subsequent rebuke to the apparently righteous Pharisee Simon (Lk 7:44–46) for his not doing the works which are prescribed by the scriptural and customary law of hospitality (ὕδωρ + πούς + δίδωμι: Lk 7:44 cf. Gen 24:32 LXX; φίλημα: Lk  7:45 cf. 1  Thes 5:26 etc.; ἐλαίῳ τὴν κεφαλήν μου: Lk  7:46 cf. Ps  23[22]:5 LXX),283 so that according to the law he was not justified, illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement that by the works of the law no person shall be justified (Gal 2:16g).

282 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 398–399; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 294–295; G. Carey, ‘Moving’, 309–310. 283 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 298 n. 39; J. W. Jipp, Divine Visitations and Hospitality to Strangers in Luke-Acts: An Interpretation of the Malta Episode in Acts 28:1–10 (NovTSup 153; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 176–179, 182.

104

The subsequent repeated references to the sins (ἁμαρτ*) of the woman as being publicly acknowledged (Lk  7:47–49; diff. 7:39), while she, by loving Jesus, sought justification in his forgiveness (Lk 7:47c–e), illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found sinners (Gal 2:17a–c). The particular narrative dialogue concerning forgiving sins (ἀφίημι + ἁμαρτίαι), which engaged the surprisingly introduced fellow banqueters (Lk 7:47–49), is post-Marcan (cf. Mk 2:5–7).284 Jesus’ proclamation of forgiveness to the formerly unclean woman: ‘Your faith has saved you. Go in peace’ (ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε… εἰς εἰρήνην: Lk  7:50) was likewise borrowed from the Gospel of Mark (Mk 5:34).285 Through its reference to faith (πίστις: Lk 7:50b), it again evokes the Pauline theme of justification by faith (cf. Gal 2:16).286 Accordingly, this proclamation of justification by faith, formulated with the use of Jesus’ words (Lk  7:50bc), further illustrates Paul’s statement concerning being justified in Christ (Gal 2:17b).

1.31  Lk 8:1–3 (cf. Gal 2:17de) The section Lk 8:1–3, with its main themes of following the previous topic, Jesus’ messianic activity, his not being associated with sin, and his being served, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:17de. The statement concerning Jesus and the Twelve (Lk 8:1) presents them in a post-Marcan way as one group, travelling together (cf. Mk 3:14; 11:11; 14:17). The long addition concerning women (γυναῖκες… ἦσαν): Mary Magdalene (Μαρία ἡ… Μαγδαληνή), two other women, and many (πολλαί) others who travelled with Jesus and the Twelve and served (διακονέω) them (Lk  8:2–3) is likewise post-Marcan (cf. Mk 15:40–41; 16:1).287 However, the Lucan combination of the Marcan texts concerning Jesus with the Twelve (Mk 3:14 etc.) and concerning Mary Magdalene and other women (Mk 15:40–41 etc.), which presents them all

284 Cf. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 44; K. Paffenroth, The Story of Jesus according to L (JSNTSup 147; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1997), 36 n. 50; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 492, 499. 285 Cf. J. Delobel, ‘L’onction par la pécheresse: La composition littéraire de Lc., VII, 36–50’, ETL 42 (1966) 415–475 (esp. 465); T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 45; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 492, 502 n. 295. 286 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 66. 287 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 506; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 298–299; F. S. Spencer, Salty, 105–106.

105

as one group, is at this stage of the story rather surprising (diff. Lk 9:1.12; 18:31; cf. later Acts 1:13–14). In fact, the opening remark ‘in what follows’ (ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς: Lk 8:1a), which is here semantically redundant, closely links the statement concerning Jesus (Lk 8:1b–d) with the preceding account concerning the sinful woman (Lk 7:37–50). Thus, it narratively reflects the Pauline linking of the remark concerning Christ (Gal 2:17d) with the preceding arguments concerning justification (Gal 2:16–17c) by means of the correlating particle ἆρα (‘then’), which conveys the idea of following the previous topic (Gal 2:17d). The subsequent, semantically messianic statement concerning Jesus’ preaching the kingdom of God (Lk 8:1b–d), as well as his being accompanied by the Twelve (Lk 8:1e), alludes to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning Christ, so the Messiah of Israel (Χριστός: Gal 2:17d). The subsequent description of the women (Lk 8:2–3c) makes clear that they were not sinners. Thus, it illustrates Paul’s subsequent remark concerning Christ’s not being associated with sin (Gal 2:17de). In particular, the statement that the women were healed of evil spirits (and not unclean spirits: diff. Lk 4:33.36; 6:18 etc.) and infirmities (Lk 8:2a) presents them as now being sound morally, spiritually, and bodily. Thus, it presents them as not being sinners (diff. Lk 7:37–50). Likewise, the partly post-Marcan statement that seven (ἑπτά) demons (δαιμόνιον) went out (ἐξεληλυθ*) from Mary called Magdalene (Lk 8:2bc; cf. Mk 7:29–30)288 suggests that she had previously been involved in seven irregular marital relationships (cf. Tob 3:8.17), but thereafter she was morally and spiritually sound. The surprisingly introduced character of the otherwise unknown Joanna, the wife (γυνή) of Chuza, a likewise unknown steward (ἐπίτροπος) of Herod (Lk 8:3a; cf. 24:10; diff. Mk 15:40.47; 16:1),289 has the features of the unnamed wealthy wife

288 The phrase ‘called Magdalene’ (ἡ καλουμένη Μαγδαληνή: Lk 8:2b) is a Lucan explanation of the semantically unclear Marcan term ‘the Magdalene’ (ἡ Μαγδαληνή: Mk 15:40.47; 16:1; cf. also hesitantly Lk 24:10: ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία). It should be noted that the previously unattested toponym ‘Magdala’ was created only later, on the basis of the Marcan adjective Μαγδαληνή (Mk 15:40.47; 16:1). For the origins of the traditional identification of Taricheae with ‘Magdala’, see U. Leibner, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee (TSAJ 127; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 214, 217–219, 228–232. 289 The person of Chuza, referred to in Lk 8:3, is not known from any non-Lucan, historical source. Cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1, Palestine 330 bce – 200 ce (TSAJ 91; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2002), 441.

106

of Ptolemy, a steward of king Herod. According to Josephus, this wife travelled through Galilee and knew how to protect her marital fidelity against an assault of men in the absence of her husband, thus being an example of a not sinful woman (Jos. Vita 126–127). For this reason, Luke introduced a slightly reworked character of this faithful wife into the list of women who travelled together with Jesus in the absence of their husbands (Lk 8:2–3c), in order to demonstrate in a narrative way that Christ was not associated with sin (Gal 2:17de). The character of the otherwise unknown Susanna (Σουσάννα: Lk 8:2b;290 diff. Mk 15:40; 16:1: Σαλώμη) was introduced into the Lucan account for the same reason. The name of Susanna recalls the scriptural story about Susanna, who protected her marital fidelity against an assault of men in the absence of her husband, and thus she did not commit a sin (ἁμαρτ*: Sus 22–23 θ’). Accordingly, Luke introduced the character of Susanna in order to demonstrate that Christ was not associated with sin (Gal 2:17de). The subsequent statement that the women served (διακον*) Jesus and the Twelve (Lk 8:3d), so that Jesus was served by the women, and did not serve them, as he repeatedly exhorted to do (cf. Mk 9:35; 10:43.45; Lk 12:37; 17:8–10; 22:26–27), illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that Christ was not a servant, namely a servant of sin (Gal 2:17de).

1.32 Lk 8:4–9:22 The section Lk 8:4–9:22 is a reworking of the Marcan section Mk 3:31–8:33. Since the reworking of the Marcan text is here generally close, in terms of thematic and verbal agreement, it should not be categorized as an example of hypertextuality. In particular, the Lucan set of parables (Lk  8:4–18) is an abbreviated version of the Marcan text Mk 4:1–34, with the omission of two Marcan parables (Mk 4:26–29.30–32) and of the Marcan conclusion (Mk 4:33–34). The account of the coming of Jesus’ relatives (Lk 8:19–21) is an abbreviated version of the Marcan text Mk 3:31–35. In line with his more conciliatory attitude towards the Jerusalem community, Luke omitted the fragment which most negatively presented Jesus’ relatives (Mk 3:33–34).291 After the account of the crossing of the lake (Lk  8:22–25; cf. Mk  4:35–41), the account of Jesus’ encounter with the Gerasene demoniac (Lk 8:26–39) is an 290 It is noteworthy that the name Susanna, used in Lk 8:3, is attested only once (and only in Hebrew) in Palestinian written sources dated to the period between 330 bc and ad 200. See ibid., part 1, 426, 451. 291 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 332; L. T. Johnson, Luke, 133; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 536–537.

107

abbreviated version of the corresponding Marcan account (Mk 5:1–20). One of the differences between them consists in the particular, post-Pauline (cf. Gal 2:9) presentation of Jesus and the Twelve as apparently never leaving the land of Israel (cf. Acts 12:17 diff. Gal 2:11 etc.).292 At the beginning of the account, Luke inserted a misleading geographical remark concerning the country of the Gerasenes: ‘which is opposite to Galilee’ (Lk 8:26b; diff. Mk 5:1), thus suggesting that the country of the Gerasenes was located close to Lake Gennesaret, simply on its other side.293 Likewise, at the end of the account, Luke substituted the Marcan remark concerning Decapolis (Mk  5:20) with a vague remark concerning ‘the city’ (Lk 8:39).294 Thus, Luke suggested that during the short trip to the other side of the lake (Lk 8:22–39) Jesus almost avoided any contact with the Gentile region located east of the land of Israel.295 In the following post-Marcan section Lk 8:40–9:17 (cf. Mk 5:21–6:44), Luke omitted the account of the rejection of Jesus in his hometown (Mk 6:1–6), which was already earlier used in Lk 4:16–30, and the account of the execution of John the Baptist (Mk 6:17–29), which was likewise already earlier used in Lk 3:19–20. The omission of the Marcan section concerning Jesus’ activity outside the land of Israel (Mk 6:45–8:26)296 was most probably motivated by the Lucan postPauline idea that the area of the activity of the Twelve among the circumcised (cf. Gal 2:9f; Acts 1–12) should not geographically overlap with the area of the activity of Paul among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:9g; Acts 13–28).297 For the same reason, the account of Peter’s confession of Jesus’ identity, as well as the following instruction of Jesus (Lk 9:18–22; cf. Mk 8:27–33) were located by Luke not far in the north, at Caesarea Philippi (cf. Mk 8:27), but vaguely somewhere ‘alone’ (Lk 9:18).298 292 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 436–437; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 10; A. Lindemann, ‘Jesus, Israel und die Völker: Zum Jesusbild der neutestamentlichen Evangelien’, in id., Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte: Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte (WUNT 241; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 368–405 (esp. 386–390). 293 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 553–554; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 316. 294 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 553, 560. 295 Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 553, 560–561; B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 316 n. 90. 296 Luke certainly knew Mk 6:45–8:26, as it follows e.g. from his post-Marcan remark concerning coming to Bethsaida in the context of the multiplication of five loaves and two fish (Lk 9:10; cf. Mk 6:45), as well as his post-Marcan remark concerning Jesus’ solitary prayer after the multiplication (Lk 9:18; cf. Mk 6:46). Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 10, 610; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 45 n. 9, 334. 297 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 437. 298 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 560–561, 610.

108

1.33  Lk 9:23–27 (cf. Gal 2:19–20) The section Lk 9:23–27 is a slightly corrected version of the Marcan text Mk 8:34–9:1. However, these corrections seem to illustrate sequentially the main ideas of the Pauline text Gal 2:19–20. The Lucan inserted remark that the believers should take the cross (σταυρός) every day (Lk 9:23e; diff. Mk 8:34f), although the corresponding post-Marcan verb was retained in the aorist (ἀράτω: Lk 9:23e; cf. Mk 8:34f),299 illustrates the Pauline idea of having been crucified (συσταυρόω) with Christ (Gal  2:19c), presumably for the believer’s whole life (cf. Gal 2:19b).300 The somewhat surprising omission of the Marcan phrase ‘and the gospel’ in the post-Marcan statement concerning losing the believer’s life for Jesus (Lk 9:24d; diff. Mk  8:35d), with the effect of stressing the personal relationship between the believer and Jesus,301 may likewise illustrate the Pauline idea of having been crucified with Christ (Gal 2:19c). Similarly, the statement concerning losing oneself (Lk 9:25c), and not one’s soul (cf. Mk 8:36c-37),302 a statement which again stresses the personal relationship between the believer and Jesus,303 may illustrate the Pauline idea of having been crucified with Christ (Gal 2:19c). The subsequent omission of the Marcan concluding remark that the kingdom of God will come with power (Lk 9:27e; diff. Mk 9:1g),304 with the effect of suggesting that the kingdom of God is present already now in a humble way (cf. Lk 6:20; 17:21),305 may illustrate the subsequent Pauline idea that the believer lives with Christ already now (Gal 2:20b–d).

299 Cf. S. Bøe, Cross-Bearing in Luke (WUNT 2.278; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010), 113, 116, 151. 300 Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 152. 301 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 620–621; S. Bøe, Cross-Bearing, 131; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 481. 302 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 342; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 348; S. Bøe, CrossBearing, 145. 303 Cf. W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 620–621. 304 Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 623. 305 Cf. M. L. Strauss, Davidic, 264.

109

1.34  Lk 9:28–36 (cf. Gal 2:21–3:1) The section Lk  9:28–36 is a corrected version of the Marcan text Mk  9:2–9. Some of these corrections seem to illustrate the main ideas of the Pauline text Gal 2:21–3:1. The inserted, somewhat surprising Lucan remark that Moses and Elijah were seen as speaking of Jesus’ ‘exodus’, that is death (cf. Wis 3:2; 7:6; 2 Pet 1:15),306 which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem (Lk  9:31), a remark which conveys the ideas of (a) Moses (before Elijah) pointing to Jesus’ death and (b) Scripture (the Law and the Prophets, ‘Exodus’) foretelling Jesus’ crucifixion,307 seems to illustrate the Pauline ideas that (a’) it is not law, but Jesus’ death, which brings about justification (Gal  2:21bc) and (b’) before the eyes of the believers Jesus Christ was described beforehand, presumably in Scripture, as crucified (Gal 3:1bc). The inserted Lucan remarks that the disciples were, surprisingly, weighed down with sleep (Lk  9:32a; cf. Mk  14:37.40–41)308 and that they entered the cloud (Lk 9:34e)309 may illustrate the Pauline idea that the Galatians behaved as bewitched (Gal 3:1a).310 The substitution of the Marcan term ‘beloved’ (Mk  9:7) with that of God’s ‘chosen one’ (ἐκλελεγμένος: Lk 9:35) in the Lucan narrative proleptically points to watching the crucified Jesus (σταυρόω: cf. Lk 23:33), who was called the Messiah (χριστός) of God and the ‘chosen one’ (ἐκλεκτός: Lk 23:35).311 Accordingly, it further illustrates the Pauline idea of watching Jesus as the crucified Messiah (Gal 3:1bc).

306 Cf. M.J.  Lagrange, Évangile selon saint Luc (EBib; J.  Gabalda: Paris 1921), 272; H. Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1–9,50 (HTKNT 3/1; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1969), 558. 307 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 343–344. 308 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 497–498; G. Rossé, Luca, 344; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 632. 309 Cf. L. Bormann, Recht, Gerechtigkeit und Religion im Lukasevangelium (SUNT 24; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2001), 257; T. W. Martin, ‘What Makes Glory Glorious? Reading Luke’s Account of the Transfiguration Over Against Triumphalism’, JSNT 29.1 (2006) 3–26 (esp. 22). 310 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 497: ‘hypnotisiert’. 311 Cf. M. L. Strauss, Davidic, 263, 266–267; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 79; W. Radl, Lukas, vol. 1, 635.

110

1.35 Lk 9:37–50 The section Lk 9:37–50 is a corrected and shortened version of the Marcan section Mk 9:14–40. Since the literary reworking of the Marcan text is here generally close, in terms of thematic and verbal agreement, it should not be categorized as an example of hypertextuality.

111

Chapter 2. Lk 9:51–24:53 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal 1–6 The long section Lk  9:51–24:53 consists of the so-called ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51–19:28), the story of Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem (Lk 19:29–21:38), and the story of Jesus’ passion, resurrection, and ascension (Lk 22:1–24:53). Scholars generally agree that no satisfactory solution to the problem of the structure and origins of the so-called Lucan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk  9:51–19:28), which is much longer than its structural counterpart in the Gospel of Mark (Mk 9:41–10:32),1 has yet been found.2 In fact, a detailed intertextual analysis of the so-called Lucan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk  9:51–19:28) reveals that the content and order of its material can be explained in terms of sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians, especially its main part: Gal 1:1–6:10.

2.1  Lk 9:51–56 (cf. Gal 1:1–14) The section Lk 9:51–56, with its main themes of Jesus’ exaltation, Jesus’ resolve to give his life in Jerusalem according to the will of God, zealous Jewish ‘angels’ quickly turning away from Jesus’ graceful message to extremely destructive actions against their religious rivals, and strongly rebuking these ‘angels’, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:1–14.

1 Cf. D. P. Moessner, ‘How Luke writes’, in M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge University: Cambridge · New York 2005), 149–170 (esp. 156). 2 For recent surveys of the variety of synchronic and diachronic approaches to the socalled Lucan ‘travel narrative’ which have been adopted by modern scholars, see e.g. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ und ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ: Eine exegetische Untersuchung der Texte des sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium (BZNW 101; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2001), 6–44; F. Noël, The Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke: Interpretation of Lk 9,51–19,28 (CBRA; Wetenschappelijk Comité voor Godsdienstgeschiedenis van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten van België: Brussel 2004), 15–206; J. Székely, Structure and Theology of the Lucan “Itinerarium” (Lk 9,51–19,28) (Szent Jeromos Katolikus Bibliatársulat: Budapest 2008), 9–54.

113

The opening, quite surprisingly introduced Lucan idea of the fulfilled (*πληρόω) days (ἡμέρα) of Jesus’ being taken up (ἀνα*: Lk 9:51ab),3 an event which according to the Lucan Gospel happened on the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Lk 24:51),4 after the fulfilment (Lk 24:44) of the scriptural motif of the resurrection from the dead (ἐκ νεκρῶν) on the third day (Lk 24:46; cf. 9:22; 18:33; 24:7.21; cf. also 2:46: ἡμέραι),5 illustrates the opening Pauline idea of Jesus’ being raised from the dead by God (Gal 1:1). The subsequent, also surprisingly presented idea of Jesus’ firm resolve (στηρίζω τὸ πρόσωπον: ‘set one’s face’: cf. Jer 3:12 LXX etc.)6 to go to Jerusalem (Lk 9:51cd), presumably in order to give his life in Jerusalem according to the will of God (cf. Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34; cf. also Acts 19:21; 20:22–24; 21:13),7 illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that Jesus gave himself for our sins, presumably in Jerusalem, according to the will of God (Gal 1:4). Accordingly, the unusual thematic order exaltation-death in Lk 9:51 reflects the similar thematic order in Gal 1:1–4. The subsequent idea of Jesus’ sending messengers with a peaceful task of preparing a place for him (Lk 9:52; cf. 22:8–13) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of calling the disciples in the grace of Christ (Gal 1:6c). 3 Cf. G. Rossé, Il Vangelo di Luca: Commento esegetico e teologico (3rd edn., Città Nuova: Roma 2001), 362; F. Noël, Travel, 218–228; A. Denaux, ‘The Use of Scripture in Luke 9:51–56’, in B. J. Koet, S. Moyise, and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition, Festschrift M. J. J. Menken (NovTSup 148; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 57–79 (esp. 65–66). 4 Cf. A. Denaux, ‘Luke’s Story of Jesus’ Resurrection (Lk 23,54–24,53)’, in id., Studies in the Gospel of Luke: Structure, Language and Theology (TTS 4; Lit: Münster 2010), 277–306 (esp. 287). 5 It should be noted that the introduction of the scriptural temporal motifs of forty and fifty days occurred in Acts 1:3; 2:1 (in agreement with 1 Cor 15:6–7), in difference to the earlier presentation of Jesus’ being taken up to heaven on the day of his resurrection (Lk 24:1–51; cf. Acts 1:2.22). Cf. G. E. Sterling, Historiography and SelfDefinition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; E. J. Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1992), 337; M. Crimella, ‘The Transformation of Characters in Lk 24: A Narrative Investigation’, RB 119 (2012) 173–185 (esp. 174). 6 Cf. J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 1997), 403 n. 10; F. Noël, Travel, 229; H. Klein, Das Lukasevangelium (KEK 1/3; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2006), 362 n. 34. 7 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 404; C. Pagliara, ‘L’analēmpsis elianica di Gesù (Lc 9,51; 24,51; At 1.2.11.22)’, in A. Pitta and G. Di Palma (eds.), «La parola di Dio non è incatenata» (2Tm 2,9), Festschrift C. Marcheselli-Casale (RivBSup 54; Dehoniane: Bologna 2012), 165–185 (esp. 173).

114

The subsequent image of the messengers (‘angels’: ἄγγελος: cf. Lk 9:52) James and John, presented as, surprisingly, quickly turning from Jesus’ graceful message to the evidently Jewish plan to destroy extremely violently their religious rivals (Lk 9:54),8 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the believers quickly turned away from their graceful calling to a Jewish version of the gospel (Gal 1:6ab), which disturbed others (Gal 1:7), which could be preached by an angel from heaven (Gal 1:8a), and which consisted in an extremely violent Jewish persecution of religious rivals in order to destroy them (Gal 1:13) in a way that was consistent with Jewish ancestral traditions (Gal 1:14). In particular, the Pauline idea of a violent Jewish persecution (Gal 1:13) was illustrated by Luke with the use of the Marcan image of the Jewish leaders James and John presented as ‘sons of thunder’ (Lk  9:54; cf. Mk  3:17).9 Similarly, the Pauline thought that this violent persecution was consistent with Jewish ancestral traditions (Gal 1:14) was illustrated by Luke with the use of the scriptural motif of punishing the opponents by saying that fire should come down from heaven and destroy them (λέγω + πῦρ + καταβαίνω + τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καί: Lk 9:54; cf. 2 Kgs 1:10.12 LXX).10 Moreover, Luke anchored the Pauline idea of a violent Jewish persecution of religious rivals (Gal 1:13) in his narrative concerning Jesus’ Galilean and Samarian activity (Lk 4:14–18:34) with the use of Josephus’ story about a Samaritan village (κώμη) which was hostile to Galilean pilgrims going to Jerusalem and which was set on fire by the vengeful Galileans before they were persuaded by their religious authorities to withdraw (cf. Jos. B.J. 2.232–238; Ant. 20.118–124). However, whereas Josephus described this event as an extraordinary outburst of violence, which in fact took place in ad 52 (cf. Jos. Ant. 20.136–138; Tacitus, Ann. 12.54),11 Luke presented it as a typical scene, which used to happen often at the time of

8 Cf. R. H. Stein, Luke (NAC 24, Broadman & Holman: Nashville, Tenn. 1992), 298; J. B. Green, Luke, 405. 9 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 363 n. 253. 10 For the use of this scriptural motif in Lk 9:54, cf. F. Mickiewicz, Ewangelia według św. Łukasza, vol. 1 (NKBNT 3/1; Święty Paweł: Częstochowa 2011), 522; A. Denaux, ‘Use’, 77; T. L. Brodie, ‘Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative’, in J. S. Kloppenborg and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke (LNTS 493; Bloomsbury: London · New York 2014), 6–29 (esp. 23). 11 Cf. M. Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas: Eine Studie zum religionshistorischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der lukanischen Samarientexte und zu deren topographischer Verhaftung (WUNT 2.111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999), 213.

115

Jesus’ activity (Lk 9:53–54). Since the Samaritans were elsewhere described by Luke in rather positive terms (cf. e.g. Lk 10:30–37), it is evident that the motif of a violent Galilean response to the Samaritan hostility was used by Luke in Lk 9:53–54 only for a particular literary reason, namely in order to illustrate the Pauline idea of a violent Jewish persecution of religious rivals (Gal 1:13).12 The related idea of strongly rebuking the disciples for their turning to a violent Jewish attitude (Lk 9:55; cf. Mk 8:33)13 illustrates the related Pauline strong rebuke to the believers for their turning to a Jewish, and consequently violent, version of the gospel (Gal 1:8c–9).

2.2  Lk 9:57–62 (cf. Gal 1:15–16a) The tripartite section Lk 9:57–62, with its three main themes of being excluded, being called, and revealing supernatural sonship, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transdiegetization sequentially illustrates the three main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:15–16a. The opening scene (Lk  9:57–58) presents Jesus as the one who goes away (ἀπέρχομαι) and has no place to dwell, unlike animals of both the earth and the air, and a fortiori unlike humans, both Jews and Gentiles. This image of Jesus’ being separated from normal human life by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of his being separated, presumably from all humans, from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15b). Additionally, it alludes to Paul’s idea of his going away from his hometown to the wilderness of Arabia (Gal 1:17b). The subsequent scene (Lk  9:59–60), in difference to the other two scenes (Lk 9.57–58.61–62), presents Jesus as explicitly calling someone (cf. the use of καλέω in similar scenes: Mk  1:17–18.20; 2:14–15.17) to go away (ἀπέρχομαι) and follow him, and surprisingly not to care for the burial of the deceased father.14 In this way, it presents Paul’s subsequent idea of God’s calling him (καλέω: 12 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 306–307. 13 Cf. I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Paternoster: Carlisle and William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1979), 407; A. Denaux, ‘Use’, 78. 14 Cf. C. M. Hays, ‘Hating Wealth and Wives? An Examination of Discipleship Ethics in the Third Gospel’, TynBul 60 (2009) 47–68 (esp. 49–50); H. Cancik, ‘Hairesis, Diatribe, Ekklesia: Griechische Schulgeschichte und das Lukanische Geschichtswerk’, EC 2 (2011) 312–334 (esp. 332); D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity in the Gospel Parables’, TynBul 62 (2011) 161–172 (esp. 165).

116

Gal  1:15c), having separated him from his parents (cf. Gal  1:15b), with the task of revealing supernatural divine sonship (cf. Gal 1:16a) and going away to the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:16b.17b) to proclaim the message of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. Gal 1:1). The subsequent scene (Lk 9:61–62) evidently alludes to the scriptural story about the calling of the ploughing prophet Elisha (ἀκολουθήσω + σύ + ἀροτρ*: 1 Kgs 19:19–20 LXX).15 However, in difference to that story, Jesus surprisingly did not allow to say farewell to the relatives at home (Lk 9:62).16 Jesus’ similar behaviour in the Jerusalem temple (Lk 2:43–47) revealed his relationship as God’s Son to his Father, which prevailed over that to his parents (Lk 2:48–49). Accordingly, the Lucan scene Lk 9:61–62 conveys the same idea of not revealing one’s natural sonship, and consequently it illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that God revealed his Son in him (Gal 1:16a), having separated him from his parents (cf. Gal 1:15b).

2.3  Lk 10:1–16 (cf. Gal 1:16b–17a) The section Lk 10:1–16, with its main themes of being called to preach the gospel among the Gentiles in a way similar to the Twelve, not greeting humans, not being received as an apostle in Jewish cities, and condemning Jewish cities, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:16b–17a. The apostolic (ἀποστέλλω: Lk  10:1) calling and instructions given to the seventy-two others (Lk  10:1–12) evidently resemble the earlier apostolic calling and instructions given to the Twelve (Mk 6:7–11 par. Lk 9:1–5).17 However, the calling and instructions given to the seventy-two others (esp. Lk 10:1–4a) more clearly refer to the mission among the Gentiles.18 Accordingly, this fragment by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of his being called to preach the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal 1:16b), thus becoming an apostle, and in this aspect resembling the Jerusalem leaders, who became apostles (ἀπόστολος) before him (Gal 1:17a).

15 Cf. C. M. Hays, ‘Hating’, 53; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 528; T. L. Brodie, ‘Luke’s Use’, 26. 16 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 369; C. M. Hays, ‘Hating’, 53–54; T. L. Brodie, ‘Luke’s Use’, 26. 17 Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition, Quellen und Funktion des Lukanischen Reiseberichtes (Lk. ix 51-xix 28)’, NovT 20 (1978) 100–135 (esp. 115); F. Neirynck, ‘Recent Developments in the Study of Q’, in J. Delobel (ed.), Logia: Les paroles de Jésus, Festschrift J. Coppens (BETL 59; Peeters and Leuven University: Leuven 1982), 29–75 (esp. 48). 18 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 411; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 140–142.

117

In particular, the number of the seventy-two (Lk 10:1a)19 alludes to the Septuagintal number of the seventy-two nations of the world (Gen 10 LXX).20 Similarly, in the Pauline and post-Pauline language the phrase ‘every place’ (πᾶς + τόπος: Lk  10:1b) intentionally points to the whole Gentile world (cf. 1 Thes 1:8; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 2:14; 1 Tim 2:8; diff. Lk 4:37: εἰς πάντα τόπον τῆς περιχώρου). Accordingly, the seventy two others were intentionally sent to the whole Gentile world, although according to Luke the activity of Jesus and the Twelve was restricted to the land of Israel. The metaphorical depiction of evangelization as a harvest (θερισμός: Lk 10:2; cf. 19:21–22) is post-Marcan (cf. Mk 4:29). Similarly, the depiction of the apostles as workers (ἐργάτης: Lk 10:2.7) is post-Pauline (cf. 2 Cor 11:13; Phlp 3:2). The command not to carry various things on the mission (Lk 10:4a) is likewise post-Marcan (cf. Mk 6:8–9; cf. also Lk 9:3).21 The particular prohibition of wearing sandals (Lk 10:4a; cf. 10:11; diff. Mk 6:9a),22 which supplements the prohibition of carrying a money bag and a knapsack (Lk 10:4a), can be understood as an exhortation to live in poverty (cf. Lk 15:22; 22:35).23 The subsequent, quite surprising, non-Marcan instruction not to greet anyone on the way (Lk 10:4b; diff. 1:40–41.44; Acts 18:22; 21:7.19)24 illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that he did not confer with anyone (Gal 1:16c) on his way to Arabia (cf. Gal 1:17b). Likewise, the non-Marcan instruction to bestow the greeting of peace, while entering a house, in a purely spiritual way (ἐπαναπαύομαι + ἐπί + pers. pron.: Lk 10:5–6; cf. Num 11:25–26; 2 Kgs 2:15 LXX: τὸ πνεῦμα),25 and not in a merely 19 The reading ἑβδομήκοντα δύο should be regarded as original in Lk 10:1.17 on the basis of strong external evidence (𝔓45vid.75, B, D, lat, sys et al.). Cf. [K. Aland in] B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 1998), 127. 20 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 140; P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001), 84 n. 11; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 533. 21 Cf. F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 535. 22 Cf. M. Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 378. 23 The prohibition of wearing sandals (Lk 10:4) obviously had nothing to do with the Galilean small distances, population, climate, etc., as it has been suggested by some scholars, e.g. M. Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus: Jesu erste Jünger – ein Anfang und was davon bleibt (ÖBS 20; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002), 180. 24 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 377. 25 Cf. A. L. A. Hogeterp, ‘New Testament Greek as Popular Speech: Adolf Deissmann in Retrospect: A Case Study in Luke’s Greek’, ZNW 102 (2011) 178–200 (esp. 199 n. 116).

118

conventional one (diff. Lk 1:28.40; 24:36), additionally, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization, illustrates Paul’s idea of his not conferring with anyone in a fleshly way (Gal 1:16c). The result of Luke’s related reworking of Mk 6:10b in Lk 10:5–6 is in fact illogical: even if a house is hostile to the disciples (Lk 10:6cd), they are ordered to remain in it (Lk 10:7; cf. Mk 6:10cd).26 The explanatory comment, ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages’ (ἄξιος… ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ: Lk  10:7d) was borrowed from 1  Tim 5:18d, but it was understandably corrected in not being introduced as a scriptural quotation (diff. 1 Tim 5:18a). The subsequent elaborate fragment concerning being welcomed or not welcomed in a big city (Lk 10:8–12: πόλις used 4 times; diff. Mk 6:11: τόπος),27 in which there are some streets (πλατεῖαι: Lk  10:10c; cf. 13:26; 14:21; Acts  5:15), allusively explains the subsequent idea of Paul’s negative attitude to the city of Jerusalem (Gal  1:17a; cf. 1:18ab), presumably because of his being welcomed there by only some of the Jerusalem apostles (cf. Gal 1:18c-19). The particular, non-Marcan instruction concerning the disciples’ behaviour in a city, among the people who welcome them but do not yet believe (cf. Lk  10:8ab), presumably because they have not yet heard the preaching of the kingdom of God (cf. Lk 10:9), namely to eat what is set before them (ἐσθίετε + παρατιθέμενον + ὑμῖν: Lk 10:8c), was borrowed from 1 Cor 10:27.28 On the other hand, the idea of Jesus’ healing (θεραπεύω) the sick (Lk 10:9a) is post-Marcan (cf. Mk 6:13c), just as is the idea of Jesus’ preaching that the kingdom of God has come near (ἤγγικεν… ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ: Lk  10:9bc.11cd; cf. Mk 1:15c).29 The thematically related condemnation of the two Jewish cities of Chorazein (Χοραζείν: Lk  10:13a 𝔓45.75; cf. the similarly sounding Lucan Semitic name

26 Cf. B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, vol. 2 (2nd edn., Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1846), 215–216. 27 Cf. F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 2 (EKKNT 3/2; Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996), 53; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 52. 28 Cf. W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered’, JSNT 24 (1985) 3–23 (esp. 13); M. D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989), [vol. 1] 138, [vol. 2] 469; W.  Schenk, ‘Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on his Reception’, in S. Draisma (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, Festschrift B. van Iersel (Kok: Kampen 1989), 127–139 (esp. 133). 29 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 381; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 52; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 538.

119

Σεμεΐν in Lk  3:26) and Bethsaida (Βηθσαϊδά + πόλις: Lk  10:13b; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.28; Lk 9:10), which are negatively compared with two Gentile cities that by sitting in sackcloth and ashes (σάκκος + καί + σποδός + καθ*) and repenting (μετανο*: Lk 10:13ef; cf. Mk 6:12) would behave like the Gentile city of Nineveh (Lk 10:13–14; cf. Jon 3:6 LXX),30 additionally, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation, illustrates Paul’s idea of his not going to the Jewish city of Jerusalem (Gal 1:17a), but presumably preaching conversion in the Gentile region of Arabia (cf. Gal 1:17b). The similar condemnation of the Jewish city of Capernaum (cf. Mk 1:21.33) for its exalting itself (Lk 10:15) illustrates the same Pauline idea. In the Gospel of Mark, Capernaum was presented as the place in which the Twelve were reproached, because of their discussing who among them was the greatest (Mk  9:33–34), by telling them that whoever receives the last apostle receives Jesus (ἐμέ), and who receives Jesus (ἐμέ) receives the one who sent him (τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με: Mk 9:35–37). For this reason, Luke used the otherwise surprising idea of Capernaum exalting itself (Lk 10:15; cf. Mk 9:33–34), together with the related post-Marcan and post-Pauline idea of receiving (cf. Mk 9:37) or rejecting (ἀθετέω: cf. 1 Thes 4:8) the preaching apostles, and accordingly also Jesus and the one who sent him (Lk 10:16; cf. Mk 9:37),31 to illustrate Paul’s statement that he did not go to Jerusalem with its Jewish Christian leaders, who became apostles (ἀπόστολος) before him (Gal 1:17a).

2.4  Lk 10:17–22 (cf. Gal 1:17bc) The section Lk 10:17–22, with its main theme of returning from the wilderness to the place in which it pleased God to reveal his Son to his chosen ones, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 1:17bc. The opening statement concerning the ‘other’ disciples returning (ὑποστρέφω) from the mission among the Gentiles (Lk 10:17; diff. Mk 6:30: συνάγω) illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his returning from Arabia (Gal 1:17c). The metaphorical image of Satan’s fall (σατανᾶς + πίπτω: Lk  10:18) conveys the idea of the end of Satan’s power (cf. Lk  11:17–18). As related to the

30 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 55; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 540. 31 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 427.

120

preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles (cf. Lk 10:1.17), this idea is post-Pauline (cf. Rom 16:20). It was expressed by Luke in somewhat different terms also in Acts 26:17b–18.32 The scriptural motif of the believers safely walking among snakes and scorpions (ὄφις + σκορπίος: Lk 10:19) geographically points to the wilderness of Sinai (cf. Deut 8:15 LXX).33 Since Paul located Sinai in Arabia (cf. Gal 4:25), this scriptural motif illustrates Paul’s idea of his journey to Arabia (Gal 1:17b). The particular thought that spirits (πνεύματα) are subject (ὑποτάσσεται) to the disciples (Lk  10:20; diff. Mk  6:13; Lk  10:17: δαιμόνια) seems to have been borrowed from 1 Cor 14:32).34 The statement that it pleased (εὐδοκ*) the Father to reveal (ἀποκαλύπτω) his Son (υἱός) to the chosen ones (Lk 10:21–22) linguistically alludes to Paul’s statement that it pleased God to reveal his Son in his chosen apostle (Gal 1:15–16a).35 Moreover, the statement that God’s revelation was offered not to the wise and intelligent (σοφῶν καὶ… συνετῶν), but to presumably uneducated infants (νήπιοι: Lk 10:21; cf. Rom 2:20), linguistically recalls Paul’s idea that God opposes those who are wise and intelligent, that is mainly Gentiles who are proud of their wisdom (1 Cor 1:19–22; cf. Is 29:14 LXX), but he promotes the apparently uneducated foolishness of the cross (1 Cor 1:18.23–24).36 Accordingly, Lk 10:21–22 by means of the hypertextual procedure of substitution of ideas illustrates the contents of Paul’s preaching in the Gentile city of Damascus (Gal 1:17c), where the initial revelation of God’s Son in him (cf. Gal 1:16a) presumably took place.

2.5  Lk 10:23–24 (cf. Gal 1:18ab) The section Lk 10:23–24, with its main themes of turning to the disciples in private and referring to Jerusalem, illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:18ab. The somewhat surprising image of Jesus’ turning to the disciples in private (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν: Lk  10:23a)37 linguistically alludes to Paul’s meeting the Jewish Christian

32 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 144. 33 Cf. E. Mayer, Die Reiseerzählung des Lukas (Lk 9,51 – 19,10): Entscheidung in der Wüste (EHS 23/554; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1996), 291–292; G. Rossé, Luca, 390 n. 99; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 548. 34 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 141, [vol. 2] 482. 35 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 88. 36 Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 87–88. 37 Cf. R. H. Stein, Luke, 313.

121

‘pillars’ in Jerusalem in private (Gal 2:2d). Accordingly, it illustrates Paul’s idea of his going to visit Cephas in his Jerusalem home (Gal 1:18ab). The blessing for those who currently see God’s revelation (Lk  10:23c–24; diff. 10:21) is contrasted with many prophets and kings (προφῆται + βασιλεῖς: Lk  10:24b), presumably once living in Jerusalem (cf. Neh  9:32; 2  Macc 2:13; Jer 8:1; 13:13; Bar 1:16; 2:24; Dan 9:5 LXX), who did not receive this visible and audible revelation (Lk 10:24eh). Accordingly, it illustrates Paul’s idea of his going to the ancient, prophetic and royal city of Jerusalem (Gal 1:18a) and presumably in his visible person and audible teaching disclosing to Cephas the contents of the revelation of God’s Son in him (Gal 1:18b; cf. 1:15–16b), which was radically different from earlier prophetic visions and speeches.

2.6  Lk 10:25–37 (cf. Gal 1:18c–19a) The section Lk 10:25–37, with its main themes of long-term hosting someone, presented as opposed to avoiding him, illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:18c–19a. In fact, the story about the Samaritan’s long-term hospitable care for his religious enemy, in difference to the avoiding attitude of a Jewish priest and a Levite towards him (Lk  10:25–37), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the idea of Cephas’ long-term hospitality towards Paul, the former persecutor of the Church, in difference to the avoiding attitude of the other Jewish apostles towards him (Gal 1:18c–19a). In particular, the question concerning inheriting eternal life (διδάσκαλε + τί + ποιέω + ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω: Lk  10:25de) was borrowed from the Gospel of Mark (Mk  10:17ef).38 However, the non-Marcan identification of the asking person as an expert in the Mosaic law (νομικός: Lk 10:25a; cf. 10:26; diff. Mk 10:17b: εἷς) alludes to Cephas (Gal 1:18c) as an interpreter of the Mosaic law for the Christian community (cf. Gal 2:12). The combined scriptural quotation in Lk  10:27, which refers to loving the Lord God with one’s whole heart, soul, strength, and mind, and the neighbour as oneself, was borrowed from Mk 12:30–31 and slightly reworked.39 It illustrates

38 Cf. F. Noël, Travel, 366–368; J. Székely, Structure, 109; G. Carey, ‘Moving Things Ahead: A Lukan Redactional Technique and Its Implications for Gospel Origins’, BibInt 21 (2013) 302–319 (esp. 313). 39 Cf. J. Székely, Structure, 108 n. 546; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 393; G. Carey, ‘Moving’, 313–315.

122

Cephas’ correct understanding of the law (Lk 10:28; cf. Mk 12:34)40 as pointing to the necessity of loving not only God, but also the neighbour, especially by caring for a stranger (Lk 10:29–37; cf. Gal 1:18c; diff. Mk 10:19.21: selling everything and following Jesus). The motif of a Samaritan taking care of his weak Jewish enemy, who was stripped of his clothes on the way to Jericho (εἰς Ἰεριχώ + *δύω + Σαμαρ*: Lk 10:30–35), was borrowed from 2 Chr 28:15 LXX.41 However, Luke changed numerous details of this scriptural story in order to illustrate the Pauline ideas contained in Gal 1:18c–19a. The story about a certain man who received numerous blows (πληγαί) from presumably Jewish robbers close to Jerusalem, with the effect that he was left half dead (Lk 10:30; diff. 2 Chr 28:15 LXX), reconstructs Paul’s situation upon his arrival in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 1:18a). Luke evidently assumed that it was in the region of the Jewish city of Jerusalem where Paul received forty blows minus one from the Jews (2 Cor 11:23–24), presumably with the effect that he was left half dead. The characters of a Jewish priest and a Levite, who avoided any contact with the wounded man (Lk 10:31–32), illustrate the attitude of the Jerusalem apostles, who avoided any contact with Paul (Gal 1:19a). The surprising character of a Samaritan, who took long-term hospitable care of the wounded man (Lk 10:33–35; diff. 2 Chr 28:15 LXX),42 although being a Jew he was the Samaritan’s religious enemy (cf. Lk 9:52–54), illustrates the positive attitude of Cephas, who extended long-term hospitality (Gal  1:18c) to the presumably wounded Paul (cf. 2 Cor 11:23–24), although he had been Cephas’ religious enemy (cf. Gal 1:13). This allusive meaning of Lk 10:33–35 is additionally confirmed by the fact that the action of putting the half-dead man on an animal and bringing him to a safe place (ἐπιβιβάσα* + κτῆνος + ἤγαγ*: Lk  10:34de; diff. 2 Chr 28:15 LXX) also in the second part of the Lucan work refers to rescuing

40 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘The Minor Agreements and Q’, in R. A. Piper (ed.), The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (NovTSup 75; E. J. Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 53–72 (esp. 63); F. Noël, Travel, 381–382. 41 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 488; I. Kalimi, ‘Robbers on the Road to Jericho: Luke’s Story of the Good Samaritan and Its Origin in Kings/Chronicles’, ETL 85 (2009) 47–53 (esp. 51–52); C. A. Evans, ‘Luke’s Good Samaritan and the Chronicler’s Good Samaritans’, in T. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 3, The Gospel of Luke (LNTS 376; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 32–42 (esp. 39). 42 Cf. D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity’, 165; T. J. Burke, ‘The Parable of the Prodigal Father: An Interpretative Key to the Third Gospel’, TynBul 64 (2013) 217–238 (esp. 229–230).

