Luke-Acts. Scandinavian Perspectives

Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 54

LUKE-ACTS Scandinavian Perspectives Edited by Petri Luomanen

The Finnish Exegetical Society in Helsinki Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen

1991

Publica tions of thc Fin nish Excgc tica l Socicty Editor: A nnc·M ari t Enrot h.voit ila

ISSN 0356-2786 ISBN 95 1-9217-09-6 ISB N 3-525-53593-7 K irjapaino Raamallulalo 1991

Preface

In June 1990 the New Testament scholars of Finland had the opportunity 10 organize a Scandinavian New Testament Confe rence in Helsinki . One of the main conce ms in the framing of the programme was 10 fmd a therne thaI was both capable of inlegrating the meeting and broad enough 10 give express ion 10 the variety of methods and approaches prevailing in the Scandinavian New Testament research. In these respeclS Luke's Hellenistic double work tumed out 10 be the most appropriate subjecl. The present volume contains five main lectures delivered al the canfer· ence. The ana lyses of Kristjan Buason and Ka r f Syree" j approach the theme from a wider melhodological and he rmeneutical perspeclive, whilst Hal vor Moxnes, Anders E. Nie/sen and Heikki Räisänen, applying slightl y different methods, have focused on single themes in Luke-Acts. The book al so includes IWO articles based on the seminar papers of the conference. The c1assical question of Luke's relation 10 the other gospels, Ireated by Walter Übela cker and Matti Myllykoski, is still of interesl despite new approaches . By organiz ing the conference. the Finni sh NT-exegeles had the opportunity not just 10 consolidale connections with Scandinavian colleagues, but also 10 celebrate the 350th annivcrsary of the University of Helsink i. All [hi s would have been impossible without the fin ancial help of the the Fhmish Academy, the Finnish Mini slry oj Education , Nordic Cowlcil, Lellerslädska jören ingen and Stiftelsens jör Abo Akademi Forskn illgsinstitut. lnc loca l organizin g comm iltee wants to express its gratitude to the fmandal supporters as welt as 10 the Finni sh Exegetical Society for accepting this co llection in its series. Elina Äljälä who prepared the lext for prinl ing, also deserves many thanks.

Helsinki , March 199 1

Petri Luomanen

Contents Krisljan BUason The Good Samarüan, Luke 10:25-37 : One Text Three Methods .......... ! I. A Redactio n Critical Analysis; 11. A Litcrature-Critical Analysis; m . A Textlinquistic Analysis; IV. A Comparison of the Three Methods.

Kari Syreeni The Gospel in Paradigms: A Study in the Herrneneutical Space of Luke- Acts ..................... ..... ................... ................ .... .. .... .. ..... ..... 36 I. Theoretical Considerations; U. Parndigmatic Fonn in the Lucan Writings; lIJ. Hermeneutical and Tradition-H.istorical Conc lusions.

Ha/vor Moxnes Social Relations and Economic Interaction in Luke's Gospe l: A Research Report ........ ..... .... .. .. ...... .......... ... .................. ............. 58

Anders E. Nielsen The Purpose of the Lucan Wrilings with Particul ar Reference to Eschatology ... ...... ..... ........ .................................................... ..... .. 76

Heikki Räisänen The Redemption of Israel : A Sa lvation-Historica l Problem in LukeActs ... ..... ..... ....... ..... ..................................... ............. ........... ... ... 94

Mal/ i Myllykoski The Material Common 10 Luke and John : A Sketch ........................ 115 I. John and the Synoptics; 11. Vague and General Similariries between Lk and Jh; 111 . Concrete Minor Agreeme nts Conflicting with Mk and Mt that Derive from Independent Redactions or Commo n Oral Traditio ns; IV. Parallel Pericopes in Luke and John; V. Condusio n.

Waller Ubelacker

Das Ve rhältnis von Lk/Apg zum Markusevangelium .............. ......... 157 I. Einleitung; n. Die Verteilung des Materials - eine Grobe Übersicht; 1Il. Konsequenzen der lukanischen Redaktionsarbeit am Mk; IV. Rückblick und Abschluß.

The Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37 One Text Three Methods Kristj;in Buason, Reykjavlk

The aim of this paper is to present shoItly an application of three methods on the same text in order 10 compare them and their value for underslanding a panicular text. In contemporary exegetical work on the text of the New Testament we witness a muhiplicity of methods. This state of affairs leads 10 the question of the relationship between the methods and their results. FOT m y purpose I have chose n three methods: redaction criticism, lilerary criticism and tcx ll inguistic analysis. The choice of these three methods is due 10 a personal inlerest in getting 10 Jcnow the two last a nes, while the first oße has been applied for a long time in New Testament Crilicism. As for redaction criticism I rely on alder work done by a thers, hut the applicati on of literary crit icism and textlinguistic anal ys is is m ine, since I did not fi nd any work on thi s text using this two types of a pproach.

The Choice 01 the Text and Ehe Limilalion o/ Ihe Texl. l 11e cho ice 1 of thi s text is prim arily caused by the fact that exegetes definc d iffe rcntl y the function of the perieope and espeeiall y the funetion of thc example within Luke. 2 Luke 10:25-37 is c1earl y demareated from the followi ng text. wh ieh begins by another location. It contains also an other eonsteUation of eharaeters. W ith respcct to the preceding text, Luke 9:57-10:24 presupposes the same loeation (see 10:23. whieh ean be unde rstood so that there are I The seleclion of Ihe text for the present purpose was suggested to me by Professor Lan I-Iartman. Uppsala . Sweden. 2 Some commentators lreat Luke 10:25-28 and 29 -37 separately. but at the same time Ihey note that these are c10sely related. e.g. Fitunyer and Marshall. Others see these texts as a whole. e .g. Schneider. Schmithals. Schweizer and Grund mann. Scvcral ex · egetes see a conneclion between the wise a nd understanding in Luke 10:21 and the lawyer in 1O:25 ff. e.g. Grundmann. or between the double commandment and the two follow ing stories. i.e love of ones neighbour in Ihe example and love of God in the Story of Jesus in the house of Manha and Maria. e.g MarshalI . or the positive attitude of the evangelist lowards the Jewish understanding of the law as an extra emphasis. e.g. Schmithals. All of them stress thai in the text therc is the queslio n of love in showing merc y. Fitzmyer. MarshalI. Schneider. Schmithals. Schweizer and Grundmann ad loc. Schmithals assens universalism as an extra emphasis.

Kristjrut Buason

more people presenl than the disciples} and the same occasion (compare 10: 17 and 21, the return of the seventy (wo), but it shows a change in the constellation of charaeters in focusing on Jesus together with a lawyer.

I. A Redaetion Critieal Analysis of Luke 10:25·37

As an example of this type of analysis I have chosen a work by Gerhard Sellin, "Lukas als Gleiehniserzähler: Die Erzählung vom bannhärtigen Samariter (Lk 1O:25-37). A. Allgemeine Voruberlegun gen."J "8. Die Erzählung von bannhärtigen Samariter als Beispiel einer lukani schen &v9pom<>;-<1, -Erzählung.'" Early redaction eriticism looked primarily at how the evangeli st altered his sources and systematized them, and it was assurned thatlhe rcsult showed the theology of the evangelist. Later redacti on criticism, on the other hand, puts greater emphasis on the eomposition of the whole work and some of its lilerary characteristics. According to SeHin the principle of redacLion critical exeges is is to be found in the sentence: "Die wahre Situation eines literarischen Texres ist sein Kontext." A text· immanent structural analysis is fundamental to the interpretation. If an interpretative matrix is needed il should be looked for on the level of the text, i.e. a unit of lhe text must be seen as fun etionally depending on the running context. s But the overa rching question is historieal , genetic and theologicaL6 SeUin's point of depanure is an analysis of the parables in material special to Luke and hi s work ing hypolhesis is thai it is possible 10 explain Luke 10:30ff redaclion-crilically as probably a compositi on by Luke .

ZNW 65. 1974: 166-189. 4 ZNW 66, 1975: 19-60. s Sellin , 1974: 171, see al so note 28, where he refers tO W, Marxen and E. Güugemanns. 6 Redaetion historieal or redaetion critieal analysis is the last phase in the hislory of the development of the historie eritieal melhod wilhin New Testamenl exegesis. h presup· poses a coUcction of methods wilhin the historie critieal method, whieh is eharacterized by comparison with differen t historical data outside the text and by the question of what really happened. It is also inlerested in the author/the evangelist and hi s theology. h contains philology with lexical and metorical analysis, textual erideism. eomparison with relevant contemporary historieal data, synoptie comparison. form eritieism, genre aiticism. tradition eriticism and redaetion history or redaetion critieism as rar as it relies on comparison with sources, aecessible or reconstrueled. J

2

The Good SamariWl

According to SeHin Luke 10:25-37 is a subordinated text wilhin Luke 9:57-10:37 which is demarcated over against lhe foUowing text by a change in the location.' As to its structure and its fonn Luke 10:25-37 is a composite unit, a conflict story (SIreilgespräch) containing two parallel speech sequences (Redegänge): 1) A question and altematively an additional quest ion (a lawyer), 2) a counter-quest ion, ahematively a paradigm, i.e. an example, with a following counter-quest ion (Jesus). 3) the inquirer gives an answer himself, 4) an imperative (Jesus).' SeUin is also of the opinion, that YY. 29 and 36f constitute a frame for YY. 30-35. A synoplic comparison9 and a tradition historical analysis lO leads 10 the following conclusion: "Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Erklärung dieser besonderen Züge ergibt: Die hermeneutische Frage nach dem Schlüssel des Gesetzes (Q. Mk) wird zu einer Frage nach der Gültigkeit des Geselles überluJupl." 11 A lexical investigation shows that the question about (elemal) life is a Torah fonnula which has its origin in the Old Testament. It is an academic question which pennits only one answer: fulfil the law. Jesus is in agreement with the lawyer's answer containing the double commandment of love, which is according to Luke a genuine Jewish summing up of the law, and Christianity iso according to its own understanding, a continuation of this. The answer creates a platform for the discussion which fol lows about the range of the law in v. 29-37, i.e. who belongs to the Jaw. The double commandment of love in v. 27 is cited because it contains the word 1lAf1<7lov not because of the ward ciramjCJ€!S'. Scllin sees here a connection with Luke 10:17ff, where Jesus promises something 10 the disciples which is only for those faithful to the law, i.e.