123

Paul, who was likewise persecuted by the Jews and about to be killed, but was put on an animal and brought to a safe place (Acts 23:24.27.31).43 The surprising use of Roman money (denarii: Lk 10:35; diff. 15:8–9)44 probably alludes to the Roman name and half-Gentile identity of Paul (Paulus: Gal 1:1 etc.). The particular amount of money, namely two denarii (Lk 10:35), alludes to the amount of about two weeks of Cephas’ care for Paul (Gal 1:18c). In fact, two denarii could suffice for paying for basic lodging in an inn for about two weeks.45 The reference to the merciful Samaritan as one of the three men considered (δοκέω: Lk 10:36–37) alludes to the merciful Cephas (Gal 1:18c) as one of the three men considered something (Gal 2:2.6.9). Accordingly, the story about the merciful Samaritan (Lk  10:30–35), which was told to the expert in the Mosaic law as an example to be followed by him (Lk 10:25–29.36–37), conveys the idea that Cephas had to be taught how to treat the persecuted Paul (cf. Gal 1:18c).

2.7  Lk 10:38–11:13 (cf. Gal 1:19b–20) The section Lk 10:38–11:13, with its main themes of welcoming Jesus, God not tempting the believers, and a friend initially refusing to see and help someone

43 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 397. 44 It should be noted that denarii are almost completely absent in the archaeological material from Judaea of the time of Jesus, until the Flavian period. Cf. S. Ostermann, ‘Lepton, Quadrans und Denar: Drei Münzen im Jerusalemer Tempel zur Zeit Jesu’, in G. Theißen [et al.] (eds.), Jerusalem und die Länder: Ikonographie – Topographie – Theologie, Festschrift M. Küchler (NTOA 70; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009), 39–56 (esp. 52); D. Furlan Taylor, ‘The Monetary Crisis in Revelation 13:17 and the Provenance of the Book of Revelation’, CBQ 71 (2009) 580–596 (esp. 582–585). 45 Cf. N. Heutger, ‘Münzen im Lukasevangelium’, BZ, nf 27 (1983) 97–101 (esp. 97). According to Mk 6:37.44, the price of bread which was sufficient for a supper for one person was c.1/25 denarii. Moreover, taking into consideration the data which were given by Peter Lampe on the basis of ancient Roman inscriptions, namely that a slave could survive for c.1½ days eating bread for 2 asses, it can be assumed that one could survive for 2 denarii (i.e. 32 asses) for c.24 days. The price of living in an inn was at least 3 asses a day, and consequently with 2 denarii one could live in an inn for c.11 days. Cf. P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (WUNT 2.18; 2nd edn., J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1989), 162–163; cf. also M. Reiser, ‘Numismatik und Neues Testament’, Bib 81 (2000) 457–488 (esp. 481–482).

124

hosting a guest, but later opening his door, illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:19b–20. The story about welcoming Jesus in a certain village (Lk 10:38–42), so not in a city (diff. Lk 10:1.8.10–12.30), further illustrates the thought that Paul was not welcomed by the other apostles in the city of Jerusalem (Gal 1:19a). The surprising character of the sister (ἀδελφή) Miriam (Μαριάμ: Lk 10:39.42 𝔓75 et al.), whose scriptural name was elsewhere exclusively reserved by Luke for Mary, the mother of Jesus (Lk 1:27.30.34.38–39.46.56; 2:5.16.19.34; Acts 1:14), seems to allude to the idealized character of Jesus’ mother, who was likewise attentive to God’s words and deeds, which were revealed in Jesus’ life (cf. Lk 1:45; 2:19.51).46 Accordingly, the character of Miriam illustrates the assumed meeting of Paul with Jesus’ mother in the home of James, the Lord’s brother (ἀδελφός: Gal 1:19b). In fact, the character of Miriam, presented as listening to the word of Jesus (ἀκούω + τὸν λόγον: Lk 10:39), suits the Lucan idea that Jesus’ mother should listen to the word of God (Lk 8:21; 11:28; diff. Mk 3:35), instead of merely being Jesus’ relative (Lk 8:19–20; 11:27; cf. Mk 3:31–34). Moreover, the allusion to Jesus’ mother (Lk 10:38–42) before the allusion to Jesus’ brother James (Lk 11:1–13) suits the post-Marcan presentation of Jesus’ relatives in this particular order: his mother and brothers (Mk 3:31–34; Lk 8:19–21; Acts 1:14). The particular image of the presumably unmarried woman who attended to (παρ*) the Lord (κύριος: Lk 10:39) and thus chose the better (ἀγαθός) part (Lk 10:42), as opposed to the presumably married householder woman (γυνή: Lk  10:38) who tried to please the man (Lk  10:40) and consequently was distracted (περισπά*: Lk 10:40)47 and worried (μεριμνάω) about many things of the world (Lk 10:41), was borrowed from 1 Cor 7:34–35.38.48 The use of this Pauline text in Lk 10:38–42 seems to illustrate the Lucan idea that Mary remained with James and other Jesus’ brothers as a not remarried widow, who devoted herself to prayer (cf. Acts 1:14). The instructions concerning prayer and giving bread (Lk  11:1–13) further allude to the character of James, the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19b).

46 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 396. 47 Cf. M. Crimella, ‘À propos de περισπάομαι en Luc 10,40: Entre philologie et narratologie’, RB 117 (2010) 120–125 (esp. 124–125). 48 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 136–137; W. Schenk, ‘Luke’, 134; R. I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge: Santa Rosa, Calif. 2006), 67–68.

125

In particular, the opening statement concerning a certain disciple, who was evidently not one of the Twelve, but was fascinated by John’s Jewish piety (Lk 11:1), suits the image of James (Gal 1:19b) as not one of the Twelve, but as someone who highly valued Jewish piety (cf. Gal 2:12). The basic scheme of the paradigmatic prayer of the believers (Lk 11:2–4) was borrowed by Luke from Mk 11:25. In particular, the opening instruction ‘whenever you pray’ (ὅταν προσεύχησθε: Lk 11:2b) is a simplified version of the opening Marcan instruction ‘whenever you stand praying’ (ὅταν… προσευχόμενοι: Mk 11:25ab), which contradicted the example of Jesus’ kneeling prayer in Gethsemane (Mk 14:35 par. Lk 22:41.45; cf. Acts 9:40; 20:36; 21:5). The address to God as the believers’ Father (Πατήρ: Lk 11:2d) was likewise borrowed from Mk 11:25e and adjusted to the Lucan preferred vocative pattern (Πάτερ: cf. Lk 10:21; 22:42; 23:46). Similarly, the correlated clauses ‘forgive us our sins – we forgive’ (ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν – ἀφίομεν: Lk 11:4ab) constitute a reversed version of the Marcan correlated clauses ‘you forgive – forgive you your trespasses’ (ἀφίετε – ἀφῇ ὑμῖν τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν: Mk 11:25bd). The Lucan reworking consisted in reversing the order of the Marcan clauses, in order to change the perspective from an anthropocentric one (cf. Mk 11:24) to a theocentric one (cf. Lk 11:2–3). Into this Marcan scheme, Luke introduced in Lk  11:2–4 several new ideas, which illustrate the reconstructed Jewish piety of James, the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19b), with the use of the motifs which were borrowed from the ethopoeic letter attributed to him. The idea of sanctifying God’s name (ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου: Lk  11:2d) is scriptural (cf. ἁγιάζω τὸ ὄνομά μου: Is 29:23; Ezek 36:23 LXX),49 and it thematically corresponds to the ethopoeic James’ devotion to God’s name (ὄνομα), which should not be blasphemed (Jas 2:7). The motif of the expectation of the coming of God’s kingdom (ἔρχομαι + βασιλεία: Lk 11:2e) is post-Marcan (cf. Mk 9:1; 11:10),50 and it corresponds to the ethopoeic James’ similar expectation concerning God’s kingdom (βασιλεία: Jas 2:5). The request for giving (δίδωμι) the believers the necessary (ἐπιούσιος) bread for every day (καθ᾽ ἡμέραν: Lk  11:3) corresponds to the ethopoeic James’ care for giving the believers the necessary (ἐπιτήδειος) daily (ἐφήμερος) food (Jas 2:15–16). The surprising adjective ἐπιούσιος (Lk 11:3), which both formally

49 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34 (WBC 35B; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993), 613–614; J. B. Green, Luke, 441–442; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 406. 50 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 457.

126

and semantically corresponds to ethopoeic James’ adjectives ἐπιτήδειος and ἐφήμερος (Jas 2:15–16), is a Lucan neologism. In his reworking of the Marcan prayer that the Father might forgive (ἀφίημι) the believers (Lk 11:4a; cf. Mk 11:25e), Luke used the word ‘sins’ (ἁμαρτίαι) instead of the Marcan ‘trespasses’ (παραπτώματα), and in such a way he alluded to the ethopoeic James’ idea that God will forgive the sins of the believers when they pray (Jas 5:15). The non-Marcan indirect exhortation to remit to everyone who is financially indebted (ὀφείλω) to the believers (Lk 11:4bc; diff. Mk 11:25cd: ‘forgive if you have anything against anyone’) illustrates the Pauline idea that James and other Jerusalem leaders should remit the financial indebtedness of the Gentile churches to them (Gal 2:10a; cf. Rom 15:27). The concluding request that God should not lead the believers into temptation (πειρασμός: Lk 11:4d) is a reworking of the similar Marcan request (μὴ + εἰς πειρασμόν: Mk 14:38c), and it corresponds to the ethopoeic James’ idea that God does not tempt anyone (Jas 1:13), although the believers may fall into various temptations (Jas 1:2.12). The paradigmatic, although narratively somewhat confused example of a friend who finally opened his door at midnight (Lk 11:8; cf. 11:9–10), although he initially rudely refused to see and help his friend (cf. Seneca, Brev. vit. [Dial. 10] 14.4),51 who in turn hosted his friend unexpectedly coming to him from a journey (Lk 11:5–7), further illustrates Paul’s statement concerning the ‘rude’ James, the Lord’s brother, who evidently did not allow Paul to spend a night in his home (Gal 1:19b), unlike their common, mediating ‘friend’ Cephas (cf. Gal 2:7–9.12), who for fifteen days hosted Paul unexpectedly coming to him from a journey from Damascus (cf. Gal 1:18). The repeated exhortation to ask (αἰτέω) spiritual gifts of God, who generously gives (δίδωμι) them to the believers (Lk 11:9–13), corresponds to the similar exhortation of the ethopoeic James (Jas 1:5), and consequently it further illustrates Paul’s remark concerning James (Gal 1:19b). The possibility of giving the evil gifts of a snake and a scorpion (ὄφις + σκορπίος: Lk 11:11b.12b; cf. 10:19) commonly allude to the wilderness of Sinai (cf. Deut 8:15 LXX), and consequently to the Law-observant but rather inhospitable character of James (Gal 1:19b). The

51 Cf. M. C. Parsons, Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2007), 57.

127

good gifts of a fish and an egg (Lk 11:11a.12a) in their respective sizes and shapes correspond to the evil gifts (fish – snake, egg – scorpion).52 The particular motif of God’s giving the Holy Spirit (δίδωμι + πνεῦμα ἅγιον) to the believers (Lk  11:13; cf. Acts  5:32; 15:8) is post-Pauline (cf. Rom  5:5; 1 Thes 4:8).53

2.8  Lk 11:14–26 (cf. Gal 1:21–23) The section Lk 11:14–26, with its main themes of activity in favour of the demonpossessed, fame orally reaching the Jews, Jewish unbelief in the true motivation of the healing activity, divine power in the healing activity, and taming of the former plunderer, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:21–23. The opening statement concerning Jesus’ casting out a demon (Lk 11:14a), presumably from a ritually unclean person (cf. Lk 11:24), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s opening statement that he went to the Gentile regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). The subsequent, narratively surprising remark that the demon was mute (Lk 11:14a; diff. 11:14c: the person was mute)54 by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization alludes to Paul’s subsequent statement that there was no direct communication between him and the Judaean believers (Gal 1:22). The surprising, periphrastic construction ‘was casting out’ (ἦν ἐκβάλλων), which suggests a prolonged activity of casting out a demon (Lk 11:14a; diff. Mk 7:26; 9:18.28; Lk 9:40),55 formally alludes to the similar Pauline construction ‘was unknown’ (ἤμην… ἀγνοούμενος), which likewise suggests a prolonged activity of the Apostle among the Gentiles (Gal 1:22). The subsequent statements that the demon went out, the mute person spoke, and the crowds were amazed (Lk 11:14b–e) illustrate Paul’s subsequent idea that the fame of his successful evangelistic activity among the Gentiles orally reached Judaea (Gal 1:23a).

52 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 500. 53 Cf. P. Elbert, ‘Possible Literary Links between Luke-Acts and Pauline Letters Regarding Spirit-Language’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 227–254 (esp. 237–241). 54 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 414. 55 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 169.

128

The subsequent arguments against Jesus (Lk 11:15–16) are formulated in such a way that they point to the Jewish character of their authors. The first argument, almost verbatim borrowed by Luke from Mk 3:22 (λέγω + ἐν + Βεελζεβούλ + τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια),56 in an evidently Semitic way refers to the demon named Beelzebul (Lk 11:15). The second argument, which was borrowed from Mk 8:11 (πειράζοντες + σημεῖον + οὐρανοῦ + *ζήτουν + παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ),57 and which refers to demanding a sign (ζητέω + σημεῖον: Lk  11:16), alludes to the Pauline negative presentation of the Jews as demanding signs (1 Cor 1:22).58 Accordingly, both arguments, which express Jewish disbelief in Jesus (Lk 11:15–16), illustrate Paul’s subsequent idea that the Jewish Christians still doubtfully recalled his persecutions of the Judaean churches (Gal 1:23b). The subsequent Jewish-style, positive presentation of Jesus’ activity among demon-possessed people (Lk  11:17–20), a presentation which was borrowed from Mk 3:23–26 (λέγω + αὐτοῖς + βασιλεία + βασιλεία ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτήν + *μερισθ + οἰκ* + ἐπί + εἰ δὲ… ὁ σατανᾶς + ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν… *εμερίσθη + ἵστημι + ἐκβάλλειν),59 and which was elaborated by Luke with the use of the motif of the Jews’ sons (Lk 11:19; cf. 22:30) and with the use of the scriptural motif of the finger of God (δάκτυλος θεοῦ: Lk 11:20; cf. Exod 8:15 LXX),60 illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that the positive fact of his preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles somehow persuaded the Judaean believers (Gal 1:23c). The subsequent description of coming (*ελθών) and prevailing (*ήσῃ) over a strong man (ὁ ἰσχυρός), which was borrowed by Luke from Mk 3:27 and elaborated with the use of the motif of an armed man with his courtyard and his previously taken spoils, thus creating the image of taming of a former (plup. ἐπεποίθει) violent plunderer (Lk 11:21–22),61 illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea

56 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 52. 57 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 637; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 52; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 416–417. 58 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 94. 59 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 52–53. 60 Cf. K. Schiffner, Lukas liest Exodus: Eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme ersttestament­ licher Befreiungsgeschichte im lukanischen Werk als Schrift-Lektüre (BWANT 9.12; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2008), 235, 332–333; L. Perkins, ‘“The Finger of God”: Lukan Irony and Old Testament Allusion as Narrative Strategy (Luke 11.20 and Exodus 8.19 [LXX 8.15])’, in T. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation, vol. 3, 148–160 (esp. 153–156); F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 599. 61 Cf. K. Yamazaki-Ransom, The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative (LNTS 404; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 100.

129

of the end of his former violent destroying (plundering, despoiling: πορθέω) of the church (Gal 1:23d). The somewhat surprising condemnation for not being with Jesus (Lk 11:23), which is a negatively reworked version of the Marcan statement Mk 9:40 (ὁ + εἰμί + κατά + ἐστίν), together with the likewise condemning story about the coming of the Jewish number of seven unclean spirits (Lk 11:24–26), which may be a reworked version of the condemnation of the Jews for their charges concerning Jesus’ apparently having an unclean spirit (ἀκάθαρτον + πνεῦμα: Mk 3:28–30; cf. 3:22), further illustrate Paul’s thought that the Judaeans still recalled his former persecutions of the church (Gal 1:23d), and consequently they apparently proceeded from a positive attitude towards him (Gal  1:23c) to a negative one (Gal 1:23d).

2.9  Lk 11:27–28 (cf. Gal 1:24) The section Lk 11:27–28, with its main theme of glorifying God because of Jesus, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 1:24. The Jewish-style blessing, linguistically resembling the later Lucan blessing for the daughters of Jerusalem (μακάριος + κοιλία + μαστοί: cf. Lk 23:28–29), here addressed to Jesus’ mother because of him (Lk 11:27), together with Jesus’ corrective, likewise Jewish-style (ἀκούω + λόγος + θεός + φυλάσσω: cf. Deut 12:28 LXX) blessing for believing in God (θεός: Lk 11:28) in a Lucan way, by suggesting the increasing faith of some Jewish women (cf. Lk 1:45), illustrates Paul’s idea that the Judaean believers praised God because of him (Gal 1:24).

2.10  Lk 11:29–32 (cf. Gal 2:1) The section Lk 11:29–32, with its main themes of considerable evangelistic activity, referring to the Jews, a Jewish preacher to the Gentiles, Gentiles coming from the ends of the earth to Jerusalem, and male Gentiles converted, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:1. The opening remark concerning the increase of the crowds in number (Lk  11:29a) by means of the hypertextual procedure of substitution of ideas illustrates Paul’s idea that his evangelistic activity outside Judaea lasted for fourteen years (Gal  2:1a), so that during that long period of time he presumably converted numerous believers. The subsequent post-Marcan statement of Jesus concerning this, presumably Jewish generation demanding a sign, which will not be given to it (Lk 11:29b–f;

130

cf. Mk 8:11–12: λέγω + ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη + σημεῖον + ζητεῖ + σημεῖον + δοθήσεται + *αὐτῇ),62 in a negative way illustrates the subsequent statement of Paul concerning Jerusalem (Gal 2:1a). The subsequent non-Marcan reference to the Jewish prophet Jonah, who was active among the Gentiles, and thus became a sign (σημεῖον) both to the Gentiles and to the Jewish ‘this generation’ (Lk 11:29g–30), illustrates the subsequent Pauline reference to the Jewish apostle Barnabas, who was active among the Gentiles (cf. 1 Cor 9:6; Gal 2:9), and then came to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1a). A similar image of Barnabas was later depicted by Luke in Acts  4:36–37; 13:1–15:12 (esp. 14:3; 15:12: σημεῖα to the Gentiles and to the Jews in Jerusalem). The subsequent statement about the Gentile queen (βασίλισσα) of the South, who came from the ends of the earth to Jerusalem (Lk 11:31; cf. 1 Kgs 10:1–10),63 illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that a Gentile came with him from another part of the world to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1b). The particular name form Σολομών (Lk 11:31de; diff. 1 Kgs 10:1–6.10 LXX: Σαλωμών), together with the motif of the queen’s pursuing Solomon’s wisdom (σοφία… Σολομῶνος: Lk 11:31d; diff. 1 Kgs 10:4.6.8 LXX: φρόνησις), were most probably borrowed by Luke from the parascriptural account of Josephus (Ant. 8.165–168, 171–175). The subsequent statement about the conversion of the Gentile men (ἄνδρες) of Nineveh at the preaching (κήρυγμα) of Jonah (Lk 11:32; cf. Jon 3:2–5 LXX),64 a statement which is surprisingly placed in the generally non-Lucan, femalemale order after the reference to the queen of the South (Lk 11:31), illustrates the subsequent Pauline remark concerning the Gentile man Titus (Gal 2:1b), who according to Tit 1:3–4 was converted at the preaching of Paul (cf. also 2 Cor 2:13; 8:23; 12:18).

2.11  Lk 11:33–36 (cf. Gal 2:2a–c) The section Lk 11:33–36, with its main themes of coming to see the light, and having the body full of light because of one’s moral sincerity, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:2a–c. The opening statement concerning the lamp on the lampstand (Lk  11:33) was evidently borrowed from Mk 4:21–22 (λύχνος + κρυπτός + τίθημι + ἐπὶ τὴν 62 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 53. 63 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 420; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 425; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 611. 64 Cf. L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991), 185; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 425; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 612.

131

λυχνίαν).65 However, Luke reworked this Marcan statement by omitting particular references to home utensils, namely a basket and a bed (Lk 11:33 𝔓45.75; diff. Mk  4:21; Lk  8:16),66 and by highlighting the contrast between a hidden place and an illuminated place, in which entering people come to see the light (φῶς: Lk 11:33b-e; cf. 8:16fg; diff. Mk 4:22). In this narrative way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of substitution of images and ideas, Luke illustrated the Pauline idea of a person receiving a revelation (Gal  2:2a). A  similar image of seeing the light was also later used by Luke to depict the revelation which Paul had received (Acts 9:3; 22:6.9.11; 26:13). The subsequent, more and more surprisingly formulated arguments that the whole human body is full of light, having no part dark, if the eye is sincere (Lk 11:34–36)67 illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that he clearly laid before the audience the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2bc). The post-Pauline image of having the body full of light, with no part dark, because of one’s moral sincerity (Lk 11:34–36; cf. Phlp 2:15) reflects the fundamental principle of Paul’s gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, namely that there is no need for bodily circumcision if the believer leads a morally good life (Gal 2:3; 5:2–6.22–23 etc.).

2.12  Lk 11:37–54 (cf. Gal 2:2d–f) The section Lk  11:37–54, with its main themes of being in private, as well as speaking to the Pharisees and the lawyers, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:2d–f. The opening motif of Jesus’ being asked by a Pharisee to dine with him, and Jesus’ coming in and reclining at the table (Lk 11:37; cf. 7:36), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of his coming to the Jerusalem leaders in private (Gal 2:2d). The subsequent disparaging arguments against the Pharisees and the experts in the law (Lk 11:38–52) illustrate Paul’s subsequent disparaging remark concerning the Jerusalem leaders, namely that they were only supposed leaders (Gal 2:2d; cf. 2:6). In particular,Jesus’discussion with the Pharisee who invited him (cf.Lk 11:37–44) illustrates Paul’s assumed discussion with James, the leader of the Jerusalem community (cf. Gal 2:9). The discussion concerning not external ritual cleanness, but 65 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 53 n. 10. 66 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 422 n. 7. 67 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 489–490; G. Rossé, Luca, 456.

132

internal moral one (ἰδών* + εἶπεν + δέ + ἔξωθεν + καθαρίζω + ἔσωθεν + πονηρία + ἀφρο*: Lk  11:38–41), which was borrowed from Mk  7:2.6.18–19.21–23,68 reflects Paul’s discussion with the followers of James concerning ritual cleanness of the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:4.12). The anti-Pharisaic argument concerning tithing (ἀποδεκατόω) all herbs (cf. Deut 14:22 LXX),69 but neglecting justice and the love of God (Lk 11:42), alludes to James’ interest in receiving an unjust ‘tithe’ from the Gentile Christians (cf. Gal 2:10a). The post-Marcan argument concerning first seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces (πρωτοκαθεδρία + ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς + καὶ ἀσπασμοὺς… ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς: Lk 11:43; cf. Mk 12:38–39) alludes to James’ leading position in the community in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 2:9). The argument concerning being rendered unclean by unseen graves (μνῆμα: Lk 11:44; cf. Num 19:16 LXX)70 in a negative way alludes to James’ only supposed cleanness. The following non-Marcan discussion with an expert in the Mosaic law (νομικός: Lk 11:45–52) similarly to Lk 10:25 alludes to Paul’s assumed discussion with Cephas as an interpreter of the Mosaic law for the Christian community (cf. Gal  2:11–12.14–21). The argument concerning loading only other people with burdens (φορτίον) hard to bear (βαστα*), and not touching them themselves (Lk 11:46), which is a negative reworking of a Pauline argument (Gal 6:5), also in Acts 15:10 refers to Peter’s attitude to the Mosaic law.71 Likewise, the interest in the scriptural prophets (Lk 11:47–51), especially Isaiah, is characteristic of the ethopoeic Peter (1 Pet 1:24–25 cf. Is 40:6–9; 1 Pet 2:6 cf. Is 28:16; 1 Pet 2:8 cf. Is  8:14; 1  Pet 2:9 cf. Is  43:20–21; 1  Pet 2:10 cf. Hos  1:6.9; 2:25; 1  Pet 2:12 cf. Is  10:3; 1  Pet 2:22 cf. Is  53:9; 1  Pet 2:24–25 cf. Is  53:4–6.12; 1  Pet 3:14–15 cf. Is 8:12–13; 1 Pet 4:14 cf. Is 11:2). The charge that the former generations of the Jews killed the prophets (προφῆται + ἀποκτείνω: Lk  11:47–49) and they

68 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 517–518; J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 663; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 53. 69 It is possible to detect here an allusion to the Pharisaic halachic rule concerning tithing fruits of the garden, a rule which was expressed in the Pharisees-related Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law, usually called the Damascus Document (4Q271 frag. 2:4–5). For a discussion concerning the name and the Pharisees-related features of this work, see B. Adamczewski, Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 20–21. 70 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 464; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 433; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 623. 71 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 233 n. 77; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 434.

133

now persecute (*διώκω) the apostles (Lk 11:49), together with the idea that this generation will be punished for the sins of all previous generations of the Jews (Lk  11:50–51), was borrowed from 1  Thes 2:15–16. The motif of the blood of Abel (αἷμα + Ἅβελ: Lk 11:51) was borrowed from Gen 4:9–11 LXX.72 The motif of the recent killing (ἀπολ*) of Zacharias (Ζαχαρίας) in the middle of the temple (Lk  11:51) was borrowed from Jos. B.J. 4.343.73 The argument concerning forbidding (κωλύω) others to enter the realm of knowledge, presumably of God (Lk 11:52), was borrowed from 1 Thes 2:16 (cf. also 1 Tim 4:3) and applied to Peter in an idealizing way also in Acts 10:47; 11:17. The subsequent description of a hostile interrogation of Jesus by the experts in the law and the Pharisees (Lk 11:53–54) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of a hostile interrogation of him by the Jerusalem leaders, namely whether he did not run in vain (Gal 2:2ef).

2.13  Lk 12:1–12 (cf. Gal 2:3) The section Lk  12:1–12, with its main themes of people coming, widespread preaching, violence against the body, Roman money, and defending oneself against Jewish violence, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:3. The somewhat surprising image of myriads of people gathering and coming into bodily contact with one another, thus presumably rendering others unclean (Lk 12:1ab), illustrates the Pauline idea of the unclean person of Titus coming and presumably rendering others unclean (Gal 2:3a). The instruction that Jesus’ disciples should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees (ἀπὸ τῆς ζύμης… τῶν Φαρισαίων: Lk 12:1cd) was borrowed by Luke from

72 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 433; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 436; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 1, 626. 73 Cf. G.  C.  Storr, De fonte evangeliorum Matthaei et Lucae (Fues: Tubingae 1794), 9 n. 41 [reworked in J. C. Velthusen, C. T. Kuinoel, and G. A. Rupert (eds.), Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 3 (Iohannes Ambrosius Barth: Lipsiae 1796), 140–172 (esp. 148 n. 41)]; É. Nodet, ‘The Emphasis on Jesus’ Humanity in the Earliest Kerygma’, in J. H. Charlesworth, B. Rhea, and P. Pokorný (eds.), Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions: The Second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007 (William B. Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2014), 721–752 (esp. 736–737). It should be noted that in the Septuagint, which was used by Luke, the character of Zacharias mentioned in 2 Chr 24:20 was called Αζαριας, and not Ζαχαριας (Lk 11:51).

134

Mk  8:1574 and elaborated to refer to hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισις: Lk  12:1e) in order to illustrate Paul’s assumed instruction that Titus should beware of the Jewish Christians (Gal 2:3a; cf. 2:4), who were accused by Paul of hypocrisy (Gal 2:13). The subsequent post-Marcan argument that there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed (οὐ* + ἐστίν + κρυπτόν: Lk 12:2; cf. Mk 4:22),75 together with the argument that the things spoken in closed rooms will be preached in public (Lk 12:3), by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the faith of Titus was a fruit of the widespread preaching of the gospel among the Greeks (Gal 2:3b). The subsequent instruction to Jesus’ friends that they should not be afraid of violence against their bodies (Lk  12:4–5; cf. Mk  9:45.47: *βάλλω + εἰς τὴν γέενναν) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that the body of his friend Titus was not forcefully circumcised (Gal 2:3cd). The related, surprising reference to the human body as being worth more than Roman money and being protected by God, presumably against enemies who are more numerous than the counted hairs of the head (τρίχες τῆς κεφαλῆς: Lk 12:6–7; cf. Ps 69[68]:5 LXX; diff. Lk 21:18: a hair lost), alludes to the Roman name of Titus (Gal 2:3a) and to his body as divinely protected from circumcision, presumably against his more numerous enemies (Gal 2:3cd). The post-Marcan instructions concerning confessing and not denying Jesus before men in order not to be denied by him before the angels (τῶν ἀγγέλων: Lk 12:8–9; cf. Mk 8:38), together with the likewise post-Marcan statements that whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven to him, but to the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven (πᾶς + ὁ υἱός τοῦ ἀνθρώπου + ἀφεθήσεται + εἰς τό + ἅγιον + πνεῦμα + βλασφημήσ* + οὐκ + ἀφε*: Lk 12:10; cf. Mk 3:28–29),76 in a way similar to Acts 15:5.8 illustrate the situation of Titus as confessing his reliance on his having received the Holy Spirit and not on the circumcision (Gal 2:3cd; cf. 5:2–6; Phlp 3:3). The likewise post-Marcan instructions concerning Jewish violence in the synagogues (ὅταν + ὑμᾶς + συναγωγαί: Lk  12:11a; cf. Mk  13:9bc.11a;77 diff. Mk 13:9d; Lk 21:12: governors and kings), during which the believers should 74 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 53 n. 13; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 28; M. Marshall, The Portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts (FRLANT 254; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2015), 172, 177. 75 Cf. B. Bauer, Kritik, vol. 2, 234. 76 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 531; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 53. 77 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 53.

135

not worry about how to defend themselves and what to say because the Holy Spirit will teach them in that hour what to say (μὴ μεριμν* + τί + τό + ἅγιον + πνεῦμα + ἐν + τῇ ὥρᾳ: Lk  12:11b-12; cf. Mk  13:11c-h;78 diff. Lk  21:15: Jesus teaching), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline idea that Titus during violent Jewish Christian pressure against him could defend himself (Gal 2:3cd), again presumably thanks to the presence of the Holy Spirit in him (cf. Gal 5:5 etc.; Acts 15:5.8).

2.14  Lk 12:13–14 (cf. Gal 2:4–5) The section Lk 12:13–14, with its main themes of a false brother, dividing the inheritance, and not acting in conformity to the law, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:4–5. The opening image of an estranged brother (*ἀδελφός), who was acting from the crowd, and not face to face (Lk 12:13ab), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline reference to Jewish Christian false brothers, who were secretly brought in and who secretly came in (Gal 2:4ab). The subsequent wish of the secretly acting brother to divide the inheritance (κληρονομία) with his other brother (Lk  12:13c) in a negative way alludes to the Pauline thought that the entire inheritance comes either from the law, which is symbolized by the brother born for slavery, or from the promise, which is symbolized by the brother born for freedom (Gal 3:18; 4:22–31). Accordingly, the wish of the secretly acting brother to divide the inheritance with the other brother (Lk  12:13c) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that the Jewish Christian false brothers wanted to spy out the Pauline Christians’ freedom and to enslave them (Gal 2:4c–e), thus unjustly leading the Pauline Christians to share their inheritance with the Jewish Christians (cf. Gal 2:3). Jesus’ subsequent Scripture-based answer that no one set him as a Moses-like judge or arbitrator over others (τίς + κατέστησεν + ἐπί: Lk 12:14; cf. Exod 2:14 LXX),79 and consequently he would not act in conformity to the Mosaic law and would not divide the inheritance (cf. Lk 12:13), illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that he did not yield submission to the Jewish law, in order to preserve the truth of the gospel for the Pauline believers (Gal 2:5).

78 Cf. ibid. 79 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 136, [vol. 2] 536; J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 685; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 447.

136

2.15  Lk 12:15–21 (cf. Gal 2:6a–e) The section Lk 12:15–21, with its main themes of apparent greatness, being once great, and God’s showing partiality to no man, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:6a–e. The depreciating instruction concerning someone who has an abundance, and nevertheless his life is not a result of his possessions (Lk 12:15de), illustrates Paul’s depreciating remark concerning the Jerusalem leaders as only supposing to be something (Gal 2:6ab). The related exhortation to beware of covetousness (Lk 12:15a–c) alludes to the Jerusalem leaders’ request to receive financial support from the Gentile believers (Gal 2:10a). The subsequent, ironically formulated (esp. Lk 12:19; cf. Eccl 8:15 LXX: φαγ* + πιε* + εὐφρα*)80 parable concerning a certain (τίς) rich man (ἄνθρωπος) who once became extremely rich (Lk 12:16–19; cf. also Sir 11:19 LXX)81 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent disparaging remark concerning the people (ἄνθρωπος: cf. Gal 2:6e) who had once been something (τί: cf. Gal 2:6b), but this made no difference to him (Gal 2:6cd). The subsequent, Scripture-based statements that God (θεός) regarded the rich man (ἄνθρωπος: cf. Lk 12:16) as a fool (ἄφρων: cf. Ps 14[13]:1 LXX etc.),82 whose soul would be demanded from him (ψυχή + ἀπαιτέω: cf. Wis 15:8),83 so that the things which he had gathered and stored up would be given to someone else (ἄνθρωπος + συνάγω + τίνι + θησαυρίζω: cf. Ps  39[38]:7 LXX),84 because he was not rich toward God (θεός: Lk 12:20–21), illustrate Paul’s subsequent, likewise Scripture-based statement that God shows partiality to no man (Gal 2:6e; cf. Deut 10:17; Lev 19:15; Ps 82[81]:1–2; Sir 4:22; 35:13; Mal 1:8–9 LXX).

80 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 450; M. S. Ringe, Jesus’ Parable of the Rich Fool: Luke 12:13–34 among Ancient Conversations on Death and Possessions (SBLECL 6; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 173, 178; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 42. 81 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 450; M. S. Ringe, Jesus’ Parable, 170–171, 173–176; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 42. 82 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 524; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 42. 83 Cf. M. S. Ringe, Jesus’ Parable, 165; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 43; S. Koch, ‘Zur literarischen Bedeutung der Sapientia Salomonis im Neuen Testament’, in E. Tigchelaar (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (BETL 270; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2014), 183–194 (esp. 185). 84 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 524; R. H. Stein, Luke, 352; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 43.

137

2.16  Lk 12:22–31 (cf. Gal 2:6fg) The section Lk  12:22–31, with its main theme of humans adding nothing to God’s work, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:6fg. The whole section, with its repeated key word προστίθημι (‘add’: Lk 12:25.31), creates the image of humans adding nothing to the things which are presented as depending on God’s grace, and not on human efforts, namely the nourishment and the length of life, as well as the clothing of the body (Lk 12:22–31). Accordingly, this section by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the Pauline idea that the Jerusalem leaders added (προσανατίθημι) nothing to him (Gal 2:6fg), that is to the gospel (cf. Gal 2:5), which depends on God’s grace (cf. Gal 1:6.12.15–16 etc.), and not on human efforts (cf. Gal 1:7.11–14 etc.). Luke substituted the Pauline complex verb προσανατίθημι (Gal 2:6f) with his preferred one προστίθημι (Lk 12:25.31; cf. 17:5; 19:11; 20:11–12 etc.), just as he did earlier in Lk 3:20a (cf. Gal 2:6f). Additionally, in order to depict the Pauline gospel of God’s grace as differing from the ‘additions’ of the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:6fg), Luke reworked Paul’s encouragement to be unmarried like him and not to worry about the things of the world, but to be holy in body and spirit (1 Cor 7:32–34), into the instruction not to worry (μεριμνάω) about the soul and the body (σῶμα), as the nations of the world (κόσμος) do (Lk 12:22–23.25–26.29–30). The related, somewhat surprising encouragement to be similar to ravens (κόρακες; diff. Lk 12:6–7: sparrows), which are presented as being fed (*τρέφω) by God (Lk  12:24), evokes the scriptural image of ravens which in a miraculous way obeyed the command of the Lord (κύριος) to feed Elijah (1 Kgs 17:4–6 LXX). In this way, it illustrates the related Pauline thought that the free, unmarried person cares for the things of the Lord (1 Cor 7:32c), presumably for doing what the Lord commands. Likewise, the subsequent encouragement to be similar to lilies (κρίνον), which are presented in Scripture as pleasing the Lord (κύριος: cf. Num 8:4; Sir 39:14; 50:8 LXX etc.),85 and not to worry about the beauty of, somewhat surprisingly, male clothing (Lk  12:27–28; cf. 1  Kgs 10:5), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the unmarried person cares for how to please the Lord, and not how to please his wife (1 Cor 7:32d–33). Accordingly, these two correlated Pauline encouragements highlight the difference between unmarried persons, like Paul (1  Cor 7:8), and married ones, like the Jerusalem leaders (1 Cor 9:5). Consequently, the Lucan encouragements 85 Cf. F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 52.

138

to care for the things of the Lord and to please the Lord, unlike the disciples of little faith with their worries about material things (Lk 12:22–31), in a postPauline way illustrate the gospel of the Apostle of the Nations as differing from the teaching of the Jerusalem leaders (Gal  2:6fg), who were concerned about material things (Gal 2:10a).

2.17  Lk 12:32–34 (cf. Gal 2:7ab) The section Lk 12:32–34, with its main theme of good news to those in whom God pleased and who rely on God’s grace, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:7ab. The encouragement presented as good news to a little flock, that is to a small group of believers, namely that they are nevertheless given the kingdom (βασιλεία: Lk 12:32), which is elsewhere referred to as preached in the gospel (βασιλεία + εὐαγγέλιον: Mk  1:15; cf. Lk  4:43; 8:1; 16:16; Acts  8:12), illustrates Paul’s idea that the Jewish Christian leaders saw that he, who had taken only one Gentile believer with him (cf. Gal 2:1b), had nevertheless been entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles (Gal 2:7ab). The particular statement that the Father was pleased to give (εὐδόκησεν + inf.) the kingdom to the believers (Lk 12:32bc) linguistically alludes to Paul’s similar autobiographical statement that God was pleased to reveal his Son in him, so that he might preach him among the Gentiles (Gal 1:15a.16ab). In this way, by presenting the ‘little flock’ of believers as participating in the Pauline gospel of grace, and thus being clearly identified as Gentile believers, Luke illustrated Paul’s idea of his having been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7b). This hypothesis is further corroborated by the fact that Luke also later used the term ‘flock’ (ποίμνιον: Lk 12:32a) to refer to the Pauline Gentile believers (Acts 20:28–29). The post-Marcan instruction to sell the possessions and give alms in order to have a treasure in heaven, and consequently later also the heart in heaven (πωλέω + δίδωμι + θησαυρός + ἐν + οὐρανός: Lk 12:33–34; cf. Mk 10:21),86 illustrates the Pauline gospel of relying on God’s grace, and not on the works of the law. Thus, it additionally alludes to Paul’s idea of being entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7b).

86 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 53.

139

2.18  Lk 12:35–40 (cf. Gal 2:7c) The section Lk  12:35–40, with its main theme of scriptural Israelites awaiting the return of the Lord, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:7c. The opening quotation from the Scripture of Israel, concerning its foundational exodus from Egypt (ὑμῶν + αἱ ὀσφύες + περιεζωσμέναι: Lk  12:35ab; cf. Exod  12:11 LXX),87 a quotation which was used in a slightly reworked version in the ethopoeic letter attributed to Peter (*ζώννυμι + αἱ ὀσφύες + ὑμῶν: 1 Pet 1:13),88 illustrates the Pauline thought that the Scripture-related gospel for the circumcised was entrusted to Peter (Gal 2:7c). The same Pauline thought that the Scripture-related gospel for the circumcised was entrusted to Peter (Gal 2:7c) was further illustrated by the evangelist with the use of the somewhat surprisingly introduced scriptural motif of the burning lamps (λύχνος + καίω), which symbolize Israel’s continual presence before the Lord till the dawn (Lk 12:35c; cf. Exod  27:20–21; Lev  24:2–4 LXX),89 a motif which was used in the second ethopoeic letter attributed to Peter (2 Pet 1:19: λύχνος + ἕως). The related instructions concerning being like slaves (δοῦλοι) awaiting the coming (ἔρχομαι) of the lord (ὁ κύριος), so that even coming (ἐλθ*) during various parts of the night, especially at midnight, he might find (εὕρῃ) them watching (γρηγορέω: Lk 12:36–38), constitute a reworked version of the similar Marcan instructions (Mk 13:34–37).90 Luke used these Marcan instructions, which were directed to Peter and other Jerusalem leaders (cf. Mk 13:3), and reworked them in order to create the image of Peter and other Israelite apostles awaiting (προσδέχομαι) the Scripture-related return of their Lord (Lk  12:36; cf. 2:25.38; 23:51; Acts  24:15; diff. Mk  13:34–35) from the joyful wedding in which they now do not participate (Lk 12:36; cf. 2:36–37; diff. Mk 13:34), and therefore being blessed (μακάριοι: Lk 12:37–38; diff. Mk 13:36) because the Lord will serve them (διακονέω: Lk 12:37; cf. Mk 10:42–45; Lk 22:27), thus resembling those whom the ethopoeic Peter blessed (cf. 1 Pet 3:14; 4:14). In this way, Luke illustrated the Pauline idea that Peter was entrusted with the Scripture-related gospel for the circumcised (Gal 2:7c). 87 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 500; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 229 n. 70; M. Wolter, Lukas­ evangelium, 461. 88 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 323. 89 Cf. R. H. Stein, Luke, 360; D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2 (BECNT; Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1996), 1174; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 325 n. 18. 90 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 53.

140

The related instructions concerning the unknown hour of the coming of the master of the house, who will come as a thief in the night, so that the disciples must always be ready because they do not suppose the hour of the coming of the Son of Man (οἶδα + οἰκ* + ἔρχεται + ὥρα + οὐ: Lk 12:39–40), were likewise borrowed from Mk 13:32.3591 and conflated not only with their Pauline source (κλέπτης + ἔρχεται: 1 Thes 5:2),92 but also with the instruction of the ethopoeic Peter concerning being always ready (ἕτοιμοι: 1 Pet 3:15). By means of this conflation, Luke alluded to the Pauline remark concerning Peter (Gal 2:7c). For the same reason, in order to allude to the Pauline ironical presentation of Peter (Gal 2:7c) as one of those who suppose (δοκέω: Gal 2:6a.f), Luke somewhat surprisingly substituted the Marcan verb οἶδα (‘know’: Mk 13:32.35; cf. Lk 12:39) with the Pauline key verb δοκέω (‘suppose’: Lk 12:40). Similarly, in order to illustrate the idea of the Scripture-related gospel for the circumcised (Gal  2:7c), Luke somewhat surprisingly substituted the Marcan motif of the coming of the master of the house (Mk  13:35; cf. Lk  12:36–37; cf. also Lk  12:39) with the scriptural motif of the coming of the Son of Man (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου + ἔρχομαι: Lk 12:40; cf. Dan 7:13 LXX).93

2.19  Lk 12:41–48 (cf. Gal 2:8–9b) The section Lk 12:41–48, with its main themes of a direct reference to Peter, opposition between the faithful steward and the slave abusing his authority over others, having known the master’s will, and the grace which was given, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:8–9b. In difference to the preceding section which mainly dealt with the contents of Jesus’ instructions concerning his Scripture-related return (Lk 12:35–40), and thus illustrated the Pauline idea of the gospel for the circumcised (Gal 2:7c), the section Lk 12:41–48 deals with the desired features of Peter, and thus illustrates the somewhat idealized presentation of Peter in relationship to Paul (Gal 2:8–9b). The question of Peter (Πέτρος) whether Jesus spoke the parable about watching (cf. Lk 12:35–40) to the disciples or to all (λέγω + πάντες: Lk 12:41), which is somewhat surprising against the background of the Marcan explicit statement

91 Cf. ibid. 92 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 106 n. 100. 93 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 518 n. 175.

141

that Jesus spoke both to the disciples and to all that they must watch (Mk 13:37),94 alludes to the Pauline remark concerning Peter (Gal 2:8a). The subsequent opposition between the Pauline-style faithful steward (πιστός + οἰκονόμος: cf. 1 Cor 4:1–2),95 who gives food to others (δίδωμι: cf. 2 Cor 9:6–12), and the slave who abuses his authority over others and consumes the food himself (Lk 12:42–46; cf. Gal 2:10) in a reversed order illustrates Paul’s subsequent comparison of the ministry of Peter with the Pauline one (Gal 2:8). In particular, the statement concerning the abusing slave as not expecting (*δοκάω) the day of the coming of the master (Lk 12:46b) linguistically alludes to Peter (Gal 2:8a) as one of those who suppose (δοκέω: Gal 2:6a.f; cf. also 2 Pet 3:12). The surprising image of cutting the abusing slave in two (Lk 12:46d)96 likewise alludes to Peter (Gal 2:8a), who by betraying Paul’s gospel was torn between the ideas of Paul and James (Gal 2:11–12). Similarly, the image of appointing to the abusing slave the portion among the unbelievers (Lk 12:46e) alludes to Peter (Gal  2:8a), who after betraying Paul (Gal  2:12) was presented as exiled to the unbelieving ‘Babylon’ (1 Pet 5:13). The subsequent chastising statement concerning the slave who has known (part. aor. γνούς) the will of the master, together with its positive counterpart (Lk 12:47–48c), illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement concerning the Jerusalem leaders, namely that they have known (part. aor. γνόντες) God’s will concerning Paul (Gal 2:9a). The subsequent instructions concerning the one to whom much was given (aor. ἐδόθη + dat.: Lk 12:48d-g) illustrate the subsequent Pauline statement concerning the extraordinary grace which was given to him (aor. δοθεῖσαν + dat.: Gal 2:9b).

2.20  Lk 12:49–53 (cf. Gal 2:9cd) The section Lk 12:49–53, with its main themes of a fire kindling the earth, being baptized with a baptism, disciples only supposing to have stability, and three

94 Cf. G. Bouwman, Das dritte Evangelium: Einübung in die formgeschichtliche Methode, trans. H. Zulauf (Patmos: Düsseldorf 1968), 58; J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 702; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 53. 95 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 132–135; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 107–108; R. I. Pervo, Dating, 225–227. 96 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 465; D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity’, 171 n. 35. It is easier to imagine the cutting in two (διχοτομέω) of a child (Jos. Ant. 8.31) or even a ram (Exod 29:17 LXX) than an adult man (Lk 12:46).

142

persons opposed against two, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:9cd. The opening statement concerning the fire which should kindle the earth (πῦρ + ἀνάπτω: Lk 12:49) alludes to the similar statement in the ethopoeic letter attributed to James (Jas 3:5), and thus it evokes the character of James, who was mentioned by Paul as the first one among the three Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:9c). The subsequent post-Marcan statement concerning Jesus’ being soon baptized with a baptism (βάπτισμα + βαπτισθῆναι: Lk 12:50; cf. Mk  10:38–39)97 in the Gospel of Mark refers to James and John (Mk 10:35.41), and consequently it alludes not only to James, but also to the subsequently mentioned John (Gal 2:9c). The subsequent image of disciples as only supposing (δοκέω) to have peace, and consequently stability in the land (ἐν τῇ γῇ; Lk  12:51; cf. Lk  8:15; Acts 7:6.29.36; 13:17.19; diff. Lk 2:14: ἐπὶ γῆς), presumably of Israel (cf. Lk 4:25; Acts 13:19 etc.), illustrates the subsequent Pauline reference to the three Jewish Christian leaders as only supposing to be pillars which provide stability in the Jerusalem community (Gal 2:9cd). The related, somewhat surprising image of three persons as opposed against two persons (Lk  12:52)98 illustrates the Pauline remark concerning the three Jerusalem leaders (Gal  2:9c) as initially opposed against the two missionaries among the Gentiles (Gal 2:9e). The allegedly natural explanation of such opposition as typical of family life, in which three older persons are opposed against three younger persons and vice versa (Lk 12:53), in fact disagrees both with the preceding pattern of opposition of three against two (Lk 12:52)99 and with the psychologically understandable scriptural model which refers to the younger generation as opposed against the older one (υἱός + πατήρ + θυγάτηρ + ἐπὶ τὴν μητέρα + νύμφη ἐπὶ τὴν πενθεράν + αὐτῆς: Mic 7:6 LXX). Therefore, the Lucan initial opposition of three persons against two persons, and of the older generation against the younger one (Lk  12:52–53) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the opposition of the three ‘senior’ leaders (Gal 2:9c) against the two ‘younger’ missionaries (Gal 2:9e), who were dependent upon their authoritative verdict (cf. Gal 2:2d-f).

97 Cf. R.  von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54; H.  Klein, Lukasevangelium, 466; M.  Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 468–469. 98 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 470. 99 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 554.

143

2.21  Lk 12:54–57 (cf. Gal 2:9e) The section Lk  12:54–57, with its main theme of reluctant recognition of the grace related to the west by Jewish hypocrites, sequentially illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:9e. The opening set of two images, one of saying something about a cloud rising in the west (νεφέλη + ἀνα* + λέγω: Lk 12:54), which should be recognized by the Jews as related to God’s grace in the direction of the Mediterranean Sea (cf. 1 Kgs 18:43–44 LXX;100 cf. also Deut 11:24 LXX: ἐπὶ δυσμῶν), and one of burning heat caused by a south wind (νότος + πνέω: Lk 12:55), which should be recognized by the Jews as bringing God’s anger against them notwithstanding their messianic uprising (cf. Jos. B.J. 7.318, 332), illustrate the Pauline idea that the Jewish Christian leaders somehow recognized God’s grace as related to Paul’s activity among the Gentiles in the basin of the Mediterranean Sea, and not to the Jewish messianic beliefs (Gal 2:9e). The subsequent charge against those called hypocrites (ὑποκρι*), namely that they examine (δοκιμάζω) material things, like faithful Jews do (cf. Rom  2:18; Lk 14:19), but they do not recognize the time of God’s grace (cf. Lk 12:54) and they do not judge (κρίνω), like faithful Jews do (cf. Rom  2:1.3), what is truly right (Lk  12:56–57; cf. Acts  4:19), illustrates the subsequent Pauline remark concerning Barnabas (Gal 2:9e), who was charged of being a Jewish hypocrite (cf. Gal 2:13).

2.22  Lk 12:58–59 (cf. Gal 2:9e) The section Lk  12:58–59, with its main theme of reaching an agreement with the opponent, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:9e. The somewhat surprising Lucan way of reaching the agreement, namely by being on the way with the opponent and then getting rid of him (ἀπαλλάσσω: Lk 12:58a.c),101 illustrates the Pauline statement that the agreement of the missionaries to the Gentiles with the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:9e) in fact consisted in separating the previously common area of the Church mission between the two parties (cf. Gal 2:9fg). The related image of giving some effort in order to repay the financial debt to the charging opponent (Lk  12:58b.d–59) illustrates the financial aspect of 100 Cf. ibid. [vol. 2] 558; H.  Klein, Lukasevangelium, 470; F.  Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 79. 101 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 559; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 363.

144

the Jerusalem agreement (κοινωνία: Gal 2:9e), which consisted in giving some contribution to the Jewish Christians in order to repay the financial debt to them (cf. Gal 2:10; cf. also Rom 15:26–27: κοινωνία). The surprising reference to the debt as counted in Greek coins (λεπτόν: Lk 12:59; cf. Mk 12:42) likewise alludes to the financial indebtedness of the believers in the Greek provinces of Macedonia and Achaia (Rom 15:26).

2.23  Lk 13:1–5 (cf. Gal 2:9fg) The bipartite section Lk 13:1–5, with its main themes of both Galileans and Judaeans being in need of repentance, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding bipartite section Gal 2:9fg. The opening instructions, which refer to the Galileans as being in need of repentance (Lk 13:1–3), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrate the Pauline idea of preaching to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9f), presumably in order to exhort them to repent (μετανοέω: Lk 13:3; cf. 10:13; 11:32; 15:7.10; Acts 17:30; cf. also Lk 5:32; 24:47; Acts 11:18; 20:21; 26:20). The symbolic significance of Galilee as the territory of the Gentiles (Lk 13:1–3; cf. Gal 2:9f) is postMarcan (cf. Mk 1:9.14.39 etc.).102 The subsequent instructions, which refer to the inhabitants of Jerusalem as being likewise in need of repentance (Lk 13:4–5), illustrate the subsequent Pauline idea of preaching to the circumcised (Gal 2:9g), presumably likewise in order to exhort them to repent (μετανοέω: Lk 13:5; cf. 16:30; Acts 2:38; 3:19; cf. also Rom 2:4; Lk 3:8; Acts 5:31; 13:24; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20). The related image of the disciples as only supposing (δοκέω) to be better than others, who were regarded by them as sinners (ἁμαρτωλοί) and debtors (ὀφειλέται: Lk 13:2c–e.4c–e), again alludes to the Jerusalem leaders as only supposing to be pillars (cf. Gal 2:9cd) and as regarding the Gentile believers as sinners (cf. Gal 2:15.17) and financial debtors (cf. Gal 2:10a; Rom 15:27). The particular, otherwise unknown story about the Galileans who brought animal sacrifices to the temple, but were in a bloody manner killed by Pilate (Lk 13:1), is a reworking of Josephus’ story about the Samaritans who went up to their holy mountain of Gerizim with a liturgical aim, but were in a bloody manner killed there by Pilate (Jos. Ant. 18.85–87).103 Luke substituted the Samaritans 102 Cf. B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 39, 43, 50. 103 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 560; S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (2nd edn., Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2003), 282–283.

145

with the Galileans in order to achieve a more clear hypertextual reference to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9f), who were presumably persecuted by the Romans because of their faith (cf. 1 Thes 2:14). The likewise unknown story about the inhabitants of Jerusalem who perished in the aftermath of the fall of the tower in Siloam (πύργος + Σιλωάμ: Lk 13:4ab; cf. Is 8:6 LXX) is a reworking of Josephus’ remarks concerning Siloam as the place of a bending of the wall of Jerusalem (cf. Jos. B.J. 5.145, 252, 505) and presumably also as the location of an important tower in the city wall,104 which fell during the Roman siege of Jerusalem (cf. Jos. B.J. 6.363–364, 394) or in its aftermath (cf. Jos. B.J. 6.413; 7.1). Accordingly, the death of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the fall of the tower in Siloam (Lk 13:4) alludes to the fate of the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 2:9g), which was presumably destroyed in ad 70.105

2.24  Lk 13:6–9 (cf. Gal 2:10a) The section Lk 13:6–9, with its main themes of unfruitful Jews being in need of help from unclean Gentiles, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:10a. The opening image of an unfruitful fig tree, to which someone came, looking for fruit on it, but did not find any, and therefore he condemned it for destruction (συκῆ + ἦλθεν + ἐν αὐτῇ + καρπόν + καὶ + οὐ* + εὗρεν: Lk 13:6–7), was borrowed from Mk 11:13–14106 and conflated not only with the thematically related parable of the fig tree (τὴν παραβολήν + συκῆ: Mk  13:28), but also, surprisingly, with the parable of the planted vineyard, from which the owner had no fruit (παραβολή + φυτεύω + ἀμπελών + καρπός: Mk 12:1–2.8–9).107 In this way, Luke achieved a more clear allusion to the ‘unfruitful’ Jews (cf. Mk 12:9.12; Is 5:7 LXX),108 and thus, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transmotivation, illustrated the Pauline remark concerning the poor in Judaea as being in need of help (Gal 2:10a).

104 Cf. G. Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (ÖTKNT 3/2; Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh and Echter: Würzburg 1977), [vol. 2,] 297; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 377. 105 The patristic tradition concerning the exodus of the Jewish Christian community to Pella is most probably a later legend. 106 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 561; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54; G. Carey, ‘Moving’, 316–318. 107 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 561. 108 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 142, 147–148, 161–162.

146

The subsequent non-Isaian and non-Marcan image of helping the unfruitful, allusively Jewish fig tree by not only digging (σκάπτω) around it (diff. Is 5:6 LXX), but also putting some plural amounts of the ritually unclean dung to it (plur. κόπρια: Lk 13:8; diff. sing. κόπρος: Exod 29:14; Lev 4:11–12; 8:17; 16:27; Num 19:5 LXX; diff. sing. παραβάλλουσι κόπρον: Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 3.9.5; βαλεῖν τὴν κόπρον: P.Oxy. 934.9–10), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization, illustrates the subsequent Pauline remark concerning the Gentiles from two Greek regions of Macedonia and Achaia as remembering, and consequently helping the poor in Judaea (Gal 2:10a; cf. Rom 15:25–28 etc.). The chronological remark concerning a particular year (ἔτος) of the unclean help for the Jewish fig tree (Lk 13:8c), namely as coming after the relatively long, symbolically full period of three years (ἔτος: cf. Lk 13:7), additionally, by means of the hypertextual procedure of temporal translation, alludes to the particular year of Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, as coming after the long, symbolically full period of fourteen years (Gal 2:1). The reference to the future as the time of both helping the unfruitful Jewish tree and awaiting its outcome (Lk 13:8d-9a) illustrates the Pauline reference to the help for the poor in Jerusalem as required from the Gentiles in the future (Gal 2:10a). The suggested negative outcome of this help, namely that the Jewish fig tree will probably bring (ποιέω) no fruit (Lk 13:9bc; cf. Is 5:2.4.7 LXX; Lk 3:9), alludes to the ultimately negative outcome of Paul’s visit in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 2:12–13).

2.25  Lk 13:10–17 (cf. Gal 2:10b) The section Lk 13:10–17, with its main theme of being eager to help the Jews already now, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:10b. In difference to the preceding parable, in which there was no hurry in waiting for the future outcome of the help for the unfruitful Jewish fig tree (Lk 13:6–9), and in difference to the underlying Marcan accounts of Jesus’ teaching (διδάσκω) and healing in synagogues (συναγωγή) on the day of the Sabbath (τοῖς σάββασιν: Mk 1:21–27; 3:1–6;109 6:2–5),110 the Lucan account of Jesus’ teaching and healing a Jewish woman in a synagogue on the day of the Sabbath (Lk 13:10–17) presents Jesus as acting in a hurry, already now, and consciously not delaying his helping activity for the afflicted Jewish person even for one day, until the time which was 109 Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 114; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54. 110 Cf. C.-Y. Kim, Das Gesetzesverständnis Jesu im Lukasevangelium (EHS 23/939; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main 2013), 93.

147

expected by the Jewish leaders (esp. Lk 13:14–16). In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality Luke illustrated Paul’s idea of his having been eager to help the poor Jews, already before the time which was expected by the Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:10b).111 The somewhat surprising, non-symbolic number of 18 years (ἔτη + δεκα*)112 of the Jewish woman’s waiting for help (Lk  13:11.16; diff. 2:36–37.42; 8:42–43 etc.) illustrates Paul’s idea that he came to Jerusalem with the collection for the poor in Jerusalem (Gal 2:10bc) after 14 years (Gal 2:1; cf. Lk 3:1), which apparently came after 3 preceding years (Gal 1:18), so that he came to Jerusalem after 17 years, and consequently in the 18th year after his meeting the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:16). The non-Marcan image of the Jewish woman as being weak, bent double (as under a burden),113 and not able to lift up her head (Lk  13:11; cf. 21:28; diff. Mk 1:23; 2:3; 3:1; 6:5) conveys the Lucan idea that the Jews and Jewish Christians (cf. Gal 2:10a) had their necks under the yoke of the law, which they were not able to bear (cf. later Acts 15:10). Likewise, the image of the Jewish woman (γυνή), a daughter of Abraham, as being bound (δέω), here by Satan (Lk 13:16b), is based on the Pauline idea that a married woman is bound by the Mosaic law (1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:2). The related image of the woman as being freed and enabled to stand up correctly (ορθο*+ λύω + δεσμός: Lk  13:12–13.16), which is a reworking of the Marcan image of a Gentile person’s tongue being freed, so that he could speak correctly (Mk 7:35), conveys the related post-Pauline thought that both Gentile and Jewish believers are freed from the burdening yoke of the law (cf. later Acts 15:11). Accordingly, with the use of these correlated images Luke reinterpreted the Pauline remark concerning the Gentile Christians financially helping the Jewish Christians (Gal 2:10b). By means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization,

111 It should be noted that Paul referred to the collection for the poor in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8–9) as having already been accomplished (ἐσπούδασα… ποιῆσαι: Gal 2:10bc) before his second visit in Jerusalem (cf. Rom 15:25–31) and before the financial request of the Jerusalem leaders (τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν: Gal 2:10a). See B. Adamczewski, Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the PseudoTitus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 15–18, 25–38, 48–55. 112 Cf. F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 91. 113 Cf. LSJ, s.v. συγκύπτω II.

148

the evangelist suggested that the Gentile Christian help consisted not in giving money, but in freeing the Jewish Christians from the yoke of the Mosaic law. The same idea of Paul’s substituting the financial gift with a liberal halachic view was later somewhat differently reworked in Acts 21:19–25. Moreover, the post-Marcan motifs of enabling the sick person to stand up and of glorifying God for the restoration of the sick person to the erect position (δοξάζω + τὸν θεόν: Lk  13:13) illustrate the power of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. Mk  2:12). Together with the allusion to the elapse of 18 years after Paul’s meeting the risen Christ (Lk 13:11.16; cf. Gal 1:16.18; 2:1), these motifs convey the post-Pauline idea that the liberal attitude to the Mosaic law is a consequence of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. Col 2:8–3:4 etc.). Besides, the motif of Jesus’ laying hands on the sick woman in order to heal her (ἐπιτίθημι + αὐτῇ + τὰς χεῖρας: Lk 13:13a) is post-Marcan (Mk 5:23; cf. 6:5; 7:32; 8:23.25), just as is the motif of Jewish leaders rebuking Jesus for healing on the Sabbath (σάββατον + θεραπεύω: Lk 13:14; cf. Mk 3:2.6;114 cf. also Mk 2:24). The unmerciful in this context, authoritative Jewish statement that there are six days on which humans ought to work (ἕξ + ἡμέραι + ἐργάζομαι: Lk 13:14eg) is evidently scriptural (cf. Exod  20:9; 34:21; Deut  5:13 LXX),115 and thus it illustrates the Jewish Christian leaders’ reconstructed idea that help from the Gentiles should be done and brought to the Jews according to the Mosaic law (cf. Gal 2:10a). The somewhat surprising reference to the Jewish leader in plural (diff. Lk 13:14–15a) as ‘hypocrites’ (ὑποκριταί: Lk 13:15c)116 alludes to the similar Pauline reference to the Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:13). The presumably well-known halachic rule which permits untying a domestic animal and leading it away to water it on the Sabbath (Lk 13:15c–e) reflects the halachic rule which permits going after a domestic animal to pasture it outside the city on the Sabbath if the distance does not exceed 2000 cubits, a rule which was expressed in the Pharisees-related Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law, usually called the Damascus Document (CD 11:5–6).117 The evident contradictions between the halachically lenient attitude practised by the Jewish leaders, who 114 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54. 115 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 566; G. Rossé, Luca, 541; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 92. 116 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 394; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 483–485; C.-Y. Kim, Gesetzesverständnis, 96. 117 For a discussion concerning the name and the Pharisees-related features of this work, see B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 20–21.

149

allowed actively untying, leading, and watering the animal (Lk  13:14c–e), and their own Pharisees-related halachic rules, which only permitted passively going after the animal to pasture it (CD 11:5–6), but explicitly forbade forcing the animal to go out of the house (CD 11:6–7) and drawing water with any vessel (CD 11:1–2),118 narratively justifies the post-Pauline reference to the Jewish leaders as hypocrites (Lk 13:15c; cf. Gal 2:13). The image of all Jesus’ Jewish opponents as put to shame (πᾶς + καταισχύνω: Lk 13:17bc) in a negative way alludes to the Pauline scriptural thought that everyone who believes in Jesus will not be put to shame (Rom 10:11; cf. 9:33; cf. also 1 Cor 1:27). This thought was also attributed in an ethopoeic way to the Jewish Christian leader Peter (1 Pet 2:6), and consequently it alludes to the Jewish Christian leaders as put to shame by Paul’s anticipating action (Gal 2:10b). On the other hand, the positively used scriptural motif of rejoicing at glorious things which were done by Jesus (ἔνδοξα + γίνομαι: Lk 13:17de; cf. Exod 34:10 LXX)119 conveys the idea that simple Jewish Christians rejoiced at Paul’s help for them (cf. Gal 2:10b).

2.26  Lk 13:18–21 (cf. Gal 2:10c) The section Lk 13:18–21, with its main theme of having done among the Gentiles the very same thing which was required by the scriptural model, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:10c. The opening parable of the mustard seed (Lk 13:18–19) was evidently borrowed from Mk 4:30–32, with which it shares not only the main thread of the story, but also much common vocabulary (ἔλεγεν + ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ + τίνι + ὁμοιώσω* + αὐτήν + κόκκῳ σινάπεως + ὅς + γίνομαι + τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ + κατασκηνόω + κλάδοι).120 Luke reworked this Marcan parable not only by making some easily understandable corrections and improvements, but also by combining it with the likewise post-Marcan motif of active involvement of the man who threw the seed (ἄνθρωπος + βάλλω: Lk 13:19bc; cf. Mk 4:26). Luke additionally reworked this

118 Cf. L. Doering, Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (TSAJ 78; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999), 176–178; id., ‘Jesus und der Sabbat im Licht der Qumrantexte’, in J. Frey, E. E. Popkes, and S. Tätweiler (eds.), Jesus, Paulus und die Texte von Qumran (WUNT 2.390; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 33–61 (esp. 53–54). 119 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 526; G. Rossé, Luca, 542 n. 33; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 485. 120 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54 n. 15.

150

Marcan motif by introducing the narratively superfluous idea of taking the seed, which implies a change of location of the seed (Lk 13:19b; diff. Mk 4:26.31), and by substituting the natural Marcan image of throwing the seed on the ground (ἐπί: Mk 4:26.31) with the somewhat surprising image of having thrown the seed elsewhere, namely into the garden (εἰς: Lk 13:19c). In this way, Luke alluded to the missionary and money-collecting activity of the Jewish apostle Paul as having been undertaken among the Gentiles who lived elsewhere, namely in Macedonia and Achaia (Gal 2:10c; cf. Rom 15:26). The non-Marcan description of the seed as growing (αὐξάνω: Lk 13:19d; diff. Mk 4:32) also alludes to Paul’s metaphoric presentation of the money-collecting activity in Macedonia and Achaia (cf. 2 Cor 9:10). The same Pauline idea of having been successfully active among the Gentiles (Gal 2:10c) was further illustrated with the use of the image of the birds of the air as living not, quite naturally, in the shadow of the Israelite mustard plant (cf. Mk 4:32; cf. also Ezek 17:23 LXX), but in the branches of the scriptural, miraculously grown, Gentile tree (δένδρον + ἐν: Lk 13:19ef; cf. Ezek 31:6; Dan 4:7–9.17–18 [10–12.20–21] LXX).121 To this reworked parable of the man who sowed the mustard seed (Lk 13:18–19) Luke added, in line with his preferred male-female gendered pattern, the parable of the woman who hid leaven in three measures of flour (Lk 13:20–21). The thread of this parable was borrowed by Luke from the scriptural Israelite story about Sarah, who made cakes from three (τρία) measures of flour (Gen 18:6 LXX). However, Luke significantly reworked this scriptural story. He consciously assimilated it to the preceding parable (Lk 13:18–19) by introducing a similar opening question, namely to what shall Jesus compare the kingdom of God (τίνι ὁμοιώσω + ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ: Lk 13:20; cf. 13:18), then the answer, ‘It is similar to…’ (ὁμοία ἐστίν: Lk 13:21a; cf. 13:19a), and then the references to the human person as taking the object (part. aor. λαβ*: Lk 13:21b; cf. 13:19b) and placing it into something (εἰς: Lk 13:21c; cf. 13:19c). In this way, by correlating the thematically Gentile parable (Lk  13:18–19) with the thematically Israelite one (Lk 13:20–21), Luke illustrated Paul’s idea that he had done among the Gentiles the very same thing which was required by the Jewish leaders (Gal 2:10c). However, in order to illustrate Paul’s implicitly expressed indignation (Gal 2:10bc) at the financial request of the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:10a), Luke

121 Cf. C. M. Tuckett, ‘The Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Book of Ezekiel’, in H. J. de Jonge and J. Tromp (eds.), The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence (Ashgate: Aldershot · Burlington, Vt. 2007), 87–101 (esp. 90–93); M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 487.

151

contrasted the two parables. Whereas the former contains the positive image of a small mustard seed growing into a great Gentile tree (Lk 13:18–19), the latter contains elements of judgment and lack of success of the Jews.122 In difference to the underlying scriptural story about Sarah (Gen 18:6 LXX), Luke presented the woman as acting with leaven in such a way that ultimately all was leavened (ζύμη + ζυμόω + ὅλον: Lk 13:21a.d). In the Pauline language, this image conveys the idea of condemnation of Paul’s Jewish Christian opponents (1 Cor 5:7; Gal 5:9). Therefore, in the Lucan parable it also alludes to the idea of Paul’s indignation at the request of the Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:10). Likewise, the surprising image of hiding the leaven in the flour (Lk 13:21c), so that it could hardly be effective for three seahs,123 so c.30–50 kg, of wheat (cf. Lk 13:21c; diff. Gen 18:6 LXX: three unspecified measures),124 conveys the idea of the Jewish Christian hiding (κρυπτ*) of the gospel, instead of proclaiming it among the Gentiles (cf. Lk 8:17; 11:33; 12:2; 19:20–23). The effect of this Jewish hiding is presented in scriptural terms as ultimately negative (cf. Exod 12:15.19–20. 34.39 LXX etc.): leavening of the whole Jewish world (Lk 13:21d). Even the quality of the Jewish flour was reduced by Luke from the scriptural finest one (σεμίδαλις: Gen 18:6 LXX) to standard one (ἄλευρον: Lk 13:21c) in order to illustrate the Pauline idea of comparing, but also contrasting his activity among the Gentiles with that of the Jerusalem leaders among the Jews (Gal 2:10).

2.27  Lk 13:22–30 (cf. Gal 2:11–12b) The section Lk 13:22–30, with its main themes of making a journey to a city far away, having problems with the attitude to the Gentiles, correcting this attitude, condemning Jewish fellow countrymen of Jesus, and practising table fellowship with the Gentiles, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:11–12b. The opening statement concerning making a prolonged journey through cities and villages, so evidently far away, to (εἰς) the distant city of Jerusalem (Lk 13:22), by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates Paul’s opening remark concerning travelling from Judaea to the distant 122 Cf. D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity’, 167–168. 123 Luke must have understood the Hebrew text of Gen 18:6 in order to substitute the Septuagintal ‘measures’ (μέτρα: Gen 18:6 LXX) with ‘seahs’ (σάτα: Lk 13:21; cf. Hag 2:16 LXX). Accordingly, not only Mark (cf. Mk 1:9; 5:41; 7:34; 10:46 etc.), but also Luke must have had at least some basic knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. 124 Cf. D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity’, 168–169.

152

city of Antioch (Gal 2:11a). Accordingly, the surprisingly introduced travel remark (Lk 13:22) in the course of the Lucan travel narrative (Lk 9:51–19:28) has a clear intertextual function: it reflects the presence of the important travel remark in Paul’s letter to the Galatians (Gal 2:11a). Likewise, the use of the more Gentile version of the name of Jerusalem (Ἱεροσόλυμα: Lk 13:22c; diff. Ἰερουσαλήμ: Lk 13:33–34 etc.)125 is justified by the function of this name in Lk 13:22c, as in fact pointing to the Gentile city of Antioch (Gal 2:11a). The hesitant question of a certain man, which reflects his problems with overcoming the typically Jewish soteriological exclusivism (σῴζω: Lk 13:23ab; cf. Acts 15:1), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the similarly problematic behaviour of Cephas (Gal  2:11a; cf. 2:12), who was later presented by Luke in an idealized way as persuaded by God to overcome this soteriological exclusivism (cf. Acts 4:12; 11:14; 15:11 etc.). The subsequent instruction to the asking man and his fellows that they should struggle to enter through the narrow door (Lk 13:23c–24b)126 directly challenges the earlier expressed soteriological assumption that the Jews will certainly be saved, but the Gentiles not necessarily so (cf. Lk 13:23b). Accordingly, this instruction illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement concerning his directly challenging the soteriological ideas of Cephas (Gal  2:11bc). In fact, the following part of the Lucan account (Lk 13:28–30) conveys the post-Pauline idea that not the Jews, but the Gentiles will enter the kingdom of God. The subsequent image of many Jews, presented as being once physically close to Jesus and living in a great city, presumably that of Jerusalem, but as failing to enter the kingdom of God (Lk 13:24c–28), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent negative remark concerning certain men from James, the Lord’s brother, who lived in Jerusalem (Gal 2:12a; cf. 1:18–19). In particular, the image of the Jews as being instructed to enter through the narrow door of the kingdom of God, and then knocking the closed door in order that it might be opened (εἰσέρχομαι + θύρα + ἀνοίγω: Lk 13:24–25; ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ: Lk 13:28–29), is a negative version of the post-Pauline image of the Gentiles as entering the kingdom of God through the widely opened door of faith (cf. 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 2:12; Col 4:3; Acts 14:22.27). Accordingly, it illustrates 125 Cf. K. Mielcarek, ‘Obraz Syjonu w Ps 134 źródłem natchnienia dla Łukasza w przedstawieniu roli Jeruzalem w Łk-Dz’, RocB 1 (2009) 191–200 (esp. 196–197). 126 For a context of this instruction in the architecture and organization of a Roman city domus, see M. Adrian, ‘Der Blick durch die enge Tür: Lk 13.22–30 im architekturgeschichtlichen Kontext der städtischen domus’, NTS 58 (2012) 481–502 (esp. 487–500).

153

the features of certain men from James as coming without sufficient faith to the Gentile Christian community in the city of Antioch (Gal 2:12a). The image of the Jews as recalling their having once dined in the presence of Jesus, and having heard his teaching in the wide streets of their city, presumably of Jerusalem (Lk 13:26; cf. 14:21; Acts 5:15), reflects the features of the followers of James (Gal 2:12a), who was once physically close to Jesus as his brother, and who presumably heard the teaching of Jesus and Paul in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18–19). Likewise, the condemnation of the Jews with the use of a quotation from the Jewish Scriptures (ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ πάντες + ἐργα*: Lk 13:27; cf. Ps 6:9 LXX)127 alludes to Paul’s negative remark concerning the Jewish Christian followers of James (Gal 2:12a). In order to make the scriptural allusion more pertinent to the followers of James, who were presented by Paul as in fact not being justified by works (δικ* + ἐργ*: Gal 2:16), Luke changed the text of the quotation by substituting the scriptural reference to working lawlessness (ἐργάζομαι + ἀνομία: Ps 6:9 LXX) with the ideas of being evil workers (ἐργάται) and not being righteous (ἀδικία: Lk 13:27). The Lucan (cf. Acts  7:54), originally scriptural image of the Jews as gnashing the teeth (βρυ* + ὀδόντες: Lk 13:28a; cf. Job 16:9; Ps 35[34]:16; 37[36]:12; 112[111]:10; Lam 2:16 LXX)128 conveys the idea of bitter enmity of the followers of James (Gal 2:12a) towards the Gentile Christian believers (Gal 2:12f). Together with the image of weeping (Lk 13:28a), it illustrates Paul’s condemning remark concerning the followers of James (Gal 2:12a). The reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as all the prophets (Lk  13:28b) conveys the preferred Lucan presentation of the Jewish Scriptures as consisting of the Law, as well as the Prophets (cf. Lk 16:16.29.31; 24:27; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23). Thus, it again alludes to the Jewish Christian followers of James (Gal 2:12a). The choice of the character of Abraham, and not Moses, as symbolizing the Law (Lk 13:28b) reflects Paul’s use of the example of Abraham in his discussion of the validity of the law (Gal 3:6–18). The subsequent image of the believers coming, in line with the scriptural model, from far regions in the east and the west, in the north and the south (ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν + καί + δυσμῶν + βορρᾶ: Lk  13:29a; cf. Is  43:5–6 LXX etc.) illustrates Paul’s subsequent remark concerning the Gentile believers in Antioch (Gal 2:12b). 127 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 292; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 489; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 489, 492. 128 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 567; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 493; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 106.

154

The subsequent image of the believers reclining at a meal (Lk  13:29b; cf. Mk 6:39; Lk 12:37) together with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets in the same kingdom of God (cf. Lk 13:28) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the Gentile Christians having common meals with Cephas (Gal 2:12b), presumably mainly in the common celebration of the eschatological Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor 11:18–33). The concluding statement concerning the last who will be first, and the first who will be last (ἔσχατοι + ἔσονται πρῶτοι + καί + πρῶτοι + ἔσονται ἔσχατοι: Lk 13:30) was borrowed from Mk 10:31129 and reworked by omitting the Marcan reference to many (Mk 10:31), in order to illustrate more clearly the Pauline idea of the change of the soteriological status of the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians (Gal 2:12–21).

2.28  Lk 13:31–33 (cf. Gal 2:12c–f) The section Lk 13:31–33, with its main themes of a temporal remark, the coming of certain Jews, suggesting enmity between the Jewish leader and the main hero, referring to the Jewish leader as the fox, criticizing Jesus’ healing activity among the unclean ones, and boldly facing the threats of the Jerusalem Jews, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:12c–f. The opening temporal remark‘at that very hour’(Lk 13:31a),which quite surprisingly coordinates the section Lk 13:31–33 with the preceding one (Lk 13:23–30), alludes to Paul’s opening temporal remark ‘when’ (Gal  2:12c), which likewise coordinates the section Gal  2:12c–f with the preceding clause concerning the coming of certain men from James (Gal 2:12a). The subsequent statement concerning the coming (*έρχομαι) of certain (τινες) Pharisees (Lk 13:31a–d) illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement concerning the coming of certain men from James (Gal 2:12c; cf. 2:12a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising image of certain Pharisees suggesting enmity between Herod, the Jewish leader, and Jesus, the main hero of the story (Lk 13:31b–f; diff. 9:9; 23:8–11),130 illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that certain men from James drove a wedge between Cephas and Paul (Gal 2:12c-e). The character of Herod, the Jewish leader, by means of the post-Marcan hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to Cephas, the Jewish Christian 129 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54 n. 15. 130 Cf. C. W. Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith (WUNT 2.108; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999), 132; G.  Rossé, Luca, 559; F.  Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 110–111.

155

leader (cf. Mk 3:6; 6:14–29; 8:15; 12:13;131 Lk 3:19), just as the character of Jesus throughout the Gospels generally alludes to Paul. The subsequent surprising reference to Herod as a fox (ἀλώπηξ: Lk 13:32a–c), an animal which was earlier presented by Luke as hiding in holes (Lk 9:58b), illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement concerning Cephas as drawing back for shelter (ὑποστέλλω: Gal 2:12d).132 The subsequent image of Herod implicitly blaming Jesus (cf. Lk 13:31ef) for his activity among the unclean and sick ones (Lk 13:32de; cf. Mk 1:34; 5:29 etc.) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement concerning Cephas as separating himself from the Gentiles (Gal 2:12e). The subsequent image of Jesus’ boldly facing Jewish threats (Lk 13:32f–33) in a negative way illustrates Paul’s subsequent condemnation of Cephas for his being afraid of Jewish threats (Gal 2:12f). Besides, the Lucan motif of finishing (τελειόω) the apostolic work in the near future (Lk 13:32f) is post-Pauline (cf. Phlp 3:12; Acts 20:24). Likewise, the idea of being first, before the finish of the apostolic work (cf. Lk  13:32), today here, tomorrow in another place, and the next day (τῇ ἐχομένῃ) yet elsewhere on the journey to Jerusalem (Lk  13:33), in the Lucan imagery refers to Paul on his journey to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 20:15).

2.29  Lk 13:34–35 (cf. Gal 2:12f) The section Lk 13:34–35, with its main theme of a prophetic indictment of the Jews and Israelites for their threatening God’s envoys and being closed towards the Gentiles, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:12f. The prophetic indictment of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, taken collectively, for their persecuting God’s envoys and Jesus in his activity of bringing dispersed people together (Lk 13:34; cf. 13:33d) is really surprising in the context of Jesus’ being still in Galilee (cf. Lk 13:33; diff. 19:41–44).133 In fact, it illustrates Paul’s charge against the circumcised ones for their hindering his activity among the Gentiles (Gal 2:12f). The particular motif of the Jews taken collectively as killing the prophets (ἀποκτείνω + τοὺς προφήτας) and persecuting Jesus and others who were sent

131 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 58, 83–86, 108, 148. 132 Cf. LSJ, s.v. ὑποστέλλω, I.3. 133 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 742–743; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 494.

156

to them (Lk 13:34a–c) is post-Pauline (1 Thes 2:15;134 cf. Rom 11:3; Lk 11:47–49; Acts 7:52.58–59). The metaphorical motif of a bird gathering the Jews as its brood under its wings (αυτ* + νοσσία + ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας: Lk  13:34ef) is scriptural (cf. Deut 32:11; Ps 91[90]:4 LXX),135 and consequently it alludes to the circumcised Israelites taken collectively (Gal 2:12f). The related condemnation of the Jews and Israelites for they being closed towards the Gentiles (Lk 13:35a; diff. Mk 11:17d), so that they will be left alone until they bless the one coming in the name of the Lord (εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου: Lk 13:35b–f; cf. Ps 118[117]:26 LXX),136 again illustrates the Pauline condemnation of the circumcised ones for their being closed towards the Gentile Christians (Gal 2:12f; cf. 2:12de). The motif of invoking the name of the Lord (Lk 13:35d–f) in Paul’s letters refers to the Gentiles (cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 5:4; 6:11; Rom 10:13).

2.30  Lk 14:1–6 (cf. Gal 2:13a) The section Lk 14:1–6, with its main theme of the Jews being criticized for their strict adherence to the Jewish laws in the context of table fellowship, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:13a. The opening statement concerning a certain (τις) man of the leaders of the Pharisees as inviting Jesus for a purely Jewish meal (Lk 14:1a–c; cf. 7:36; 11:37) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s statement concerning Cephas as identifying himself with certain men from James in the matter of purely Jewish table fellowship (Gal 2:13a). The related post-Marcan motif of the Jews observing Jesus (καί + παρατηρέω + αὐτόν: Lk 14:1d; cf. Mk 3:2; Lk 6:7)137 in difference to the Marcan story refers not to the matter of the lawfulness of doing something on the Sabbath (diff. Mk 3:2; Lk 6:7), but to that of common eating (Lk 14:1c). Accordingly, it illustrates the 134 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 116. 135 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 455 n. 70; J. B. Green, Luke, 539 n. 88; H. Klein, Lukas­ evangelium, 494. 136 Cf. C. Schaefer, Die Zukunft Israels bei Lukas: Biblisch-frühjüdische Zukunftsvorstellungen im lukanischen Doppelwerk im Vergleich zu Röm 9–11 (BZNW 190; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012), 16; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 116; G. R. Lanier, ‘Luke’s Distinctive Use of the Temple: Portraying the Divine Visitation’, JTS, ns 65 (2014) 433–462 (esp. 453–456). 137 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 746; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 468; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54.

157

Pauline statement concerning the Jews as censuring Paul for his table fellowship with the Gentiles (Gal 2:13a). The motif of a sick man, who was there (καί + ἄνθρωπος + ἦν: Lk 14:2), is likewise post-Marcan (cf. Mk 3:1b), just as is the spoken question, whether it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not (λέγω + ἔξεστιν + σάββατον + θεραπεύω + ἤ: Lk 14:3c-e; cf. Mk 3:2b.4a-f),138 as well as the remark that they kept silent (οἱ δέ: Lk 14:4; cf. Mk 3:4g).139 In its new Lucan context (Lk 14:3), the Marcan apologetic question of Jesus (ἔξεστιν…: Mk 3:4b) is unexpected because it is not preceded by any explicit charge against Jesus (cf. Lk 14:1).140 It is quite surprising that Luke reworked the Marcan story about a man with a dried-up hand (Mk 3:1c) into its semantic opposition, namely a story about a man suffering from dropsy (Lk 14:2).141 In fact, Luke needed such a reworking of the Marcan story because he wanted to illustrate the Pauline idea of strict adherence of the Jewish Christians to the Jewish law (Gal 2:13a). For the same reason, Luke substituted the Marcan Herodians (Mk 3:6b) with experts in the law (Lk 14:3b). From Josephus’ account concerning James (Jos. Ant. 20.199–201) Luke could have deduced that James and his followers were related to the Pharisees (cf. Lk 13:31 etc.), who were in opposition to the Sadducees (cf. Acts 23:6–8).142 Therefore, in order to illustrate Paul’s criticism of the Jewish Christians for their being influenced by the legally oriented, ‘hypocritical’ followers of James (Gal 2:13a; cf. 2:12), the evangelist composed a story illustrating the Jews’ strict, but in fact hypocritical adherence to the particularly Pharisaic halacha (Lk 14:3–6; esp. 14:5). He took an example of such halacha from the Pharisees-related Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law, which is usually called the Damascus Document.143

138 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 469, 474 n. 33; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 497 n. 10, 498. 139 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 469; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54; H. Klein, Lukas­ evangelium, 497 n. 10. 140 Cf. N. L. Collins, Jesus, the Sabbath and the Jewish Debate: Healing on the Sabbath in the 1st and 2nd Centuries CE (LNTS 474; Bloomsbury: London [et al.] 2014), 109–110. 141 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 584. 142 Cf. S. Mason, Josephus and the NT, 246; E. Regev, ‘Temple Concerns and High-Priestly Prosecutions from Peter to James: Between Narrative and History’, NTS 55 (2009) 64–89 (esp. 86). 143 For a discussion concerning the name and the Pharisees-related features of this work, see B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 20–21.

158

The Lucan argument concerning saving the life of a man who was trapped on the day of the Sabbath in a place full of water, like the body full of water (ὑδρωπικός: Lk 14:2; cf. Jos. B.J. 1.656; Ant. 17.169 etc.)144 or a cistern (φρέαρ: Lk  14:5), basically agrees with that of CD  11:16–17a (cf. also 4Q265 6:6–7), namely that it is permitted to save human life which is endangered in a place full of water or a cistern on the day of the Sabbath, provided that only grasping, and no tool is used. In order to present narratively such a situation, Luke surprisingly substituted the Marcan natural image of Jesus’ orally commanding the man (Mk 3:5cd) with that of Jesus’ grasping him (ἐπιλαμβάνω: Lk 14:4b). In this way, the predominantly Pharisaic opponents of Jesus (cf. Lk 14:1.3) were confronted by Luke with their own Pharisees-related halachic argument (Lk 14:5; cf. CD 11:16–17a). However, through the elimination of the strict halachic prohibition of the use of any tool (Lk 14:5; diff. CD 11:17a), and through the addition of the halachically lenient element of haste (Lk  14:5c; diff. CD  11:14a.17a) and of the halachically prohibited element of saving a domestic animal as well (Lk  14:5bc; diff. CD  11:13–14a),145 the Jewish opponents of Jesus were also narratively blamed for their hypocritical attitude to their own strict halacha (Lk  14:5–6; cf. Gal 2:13a).

2.31  Lk 14:7–11 (cf. Gal 2:13b) The section Lk 14:7–11, with its main theme of one of the Jewish leaders looking for a prominent place in the matter of table fellowship before the coming of someone more honoured, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:13b. The opening motif of choosing first places (πρωτοκλισία) at a Jewish meal (Lk 14:7; cf. 14:1) was evidently borrowed from Mk 12:39, where it refers to experts in Scripture (cf. Mk 12:38), that is, allusively, to criticized Jewish Christian leaders.146 Likewise, in Lk  14:7–8b Jesus’ criticism directed against one of the Jewish leaders (but not the dominant one: diff. Lk 14:12) for his looking for a prominent place at a Jewish meal and at a wedding banquet illustrates Paul’s 144 ‘Dropsy is a condition [in which] the body retains the fluid rather than processes it’: C. Hartsock, ‘The Healing of the Man with Dropsy (Luke 14:1–6) and the Lukan Landscape’, BibInt 21 (2013) 341–354 (here: 342). 145 Cf. D. E. Garland, Luke (ZECNT 3; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2011), 569; L. Doering, Schabbat, 195, 202–203, 396, 459–460, 568–569; id., ‘Jesus’, 50–52. 146 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 154.