1 Sellin, 1975: 19, note 100. I Sellin, 1975: 59f,19f. 9 Sellin, 1975: 21f. Luke 10:25-28 shows a suucture COITCsponding 10 theone in Mark 12:32-34. Luke shows imponant redactiona1 elements, septuaginlisms like Il"ai I&:nl (verse 25) and following a substantive (v. 25), the queslion about inheriling etemal life (v . 25b). (\ öt dlrC\' Tr~ atinSv (v . 26), and the combination of the scriplure quol8lions with a lCaL 10 Sellin, 1975 : 20f. In combinalion with tradition historica1 considerations Sellin is o f the opinion that il is plausible that Luke has combined. ~source and an element ftOiU Mark 12:28ff. Thi s is supponed by cenain agreements between Luke and Matthew over againsl Marle, a common nucJeus in Luke and Mark, and thai Luke conlains elemenlS from redactional elemenlS in Marle. which are probably redactional, cf. Luke 20:39f and Mark 12:28, 32, 34 and fUMer Luke 10:288 and Mark 12:32. 11 Sellin, 1975: 22.

n,

3

KriSlj4n Buason

they shall rejoice because their names are wrüten in heaven, and that causes the lawyer to stand up and to ask a question .12 Sellin argues for the unily of the text as follows : There is not a queslion of change of aspect (Aspeklverschiebung) between v. 29 (and 27) on the one hand,ll where a neighbour is an object of an action, the one who needs help, and v. 36 (and v. 37a) on the other hand, where a neighbour is a subject of an action, the one who gives help. Sellin maintains that the story is lold from the perspeclive of the wounded one who is formally the principal character, but as to the content he claims that the principal character is the ethnically characterized Samaritan; and that this is essential. 14 A supposed tension between v. 29 and v. 36 can not be solved by application of tradition history or source crilicism because it is impossible to decide on the incision. u SeUin's thesis is that Luke 10:25-37 as a whole is a Lucan composition, where the frame is superior 10 the paradigm and the paradigm is funclionally depending on the frame. 16

The Paradigm, Luke 10:30-35 With respect to what Sellin caUs a formal analysis of the st.ru cture cf the paradigm he gives an analysis of the constellation of charac lers (FigurenkonSleliation) or altemalively the functions of the aCling persons in the SIOry and an analysis of the syntax. 17 Under the influence of V. Propp he states that the analysis of the functions of the actions in the story is fundamenta l to the decision of the form . 18 He maintains that Ihe paradigm is lold from the perspeclive of the wounded man (whi ch I un o dersland as from the point of view of the wounded man 's inleresl), ac· Sellin , 1975: nr. I ) Following H. Gollwitzer. SelHn, 1975: 25. 14 Following M. S. Enslin , who stresses that the function of the Samaritan does not gen erally rest on the missionary situation of the church, but on the lukan concept of history of salvation. where the Samaritans have a mediating place. See Sellin. 1975: 2329, and 59: "Die TalSac~. daß hier ein Samaritaner als Hauptfigur auftritt, fflufJFudie 12

DeUJung kDrutitUJiv sein." The pericope can nOI be divided into a kernel and a compository frame. According 10 a redaction historical approach the paradigm is witho ul a poinl if siripped of vv. 36-37a, and v. 36 would not be underSlandabJe withoul v. 29. And funher Ihe queslion in v. 29 would not be medialed withoul 'Iv. 25·28. 16 Sellin, 1975: 29-32. 17 Sellin , 1975: 32ff. 18 Sellin, 1974: 174. With respect 10 Ihe functions he follows V. Propp, bUI as 10 (he laws of narralion he builds on A. Olrik. An analysis of Ihe structure precedes an analysis of the "Sitz im Leben", Sellin , 1974: 171 . See nOle 24 below. l!i

4

The Good Samaritan

eording to the "law of 'Einsträngigkeil ...• The lawyer has to identify himse lf with the wounded man and thus to admit that the Samaritan is his "neighbour." SelJin's arguments for this is that the robbers and the innkeeper are subordinate characters. The wounded man is fonnally the principal character, the priest and the levite are one negative character according to the "law of repetition" and the Samaritan is, with respect to the content of the story, the prineipal charaeter. These give the "number of three" and "Achtergewicht." The story is divided into three scenes acco rding to the "Iaw of the scenic two ." the wounded man and a priest, the wounded man and a levite. the wounded man and a Samaritan. The three characters create a "dramatic triangle." The contrasting characlers da never meet. 19 With respect to the content it is important to note that the antithetic twins do not present a genuine paradox, i.e. between the beginning and the end. There is the poss ibility of re-valualion and/or ehoiee and that creates, according to Sellin, a eondition for the lawye r to ident ify hirnself with the Samaritan.10 In the grammatical and syntactical analysis, which primarily concentrates on the verbs in the strueture of tbe Greek language , Sellin sees a rise from the background to the foreground , impf. in subordinaled aclions, > aorist in principal action s, > hist. praes. stengthening further and > finally a direct speech representing the greatest strength. The participles are connected to the aorists. Sellin finds it striking that the point in v. 33 does not coincide with the direct speech at the end. He interprets thi s in such a way that the direct speech is the poetie means which create a bridge over a too great reduction of the tension between the point on the leve l of action (v. 33) and the point in the sense of definition of the fun ction of the whole story (vv. 36-37a).21 The syntaclic structure is a teslimony of a original composition in Greek. 22 Sellin ascribes vocabulary and style 10 tbe evangeli st.2) As 10 the fonn the story in Luke 1O:30ff is an example.24 When Sellin tries 10 eSlablish 19 Sellin, 1975: 32f. Seil in, 1974: 183 and note 24 below. 21 SeUin, 1975: 33-34. 22 Sellin, 1975: 59. 1 3 SelHn, 1975: 35-37 . 14 An example is a story which wholly belongs 10 the rcalm of the subjcci under discus· sion. See Sellin, 1974: 177f, following A. JilIicher. Infonnation on the subjcct is given by the CQntext and it serves as a rhetorical paradigm within the contexI, see Sellin, 1974: 178 and 184. Luke 1O:30ff is o ne of the live dramatic and non-parabolic &~-n~ · narratives, which are characteristic for St. Luke and nOI without parallels in He lle nistic 1ewish Iheology, see Sellin, 1974: 179f. These narratives are Luke 1O:30 ff, 12 : 16ff, 16:19ff, 18:9ff. Th is is based o n M. D. Goulder, "Characteristics of the Parables in Several Gospels". ffhL 19, 1968,51-69, and K. 20

5

Krislj lin Bl1ason

the principal motif or "die Pointe," he maintains that it can only be explained by the Lucan intentions, which one can establish redaclion-histori cally, i.e. it can be derived from tradition, the world outside the tex t and the context (Luke and Acts).2.'1 The carrying motif in the story is the contrast between a priest and a levite on the one hand and a Samaritan on the other. The content of this contrast is explained redaclion-historically so, that a priest and a lev ite represent thai Israel which was marked by the cult and which at the time of Luke had been subdued. while the Samaritan represents the validity of the Torah outside the boundaries o f Israel, which was marked by the cult.26 According to Sellin it is not possible 10 understand the exarnple without knowing the historical course of events in the settlement with the Sarnaritans and its conlent. 27 Luke 1O:30ff has the function to show proleptically the role of Samaria as a serving transi tion between Israel and the pagans in the later mission.l I The motif or the " Pointe" of the example coincides with the one which lies in the connecti on between 10:36-37a and 29 , the frame of the exampie. Tbe quest ion there is about "ne ighbour" in th e meaning of "confederate" and it ha s ilS backg round in a theology of the Old Testament: A confederate is one who. independently of his origin, acts according 10 the covenant. 29 This signifies a new constitution of the covenant: One who is not a l ew can belong 10 the covenant, and a l ew cao

u 26 27 28 29

6

Berger, " Materialen zur Form und Überlieferu ngsgeschichte neu testamentlicher G leichnisse," Noy Test 15, 1973: 1-37, see Sellin, 1974: 174. Sellin points put, that Be rger has by form historical analysis uied to establi sh this type of parable as "uemp/amhu Rechtstrl{scheid" (Berger, 1973: 20f1), and that it has its origin in Ihe Natan-parable and its tradition history, probably the wisdom theology, and that it has gotten inlo the New Testament by the mediation of Hellenistic Jewry. A synoptic comparison leads SeiHn 10 the concJusion that the dra matic 6v6pro~~ -narratives an: a funher developmenl of the "exemplarischer Rtehtsentscheid," see SelJin, 1975: 188. These narrati ves distinguis h themselves by a pattern of three charucters, which consiSlS of one antithetic couple of twins. where o ne of the couple is important for the content and who is called the " principal character with respect 10 the content," and 3 Ihird character, who is called the "pri ncipal characler with respect 10 Ihe fonn ," :I background character. These parabJes are funher characterizcd by a change in the evaluation of the antithelic couple, which does not represent a genuine paradox . This creates conditions for the readers'/listeners' identificatio n. See Sellin, 1974 : 180-184. Sellin, 1975: 37. Sellin. 1975: 41 -45, see also 60. With respecllo the eth ical law a positive attitude 10wards Samarieans is fou nd among the rabbis o f the 2nd century. e.g. R. Akiba. Sellin, 1975 : 41. Sellin, 1975: 45, who ciles Luke 17: 11 ff, 9:55. ACls 8: 1,5ff,25. Sellin, 1975: 45-52. M'lcrlov / 1/:1 is a Jewish eheological lechnical term in ehe Old Testament. e.g. Lev 18: 18 and especially in 01, meaning "Orle of the same people" or a "confederate," see Sellin, 48. The lawyer's second answer is almost in ehe form of a defin ition. IU.llo10V, v.crx; (lI'oLClv) and adayzvf{€aBm belong eo Ihe theology of ehe O ld Testament as 10 its meaning and the horizon of its tradition, Sellin, 1975: 48f.

The Good Samaritan

loose his participation in the covenant.lO Luke 1O:37b presupposes v. 36· 37a, but shows another perspective outside the example. As to Luke's understanding of the law Sellin establishes, on the one hand, a differentiated conception, the ritual law which is limited to the Jews (cf. Acts 21 :240, the ethicallaw, which is valid for Jews and pagans (cf. Acts 10:35), and, on the other hand, a natural tbeology following the Hellenistic Jewi sh enlightenment, which was of the opinion that the Jewish mission, which supplied the know)edge of the Mosaic law, made the natu· ral law conscious. The fact that a Samaritan is characterized as a neigh· bour is explained by the claim of the Mosaic law for universal validity. This is laken into consideration by the Samaritans. who scrve as a transi· lion in the Christian mission." SeHin maintains in this connection that the example should almost to· taUy be explained within Hellenistic Jewish tbeology of the law. With Luke 10:25·37 the evangelist places a nomistic text after an antinomistic one in Luke 1O:2 1f. He is of the opinion that according to Luke ChristianilY is Jewry which has fulfilled the history of salvation and is universal.l 2

n.