159

criticism of Barnabas for his siding with the Jewish Christians leaders in the matter of Jewish–Gentile table fellowship (Gal 2:13b; cf. 2:12). Moreover, the non-Marcan image of a Jewish leader losing his prominent place after the coming of someone more honoured (Lk  14:8c–9; diff. Mk  12:39) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Barnabas’ loss of his prominent status after the coming of certain men from James (Gal 2:13b), who was evidently honoured more among the Jewish Christians than Barnabas was (cf. Gal 2:9). In particular, the surprising image of gradually (ἄρχομαι) and shamefully moving from the first place to the last one at a table (Lk 14:9ef)147 illustrates Barnabas’ gradual and shameful loss of social status, since he came over to James’ party in the matter of meals as the last, presumably ashamed one among the Jewish Christians (Gal 2:13b; cf. 2:13a). The idea of Barnabas’ loss of social status in the aftermath of the Antiochene crisis (Lk 14:8c–9; cf. Gal 2:13b) was already earlier expressed by Mark, who presented Bar-nabas, that is ‘a son of prophecy’, as a female character of a play-acting girl, merely a daughter of her father (Mk 6:22), and as Bar-abbas, that is ‘a son of the father’ (Mk 15:7.11.15).148 The same idea was also later expressed by Luke in his presentation of Barnabas’ gradual loss of social status in the Antiochene community: from a prominent position (Acts 11:22–24; 13:1) to a subordinated one (Acts 15:35). On the other hand, the idea of choosing the last (ἔσχατος) place in order to be honoured before others (Lk 14:10) recalls Paul’s presentation of the change of his own social status in the Church, namely as moving from the last place among Jewish Christians to being honoured beyond others (1 Cor 15:8–10). Likewise, the paradigmatically formulated idea of humbling oneself (ταπεινόω ἑαυτόν) and thus being exalted (*ὑψόω: Lk 14:11; cf. 18:14) recalls Paul’s paradigmatically formulated description of the change of the social status of Christ Jesus (Phlp  2:8–9; cf. later Jas  4:10; 1  Pet 5:6).149 Accordingly, these ideas, additionally conflated with the scriptural motif of going up (*αναβαίνω) from a lowly place (τόπος), instead of being humbled (ταπεινόω) in the presence of others (Lk  14:10–11; cf. Prov  25:6–7 LXX),150 contrast Paul’s criticism of Barnabas’

147 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 1264; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 489; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 502 n. 13. 148 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 87, 183. 149 Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 224. 150 Cf. ibid. 226; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 484 n. 12, 490 n. 37; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 322 n. 360.

160

looking for a social status among Jewish Christians (Gal  2:13b; cf. 2:12–13a) with allusions to his own and Christ’s humble behaviour.

2.32  Lk 14:12–14 (cf. Gal 2:14a–c) The section Lk 14:12–14, with its main themes of reproving the dominant Jewish leader in the matter of table fellowship with other Jews and with unclean people, in an almost consistently sequential way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:14a–c. The opening image of addressing the dominant Jewish leader, who invited others for a common meal (Lk 14:12ab), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline idea of addressing Cephas, who had a prominent position of among Jewish Christians in Antioch (Gal 2:14c). The instruction not invite to the meal, quite surprisingly, the presumably Jewish friends, brothers (ἀδελφός), relatives (συγγενής), and neighbours (Lk 14:12cd)151 illustrates the Pauline reproof that the Jews, including Cephas, maintained table fellowship only with other Jews (Gal 2:14ab), thus yielding to the demands of the men from James (cf. Gal 2:12a.c-13), the Lord’s brother (cf. Gal 1:19), and his Jewish Christian brothers and relatives (cf. Rom 9:3; Mk 6:4).152 The subsequent positive, likewise surprising instruction to invite various marginalized, mostly halachically unclean people: poor, crippled, lame (χωλός), and blind (τυφλός: cf. Lev 21:18–20 LXX; 1QSa 2:5–8; 4Q396 frag. 1_2 ii:1–5) to a common meal (Lk 14:13)153 in a positive way illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the truth of the gospel in the matter of table fellowship with the unclean Gentiles (Gal 2:14b). The subsequent argument that the Jewish leader will be blessed and righteous (δίκαιος*) by inviting those who according to the rules of the customary law of repayment (cf. Lk  14:12ef) do not deserve this invitation (Lk  14:14) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of presenting the truth of the gospel to Cephas (Gal 2:14bc) by arguing that according to Christ’s gospel righteousness comes through God’s grace, and not through the law (cf. Gal 2:21).

151 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 323; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 503; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 125–126. 152 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 120 n. 7. 153 Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 225; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 494 n. 52; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 323 n. 362.

161

2.33  Lk 14:15–24 (cf. Gal 2:14d–g) The section Lk 14:15–24, with its main themes of behaving like a Jew in the matter of food laws, living in a Gentile way in the matter of table fellowship, not living in a Jewish way in the matter of table fellowship, compelling unclean people in the matter of table fellowship, and rebuking the Jews for their withdrawing from table fellowship, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:14d–g. The opening image of a certain man, presumably a Jew (cf. Lk  14:1), who boasted of the possibility of eating bread (ἐσθίω + ἄρτον) not only at the present Jewish meal (cf. Lk 14:1), but also at the future banquet of the kingdom of God (Lk 14:15), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline statement concerning Cephas’ being a Jew (Gal 2:14d), in the context of the Jews’ boasting of their eating only ritually clean food (cf. Gal 2:12de.15; Lk 14:1). The related idea of the being blessed (μακάριος) not because of sharing in God’s grace (diff. Lk 14:14), but because of participating in a ritually clean Jewish messianic meal (Lk  14:15), additionally illustrates this Pauline thought (Gal 2:14d). The subsequent scriptural motif of giving a great dinner (ποιέω + δεῖπνον μέγα) for many people in a royal, Gentile way (Lk  14:16–17; cf. Dan  5:1 θ’) illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement that Cephas, being the Church leader, in the matter of table fellowship lived in a Gentile way (Gal 2:14e). The subsequent non-scriptural image of the host’s wrath upon the invited guests (Lk 14:21a–c), presumably the Jews (cf. Lk 14:1.7.12), for their excusing themselves from participating in the common meal on three, rather surprising,154 allusively Jewish Christian pretexts of being bound to (a) the land, presumably of Israel (Lk 14:18; cf. Mk 10:29–30); (b) the number of five, evidently not of the tribes of Israel (diff. 1 Kgs 19:19 LXX: ζεύγη βοῶν + δώδεκα), but of the books of the Pentateuch (Lk 14:19; cf. Mk 6:38.41; 8:19; Lk 16:28–29); and (c) the married wife (γυνή + γαμ*: Lk 14:20; cf. 1 Cor 9:5; diff. 1 Cor 7:1.8.29.32) illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement that in the matter of table fellowship Cephas did not live in a Jewish way (Gal 2:14e). The particular idea of wrath (ὀργ*) upon the Jews because of their denial of the salvific openness to the Gentiles (Lk 14:21a-c; cf. 14:18–20) is post-Pauline (cf. 1 Thes 2:16). Luke reworked it in a narrative way in line with his idea of the Jewish rejection of the gospel (Lk 14:18–21c; cf. 14:24) as a precondition for the evangelization of the Gentiles (Lk 14:21d–23; cf. Acts 13:46; 18:5–6; 28:25–28 etc.). 154 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 508: ‘Am Abend sieht man sich Acker oder Ochsen an!?’

162

The subsequent instruction of the host to bring halachically unclean people (cf. Lk 14:13)155 and, surprisingly, compel (ἀναγκάζω) others to participate in the common meal (Lk 14:21d–23),156 alludes to the subsequent Pauline statement concerning Cephas’ compelling the evangelized Gentiles in the matter of table fellowship (Gal 2:14f). Luke reworked this Pauline statement by presenting the inclusion of the Gentiles as taking place gradually: first on the streets and lanes of the city, presumably of Jerusalem (Lk 14:21ef), and then on the roads and among the hedges, evidently outside the city (Lk 14:23). In fact, Luke used to present the evangelization of the unclean Gentiles in a post-Pauline way (cf. Rom 15:19) as a gradual process which started from Jerusalem and then passed to other regions (cf. Acts 1:8; 3:2; 6:1; 8:7.27; 10:1 etc.).157 The subsequent, narratively superfluous rebuke to the Jews concerning their not participating in the common meal (Lk 14:24) illustrates Paul’s subsequent rebuke to Cephas for his following the strictly Jewish, separatist behaviour (ἰουδαΐζειν) in the matter of table fellowship (Gal 2:14g; cf. 2:12de).

2.34  Lk 14:25–33 (cf. Gal 2:15–3:3) The section Lk 14:25–33, with its main themes of Jewish crowds being called to cut natural and legal ties with their Jewish heritage, being crucified with Christ, being disciples, and beginning with power, but ending in weakness, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:15–3:3. The opening image of addressing great crowds (Lk  14:25), in difference to the preceding one of addressing a certain individual (Lk 14:15), alludes to the Pauline address to all Jews taken collectively (Gal 2:15). The subsequent motif of leaving one’s natural relatives, including brothers (ἀδελφούς), sisters (ἀδελφάς), mother (μητέρα), father (πατέρα), and children (τέκνα: Lk 14:26), was borrowed from Mk 10:29,158 but significantly reworked. Luke substituted the somehow understandable idea of leaving one’s relatives into

155 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 1276; K. Berthelot, ‘La place des infirmes et des «lépreux» dans les textes de Qumrân et les évangiles’, RB 113 (2006) 211–241 (esp. 239). 156 Cf. F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 134. 157 Cf. C.-P. März, ‘“Brot teilen, dass das Leben wächst…”: Die Mahlgemeinschaften Jesu in der Perspektive des Lukasevangeliums’, in R. Hoppe and M. Reichardt (eds.), Lukas – Paulus – Pastoralbriefe, Festschrift A. Weiser (SBS 230; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2014), 39–51 (esp. 49–50). 158 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54 n. 16.

163

the surprising one of hating them, reordered the Marcan list by highlighting the position of one’s own father (πατήρ), and added references to the wife (γυνή)159 and to one’s own soul (ψυχή: Lk 14:26; diff. Mk 10:29).160 In this way, Luke illustrated the subsequent Pauline thought that the Jewish Christians should cut ties with the Jewish law (Gal  2:16–19a), narratively represented by their Israelite fathers (cf. 1 Cor 10:1; Rom 9:5 etc.), with legal bonds with the wives (cf. 1  Cor 7:10–11; Rom  7:2–3), and with legal obligations in their own souls (cf. Mk 12:28–30). The subsequent statement concerning whomever (*τις) as (a) bearing his cross (τὸν σταυρὸν *αὐτοῦ) and (b) going after Jesus (ὀπίσω μου), only thus (c) being Jesus’ disciple (μαθητής: Lk  14:27; cf. 14:33), was borrowed from Mk 8:34 (cf. Lk 9:23) and significantly reordered and reformulated by Luke so that it might sequentially illustrate the subsequent Pauline ideas of (a) having been crucified with Christ (σταυρο*: Gal 2:19c) and (b) following the example of Christ’s self-giving life (Gal 2:20–3:1), only thus (c) learning (μαθ*) to have his Spirit (Gal 3:2). The two subsequent, thematically and linguistically correlated stories concerning mocking someone for his beginning (*ἄρχομαι) to build, but not being able to finish (*τελέω: Lk 14:28–30), as well as beginning a war with power, but then ungodly recognizing one’s weakness (Lk  14:31–32; diff. 1  Macc 4:28–34: πολεμ* + ἔρχομαι + *αντάω + ἐν δέκα χιλιάσιν + συμβάλλω; 2  Macc 8:9–24: 20000 + πολεμ* + συμβάλλω; Jos. Ant. 4.296–297: πολεμ* + πρεσβεία + εἰρήνη) commonly illustrate Paul’s subsequent idea of mocking the Galatians for their beginning with the powerful Spirit, but finishing with the weak flesh (Gal 3:3). The repeated motif of obviously first sitting down and reasoning whether (οὐχί + πρῶτον + καθίσας + εἰ) one is powerful enough to do something difficult (Lk  14:28.31) in a negative way illustrates Paul’s charge that the Galatians are obviously foolish because they rejected the powerful Spirit, and now they are left with their weak flesh (Gal 3:3). The particular motif of laying a foundation (τίθημι + θεμέλιον), building (*οἰκοδομέω) upon it, but possibly not achieving success (Lk  14:28–30), as alluding to the beginning, progress, but also criticized weakness of Christian faith (Gal 3:3), was borrowed by Luke from 1 Cor 3:10–13.

159 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 512. 160 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 301.

164

2.35  Lk 14:34–35 (cf. Gal 3:4–5) The section Lk 14:34–35, with its main themes of a sensibly experienced object surprisingly having no effect, as well as being exhorted to hear, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 3:4–5. The opening statement that the sensibly experienced salt is good (καλὸν… τὸ ἅλας: Lk 14:34a) was borrowed from Mk 9:50a161 in order to illustrate the Pauline idea of so many good things experienced by the Galatians (Gal 3:4a). The subsequent question, ‘but if the salt becomes ineffective, with which will it be seasoned’ (ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅλας…, ἐν τίνι + ἀρτύω: Lk 14:34bc) was likewise borrowed from that Marcan text (Mk 9:50bc).162 However, Luke substituted the Marcan phrase ‘become saltless’ (ἄναλον γένηται: Mk  9:50b), which thematically suits its original context of a statement concerning salt (Mk  9:50a), with the surprising verb ‘become foolish’ (μωραίνω: Lk 14:34b; cf. Rom 1:22).163 In this way, the evangelist illustrated the subsequent Pauline thought that the Galatians turned out to act thoughtlessly (εἰκῇ: Gal 3:4a) by losing the Spirit (cf. Gal 3:3). The opposition between having the Spirit (πνεῦμα: Gal 3:3b) and being foolish (μωρ*: Lk 14:34b; cf. Gal 3:3a.4a) is likewise post-Pauline (cf. 1 Cor 2:14). The subsequent negative, non-Marcan statement that the foolish salt is fit for no purpose, but people throw it out (Lk  14:35a–c), illustrates the subsequent Pauline remark that the foolish Galatians really experienced so many things to no purpose (εἰκῇ: Gal 3:4b). The particular Lucan thought that the foolish salt is fit neither for the land (γῆ: Lk 14:35a), presumably of Israel (cf. Lk 4:25; cf. also Ezek 11:17; Deut 2:12 LXX etc.),164 nor for the ritually unclean dunghill (κοπρία: Lk 14:35b; cf. 13:8; cf. also Exod  29:14; Lev  4:11–12; 8:17; 16:27; Num  19:5 LXX), presumably of the Gentiles (cf. 2 Kgs 9:37 LXX), illustrates the Pauline thought that the foolish Galatians are neither true Jewish Christians, relying on the works of the law, nor true Gentile Christians, relying on faith (Gal 3:2–5). The subsequent, surprisingly inserted exhortation to hear (ἀκούω: Lk 14:35d–f; cf. 8:8) illustrates the subsequent Pauline exhortation to rely on the hearing

161 162 163 164

Cf. ibid. 54 n. 15; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 514; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 138. Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54 n. 15. Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 595. The noun γῆ clearly refers in Lk 14:35 to the ‘land’, and not to ‘soil’. Salt (ἅλας) is evidently not good for cultivated soil (γῆ), so in Israel it functioned as a symbol of barrenness of the soil (cf. Deut 29:22; Judg 9:45 LXX etc.). Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 547.

165

(ἀκοή) of faith (Gal 3:5d; cf. 3:2). The particular phrasing of the Lucan exhortation: ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear’ (ὁ* + ἔχω + ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω: Lk 14:35d–f) was borrowed from Mk 4:9 (cf. 4:23).165

2.36  Lk 15:1 (cf. Gal 3:6–9) The section Lk 15:1, with its main themes of approaching Jesus, all the tax collectors and sinners, and attentively listening to Jesus, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 3:6–9. The opening motif of tax collectors and sinners being together with Jesus (ἦσαν + τελῶναι καὶ… ἁμαρτωλοί + αὐτῷ: Lk 15:1a) was borrowed from Mk  2:15.166 However, Luke surprisingly substituted the Marcan idea of eating together (Mk  2:15bc), which was evidently important to him elsewhere (cf. Lk 14:1–24 etc.) and which would narratively introduce the topic of eating together (Lk 15:2),167 with the rather vague idea of approaching Jesus (Lk 15:1a). In fact, with the use of this idea Luke illustrated the Pauline idea of faith (Gal  3:6–7). The image of being near (ἐγγ*: Lk  15:1a) as a metaphor of faith (πιστ*: Gal 3:6–7) is post-Pauline (cf. Rom 10:8–9; Eph 2:13). The subsequent non-Marcan, surprisingly generalizing remark concerning ‘all the’ (πάντες οἱ) tax collectors and sinners (Lk 15:1a; diff. Mk 2:15c: πολλοί)168 linguistically illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement concerning all the Gentiles (Gal 3:8d). The subsequent non-Marcan remark concerning tax collectors and sinners as attentively and respectfully listening to Jesus (ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ: Lk 15:1b; cf. 2:47; 9:35; 19:48; 21:38) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement concerning the Gentiles as receiving an audible blessing (cf. Gal 3:8d) with the faithful Abraham (Gal 3:9). The image of hearing (ἀκο*: Lk 15:1b) as a metaphor of faith (πιστ*: Gal 3:9) was taken from the immediately preceding section of the Pauline letter (Gal 3:5d).

165 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Recent’, 51; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 531–532; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54 n. 16. 166 Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 114; M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 604, 609; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54. 167 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 523. 168 Cf. R. H. Stein, Luke, 402; D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 1298; F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 3 (EKKNT 3/3; Benzinger: Düsseldorf · Zürich and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001), 19.

166

2.37  Lk 15:2 (cf. Gal 3:10–11) The section Lk 15:2, with its main themes of the Pharisees and the experts in Scripture murmuring in a scriptural way, as well as sinners being welcomed by Jesus, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 3:10–11. The opening motif of the Pharisees and the experts in Scripture saying that Jesus eats with sinners (οἱ… Φαρισαῖοι + οἱ γραμματεῖς + λεγον* + ὅτι + ἁμαρτωλοί + *εσθίει: Lk  15:2) was borrowed from Mk  2:16 (cf. the use of Mk 2:15 in Lk 15:1).169 However, Luke reordered the Marcan phrase ‘the experts in Scripture among the Pharisees’ (Mk 2:16a) into two distinct references to (a) the Pharisees and (b) the experts in Scripture (γραμμ*: Lk 15:2a). In this way, Luke sequentially illustrated the Pauline ideas of (a) those who are of the works of the law (Gal 3:10a) and (b) the things written in Scripture (Gal 3:10b–g). The related idea that these two groups of people murmured in a scriptural way (διαγογγύζω: Lk 15:2a; cf. Exod 15:24; 16:2.7–8 LXX etc.),170 which had once caused the Lord’s curse upon such people in Scripture (cf. Num 14:2–12.22–23. 27–37; Deut 1:27.34–35 LXX), illustrates the related Pauline idea that those who are of the works of the law are under a scriptural curse (Gal 3:10). The subsequent non-Marcan ideas of (a) sinners (b) being welcomed by Jesus (Lk 15:2c; diff. Mk 2:16d) sequentially illustrate the subsequent Pauline thoughts that (a) in the law no one is justified in the sight of God (Gal 3:11a) and (b) the one who is accepted by God will live by faith (Gal 3:11b).

2.38  Lk 15:3–10 (cf. Gal 3:12–14) The section Lk 15:3–10, with its main themes of scriptural sheep living in the wilderness, abandoning the flock and going towards the scriptural sinner, laying the scriptural sinner upon the shoulders, a scriptural blessing coming to a Gentile house, and rejoicing because of mercy, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 3:12–14. The parable (παραβολή) of seeking and recovering the lost sheep (πρόβατον + τὸ ἀπολωλός: Lk  15:3–7) evidently alludes to Ezekiel’s parable (cf. Ezek  17:2; 24:3 LXX) of seeking and recovering the lost sheep (Ezek 34:15–16.25 LXX).171

169 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Recent’, 48; M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 604; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54. 170 Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 235; J. B. Green, Luke, 571 n. 199. 171 Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 240; J. B. Green, Luke, 574.

167

However, Luke significantly reworked this scriptural model in order to illustrate the Pauline ideas contained in Gal 3:12–13. The image of the scriptural flock of sheep as living in the wilderness (ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ: Lk  15:4a; cf. 15:4c) is really surprising because in the scriptural model this image referred to their being scattered and endangered by wild beasts (Ezek 34:5.25 LXX), and not to their being fed by the Lord in a good pasture on the mountains of Israel (cf. Ezek 34:14). Therefore, this pessimistic scriptural image, which recalls Israel’s forty-year-long wandering in the wilderness after receiving the law at Mount Sinai (cf. Num  14:33; 32:13 LXX etc.), and which presents the Jewish righteous ones as living without God’s joy (cf. Lk  15:7d), illustrates the Pauline idea of the law as something through which Israel obtained only partly satisfying life (Gal 3:12), and not the true, joyful life from faith and God’s mercy (cf. Gal 3:11; Lk 15:7a–c). The subsequent image of a sheep being lost (Lk  15:4b), thus being away from Israel’s flock, away from the Shepherd, and in danger of death as a sinner (cf. Ezek 34:5; Lk 15:7c), illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of being under the curse of the law (Gal 3:13a). The subsequent, quite surprising statement that the shepherd abandons Israel’s sheep (καταλείπω + πρόβατα: Lk 15:4c),172 thus putting himself under a scriptural curse (cf. Zech 11:17 LXX),173 and goes towards the lost sheep until he finds it (Lk 15:4de), so that he effectively cuts ties with Israel’s flock, by not returning to it (cf. Num 32:15 LXX),174 in order to identify himself totally with the lost sheep (Lk 15:6), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that Christ himself came under a scriptural curse for us (Gal 3:13b–d) in order to redeem us from the curse of the law (cf. Gal 3:13a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising, non-scriptural image of the shepherd laying the lost sheep, representing the sinner (cf. Lk  15:7c), upon his shoulders (ὦμοι: Lk  15:5b; diff. Ezek  34:21 LXX), and not simply leading it back (cf. Ezek  34:4.6.13.16 LXX), illustrates not only the general Pauline idea of Christ’s identifying himself with the cursed sinners (cf. Gal 3:13b–d), but also, more particularly, by means of the hypertextual procedure of substitution of images, the subsequent idea of Christ’s hanging on a tree (Gal 3:13e). In fact, the position of the shepherd’s outstretched and risen arms while carrying a sheep

172 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 574; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 523 n. 34. 173 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 525. 174 Cf. ibid.

168

upon his shoulders visually resembles the position of Christ’s outstretched and risen arms while hanging on the cross (cf. Gal 3:1). The concluding motif of rejoicing over a sinner (ἁμαρτωλός), and not over the righteous ones, who do not need repentance (δίκαιοι + οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν: Lk 15:6–7), originates from Mk 2:17 (cf. Lk 5:32: μετάνοια). The subsequent story (Lk 15:8–10) supplements the former one (Lk 15:3–7) according to the Lucan preferred male-female gendered pattern.175 However, this story, which is not called a scriptural parable (diff. Lk 15:3: παραβολή), presents the image not of an Israelite man (diff. Lk 15:4–7), but of a presumably unclean woman, who surprisingly had Greek drachmas (δραχμή: Lk 15:8a).176 In fact, this image illustrates the subsequent Pauline reference to the Gentiles (Gal 3:14a). The subsequent motif of carefully searching and finding (εὑρίσκω) one Gentile object missing from the surprisingly important number of ten (δέκα) ones (diff. Lk 15:4: a hundred), in order that it might not perish (ἀπόλλυμι: Lk 15:8), was borrowed from the scriptural story concerning Abraham’s blessing (*ευλογ) for the Gentiles (τὰ ἔθνη), which was expressed in his carefully searching in order to find at least ten righteous Gentiles, in order that they might not perish (Gen 18:18–32 LXX). Luke borrowed this scriptural motif in Lk 15:8 in order to illustrate the subsequent Pauline idea of the blessing of Abraham for the Gentiles (Gal 3:14a). The subsequent image of the woman as finding something lost in her house, without moving outside (Lk  15:8f–9; diff. 15:4–6), illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of Abraham’s blessing to the Gentiles as coming in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:14a). The concluding motif of rejoicing already now over a sinner (ἁμαρτωλός: Lk 15:10; diff. 15:7),177 surprisingly without the Marcan reference to the righteous ones (diff. Mk 2:17; Lk 5:32; 15:7), illustrates the concluding Pauline statement concerning the Gentiles as receiving already now the joyful promise (cf. Gal 3:8) of the Spirit through faith (Gal 3:14b).

2.39  Lk 15:11–32 (cf. Gal 3:15–18) The section Lk 15:11–32, with its main themes of a certain man’s last will and testament, not annulling the last will and testament, the man’s offspring living a Gentile-style life, a Gentile-style saviour, recalling the once close relationship 175 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 573 n. 210. 176 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 603. 177 Cf. D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity’, 166–167.

169

with the father, the law not nullifying the father’s close relationship with his son, the law not nullifying the inheritance, the inheritance not coming from the customary law, the older son’s inheritance, and graceful forgiveness, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 3:15–18. The opening image of speaking (λέγω) in terms related to men (ἄνθρωπος: Lk 15:11a) illustrates the Pauline ideas of speaking in the manner of men and in terms related to the life of men (Gal 3:15a). The subsequent statement concerning a certain man who had two sons (ἔχω + δύο υἱούς: Lk  15:11b) alludes to the Pauline statement concerning Abraham, who had two sons (Gal 4:22b). In this way, it recalls the scriptural motif of Abraham, which was used by Paul in Gal 3:15b (cf. 3:16a). The subsequent surprising, non-scriptural idea of a son demanding the part of the father’s property that fell to him, so that the father explicitly divided his livelihood between the sons (Lk 15:12),178 illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of an explicitly confirmed last will and testament (Gal 3:15b). The subsequent image of the son gathering his part of the father’s property, and his father surprisingly not hindering it, although he was still alive (Lk 15:13a; diff. Tob 14:13; Sir 33:20–22 etc.),179 illustrates the subsequent, likewise surprising Pauline statement that once the last will and testament has been confirmed, no one annuls it or adds a provision to it (Gal 3:15cd). The subsequent image of the younger son going far away to an evidently Gentile country, with its pigs and prostitutes (cf. Lk 15:15–16.30), and leading a Gentile-style sinful life (Lk 15:13b–14a) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of Abraham’s Gentile-style (cf. Gal 3:29) offspring (Gal 3:16a). The subsequent scriptural motif of a severe famine which arose (ἐγένετο + λιμός + ἰσχυρός) in the Gentile country (Lk 15:14) was borrowed from the story of Joseph in Egypt (Gen 41:31.54 LXX). Consequently, the image of going to a wealthy citizen of the Gentile country, who saved the younger son’s life (Lk 15:15), recalls the motif of going to Joseph, the Gentile-style ‘saviour’ of people in Egypt (Gen 41:55–57; cf. 41:16 LXX). Accordingly, this scriptural motif illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of Christ, as he was foretold in a scriptural motif in the Pentateuch (Gal 3:16b–d). The subsequent ideas of saying and recalling the younger son’s once close relationship with his father (Lk 15:16–18b) illustrate the subsequent Pauline ideas of saying and recalling the once confirmed covenant (Gal 3:17ab).

178 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 580; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 162; T. J. Burke, ‘Parable’, 221. 179 Cf. T. J. Burke, ‘Parable’, 221–224.

170

The subsequent idea of the younger son repeatedly confessing his guilt against God and before the father, which should nullify the evidently close relationship of the father with him (Lk 15:18c–21),180 illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement that the divine and ancestral law does not nullify God’s covenant (Gal 3:17cd). The particular motif of the return of the younger son from a Gentile country, so that his older relative ran (δραμ*), fell on his neck (*έπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ), and kissed him (*εφίλησεν: Lk 15:20), was borrowed from Gen 33:4;181 cf. 45:14;182 46:29 LXX.183 The subsequent, somewhat surprising image of confirming the younger son’s status as a son and heir of the father (Lk  15:22–24), notwithstanding the son’s moral and legal reservations (cf. Lk 15:21), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the law does not invalidate the promise of the inheritance (Gal 3:17e; cf. 3:18a). In particular, the scriptural motif of putting a chosen robe on someone and a ring on his hand (στολή + ἐνδύω + αὐτόν + δακτύλιον + τὴν χεῖρα: Lk  15:22b-d; cf. Gen  41:42 LXX)184 conveys the idea of receiving a scriptural promise of plenipotence (cf. Gen  41:42–44),185 and consequently it illustrates the Pauline idea of receiving the scriptural promise of inheritance (Gal 3:17e; cf. 3:18a). Moreover, the image of common joy because of restoration from death to life (Lk 15:24)186 clearly alludes to the Pauline idea of the believers’ joyful participation in Christ’s resurrection (cf. Gal 3:14 etc.). The subsequent account of the older son’s protest, based on customary law, that only the one who always served the father and never transgressed his commandment, and not the restored Gentile-style prodigal one, can be called the father’s son and heir (Lk 15:25–30) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that if the inheritance comes from the law, it cannot come from promise (Gal 3:18ab).

180 Cf. D. S. Morlan, Conversion in Luke and Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Exploration (LNTS 464; Bloomsbury: London [et al.] 2013), 73. 181 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 3, 49; T. Muraoka, ‘Luke and the Septuagint’, NovT 52 (2012) 13–15 (esp. 13–14); M. Rastoin,‘Le génie littéraire et théologique de Luc en Lc 15.11–32 éclairé par le parallèle avec Mt 21.28–32’, NTS 60 (2014) 1–19 (esp. 7–8). 182 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 1313; G. Rossé, Luca, 612 n. 65; M. Rastoin, ‘Génie’, 7. 183 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 611–612; L. T. Johnson, Luke, 237; M. Rastoin, ‘Génie’, 7. 184 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 611–612. 185 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 613; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 3, 50; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 169. 186 Cf. A. Inselmann, Die Freude im Lukasevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur psychologischen Exegese (WUNT 2.322; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 252–255.

171

The subsequent positive ideas that the older son is always with the father, and that all that is the father’s property is also the son’s property (Lk 15:31) illustrate the subsequent positive Pauline thought concerning the faithful Israelite Abraham as receiving God’s promise of inheritance (Gal 3:18c). The concluding idea of graceful forgiveness to the younger son (Lk  15:32; cf. 15:24) illustrates the concluding Pauline idea of God’s being gracious and forgiving (χαρίζομαι: Gal 3:18c).

2.40  Lk 16:1–9 (cf. Gal 3:19–22) The section Lk  16:1–9, with its main themes of a manager being ineffective against transgressions, knowing the logic of grace, recalling the legal debt, no need of a mediator on behalf of the master, no opposition between the manager and the master, practical ineffectiveness of the adherents of the law, and a promise of life to those not of the law, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 3:19–21. The opening motif of a legal manager (*νόμος) of a wealthy lord (Lk 16:1a–c; cf. 16:8) illustrates the Pauline idea of the law (Gal 3:19a; cf. 4:2.4–5). The subsequent image of the manager being dismissed because of his being ineffective against transgressions against the lord’s property, as well as his being generally ineffective (Lk 16:1d–3), in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that the law was only added because of transgressions (Gal 3:19b), but it is generally ineffective (cf. Gal 3:21cd). The particular motif of working as a legal agent (cf. Gal 3:19b) because of not being able to dig (σκάπτειν… οὐκ: Lk 16:3d) was borrowed from Aristophanes, Av. 1432.187 However, in order to illustrate the Pauline disparaging idea of the law’s powerlessness (Gal 3:19b; cf. 3:21cd), Luke substituted Aristophanes’ comic statement concerning not knowing (ἐπίσταμαι) how to dig (Av. 1432) with the disparaging one concerning not being strong enough (ἰσχύω) to dig (Lk 16:3e). The subsequent, somewhat surprising image of having come to know (ἔγνων)188 the logic of grace and thankfulness (Lk 16:4),189 in place of the logic of the law (cf. Lk 16:1–3), illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the offspring related to promise (Gal 3:19cd), in place of the law (cf. Gal 3:19ab). 187 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 3, 76 n. 33; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 234 n. 85; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 546. 188 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 1328 n. 7; G. Rossé, Luca, 620; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 3, 76. 189 Cf. L. Marulli, ‘“And How Much Do You Owe …? Take Your Bill, Sit Down Quickly, and Write …” (Luke 16:5–6)’, TynBul 63 (2012) 199–216 (esp. 201).

172

The subsequent repeated motif of a legally binding, written statement of debt (Lk 16:5–6c; cf. 16:7a–e) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the presumably written law as ordered by the hand of the Mosaic mediator (Gal 3:19e). The subsequent post-Pauline image of the debtors as writing (γράφω) themselves, with their own hands, without any written mediation of the manager on behalf of the master,190 new statements of debt (Lk 16:6de.7f; cf. Col  2:14: χειρόγραφον)191 illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that now there is no need of a Mosaic mediator on behalf of God (Gal  3:20). In the Lucan parable, the character of the law-breaking manager (οἰκονόμος: Lk 16:3.8), now representing the converted Paul as the ‘manager’ of God with his logic of grace and thankfulness (Lk 16:4–7; cf. 1 Cor 4:1–7), takes the place of the Mosaic mediator on behalf of God (Gal 3:20). The related image of reducing the legally binding debt, but not entirely cancelling it (Lk 16:6e.7f; diff. Col 2:14), conveys the particularly Lucan idea of the Gentile Christian law as a reduced version of the Mosaic law (cf. Acts 15:10.19–21. 28–29; 21:25). The subsequent, morally surprising statement that the master, who represents the logic of the law (cf. Lk 16:1–2), praised the unjust manager (Lk 16:8ab),192 who came to represent the logic of grace and thankfulness (cf. Lk  16:4–7), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the law is not in opposition to the promises (Gal 3:21ab). The subsequent generalizing thought that the unjust (cf. Lk 16:8a: *δικ) sons of this age, with their logic of grace and thankfulness towards similarly minded people of their generation (cf. Lk 16:4–7), are effectively wiser than the sons of light (Lk 16:8c), that is the adherents of the law (cf. 1QS 1:3–9),193 illustrates the subsequent generalizing Pauline idea of the ineffectiveness of the law as concerns leading to life and righteousness (δικ*: Gal 3:21c–f).

190 Pace J. K. Goodrich, ‘Voluntary Debt Remission and the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–13)’, JBL 131 (2012) 547–566 (esp. 564), in Lk 16:6–7 there is no remark that the manager himself amended the original bills (or that he signed the debtors’ new bills or amendments). Since he asked the debtors the amounts of their debts, he evidently did not even take the bills in his hands. His graceful mediation was oral, and not written. 191 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 622; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 182. 192 Cf. J. Lambrecht, ‘Response to Garwood P. Anderson: Parables in Luke’, ETL 86 (2010) 177–183 (esp. 179); D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity’, 165–166; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 182–183. 193 Cf. F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 183.

173

The subsequent, surprisingly used Semitic word ‘mammon’,194 denoting wealth (cf. CD 14:20; 1QS 6:2 etc.),195 also surprisingly presented in negative terms as being unjust (Lk 16:9b; cf. 16:8a; diff. 1QS 6:2),196 illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement that the presumably Semitic Scripture confined all things under sin (Gal 3:22a). The subsequent positive, morally surprising promise that those related to unjust things (cf. Lk 16:8a.9b) will be received into the eternal dwellings (Lk 16:9cd) illustrates the subsequent Pauline that those who believe, and not the adherents of the law, will be given the promise leading to life (Gal 3:22b; cf. 3:21c–e).

2.41  Lk 16:10–15 (cf. Gal 3:23–24) The section Lk 16:10–15, with its main themes of being legally faithful, a future revelation of faith, being led by the law, and not being justified in a wrong way, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 3:23–24. In difference to the preceding section (Lk 16:1–9), the statements Lk 16:10–12 surprisingly highlight the importance of being faithful, and not unjust (ἀδικ*: Lk  16:10–11; cf. 16:8–9).197 In this way, they illustrate the Pauline reference to obeying the law (Gal 3:23). In particular, the idea of being faithful, and not unjust, even in a very little thing (Lk  16:10) illustrates the Pauline idea of being confined under the law (Gal  3:23bc). However, although Paul presented this state as belonging to the past (Gal 3:23a–c), Luke presented the law as somehow binding on Gentile Christians also in the present (cf. Acts 15:20.29; 21:25). For this reason, he illustrated the Pauline text Gal 3:23bc with the use of the Pauline forensic thought that the believers should not be unjust (ἄδικος) even in a very little thing (ἐλάχιστος: Lk 16:10; cf. 1 Cor 6:1–2).198

194 Luke generally avoided Semitic words, omitting the Marcan ones or substituting them with their Greek counterparts. Cf. U. Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830; 8th edn., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2013), 316. 195 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 626 n. 28; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 184. 196 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 1334; G. Rossé, Luca, 626. 197 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 622; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 542–543. 198 Cf. A. J. Blasi, Making Charisma: The Social Construction of Paul’s Public Image (Transaction: New Brunswick · London 1991), 54–55.

174

The subsequent idea of not being faithful (πιστ*) now, and consequently not being entrusted or believed (πιστ*) in the future (Lk 16:11–12), in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the law leads to the future revelation of faith (πιστ*: Gal 3:23de; cf. 3:23a). The subsequent, evidently scriptural motif of being instructed to serve (δουλεύω), to love (ἀγαπήσει*), and to be devoted (ἀντέχομαι) only to God (θεός) as the one (εἷς) lord (κύριος), and not to serve anything else (Lk 16:13; cf. Deut 6:4–5; Judg 10:6; Is 56:6; Jer 8:2 LXX etc.), with the use of the postMarcan idea of the fundamental commandment of the law (νόμος) as leading to the kingdom of God (cf. Lk  10:25–28; Mk  12:28–34) illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the law functioned as our guardian leading to Christ (Gal 3:24a). The subsequent image of the Pharisees as justifying (δικαιόω) themselves in a wrong, but surprisingly not specified manner in the sight of men, and not in the sight of God (Lk 16:14–15), in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that we, so presumably not the Jewish Christians, are justified by faith (Gal 3:24b). The particular motif of God’s knowing the hearts (θεός + γινώσκει + καρδία: Lk 16:15c) is scriptural (cf. Ps 44[43]:22[21] LXX), just as is the motif of abomination in the sight of God (βδέλυγμα ἐνώπιον: Lk 16:15e; cf. Prov 11:1 LXX).

2.42  Lk 16:16 (cf. Gal 3:25–29) The section Lk 16:16, with its main themes of the end of the law at the time of the coming of the gospel, as well as everyone using force to enter the kingdom of God, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 3:25–29. The idea of the end of the law and the prophets at the time of the coming of the gospel (Lk 16:16ab) illustrates the Pauline statement that at the time of the coming of faith, we are no longer under a guardian, metaphorically representing the law (Gal 3:25; cf. 3:24a). The particular phrase ‘the Law and the Prophets’ (ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται: Lk 16:16a; cf. Acts 13:15) is post-Pauline (cf. Rom 3:21; cf. also 2 Macc 16:9). The subsequent short statement that everyone (masc. πᾶς) enters the kingdom of God (Lk 16:16c) by means of the hypertextual procedure of compression illustrates the subsequent Pauline argumentation that all people (πάντες): Jews and Greeks, slaves and free people, males and females, are sons of God, one (masc. εἷς) in Christ Jesus, and heirs of God (Gal 3:26–29), so presumably also of God’s kingdom (cf. 1 Cor 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal 5:21). 175

The related, surprising image of not following the law (diff. Lk 16:16a), but using force (βιάζομαι),199 thus presumably breaking the prohibitions of the law (cf. Deut  22:25.28; Esth  7:8 LXX), in order to enter the kingdom of God (Lk 16:16c; cf. Exod 19:24 LXX), illustrates the Pauline idea of being sons of God through faith (Gal 3:26), and not through the law (cf. Gal 3:25b; Lk 16:16a).

2.43  Lk 16:17 (cf. Gal 4:1–11) The section Lk 16:17, with its main themes of the basic elements of the universe, as well as their function as a metaphorical background to the law, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 4:1–11. The motif of the heaven and the earth as passing away (ὁ οὐρανός + καὶ ἡ γῆ + παρέρχομαι: Lk 16:17b) was borrowed from Mk 13:31 (cf. Lk 21:33). In a similar context of the universe passing away (παρέρχομαι), the motif of the heavens and earth (ὁ οὐρανός + γῆ) is treated synonymously with the motif of the basic elements of the world (στοιχεῖα: 2 Pet 3:10.12–13). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that also in Lk 16:17b the motif of the heaven and the earth illustrates the Pauline motif of the basic elements of the world (Gal 4:3.9). In fact, whereas in Mk 13:31 the motif of the heaven and the earth as passing away conveyed the idea of a predictable event in the eschatological future, Luke somewhat artificially included it in the comparative statement, ‘It is easier for… to pass… than…’ (εὐκοπώτερον… ἐστιν… *ελθεῖν ἢ… *εῖν: Lk 16:17), which was borrowed from Mk 10:25 (cf. Lk 18:25)200 in order to convey the idea of something highly implausible. Accordingly, Luke presented the heaven and the earth as hardly passing away (Lk 16:17ab), and consequently as retaining their existence. In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization, he illustrated the Pauline idea of the basic elements of the world as still retaining their negative influence upon the Galatians (Gal 4:9; cf. 4:3). The subsequent thought that also the law retains its ‘horns’ (κεραία), which do not fall down (Lk 16:17c), just as the basic elements of the universe do not pass away (cf. Lk  16:17ab), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the law retains its negative influence upon the Galatians (Gal  4:10–11; cf. 4:1–2.4–5), just as the basic elements of the universe do (cf. Gal 4:3.8–9). The particular, surprising, semantically paradigmatic association between the law’s horns (Lk  16:17c) and perennial celestial phenomena (Lk  16:17b) could 199 Cf. M. W. Bates, ‘Cryptic Codes and a Violent King: A New Proposal for Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16–18’, CBQ 75 (2013) 74–93 (esp. 87). 200 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 631.

176

have been suggested to Luke by the Pauline idea of the Jewish law as requiring the observation of months (Gal 4:10), that is new moons (cf. Col 2:16) with their horns.201

2.44  Lk 16:18 (cf. Gal 4:12–20) The section Lk  16:18, with its main theme of not breaking the marital bond, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 4:12–20. The bipartite statement that everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and that marrying the one divorced from her husband also implies committing adultery (ὁ* + ἀπολύω + τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καί + γαμέω + μοιχ* + καί + ἀπολύω + ἀνήρ + γαμέω + μοιχ*: Lk 16:18) was borrowed from Mk 10:11–12.202 However, in difference to Mk  10:11–12 and in difference to the rule of the Mosaic law (Deut 24:1–2; cf. 1 Cor 7:10–11), Luke repeatedly placed the burden of guilt for breaking the marital bond on only one side, namely that of the men (Lk 16:18). In fact, the Lucan marital triangle of two men and a woman, who was taken from one husband to another one (Lk 16:18), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the situation of the Galatians, who were taken from Paul, who did not break the zealous (ζηλόω), quasi-marital bond with them (Gal 4:12–16.18–20; cf. 2 Cor 11:2), to his rivals, who later also zealously courted their favour (Gal 4:17; cf. 2 Cor 11:3–4).

2.45  Lk 16:19–31 (cf. Gal 4:21–31) The section Lk 16:19–31, with its main themes of two different sons of Abraham, one not hearing the law and consequently perishing, the other one carried without any merits to the maternal womb, both being separated from each other, the law being ineffective as concerns salvation, salvation consisting in participating in the resurrection, and a negative judgment upon those related to the law, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 4:21–31. The opening image of two differing men, who lived close to each other (Lk 16:19–21) and who were later identified as being in somewhat differing filial

201 For this meaning of the noun κεραία, cf. LSJ, s.v. κεραία II.2. 202 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54.

177

relationships to Abraham (Ἀβραάμ: Lk 16:22b.24–25.30),203 illustrate the scriptural motif of Abraham having two sons (Gal 4:21–22). The particular image of the rich one as living extravagantly (Lk 16:19) and not listening to (ἀκούω) Moses and the prophets, notwithstanding their warning him and his five (πέντε) brothers (Lk 16:27–29.31),204 who symbolically represent those knowing the Pentateuch (cf. also Lk 14:19),205 illustrates the Pauline thought that those who are under the law, like the one born by a slave woman, in fact do not listen to the law (Gal 4:21–22c). The subsequent non-scriptural motif of Lazarus (Λάζαρος: diff. Exod  6:23 LXX etc.) as located with the poor (πτωχός) and hungry ones, who ate waste matter, outside the gate (πυλ*) of the one related to the law (Lk 16:20; cf. 16:23–25), was borrowed from Jos. B.J. 5.567–571. Luke evidently assumed that since Manneus, the son of Lazarus, lived during the Jewish war (Jos. B.J. 5.567), his father Lazarus, presumably similar to him, must have lived at the time of Jesus (Lk 16:20.23–25). The motif of the poor one as covered with sores (ἕλκο*: Lk 16:20–21) is scriptural (cf. Exod  9:9–11 LXX etc.).206 Together with the likewise scriptural motif of the wounds being licked (ἐκλείχω) by the presumably unclean dogs (οἱ κύνες: Lk 16:21; cf. 1 Kgs 22:38 LXX;207 cf. also Lev 11:27 LXX),208 it conveys the idea of being unclean. Similarly, the post-Marcan motif of desiring to be filled (χορτασθῆναι), together with dogs (κυν*), with what fell from the privileged man’s table (τῆς τραπέζης: Lk 16:21; cf. Mk 7:27–28)209 metaphorically refers to the Gentiles. Accordingly, all these motifs illustrate the subsequent Pauline reference to the one born by a free woman (Gal 4:22d), and consequently not related to the law (cf. Gal 4:26–28).

203 Cf. J. B. Green, ‘Narrative Criticism’, in id. (ed.), Methods for Luke (MBI; Cambridge University: New York 2010), 74–112 (esp. 105, 108–109). 204 Cf. D.H. Lee, Luke-Acts and ‘Tragic History’: Communicating Gospel with the World (WUNT 2.346; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 235. 205 Cf. O. Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke’s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (NovTSup 123; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2007), 168. 206 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 605 n. 329; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 3, 119 n. 70. 207 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 636; D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 1367; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 553 n. 34. 208 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 344. 209 Cf. ibid. 54 n. 17.

178

The subsequent surprising image of the poor one as carried above by the angels,210 without any merits on his part (cf. Lk 16:25),211 to the maternal womb (κόλπος) of Abraham (Lk 16:22a–c; cf. 16:23c)212 by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the one not related to the law as living through promise (Gal 4:23b; cf. 4:28) and according to the Spirit (Gal 4:29b) in the Jerusalem above, which is our mother, and which bears children although she was formerly infertile (Gal 4:26–27). The related post-Pauline image of the extravagant one as not entering the kingdom of God (cf. Gal 5:21), but perishing in the netherworld of death (Lk 16:22d-25; cf. Rom 7:5; 8:6a.13ab), illustrates the related Pauline idea of the one living according to the flesh (Gal 4:23a; cf. 4:29a). The subsequent Greek image of a great chasm (χάσμα), which prevents any contact between the saved ones and the condemned ones (Lk 16:26; cf. esp. Plato, Resp. 614cd, 615e),213 illustrates the subsequent Pauline allegoric idea of two different covenants, which cannot be reconciled with each other (Gal  4:24ab; cf. 4:30). The subsequent idea of the law and the prophets as ineffective as concerns leading to salvation (Lk 16:27–29) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the covenant at Sinai as not leading to salvation (Gal 4:24c–25). The subsequent idea of salvation as consisting in participating in the resurrection from the dead (Lk  16:30–31c) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of salvation as consisting in living above and being born of an infertile person (Gal 4:26–28). The related idea of Moses and the Prophets as pointing to the resurrection from the dead (Lk  16:30–31), a thought which differs from the typically Lucan idea of Moses and the Prophets as pointing to Christ’s both suffering and 210 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 643; O. Lehtipuu, Afterlife, 203–205, 233; J. A. Szukalski, Tormented in Hades: The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) and Other Lucan Parables for Persuading the Rich to Repentance (Pickwick: Eugene, Ore. 2013), 65. 211 Cf. D. Marguerat, ‘«Il a comblé de biens les affamés et renvoyé les riches les mains vides» (Lc 1,53): Riches et pauvres, un parcours lucanien’, in F. Bianchini and S. Romanello (eds.), Non mi vergogno del Vangelo, potenza di Dio, Festschrift J.-N. Aletti (AnBib 200; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012), 327–350 (esp. 340). 212 Cf. O. Lehtipuu, Afterlife, 214–216, 234, 276; M. O’Kane, ‘“The Bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22): Father Abraham in the Visual Imagination’, BibInt 15 (2007) 485–518 (esp. 490, 501); K. R. Maxwell, Hearing between the Lines: The Audience as FellowWorker in Luke-Acts and its Literary Milieu (LNTS 425; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 145. 213 Cf. O. Lehtipuu, Afterlife, 221–222.

179

resurrection (cf. Lk 24:26–27.44–46; Acts 26:22–23), illustrates the thematically related scriptural images of bringing to life from infertile parents, images which were taken by Paul from the Prophets (Gal 4:27; cf. Is 54:1 LXX) and from the Law (Gal 4:28; cf. Gen 21:5–7 LXX). The concluding negative judgment that those related to the law will not believe (Lk 16:31d) illustrates the concluding Pauline judgment upon those related to the law as still remaining in slavery (Gal 4:29–31).

2.46  Lk 17:1–2 (cf. Gal 5:1–3) The section Lk 17:1–2, with its main themes of addressing Christ’s disciples, the coming of the traps, condemnation of the one laying traps, and the punishment of putting an unbearable millstone around one’s neck, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 5:1–3. The opening motif of Jesus’ addressing his disciples (Lk 17:1a) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s statement to his disciples concerning their having been set free by Christ (Gal 5:1a; cf. 5:1b). The subsequent statement concerning the coming of the traps which cause people to stumble (σκάνδαλα: Lk 17:1bc; cf. Lev 19:14; Josh 23:23 LXX etc.)214 by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the subsequent Pauline instruction that the believers should stand firm and not be entangled again with a yoke of slavery (Gal 5:1bc). The subsequent condemnation of the one laying the traps (τὰ σκάνδαλα: Lk 17:1d; cf. 17:1c), presumably someone promoting the Jewish law (cf. Rom 16:17–18),215 illustrates the subsequent Pauline condemnation of those who become circumcised, namely by pointing to their being estranged from Christ (Gal 5:2; cf. 5:4). Luke illustrated this Pauline condemnation with the post-Marcan formula of Christ’s condemnation of his Jewish opponent: ‘woe to the one by whom…’ (οὐαί + δι᾽ οὗ + *ται: Lk 17:1d: cf. Mk 14:21; cf. also Lk 22:22: πλὴν οὐαί). The subsequent image of imposing a punishment on the one laying the traps (τὰ σκάνδαλα), presumably someone promoting the Jewish law (cf. Rom 16:17–18), by putting an unbearable millstone around his neck (Lk  17:2) illustrates the subsequent Pauline statement that the one promoting the Jewish law is bound to keep the whole law (Gal 5:3). In the post-Pauline Lucan imagery, the Jewish law is presented as a heavy, in fact unbearable yoke (ζυγός), which is put on the neck (τὸν τράχηλον) of the 214 Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 258; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 219. 215 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 136 n. 57.

180

believers (Acts 15:10). Therefore, Luke illustrated the Pauline idea of those promoting the Jewish law as being punished with the obligation to keep the whole law (Gal  5:3), which was earlier presented by the Apostle as a yoke of slavery (Gal 5:1c), with the Marcan image of the one laying traps on one of these little ones as being punished by having a millstone put around the neck and being thrown into the sea (Lk 17:2; cf. Mk 9:42: σκανδαλίσῃ + ἕνα + τῶν μικρῶν τούτων + αὐτῷ + εἰ + περίκειται + μυλ* + περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ καί + *ται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν).216 In order to illustrate better the Pauline statement concerning being punished with a heavy obligation (Gal 5:3), Luke reordered the Marcan conditional formula (Mk 9:42) into a statement concerning a heavy punishment (Lk 17:2).

2.47  Lk 17:3–4 (cf. Gal 5:4) The section Lk 17:3–4, with its main themes of warning the disciples, not being justified by the law, and being justified by grace, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 5:4. The opening warning to the disciples (Lk 17:3a) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline warning to the believers, namely that they are estranged from Christ (Gal 5:4a). The subsequent instruction concerning the case of someone who sinned (ἐὰν… ἁμάρτῃ), namely as not being forgiven (ἀφίημι) in the ritual way which was prescribed by the Jewish law (cf. Lev  4:27–5:13.21–26; Num  15:26–31; 2  Chr 6:22–23 LXX), but as being simply rebuked and forgiven if he repents (Lk 17:3b–e), illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of not being justified by the law (Gal 5:4b; cf. 5:4a). The subsequent image of a sinner being forgiven seven times a day (ἑπτάκις τῆς ἡμέρας: cf. Ps 119[118]:164 LXX)217 on the mere basis of his oral declaration of repentance (Lk 17:4), an image which is evidently exaggerated, especially in terms of legal righteousness (cf. Lev 26:18.24.28 LXX), in a positive way illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of grace (Gal 5:4c), which surpasses the legal requirements of the law (cf. Gal 5:4b).

216 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Minor’, 57–59; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54 n. 17. 217 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 641; G. Rossé, Luca, 651; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 221.

181

2.48  Lk 17:5–6 (cf. Gal 5:5a) The section Lk 17:5–6, with its main themes of the apostles, as well as faith, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 5:5a. The opening statement concerning the apostles (οἱ ἀπόστολοι: Lk 17:5a) is quite surprising because earlier, apart from the general formula ‘prophets and apostles’ (Lk 11:49), Luke referred to the apostles only in the post-Marcan statements concerning their being chosen and returning from an apostolic mission (Lk 6:13 cf. Mk 3:14; Lk 9:10 cf. Mk 6:30).218 Moreover, the statement concerning the apostles, presented as active subjects (Lk 17:5a), is quite surprising in the context of the preceding references to the disciples, who were presented as passive recipients of Jesus’ teaching (Lk 16:1; 17:1). Accordingly, this Lucan statement by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the remark of the Apostle (ἀπόστολος: cf. Gal 1:1) concerning himself and his like-minded fellows (‘we’: Gal 5:5a; cf. 1:1–2a), as contrasted with the Galatians (cf. Gal 5:4). The subsequent motif of faith (πίστις: Lk  17:5b-6) is also quite surprising because earlier, apart from Lk  7:9, Luke explicitly referred to faith only in the statements which were borrowed from the Gospel of Mark (Lk 5:20 cf. Mk 2:5; Lk 7:50 cf. Mk 5:34; Lk 8:25 cf. Mk 4:40; Lk 8:48 cf. Mk 5:34).219 Accordingly, the motif of faith (Lk 17:5b–6) illustrates the subsequent Pauline remark concerning faith (Gal 5:5a). The particular idea of faith, which according to Paul comes from hearing (ἀκο*: Rom 10:17; Gal 3:2.5), as something to be added (προστίθημι: Lk 17:5b), was borrowed from Mk 4:24. Likewise, the subsequent motif of being at the beginning like a mustard seed (ὡς κόκκ* σινάπεως: Lk 17:6b) was borrowed from the subsequent Marcan text Mk 4:31. On the other hand, Jesus’ implicit exhortation to have faith (ἔχετε πίστιν), as well as Jesus’ conditionally formulated saying (λέγω), ‘you would say to… be uprooted and planted in the sea, it would be done for you’ (λέγω + ἄν + dat. τῇ + *θητι καὶ *θητι + ἡ θάλασσα + καί + dat. pron. pers.: Lk 17:6), were borrowed from Mk 11:22–23.220

218 Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 259; J. B. Green, Luke, 613–614; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 265. 219 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 613. 220 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 54.

182

The particular image of uprooting and planting a mulberry tree (συκάμινος), and not a mountain, in the sea (Lk  17:6c–e; diff. Mk  11:23) better suits the scriptural motif of mulberry trees as growing in the coastal plain (1 Kgs 10:27 LXX etc.).

2.49  Lk 17:7–10 (cf. Gal 5:5b) The section Lk 17:7–10, with its main theme of getting justice not immediately, but only in the future, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 5:5b. The instruction to the apostles (ἀπόστολος: cf. Lk 17:5) that they should be like a slave (δουλο*) who ploughs (ἀροτριάω) or tends sheep (ποιμαίνω), and nevertheless receives something to eat (ἐσθίω) and drink (πίνω) not immediately, but only in the future, although he did what he had been ordered (διατάσσω) to do and what he should (ὀφείλω) have done (Lk 17:7–10),221 evidently contrasts with the previous image of the master coming and serving the slaves (δοῦλος + *έρχομαι + παρελθών + ἀνα* + περιζώννυμι + διακονέω: Lk 12:37). In fact, it alludes to the Pauline argument that the apostle, who is like someone who tends sheep or ploughs, should do it in hope (ἐλπίς) of eating and drinking something according to the law and according to what the Lord had ordered, and nevertheless he is like a slave who fulfils an obligation and awaits only a future, imperishable reward (1 Cor 9:1–2.4.7–10.13–14.16–19.23–25).222 Accordingly, this Lucan instruction illustrates the Pauline thought that the Apostle awaits to get justice not immediately, but in hope (Gal 5:5b).

2.50  Lk 17:11–19 (cf. Gal 5:6) The section Lk  17:11–19, with its main themes of two kinds of people being equally helpless in the presence of Jesus, as well as faith expressing itself in love, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 5:6. The opening, surprising image of Jesus’ going to Jerusalem through the midst of Samaria, which according to Luke was inhabited by non-Jewish foreigners (cf. Lk 9:51–53; 10:31–33; 17:18), and Galilee, which according to Luke was inhabited by the Jews (Lk 17:11; cf. 1:26–27; 5:17; 23:5 etc.),223 illustrates the Pauline remark concerning the two states of circumcision and uncircumcision (Gal 5:6a).

221 Cf. ibid. 266; G. Fattorini, ‘«Siamo servi inutili» perché servi del Regno: Analisi retorica di Lc 17,7–10’, RivB 60 (2012) 329–355 (esp. 339–340). 222 Cf. A. J. Blasi, Making, 55; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 137–138. 223 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 645.

183

The subsequent image of ten lepers of mixed nationality (cf. Lk  17:11) as standing at a distance (diff. Mk 1:40)224 and loudly crying out to Jesus as a powerful Master (ἐπιστάτα: cf. Lk 5:5; 8:24 etc.) that he might have mercy on them (ἐλέησον: Lk 17:12–13; cf. Mk 10:47–48)225 presents these both Galilean and Samaritan lepers (cf. Lk 17:17–18) as being equally powerless in the presence of Jesus. Consequently, this image illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any power (Gal 5:6a). The subsequent post-Marcan command to go and show themselves to the priests (λέγω + *δείκνυμι + *αυτο + ἱερεύς: Lk 17:14; cf. Mk 1:44)226 was used by Luke in a very strange way because in the Lucan account the lepers begin to carry out the command when they are not yet cleansed (ἐκαθαρίσθη*: Lk 17:14; diff. Mk 1:42.44).227 Accordingly, they show their faith (πίστις: cf. Lk 17:19) in the power of Jesus, not having seen its effects (cf. 2 Kgs 5:13–14 LXX).228 Consequently, this Lucan image illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of faith (Gal 5:6b). The subsequent description of the behaviour of a healed Samaritan leper presents him as expressing his faith (cf. Lk  17:19) in a particular way, namely as coming back (*έστρεψεν) to Jesus (cf. 2 Kgs 5:15 LXX;229 diff. Mk 1:45), emotionally praising God, falling down on his face at Jesus’ feet, and giving thanks to Jesus (Lk 17:15–16.18).230 In the Lucan imagery, falling down at Jesus’ feet (παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ) with one’s face directed to those feet (Lk 17:16; cf. 7:38), if it does not precede a healing (cf. Mk 5:22: πίπτω + τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ), functions as an expression of thankful love (ἀγαπ*) to Jesus (cf. Lk 7:41–47), even if the particular actions of a forgiven sinful woman (Lk 7:38.44–46) understandably differ from those of a healed man (Lk 17:15–16). Therefore, the description of the 224 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 846. 225 Cf. B. J. Koet, ‘Purity and Impurity of the Body in Luke-Acts’, in id., Dreams and Scripture in Luke-Acts: Collected Essays (CBET 42; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2006), 81–95 (esp. 91); M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 572. 226 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 55, 349. 227 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 661; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 565; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 232. 228 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 646; J. B. Green, Luke, 624. 229 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 646; J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 847; H. J. Sellner, Das Heil Gottes: Studien zur Soteriologie des lukanischen Doppelwerks (BZNW 152; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2007), 195. 230 Cf. A. Weissenrieder, ‘Stories Just Under the Skin: lepra in the Gospel of Luke’, in S. Alkier and A. Weissenrieder (eds.), Miracles Revisited: New Testament Miracle Stories and their Concepts of Reality (SBR 2; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2013), 73–100 (esp. 99).

184

behaviour of the healed Samaritan leper as expressing his faith in thankful love to Jesus (Lk 17:15–19) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of faith as expressing itself through love (Gal 5:6b). The related rebuke to the other cleansed ones (Lk  17:17–18c), presumably Galileans (cf. Lk 17:11), illustrates the related Pauline idea that the Jewish Christians do not rely on faith working through love (Gal 5:6b), but rather on circumcision (Gal 5:6a; cf. 5:4). The concluding statement, ‘Your faith has saved you’ (ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε: Lk 17:19) was evidently borrowed from Mk 10:52 (cf. 5:34).231

2.51  Lk 17:20–37 (cf. Gal 5:7–21) The section Lk 17:20–37, with its main themes of the Pharisees, disturbing the believers, stirring up the believers, being persecuted, fleshly life resulting in destruction according to the Law, not following natural desires, two opposing desires with two opposing results, leading a spiritual way of life, being ritually unclean, and not being divided, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 5:7–21. The opening image of the Pharisees asking a question (Lk 17:20a) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline statements concerning the negative influence of Jewish Christians, metaphorically presented as leaven (Gal 5:7–9). The metaphorical link between leaven (ζύμη: Gal 5:9) and the Pharisees (οἱ Φαρισαῖοι: Lk 17:20a) is post-Marcan (cf. Mk 8:15; Lk 12:1). The subsequent idea of the Pharisees as disturbing the believers as concerns the coming of the kingdom of God (Lk 17:20b–21) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the Jewish Christians as disturbing the believers (Gal  5:10). The particular motif of asking (ἐπερωτάω) when (πότε) the kingdom of God will come (Lk  17:20; cf. 21:7) is post-Marcan (cf. Mk 13:3–4),232 just as is the motif of someone falsely saying (λέγω) to the believers that the kingdom of God can be seen here or there (ἰδ* ὧδε… ἐκεῖ: Lk 17:21a-c; cf. Mk 13:21).233 The subsequent post-Marcan image of the disciples as being wrongly stirred up to move and pursue the kingdom of God in a particular place, presumably in a messianic way (καί + λέγω + ὑμῖν + ἰδ* ἐκεῖ + ἰδ* ὧδε + μὴ *τε: Lk 17:22–24; 231 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 574. 232 Cf. H. T. Fleddermann, ‘Mid-Level Techniques in Luke’s Redaction of Q’, ETL 79 (2003) 53–71 (esp. 65). 233 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Recent’, 48; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 568.

185

cf. Mk 13:21),234 illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the Jewish Christians as stirring up (ἀναστατόω) the believers to behave in a Jewish way (Gal 5:12). For Luke, the verb ἀναστατόω (Gal 5:12b) had the meaning of ‘stirring up’ in a messianic way (cf. Acts 17:6; 21:38). On the other hand, the surprising image of a lightning flashing not from heaven downwards (cf. Lk  10:18), but from one side of the horizon to the other one (Lk 17:24),235 illustrates the Pauline way of introducing the kingdom of God to the world, namely from the east to the west (cf. Rom 15:19–24). The related post-Marcan statement that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου + δεῖ + πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι) by this generation, presumably of the Jews (Lk  17:25; cf. Mk 8:31),236 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the related Pauline thought concerning his being persecuted by the Jews because of the offence of the cross (Gal 5:11). The two subsequent images of destruction (Lk 17:27–29), which were taken from the Law (cf. Gen 7:7.10–13.21–23; 19:17.24–25 LXX)237 and reworked by Luke to present a paradigmatic destruction of all apparently free people who lived a purely fleshly life (Lk 17:26–30; cf. 20:34–35; diff. 2 Pet 2:5–8; 3:7–8: ungodly sinners), in a negative way illustrate the subsequent Pauline exhortation not to use freedom as an opportunity for living according to the flesh, but to follow the paradigm presented in the whole Law, and thus avoid being destroyed (Gal 5:13–15). The subsequent post-Marcan exhortations not to follow natural desires to turn back (ὁ* + ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος + ἡ οἰκία + μὴ καταβάτω + ἆραι + καὶ ὁ + ἀγρός + μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω: Lk  17:31; cf. Mk  13:15–16)238 in order to take objects related to one’s purely fleshly occupation (σκεύη: Lk 17:31; cf. 17:28; diff. Mk 13:15–16: τι, ἱμάτιον), just as Lot’s wife desired to turn back to the purely

234 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 656, 659; F. Neirynck, ‘Recent’, 48; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 55. 235 Cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke, 660–661. 236 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘The Reconstruction of Q and IQP / CritEd Parallels’, in A. Lindemann (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (BETL 158; Leuven University: Leuven and Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Sterling, Va. 2001), 53–147 (esp. 88). 237 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 675–676, 677 n. 129; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 246–247. 238 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 3, 163, 174–175; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 569, 574; F. Mic­ kiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 242.

186

fleshly life (Lk 17:32; cf. 17:28–29; Gen 19:26 LXX),239 illustrate the subsequent Pauline exhortation to walk in the Spirit and not to fulfil the desire of the flesh (Gal 5:16). The subsequent post-Marcan, general statement concerning the opposition between desiring to preserve one’s life and losing one’s life (ὃς… ἐὰν *ῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ *αι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ἀπολέσ* + *σει αὐτήν: Lk 17:33; cf. Mk 8:35)240 illustrates the subsequent Pauline, general statement concerning the opposition between the desire of the flesh and that of the Spirit (Gal 5:17ab). The subsequent set of two images, which follow the Lucan preferred malefemale pattern and present two persons being together, but one being taken and the other left (Lk  17:34–35), presumably as a result of their opposing desires (cf. Lk 17:33), illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of two opposing desires being together and having two opposing results in human behaviour (Gal 5:17c–e). The subsequent image of eagles (ἀετός: Lk 17:37), which are known for their powerful flying (cf. Deut 32:11; Exod 19:4 LXX etc.), and which are ritually unclean (cf. Deut 14:12; Lev 11:13 LXX etc.),241 by means of the hypertextual procedure of substitution of images and ideas illustrates the subsequent Pauline ideas of being led by the Spirit, and not being under the law (Gal 5:18). The subsequent image of the kingdom of God (βασιλεία… θεοῦ: cf. Lk 17:20) as represented by the eagles gathering themselves together (ἐπισυνάγω) around one body (Lk 17:37ef; diff. Mk 13:27: being gathered together by the angels) in a positive way illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of not being divided in the kingdom of God (Gal 5:20–21). The metaphorical motif of gathering around the Eucharistic body (τὸ σῶμα: Lk 17:37), regarded as a principle of avoiding factions (αἱρέσεις) and drunkenness (μεθ*) among the believers (cf. Gal 5:20–21), is of course post-Pauline (cf. 1 Cor 11:18–29; 12:12–25).

2.52  Lk 18:1–8 (cf. Gal 5:22–23) The section Lk 18:1–8, with its main themes of prayer, patience, and faith as prevailing over the lack of righteousness, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 5:22–23. 239 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 583; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 247; P. Mallen, ‘Genesis in Luke-Acts’, in M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), Genesis in the New Testament (LNTS 466; T&T Clark: London · New York 2012), 60–82 (esp. 69). 240 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 678; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 55; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 242. 241 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 3, 179.

187

The opening post-Pauline idea of praying always (προσεύχομαι + πάντοτε: Lk 18:1; cf. Col 1:3; 2 Thes 1:11 etc.)242 in the Pauline and post-Pauline writings often functions as closely related to that of the Spirit (πνεῦμα: cf. 1 Cor 14:14–15; Rom 8:26–27; Eph 6:18; Jud 20; Lk 3:21–22; Acts 8:15; 13:3–4). Accordingly, it can be regarded as an allusion to the opening Pauline idea of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). The subsequent story about a widow whose patience prevailed over the lack of righteousness (δικ*) of a judge (κριτής), who failed to act as a righteous enforcer of the law (cf. 2  Tim 4:8 etc.)243 concerning widows (χήρα: Lk  18:2–6; cf. Deut 10:18; 24:17; 27:19 LXX etc.),244 together with the surprising image of a similar attitude between the believers and God (Lk 18:6–8b),245 illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of patience (Gal  5:22) as prevailing over the ineffective law (cf. Gal  5:23). Likewise, the particular image of God as being patient (μακροθυμ*: Lk 18:7), which is surprising in the context of the Lucan story about human incessant requests (Lk 18:2–8b),246 can be explained as another allusion to the Pauline remark concerning patience (Gal 5:22). Therefore, the somewhat strained Lucan narrative connection between the widow’s patience and God’s patience (Lk 18:1–7) illustrates the Pauline idea that patience is one of the human virtues which also reflect the features of God in his Spirit (Gal 5:22). The subsequent, surprisingly introduced question concerning faith (πίστις: Lk 18:8cd) illustrates the subsequent Pauline remark concerning faith (Gal 5:22). Accordingly, the images of a judge and of God, whose final righteousness surprisingly results not from their function of enforcers of the law, but from their yielding to the believers’ patience and faith (Lk  18:1–8), illustrate the Pauline thought that the law is ineffective as concerns shaping personal behaviour, but it is not against moral virtues, such as patience and faith (Gal 5:22–23).

242 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 683; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 252. 243 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 249, 251 n. 136. 244 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 684; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 250 n. 133, 251 n. 136; U. Kellermann, ‘Die Klage der Witwe: Anmerkungen zu möglichen sozialen und rechtlichen Hintergründen von Lukas 18,2–5’, BN, nf 142 (2009) 105–117 (esp. 106–109). 245 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 660; D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity’, 165; M. B. Dinkler, ‘“The Thoughts of Many Hearts Shall Be Revealed”: Listening in on Lukan Interior Monologues’, JBL 133 (2015) 373–399 (esp. 389–390). 246 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 1451–1454; G. O. Holmås, Prayer and Vindication in Luke-Acts: The Theme of Prayer within the Context of the Legitimating and Edifying Objective of the Lukan Narrative (LNTS 433; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011), 140 n. 68; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 256.

188

2.53  Lk 18:9–14 (cf. Gal 5:24–26) The section Lk  18:9–14, with its main themes of a negative remark concerning fleshly attitudes, praying, being boastful, challenging others, and not envying others, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 5:24–26. The image of regarding oneself as righteous and despising others (Lk 18:9cd), which evidently alludes to Jewish Christians, can be interpreted in Pauline terms as revealing works of the flesh, such as enmities, strife, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, etc. (Gal 5:20). Consequently, the negative remark concerning such fleshly attitudes towards others (Lk 18:9) can be regarded as an illustration of the Pauline idea of crucifying the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24). The subsequent statement concerning praying (προσεύχομαι: Lk  18:10) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of living and walking in the Spirit (πνεῦμα: Gal 5:25), just as the preceding Lucan remark concerning praying (Lk 18:1) illustrated the preceding Pauline remark concerning the fruit of the Spirit (Gal  5:22). The particular motif of the contrast between a Pharisee (Φαρισαῖος) and a tax collector (τελώνης: Lk 18:10–11) is of course post-Marcan (cf. Mk 2:15–16).247 The subsequent image of the Pharisee as boasting of himself before God (Lk 18:11–12) in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Pauline exhortation not to become vainglorious (Gal 5:26a). The Pharisee’s contemptuous remarks concerning other people and the tax collector (Lk 18:11de) in a negative way illustrate the related Pauline idea of not challenging others (Gal 5:26b). The particular set of condemning references to robbers, unjust, and adulterers (ἅρπαγες + ἄδικοι + μοιχοί: Lk 18:11d) was borrowed from 1 Cor 6:9–10.248 The subsequent image of the tax collector as humbling himself, and not exalting himself (Lk 18:13–14; cf. 14:11; cf. also Jas 4:10; 1 Pet 5:6), illustrates the subsequent Pauline exhortation not to envy others (Gal 5:26c), presumably in order to surpass them (cf. Gal 5:26ab). The particular idea of a sinner (ἁμαρτ*) justified (δικαιόω) by God’s grace (Lk 18:13–14) is of course Pauline (cf. 1 Cor 6:9–11; Rom 3:23–26; 6:7 etc.).249 247 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 592. 248 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 135–136, [vol. 2] 668; W. Schenk, ‘Luke’, 137–138. 249 Cf. W. Schenk, ‘Luke’, 138; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 255–256; S. Butticaz, ‘La relecture des lapsi pauliniens chez Luc: Esquisse d’une typologie’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par

189

Likewise, the paradigmatically formulated idea of humbling oneself (ταπεινόω ἑαυτόν) and thus being exalted (*ὑψόω: Lk 18:14; cf. 14:11) recalls Paul’s paradigmatically formulated description of the change of the social status of Christ Jesus (Phlp 2:8–9; cf. later Jas 4:10; 1 Pet 5:6).250

2.54 Lk 18:15–43 The section Lk  18:15–43 is a rather faithful reworking of the Marcan section Mk 10:13–52. Accordingly, it should not be categorized as an example of hypertextuality. In this section, Luke corrected some Marcan stylistic errors, omitted some Marcan statements which seemed strange to him (e.g. Mk  10:16.32.50), omitted some Marcan repetitions (e.g. Mk 10:24 cf. 10:23; 10:30 cf. 10:29), omitted some Marcan texts which he used in other parts of the narrative (e.g. Mk 10:31 cf. Lk 13:30; Mk 10:35–45 cf. Lk 12:50; 22:30.24–27), and added some of his preferred ideas (e.g. Lk 18:31.34).

2.55  Lk 19:1–10 (cf. Gal 6:1–2) The section Lk 19:1–10, with its main themes of detecting a sinner, gently restoring the sinner, helping others, and fulfilling the law, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 6:1–2. The opening motif of Jesus’ entering and going through Jericho (*έρχομαι + Ἰεριχώ: Lk 19:1; cf. 19:4) was borrowed from Mk 10:46.251 The story about Jesus’ spotting on a sycamore tree a certain man who was a chief tax collector, hence presumably a sinner (Lk 19:2–5c; cf. 19:7), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the Pauline idea of detecting a man in a transgression (Gal 6:1a). The particular motif of an important Jewish officer named Zacchaeus (Ζακχαῖος: Lk 19:2a) was probably borrowed from 2 Macc 10:19. On the other hand, the Lucan character of a rich Jewish ruler (ἀρχ* + πλούσιος: Lk 19:2bc) who ran ahead (προδραμών) to meet Jesus (Lk 19:4a) has

la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10–12 juin 2010 (BETL 248; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 319–330 (esp. 321–322). 250 Cf. S. Butticaz, ‘Relecture’, 322. 251 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 675, 678; J. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53 (WBC 35C; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993), 904.

190

some features of reworking of the Marcan character of a Jew who ran forward (προσδραμών) and asked Jesus about eternal life (Mk 10:17–22; cf. Lk 18:18–23: ἀρχ* + πλούσιος). The motif of a physically handicapped man seeking Jesus, but not being able (δύναμαι) to come to him because of the crowd (ὄχλος: Lk 19:3; cf. 8:19), and therefore going up on something (Lk  19:4), was borrowed from Mk  2:4 (cf. Lk 5:18–19: ζητέω + ἀναβαίνω ἐπί). The subsequent image of a graceful attitude of Jesus towards the sinner (Lk 19:5d–7) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of restoring the sinner in a spirit of gentleness (Gal 6:1b). The particular motif of Jesus’ being in the house of a tax collector, and of others, having seen it, complaining that he went to a sinner (*τελώνης + ἐν + οἰκ* + καί + ἰδόντες + λέγω + ἁμαρτωλός: Lk  19:5e-7; cf. 19:2), was borrowed from Mk 2:14–16252 (cf. Lk 5:30: *ἐγόγγυζον… λέγοντες). The subsequent image of the tax collector giving half of his goods to the poor (Lk 19:8a–c) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of bearing the burdens of others, presumably by helping them in their needs (Gal 6:2a). The particular motif of giving one’s possessions to the poor (πτωχοῖς + δίδωμι: Lk  19:8c) was borrowed from Mk  10:21. However, since Zacchaeus, in difference to the Marcan characters of the tax collector Levi (Mk 2:14) and a Jew who asked Jesus about eternal life (Mk 10:17.21), was not called to follow Jesus, but to welcome him at his home (Lk 19:5–7), he was not supposed to give out all of his goods, but only half of them (Lk 19:8c). The subsequent legal idea of restoring fourfold, thus fulfilling the law (Lk 19:8de), illustrates the subsequent Pauline legal idea of fulfilling the law of Christ (Gal 6:2b). The particular motif of restoring fourfold (ἀπο* + τετραπλοῦς) in the case of robbing someone of his property (Lk 19:8e) was borrowed from Jos. Ant. 4.272; 7.150 (cf. 16.3), which is a reworking of the scriptural legal regulation contained in Exod 21:37.253 The concluding statement that the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost (ἦλθεν + γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου + *ῆσαι καὶ *αι: Lk  19:10; cf. 19:9) is post-Marcan (cf. Mk 10:45; cf. also Mk 2:17).254 The particular motif of seeking

252 Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 114; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 55. 253 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 614. 254 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 675, 677; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 615.

191

that which was lost (ζητέω + τὸ ἀπολωλός: Lk  19:10bc) was borrowed from Ezek 34:16 LXX.255 Accordingly, the whole story concerning Zacchaeus (Lk  19:1–10) resulted from a conflation and reworking of the Marcan stories concerning Jesus’ going through Jericho and teaching there about his saving role as the Son of Man (Mk 10:45–46), a Jew who asked Jesus about eternal life (Mk 10:17–22), a physically handicapped man seeking Jesus (Mk  2:4), and Jesus’ being in the house of a tax collector (Mk 2:14–17). The motifs taken from these stories commonly illustrate the Pauline ideas contained in Gal 6:1–2.

2.56  Lk 19:11–28 (cf. Gal 6:3–10) The section Lk 19:11–28, with its main themes of supposing to be close to the kingdom of God, each one doing his own task, sowing and reaping in due time, reaping against the law, and being punished with utter destruction for investing in a fleshly object, in an almost consistently sequential way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 6:3–10. The opening statement concerning the people who supposed (δοκέω) that the kingdom of God should appear in a Jewish way, namely immediately in Jerusalem (Lk 19:11), and not as a result of undertaking a journey to a distant, presumably Gentile country (Lk 19:12; cf. 19:15),256 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline statement concerning some people, presumably Jewish Christians, who wrongly supposed that they were something (Gal 6:3). The subsequent story about a departing master (ἄνθρωπος, κύριος) who gave (δίδωμι) individual tasks to his slaves (δοῦλος + *αὐτοῦ: Lk 19:13ab) and then returned (ἔρχομαι) and evaluated their work (Lk  19:15) was borrowed from Mk 13:34–36257 in order to illustrate the subsequent Pauline thought that each one has his own work to do and his own burden to bear (Gal 6:4–5). Therefore, in difference to the preceding story, which illustrated the idea of bearing the burdens of others (Lk 19:8; cf. Gal 6:2a), and to the underlying Marcan story about

255 Cf. D. Gerber, «Il vous est né un Sauveur» La construction du sens sotériologique de la venue de Jésus en Luc-Actes (MdB 58; Labor et Fides: Genève 2008), 144; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 614; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 301. 256 Cf. U. Busse, ‘Dechiffrierung eines lukanischen Schlüsseltextes’, in R. Hoppe and U. Busse (eds.), Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien, Festschrift P. Hoffmann (BZNW 93; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998), 423–441 (esp. 434). 257 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen, 55 n. 22.

192

slaves left together in a house (Mk 13:34–36), the slaves in this story do not work together and do not help each other (Lk 19:16–21). The subsequent thought that the slaves should do business with the master’s money in order to enrich him (Lk 19:13c–e; cf. 19:15.23), and thus themselves receive a financial reward (Lk 19:17.19), alludes to the subsequent Pauline that the disciple and the teacher should share all goods (Gal 6:6). The subsequent motif of a nobleman who went to a distant country to obtain royal power (βασιλεία) and return, but encountered opposition from his citizens (πολῖται) who hated (μισ*) him and sent (ἀποστέλλω) a delegation (πρεσβεία) against him (Lk 19:12.14; cf. 19:27), was borrowed from Josephus’ story about Archelaus (Jos. Ant. 17.219–223, 300, 313–314).258 This motif of Jewish opposition against a particular, Gentile-related way of the manifestation of the kingdom of God (Lk 19:14; diff. 19:11)259 by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization alludes to the subsequent Pauline idea of God’s not being mocked (Gal 6:7ab), presumably by the Jewish Christians, who stressed the importance of the flesh (cf. Gal 6:8a). The subsequent image of investing money, so that it works out (*ἐργάζομαι) and does (ποιέω) more money (Lk 19:16.18; cf. 19:23), which is metaphorically presented in terms of sowing and reaping (σπείρω + θερίζω: Lk 19:21–22), illustrates the subsequent Pauline metaphor of sowing and reaping, which refers to doing and working good (Gal 6:7c–10). The related idea of correspondence in reward, namely of receiving ten cities for ten minas, as well as five cities for five minas (Lk 19:16–19), illustrates the related Pauline idea of correspondence in reward, namely that what one sows, that he will also reap (Gal 6:7cd). The particular praise for a slave for his being good (ἀγαθός) and faithful (πιστ*: Lk 19:17bc) alludes to the Pauline idea of doing good for those of the same faith (Gal 6:10). The subsequent contrasting idea of placing the money in a sudarium, that is in a facecloth for wiping one’s flesh-related sweat (Lk 19:20), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of sowing in one’s own flesh (Gal 6:8a). The related ideas of condemning the slave for his being afraid of the master (Lk 19:21ab) and being negligent in work 258 Cf. S. Mason, Josephus and the NT, 282–283; R. I. Pervo, Dating, 178–179; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 620. 259 The use of the motif of Archelaus as alluding to Jesus is in fact quite surprising. Cf. B. Schultz, ‘Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11–27)’, NovT 49 (2007) 105–127 (esp. 111–112); D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity’, 170–171.

193

(Lk 19:22b) illustrate the related Pauline exhortations not to lose heart and not to become faint (Gal 6:9b.d). The subsequent surprising ideas of taking what one did not deposit and reaping what one did not sow (Lk 19:21c–22), thus presumably violating property law,260 illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of sowing in the Spirit, and not in the law-related flesh (Gal  6:8a.c). Likewise, the surprising exhortation to violate the Mosaic law by lending (δίδωμι) money (ἀργύριον) and earning interest (τόκος) on that matter (πρά*: Lk  19:23; diff. Exod  22:24; Lev  25:36–37; Deut  23:20 LXX)261 illustrates the Pauline exhortation to sow not in the lawrelated flesh, but in the Spirit (Gal 6:8a.c). The subsequent, thematically correlated ideas of punishing the flesh-related and negligent slave (cf. Lk  19:20–23) with total deprivation of his possessions (Lk 19:24a–c; cf. 19:26d–f), and punishing the rebellious Jews (cf. Lk 19:14) with total destruction of their messianic hopes (Lk 19:27; cf. 19:11.28) illustrate the subsequent Pauline thought that sowing in the flesh (cf. Gal 6:8a) results in destruction from the flesh (Gal 6:8b). Luke evidently adapted here Josephus’ story about Archelaus to his own needs of illustrating the Pauline idea of destruction (Lk  19:27; cf. Gal  6:8b) because Josephus mentions no cruel punishment inflicted on the Jewish rebels upon Archelaus’ return from Rome, presumably because Caesar commanded him to treat his subjects with moderation (Jos. Ant. 17. 339–342; cf. B.J. 2.111).262 The subsequent positive image of the good and faithful slave (cf. Lk 19:17) as receiving additional goods (Lk 19:24d-26c) illustrates the subsequent Pauline positive thought that sowing in the Spirit (cf. Gal 6:8c) results in eternal life (Gal 6:8d). The proverbial saying of Jesus that to the one who has, it will be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away (λέγω + ὁ* + ἔχω + δοθήσεται + ὁ* + negation + ἔχω + καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται: Lk 19:26) is post-Marcan (cf. Mk 4:24–25).263 This positive-negative statement (Lk 19:26) evidently does not fit the negative-positive logic of the preceding statements (Lk 19:24–25), a fact which additionally proves that the negative-positive thematic sequence in Lk 19:24–25 illustrates the similar negative-positive sequence of Gal  6:8, and it was only additionally supplemented with the post-Marcan 260 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 679–680; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 622–623; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 309. 261 Cf. J. B. Green, Luke, 680 n. 239; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 610 n. 50. 262 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 624. Pace B. Schultz, ‘Jesus’, 116 n. 49. 263 Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 624.

194

statement Mk 4:25 with its reverse positive-negative sequence (Lk 19:26), and furthermore with the negative image of punishment (Lk 19:27). The concluding motif of Jesus’ going ahead and going up to Jerusalem (ἀναβαίνω + εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα: Lk 19:28) was borrowed from Mk 10:32.264

2.57 Lk 19:29–24:12 The section Lk 19:29–24:12 is a relatively faithful reworking of the Marcan section Mk 11:1–16:8. Accordingly, it should not be categorized as an example of hypertextuality. In the post-Marcan story about Jesus’activity in Jerusalem (Lk 19:29–21:38),Luke corrected some Marcan stylistic errors, omitted some Marcan texts which seemed somehow strange to him (e.g. Mk 11:11–14.16.20–25; 13:3.10.18.20.22–23.32), omitted some Marcan texts which he used in other parts of the narrative (e.g. Mk  12:28–34 cf. Lk  10:25–28; Mk  13:21.27 cf. Lk  17:23–24; Mk  13:34 cf. Lk 19:12–13; Mk 13:33.35–37 cf. Lk 12:36–38), and added some of his preferred ideas (e.g. Lk 19:37.39–44; 21:18.22.24.28). In the post-Marcan passion and resurrection narrative (Lk  22:1–24:12), Luke reworked the Marcan text in a much more creative way. Among other things, he corrected some Marcan stylistic errors, reordered some Marcan texts (e.g. Lk 22:15–23 diff. Mk 14:18–25; Lk 22:31–39 diff. Mk 14:26–31; Lk 22:56–71 diff. Mk 14:55–15:1; Lk 23:18–19 diff. Mk 15:7–11; Lk 23:33–39 diff. Mk 15:22–32), narratively explained some Marcan intriguing details (e.g. Lk  22:35–38 cf. Mk  14:47; Lk  23:56 cf. Mk  16:1–2), used some texts from other parts of the Marcan narrative (e.g. Lk 22:24–27 cf. Mk 9:34–35; 10:42–45; Lk 22:30 cf. Mk 10:37), omitted some Marcan texts which seemed to him somehow strange or unnecessary (e.g. Mk  14:33–34.50–52.56–60; 15:6.8–10.16–20.25.29.34–36. 44–45; 16:3), omitted some Marcan repetitions (e.g. Mk 14:39–42 cf. 14:37–38; 15:4–5 cf. 15:2), omitted some Marcan texts which he used in other parts of the narrative (e.g. Mk 14:3–9 cf. Lk 7:36–50), and added some of his preferred ideas (e.g. Lk 22:28–29.31–32.51; 23:2.6–15.27–31.40–43.48; 24:7–8.11–12).265

264 Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 736 n. 74; F. Noël, Travel, 295; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 625. 265 Cf. e.g. P. Rice, ‘The Rhetoric of Luke’s Passion: Luke’s Use of Common-place to Amplify the Guilt of Jerusalem’s Leaders in Jesus’ Death’, BibInt 21 (2013) 355–376 (esp. 362–373).