A Literature·Critical Analysis of Luke 10:25-37.

This analysis is primarily based on the theoretical presentation of litera· ture-critical analysi s by Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fict;on and Film )l I am also influenced by David Rhoads and Donald Mi chie. Mark as Story. An Introduction to the Na"alive o[ a Gospel.lJo This analytical melhod has its roOlS in c1assic (Aristotelian) literature analysis. and in its development il has been influenced by Russian formal ism, French slructuralism and L. Hjelmslev's glossematic. This means that a narrative is seen as a structured, selective and coherent unit within a communicative situation. Le. in relation to the reader/li stene r.l~ According to Chatman the method separates. in its analysis. the slorylconlenl of a narrative . Le. the whal of a narrative, and its di s-

30 Sellin. 1975: 50. 31 Sellin, 1975: 52·57, 60. 12 Sellin, 1975: 57f. 60. II h haca and London: Comell Universiry Press. 1978. l ot Philadelphia: Fonress Press. 1982. 3S Chalman. 16-31.

7

Kristjtn Bllason

course/expression, i.e. irs ho w, independently of the medium of the narrative.3 6 The form of eontent, the form of expression and the material of expression are different levels of analysis having their own systems, wh ich are interdependent.)7 I wiu statt with a presentation of an analysis of the form of expression, Le the diseourse, and the material of expression, and then turn to the story!eontent.18 This analysis is not exhaustive. An Analysis 0/ the Discourse In Luke 10:25-37 the narrator is outside the narrative, i.e. he is more eoven than ovett. He speaks in the third person, except in the exhortation ioot5 in the beginning (v . 25), where his presence is clearly feit. His existenee is otherwise obvious through the narrative. The same can be said of the narratee. It is only in the introduetion of the gospel (Luke 1: 1-4), thaI the narrator appears in first person, though without a name, and addresses the narratee Theophilus by naming hirn, who is otherwise unknown to uso The narrator in Luke has an unlimited omniseienee, i.e. he knows more than the ehamelers in the narralive.39 He knows the whole narrative, both Luke and Aets . He speaks in pasl tense, he is invisible, he is everywhere presenl in different plaees and in different limes, and the readerllistener experiences the narrative as he leUs it. The reader!1islener thereby wit nesses together with hirn what happens.40 With resptCt to the story/content or a narrative one distinguishes betwecn its materiol and its / orm. Substance of content is used of the world of symbols in the situation or the communication, the codes or the author's society, butform of conunl is used of what is selected for the nllJT3tive or narrative story components. i.e its I) events: actions and happenings. 2) existents: chaJaCters, settings (time and place) and therr connections. The discourseJexpression of a narrative is divided in iu fo rm aod material. Form of expression is used of the narrative transmission, e.g. implied aulhor and im· plied reader/lislener (These do neither speaJc nor hear in the text, but can bee inferred fTOm the strategy in the text), narralor (covert aod overt) and namtee (The real author and the real readerllistencr stand outside the text), further point cf view, style. narrative patterns, literary fe atures and plot. i.e. the strategy of expression. The subslallce of expression is used of the medium of expression. e.g. word. film , pantomime e.c., see Chatman. 1978: 26. ]1 Chatman. 1978: 137. ] I See RhoadsIMichie. 1982. 39 See Chatman,1978: 196ff on covert vs. overt narrators and limitations placed on the naffinor by the ir.lplied author. See also Genette. 1980: 188f. 40 See Rhoads/M ichie. 1982: 36f. ]6

8

The Good Samaritan

The narrator has already infonned about several things when the narrative in Luke 10:25-37 begins. He has already lold who Jesus is, San of God (0 uio~ ~OtJ BeoÜ), who knows the Father (Luke 10:21), and what a lawyer (v6.tHK"~) is, aeeording to Luke 7:30 one of those who ..... rejeeted the purpose of God for thernselves, not having been baptized by hirn (i.e. John)," or what the seribes are, the adversaries of Jesus, who togethe r with the presbyters and the highpriests will rejeet Hirn, and that He will be killed and will rise frorn the dead (Luke 5:21, 30; 6:7; 9:21-22). He infonns that the Samaritans in a village rejeeted Jesus because He was on a joumey to Jerusalem . The narrator also knows the motives of the lawyer. He controls di stance . 4\ First he reveals that the lawyer wants 10 test Jesus (Luke 10:25), and then that he wants to justify himself (Luke 10:29). When he reveals this for the readerllistener he shows authority and awakens the eonfidenee of the readerllistener and a tension lowards the lawyer. This arouses suspense as to the outcome of the test: Will the lawyer accept Jesus and Hi s teaehing? At the same time the narrator comrnun icates his point of view in the meaning of sympathy, which needs not be conseious to the readerllistener but influences hirn . The narrator shows here sympathy for Jesus by presenting Hirn in pos itive tenn s, but gives mere ly infonnation on the lawyer's negative motives. The narrator presents the order of events , and in Luke 10:25-37 he does Ihis ehronologically, which is natural to a conversation . As to the eonceptual i.e. the ideological point of view,42 il should be stated in addition to what was said above th at the point of view of the narrator and Jesus coineide therein that the fulfilment of the law of Ihe covenan l, as il is exp ressed in the double commandment , is a standard of judgemenl coneeming participation in etemal life . Measu red by Ihis standard the pielure of the h:wyer is unfavourable, because in the add it ional queslion he seerns to presuppose limits 10 the exercise of love depend ing on the defin ition of a neighbou r. This last narned reason reveals the point of view of the lawyer. But he is cornpelled 10 acknowledge thai Jesus is righl Iherein that the one, who performs the aet of love and by Ihis fulfil s the law is the neighbour or confederale of the man, who fell into the hands o f robbers, also when he is a Samaritan. The lawyer is entrappcd by Jesus,

See Rhoads/Michie, 1982: 41. 42 See Chatman, 1978: 151r. and Rhoads/Michie. 1982: 43f.

4\

9

Kristjtn Buason

who by this is shown to be a superior teacher of the law (see furth er below). Nothing indicates that the lawyer acknowledges Jesus. The style43 is terse and apart of the vocabulary is concrete, but the text contains several abstract concepts which belong to the context of theological discussion, e.g. etemal life, neighbour, love, have compassion, test. and justify. The narrator "shows" the action . i.e. we witness together with him thai the lawyer stands up. He presents a dialogue and the speech acts of the dialogue are presented directly but tagged. Through this direct presentation the readerllistener is brought eloser to the events. Narrative pattems 44 Iike repetition of the verb IZ'OIdv (Luke 10:25. 28. 37a and b) and the substantive %A7101ov(Luke 10:27,29.36) Jenit the narrative together. In addition comes Can)v aiaSvlOv d71povoJ..u1uQ) (v. 25) and '~"1J (v. 28). The two-step progression4!i in two dialogue sequences. where both of them begin with a question and where the second question is an additional one, arouses curiosity on behalf of the readerllistener and places the emphasis on the second sequence. The first sequence almost gives the impression thaI it is about something commonly accepted by God's people. which prepares important clarifications in the second sequence . Thereby the attention of the readerllistener Is directed primarily towards the additional Question of the lawyer about his neighbour in connection with ohedience 10 the law of the covenant and Jesus' answer to thaI question . Most of the questions and the counter-questions are rhetorical ones,46 i.e. there is only one answer to each of them . The lawyer's additional Question is an exception and it reveals hirn as a character. It creates suspense in the di scourse and arouses greater expectation in the reader/listener than the other questions . The final question of Jesus, which entraps the lawyer (Luke 10:30-36), inten si fies the connict, which the other questions also conway. The lawyer's final answer. which he is forced 10 give, does not reduce the conflict. The final exhortation of Jesus does not reduce it either. By the means of the queslions the readerllistener is drawn eloser ioto the narrative. He is lead 10 participate in the dialogue. The question of Jesus shows his supreme authority towards the lawyer. The summing up of the law, which Jesus refers to in hi s counter-ques1ion and which the lawyer reciles (Luke 10:27) inlroduces a common 3U -

RhoadsIMichie. 44 RhoadsIMichie. 45 RhoadsIMichie. 46 Rhoads/Michie.

4)

IO

1982: 4f. 1982: 45fT. 1982: 41fT. 1982: 49fT. I

The Good Samaritan

thoritative tex t to the antagonists in the narrative. At the same time it shows that Jesus adheres to lhe law. Sefore putting the fmal question Jesus gives an example as a point of departure. It iIIustrates the que st ion under discussion. engages through its perspicuity and contains a dear recommendation through the exemplary behaviour of the Samaritan. Through its length. the example creates suspence in the discourse and expectation in the Ii stener/reader and has the function regardin g the lawyer - also indirectly regarding the reader /listener - to lead him to acknowledge the obvious which is expressed by Jesus . Finally the lawyer is compelled to take astand, which means that he accepts the interpretation of the law by Jesus and at the same time rejects an attitude which coincides with his own. I will return to this later on. lf the tenninology of the speech-act theory is applied to this text 47 it is possible to distinguish ciearly between the speech acts of the characters towards each other and the speech acts of the narrator toward s the reader/li stener. Luke 10:25-37 consists mainly of iIlocutionary speech acts. Of these the speech ac ts of the lawye r are also perlocutionary. since !hey have the effect of testing Jesus and defending the lawyer. The presentat ion of the narrative towards the reader!listener is an illocu tionary act but it is also a perlocutionary act as far as it educates and convinces the reader/listener and affects his behaviour. t

An Analysis

0/ tlle Story

The story tim e (i.c. the presence in the story) in Luke 10:25-37 is a past time in the situation of the narrator because it begins and ends beforc hi s time . lt is the same time as in the preceding events when Jesus converses with the seventy two after thei r return from thei r mi ss ion (Luke 10:21). And lhere is liule difference between sto ry time and discourse time since the narrative consists mainly of a dialogue. Tbe di scourse time is a linie longer. The story space in ou r narrative is very vague . Tbc circumstance (a lawyer stands up (Luke 10:25» possibly presupposes a gathering of peopie who sit around a teacher. In the nearest preced ing context in Luke 10:17 and 23 more people are presupposed to be present than the disci47 See Ch:ltman. 1978: 161 - 166. who refers 10 Jo hn Auslin , How Wo rds. New York 1962. 2 LUK E·A e r S

(0

do Things wir"

11

KristjMt Buason

pies. According to the greater foregoing contex t Jes us is somewhere on the road to lerusalem (Luke 9:51, 57).