195

2.58  Lk 24:13–35 (cf. Gal 6:11–15) The section Lk 24:13–35, with its main themes of a Jerusalem-based mission to the Gentiles, conversing face to face, preaching Jesus only in the flesh, escaping persecution for the cross of Christ, not understanding the law, the way of Christ through cross to glory, explaining the writings, and alluding to creation, in an almost consistently sequential way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 6:11–15. The opening image of two Jerusalem-based disciples (cf. Lk 24:9.11) going to the Gentiles-related place called Emmaus (Lk 24:13) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline statement concerning the Jerusalem-based Jewish Christian mission among the Gentiles (Gal 6:12a–d). The particular motif of a place called Emmaus (Ἐμμαοῦς), which was distant (ἀπέχω) several tens of stadia (σταδίους *κοντα) from Jerusalem (Ἰερο*: Lk  24:13bc), was borrowed from Jos. B.J. 7.217.266 Luke substituted the name form Ἀμμαοῦς, which was consistently used in Josephus’ Bellum (B.J. 1.222 etc.), with that of Ἐμμαοῦς, which was consistently used in Josephus’ later work Antiquitates (Ant. 14.275 etc.). In Jos. B.J. 7.217, Emmaus refers to a place inhabited by the Gentiles, who lived in a Roman military colony close to Jerusalem. Therefore, the Lucan motif of a journey of Jerusalem-based disciples to Emmaus (Lk 24:13) illustrates the Pauline idea of a Jerusalem-based mission to the Gentiles (Gal 6:12a–d). Luke doubled the distance to Emmaus (60 stadia: Lk 24:13; diff. 30 stadia: Jos. B.J. 7.217) in order to illustrate the idea of a Jewish Christian mission to Galatia (cf. Gal 1:7) and presumably also to Rome (cf. Rom 1:7–12; 15:22–25.30–31), so in fact far away from Jerusalem. The particular image of the disciples as conversing with each other (πρὸς ἀλλήλους), so face to face, but with their eyes restrained, so that they did not notice the risen Jesus, who walked beside them (Lk 24:14–17), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the particular Pauline image of the Jewish Christians as showing their face well (εὐπροσωπέω), but only in the flesh (Gal 6:12ab). The subsequent account of Jesus’ identity and deeds, presented in purely Jewish, fleshly terms of the Nazarene (Ναζαρηνός: cf. Mk 16:6),267 a prophet, a mighty one, a crucified one (σταυρόω: cf. Mk  16:6),268 a supposed redeemer of Israel, 266 Cf. B. Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (JSNTSup 215; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002), 31. 267 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 780; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 730 n. 41. 268 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 730 n. 43.

196

who was not seen anymore (Lk 24:18–24; cf. Rom 1:3),269 and not in terms of the Son of God, risen from the dead and powerfully active in the Spirit (cf. Rom 1:4), illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of Jewish Christians preaching the gospel in purely fleshly terms, stressing the importance of circumcision (Gal 6:12cd). The related reference to the crucifixion (σταυρό*) of Jesus, presented as the last thing known about him with certainty (Lk 24:20), a remark which was made by people who went away from Jerusalem (cf. Lk 24:13), seems to illustrate the Pauline thought that the Jewish Christians try to escape persecution for the cross of Christ (Gal 6:12e). The subsequent image of the disciples as not understanding the Scriptures (Lk 24:25; cf. 24:27) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the Jewish Christians, in their dealing with the Galatians, do not keep the law (Gal 6:13). The particular invocation, ‘o foolish ones’ (ὦ ἀνόητοι), together with the rebuke concerning not believing (πιστ*: Lk 24:25b), evidently alludes to the foolish Galatians, who were rebuked for not relying on faith (Gal 3:1–2).270 The subsequent idea of the way of Christ (Χριστός) through cross (cf. Lk 24:20) to glory (Lk 24:26) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of boasting in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:14). The particular idea of explaining the things written in Scriptures (γραφ*: Lk 24:26–27) may additionally allude to the Pauline idea of writing with large letters (Gal 6:11). The subsequent set of sequentially organized motifs (Lk 24:27–35) was borrowed from the scriptural creation story (Gen  1–3 LXX): (a) the ‘beginning’ (ἀρχ*) of the scriptural story (Lk 24:27; cf. Gen 1:1 LXX);271 (b) ‘evening’ (ἑσπέρα) approaching and the ‘day’ (ἡμέρα) of activity coming to an end (Lk  24:29de; cf. Gen 1:31–2:2 LXX);272 (c) the Lord resting with humans (Lk 24:29; cf. Gen 2:2); 269 Cf. A. Denaux, ‘Luke’s Story’, 290; S. Artyushin, Raccontare la salvezza attraverso lo sguardo: Portata teologica e implicazioni pragmatiche del «vedere Gesù» nel Vangelo di Luca (TGST 203; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2014), 369–372, 383–390. 270 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 182. 271 The Lucan statement that ‘beginning from Moses and from all the prophets’ Jesus explained them all the Scriptures (Lk 24:27) is rather surprising because it implies that the Scriptures comprised much more than the Pentateuch and all the Prophets. Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 1027. 272 The Lucan use of the motif of the evening and of the end of the day in Lk 24:29 is rather artificial because it implies that the disciples spent almost a whole day for travelling only 60 stadia, so around 10 km (cf. Lk 24:13), but then they undertook an evening journey back to Jerusalem (Lk 24:33), which was followed by an even later journey to Bethany (Lk 24:50) and back to Jerusalem (Lk 24:52). If the expression of

197

(d) ‘and it happened’ (καὶ ἐγένετο: Lk 24:30a;273 cf. Gen 1:3–31 LXX); (e) ‘he blessed’ (εὐλόγησεν: Lk 24:30d; cf. Gen 2:3 LXX; diff. Mk 14:22: εὐλογήσας; Lk 22:19: εὐχαριστήσας); (f) ‘he was giving’ (*δίδωμι) the food to the companions, saying nothing (Lk 24:30f; cf. Gen 3:6 LXX;274 diff. Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19: saying words);275 (g) having eaten the food, ‘their eyes were opened and they knew’ (διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ… καὶ *έγνωσαν: Lk 24:31ab; cf. Gen 3:7 LXX);276 (h) becoming invisible from (ἀπό)277 the other one (Lk 24:31c; cf. Gen 3:8–9 LXX);278 (i) dialogically recalling the scriptural story, as well as authoritatively explaining its meaning,279 thus causing the disciples to experience heat (Lk  24:32; cf. Gen  3:10–19a); (j) immediately returning to (*στρέφω + εἰς) the land from which they came (Lk 24:33; cf. Gen 3:19b-23 LXX);280 and recalling the way (ὁδός) to the food of

273

274

275 276 277

278 279 280

198

time in Lk 24:29 refers to the afternoon, the chronology of the story is not entirely implausible: cf. A. Denaux and I. Van Wiele, ‘The Meaning of the Double Expression of Time in Luke 24,29’, in J. Verheyden, G. Van Belle, and J. G. van der Watt (eds.), Miracles and Imagery in Luke and John, Festschrift U. Busse (BETL 218; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2008), 67–88. The use of the phrase καὶ ἐγένετο, which points to a new beginning in the story (cf. Lk 24:15), is somewhat surprising in Lk 24:30. Cf. P. Łabuda, ‘Słuchanie słowa i łamanie chleba jako memoria resurrectionis (Łk 24, 13–15)’, RBL 64 (2011) 235–254 (esp. 251). Cf. D. C. Ortlund,‘“And Their Eyes Were Opened, and They Knew”: An Inter-Canonical Note on Luke 24:31’, JETS 53 (2010) 717–728 (esp. 725); B. G. Bucur, ‘Blinded by Invisible Light: Revisiting the Emmaus Story (Luke 24,13–35)’, ETL 90 (2014) 685–707 (esp. 699). Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 1919; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 785. Cf. A. A. Just, Jr., Luke 9:51–24:53 (Concordia Commentary; Concordia: Saint Louis, Mo. 1997), 986–987; D. C. Ortlund, ‘And Their Eyes’, 723–724; B. G. Bucur, ‘Blinded’, 699. The Lucan phrase ἄφαντος ἀπό (‘invisible from’: Lk 24:31c) is rather strange, although a similar phrase (ἀφανίζω ἀπό: ‘disappear from’, ‘cause to disappear from’) can be found in Exod 8:5; Judg 21:16; Ezek 34:25 LXX etc. Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 1030 n. 105; A. Denaux, ‘Luke’s Story’, 295 n. 60. Cf. D. C. Ortlund, ‘And Their Eyes’, 725. Cf. M. W. Bates, ‘Closed-Minded Hermeneutics? A Proposed Alternative Translation for Luke 24:45’, JBL 129 (2010) 537–557 (esp. 548, 552). Cf. D. C. Ortlund, ‘And Their Eyes’, 725. In order to allude to the idea of return to the land (Gen 3:19b–23), Luke somewhat surprisingly used in Lk 24:13–33 the motif of the disciples’ cyclic journey from Jerusalem to Jerusalem, although it was absent in the Marcan command to go to Galilee (Mk 16:6–7). For the use of this motif in the Emmaus story, cf. M. Rosik, ‘The Greek Motif of the Cyclic Journey in the Gospel of Luke’, JGRCJ 5 (2008) 165–173 (esp. 170–172).

life (Lk 24:34–35; cf. Gen 3:24 LXX).281 Consequently, this set of allusions to the scriptural creation story (Gen 1–3 LXX) by means of the hypertextual procedure of substitution of images and ideas illustrates the subsequent scriptural-Pauline idea of a new creation (Gal 6:15).282 The presence of Graeco-Roman (e.g. Homer, Od. 1.102–327) and Israelite (e.g. Gen  18:1–19:3) motifs related to the topos of theoxeny in the Lucan account (Lk 24:15–33)283 additionally illustrates the Pauline thought that neither circumcision and nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but a new creation (Gal 6:15). Likewise, the particular motif of Jewish participation in the Eucharist (Lk 24:30.35)284 in a Gentile setting (Lk 24:28; cf. 24:13) may illustrate the Pauline thought that the difference between circumcision and uncircumcision counts for nothing (Gal 6:15ab). The thought that the Lord was raised (ἐγείρω) and was seen (ὤφθη) by Simon (Lk 24:34) was borrowed from 1 Cor 15:4–5.285

2.59  Lk 24:36–49 (cf. Gal 6:16–17) The section Lk 24:36–49, with its main themes of being organized around Jesus, peace upon Israelite believers, and marks of Jesus in the body, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 6:16–17. 281 Accordingly, both the statement Lk 24:27 and the question Lk 24:32 pertain not only to the characters of the story, but also to its implied reader: will he recognize and understand the scriptural creation story as included in Jesus’ story, and will his heart burn when the scriptural creation story is opened to him? 282 Cf. A. A. Just, Jr., Luke 9:51–24:53, 987. 283 Cf. C. T. McMahan, ‘More than Meets the “I”: Recognition Scenes In The Odyssey and Luke 24’, PRSt 35 (2008) 87–107 (esp. 99–104, 107); J. W. Jipp, Divine Visitations and Hospitality to Strangers in Luke-Acts: An Interpretation of the Malta Episode in Acts 28:1–10 (NovTSup 153; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 196–198, 200, 202–203; J. Taylor, ‘Recognition scenes in the Odyssey and the gospels’, in T. L. Thompson and P. Wajdenbaum (eds.), The Bible and Hellenism: Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature (CISem; Acumen: Durham 2014), 247–257 (esp. 255–256). 284 For the understanding of Jesus’ supper with his disciples in Lk 24:30.35 in terms of the Eucharist, cf. K. Backhaus, ‘Christologia Viatorum: Die Emmaus-Episode als christologisches Programm der Apostelgeschichte’, in M. Bär, M.-L.Hermann, and T. Söding (eds.), König und Priester: Facetten neutestamentlicher Christologie, Festschrift C.-P. März (ETSch 44; Echter: Würzburg 2012), 137–148 (esp. 141); F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 598; R. Vorholt, Das Osterevangelium: Erinnerung und Erzählung (HBS 73; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2013), 246. 285 Cf. W. Schenk, ‘Luke’, 136; A. J. Blasi, Making, 51–52; R. I. Pervo, Dating, 70.

199

The opening presentation of Jesus as having stood in the midst of the eleven disciples (cf. 1 Cor 15:5),286 thus organizing them around him (Lk 24:36ab), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline idea of the disciples as being in line with Jesus Christ (Gal 6:16a). The subsequent image of bestowing peace (εἰρήνη) upon the Israelite believers (Lk 24:36cd; cf. 22:30; 24:21) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of bestowing peace and mercy upon Israel of God (Gal 6:16b). The subsequent account of recognizing the marks of Jesus’ fleshly, and not spiritual identity in his body (Lk 24:37–43)287 by means of the hypertextual procedure of narrative elaboration illustrates Paul’s subsequent short remark concerning bearing the marks of Jesus in his body (Gal 6:17).288 The particular motif of Jesus’ coming in a supernatural way to the disciples, the disciples being afraid (φοβ*), supposing (δοκέω) to see a ghost, being terrified (ταράσσω), Jesus’ saying (λέγω) to them, ‘I am’ (ἐγώ εἰμι), but the disciples’ heart (καρδία sing.) being still doubting (Lk 24:36–39), was borrowed from Mk 6:48–52.289 The related presentation of the evangelization of all nations (Lk 24:47–49) as beginning from Christ’s suffering (Lk  24:44–46) additionally illustrates Paul’s idea of bearing the marks of Jesus in his body (Gal 6:17), presumably as additionally legitimizing his proclamation of the gospel among all nations (cf. Gal 6:15). The particular thought that it has been written (γραφ*) that it was necessary for the Messiah (Χριστός) to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day (τῇ τρίτῃ + ἡμέρᾳ: Lk 24:46) is evidently post-Pauline (cf. 1 Cor 15:3–4). Likewise, the thought that the preaching among all nations (κηρυχθῆναι + εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη: cf. Mk 13:10)290 begins from Jerusalem (ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλήμ: Lk 24:47)291 was 286 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 789–790; A. J. Blasi, Making, 52. 287 Cf. D. T. Prince, ‘The “Ghost” of Jesus: Luke 24 in Light of Ancient Narratives of Post-Mortem Apparitions’, JSNT 29.1 (2006) 287–301 (esp. 296); K. Backhaus, ‘Christologia’, 142; C. Pagliara, ‘L’analēmpsis’, 174. 288 For this reason, the Lucan fleshly image of the risen Christ (Lk 24:37–43) differs from the Pauline idea of a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:35–50), a fact which has been noted by D. A. Smith, ‘Seeing a Pneuma(tic Body): The Apologetic Interests of Luke 24:36–43’, CBQ 72 (2010) 752–772 (esp. 765–772). 289 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2] 790; G. Rossé, Luca, 1036. Cf. also J. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, 1211–1212. 290 Cf. H. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 738 n. 32; F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 4 (EKKNT 3/4; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn and Patmos: Düsseldorf 2009), 593 n. 65; F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 614. 291 Cf. A. Lindemann, ‘Jesus, Israel und die Völker: Zum Jesusbild der neutestamentlichen Evangelien’, in id., Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte: Studien zu ihrer

200

borrowed from Rom 15:19. Similarly, the presentation of the gift of the Spirit in terms of God’s promise (ἐπαγγελία: Lk 24:49; cf. Acts 1:4.8; 2:33) was borrowed from Gal 3:14.292

2.60  Lk 24:50–53 (cf. Gal 6:18) The section Lk 24:50–53, with its main themes of finally blessing the believers, as well as referring to the believer’s spirit, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 6:18. The scriptural image of Jesus’ raising his hands (ἐπαίρω + χεῖρας αὐτοῦ) and blessing (εὐλογ*) the disciples (Lk 24:50–51b), presumably in the name of the Lord (κύριος: cf. Sir 50:20–21 LXX),293 by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s idea of blessing the believers with the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 6:18). The subsequent image of Jesus going as far as (ἕως) a place east of Jerusalem (cf. Lk  24:50), being parted (διέστ*) from the disciples, and being carried up (ἀνα*) into heaven (εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν), and of the disciples as prostrating themselves before him (προσκυνέω + αὐτός: Lk 24:51c–52a), evidently alludes to the scriptural image of Elijah going as far as a place east of Jordan, being separated from Elisha, and being carried up into heaven, and of the disciples as prostrating themselves before Elisha, and consequently to the idea of the transfer of the spirit (πνεῦμα) of Elijah to Elisha (2 Kgs 2:6.9.11.15 LXX).294 Accordingly, this image illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the transfer of Christ’s grace to the spirit of the believers (Gal 6:18). The particular motif of Jesus’ leading the closest disciples eastward to Bethany (Βηθανία: Lk 24:50), which in difference

Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte (WUNT 241; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 368–405 (esp. 389). 292 Cf. W. Schenk, ‘Luke’, 138; P. Elbert, ‘Possible’, 237–241. 293 Cf. A. W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (NovTSup 87; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1997), 87–88; P.G. Klumbies, ‘Himmelfahrt und Apotheose Jesu in Lk 24,50–53’, in id., Von der Hinrichtung zur Himmelfahrt: Der Schluss der Jesuserzählung nach Markus und Lukas (BTSt 114; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2010), 172–196 (esp. 195 n. 80); F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 4, 613, 616. 294 Cf. T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (NTM 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 379; K. D. Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (JSNTSup 282; T&T Clark: London · New York 2005), 147–148, 154.

201

to Transjordan could be reached from Jerusalem by the end of the day, was borrowed from Mk 11:11 (cf. 11:1; 14:3).295 The related image of the disciples being full of joy (χαρά: Lk 24:52b) again illustrates the idea of the spirit (πνεῦμα) of the believers (Gal  6:18) by alluding to the Pauline idea of joy as the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22; cf. 1 Thes 1:6; Rom 14:17; Acts 13:52). The concluding idea of being no more in Bethany (diff. Lk 24:50), but always in the temple (diff. Acts 1:13; 2:1), praising God (εὐλογέω + θεός) there, presumably in a common liturgical way (Lk 24:53; cf. Sir 50:22 LXX),296 illustrates Paul’s concluding idea of saying ‘Amen’ (ἀμήν: Gal 5:18), because common liturgical praising of God in the temple used to conclude with this word (1  Chr 16:36; cf. Neh 8:6 LXX).

295 Cf. F. Mickiewicz, Łukasza, vol. 2, 624. 296 Cf. A. W. Zwiep, Ascension, 87–88; H. Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnis des Tempels: Studien zur Bedeutung des Tempelmotivs im lukanischen Doppelwerk (NTAbh, nf 36; Aschendorff: Münster 2000), 207.

202

General conclusions The detailed intertextual analysis of the Gospel of Luke in its relationship to the Letter to the Galatians has revealed that the Lucan work is a result of systematic, strictly sequential, but on the other hand highly creative, hypertextual reworking of this Pauline letter. Many common features of the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline letters have already been noticed by a numbers of scholars. However, this commentary for the first time in history in a detailed and systematic way explains their strictly sequential arrangement. In fact, the Letter to the Galatians was reworked in the Lucan Gospel twice. First, the introductory section of the Pauline letter (Gal 1:1–3:1) was sequentially reworked in the first great section of the Lucan work (Lk  1:1–9:50), but the sequential pattern of reworking is mainly detectable in Lk  1:1–8:3 (cf. Gal  1:1–2:17). Subsequently, the entirety of the Pauline letter (Gal  1–6) was again sequentially reworked in the remaining part of the Lucan Gospel (Lk 9:51–24:53). Apart from this twofold sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians, Luke inserted to his work several texts which were more or less faithfully borrowed from the Gospel of Mark (Lk  8:4–9:22 cf. Mk  3:31–8:33; Lk  9:37–50 cf. Mk  9:14–40; Lk  18:15–43 cf. Mk  10:13–52; Lk  19:29–24:12 cf. Mk 11:1–16:8), without any evident correspondence to the sequentially organized pattern of the hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians. Moreover, at times Luke created a two-tier pattern of sequential hypertextual reworking of his hypotexts. For example, the Letter to the Romans, which is the most ‘Jewish Christian’ letter of the Apostle to the Gentiles, was sequentially used in the speech to the Jewish crowds (Lk 3:7d–11) in order to illustrate in an ethopoeic way the particular idea from the structurally corresponding fragment of the Letter to the Galatians, namely that of communicating to the Jewish Christians the content of Paul’s gospel which was preached among the Gentiles (Gal  2:2bc). Likewise, the scriptural account of creation (Gen  1–3 LXX) was sequentially used in Lk  24:27–35 in order to illustrate in a narrative way the scriptural-Pauline idea from the structurally corresponding fragment of the Letter to the Galatians, namely that of new creation (Gal 6:15). Among the criteria for discerning the sequential hypertextual relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians, those proposed by

203

Dennis R. MacDonald proved particularly useful.1 The criterion of accessibility is met because the Lucan Gospel was written much later than the Letter to the Galatians, and it was written in the milieu of Paul’s literary influence upon the early Christian communities.2 The criterion of analogy is met because the Letter to the Galatians was also used in a similar, sequential hypertextual way in the Gospel of Mark (Mk 1–7),3 and somehow similarly in the Acts of the Apostles.4 The criterion of density is met because the number of the sequentially organized correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians amounts to around 300. The criterion of order is met because the correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians almost consistently appear in both works in the same order. The criterion of distinctive traits is met because, for example, the issue of requesting money from the Gentile believers by the Jerusalem leaders was presented in both works in a similar, very negative way (Gal 2:10a cf. Lk 3:14; 6:23–26 etc.). The criterion of interpretability is met because numerous surprising features of the Lucan Gospel can be explained if this Gospel is viewed as a sequentially organized reworking of the Letter to the Galatians. In particular, the detection of the strictly literary character of the correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians was possible thanks to the consistent application of the criterion of the order of parallels between them.

1 See D. R. MacDonald, ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s Imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 211–225 (esp. 212). 2 Since Paul’s letters were sent from and to the most important cities in the eastern Mediterranean (Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Rome, and indirectly Jerusalem and Antioch through Paul’s opponents in Rome and Galatia), Luke would have to live in Rhaetia, Gaul, or Britain in order to have no direct contact with at least some of them. Cf. T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (NTM 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 21. 3 Cf. B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 31–102. 4 Cf. id., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 92–101, 114, 117, 129–130; id., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 148–152.

204

This criterion, which turned out to be decisive in the detection of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in numerous other biblical works (Gen, Exod-LevNum, Deut, Sam-Kgs, Chr, Mt, Mk, Jn, Acts, Rom, Gal, Eph, 2 Thes, Hebr, 2 Pet, and Rev),5 turned out to be decisive in the case of the Gospel of Luke as well. In fact, the detailed intertextual analysis of the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians has revealed that the Gospel of Luke in a highly creative, hypertextual, but on the other hand strictly sequential way reflects the series of around 300 semantic elements, which are contained in this letter. Consequently, the Gospel of Luke and the Letter to the Galatians are linked by a series of around 300 creatively constructed semantic correspondences, which sequentially follow one another. The character of the correspondences between the structurally parallel elements in the Lucan Gospel and in the Letter to the Galatians is highly diverse. Only exceptionally, the evangelist almost verbatim reproduced the corresponding phrases of the respective fragments of the Pauline hypotext.6 This fact misled previous scholars, who merely discovered some randomly occurring linguistic correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline letters, thus failing to discover the sequential pattern of the Lucan hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians. Usually, Luke illustrated the Pauline ideas from the structurally corresponding sections of the Letter to the Galatians with the use of various, mainly Marcan and scriptural literary motifs. For this reason, the correspondences between the Lucan hypertext and its Pauline hypotext are generally very loose, truly hypertextual. They are conceptual (illustrating theological-halachic ideas etc.) rather than linguistic; they refer to images (movements, features, typical behaviour, etc.) rather than to words; they are creative rather than reproductive. In fact, in his reworking of the contents of the Letter to the Galatians the evangelist used many typically hypertextual procedures, such as transdiegetization,7

5 See recently id., Mark, passim. 6 E.g. ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός (Gal 1:15) → ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός (Lk 1:15); καὶ… ὑπέστρεψα εἰς (Gal 1:17) → καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς (Lk 1:56). 7 E.g. the tripartite story about being separated from one’s mother’s womb, being called by God, and being summoned to reveal God’s Son in one’s person (Gal 1:15–16a) → the tripartite story about being separated from other humans, being called by Jesus, and being summoned not to reveal natural sonship (Lk 9:57–62).

205

interfigurality,8 internymic deviation,9 transsexuation,10 temporal trans­lation,11 spatial translation,12 transpragmatization,13 transmotivation,14 transvalorization,15 elaboration,16 compression,17 conflation,18 substitution of images and ideas,19 and form-change.20 Consequently, the analysis of the Gospel of Luke in terms of its

8 E.g. the revelation of God’s Son in the person of Paul (Gal 1:16) → the conception of God’s Son in the narrative character of Mary (Lk 1:31–32.35). 9 E.g. Ep-aphroditus (‘named after [the goddess] Aphrodite’: Jos. C.Ap. 1.1; 2.1) → Theophilus (‘beloved by God’: Lk 1:3; Acts 1:1). 10 E.g. the male character of Paul (Gal  1:15–16) → the female character of Mary (Lk 1:26–38). 11 E.g. apparently three years in the south (Gal 1:17–18) → three months in the south (Lk 1:56); after fourteen years (Gal 2:1) → in the fifteenth year (Lk 3:1). 12 E.g. the northern city of Damascus (Gal 1:15.17) → the northern ‘city’ of Nazareth (Lk 1:26); the mountain country of Arabia (Gal 1:17) → the mountain country in Judah (Lk 1:39); the northern city of Antioch (Gal 2:11) → the northern ‘city’ of Capernaum (Lk 7:1; cf. 4:31). 13 E.g. formulating a written blessing for the believers (Gal 6:18) → raising the hands and orally blessing the disciples (Lk 24:50–51). 14 E.g. help to the Jews because of their poverty (Gal 2:10) → help to the Jewish tree because of its unfruitfulness (Lk 13:6–9). 15 E.g. Cephas’ blameworthy withdrawal and separation from the Gentile believers (Gal 2:12de) → the main hero’s praiseworthy defence of border-breaking activity among the Gentiles (Lk 7:21–22). 16 E.g. the short remark concerning bearing the marks of Jesus in Paul’s body (Gal 6:17) → the elaborated account of recognizing the marks of Jesus’ fleshly identity in his body (Lk 24:37–43). 17 E.g. the elaborated thought that all people: Jews and Greeks, slaves and free people, males and females, are sons of God, one in Christ Jesus, and heirs of God (Gal 3:26–29) → the short statement that everyone enters the kingdom of God (Lk 16:16). 18 E.g. initial recognition of Paul and his gospel by the Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:9) + later rejection of Paul and his gospel by James, the Lord’s brother (Gal 2:12) → Jewish initial recognition, but later rejection of Jesus in the place where he was brought up, presumably with his siblings (Lk 4:22–30; cf. 4:16). 19 E.g. giving the right hand as a sign of partnership in the evangelistic work (Gal 2:9) → partners giving their hands to help in the evangelistic catch of fish (Lk 5:7.10); Christ hanging on a tree with outstretched and risen arms, thus identifying himself with cursed sinners (Gal 3:13) → the shepherd laying the lost sheep, representing the sinner, upon his outstretched and risen arms (Lk 15:5). 20 E.g. biographic statement concerning Paul’s coming from the Gentiles, with their Roman-named representative, to Jerusalem, with its Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:1) → list of rulers, which starts with the Roman emperor, and ends with the Jewish leaders

206

hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians requires much skill in detecting merely conceptual correspondences, veiled literary allusions, and complex semantic transformations.21 However, the lack of verbal repetition of the contents of the Letter to the Galatians in the Gospel of Luke is recompensed by the generally strictly preserved order of its use in the Lucan work. The detailed analysis of the sequentially arranged, conceptual correspondences between the Gospel of Luke and the Letter to the Galatians has revealed that their common order can usually be traced down to individual sentences or even clauses, phrases, and words, and not merely to large thematic sections or pericopes. The existence of the long series of around 300 sequentially arranged pairs of semantically corresponding elements in the Gospel of Luke and in the Letter to the Galatians cannot be a result of mere coincidence. It must have resulted from the post-Pauline evangelist’s resolve to present the details of the contents of the Pauline letter in a widely understandable, and nevertheless semantically rich, narrative way, namely in the form of hypertextual biography of the Israelite character of Jesus Christ. Therefore, in the Lucan Gospel, in line with Paul’s self-understanding of his own ministry (cf. 1  Thes 1:6; 1  Cor 11:1 etc.), the narrative character of Jesus Christ generally does not reflect the historical features of the person of Jesus who was called the Messiah (cf. Rom 1:3 etc.), but it has the features of the suffering and risen Son of God, who was revealed to the world in the person, teaching, and course of life of Paul the Apostle (cf. Rom 1:4; Gal 1:16 etc.). The detection of such a long series of sequentially arranged, semantically corresponding elements in the Gospel of Luke and in the Letter to the Galatians conclusively proves that the earlier attempts of numerous scholars (M. D. Goulder, W. Schenk, P. N. Tarazi, R. I. Pervo, and others) to trace the literary indebtedness of the Lucan work to the Pauline letters were at least basically correct, even if these scholars failed to detect the strictly sequential character of this literary, hypertextual connection. The twofold sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the Gospel of Luke, which has been described in detail in this commentary, also meets the criterion of the complete use of a source. This commentary, in difference in Jerusalem (Lk 3:1–2); statement concerning the gospel which was directed to the circumcised (Gal 2:7) → fleshly, messianic genealogical list of Jesus (Lk 3:23–38). 21 Cf. L. Alonso Schökel with J. M. Bravo, A Manual of Hermeneutics, trans. L. M. Rosa, ed. B. W. R. Pearson (BibSem 54; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998), 170: ‘What was written with imagination must be read with imagination.’

207

to numerous other attempts to trace the literary use of various Pauline themes and motifs in the Lucan Gospel,22 demonstrates that in Lk 9:51–24:53 the evangelist used the entire Pauline letter (Gal 1–6), and not just selected fragments or sections thereof. The recognition of this fact additionally proves that Luke resolved to narrativize the contents of Paul’s letter in a consistent, strictly sequential way. This commentary also highlights the importance of the criterion of the presence of not easily perceivable inconsistencies and somewhat surprising features in the hypertext. This criterion additionally proves the hypothesis of strictly sequential reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the Gospel of Luke by pointing to the presence of some resulting from this procedure, somewhat surprising narrative details in the Lucan work. Such not easily perceivable inconsistencies and other surprising elements are only rarely discussed by the exegetes. However, this commentary demonstrates that most of these intriguing details can be explained as resulting from the evangelist’s consistent use of the procedure of strictly sequential reworking of other texts. In fact, the resolve to use this highly sophisticated procedure significantly restricted the evangelist’s literary freedom, and therefore it resulted in some minor, not easily perceivable logical tensions and other somewhat surprising elements in his narrative. Therefore, the criterion of the presence of not easily perceivable inconsistencies and somewhat surprising features in the Lucan work is functionally related to the criterion of explanatory capability. This commentary demonstrates that the detailed analysis of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the Gospel of Luke can explain around 150 more or less surprising literary features and narrative details of the Lucan work. For example, the analysis of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in the Gospel of Luke enables us to explain the insertion of the positive remark concerning those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word after the negative assessment of Luke’s gospel-making predecessors (Lk  1:1–2; cf. Gal  1:1ab); the presentation of Nazareth as a city (Lk  1:26; cf. Gal  1:15c.17c); the chronological problem of the dating of the census under the Gentile ruler Quirinius to the evil time of Herod, the king of Judaea (Lk 1:5; 2:2; cf. Gal 1:4b.18a); two Jewish high priests officiating at the same time (Lk 3:2a; cf. Gal 2:2d); John’s comforting others after his gravely threatening utterance (Lk 3:17–18; cf. Gal 2:5ab); John’s rebukes to Herod for his not precisely 22 For my earlier attempt, which only partly meets this criterion by erroneously postulating the sequential hypertextual use of only Gal 1:1–6:13 in Lk 9:51–16:15, see B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 305–363.

208

stated, past faults (Lk 3:19; cf. Gal 2:6a–e); seeing the Holy Spirit descending in a bodily ‘sight’ upon Jesus (Lk 3:22a; cf. Gal 2:7ab); the insertion of the genealogy of Jesus after the description of Jesus as an adult man (Lk 3:23–38; cf. Gal 2:7c); Jesus’ becoming hungry only when the fasting was over (Lk 4:2b–d; cf. Gal 2:8a); the insertion of Is  58:6 LXX into the quotation from Is  61:1 LXX (Lk  4:18; cf. Gal  2:8b); the displacement of the account of the calling of the first three disciples (Lk 5:1–11; cf. Gal 2:9c–e); the presentation of John as being in a position to receive and send his politically dangerous disciples with the politically dangerous task of looking for the coming Messiah (Lk 7:18–19; cf. Gal 2:12a); etc. The analysis of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in the Gospel of Luke, which has been presented in this commentary, also meets the criterion of explaining the function of the hypertextual use of the Lucan hypotexts, and not merely noticing Lucan parallels with other texts, an approach which is usually aptly termed ‘parallelomania’. In particular, the detection of the sequentially ordered semantic correspondences between the Gospel of Luke and the Letter to the Galatians helps to clarify the function of Luke’s allusive use of other texts, even if the fact of such allusive use has already been noticed by other scholars (e.g. S. Mason for Luke’s use of Josephus’ works). For example, the hypertextual use of Paul’s remark concerning a ruler in the Syrian city of Damascus as involved in compelling Paul to go up from the northern country of Syria to Judaea (2  Cor 11:32–33; Gal  1:18a) explains the illustration of this idea with the use of Josephus’ motif of the census taken by the Syrian ruler Quirinius in Judaea (Jos. B.J. 7.253; Ant. 18.3; etc.), which allegedly compelled Joseph with Mary and Jesus to go up from the northern country of Galilee to Judaea (Lk 2:2–5). Similarly, the hypertextual use of the Pauline statement concerning Cephas’ openness towards the Gentiles the northern, Syrian city of Antioch (Gal 2:11a.12b) explains the illustration of this idea with the use of the scriptural story about an Israelite prophet healing the Gentile, Syrian character of Naaman (Lk 7:1–10; cf. 2 Kgs 5:1–14 LXX). Likewise, the hypertextual use of the Pauline remark concerning hypocrisy of the Jewish Christians (Gal 2:13a) explains the illustration of this idea with the use of the regulations of the so-called Damascus Document (CD  11:13–14a.16–17a; cf. also 4Q265 6:6–7), which are presented as in fact only partly followed by the Pharisees (Lk 14:3–6). Also, the hypertextual use of Paul’s idea of two different covenants, which cannot be reconciled with each other (Gal 4:24ab.30), explains the illustration of this idea with the use of the Platonic image of a great chasm, which prevents any contact between the saved ones and the condemned ones (Lk 16:26; cf. Plato, Resp. 614cd, 615e). 209

The use of the criterion of explaining the function of the use of Lucan hypotexts in the twofold sequential hypertextual use of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:1–3:1 in Lk 1:1–9:50; Gal 1–6 in Lk 9:51–24:53) additionally proves that in his literary activity the evangelist used not only Paul’s authentic letters, but also post-Pauline letters (Col,23 Eph,24 1 Tim,25 and Tit26); the ethopoeic letters attributed to James,27 Peter,28 and Jude;29 the Gospel of Mark;30 well-known classical Greek and Hellenistic works (Homer’s Odyssea,31 Aesop’s Fabulae,32 Euripides’ Ion,33 Aristophanes’ Aves,34 Plato’s Respublica,35 Strabo’s Geographica,36 Plutarch’s Vitae parallelae,37 etc.); the Septuagint;38 the so-called Damascus Document;39 and the works of Flavius Josephus (Bellum,40 Antiquitates,41 Contra Apionem,42 and Vita43). Accordingly, Luke was a very erudite and creative literary author, who used numerous literary motifs, borrowed from many literary works, in order to illustrate his twofold sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians.

23 24 25 26 27

Cf. the use of Col 2:14 in Lk 16:6–7. Cf. the probable use of Eph 1:5–6 in Lk 1:28.30. Cf. the use of 1 Tim 5:3.5.9 in Lk 2:36–37; 1 Tim 5:18 in Lk 10:7. Cf. the use of Tit 3:13–15 in Lk 7:30; 10:25; 11:45–46.52; 14:3. Cf. the use of Jas 1:1 in Lk 2:25–26.29; Jas 5:17 in Lk 4:25; Jas 2:5 in Lk 6:20; Jas 2:16 in Lk 6:21; Jas 5:1–3 in Lk 6:24; Jas 4:9 in Lk 6:25; etc. 28 Cf. the use of 1 Pet 1:25; 2:2; 5:2–4 in Lk 2:8.10.12.15–20; 1 Pet 4:13–14 in Lk 6:22–23; 1 Pet 1:13 and 2 Pet 1:19 in Lk 12:35; etc. 29 Cf. the use of Jud 1 in Lk 6:16. 30 Cf. the use of Mk 1:9 in Lk 1:26; Mk 6:3 in Lk 1:27; Mk 7:35 in Lk 1:64; etc. 31 Cf. the use of Od. 1.102–327 in Lk 24:15–33. 32 Cf. the use of Fab. 22 in Lk 5:2–5; Fab. 24, 310 in Lk 7:32. 33 Cf. the use of Ion 955 in Lk 2:7.12. 34 Cf. the use of Av. 1432 in Lk 16:3. 35 Cf. the use of Resp. 614cd, 615e in Lk 16:26. 36 Cf. the use of Geogr. 14.5.13–15 in Lk 2:40.52. 37 Cf. the use of the scheme of Vitae parallelae in Lk 1:5–25.26–38.39–45. 38 Cf. the use of Gen 17:1 LXX in Lk 1:6; Gen 30:23 LXX in Lk 1:25; etc. 39 Cf. the use of 4Q271 frag. 2:4–5 in Lk  11:42; CD 11:1–2.5–7 in Lk  13:15; CD 11:13–14a.16–17a in Lk 14:2–5. 40 Cf. the use of B.J. 1.1–3, 17 in Lk 1:1.3; B.J. 2.178; 3.512 in Lk 3:1; B.J. 4.511, 517 in Lk 7:11–12.17; B.J. 4.343 in Lk 11:51; B.J. 5.567–571 in Lk 16:20.23–25; B.J. 7.217 in Lk 24:13bc; etc. 41 Cf. the use of Ant. 1.4 in Lk 1:3; Ant. 13.282–283 in Lk 1:9–13; Ant. 18.34–35 in Lk 3:1–2; Ant. 18.85–87 in Lk 13:1; Ant. 17.219–223, 300, 313–314 in Lk 19:12.14; etc. 42 Cf. the use of C.Ap. 1.55 in Lk 1:2; C.Ap. 1.1, 53 in Lk 1:3. 43 Cf. the use of Vita 9 in Lk 2:42.46–47; Vita 80 in Lk 3:23; Vita 126–127 in Lk 8:3.

210

Bibliography Primary sources Israelite-Jewish Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph [et al.] (5th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1997). Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graece: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. A. Rahlfs and J. Ziegler [et al.], vol. 1–16 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1931-). Septuaginta: Editio altera, ed. A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart (Deutsche Bibelgesell­ schaft: Stuttgart 2006). The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. M. A. Knibb and E. Ullendorf, vol. 1–2 (Clarendon: Oxford 1978). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, ed. D. Barthélemy [et al.], vol. 1–40 (Clarendon: Oxford 1955–2011). Flavii Josephi Opera, ed. B. Niese, vol. 1–7 (Weidmann: Berolini 1887–1895). Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico: Der Jüdische Krieg: Griechisch und Deutsch, ed. O. Michel and O. Bauernfeind, vol. 1–3 (1–3 edn., Kösel: München 1963–1982). Flavius Josèphe, Guerre des Juifs [I–V], ed. A. Pelletier, vol. 1–3 (Collection des Universités de France: Série grecque; Les Belles Lettres: Paris 1975–1982). Flavius Josèphe, Les Antiquités juives, ed. É. Nodet [et al.], vol. 1- (Cerf: Paris 1990-). Flavius Josephus, Aus meinem Leben (Vita): Kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar, ed. F. Siegert, H. Schreckenberg, and M. Vogel [et al.] (2nd edn., Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011). Second Baruch, ed. D. M. Gurtner (Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 5; T&T Clark: London · New York 2009). Der lateinische Text der Apokalypse des Esra [4 Ezra], ed. A. F. J. Klijn (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 131; Akademie: Berlin 1983).

Graeco-Roman Inscriptions and papyri [P.Oxy.] The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, part 6, ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt (GraecoRoman Branch 9; Egypt Exploration Fund: London 1908).

211

Res gestae divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary, ed. A.  E.  Cooley (Cambridge University: Cambridge 2009).

Literary texts Omero [Homer], Odissea, ed. S. West [et al.], trans. [ital.] G. A. Privitera, vol. 1–6 (Scrittori greci e latini; Mondadori: Roma · Milano 1981–1986). Ésope [Aesop], Fables, ed. E.  Chambry (Collection des Universités de France: Série grecque; 4th edn., Les Belles Lettres: Paris 1985). Euripides, Fabulae, ed. J. Diggle, vol. 1–3 (Oxford Classical Texts; 1st-2nd edn., Clarendon: Oxonii 1981–1994). Aristophanes, Fabulae, ed. N. G. Wilson, vol. 1–2 (Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis; Clarendon: Oxonii 2007). Plato, Opera, ed. J.  Burnet, vol.  1–5 (Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis; Clarendon: Oxonii 1961–1964 [repr.]). Theophrastus Eresius, Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. F. Wimmer, vol. 2, De causis plantarum libros VI (B. G. Teubneri: Lipsiae 1854). Strabo, Geography: With an English Translation, ed. H. L. Jones, vol. 1–8 (Loeb Classical Library; Harvard University: Cambridge, Mass. and Heinemann: London 1960–1969 [repr.]). Seneca [iunior], De otio, De brevitate vitae, ed. G. D. Williams (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2003). Plutarchus, Moralia, ed. M.  Pohlenz [et al.], vol. 1–7 (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Teubner: Lipsiae 1952–1978). Plutarque [Plutarch], Vies, ed. R.  Flacelière, E.  Chambry, and M.  Juneaux, vol. 1–15 (Collection des Universités de France: Série grecque; 1st-3rd edn., Les Belles Lettres: Paris 1964–1990). Tacitus, P. Cornelius, Annalen: Lateinisch-deutsch, ed. E. Heller, introd. M. Fuhrmann (Tusculum; 4th edn., Artemis & Winkler: Düsseldorf · Zürich 2002). Suetonius Tranquillus, C., Die Kaiserviten [De vita Caesarum], Berühmte Männer [De viris illustribus]: Lateinisch-deutsch, ed. H. Martinet (Tusculum; Artemis & Winkler: Düsseldorf · Zürich 2000).

Early Christian: New Testament Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. B. Aland [et al.] (28th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2012). The Greek New Testament, ed. B. Aland [et al.] (4th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesell­ schaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 2003). 212

The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, ed. P. W. Comfort and D. P. Barrett (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1999).

Secondary literature Adamczewski, B., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Mark: A  Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013). Adamczewski, B., ‘Koniec teorii źródeł? Genealogie Rdz 4,17 – 5,32 i ich przepracowanie w Nowym Testamencie’, Collectanea Theologica 83 (2013) no. 4, 47–74. Adamczewski, B., List do Filemona, List do Kolosan: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny: Nowy Testament 12; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006). Adamczewski, B., Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012). Adams, S. A., The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 156; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2013). Adrian, M., ‘Der Blick durch die enge Tür: Lk  13.22–30 im architekturgeschichtlichen Kontext der städtischen domus’, New Testament Studies 58 (2012) 481–502. Alexander, L., The preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary convention and social context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1 (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 78; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1993). 213

Alonso Schökel, L. with Bravo, J. M., A Manual of Hermeneutics, trans. L. M. Rosa, ed. B. W. R. Pearson (Biblical Seminar 54; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998). Artyushin, S., Raccontare la salvezza attraverso lo sguardo: Portata teologica e implicazioni pragmatiche del «vedere Gesù» nel Vangelo di Luca (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 203; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2014). Backhaus, K.,‘Christologia Viatorum: Die Emmaus-Episode als christologisches Programm der Apostelgeschichte’, in M. Bär, M.-L.Hermann, and T. Söding (eds.), König und Priester: Facetten neutestamentlicher Christologie, Festschrift C.-P.  März (Erfurter Theologische Schriften 44; Echter: Würzburg 2012), 137–148. Barton, J., ‘Déjà lu: Intertextuality, Method or Theory?’, in K. J. Dell and W. Kynes (eds.), Reading Job Intertextually (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 574; Bloomsbury: New York [et al.] 2013), 1–16. Bates, M. W., ‘Closed-Minded Hermeneutics? A Proposed Alternative Translation for Luke 24:45’, Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010) 537–557. Bates, M. W., ‘Cryptic Codes and a Violent King: A New Proposal for Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16–18’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013) 74–93. Bauckham, R., Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2006). Bauckham, R., Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1990). Bauer, B., Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, vol. 2 (2nd edn., Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1846). Baum, A. D., ‘Lk 1,1–4 zwischen antiker Historiografie und Fachprosa: Zum lite­ raturgeschichtlichen Kontext des lukanischen Prologs’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 101 (2010) 33–54. Bauspieß, M., Geschichte und Erkenntnis im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Eine exege­ tische Untersuchung zu einer christlichen Perspektive auf Geschichte (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 42; Evangelische: Leipzig 2012). Becker, E.-M., Engberg-Pedersen, T., and Müller, M., ‘Mark and Paul – Introductory Remarks’, in eid. (eds.), Mark and Paul: Comparative Essays Part II: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 199; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 1–10. Bendemann, R. von, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ und ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ: Eine exegetische Untersuchung der Texte des sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 101; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2001). Berthelot, K., ‘La place des infirmes et des «lépreux» dans les textes de Qumrân et les évangiles’, Revue Biblique 113 (2006) 211–241. 214

Billings, B. S., ‘“At the Age of 12”: The Boy Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41–52), the Emperor Augustus, and the Social Setting of the Third Gospel’, Journal of Theological Studies, ns 60 (2009) 70–89. Blasi, A.  J., Making Charisma: The Social Construction of Paul’s Public Image (Transaction: New Brunswick · London 1991). Blumenthal, C., ‘Kontinuität und Anfang bei Lukas: Göttliches Handeln an der Zeitwende’, Novum Testamentum 54 (2012) 236–257. Bock, D. L., Luke, vol. 1 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994); vol. 2 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1996). Bøe, S., Cross-Bearing in Luke (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.278; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010). Böhm, M., ‘Nachfolge als Erfahrung: Redaktionskritische Beobachtungen zur Berufung der ersten Jünger bei Markus und Lukas’, in C. Kähler, M. Böhm, and C. Böttrich (eds.), Gedenkt an das Wort, Festschrift W. Vogler (Evangeli­ sche: Leipzig 1999), 24–33. Böhm, M., Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas: Eine Studie zum religionshistorischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der lukanischen Samarientexte und zu deren topographischer Verhaftung (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999). Bormann, L., Recht, Gerechtigkeit und Religion im Lukasevangelium (Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 24; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2001). Bornhäuser, K., Die Geburts- und Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu: Versuch einer zeitgenössischen Auslegung von Matthäus 1 und 2 und Lukas 1–3 (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 2.23; C. Bertelsmann: Gütersloh 1930). Böttrich, C., ‘Was kann aus Nazaret gutes kommen? Galiläa im Spiegel der Jesusüberlieferung und bei Josephus’, in C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (eds.), Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 295–333. Bouwman, G., Das dritte Evangelium: Einübung in die formgeschichtliche Metho­ de, trans. H. Zulauf (Patmos: Düsseldorf 1968). Bovon, F., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 1 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/1; Benzinger: Zürich and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989); vol. 2 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/2; Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996); vol. 3 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/3; Benzinger: Düsseldorf · Zürich and Neukirchener: 215

Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001); vol. 4 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/4; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn and Patmos: Düsseldorf 2009). Brawley, R. L., Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Indiana University: Bloomington · Indianapolis 1995). Brink, L., Soldiers in Luke-Acts: Engaging, Contradicting, and Transcending the Stereotypes (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.362; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014). Brodie, T.  L., MacDonald, D.  R., and Porter, S.  E., ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method—Suggested Guidelines’, in eid. (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 284–296. Brodie, T. L., The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (New Testament Monographs 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004). Brodie, T. L., ‘Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative’, in J. S. Kloppenborg and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke (Library of New Testament Studies 493; Bloomsbury: London · New York 2014), 6–29. Bucur, B.  G., ‘Blinded by Invisible Light: Revisiting the Emmaus Story (Luke 24,13–35)’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 90 (2014) 685–707. Burke, T.  J., ‘The Parable of the Prodigal Father: An Interpretative Key to the Third Gospel’, Tyndale Bulletin 64 (2013) 217–238. Burridge, R. A., ‘Biography’, in S. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 b.c.–a.d. 400 (Brill: Boston · Leiden 2001), 371–391. Burridge, R. A., What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 70; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1992). Busse, U., ‘Dechiffrierung eines lukanischen Schlüsseltextes’, in R.  Hoppe and U.  Busse (eds.), Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien, Festschrift P. Hoffmann (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 93; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998), 423–441. Butticaz, S., ‘“Has God Rejected His People?” (Romans 11.1): The Salvation of Israel in Acts: Narrative Claim of a Pauline Legacy’, in D. P. Moessner [et al.] (eds.), Luke the Interpreter of Israel, vol. 2, Paul and the Heritage of Israel: Paul’s Claim upon Israel’s Legacy in Luke and Acts in the Light of the Pauline Letters (Library of New Testament Studies 452; T&T Clark: London 2012), 148–164.

216

Butticaz, S., ‘Lk 1–2: Auftakt einer tragischen Geschichte? Christliche Identität im Gespräch mit Israel’, in C.  Clivaz, A.  Dettwiler, and L.  Devillers [et al.] (eds.), Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 281; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 328–350. Butticaz, S., ‘La relecture des lapsi pauliniens chez Luc: Esquisse d’une typologie’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10–12 juin 2010 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 248; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 319–330. Campbell, J. G., ‘Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment’, in J. Zsengellér (ed.), Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 166; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 49–81. Cancik, H., ‘Hairesis, Diatribe, Ekklesia: Griechische Schulgeschichte und das Lukanische Geschichtswerk’, Early Christianity 2 (2011) 312–334. Carey, G., ‘Moving Things Ahead: A Lukan Redactional Technique and Its Implications for Gospel Origins’, Biblical Interpretation 21 (2013) 302–319. Carlson, S. C., ‘The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7’, New Testament Studies 56 (2010) 326–342. Clivaz, C., ‘Beyond the Category of “Proto-Orthodox Christianity”: An Enquiry Into the Multivalence of Lk 1.35)’, in C.  Clivaz, A.  Dettwiler, and L.  Devillers [et al.] (eds.), Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 281; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 161–186. Collins, N. L., Jesus, the Sabbath and the Jewish Debate: Healing on the Sabbath in the 1st and 2nd Centuries CE (Library of New Testament Studies 474; Bloomsbury: London [et al.] 2014). Crimella, M., ‘À propos de περισπάομαι en Luc 10,40: Entre philologie et narratologie’, Revue Biblique 117 (2010) 120–125. Crimella, M., ‘The Transformation of Characters in Lk 24: A Narrative Investigation’, Revue Biblique 119 (2012) 173–185. Damm, A., Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem: Clarifying Markan Priority (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 252; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2013). Damm, A., ‘A Rhetorical-Critical Assessment of Luke’s Use of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative’, in J. S. Kloppenborg and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke (Library of New Testament Studies 493; Bloomsbury: London · New York 2014), 88–112. 217

De Santis, M., ‘La visita di Dio alla vedova di Nain (Lc 7,11–17) e la risurrezione di Gesù (Lc 24)’, Rivista Biblica 62 (2014) 49–74. Delobel, J.,‘L’onction par la pécheresse: La composition littéraire de Lc., VII, 36–50’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 42 (1966) 415–475. Denaux, A. and Van Wiele, I., ‘The Meaning of the Double Expression of Time in Luke 24,29’, in J. Verheyden, G. Van Belle, and J. G. van der Watt (eds.), Miracles and Imagery in Luke and John, Festschrift U. Busse (Bibliotheca Epheme­ ridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 218; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2008), 67–88. Denaux, A., ‘Luke’s Story of Jesus’ Resurrection (Lk 23,54–24,53)’, in id., Studies in the Gospel of Luke: Structure, Language and Theology (Tilburg Theological Studies / Tilburger Theologische Studien 4; Lit: Münster 2010), 277–306. Denaux, A., ‘Old Testament Models for the Lukan Travel Narrative: A  Critical Survey’, in id., Studies in the Gospel of Luke: Structure, Language and Theology (Tilburg Theological Studies / Tilburger Theologische Studien 4; Lit: Münster 2010), 39–70. Denaux, A., ‘The Theme of Divine Visits and Human (In)hospitality in Luke-Acts: Its Old Testament and Graeco-Roman Antecedents’, in J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 142; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1999), 255–279. Denaux, A., ‘The Use of Scripture in Luke 9:51–56’, in B. J. Koet, S. Moyise, and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition, Festschrift M. J. J. Menken (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 148; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 57–79. Derrett, J. D. M., ‘Oracles, Myth, and Luke’s Nativity Story’, Novum Testamentum 54 (2012) 258–268. Descreux, J., ‘Apocalypse 12 ou de l’art d’accommoder les mythes’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10–12 juin 2010 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 248; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 345–359. Dillon, R. J., The Hymns of Saint Luke: Lyricism and Narrative Strategy in Luke 1–2 (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 50; Catholic Biblical Association: Washington 2013). Dimant, D., ‘4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature’, in M. Henze, G. Boccaccini, and J. M. Zurawski (eds.), Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 31–61. 218

Dinkler, M.  B., ‘“The Thoughts of Many Hearts Shall Be Revealed”: Listening in on Lukan Interior Monologues’, Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (2015) 373–399. Doering, L., ‘Jesus und der Sabbat im Licht der Qumrantexte’, in J.  Frey, E. E. Popkes, and S. Tätweiler (eds.), Jesus, Paulus und die Texte von Qumran (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.390; Mohr Sieb­ eck: Tübingen 2015), 33–61. Doering, L., Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 78; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999). Dowling, E. V., ‘“To the Ends of the Earth”: Attitudes to Gentiles in Luke-Acts’, in D. C. Sim and J. S. McLar (eds.), Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Library of New Testament Studies 499; Bloomsbury: London [et al.] 2013), 191–208. Dykstra, T., Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A  New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel (OACB: St Paul, Minn. 2012). Easter, M.  C., ‘“Certainly This Man Was Righteous”: Highlighting a Messianic Reading of the Centurion’s Confession in Lk 23:47’, Tyndale Bulletin 63 (2012) 35–51. Eckey, W., Das Markusevangelium: Orientierung am Weg Jesu: Ein Kommentar (2nd edn., Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008). Elbert, P., ‘Paul of the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians: Critique and Considerations’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 95 (2004) 258–268. Elbert, P., ‘Possible Literary Links between Luke-Acts and Pauline Letters Regarding Spirit-Language’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 226–254. Enslin, M. S., ‘Luke, the Literary Physician’, in D. E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Festschrift A. P. Wikgren (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 33; E. J. Brill: Leiden 1972), 135–143. Estrada, B., ‘The Last Beatitude: Joy in Suffering’, Biblica 91 (2010) 187–209. Evans, C. A., ‘Luke’s Good Samaritan and the Chronicler’s Good Samaritans’, in T.  Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 3, The Gospel of Luke (Library of New Testament Studies 376; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 32–42. Evans, C. F., ‘The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel’, in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift R.  H.  Lightfoot (Basil Blackwell: Oxford 1955), 37–53. 219

Fabris, R., ‘La rilettura profetica delle Scritture in Luca’, in G. Benzi, D. Scaiola, and M. Bonarini (eds.), La profezia tra l’uno e l’altro Testamento, Festschrift P.  Bovati (Analecta Biblica Studia 4; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2015), 311–326. Fattorini, G., ‘«Siamo servi inutili» perché servi del Regno: Analisi retorica di Lc 17,7–10’, Rivista Biblica 60 (2012) 329–355. Finkelpearl, E., ‘Pagan Traditions of Intertextuality in the Roman World’, in D. R. MacDonald (ed.), Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Trinity International: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 78–90. Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Anchor Bible 28; Doubleday: Garden City, NY 1981). Fleddermann, H. T., ‘Mid-Level Techniques in Luke’s Redaction of Q’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 79 (2003) 53–71. Foster, P., ‘Echoes without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent Scholarly Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38.1 (2005) 96–111. Frauenlob, T., Die Gestalt der Zwölf-Apostel im Lukasevangelium: Israel, Jesus und die Zwölf-Apostel im ersten Teil des lukanischen Doppelwerks (Forschung zur Bibel 131; Echter: Würzburg 2015). Fuller, M. E., ‘Isaiah 40.3–5 and Luke’s Understanding of the Wilderness of John the Baptist’, in T. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 3, The Gospel of Luke (Library of New Testament Studies 376; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 43–58. Furlan Taylor, D., ‘The Monetary Crisis in Revelation 13:17 and the Provenance of the Book of Revelation’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009) 580–596. Ganser-Kerperin, H., Das Zeugnis des Tempels: Studien zur Bedeutung des Tempelmotivs im lukanischen Doppelwerk (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, nf 36; Aschendorff: Münster 2000). García Serrano, A., ‘Anna’s Characterization in Luke 2:36–38: A Case of Conceptual Allusion?’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 76 (2014) 464–480. García Serrano, A.. The Presentation in the Temple: The Narrative Function of Lk 2:22–39 in Luke-Acts (Analecta Biblica 197; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012). Garland, D. E., Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2011). Genette, G., Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982).

220

Gerber, D., «Il vous est né un Sauveur» La construction du sens sotériologique de la venue de Jésus en Luc-Actes (Le Monde de la Bible 58; Labor et Fides: Genève 2008). Gillmayr-Bucher, S., ‘Intertextuality: Between Literary Theory and Text Analysis’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 13–23. Goodrich, J. K., ‘Voluntary Debt Remission and the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–13)’, Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (2012) 547–566. Goulder, M. D., ‘Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline Letters?’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 13 (1986) 97–112. Goulder, M. D., Luke: A New Paradigm (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989). Green, J.  B., The Gospel of Luke (New International Commentary on the New Testament; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 1997). Green, J. B., ‘Narrative Criticism’, in id. (ed.), Methods for Luke (Methods in Biblical Interpretation; Cambridge University: New York 2010), 74–112. Grindheim, S., ‘Luke, Paul, and the Law’, Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 335–358. Hartsock, C., ‘The Healing of the Man with Dropsy (Luke 14:1–6) and the Lukan Landscape’, Biblical Interpretation 21 (2013) 341–354. Hays, C. M., ‘Hating Wealth and Wives? An Examination of Discipleship Ethics in the Third Gospel’, Tyndale Bulletin 60 (2009) 47–68. Hays, C. M., Luke’s Wealth Ethics: A Study in Their Coherence and Character (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.275; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010). Hays, R.  B., ‘The Liberation of Israel in Luke-Acts: Intertextual Narration as Countercultural Practice’, in R. B. Hays, S. Alkier, and L. A. Huizenga (eds.), Reading the Bible Intertextually (Baylor University: Waco, Tex. 2009), 101–117. Heil, C. and Klampfl, T., ‘Theophilos (Lk 1,3; Apg 1,1)’, in C. G. Müller (ed.), „Licht zur Erleuchtung der Heiden und Herrlichkeit für dein Volk Israel“: Studien zum lukanischen Doppelwerk (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 151; Philo: Hamburg 2005), 7–28. Heininger, B.,‘Familienkonflikte: Der zwölfjährige Jesus im Tempel (Lk 2,41–52)’, in C. G. Müller (ed.), „Licht zur Erleuchtung der Heiden und Herrlichkeit für dein Volk Israel“: Studien zum lukanischen Doppelwerk (Bonner Biblische Bei­träge 151; Philo: Hamburg 2005), 49–72. Heutger, N., ‘Münzen im Lukasevangelium’, Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 27 (1983) 97–101. 221

Hinds, S., Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry (Roman Literature and Its Contexts; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1998). Hogeterp, A. L. A., ‘New Testament Greek as Popular Speech: Adolf Deissmann in Retrospect: A Case Study in Luke’s Greek’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 102 (2011) 178–200. Hollander, J., The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (University of California: Berkeley · Los Angeles · London 1981). Holmås, G. O., Prayer and Vindication in Luke-Acts: The Theme of Prayer within the Context of the Legitimating and Edifying Objective of the Lukan Narrative (Library of New Testament Studies 433; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011). Holthuis, S., Intertextualität: Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption (Stauffenburg Colloquium 28; Stauffenburg: Tübingen 1993). Hoppe, R., ‘Lk 5,1–11 unter anthropologischem Aspekt’, in J. Verheyden, G. Van Belle, and J. G. van der Watt (eds.), Miracles and Imagery in Luke and John, Festschrift U.  Busse (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 218; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2008), 35–45. Hotze, G., Jesus als Gast: Studien zu einem christologischen Leitmotiv im Lukas­ evangelium (Forschung zur Bibel 111; Echter: Würzburg 2007). Huizenga, L.  A., ‘The Old Testament in the New, Intertextuality and Allegory’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38.1 (2005) 17–35. Ilan, T., Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1, Palestine 330 bce – 200 ce (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 91; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2002). Inselmann, A., Die Freude im Lukasevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur psychologischen Exegese (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.322; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012). Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies [Adversus haereses], ed. A.  Rousseau and L. Doutreleau [et al.] (Sources chrétiennes 100, 152–153, 210–211, 263–264, 293–294; Cerf: Paris 1965–1982). Jipp, J. W., Divine Visitations and Hospitality to Strangers in Luke-Acts: An Interpretation of the Malta Episode in Acts 28:1–10 (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 153; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013). Johnson, L.  T., The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina 3; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991). Just, A. A., Jr., Luke 9:51–24:53 (Concordia Commentary; Concordia: Saint Louis, Mo. 1997). Justin, Apologie pour les chrétiens, ed. C. Munier (Sources chrétiennes 507; Cerf: Paris 2006).

222

Kalimi, I., ‘Robbers on the Road to Jericho: Luke’s Story of the Good Samaritan and Its Origin in Kings/Chronicles’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 85 (2009) 47–53. Kellermann, U., ‘Die Klage der Witwe: Anmerkungen zu möglichen sozialen und rechtlichen Hintergründen von Lukas 18,2–5’, Biblische Notizen, nf 142 (2009) 105–117. Kiessel, M.-É., ‘Intertextualité et hypertextualité en Jn 11,1–12,11’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 81 (2005) 29–56. Kim, C.-Y., Das Gesetzesverständnis Jesu im Lukasevangelium (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/939; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main 2013). Kim, H.-S., Die Geisttaufe des Messias: Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu einem Leitmotiv des lukanischen Doppelwerks: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie und Intention des Lukas (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 81; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1993). Klein, H., Das Lukasevangelium (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 1/3; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2006). Klumbies, P.-G., ‘Himmelfahrt und Apotheose Jesu in Lk 24,50–53’, in id., Von der Hinrichtung zur Himmelfahrt: Der Schluss der Jesuserzählung nach Markus und Lukas (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 114; Neukirchener: NeukirchenVluyn 2010), 172–196. Koch, S., ‘Zur literarischen Bedeutung der Sapientia Salomonis im Neuen Testament’, in E. Tigchelaar (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 270; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2014), 183–194. Koet, B. J., ‘Isaiah in Luke-Acts’, in id., Dreams and Scripture in Luke-Acts: Collected Essays (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 42; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2006), 51–79. Koet, B.  J., ‘Purity and Impurity of the Body in Luke-Acts’, in id., Dreams and Scripture in Luke-Acts: Collected Essays (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 42; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2006), 81–95. Kok, M. J., ‘The Flawed Evangelist (John) Mark: A Neglected Clue to the Reception of Mark’s Gospel in Luke-Acts?’, Neotestamentica 46 (2012) 244–259. Kotecki, D., ‘Księga Kapłańska w Nowym Testamencie’, Collectanea Theologica 80 (2010) no. 4, 135–154. Kowalski, B., Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes (Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 52; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2004). Kuecker, A., The Spirit and the “Other”: Social Identity, Ethnicity and Intergroup Reconciliation in Luke-Acts (Library of New Testament Studies 444; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011). 223

Kuhn, K.  A., ‘Deaf or Defiant? The Literary, Cultural, and Affective-Rhetorical Keys to the Naming of John (Luke 1:57–80)’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013) 486–503. Kuhn, K. A., Luke: The Elite Evangelist (Paul’s Social Network: Brothers and Sisters in Faith; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 2010). Kynes, W., ‘Intertextuality: Method and Theory in Job and Psalm 119’, in K. J. Dell and P. M. Joyce (eds.), Biblical Interpretation and Method, Festschrift J. Barton (Oxford University: Oxford 2013), 201–213. Kyrychenko, A., The Roman Army and the Expansion of the Gospel: The Role of the Centurion in Luke-Acts (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 203; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014). Lagrange, M.-J., Évangile selon saint Luc (Études Bibliques; J.  Gabalda: Paris 1921). Lambrecht, J., ‘“In Those Days” (Luke 2,1): A Reply to Michael Wolter’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 87 (2011) 419–423. Lambrecht, J., ‘Response to Garwood P. Anderson: Parables in Luke’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 86 (2010) 177–183. Lampe, P., Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.18; 2nd edn., J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1989). Lang, F. G., ‘Abraham geschworen – uns gegeben: Syntax und Sinn im Benediktus (Lukas 1.68–79)’, New Testament Studies 56 (2010) 491–512. Lange, A., ‘In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature’, in P. S. Alexander, A. Lange, and R. J. Pillinger (eds.), In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 3–40. Lanier, G. R., ‘Luke’s Distinctive Use of the Temple: Portraying the Divine Visitation’, Journal of Theological Studies, ns 65 (2014) 433–462. Lee, D.H., Luke-Acts and ‘Tragic History’: Communicating Gospel with the World (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.346; Mohr Sieb­ eck: Tübingen 2013). Lehtipuu, O., The Afterlife Imagery in Luke’s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 123; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2007). Leibner, U., Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 127; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009).

224

Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., and Jones, H. S. [et al.], A Greek-English Lexicon (9th edn. with a revised supplement; Clarendon: Oxford 1996). Lincoln, A. T., ‘Luke and Jesus’ Conception: A Case of Double Paternity?’, Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013) 639–658. Lindemann, A., ‘Jesus, Israel und die Völker: Zum Jesusbild der neutestamentlichen Evangelien’, in id., Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte: Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 241; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 368–405. Lindemann, A., Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 58; J.  C.  B.  Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1979). Litwak, K.  D., ‘A Coat of Many Colors: The Role of the Scriptures of Israel in Luke  2’, in T.  Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 3, The Gospel of Luke (Library of New Testament Studies 376; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 114–132. Litwak, K. D., Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 282; T&T Clark: London · New York 2005). Luz, U., ‘Die Geburtsgeschichten Jesu und die Geschichte’, in P. von Gemünden [et al.] (eds.), Jesus – Gestalt und Gestaltungen: Rezeptionen des Galiläers in Wissenschaft, Kirche und Gesellschaft, Festschrift G. Theißen (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 100; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2013), 167–191. Łabuda, P., ‘Słuchanie słowa i łamanie chleba jako memoria resurrectionis (Łk 24, 13–15)’, Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 64 (2011) 235–254. MacDonald, D. R., ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s Imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 211–225. MacDonald, M. Y., ‘The Art of Commentary Writing: Reflections from Experience’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.3 (2007) 313–321. Mahieu, B., Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and His Sons in Their Struggle for Recognition: A Chronological Investigation of the Period 40 BC–39 AD With a Time Setting of New Testament Events (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 208; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012). Mainville, O., ‘Le messianisme de Jésus: Le rapport annonce / accomplissement entre Lk 1,35 et Ac 2,33’, in J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts 225

(Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 142; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1999), 313–327. Mallen, P., ‘Genesis in Luke-Acts’, in M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), Genesis in the New Testament (Library of New Testament Studies 466; T&T Clark: London · New York 2012), 60–82. Mallen, P., The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts (Library of New Testament Studies 367; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008). Marguerat, D., ‘«Il a comblé de biens les affamés et renvoyé les riches les mains vides» (Lc 1,53): Riches et pauvres, un parcours lucanien’, in F. Bianchini and S. Romanello (eds.), Non mi vergogno del Vangelo, potenza di Dio, Festschrift J.-N. Aletti (Analecta Biblica 200; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012), 327–350. Marguerat, D., ‘Meals in Acts’, in id., Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 310; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 148–161. Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Paternoster: Carlisle and William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1979). Marshall, M., The Portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 254; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2015). Martin, M. W., ‘Progymnastic Topic Lists: A Compositional Template for Luke and Other Bioi?’, New Testament Studies 54 (2008) 18–41. Martin, T.  W., ‘What Makes Glory Glorious? Reading Luke’s Account of the Transfiguration Over Against Triumphalism’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.1 (2006) 3–26. Martínez, R., The Question of John the Baptist and Jesus’ Indictment of the Religious Leaders: A Critical Analysis of Luke 7:18–35 (James Clarke: Cambridge 2011). Marulli, L., ‘“And How Much Do You Owe …? Take Your Bill, Sit Down Quickly, and Write …” (Luke 16:5–6)’, Tyndale Bulletin 63 (2012) 199–216. März, C.-P., ‘“Brot teilen, dass das Leben wächst…”: Die Mahlgemeinschaften Jesu in der Perspektive des Lukasevangeliums’, in R. Hoppe and M. Reichardt (eds.), Lukas – Paulus – Pastoralbriefe, Festschrift A. Weiser (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 230; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2014), 39–51. März, C.-P., ‘Die theologische Interpretation der Jesus-Gestalt bei Lukas: Anmerkungen zur theologischen Intention des lukanischen Doppelwerkes’, in C. Kähler, M. Böhm, and C. Böttrich (eds.), Gedenkt an das Wort, Festschrift W. Vogler (Evangelische: Leipzig 1999), 134–149. Mason, S., Josephus and the New Testament (2nd edn., Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2003). 226

Mason, S., Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2009). Maxwell, K.  R., Hearing between the Lines: The Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke-Acts and its Literary Milieu (Library of New Testament Studies 425; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010). Mayer, E., Die Reiseerzählung des Lukas (Lk 9,51 – 19,10): Entscheidung in der Wüste (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/554; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1996). McMahan, C. T., ‘More than Meets the “I”: Recognition Scenes In The Odyssey and Luke 24’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 35 (2008) 87–107. Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 1998). Mickiewicz, F., Ewangelia według św. Łukasza, vol. 1 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny: Nowy Testament 3/1; Święty Paweł: Częstochowa 2011); vol. 2 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny: Nowy Testament 3/2; Święty Paweł: Częstochowa 2012). Mielcarek, K., ‘Obraz Syjonu w Ps 134 źródłem natchnienia dla Łukasza w przedstawieniu roli Jeruzalem w Łk-Dz’, Roczniki Biblijne 1 (2009) 191–200. Moessner, D. P., ‘How Luke writes’, in M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge University: Cambridge · New York 2005), 149–170. Moles, J., ‘Luke’s Preface: The Greek Decree, Classical Historiography and Christian Redefinitions’, New Testament Studies 57 (2011) 461–482. Morgan, J. M., ‘How Do Motifs Endure and Perform? Motif Theory for the Study of Biblical Narratives’, Revue Biblique 122 (2015) 194–216. Morlan, D.  S., Conversion in Luke and Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Exploration (Library of New Testament Studies 464; Bloomsbury: London [et al.] 2013). Mount, C., Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002). Müller, C. G., Mehr als ein Prophet: Die Charakterisierung Johannes des Täufers im lukanischen Erzählwerk (Herders Biblische Studien 31; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2001). Müller, C. G., ‘“Nicht in einer Ecke” (Apg 26,26): Anmerkungen zum universalen Horizont des lukanischen Erzählwerks’, in Z.  Godlewski (ed.), Przemawiaj do nich moimi słowami, Festschrift R.  Rumianek (Stampa: Warszawa 2007), 413–443 [also in id., Lukas als Erzähler und Charakter-Zeichner: Gesammelte Studien zum lukanischen Doppelwerk (Herders Biblische Studien 69; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2012), 53–102]. 227

Müller, W. G., ‘Interfigurality: A Study on the Interdependence of Literary Figures’, in H. F. Plett (ed.), Intertextuality (Research in Text Theory / Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 15; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1991), 101–121. Muraoka, T., ‘Luke and the Septuagint’, Novum Testamentum 52 (2012) 13–15. Nadella, R., Dialogue not Dogma: Many Voices in the Gospel of Luke (Library of New Testament Studies 431; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011). Nassauer, G., ‘Gegenwart des Abwesenden: Eidetische Christologie in Lk 1.39–45’, New Testament Studies 58 (2012) 69–87. Neirynck, F., ‘Luke 4,16–30 and the Unity of Luke-Acts’, in J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 142; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1999), 357–395. Neirynck, F., ‘The Minor Agreements and Q’, in R. A. Piper (ed.), The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75; E. J. Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 53–72. Neirynck, F., ‘Recent Developments in the Study of Q’, in J. Delobel (ed.), Logia: Les paroles de Jésus, Festschrift J. Coppens (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 59; Peeters and Leuven University: Leuven 1982), 29–75. Neirynck, F., ‘The Reconstruction of Q and IQP / CritEd Parallels’, in A.  Lindemann (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University: Leuven and Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Sterling, Va. 2001), 53–147. Nodet, É., ‘The Emphasis on Jesus’ Humanity in the Earliest Kerygma’, in J. H. Charlesworth, B. Rhea, and P. Pokorný (eds.), Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions: The Second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007 (William B. Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2014), 721–752. Nodet, É., ‘Machéronte et Jean-Baptiste’, Revue Biblique 121 (2014) 267–282. Nodet, É., ‘Théophile (Lc 1,1–4; Ac 1,1)’, Revue Biblique 119 (2012) 585–595. Noël, F., The Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke: Interpretation of Lk 9,51–19,28 (Collectanea Biblica et Religiosa Antiqua; Wetenschappelijk Comité voor Godsdienstgeschiedenis van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten van België: Brussel 2004). Nolland, J., Luke 1–9:20 (Word Biblical Commentary 35A; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1989); Luke 9:21–18:34 (Word Biblical Commentary 35B; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993); Luke 18:35–24:53 (Word Biblical Commentary 35C; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993). O’Kane, M., ‘“The Bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22): Father Abraham in the Visual Imagination’, Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 485–518. 228

O’Leary, A. M., Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Library of New Testament Studies 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006). Origène, Homélies sur S. Luc, ed. H. Crouzel, F. Fournier, and P. Périchon (Sour­ ces chrétiennes 87; Cerf: Paris 1962). Ortlund, D.  C., ‘“And Their Eyes Were Opened, and They Knew”: An InterCanonical Note on Luke 24:31’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53 (2010) 717–728. Ostermann, S., ‘Lepton, Quadrans und Denar: Drei Münzen im Jerusalemer Tempel zur Zeit Jesu’, in G. Theißen [et al.] (eds.), Jerusalem und die Länder: Ikonographie – Topographie – Theologie, Festschrift M. Küchler (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 70; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009), 39–56. Ostmeyer, K.-H., ‘Die Genealogien in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Vita des Josephus: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmung ihrer Charakteristika, Intentionen und Probleme’, in C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (eds.), Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 209; Mohr Sieb­ eck: Tübingen 2007), 451–468. Paffenroth, K., The Story of Jesus according to L (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 147; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1997). Pagliara, C., ‘L’analēmpsis elianica di Gesù (Lc 9,51; 24,51; At 1.2.11.22)’, in A. Pitta and G. Di Palma (eds.), «La parola di Dio non è incatenata» (2Tm 2,9), Festschrift C. Marcheselli-Casale (Supplementi alla Rivista Biblica 54; Dehoniane: Bologna 2012), 165–185. Parsons, M. C., Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2007). Perkins, L., ‘“The Finger of God”: Lukan Irony and Old Testament Allusion as Narrative Strategy (Luke 11.20 and Exodus 8.19 [LXX 8.15])’, in T.  Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 3, The Gospel of Luke (Library of New Testament Studies 376; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 148–160. Pervo, R. I., Acts: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 2009). Pervo, R. I., ‘Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists’, in T. E. Phillips (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Acts (Mercer University: [s.l.] 2009), 29–46. Pervo, R. I., Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge: Santa Rosa, Calif. 2006). 229

Pervo, R.  I., ‘The Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Letters: Aspects of Luke as an Interpreter of the Corpus Paulinum’, in D.  Marguerat (ed.), Reception of Paulinism in Acts / Réception du Paulinisme dans les Actes des Apôtres (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 229; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 141–155. Petersen, A.  K., ‘Textual Fidelity, Elaboration, Supersession or Encroachment? Typological Reflections on the Phenomenon of Rewritten Scripture’, in J.  Zsengellér (ed.), Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 166; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 13–48. Pfremmer De Long, K., Surprised by God: Praise Responses in the Narrative of Luke-Acts (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 166; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2009). Phillips, T. E., ‘Why Did Mary Wrap the Newborn Jesus in “Swaddling Clothes”? Luke 2.7 and 2.12 in the Context of Luke-Acts and First-Century Literature’, in S. Walton [et al.] (eds.), Reading Acts Today, Festschrift L. C. A. Alexander (Library of New Testament Studies 427; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011), 29–42. Pitts, A.  W., ‘Source Citation in Greek Historiography and in Luke(-Acts)’, in S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 9; Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context 1; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 349–388. Pogor, C., ‘Deux expressions portant sur la résurrection des morts: Étude de cas sur 4Q521 2 ii 5–8; 12–13 et Mt 11,5 par. Lc 7,22’, in G. Van Oyen and T. Shepherd (eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 249; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 345–359. Poirier, J. C., ‘Jesus as an Elijianic Figure in Luke 4:16–30’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009) 349–363. Prince, D.  T., ‘The “Ghost” of Jesus: Luke  24 in Light of Ancient Narratives of Post-Mortem Apparitions’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.1 (2006) 287–301. Radl, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Kommentar, vol. 1 (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2003). Rastoin, M., ‘Le génie littéraire et théologique de Luc en Lc 15.11–32 éclairé par le parallèle avec Mt 21.28–32’, New Testament Studies 60 (2014) 1–19. Ravens, D., Luke and the Restoration of Israel (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 119; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1995). 230

Regev, E., ‘Temple Concerns and High-Priestly Prosecutions from Peter to James: Between Narrative and History’, New Testament Studies 55 (2009) 64–89. Reichardt, M., ‘Vom Jordan nach Ephesus: Taufe und Geistempfang im Markus­ evangelium und im lukanischen Doppelwerk’, in R. Hoppe and M. Reichardt (eds.), Lukas – Paulus – Pastoralbriefe, Festschrift A. Weiser (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 230; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2014), 13–38. Reiser, M., ‘Numismatik und Neues Testament’, Biblica 81 (2000) 457–488. Reuter, R., ‘Clarifying the Issue of Literary Dependence’, in K. Liljeström (ed.), The Early Reception of Paul (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 99; Finnish Exegetical Society: Helsinki 2011), 23–35. Rice, P., ‘The Rhetoric of Luke’s Passion: Luke’s Use of Common-place to Amplify the Guilt of Jerusalem’s Leaders in Jesus’ Death’, Biblical Interpretation 21 (2013) 355–376. Riffaterre, M., Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd edn., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993). Rindoš, J., He of Whom It Is Written: John the Baptist and Elijah in Luke (Österreichische Biblische Studien 38; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Ringe, M. S., Jesus’ Parable of the Rich Fool: Luke 12:13–34 among Ancient Conversations on Death and Possessions (Society of Biblical Literature Early Christianity and Its Literature 6; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011). Rosik, M., ‘The Greek Motif of the Cyclic Journey in the Gospel of Luke’, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 5 (2008) 165–173. Rossé, G., Il Vangelo di Luca: Commento esegetico e teologico (3rd edn., Città Nuova: Roma 2001). Roth, D. T., The Text of Marcion’s Gospel (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 49; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015). Rusam, D., ‘Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts’, in M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), Deuteronomy in the New Testament (Library of New Testament Studies 358; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 63–81. Sandnes, K.  O., The Gospel ‘According to Homer and Virgil’: Cento and Canon (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 138; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011). Schaefer, C., Die Zukunft Israels bei Lukas: Biblisch-frühjüdische Zukunftsvorstellungen im lukanischen Doppelwerk im Vergleich zu Röm 9–11 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 190; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012). Schellenberg, R. S., ‘The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul’s Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts’, Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2015) 193–213.

231

Schenk, W., ‘Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on his Reception’, in S. Drai­ sma (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, Festschrift B.  van Iersel (Kok: Kampen 1989), 127–139. Schiffner, K., Lukas liest Exodus: Eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme ersttestamentlicher Befreiungsgeschichte im lukanischen Werk als Schrift-Lektüre (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament: Neunte Folge 12; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2008). Schneider, G., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/2; Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh and Echter: Würzburg 1977). Schnelle, U., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Uni-Taschenbücher 1830; 8th edn., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2013). Schramm, T., Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 14; Cambridge University: London · New York 1971). Schreiber, S., Weihnachtspolitik: Lukas 1–2 und das Goldene Zeitalter (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 82; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009). Schröter, J., ‘Heil für die Heiden und Israel: Zum Zusammenhang von Christologie und Volk Gottes bei Lukas’, in C. Breytenbach, J. Schröter, and D. S. Du Toit (eds.), Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift E.  Plümacher (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 57; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2004), 285–308. Schultz, B., ‘Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk.  19:11–27)’, Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 105–127. Schürmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1–9,50 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/1; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1969). Seccombe, D., ‘Incongruity in the Gospel Parables’, Tyndale Bulletin 62 (2011) 161–172. Sellin, G., ‘Komposition, Quellen und Funktion des Lukanischen Reiseberichtes (Lk. ix 51-xix 28)’, Novum Testamentum 20 (1978) 100–135. Sellner, H. J., Das Heil Gottes: Studien zur Soteriologie des lukanischen Doppelwerks (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 152; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2007). Shellard, B., New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 215; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002).

232

Shelton, J., ‘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)’, in J. S. Kloppenborg and J.  Verheyden (eds.), The Elijah-Elisha Narrative in the Composition of Luke (Library of New Testament Studies 493; Bloomsbury: London · New York 2014), 65–87. Smit, J., ‘The Function of the Two Quotations from Isaiah in Luke 3–4’, in B. J. Koet, S. Moyise, and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition, Festschrift M. J. J. Menken (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 148; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 41–55. Smith, D.  A., ‘Seeing a Pneuma(tic Body): The Apologetic Interests of Luke 24:36–43’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72 (2010) 752–772. Spencer, F. S., Salty Wives, Spirited Mothers, and Savvy Widows: Capable Women of Purpose and Persistence in Luke’s Gospel (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2012). Stein, R. H., Luke (New American Commentary 24, Broadman & Holman: Nashville, Tenn. 1992). Stenschke, C.  W., Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.108; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999). Sterling, G. E., Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 64; E. J. Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1992). Steudel, A., ‘The Damascus Document (D) as a Rewriting of the Community Rule (S)’, Revue de Qumran 25 (2012) 605–620. Storr, G.  C., De fonte evangeliorum Matthaei et Lucae (Fues: Tubingae 1794) [reworked in J. C. Velthusen, C. T. Kuinoel, and G. A. Rupert (eds.), Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 3 (Iohannes Ambrosius Barth: Lipsiae 1796), 140–172]. Strauss, M. L., The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 110; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1995). Székely, J., Structure and Theology of the Lucan “Itinerarium” (Lk  9,51–19,28) (Szent Jeromos Katolikus Bibliatársulat: Budapest 2008). Szukalski, J. A., Tormented in Hades: The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) and Other Lucan Parables for Persuading the Rich to Repentance (Pickwick: Eugene, Ore. 2013). Tarazi, P. N., Galatians: A Commentary (Orthodox Biblical Studies; St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1994). Tarazi, P. N., The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001). 233

Taylor, J., ‘Recognition scenes in the Odyssey and the gospels’, in T. L. Thompson and P. Wajdenbaum (eds.), The Bible and Hellenism: Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Copenhagen International Seminar; Acumen: Durham 2014), 247–257. Tertullien, Contre Marcion [Adversus Marcionem], ed. R. Braun and C. Mores­ chini (Sources chrétiennes 365, 368, 399, 456, 483; Cerf: Paris 1990–2004). Tiwald, M., Wanderradikalismus: Jesu erste Jünger – ein Anfang und was davon bleibt (Österreichische Biblische Studien 20; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002). Tuckett, C.  M., ‘The Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Book of Ezekiel’, in H.  J.  de Jonge and J.  Tromp (eds.), The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence (Ashgate: Aldershot · Burlington, Vt. 2007), 87–101. Uytanlet, S., Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography: A Study on the Theology, Literature, and Ideology of Luke-Acts (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.366; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014). Vorholt, R., Das Osterevangelium: Erinnerung und Erzählung (Herders Biblische Studien 73; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2013). Walker, W.  O., Jr., ‘Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (1985) 3–23. Walker, W. O., Jr., ‘The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources’, New Testament Studies 54 (2008) 479–495. Wasserberg, G., Aus Israels Mitte – Heil für die Welt: Eine narrativ-exegetische Studie zur Theologie des Lukas (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 92; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998). Watson, F., Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2013). Weissenrieder, A., ‘Stories Just Under the Skin: lepra in the Gospel of Luke’, in S. Alkier and A. Weissenrieder (eds.), Miracles Revisited: New Testament Miracle Stories and their Concepts of Reality (Studies on the Bible and Its Reception 2; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2013), 73–100. Wolter, M., ‘Die Hirten in der Weihnachtsgeschichte (Lk  2,8–20)’, in id., Theo­ logie und Ethos im frühen Christentum: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und Lukas (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 236; Mohr Sieb­ eck: Tübingen 2009), 355–372. Wolter, M., Das Lukasevangelium (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 5; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008). Wong, E. K. C., Evangelien im Dialog mit Paulus: Eine intertextuelle Studie zu den Synoptikern (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 89; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012). 234

Wright, D. P., Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University: New York 2009). Yamazaki-Ransom, K., The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative (Library of New Testament Studies 404; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010). Yoon, D. I., ‘The Ideological Inception of Intertextuality and its Dissonance in Current Biblical Studies’, Currents in Biblical Research 12 (2012) 58–76. Ziegler, D., Dionysos in der Apostelgeschichte – eine intertextuelle Lektüre (Religion und Biographie 18; Lit: Berlin 2008). Zugmann, M., ‘Lukas liest LXX: Septuaginta-Rezeption und -Mimesis des dritten Evangelisten’, Protokolle zur Bibel 23 (2014) 41–63. Zwiep, A. W., The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 87; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1997).