1be order of story events and the events in the discourse are the same, i.e. the plot is characterized as nonnal. 48 The analysis distinguishes between process statements, which express happenings and actions, where somebody does something, and a stasis statement, which expresses that something or somebody is something .49 By di slingui shing further between kerne/s, (Le. events, which carry the plot further, rai se and satisfy questions, are branching points in the development) and satellites (Le. minor plot events) , the hierarchy of the narrative events can be revealed.50 The kemels in Luke 10:25-37 are the following : I ) The lawyer asks what he should do in order to inherit etemal Iife. 2) The counter-quest ion o f Jesus on what the lawyer reads in the law. 3) The questi on of the lawyer on who is his neighbou r. 4) The quest ion of Jesus following the e:umple on who of the three is the ne ighbour of the one who fell in the hands of the robbers. A e10ser look at the narrative shows that the second questi on of the lawyer is a decisive branching point or cross-road in the development of the dialogue. It presupposes more than oße ans wer. The other quest ions have only one answe r, i.e. they are almost rhetorical quest ions. These kemels creale two sequences which are in causa! relationship 10 the precedin g one. Within the first introduclory seq uence the !awyer's citalion of the doub le commandment folIows, and finally Jesus givcs His confinnatory answer logether with an exhortalion tO aet, and a promise. Within the second sequence the lawyer's conrinning answer and the ex hortation of Je sus 10 aet folIows. The lawyer's second question reveals tension . The emphasis is on doing: 10 fulfil the law of the covenanl as it is expressed in the double COOl mandmenl of love. and stands in contraSIl O no t doing, not fu!filling. A cooflici between Je sus, who appears with authority (cf. Luke 10;2 1-22). and the lawyer, who represents the tradition and understanding of the scribes, is expressed in the lawye r's second queslion. The stand-po int of 41 C hatman, 1978: 64.

49 Chatman, 1978: 27-36. so Chatman, 1978: 53f.

12

The Oood Samarilan

Jesus is obedienee 10 the law of the covenant without reservation as it is expressed in the double commandment. But the lawyer diseriminates as to those coneemed. The drama can be deseribed as fallows: When the lawyer stands up his appearance is signalIed and hi s speech aet is prepared. His speech act is interpreled by the narrator in such a way, thai he tests Jesus . Following an introduetory dialogue on conditions for participation in eternal Iife, whieh are presenled as more or less obvious mauers and where both parts seem to agree, the question under diseussion is sharpened with the ques· tion at issue. That quest ion ean lead to an answer whieh in its turn ean be anaeked , but it also reveals a defensive attitude . The last moment is brought out by the interpretation of the narrator. The lawyer wanted to show himself just. In the question of Jesus, whieh follows the example and where there is no alternative ans wer, the lawyer is pressed 10 aeknowl · edge as neighbour the one who showed merey, also though he is a Samaritan. The tension is therefore not reduced . Jesus concJudes the dia· logue by repeating his exhonation to show merey . Thro ugh the drama of the plot the reader/listener is made to become involved and therewith he is led and encouraged to be eonv ineed by the argumentation of Jesus. The altention of the readerllistener is direeted to the obedience towards the double commandmenl of love as a eriterion for the membership in the people of the eovenant and participation in etemallife. This is in agree· ment with the introductory queslion, where participation in etemal life is the overarching theme, while the qualifieation of the heir by hi s aetions is the topic. At the same time prominence is given to Jesus' supe riority to the lawyer lhrough lhe plot. Jesus and the lawye r are lhe chorOClers 0/ the story, i.e they are the nar· rative subjeci of the narrative predicates, the kerneJs.51 Adhering 10 an open Iheo ry of characters51 I choose 101real them as aulonomous beings and not only as plot functions. that means more round

~I

Challllan, 1978: 44. A character is, according tO Chalfnan, a paradigm of tr:UtS, where the lTilit means a stable, permlnenl quality or lire. which can be developed. can appear on different occasions. disappear and be replaced. See Chatman, 1978: 126. He also points out, that character does not have "lire." the reader/listener endows hirn with "personaliIY"· See Olatm.:m. 1978: 138. 52 Chatman. 1978: 119ff.

13

Kristjan Buason

lhan flat, more not-predictable than predictable .~13 This I da because the reader's/listener's idea of them develops in the course of the evenls. Because the characters are the subjects of the actions it is not possible to evade the fact that the treatment of the characters and our earlier pre· sentation of the events overlap. Jesus is the dominating character in Luke 10:25-37 as in the rest of the gospel. The narrator refers to Hirn with a pronoun in the introductory verse (v . 25), but He appears with a name in the introduction 10 the final quest ion following the example (v. 30). and the final reply (v. 37). Through His direct speech He is presented as acharaeier possessing great authority and supreme understanding of the meaning of the law as it is expressed in the double commandment. He is addressed as a teacher. 51OOUlraAe (v. 25). Jesus surprises the readerllistener by the manner in whieh He answers the lawyer's second question . Hi s answer causes admiration for Hirn. The other character does not have a name, but the narrator talk s about hirn as one leamed in the law and so in hi s capacity as a member of an important social group, as being one of the interpreters of the law, and we meet them elsewhere in the gospel. In the speech acts, direct quest ions and answers, the lawyer shows hirnself knowledgeable in the law and versed in lheological subjecis. His additional question reveal s that he excJ udes cer· rain people from the fell owship of the eovenant. And , as earlier pointed oul, the narrator reveals that the lawyer tests Jesus, i.e. he is critical to· wards Jesus, and in the beginning he has some authority . When thc narrator says that the lawyer will show himse lf just, he reveals a defensive attitude towards Jesus. FinaUy he is affected by the argu ments of Jesus se uing forth the act of merey as eriterion for a neighbour, but he is compelled to do so. He is an adversary of Jesus and His teaching. In thc confrolltation he is defeated . Jesus stands there as the superior oße. This eharaeteriz3ti on makes the characlers in the narrative vivid for the reader/li ste ner. S4 It makes the reader/listener positive towards Jesus aod Hi s teaching. aod at the same time it impart s a more negative attitude towards the lawycr.

Luke /0:30-35, a Discourse wirhin a Discourse The expression must be analysed first.The example tagether wirh the fi na l qucstion (v. 36) is a speech act in a diseourse, it is a discourse withio a SJ Chatman, 1978: 132. ~4 See Rhoads/Michie, 1982: 101.

14

The Good 5amaritan

di scourse, where the principal character in the larger discourse, Jesus, be· comes the narrator in the shorter one, and where the other character, the lawyer, becornes the narratee. The narrative is told in third person. Jesus is here an overt narrator, who immediately comments on the example he gives. He is omni scient, but He does not always show it by ente ring the mind of the characters as when he talks about the feelings c f the Samaritan. He is present in all places and at different times. He fo llows the different travelle rs on the road . He is present when the traveller falls in lhe hands of the robbers and when the Samaritan takes care of hirn. He knows also what happens at the inn the next day. TIle li stener witnesses together with hirn what happens. By thi s he communicates neamess and the listener participates more easily in the narrati ve. The narrator presupposes that the listener kno ws a lot about the reli· gious and soc ial status of a priest, a levite and Samaritan in the situat ion of the communicati on. The narrator knows about the Samaritan's compass ion with the man who fell into the hands of the robbers. By confiding his kno wledge to the listener he shows confidence in hirn and draws hirn eloser to hirnself. The narrator shows a certain ca ncern for the man who fell into the hands of the robbers, primarily indireclly through actions of others. He shows a ne ga ti ve attitude towards characters in the narrative throu gh short descriptions of their negative actions. But his sympathy is forem ost for the Samaritan. ex pressed through a long positive description of hi s actions. In this manne r he affects the listener. It is he who chooses a natural order of events in the narrati ve and se· lects actions for the narrati ve. He se lects lhe actions of a priest and and a levite, actions which da not affect the salvation of the man who had fall en in the hand s of the robbers. By thi s he direCIS the understanding of lhe narrative. As to the quest ion of the ideological point of view the standards of judge· ment of the narrator coincide with those of the man who had fall en into the hands of robbe rs therein that active care for one in trouble is expected of those who corne up on hirn . That is ri ght acti on, (0 refu se it is wrong. Th is is in agree ment with (he double commandment of love whi ch pre· cedes this narrative and is presupposed in thi s connection. This appears in the description of the compassion of the Samaritan, wh ich changes the sit· uation of the man in trouble. The narrator underlines thi s whcn he de· scribes the man who had fallen into the hands of the robbers as half dcad . A negat ive evalu ati on of the robbers who left the man half dead and of 15

Kristj4n B6ason

those who passed by is at the same time c1early expressed. The other charaeters' points of view are different. The life of another man does practi ea lly not concern the robbers, the priest and the levite . He can be left to die. One need not take seriously one's duty to care for a half dead man on the road. But the Samaritan's standard of judgement is lhe same as the one of the narrator and the half dead man . Here is a direct contrast. The narrator direets the lis tener in favour of the Samaritan ~ actions through his standards of judgement as they are expressed in the narrative. The style is terse. Onl y the necessary information is g iven, exeept in the descriplion of the maltrea tment of the assaulted man, wh ich se rves to show hi s serious situation. Aeco rding to the narrator he is half dead. The attention of the listene r is directed to the Samaritan and his acts of merey and this is done through their extens ive description. The style is concrete and the narrato r "shows" lhe characlers and theiT actions. Th is is how he eommunieates 10 the li stener a neamess, which reaches its height in lhe di reet speeeh where lhe Samaritan gives instructi ons to the innkeeper aboul further eare for the man . The narrator uses narralive patterns as a repeated reference to the same Toad and plaee, Kafi{jatVEV (vv. 30, 31), tv t:t1 0&iJ bctivO tA.6Wv (vv . 3 1) and Kat"a rov t'OJl"OV El6Wv (v. 32), Oöet.Iruv rJA6Ev Kat" av'fov (v. 33), 10 the fa el that the charaeters saw the assailed man, i&iw (vv . 3 1, 32, 33), and 10 the repeated passing by hirn , aVf1Jl"apI'}A.8ev (vv . 31, 32). In thi s manner the narrator direeLS the attention of the li stener to the confrontations wilh lhe assai led man and with what a priest and a levite does n Ol do and what a Samaritan does. By relating signs of an eventual he lp, whi eh does not eome, thc namHo r creal es suspenee,55 whieh is inlellsified the second time. The narrators final quest ion (v . 36) is an imponant e lement of the fonn which indieates the appli cat ion or interpretation of the example, its moral, and communicates the fun elion of the example 10 the listener. Sy using the catego ries o f the speech-act theory il can be said that the speech aet of the Sam aritan lowa rds the innkeeper (v. 35b) is illoe utionary, but as far as iI affeeIs the innkeepe r to take eare of thc assai led ma n it is also pe rloculionary. The whole narrative incJud ing the final quest ion (v v. 30-36) are perlocutionary because both lhe example and lhe final quest ion affeet Lhe answeT. 55 Sre Chatman, 1975: 59-62.

16

The Good Samaritan

An Analysis 01 the Example's Story The story lime is a past time in the example, but a presence in the cornrnentary. Tt extends over two days (v . 35a) together with the assailed rnan's time of convalescence, Le it is rnuch longer than the time of the discourse. The story space is the road frorn Jerusalern 10 Jericho wilh an inn at the roadside . In addition to this settings there are presupposed elements like travellers, robbers and an innkeeper. They can become characters as they become a subject or an object of a kernei , a branching process statement. The analysis of time and space shows a seleclion and a shortening and presupposes an amount of complementary knowledge. The story even ts and the discourse events coincide in thi s narrative and are ordered in a normal plot. The narrative consists of several narrative blocks. Each one of these has a point of departure in a kernel: I ) A man travels from Jerusalem to Jeri cho (v. 30b). 2) Robbers capture hirn (v. 3Oc). 3) A priest travels down this road (v. 31). 4) A lev ite comes 10 the place (v. 32). 5) A travelling Samaritan comes up on hirn (v. 33). Within each one of these blocks there are to be found both kemels and minor plot events, except in the first one (v. 30b). It contains one kerne I which is the initial action of the whole narrative. A closer look j6 reveals that the introductory kemels of the narrative blocks stand in a different relalionship to each other. The second intro" There are rninor plot events following the introductory kerne! in the second block (v. 30), whic h develop what il means to be assailed by robbers. They undress hirn, beal him and leave hirn half dead.

There 1S a minor plot evenl, the sight of the assai led one, in Ihe thin! block, where a priest is the subject of the aClion (v. 31 ). It follows the introductory kerne!. Th is mi nor plot evenl stands in a causa! relationship to the introduclory kerne!. A following k.ernel , where the priest passes by, slands in a tempora) relalionship tO the sighL The same suucture of actions is 10 be found in the founh narrative block (v. 32), wher-e a levite is the subjcct of actions. In the fifth narrative block (vv. 33· 35) a minor plot event i5 10 be found following the introduclory kernel where a Samaritan sees Ihe assa..iled one. It SlandS in causal rt· lationship 10 the introductory kerne!. FoUowing lhis minor plot event is a kernei, whert the Samaritan feel s compassion (tO'.dar.tviO'9r), and it contains branching event as 10 the aclions of the Samaritan. The relationship tO the preceding event is temporal and causa! and posi tive. This event causes al the same time a decisive change of the situa tion of lhe assailed man. 1be following minor plot events are runher explicalion of Ihis kerne!. 1bey stand all in a causa! relalionship to this kerne!. The Samaritan comes for-

17

Kristjan Bliason

ductory kernei, where the robbers get ho ld of the travelle r. stands in impticit causal relationship to the fi rst one , i.e. a risk of being attacked by robbers bel ongs to Ihe Irave l from Jeru salem to Jericho ..57 Then follow the other introductory kemels which stand in a local (same road) aod an implicitly tempo ral (events in a temporal sequ eoce) in relationship to the first two (v. 30b , 3Oc). The three last bl ocks stand in an indi rectly causal relationship to the second block. i.e. through seeing the assailed man (vv. 3 t, 32, 33 ). These three blocks stand in a local and temporal relationship to each other, not a causa l one. Here are two intert wined plots. The one cons ists in a problem,S1 namely the assailed man's diffi cult situation, wh ich find s its solution in lhe Samaritan's compassion and mercy. lllis plot kn its the narrative together. The aetions of the priest and the levite do not bring a sol ution. Thei r by pass ings are non-solutions, but lhey eommunieate surprise and mu st eause di sappointment in the li stener.s9 The other plot is eonlingent and revealing .60 Through acti ons and charaeters it unveils a certain relalionship by comparing and contrasting aetions, the nOl showing care Jor and the showing care Jo r a half dead man on one's road . The repeated passing by slrengthens the negati ve contrasl and prepares for the ex tensive desc riplion of lhe Samaritan's compassion and ils positive eonsequences in aClions. The solution o f lhe problem and the positive side of the contrast coincide. But although the problem-solving pl ot is basic the emphas is lies on the contrast of aeti ons and thei r charaeters. Th is is eo rrobo rated by the indireetly cau sal reJati onship between the second block (lhe s itu ati on of the assa iled man) and the follow ing three, and by the fact that these three last blocks do not stand in any ca usa l relat ionsh ip 10 each other. The altenti on of the Jistene r is d ircc tcd by lh is to the contrast, and especially to its pos itive side, the compass ion and its effects.

.51 SI S9 60

ward. dresses Ihe wounds. pours on oil and wine. selS the assailed on his beaSl, takes him 10 an inn and takes eare of him there. takes out two denarii und gives Ihem 10 the inn keeper. This 13051 moment is fun her explained in the speech aet of the Samaritan. where he says that he buys from the innkeepcr continuous eare of the assailed one and declares that he is ready 10 pay more ir needed. The relalionships between Ihe minor plot events are temporaiones . Where a more preci se expression of the relationship is missing the reader/li slener supplies it. See Chalman, 1978: 45f. See Chatman. 1978: 48. Chatman, 1978: 61 Chatman, 1978: 48.

18

The Good Samaritan

The principal characrer in the example is an anonymous man . In the be· ginning he is a subject of an action, travelling. He is a traveller. But for the rest he is an object for the actions of others. The narrator describes hirn as half dead ( rIJ,ItOavrT, v. 3Oc), and so he makes it very c lear, how c ritical the situation iso As a character he is flat , i.e. identical with his funclions in the story. The robbers are wilhout names and they are characterized according to their function in the story. The priest and the levite do not have names. They have however soc ial· religious and national c1assifications (levite), i.e. they represent the two levels of public se rvants of the cult. They are travellers and di stinguish themselves through lack of compassion when they see the assailed man . Their behaviour is hard/y 10 be conceived of as typical. Thai does not fit to the s uspence in the discou rse and the surprise fun ction in the story which was noted earlier. In other words they show individual mark s, but in spile of this they are quite fl at. The Samaritan is also anonymous, but he has anational and religious characterization, wh ich differentiales hirn from the priest and the lev ite. He is also a traveller, and notices the assailed man as the others do. He distinguishes hirnself, however, in that he has compass ion and shows his mercy in many actions. He takes nOlice of whal he perceives. Thi s is how he is the character who is most alive. In spite of this he is a re latively flat characler. This positive characterization of the Samaritan creates an ef· fective pre supposition for an identifi cation by the listener. As far as the li stener identifies himself with the priest/lev ite because of a common national and relig ious idenlity he has 10 d istance himself from these and their acti ons. He is entrappcd by the narrator's plot. He has no choice. These social· religiou s and national charactcrizati ons show cont rasts primarily with respect to different religious and national belonging. These contrasts are crossed by the contrast between the one who shows cOn/passion and the one who does not, which dominates the narrative . The moral of the narrative . which is implicit in the final question on who of the three has become (ycyovtvCl I. v. 36) a neighbou r to the assa ultcd man, has, according to the preceding analysis , on ly one interp retation, namely the one the leamed li stener gives in his answer: "The one who showed metey on hirn ." In Ihis connection it is important to note the ex· press ion " has become a neighbour." It contains a change in the contrast and the impli ci t limitation in the example. The one who shows mercy is

19

Kristjan Buason

integrated, in this case a Samaritan (h is implied thaI the one who doe:not, in this instance a priest and a lev ite is excluded). Final ly there follows an attempt 10 define the implied readerllistener whc is written in the text. 61 It can be inferred from the narrators choice of subject and lhrough his way of exp re ssing it in order to affeci thr readerllistener that he expects a consenting answer.: He presupposes thaI the reader/li stener accepts that the ethical· religiou s law is of a fundam en· tal importance for the fellowship with God and that this fe Uowship iSt ac· cording to the l ews, delimited. He presupposes lhat the receiver is aware of the mutual excl usion of the l ews and the Samaritans. The narrator pre· supposes also that the receiver is familiar with the conditions requircd by the gospel fo r the fellows hip wi th God, i.e. the fulfilm ent of the law by mercy , and also with the gospel's dividing and integ rating efrec!. The implied rece iver is expected to become convinced that the Christian inter· pretation is ri ght and he should follow it. He g ive s the impl ied reader/ listener a posi ti ve function or role which affects the historical reading. 62 The imp lied author takes an inlerest in showing how l esus interprets lhe ethical and religious law and in describing the integrating and dividing erfect of mercy altemative ly of the Christian mi ssion. He is a Chrisli an, who admires l esus and how he interprets the law .

m. A Tex lli ngu islic Analysis of Luke

10:25·37

This analysis is primarily based on the method which has been devel9ped by Elisabeth Gülich and Wolfgang Raible in analysing narrati ve texts. 63 It is also influcnced by the criti ca l applicalion of David HellhoJm .6-t 61 See Luke 1:1·4 and 10:25 (ioou1. See funher Nonnan R. Petesen. 1984: 38·53, espe· cial ly page 39. 62 Cf. Roben M. Fowlcr, " Who is "The Reader" in Reader Response Criticism." Semeia 31. 1985: 6-23. espec ially pages 13- 15. where he discusses the question how far the reader comrols the text and the other way around. He refers 10 W. Booth, who is of the opinion that Ihe implied reader is fina lly to be found in the text, to W. l!;er who says thallhe implied reader is an "interaclion" between the lext and the reader and tO S. Fish, who in his lasl version thinks Ihe implied reader is the reader's reconstructiOIl. Fowler himself finds the reader in the text (p. 15). See also Slephcn D. Moore, "Doing Gospel Criticism as/with a .. Reader..... BThB 19. 1989: 85·93. 6) See Iheir anicle "Überlegungen zu einer makrosuukturellen Textanalyse: 1. Thurber, The Lover and His Lass." Pp 132· 175 in Grammar anti Descripriolls (SlUdies in Text Theory and Text Analysis). Edited by Teun A. van Dijk and l anos S. Petöfi. ßerlin _ New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1977 (here shonened to GülichIRaible 1977). See also