235

Index of ancient sources Old Testament Genesis 1–3  197, 199, 203 1:1 197 1:3–31 198 1:31–2:2 197 2:2 197 2:3 198 3:6 198 3:7 198 3:8–9 198 3:10–19a 198 3:19b–23 198 3:24 199 4:9–11 134 7:1 102 7:7 186 7:10–13 186 7:21–23 186 10 118 11:30 42 13:10–11 69 13:12–13 69 13:15 52 15:1 68 16:11 48 17:1  42, 210 n. 38 17:3 52 17:7–8 52 17:14 53 17:16 42 17:19 48 17:22–23 52 18:1–19:3 199 18:3 47 18:6 151–2

18:11 42 18:14 49 18:18–32 169 19:17 186 19:24–25 186 19:26 187 21:5–7 180 21:6 53 21:20 54 24:7 101 24:32 104 25:24–25 57 26:3 54 29:33 59 30:13 52 30:23  45, 210 n. 38 31:42 52 32:29 61 32:31–32 61 33:4 171 37:11 65 41:16 170 41:31 170 41:42–44 171 41:42 171 41:54 170 41:55–57 170 42:18 52 45:14 171 46:29 171 49:7 59

6:20 47 6:23  41, 178 8:5  198 n. 277 8:15 129 9:9–11 178 12:10 74 12:11 140 12:15 152 12:19–20 152 12:34 152 12:39 152 13:2 59 15:1–2 65 15:11 65 15:20–21 47 15:24 167 16:2 167 16:7–8 167 19:4 187 19:24 176 20:9 149 21:37 191 22:24 194 27:20–21 140 29:14  74, 147, 165 29:17  142 n. 96 29:34 74 34:6 94 34:10 150 34:21 149 34:28 81

Exodus 2:14 136 3:1–2 58 3:2 42 4:31 54

Leviticus 4:11–12  147, 165 4:27–5:13 181 5:11 59 5:21–26 181 237

8:17  147, 165 11:13 187 11:27 178 12:2–4 59 12:3  53, 59 12:8 59 16:12 42 16:27  147, 165 19:14 180 19:15 137 21:18–20 161 21:18 100 22:4 100 24:2–4 140 25:36–37 194 26:18 181 26:24 181 26:28 181 26:42 54 Numbers 6:2–4 44 8:4 138 11:25–26 118 14:2–12 167 14:22–23 167 14:27–37 167 14:33 168 15:26–31 181 19:5  147, 165 19:11–16 98 19:16 133 32:13 168 32:15 168 Deuteronomy 1–26 29 1:27 167 1:34–35 167 2:4–8 51 2:12 165

238

5:13 149 6:4–5 175 6:13 82 6:16 82 8:3 81–2 8:15  121, 127 10:17 137 10:18 188 10:20 82 10:21 52 11:24 144 12:28 130 14:12 187 14:22 133 15:2 93 15:8–10 94 16:1–17 62 20:7 46 22:23–24 46 22:25 176 22:28 176 23:20 194 24:1–2 177 24:17 188 26:8 52 27:19 188 29:22  165 n. 164 32:11  157, 187 Joshua 6:13 54 11:21 50 15:21–62 50 15:48–60 50 15:63 50 21:9–16 50 23:23 180 Judges 1:8 50 1:21 50

5:24 51 6:12 47 9:45  165 n. 164 10:6 175 13:3 48 13:4 44 13:5  44, 48 13:7 44 13:14 44 13:25 44 17:8 50 21:16  198 n. 277 Ruth 4:19  80 n. 181 1 Samuel 1:11 52 1:2–25 61 2:1–10 52 9:2  56 n. 88 15:10 68 16:1–13 57 20:6 57 20:28 57 21:13 54 2 Samuel 7:4 68 7:8–16 48 1 Kings 1:48 54 10:1–10 131 10:1–6 131 10:4 131 10:5 138 10:6 131 10:8 131 10:10 131 10:27 183

17:1–16  96 n. 251 17:1 86 17:2 68 17:4–6 138 17:8–24 86 17:8 68 17:9–10 99 17:17–24  96, 99 18:1 86 18:43–44 144 19:10 44 19:14 44 19:19–20 117 19:19 162 22:38 178 2 Kings 1:10 115 1:12 115 2:6 201 2:9 201 2:11 201 2:15  118, 201 4:32–37  96, 98 5:1–19 86 5:1–14  96–7, 100, 209 5:1–2 96 5:1 96 5:5 96 5:8–10 97 5:13–14 184 5:15 184 9:37 165 1 Chronicles 1–9 78 2:9–10  80 n. 181 16:36 202 17:24 54 23:6–24:19 42 23:30 42

24:5–19 42 28:13 42 28:21 42 2 Chronicles 6:22–23 181 24:20  134 n. 73 28:15 123 30:11 61 Nehemiah 8:6 202 9:32 122 Tobit 3:8 106 3:17 106 12:14–15 45 14:13 170 Judith 9:3 52 13:18 51–2 Esther 7:8 176 1 Maccabees 2:1  80 n. 182 4:28–34 164 2 Maccabees 2:13 122 8:9–24 164 10:19 190 16:9 175 Job 11:2 101 11:12 101 14:1 101 15:14 101

16:9 154 25:4 101 Psalms 6:9 154 12[11]:8 102 14[13]:1 137 18[17]:1 54 18[17]:3 54 23[22]:5 104 35[34]:16 154 37[36]:12 154 39[38]:7 137 40[39]:3 54 44[43]:22[21] 175 57[56]:10–11 53 57[56]:10 53 69[68]:5 135 69[68]:31 52 82[81]:1–2 137 84[83]:5 92 89[88]:2 52 89[88]:11 52 91[90]:4 157 91[90]:11–12 82 91[90]:11b  82 n. 192 91[90]:12a  82 n. 192 91[90]:12b  82 n. 192 98[97]:3 52 102[101]:20 54 106[105]:10 54 107[106]:9  52, 92 107[106]:10 54 112[111]:10 154 118[117]:26 157 119[118]:164 181 126[125]:6 92 Proverbs 11:1 175 25:6–7 160 239

Ecclesiastes 8:15 137 Song of Songs 1:12 104 Wisdom of Solomon 3:2 110 7:6 110 9:3 54 15:8 137 Sirach 4:22 137 11:19 137 33:20–22 170 35:13 137 39:14 138 41:8 92 48:2 44 48:10 44 48:12 44 50:8 138 50:20–21 201 50:22 202 Isaiah 5:2 147 5:4 147 5:6 147 5:7 146–7 7:14  48, 57–8 8:6 146 8:12–13 133 8:14 133 10:3 133 11:2 133 24:18 94 26:19 100 28:16 133 29:14 121

240

29:18 100 29:23 126 35:5–6 100 40:3–5 69 40:3 54 40:4 69 40:5b 69 40:6–9 133 41:8–9 52 42:18 100 43:5–6 154 43:20–21 133 47:11 94 50:6 93 53:4–6 133 53:9 133 53:12 133 54:1 180 56:6 175 58:6  84, 209 61:1–2 83–4 61:1  84, 100, 209 61:2 84 65:13 92 Jeremiah 1:1 68 1:5  53, 68 3:12 114 8:1 122 8:2 175 13:13 122 48[31]:44 94 Lamentations 2:16 154 Baruch 1:16 122 2:24 122

Ezekiel 1:1 78 8:3 82 11:17 165 17:2 167 17:23 151 21:31 52 24:3 167 31:6 151 34:4 168 34:5 168 34:6 168 34:13 168 34:14 168 34:15–16 167 34:16  168, 192 34:21 168 34:25  167–8, 198 n. 277 36:23 126 47:8 50 Daniel 4:7–9[10–12] 151 4:17–18[20–21] 151 5:1 162 7:13 141 7:28 65 8:15–26 45 8:16 45 9:5 122 9:20–27 45 9:21 45 10:7–8 45 10:15–17 45 Susanna [Daniel 13] 22–23 107 Hosea 1:6 133

1:9 133 2:25 133 Jonah 3:2–5 131 3:6 120 Micah 5:1–2 57 7:6 143 Haggai 2:16  152 n. 123 Zechariah 1:1 41 11:17 168 Malachi 1:8–9 137 3:24[23] 44 New Testament Matthew 2:1–9  41 n. 27 2:12–18  41 n. 27 Mark 1:1–16:8 19 1–7 204 1:2–3  69, 101 1:2 101 1:2bc 69 1:4–5 101 1:4 68 1:4ab 69 1:4a 68 1:4b 68 1:4c 69 1:5 68

1:5a 70 1:5b 70 1:6 101–2 1:7–8 73–4 1:7c 74 1:7e 74 1:8a 74 1:8b 74 1:9–11 77 1:9  46, 76–7, 145, 152 n. 123, 210 n. 30 1:10 77 1:10c 78 1:11 77–8 1:12–13 81 1:14–15 101 1:14  76, 83–4, 145 1:15  84, 139 1:15c 119 1:16–20 88 1:16 88 1:17–18 116 1:17 89 1:19 89 1:20 116 1:21–39 86 1:21–34  86 n. 209 1:21–27 147 1:21  83, 120 1:22 87 1:23 148 1:24 83 1:27  83, 87 1:28  83, 87 1:29–31 88 1:29 87 1:30–31 76 1:31 87 1:33  87, 120 1:34  87, 156 1:36–38 87 1:39  87, 145

1:40–3:19 89 1:40–45 90 1:40 184 1:42 184 1:44 184 1:45 184 2:1–2 90 2:1  52 n. 74, 90 2:3 148 2:4 191–2 2:5–7 105 2:5 182 2:6 90 2:12  64, 149 2:14–17 192 2:14–16  71, 191 2:14–15 116 2:14 191 2:15–17  101, 103 2:15–16 189 2:15 166–7 2:15bc 166 2:15c 166 2:16 167 2:16a 167 2:16d 167 2:17  116, 169, 191 2:21–22 90 2:24 149 3:1–6 147 3:1 148 3:1b 158 3:1c 158 3:2  149, 157 3:2b 158 3:4a–f 158 3:4b 158 3:4g 158 3:5cd 159 3:6  149, 156 3:6b 158 3:7–12 91 241

3:7–8 91 3:14  105, 182 3:16 103 3:17 115 3:18 90 3:22  90, 129–30 3:23–26 129 3:27 129 3:28–30 130 3:28–29 135 3:31–8:33  107, 203 3:31–35 107 3:31–34 125 3:33–34 107 3:35 125 4:1–34 107 4:1–2 89 4:9 166 4:21–22 131 4:21 132 4:22  132, 135 4:23 166 4:24–25 194 4:24 182 4:24de 94 4:25 195 4:26–29 107 4:26 150–1 4:29 118 4:30–32  107, 150 4:30 102 4:31–32 102 4:31  151, 182 4:32 151 4:33–34 107 4:35–41 107 4:40 182 5:1–20 108 5:1 108 5:5  70 n. 152 5:20 108 5:21–6:44 108 242

5:22–24 97–9 5:22 184 5:23 149 5:27 104 5:29 156 5:34  105, 182, 185 5:35–37 98–9 5:35–36 97 5:38–42 99 5:38–39 99 5:41  99, 100 n. 268, 152 n. 123 5:42  63–4, 99 6:1–6 108 6:2–6 85 6:2–5 147 6:3–6 85 6:3  47, 80, 85, 90, 210 n. 30 6:4 161 6:5 148–9 6:7–11 117 6:8–9 118 6:9a 118 6:10b 119 6:10cd 119 6:11 119 6:12 120 6:13 121 6:13c 119 6:14–29 156 6:14 76 6:17–29 108 6:17–18 75–6 6:17 76 6:22  76, 160 6:24–27 76 6:25 50 6:30  120, 182 6:37  124 n. 45 6:38 162 6:39 155

6:41 162 6:44  124 n. 45 6:45–8:26  19, 50, 108 6:45  108 n. 296 6:46  108 n. 296 6:48–52 200 6:52 65 7:1 90 7:2 133 7:6 133 7:18–19 133 7:21–23 133 7:26 128 7:27–28 178 7:29–30 106 7:32 149 7:34  152 n. 123 7:35  54, 148, 210 n. 30 8:11–12 131 8:11 129 8:15  135, 156, 185 8:17 65 8:19 162 8:21 65 8:23 149 8:25 149 8:27–33 108 8:27 108 8:31  62, 64–5, 114, 186 8:33 116 8:34–9:1 109 8:34 164 8:34f 109 8:35 187 8:35d 109 8:36c–37 109 8:38 135 9:1 126 9:1g 109 9:2–9 110 9:7 110 9:14–40  111, 203

9:18 128 9:28 128 9:31  64, 114 9:33–34 120 9:34–35 195 9:35–37 120 9:35 107 9:37 120 9:40 130 9:41–10:32 113 9:42 181 9:43 74 9:45 135 9:47 135 9:50a 165 9:50bc 165 9:50b 165 10:11–12 177 10:13–52  190, 203 10:16 190 10:17–22 191–2 10:17 191 10:17b 122 10:17ef 122 10:19 123 10:21  123, 139, 191 10:23 190 10:24 190 10:25 176 10:29–30 162 10:29  163–4, 190 10:30 190 10:31  155, 190 10:32–34 114 10:32  190, 195 10:34 64 10:35–45 190 10:35 143 10:37 195 10:38–39 143 10:41 143 10:42–45  140, 195

10:43 107 10:45–46 192 10:45  107, 191 10:46  152 n. 123, 190 10:47–48  46, 57, 184 10:50 190 10:52 185 11:1–16:8  195, 203 11:1 202 11:10 126 11:11–14 195 11:11  105, 202 11:13–14 146 11:16 195 11:17d 157 11:20–25 195 11:22–23 182 11:23 183 11:24 126 11:25 126 11:25ab 126 11:25b 126 11:25cd 127 11:25d 126 11:25e 126–7 12:1–2 146 12:8–9 146 12:9 146 12:12 146 12:13 156 12:14–17 71 12:28–34  175, 195 12:28–30 164 12:30–31 122 12:34 123 12:38–39 133 12:38 159 12:39 159–60 12:42 145 13:1 94 13:3–4 185 13:3  140, 195

13:9bc 135 13:9d 135 13:10  195, 200 13:11a 135 13:11c–h 136 13:15–16 186 13:18 195 13:20 195 13:21  185–6, 195 13:22–23 195 13:27  187, 195 13:28 146 13:31 176 13:32  141, 195 13:33 195 13:34–37 140 13:34–36 192–3 13:34–35 140 13:34  140, 195 13:35–37 195 13:35 141 13:36 140 13:37 142 14:3–9 195 14:3  103–4, 202 14:14  58, 94 14:17 105 14:18–25 195 14:21 180 14:22 198 14:26–31 195 14:27–31 101 14:33–34 195 14:35 126 14:37–38 195 14:37  103, 110 14:38c 127 14:39–42 195 14:40–41 110 14:47 195 14:49 84 14:50–52 195 243

14:55–15:1 195 14:56–60 195 15:1–15 67 15:2 195 15:4–5 195 15:6 195 15:7–11 195 15:7 160 15:8–10 195 15:11 160 15:15 160 15:16–20 195 15:21 56 15:22–32 195 15:25 195 15:29 195 15:34–36 195 15:40–41 105 15:40  47, 106–7 15:43–44 67 15:44–45 195 15:46  70 n. 152 15:47  47, 106 16:1–2 195 16:1  47, 105–7 16:3–4  70 n. 152 16:3 195 16:6–7  198 n. 280 16:6 196 Luke 1:1–9:50  35–111, 203, 210 1:1–8:3 203 1:1–4:30  23 n. 46 1–2 22 1:1–4  22, 35–40 1:1–4a 28 1:1–2 208 1:1  210 n. 40 1:2–3 21 1:2  22, 210 n. 42 244

1:3  20, 206 n. 9, 210 nn. 40–2 1:4 27 1:4b 28 1:5–80 43 1:5–25  45, 210 n. 37 1:5–12 40–3 1:5  49–50, 57, 208 1:5a 55 1:6  45, 210 n. 38 1:9–13  43, 210 n. 41 1:11–20 43 1:13–25 43–5 1:13e 53 1:15  205 n. 6 1:18 42 1:25  210 n. 38 1:26–38  23, 43, 45–9, 206 n. 10, 210 n. 37 1:26–28 23 1:26–27 183 1:26  50, 52, 87, 206 n. 12, 208, 210 n. 30 1:27  15, 49 n. 60, 57–8, 78, 125, 210 n. 30 1:28  119, 210 n. 24 1:29 74 1:30  125, 210 n. 24 1:31–33  49 n. 60 1:31–32  23, 206 n. 8 1:31  43, 57–8, 1:32 57 1:34–35  58, 78 1:34  15, 125 1:35  23, 206 n. 8 1:36 73 1:38–39  47, 125 1:39–80 49–54 1:39–45  45, 210 n. 37 1:39  87, 206 n. 12 1:40–41 118 1:40 119

1:44 118 1:45  125, 130 1:46  47, 125 1:55 17 1:56  47, 125, 205 n. 6, 206 n. 11 1:59–63 43 1:59 59 1:64  210 n. 30 1:65 87 1:67 41 1:80  62, 65, 68 2:1–40 54–62 2:1–39 22 2:1–7 17 2:1–2  41 n. 26 2:1  66, 82 2:2–5 209 2:2 208 2:4  46–7, 49 n. 60, 50, 87 2:5  47, 125 2:7  210 n. 33 2:8  210 n. 28 2:10  210 n. 28 2:12  210 nn. 28, 33 2:14 143 2:15–20  210 n. 28 2:16  47, 125 2:19  47, 125 2:22 50 2:25–26  210 n. 27 2:25  50, 140 2:29  210 n. 27 2:34  47, 125 2:35 74 2:36–37  140, 148, 210 n. 25 2:37 15 2:38 140 2:39  46, 83 2:40–52 23

2:40  65, 210 n. 36 2:41–52 62–5 2:41–45 50 2:42  148, 210 n. 43 2:43–47 117 2:46–47  210 n. 43 2:46 114 2:47 166 2:48–49 117 2:51  46, 83, 125 2:52  210 n. 36 3:1–2  18, 207 n. 20, 210 n. 41 3:1–2a 65–7 3:1  87, 148, 206 n. 11, 210 n. 40 3:2a 208 3:2b 67–8 3:3–11 68–71 3:4 101 3:7d–11 203 3:8 145 3:9 147 3:10–14 18 3:10–11 72 3:12–14 73 3:12–13 71–2 3:12 73 3:14  16–17, 72–3, 204 3:15  60, 73–4 3:16–17 74 3:16  73, 100 3:17–18 208 3:17 75 3:18 75–6 3:19–20  75–6, 108 3:19  18, 99, 156, 209 3:20–21 76 3:20  77, 99 3:20a 138 3:21–22  77–9, 188 3:22a 209

3:23–38  16, 23, 78–80,

82, 207 n. 20, 209 3:23  47, 49 n. 60, 210 n. 43 3:24 49 3:26 120 3:29 49 3:30 47 3:31  46, 49 n. 60, 57 4:1–13 81–3 4:1–2 83 4:2b–d 209 4:14–18:34 115 4:14–21 82–4 4:14–15  86 n. 209 4:16–30  83, 108 4:16  85, 206 n. 18 4:18 209 4:22–44 84–8 4:22–30  206 n. 18 4:25  143, 165, 210 n. 27 4:29  46, 83 4:31  96, 206 n. 12 4:33 106 4:36 106 4:37 118 4:38–39 88 4:43 139 5:1–11  88–89, 209 5:2–5  210 n. 32 5:5 184 5:7  206 n. 19 5:10  206 n. 19 5:12–6:19 89–91 5:17  64, 87, 183 5:18–19 191 5:20 182 5:21–22 74 5:30 191 5:32  145, 169 6:7 157 6:8 74

6:13 182 6:14 88 6:16  210 n. 29 6:18 106 6:20–26 91–2 6:20  109, 210 n. 27 6:21  210 n. 27 6:22–23  210 n. 28 6:23–26 204 6:24  210 n. 27 6:25  210 n. 27 6:27–38 92–4 6:28 16 6:39–49 94–5 6:48–51 64 7:1–17 96–9 7:1–10 209 7:1  206 n. 12 7:8 72 7:9 182 7:11–12  210 n. 40 7:12 61 7:14  100 n. 268 7:17  210 n. 40 7:18–30 99–102 7:18–19 209 7:21–22  206 n. 15 7:30  210 n. 26 7:31–35 102–3 7:32  210 n. 32 7:36–50  103–5, 195 7:36  132, 157 7:38 184 7:41–47 184 7:44–46 184 7:50 182 8:1–3 105–7 8:1 139 8:3  210 n. 43 8:4–9:22  107–8, 203 8:8 165 8:15 143 245

8:16 132 8:16fg 132 8:17 152 8:19–21 125 8:19–20 125 8:19 191 8:21 125 8:22–23 88 8:24 184 8:25 182 8:26 50 8:33 88 8:39 50 8:42–43 148 8:42 63 8:48 182 8:51 98 8:54 98 8:55 49 8:56  64, 85 9:1–5 117 9:1 106 9:3 118 9:8 49 9:9 155 9:10  120, 182 9:12  58 n. 98, 106 9:19 49 9:22  62, 65, 114 9:23–27 109 9:23 164 9:28–36 110 9:35 166 9:37–50  111, 203 9:40 128 9:46–47  60, 74 9:51–24:53 113–203, 208, 210 9:51–19:28  35, 113, 153 9:51–18:14  19, 29 9:51–16:15  208 n. 22 9:51–56 113–16 246

9:51–53 183 9:52–54 123 9:57–62  116–17, 205 n. 7 9:58b 156 10:1–16 117–20 10:1  121, 125 10:7  210 n. 25 10:8  16, 125 10:10–12 125 10:13 145 10:17–22 120–1 10:18  77, 186 10:19 127 10:21–22 78 10:21  122, 126 10:23–24 121–2 10:25–37 122–4 10:25–28  175, 195 10:25  102, 133, 210 n. 26 10:30–37 116 10:30 125 10:31–33 183 10:38–11:13 124–8 10:38–42 16–17 10:39 47 10:41 15 10:42 47 11:14–26 128–30 11:17–18 120 11:27–28 130 11:27 125 11:28 125 11:29–32 130–1 11:32 145 11:33–36 131–2 11:33 152 11:37–54 132–4 11:37 157 11:42  210 n. 39 11:45–46  102, 210 n. 26

11:47–49 157 11:49 182 11:51  210 n. 40 11:52  102, 210 n. 26 12:1–12 134–6 12:1 185 12:2 152 12:6–7 138 12:13–14 136 12:15–21 137 12:22–31 138–9 12:25  76 n. 168, 138 12:31  76 n. 168, 138 12:32–34 139 12:35–40 140–1 12:35  210 n. 28 12:36–38 195 12:37  107, 155, 183 12:41–48  17, 141–2 12:49–53 142–3 12:50 190 12:54–57 144 12:58–59 144–5 13:1–5 145–6 13:1  210 n. 41 13:6–9  146–7, 206 n. 14 13:8 165 13:10–17 147–50 13:15  210 n. 39 13:18–21 150–2 13:22–30 152–5 13:26 119 13:30 190 13:31–33 155–6 13:31 158 13:33–34 153 13:34–35 156–7 14:1–24 166 14:1–6 157–9 14:1 162 14:2–5  210 n. 39 14:3–6 209

14:3  102, 210 n. 26 14:7–11 159–61 14:7 162 14:11 189–90 14:12–14 161 14:12  159, 162 14:13 163 14:15–24 162–3 14:19  144, 178 14:21  119, 154 14:25–33 163–4 14:34–35 165–6 15:1 166–7 15:2 166–7 15:3–10 167–9 15:5  206 n. 19 15:7 145 15:8–9 124 15:10 145 15:11–32 169–72 15:22 118 16:1–9 172–4 16:1 182 16:3  210 n. 34 16:6–7  210 n. 23 16:10–15 174–5 16:16  14, 139, 154, 175–6, 206 n. 17 16:17  14, 176–7 16:18 177 16:19–31 177–80 16:20  210 n. 40 16:23–25  210 n. 40 16:26  209, 210 n. 35 16:28–29 162 16:29 154 16:30 145 16:31  49, 154 17:1–2 180–1 17:1 182 17:3–4 181 17:5–6 182–3

17:5  76 n. 168, 138 17:7–10 183 17:8–10 107 17:11–19 183–5 17:18 183 17:20–37 185–7 17:21 109 17:23–24 195 17:25 65 18:1–8 187–8 18:1 189 18:3 61 18:5 61 18:9–14 189–90 18:11 17 18:14 160 18:15–43  190, 203 18:18–23 191 18:25 176 18:31 106 18:33  49, 62, 114 18:34 65 18:37 83 19:1–10 190–2 19:7  58 n. 98 19:11–28 192–5 19:11–27 18 19:11  76 n. 168, 138 19:12  210 n. 41 19:14  210 n. 41 19:20–23 152 19:21–22 118 19:29–24:12  195, 203 19:29–21:38  113, 195 19:41–44 156 19:48 166 20:11–12  76 n. 168, 138 20:14 74 20:27 60 20:34–35 186 21:7 185 21:12 135

21:15 136 21:18 135 21:28 148 21:33 176 21:38 166 22:1–24:53 113 22:1–24:12 195 22:1 62 22:8–13 114 22:11  58 n. 98 22:14–30 17 22:17–18 17 22:19–20 16–17 22:19 198 22:22 180 22:24–27 190 22:24 17 22:26–27 107 22:27 140 22:30  129, 190, 200 22:35 118 22:41 126 22:42 126 22:45 126 23:5 183 23:8–11 155 23:26 56 23:28–29 130 23:33 110 23:35 110 23:36 72 23:46 126 23:47 96 23:51 140 24  99 n. 263 24:1–51  114 n. 5 24:3–7  62, 64 24:7  49, 65, 114 24:8 65 24:9 196 24:10  64, 106 24:11 196 247

24:13–50 23 24:13–35 196–9 24:13bc  210 n. 40 24:15–33  210 n. 31 24:18 50 24:21  62, 114, 200 24:22 64 24:25–27 23 24:26–27 180 24:26 65 24:27–35 203 24:27 154 24:34 16–17 24:36–49 199–201 24:36 119 24:37–43  206 n. 16 24:38  60, 74 24:44–46  65, 180 24:44 114 24:46  49, 62, 114 24:47  69, 145 24:49 23 24:50–53 201–2 24:50–51  206 n. 13 24:50  197 n. 272 24:51  23, 114 24:52  197 n. 272 John 18:13 67 Acts of the Apostles 1–12  22, 108 1:1  21, 37–8, 40, 206 n. 9 1:2  114 n. 5 1:3  114 n. 5 1:4 201 1:5 74 1:8  79, 163, 201 1:12–5:42 79 1:13–14 106 248

1:13  90, 202 1:14  47, 125 1:15 49 1:21–22  37 n. 6 1:22  114 n. 5 1:26 49 2:1  114 n. 5, 202 2:9–11  97 n. 254 2:22 83 2:33 201 2:36 38 2:38 145 3:2 163 3:19 145 4:6 67 4:12 153 4:14 60 4:19 144 4:27 67 4:35 49 4:36–37 131 5:1–11 18 5:15  119, 154 5:31 145 5:32 128 5:34–39 40 5:34 64 5:37  56, 69 6:1  61, 163 6:7 40 6:9 56 7:6 143 7:25 65 7:29 143 7:36 143 7:52 157 7:54 154 7:58–59 157 7:58  56 n. 88 8:7 163 8:12 139 8:14–25 79

8:15 188 8:26 83 8:27 163 9:3  46, 132 9:6 46 9:9 62 9:11  52 n. 74, 62 9:17 37 9:23–26  55 n. 85 9:23  55 n. 85 9:27 37 9:29 38 9:30–11:25  62, 65 9:32–11:18 79 9:32–42 99 9:39 61 9:40 126 9:41 61 10 98 10:1  96, 163 10:2 52 10:7 72 10:22  52, 96 10:38 46 10:47 134 11:1–3 98 11:1 99 11:2–3 100 11:4–17 100 11:14 153 11:16 74 11:17 134 11:18 145 11:20 56 11:22–24 160 11:25 64 12:3  76 n. 168 12:4 72 12:6 72 12:7–16 64 12:17  50, 97 n. 254, 108 12:18 72

13–28 108 13:1–15:12 131 13:1  56, 160 13:3–4 188 13:6–12 18 13:9  56 n. 88 13:15  154, 175 13:16 52 13:17 143 13:19 143 13:24 145 13:26 52 13:32–33  46, 57 13:45 60 13:46 162 13:52 202 14:3 131 14:22 153 14:27 153 15:1 153 15:5 135–6 15:7–11 79 15:8  128, 135–6 15:10  148, 173, 181 15:11  53, 148, 153 15:12 131 15:14–17  60 n. 108 15:14 60 15:19–21 173 15:20 174 15:24–25 39 15:28–29 173 15:28 72 15:29 174 15:35 160 16:10–17 21 16:10 37 17:6 186 17:30 145 18:5–6 162 18:22 118 19:4 145

19:13 38 19:21 114 20:5–15 21 20:15 156 20:21 145 20:22–24 114 20:24 156 20:28–29 139 20:36 126 21:1–18 21 21:5 126 21:7 118 21:13 114 21:17–18 22 21:19–25 149 21:19 118 21:20–25 60 21:20–21 65 21:25 173–4 21:32  72, 96 21:35 72 21:38 186 21:39  52 n. 74, 62 22:3  52 n. 74, 62 22:6 132 22:9 132 22:11 132 23:6–8 158 23:9 40 23:23 72 23:24 124 23:27  72 n. 157, 124 23:31  72, 124 23:34 62 24:14 154 24:15 140 26:4 37 26:7 61 26:8 37 26:10  76 n. 169 26:13–16 37 26:13 132

26:16 37 26:17b–18 121 26:20 145 26:22–23 180 26:23 37 26:26–32 40 27:1–28:16  21–2, 37 27:31–32 72 27:42 72 28:3  70 n. 150 28:16 72 28:17–31 22 28:19 60 28:22 60 28:23 154 28:25–28 162 28:30–31  21, 37 Romans 1:1 49 1:2 54 1:3–4 47 1:3  46–8, 49 n. 60, 57–8, 63, 78, 197, 207 1:4  48, 78, 197, 207 1:7–12 196 1:16 83 1:22 165 2:1–4 93 2:1  93, 144 2:3–4 93 2:3  70, 93, 144 2:4  70, 145 2:5 70 2:7 70 2:8 70 2:13 70 2:18 144 2:19 94 2:20 121 2:25 70 2:27–28 70 249

3:5 70 3:21 175 3:23–26 189 4:1–2 70 4:9–10 70 4:11–12 70 4:13 16 4:15 70 4:16–25 70 5:5 128 5:14 16 6:7 189 7:2–3 164 7:2 148 7:5 179 8:6a 179 8:13ab 179 8:26–27 188 8:29 57 8:34 63 9:3  52, 161 9:5 164 9:7–8 70 9:33 150 10:8–9  51, 166 10:11 150 10:13 157 10:17 182 10:21 60 11:1–5 61 11:3 157 11:16–22 71 11:26  47, 61 12:8 71 12:14–20 93 12:14  16, 93 12:20  71, 93 13:1 65 13:5 65 13:8–9 93 13:8 104 13:8ab 104 250

13:8cd 104 14:17 202 15:19–24 186 15:19  163, 201 15:22–25 196 15:25–31  148 n. 111 15:25–28 147 15:26–27 145 15:26  71, 145, 151 15:27–28 71 15:27  127, 145 15:30–31 196 16:7 52 16:11 52 16:17–18 180 16:20 121 16:21 52 1 Corinthians 1:2  118, 157 1:18 121 1:19–22 121 1:22 129 1:23–24 121 1:24 103 1:27 150 1:30 103 2:14 165 3:8  92, 94 3:10–15 95 3:10–13 164 3:13 74 3:14  92, 94 3:15 74 4:1–7 173 4:1–2  17, 142 4:1 37 4:15 52 5:3–5 18 5:4 157 5:7 152 6:1–2 174

6:9–11 189 6:9–10  17, 175, 189 6:11 157 7:1 162 7:8  61, 138, 162 7:10–11  164, 177 7:29 162 7:32–35 16–17 7:32–34  15, 138 7:32 162 7:32c 138 7:32d–33 138 7:34–35 125 7:34 61 7:38  15, 125 7:39 148 7:40 15 9:1–2 183 9:1  37, 39 9:4 183 9:5  76, 138, 162 9:6 131 9:7–10 183 9:7  16, 73 9:7a 17 9:13–14 183 9:14 72 9:16–19 183 9:17–18  92, 94 9:23–25 183 9:23 92 10:1 164 10:16–17 17 10:27  16, 119 11:1 207 11:2 37 11:16–34 17 11:16 17 11:18–33 155 11:18–29 187 11:23–25 16–17 12:3 51

12:12–25 187 14:14–15 188 14:32 121 15:3–11 37 15:3–4 200 15:4–5  17, 99, 199 15:4 64 15:5  16, 200 15:6–7  114 n. 5 15:8–10 160 15:8  37, 39 15:35–50  200 n. 288 15:50  49, 175 16:1–4  148 n. 111 16:9 153 2 Corinthians 2:12 153 2:13 131 2:14 118 3:7  70 n. 152 5:15 63 8–9  148 n. 111 8:6 21 8:16 21 8:23  21, 131 9:6–12 142 9:10 151 11:2 177 11:3–4 177 11:13 118 11:23–24 123 11:32–33  55, 209 11:32  55 n. 85 11:33  55 n. 85 12:7–8 82 12:18 131 Galatians 1–6  113–203, 208, 210 1:1–6:13  208 n. 22 1:1–6:10 113

1:1–3:1  35–111, 203, 210 1:1–2:17 203 1:1–14 113–16 1:1–3 35–40 1:1–2a 182 1:1  117, 124, 182 1:1ab 208 1:4–10 40–3 1:4b  55–6, 208 1:6–7 36 1:6 138 1:7  43, 138, 196 1:10 49 1:11–15b 43–5 1:11–14 138 1:12 138 1:12c 87 1:13–21 38 1:13 123 1:15–16  138, 206 n. 10 1:15–16b 122 1:15–16a  116–17, 121, 205 n. 7 1:15  42 n. 31, 68, 86, 205 n. 6, 206 n. 12 1:15a  77–8, 139 1:15bc 53 1:15c–16a 45–9 1:15c 208 1:16  76 n. 168, 148–9, 206 n. 8, 207 1:16ab  58, 78, 139 1:16a  51, 77–8, 83, 87, 121 1:16b  68, 86, 117 1:16b–17 49–54 1:16b–17a 117–20 1:17–18  206 n. 11 1:17  55 n. 85, 205 n. 6, 206 n. 12 1:17bc 120–1

1:17b  55 n. 85, 117–18 1:17c  46, 58, 62, 208 1:18  88, 127, 148–9 1:18–21 54–62 1:18–19  87, 153–4 1:18ab  119, 121–2 1:18a  52–3, 123, 208–9 1:18bc 53 1:18b 53 1:18c–19 119 1:18c–19a 122–4 1:19 88 1:19a 125 1:19b–20 124–8 1:21–23 128–30 1:21 63 1:22–24 62–5 1:24 130 2:1  21, 65–7, 83, 130–1, 147–9, 206 nn. 11, 20 2:1b 139 2:2–3 22 2:2  86, 124 2:2a–c 131–2 2:2a 67–8 2:2b–d 63 2:2bc  68–71, 203 2:2c 84 2:2d–3 73 2:2d–f  66, 71–2, 132–4, 143 2:2d  66, 122, 208 2:3  21, 72–3, 132, 134–6 2:4–5  76, 136 2:4  65, 72–5, 133, 135 2:5ab 208 2:5a 74 2:5b 75 2:6  75–7, 124, 132 2:6a–e  137, 209 2:6a 141–2 2:6fg 138–9 251

2:6f 141–2 2:7  207 n. 20 2:7–9  96, 127 2:7–8  59, 87–8 2:7ab  77–8, 139, 209 2:7b  79, 84 2:7c  78–80, 140–1, 209 2:8–9  59, 82 n. 191 2:8–9b 141–2 2:8a  81–3, 209 2:8b–9c 83 2:8b  82–4, 209 2:9  91, 97 n. 254, 108, 124, 131–3, 160, 206 nn. 18–19 2:9a–c 84–7 2:9c–e  88–9, 209 2:9cd  142–3, 145 2:9e 143–5 2:9fg  89–91, 144–6 2:9f 108 2:9g 108 2:10  72 n. 156, 142, 145, 152, 206 n. 14 2:10a  71–3, 91–2, 127, 133, 137, 139, 145–9, 151, 204 2:10bc  72–3, 92–4, 148, 151 2:10b 147–50 2:10c 150–2 2:11–12  133, 142 2:11–12b 152–5 2:11–12a 94–5 2:11  108, 206 n. 12 2:11a  96–7, 209 2:11bc 76 2:12–21 155 2:12–13 147 2:12–13a 161 2:12  65, 85–6, 90, 122, 126–7, 133, 142, 153, 252

158, 160, 206 n. 18 2:12ab 98 2:12a  88, 100–1, 161, 209 2:12b  59, 88, 96–9, 103, 209 2:12c–13 161 2:12c–f  59, 99–102, 155–6 2:12de  94, 157, 162–3, 206 n. 15 2:12f  154, 156–7 2:13–14 102–3 2:13  94, 135, 144, 149–50 2:13a  157–60, 209 2:13b 159–61 2:14–21 133 2:14–17 94 2:14a–c 161 2:14d–g 162–3 2:14de 59 2:15–3:3 163–4 2:15–17c 103–5 2:15  145, 162 2:16–17 101 2:16–17c 106 2:16 154 2:17 145 2:17de 105–7 2:19–20 109 2:21–3:1 110 2:21  101, 161 2:21a 104 3:1–14 53 3:1–2 197 3:1 169–72 3:2–5 165 3:2  166, 182 3:3 165 3:3a 165 3:3b 165

3:4–5 165–6 3:5 182 3:6–18 154 3:6–9 166 3:8–9 54 3:10–11 167 3:11 168 3:12–14 167–9 3:13  206 n. 19 3:14  54, 171, 201 3:15–18 169–72 3:16 17 3:18 136 3:19–21 172–4 3:23–24 174–5 3:25–29 175–6 3:26–29  206 n. 17 3:29 170 4:1–11 176–7 4:2 172 4:4–5 172 4:4  48, 59, 61–2, 80 4:10 177 4:12–20 177 4:13–15 38 4:21–31 177–80 4:22–31 136 4:22b 170 4:24ab 209 4:25  50, 121 4:30 209 5:1–3 180–1 5:2–6  132, 135 5:2–4b 53 5:4  180–2, 185 5:4c 53 5:5 136 5:5a 182–3 5:5b 183 5:6 183–5 5:7–21 185–7 5:9 152

5:20 189 5:21 175 5:21 179 5:22–23  132, 187–8 5:22  189, 202 5:24–26 189–90 6:1–2 190–2 6:3–10 192–5 6:5 133 6:11–15 196–9 6:11 38 6:15  200, 203 6:16–17 199–201 6:17  206 n. 16 6:18  201–2, 206 n. 13

1 Thessalonians 1:1  56 n. 88 1:3 51 1:5 36 1:6  202, 207 1:8 118 2:14 146 2:15–16 134 2:15  92, 157 2:16  70, 134, 162 4:8  120, 128 4:14  49, 64 4:16 49 5:2 141 5:26 104

Ephesians 1:5–6  47, 210 n. 24 2:13 166 6:18 188

2 Thessalonians 1:11  59, 188

Philippians 1:1 49 1:15–17 60 1:15 59 2:8–9  160, 190 2:13 59 2:15 132 3:2 118 3:3 135 3:12 156 4:21 38 Colossians 1:3 188 1:15 57 1:18 57 2:8–3:4 149 2:14  173, 210 n. 23 2:16 177 4:3 153 4:14 21

1 Timothy 2:8 118 4:3 134 5:3  61, 210 n. 25 5:5  61, 210 n. 25 5:9  61, 210 n. 25 5:18  210 n. 25 5:18a 119 5:18d 119 6:13 67 2 Timothy 4:5 36 4:8 188 4:10 21 4:11 21 4:16 21 4:17 36 Titus 1:3–4 131 1:4–5 21 3:9 102

3:13–15  210 n. 26 3:13 102 3:14–15 102 Philemon 10 52 24 21 James 1:1  60, 95, 210 n. 27 1:2 127 1:5 127 1:12 127 1:13 127 1:18–19 95 1:20 60 1:22–25 95 1:23–25 95 2:1 95 2:5  91, 210 n. 27 2:7 126 2:15–16 126–7 2:16  91, 210 n. 27 2:21–25 60 3:5 143 3:12 95 3:18 60 4:9  91, 210 n. 27 4:10  160, 189–90 5:1–3  91, 210 n. 27 5:6 60 5:15 127 5:16 60 5:17  86, 210 n. 27 1 Peter 1:13  140, 210 n. 28 1:24–25 133 1:25  58, 210 n. 28 2:2  58, 210 n. 28 2:4–8 95 2:6  133, 150 253

2:8 133 2:9 133 2:10 133 2:12 133 2:15 94 2:20 94 2:22 133 2:24–25 133 3:14–15 133 3:14 140 3:15 141 3:17 94 4:13–14 92, 210 n. 28 4:14  133, 140 5:2–4  58, 210 n. 28 5:5 65 5:6  160, 189–90 5:13 142 2 Peter 1:15 110 1:19  140, 210 n. 28 2:5–8 186 3:7–8 186 3:10 176 3:12–13 176 3:12 142 Jude 1  90, 210 n. 29 20 188 Other Israelite-Jewish Works 1 Enoch 91:10–11 79 93:3–10 79 93:6–10 82

254

2 Baruch 27:1–15  61 n. 115 28:2  61 n. 115 53:6  61 n. 115 53:11  61 n. 115 4 Ezra 14:11  61 n. 115 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 1:3–9  173 1QS 5–7  30 1QS 6:2  174 1QSa 1:8–11  63 1QSa 2:5–8  161 CD 11:1–2  150, 210 n. 39 CD 11:5–7  210 n. 39 CD 11:5–6  149–50 CD 11:6–7  150 CD 11:13–14a  159, 209, 210 n. 39 CD 11:14a  159 CD 11:16–17a  159, 209, 210 n. 39 CD 11:17a  159 CD 14:20  174 4Q212 79 4Q265 6:6–7  159, 209 4Q271 frag. 2:4–5  133 n. 69, 210 n. 39 4Q396 frag. 1_2 ii:1–5 161 Flavius Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 1.3–4 39 1.3 39 1.4  39, 210 n. 41 1.17 40 4.272 191 7.150 191

8.31  142 n. 96 8.165–168 131 8.171–175 131 13.282–283  43, 210 n. 41 13.320  80 n. 182 14.275 196 15.92 67 16.3 191 17.169 159 17.189 67 17.219–223  193, 210 n. 41 17.222–342 18 17.300  193, 210 n. 41 17.313–314  193, 210 n. 41 17.339–342 194 17.355 55–6 17.78 40 18.1–5 18 18.1–2 55–6 18.3  56, 209 18.26  55–6, 67 18.28  88, 120 18.29 56 18.34–35  67, 210 n. 41 18.34 67 18.35 67 18.36 88 18.55 67 18.85–87  145, 210 n. 41 18.95 67 18.109–119 18 18.109 76 18.116–119  41, 66 18.116  53, 66 18.117 18 18.118 66 18.119  76 nn. 168–9 18.123 40 18.237  18, 67

19.275 67 19.297 40 20.102 55–6 20.118–124 115 20.136–138 115 20.138  18, 67 20.141–143 18 20.199–201 158 20.223 40 Bellum judaicum 1.1–3  39, 210 n. 40 1.1–2 39 1.1  36, 38–9 1.2  36, 40 1.3 39 1.6 39–40 1.9 39–40 1.12–14 39 1.13 36 1.16 39 1.17  36, 38–40, 210 n. 40 1.222 196 1.326 88 1.656 159 2.111 194 2.178  67, 210 n. 40 2.186 97 2.232–238 115 2.433 55–6 2.500 97 2.521 72 2.573 88 2.582 72 3.29 97 3.57 88 3.463 88 3.506 88 3.512  67, 210 n. 40 4.343  134, 210 n. 40 4.511  98, 210 n. 40 4.517  98, 210 n. 40

5.141 86 5.145 146 5.252 146 5.505 146 5.567–571  178, 210 n. 40 5.567 178 6.363–364 146 6.394 146 6.413 146 7.1 146 7.217  196, 210 n. 40 7.253  55–6, 209 7.318 144 7.332 144 Contra Apionem 1.1  40, 206 n. 9, 210 n. 42 1.6 39 1.15 39 1.47 39 1.53  39–40, 210 n. 42 1.55  39, 210 n. 42 1.56 39 2.1  40, 206 n. 9 2.196 40 Vita 1–8 78 9  63–4, 210 n. 43 40 39 80  80, 210 n. 43 126–127  107, 210 n. 43 349 88 430 40 Other Graeco-Roman Works Aesop Fabulae 22  89, 210 n. 32

24  102, 210 n. 32 310  102, 210 n. 32 Aristophanes Aves 1432  172, 210 n. 34 Euripides Ion 32 57 918 57 955  57, 210 n. 33 1351 57 1490 57 1598 57 Homer Odyssea 1.102–327  199, 210 n. 31 P.Oxy. 934.9–10 147 Plato Respublica 614cd  179, 209, 210 n. 35 615e  179, 209, 210 n. 35 Plutarch Moralia 968c 39 Vitae parallelae [passim]  46, 210 n. 37 Res gestae divi Augusti 8 56 Seneca [junior] De brevitate vitae [Dialogus 10] 14.4 127 255

Strabo Geographica 14.5.13–15  52 n. 74, 62, 65, 210 n. 36 Suetonius Augustus 27.5 56

Other Early Christian Works Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.27.2  23 n. 46 3.1.1 21

Tacitus Annales 12.54 115

Justin Apologia I 33.4–5 23 50.12 23

Theophrastus Eresius De causis plantarum 3.9.5 147

Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 4.5.4–4.7.1  23 n. 46

256