20

The Good SamariWl

This method has its point of departure in the analysis of the sentence. It presupposes the cohesion and coherence of the text and understands it as communication. It concentrates on the pragmatic aspect together with the semantic and syntacti c aspect. It does not o nly pay attention 10 the communieation between the sende r and lhe receiver but also to the communi cation between the characters in the text. i.e. the different communication levels.6S The work ing hypothesis is that the one who reads or lislens to a Iinguistic commun icalion must be able to perceive a macrostruClure on the "surface" of lhe tex t. i.e. the text as it is in its linear succession.66 The text is divided ioto fun cti onal parts. and the term "/eXI parts" is used of units whi ch one mu st be able to delimil not only thematically but also formally .61 This delimilation is made by signals 10 lhe reader/li stener by di viding markers which are ranked hierarchi cally according to lheir pragmalie. semantic or syntactic aspect. These markers constilule the ranks or grades of the text units in lhe hierarchy of the text. The ana lysis dislinguishes between those markers whi ch refer to the language system , i.e. text-interna I markers, and the markers whi ch refer to the speaker/listener, 10 the communi cation, and to the sphere of lhings and state of affairs. Le. text-external markers. The analysis must reckon with both types. The last mentioned ones rank higher in the hierarchy than lhe fonner. The communication si tuation of a text decides its level. lf it is ou tside the lexl, then il makes up its first communication level. A communication between parties in the text constitules a seeond lower conununi c3 tion level, eie. The exam ple in ou r text is on lhi s level. The markers of these different communiealion levels are primarily melaeommunicative cJauses which thematicize a communication, usually verba dicendi. senriendi and cog ilandi . but also substituti ons on metalevel. An example of verba dicendi is dlfcv in v. 27. They are predominantly text-pragmatic markers. 68 A distinction is made bctween texts whi ch have lheir denotatum within the real chronologica l order. and those which have it outside i1. Actions are performed in space and time and can be divided according 10 changes in the time dimension as weil as the space dimension, i.e

64 U

66 67 68

their book, Linguistische Texrmodelle . Grundlagen und Miiglichkeiren (UTß , 130) München: Fink . 1977. Das ViswMnbuch tks Humos als Apokal)'ps~. Formg~schjch tlichL und tutr~or~tischL Studj~n zu einu JjtuDrisch~n Gattung. Vol. I : M~thodischL Vorubu/~gungen und makrostruk.tW"ell~ TutDnalyse (ConBNT, 13:1). Lund: CWK Gleerup. 1980. Hellholm, 1980: 15f. GUlich/Raible 1977: 132f. GUlich JRaible 1977: 133. See Gülich IRaible 1977 :137-139.

21

Krisljin Buason

episode markers. The analysis distinguishes between abso lute and relative place and time markers, e.g. MO 'lepolX1a,b)J1 Ei~ 'lepIXw... which marks the road in v. 30 and lhereby the example. AClions can also be divided according to changes in the constellation of the charactcrs .69 e.g. vOJ.nk'6~ n~ in v. 25 which mark s the pericope, and iepe~ nc; in v. 3 1. As changes in time of events and actions can happen independent ly of the constellati on of characters so it follows that absolute temporal and local markers rank higher with a lower number in the hlerarchy of markers and stand above the character markers. which ind icale changes in the constellation of characters.10 Relative temporal markers like parricipium con iun clum rank lower Ihan changes in the constellat ion of the characlers, but rank higher, when they aee combined with changes in the conslellalion of characlers. e.g. bri n)v avptOv, and tk'ßaAtJJv in combination wilh -rtP JravooXcI in v. 35. These place, time and character ma rkers are lext semanric markers. 7l Lowest in the hierarchy are the tex t-inte rna I ma rke rs, wh ich do nOI have a direcl "analogon" outside the text.12 These are those wh ich have the least comprehensive relalionship , i.e the re lat ionship is berween signs. 13 They are predominant ly rext-sYll raclic markers. To thi s calego ry of markers belongs renominalization by a proper name or a noun of a cha racle r when he is subject of an action and has previously been referred 10 by a pronoun or an equivalenl category, e.g. 0 '!'1C1OtX; in v. 30. Lowest ranking are (adve rsative ) conj uncti ons like k'ai, &, and co njunc live adverbs. 74 Pragmali c-scmanli c markers are ranked above semant ic-synlact ic , o r on ly syntactic markers .7s It should be poin led out that the categories fo r hicrarchi zing the text are used as heuri slic and nOI ax iomal ic tool s, i.e. Ihey are adapted 10 Ihe tcxt type which Ihey arc applied to, so thai equ ivalenl categories can be subord inated. 76 It is also possible thai a marker is miss ing bUI implied by a text.

69 70 71 72

See G ülich/Raible 1977: 139, 143· 144. See Gülich/Raible 1977: 139f, 144. See G Ülich/Raible. 1977: 14 3f. See Gülich/Raible 1977: 133f. 7) See Hellholm, 1980: 78. 74 See GülichIRaible 1977 : 144- 147. H See Hellholm, 1980: 78f. 16 Cf. Bruce C. Johanson. To All Brethren. A Text-linguistic and Rhewrical Approach ({o I Thessalonians (ConBNT, 16). Slockho lm: Almqv jsl & Wiksell intem:nional. 19 77. p. 25.

22

The Good Samaritan

Censideration is paid to the content as weB as to the thematic and fun c· lional aspects in headings so that a rank e r grade with tower number stands hi gher in abstract ion in the presentation of the analysis which fol · lows. 77

A Ma crostruclUre

0/ Luke

/0 :25·37

Abbrevjatioos: TP, text part. I. Text-pragmatic markers: MC. a metacommuoicative c1ause, here on ly within the lext. AA, an appea.1lo aueorion. 11 Texl·semanlic markers: EMt and EMp. absolute episroe markers of time and place. CM. a marker of change in the constellation of characters. EMt rel and EMp rel, relative episode markers of time and place. CMch, change between ac/ans (CMact) and patiens (CMpal). 111 . Text-s)'ntactic markers: RN, renominalizalion. RNact. of actallS. RNpat, of patiellS. CON, conjunction.

v. 25

On> The pericope: The integrating (and dividillg) COnditiollS of the eschatological fellowship ami ils heritage: The fu lfilment of the double conunandment of love. Jesus' conversatioo with a law)'er (VOIJt r~ n ~ CM, + t rtu:ipd'fJJV EMt rel, U:yfJJV EM t rel, dvtOf"l1 aor.), who tests Jesus.

v. 26

v. 27

lTPI. TI~ Iaw os a crilerion 2"fpl.l. A lawyer asks Jesus the teacher which actions are conditions for inheriling etemallife. 3TPI.I.1 . A fonnula of reference. 3TPI.1 ·2. A queslion: "Teacher, what shall I da 10 ioherit etemallife (6tMo ..ak AA) ." 2"fp1.2. Jesus refers to the law (6 CMch. lit CON. eiuv MC) 3TPI.2·I. A fomluia of reference. 3TP1 .2.2. A counter-question on the answer of the law. 4TPI.2.2.1·"Wh:1I is wnllen in the law?" 4Tpt .2.2.2. "!-Iow da )'OU read?" ITP2 The tltmble cOtnmtJruJment of love and a comment with e:chortatiOIl (0 CMch, ruro. . pl8d~ EMt rel. öl CON, dlfC'I MC). 2"fp2.1. The lawyer's summary of the law in the double commandment of love. 3TP2. 1.1. A formu la of reference.

77 See Hellholm, 1980: 135.

23

Krisljan Buason

v. 29

v. 30

v. 31

v. 32

24

3TP2.12. An answer: The double commandmenl of love. 4TP2.1.2.1. The love of God (roll 8t:611 uou CMpal) 5TP2. 1.2.1.I. "with all yoor heart. 5TP2.1.2 1.2. and wilh al! your soul (roi CON). 5TP2.1.2.1.l and with all your strength (rai CON). 5TP2.J.2.1.4. and wilh all YOUf mind (roi CON)." 4Tp2.1 .2.2. The love of neighbour (reW .ü"ufOIl uou CMpat) as of onesel!. 2"fp22. Jesus' exhonalion 10 show love (duv CMch, & CON. Me). 3Tp2.2·I.A fonnula of reference. 3Tp22.2. An answer: A comment on Ihe lawyer's answer. 4TP2.2.2.1. The answer is right. 4TP2.2·2.2. The ful rllment of the double commandment of love is a condition for parricipation in elemallife. STp2.2.2.2.1. "00 this. STP2.2.2.2.2. and you will live (.-ai CON)." 2'yp2.1 The lawyers question on the delimitatioo of his neighbour or of his confederate (0 CMch fOIl 7'100iJv RNobj. &. CQN. Wrt:1I Me (pIe. con. is here causal» . 3Tp2.3.J. A fonnu la of reference. 3TP2.32. A question : "Who is my neighbour?" ITP3. The aCl o!mercy i! an inugrating and a dilliding crittrion!or God's JMoplt (0 '/1/uOÜI; CMch, Vtro)'a{l4", EMt rel, RNact, dlft:1I MC). 2'fp3. 1, Jesus asks a counter-question conceming the neighbour immediately after giving an example of one man of three who showed mercy. l TP3.1.1. A fonnul a of referenee. 3DT3.12. An example of a Samaritan who shows mercy. 4Tp3.J.2.1. An example from the road between Jerusalem and Jerieho (O:/ro "rpouuaAr\# c,," 7qxXdl... EMp) of an assailed aod half dead tnllleller (&vOpt...wrd( n~ CM) who is ignored by a priest aod a levite, but is Ulken care of by a Samarian. STP3.1.2.I .I. An anonymous tralleller is left half dead on lhe road. IYfp3.1.2.1.I .1. He went this road . 6'J'p3. 1.2.1.12, Robbers seized him (A7]Ufar~CM) aod lefi hirn half dead. 7TPl I2 .1.1.2.1. They rnistreated hirn (pie con + aor EMt rel). 8TPl I.2.1.I.2.1.I. They stripped hirn (.-ai CON) 8TP3.1.2.1.1.2. 1.2. aod beat hirn (lC'aiCON). 7TP3. 1.2.1.1.2.2, They left hirn halfdead (ptccoo + aor EMt rel). 5TP3.1.2. 1.2. A priest on (he road (irpc~ n~ CM, tv rij 0&jJ b.-civu EMp rel, &. CON) did not take care of the hal f dead man. 6'J'pl I.2.1.2.1. A priest went along this road. 6'J'p3.1.2.1.2.2 He saw the half dead man and passed by (iMv EMt rel +aor, ~:ai CON). STP3.1.2.1.3. A levite did not take care ofthe half dcad man (.tcvi1TJ' CM. ~ lC'ani rov rumll tAMIIEMtp rel + aor. Iii CON). IYfPl l.2.IJ ,I. A levite carne 10 Ihe place.

The Good Samaritan 6yp3. 1.2.1.3.2. He saw the halfdead man and passed by (i&Jv EMt rel +

aor,

\I .

33

v . 34

v. 3S

konj). 5TP3.1.2. 1.4. A Samaritan showed mercy towards the half dead man ( ra"txpl"'~ .. ~ ~CM, Jr(tf 'tWtdv EMI rel + aor, öl: CON). flfst out on the road. then al the inn and fmalJy as long as it would be needed. 6TP3.1.2.1.4.1. A Samaritan took cue of the half dead man out on the road (implied). 1TP3.] .2.1.4.].]. He carne 10 hirn where he was. 7TP3.1.2. 1.4.J.2. He saw hirn and had compassion with hirn (i&.i}v EMt rel +aor, ..-ai CON). 7TP3.J.2.1.4.1.3. He went 10 hirn (1rpOOtA.&w. EMI rel + aor, Jr/'X{ CON) and dressed his wounds (bnztfJ"N EMI rel+aor). 8Tp3.J.2.1.4.1.3.1. He poured on oil 8TP3.J.2. 1.4.J.3.2. and wine (Jral CON). 6r[-p3.1.2.1.4.2. The Samaritan took care of hirn in an inn. (d~ lI"O'VooXdovEMp, bn{J!fJ&cCU;EMt rel + aor, lit CON). 7TP3.1.2.1.4.2.1. He took hirn on his beastto an inn 7TP3.1.2. 1.4.2.2. and took care of hirn there (Jrm CON). 6yp3.1.2.1.4.3. The following moming the Samaritan entrusted the innkeeper with the haU dead man for funher care (rf/J lravooZd CM, iKi njv tx4ltOvEMt rel, bc~v EMt rel + aor, Jrcz{ CON). 7TP3.1.2.1.4.3. 1. He took out money and gave them 10 the innkeeper 7TP3.1.2.1 .4.3.1. and asked fOf funher care fot the half dead man Jr/'X(

(dltl!v M C).

8TP3.1 .2.1.4.3.I .1 A fonnula ofrcference. 8TP3.1.2.1.4.3.1.2. A requesl: The innkeeper is 10 take care of the

v.

36

v. 37

half dead man and the Samar1lan will pay fer funher expenses because of hirn on his return. 4TP3. 1.2.2. The moral of the example and a final question. (A commcntary on a text has lhe same rank as lhe lext il cornments on). 1be question concems lhe man who through an act of mercy has become a neighbour (001 CM, a refercnce 10 a dialogue panner in the communication situation (deixis». 2TP3.2. The lawyer's answer which conflrms thai showing mercy is a criterion Cor a neighbour (d CMch, 6/; CON dll"Cv Me). 3Tp3.2.1. Fornmla of reference. 3TP12.2. A neighbour is thc onc who shows mercy. 2Tp3.3. Jesus' exhonation 10 show mercy (0 7J1Oo~ CMch, lit CON. cilfCV Me).

3Tp3.3. 1. The lawyer shall go 3TP3.3.2. and show mcrcy likc thc Samaritan in lhe example.

The textlinguistic delimitation and hierarchization of the text pans of our pericope presented above is fonnal. But this fonnal structure has conse· quences for the interpretation of the text. It shows that the pericope is a structured whole, where the ex.ample in VV. 30·36 has a subordinated place.

25

Krisljl1n Buason

Highest ranking in the infonnation of this peri cope is that Jesus is confronted by a lawyer. The prese ntation of this confrontation is div ided in three text part ofthe same rank and value, vv. 25-26, 27-29 and 30-37. The relati onship between these text parts can be described in thc following way. The first text part (vv. 25 -26) gives an introdu ctory testi ng quest ion about that behav iour which qualifies for parti cipation in etcmal life, the heritage of God's people, and a general reference to the law in this eonneeti on. The second tex t part (vv . 27 -29) pre supposes the introductory question, but it gives a greater preeision of the law in the fonn of the double eommandmen t of love and its fulfilment and not fulfilment in • self-justifying reservation. The third text part (vv. 30-37) presupposes thc introductory queslion 100, but eoneentrates on aeti ons of merey. 11 gives an example of me rcy, acknowJedgement of mercy as a qualifieation for a eonfederate and an exhortat ion to aet aeeording to this mercy.This shows that the pericope is struclUred around acring, i.e. acting according to thc Jaw as it is represented by the double commandment of love and fulfi lled in aets of merey as eondi ti on for participation in the esehatologieal herilage of God's people. From this folIow s, for example, that Ml1aiov should be understood in the meaning "a confederate." This means that v. 29 should be understood as a reservation wi th respeet to the fulfilment of the double eommandment. Th is cireumstance together with the exho rtati ons pres upposed that a lawye r, a prominen t mcmber of Jewry stands outside of the fellowship enlit led to the eschatologica l herilage. Th is presupposes a Christian mi ss ion in dialogue with Jewry. The example (vv . 30-36) lies wirhin the third tex t part as its first subordi nated text part of th ree . A eommunieation of Jesus on a seeond lower level follows a new start pre se nted by a fonnula of refe renee. This eommuni eation eontain s two subordinated tex t part s. The first one of these. the example proper (vv. 30b-35). shows in four still furth er subordinated text parts thai onl y o ne of three Iravellers. an outsider of the Jewish eommunit y, in eontra st 10 two members of it , shows mercy towards the fourth one , a half dead man . The second text part (v. 36) implies that the outsider has become member of those entitled to the heritage through his aet of mercy. The funetion of the example together with the addi tiona l quesli on whieh contains the mora l of the example is to show to a member of Jewry how he also, like an outsider, can become entitled to the eschatologi cal herilage throu gh submi ssion to aets of merey.

26

,

The Good Samaritan

This fil s 10 the higher ranking texi parts on the level of the communi · cation with the receiver, reader/liSlener of Luke , which presupposes the acceptance of the teaching of Jesus by those who are outside the Jewish people like a Samaritan and their membe rship in the community of God's people . The contex t of the pericope is the refore the Chri stian mission, which also has in its community people from outside the community of the Jews and is in di alogue with Jews who have not accepted the teaching of Jesus. This interpretation of the pericope is supported by the circumstance that it is a subordinated text part in a larger text part ranking a grade higher in the hie rarchy of the text of the gospel, i.e. Luke 10:17·37, which is delimited by an implied temporal epi sode marker of the return of the seventy lwo to Jesus. Th is higher ranking text part is aboul partici. pation in the eschatological fe llowship and its mission.

IV . A Comparison of the Three Melhods. The point of departure in the following compari son 78 of the th ree melh· ods presented here is the conception of language as a convenlion and the presumpli on that a narrati ve text and the reading of il expresses conven· tions, which are more or less unconscious. One of the conventi ons is 10 "fiH" in the gaps in the narrative accordi ng to whal is "real" or "probable," and this depends on the pertinent cultu re . Th is happens when an author presents something as "natu ral," Le. more Iike the ideal than the actual, and presupposes knowledge about self·evident things, eithcr liter· ary categories or the world of the text. Thi s is t.rue al so whcn a li s· tener/reade r fi ll s in the gaps in the text and adapts events, characlers and situations 10 a coherenl whole.19 In thi s respecI there is principally no diffe rence between a narrative aboul someth ing which has happcncd in real · ily outside the lext aod something fi ctive which could have happcned. 7. For a general orientation see: H. Abrams. T~ Mirro r ond l ~ Lamp. New York : Oxford University Press. 1963, p. 6. Paul Hem adi, " Literary Theory : A Compass for Crilics." Cririca f Inquiry 3, 1976: 369-386. Birger O lson, " A Decade of TextLinguislic Analyses of ß iblical Texts at Uppsala ." Studio T~ofogico 39. 1985: 107126. Wemer H. Kelber, "Gospel Narrative and Critical Theory." Biblicaf Theology Bulletin 18, 1988: 130-135. Wilhe1m W uellner, " Where is Rhetorical Criticism taking us?" Cath olic Biblicaf Quarurly 49. 1989: 448-463 . H ube rt Frankemö lle, " Kommunikntives Handeln in Gleichnissen Jesu. Historisch-kri tische und pragm:lIische Exegese. Eine kritische Untersuchung." New Testame nt Studies 28, 1982: 6 190. 79 Chatman. 1978: 48-53. .1 U IK!: -",r...

27

Krisljin Buason

The three methods which are described above are different examples of such a reading, ahhough it has been a critical reading.80 They are retellings by the means of different meta-Ianguages.

Sel/eral Features are Common '0 ,he Three Analyses

The three analyses presuppose that the text is an expression of a certain historical situati on. They perfonn or presuppose historical-Iexical research in o rder to get some idea about the .symbol world of the text milieu. This concems bOlh the primary denotative and the secondary connotalive meaning. e.g. a neighbour in the meaning of one standing near to somebody and in the meaning of being a member of the covenant or being a confederate. The lexicaJ infonnation s are combined with the principle, that minor units are dependent on a higher ranking structured whole. e.g a frame over against an example. a larger discourse over against a discourse within the discourse and a more comprehensive text part in relation to a narrowing text part, wh ich suggests the meaning a "confederate" or the "one belonging to the eschatological fellowship." Common to the methods is also the fact that the introduclory quest ion presupposes the theme: Participation in the eschalological fell owship . They are partly in agreement as to the interpretation of the examp le that someone outside the covenant can become ilS member and that the one who belongs 10 it can turn out to stand outside. The redaction historical analysis came to this conclus ion by a mOlif-histori cal analysis and a lexical-intralextual analysis. They also agree that the pericope presupposes a Christian understanding of the eschatological fellowship , a ltemative ly the Christian mission . Older fonnhi slorica l concepts such as conflicl story and example, have bcen used in this paper while new defmitions on the basis of Iilerary critical and textlinguistic premises lie outside its purpose.

80 See Fowler, 1985: 6·23, and Moore, 1989: 85f.

28

The Good 5amaritan

Distinclive Marks The redac ti on critical method differs principally from the two other methods as to the aU-comprehending question of origin and author8 1 and his theology, while the other two methods ignore the author and the questi on of origin, while it is considered not to contribute to the understanding of the text. The attention in the fonn critical analysis and in the deci sion as to fonn is to a small degree directed to the text in its relationship 10 the li stener/ reader. The genetic and theo logical approach has the effect thai the principal motif of the example is deduced La . with the help of the tradition in LukeActs about Samaritans and a suecessful mission among them. But it is questionable whether thi s intratextual reading is relevant as to the nearesl literary conlext of the pericope and its example. The reconstruction of the hi slorieal cireumstances in the showdown between Samarilans and the l ews and the historical developmem within Jewry and Christianity, especially after the destruction o f the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, is also questionable as to the relevanee for the understanding of this text. The same goes for the historical-theologieal reconstruction of the inlermediale funetion of the Samaritans, because they had the social-ethieallaw, and for the relationship between the theology o f Luke and the Hellenistic l ewish theology. This mises the quest ion how far reeonstrueted historieal e ireumstances outside a text eontribute to the un derslanding of a peri cope in its li lerary contex!. It is impon ant nOI 10 mix aclual circumstances and our reconslructed ideas about mem. Finally. in aceord ance with Ihe older redaction hi story. souree eriti cism is uscd in orde r 10 corroborate redaeti onal part s in the pcricopc. These parts are thoughl 10 show Ih at the principal qucslion posed by thc text is the va lid ity of the law in eonneelion with Luke J0: J 7ff. espee iaUy v. 20. and that a nomislic text follows an antinomisti c text. Souree eriti eism is here eombined with a hisloriea l-theological inte rest in the law in Lucan theo logy and that compets wi th the strueture analysis. whieh points out that the peri cope is about the question: Who belongs 10 the fellow ship of God? Here distinctive marks over against the sources are eonfused with emphasis in a tex t. Thi s way of appl yi ng SOUTee criti cism 10 indi vidual pcricopes in o rde r 10 find redacliona l elemen ts in the text and to systematize Ihem as the 81 See for insI3nce C. CliflOn ß1ack 11. '!he Quesl of Mark Ihe RcdaclOr: Why h:ts il been pu~ucd :tod Whal has il 13Ughl Us?"' JOUTlUJllor tlU! Studie'! 0/ New Tutamell(

33. 1988. 19-39.

29

KriSljM Bl1ason

theology of the au thor is characteristic of of earlier redaction cri ticism, or redaction hi story (RedakIionsgeschichte).82 The analysis of the content stru cture of the whole pericope is made in order to show, how the second half of the pericope has been constructed on the basis of the first half. The three methods differ slrikingly with respect to the analysis of fonna) struclure. The redaction critieal analysis in thi s paper is combined with ce ruin analysis on the lilerary level and that complieates the eomparison of the methods. In the redaction eritical analysis the pericope as a whole and the exam· pie are understood as closed syslems, but the other two see them as dynamie struetures of different depth in relationship 10 the receiver of the lext. This fact has the effect Ihal in the redaction critical analysis the analysis of the whole struclure of the pericope is limited to parallel struetures of aelion : queslion, eounter-queslion, exhortation. The distinclion between eommunicative leve ls is here almost miss ing. A closed system is presupposed in the analysis of charaeters . In the example four charaeters are re· duced to three funcli ons whieh belong to aceruin litcrary genre. The analysis of the language and the grar.lmatical and the syntaeli c slructures is in the redaction crilieal analysis subordinated to to the ques· tion of aUlhor and the original language. The lilerary ana lysis of structure has the purpose to decide the mean· ing/funclion of the different parts. IIs di stincti ve marks are the separation of expression, and content and the all -e mbrac ing question conceming thc relalionship of the text struelUres 10 the receive r and how he is presup· posed 10 parti cipate in the interpretation of the lext. Here ee rtain psycho· log iea l perspectives are laken inlo consideration in connection wilh the ques lion of slruclures of influence on the receiver for the idenlifi cat ion and definition of charaeters. With respect 10 the method th is means that the prcced ing text and its informalion is taken into considerat ion as a world common 10 bOlh narra· tor an the reader/lislene r, whi le the followi ng text is who lly fam ili ar only to the narralOr. This means, for inslance, that the results of the mi ss ion among the Samaritans in Acts are not considered complemenlary material for the receive r's unde rslandin g of the example. The foregoing text con· Bl See (he cri (ical evaluation of redaction cri(icism in Christopher Tucken, Reading thL New Testame fll . Metlwds of Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fomess Press. 1987: 116-

135.

30

The Good Samarilan

taining the travel of Jesus among the Samaritans and the Samaritans' rejection o f Jesus and the conversation of Jesus with the disciples engaged in the mission is at the same time seen as possibly relevant information. The communicative perspective in the structure analysis constitutes a decisive difference in spite of several features which it has common with fonn historical analysis . An example of this is the distinction between communicative levels. Because of that distinclion the example in Luke 10:30-36 becomes a discourse within a discourse. while the fonn histori cal analysis, concentraling on lhe example in vv. 30-35, understands the vv. 29 and 36-37a as a frame. Sy this it is ignored that v. 36 is on the same comm unicative level as the vv . 30-35. The consequence of this is that it becomes doubtful to regard v. 36 as a counter-question and, further. 10 regard the second half of the pericope as a parallel crealion on the pattern of the first half. Concentration on actions and the analysis of local, temporal , personal and logical (causa)) relalionships, together wilh considering the assailed man's perspective. is 10 a certain degree common to the redaction critical analysis on the literary level and the analysis of literary criti cism . But the analyses differ with respect 10 the syslematic analysis of these moments in the lilerary critical method. The redaction critical analysis executed the analysis of these moments se lectively and directed its attention primarily 10 the example. These circumslances explain, for instanee. why both methods maintain a causa) relationship between the first half and the second half of the pericope. BUI the Iiterary crit ical analysis of the pl ot, which hierarchized the actions, showed that the principal keme is are the question of neighbour. Jesus' examp le with its final question. and the attention directed lO lhe man who showed mercy . Thi s led 10 the conclus ion thal the second half is the principal part , The literary crit ica l analys is distinguishes c1earer th an the rcdacli on cri lical analysis between the overarching question: Who will inherit eternal life? and on the othe r hand the concentration of the pericope on the characlerization of the inheritor through his action s. The literary critical analysis adopts a more open eharaCler theory in the analysis of actions or characters in the example. Ir pcrceives individu als rather than symbols for people , The literary criti cal analys is of perspective or point of view was more differentialed and detailed and showed an exchange of the lawyer's perspective wirh the perspective of Jesus or the Christian understanding of the fulfilment of the law in mercy . The literary critical ana lysis of the rhetorie of the expression togelher wi th the illoeutionary and possibly perlocut ionary characte r is more ex-

31

Krisljl1n Buason

tensive than the analyses done by the othe r methods. The literary eritieal analysis together wirh the analysis of speech aets has primarily eontributed to an understanding of the persuasive eharaeter of the text. Rhetorical struetures, like fo r instanee repetitions of phrases of do in g, indieate an emphasis in the text. The literary eritica l ana lysis does not treat the grammatieal and syntaetie stru etures. But it is important in th is conneetioA to note that in the analysis of di scourse time praesellS historicllm slaßds for pasttime. A camparisan of the textlinguislie analysis with the two others shows thai

the idea that aetions have a central position in the narrative and the eooeeplion of the frame of 5enings, i.e. time plaee and eharaeters, is eommon 10 them all. Tagether with the literary eritical analysis it direets its attention to the tex t in its relationship towards the receiver, and with it goes the division between levels of communieation. But its eharaeteristie fea ture is its eoneentration on signals on the surfaee of the text, whieh is eonsequently hierarchized aecording 10 pragmati c, semantie and syntaelic aspeets. These signa ls both divide and hierarehize the text. This implies that the text is understood as a structure of units of meaning wh ich stand in a syntagmati e and paradigma lie relationship 10 eaeh ot her. Text parts (mierostruetures) with a less comprehensive meaning are subord inated 10 texts with more eomprehensive meaning (maerostructures).1) This means that the pericope is subord inated within a Jarger text aboul the esehatologieaJ fellowship of God and its mi ssion of the Kingdom of God and that it exemplifies a dialogue wilh a eritica l Jewry ou tside the Chri stian eommunity and an appeal to submit to the serv ice of the integrating (and dividing) merey of thi s mission. The marked divi sions in Luke 10:27 and 30 show another slrueture than both the less dctailed fonn analysis with ils parallel speech scquenees as weil as the Iiterary eritiea l plot analysis. The additional queslion of the Jawyer about his nei ghbour. which is his defence against the aeeusation of not showing love, gets a subordinated position, but the example together wilh the final question :md the fo ll owi ng dialogue direets the attention to neighbour as a function. i.e. as the one who shows mercy. The text li nguistic analysis hierarehizes the kemels so that the attention is direeted to the work of merey . The texl linguislic analysis of the example both confinns the literary analysis and shows greater precision in the treatmen t of the Slruclure of actions . The three text parts with the three lravellers have the same rank U See Olsson, 1985: 122.

32

The Good 5amaritan

in the hierarchy o f tex t parts, but the relationship between them lies in the compari son o f the one who shows mercy with those who do not independently of religious- national belonging. lt should finally be pointed out that the textlinguistic analysis hierarchizes temporal participles in combination with a verb in aorist. This compari son of the methods is not exhaustive. It shows, however, essential di fferences between them. The transition from a hi storically ori ented method to melhods oriented towards the text and the rece iver im plics a certain complementary addition, sifting, preferring and hierarchizing of questi ons, but primarily a new orientation,S4 where most of the questions are different. Thi s affects the interpretation as has been shown . The relationship o f the textlinguistic method towards the lilerary critical method can be described as complementary, it is also more precise, because both methods ask quest ions on the structure of the text in its relationship to the rece iver. These two methods represent a certain way of reading a text , and they have been seen to reveal structures which are important for the interpretation. Se rious research can nOI ignore them. It mu st bee emphasised, howeve r, that the historical questions are legitimate ones and occasions for asking many such questions have heen givcn in this presentalion. But they have to be asked and answered in connecti on with a tex t orientcd analysis.

Works Consulted Abrams, H. 1963 Berger, K.

Th~

Mirror and t~ Lamp. New Yorlr::: Odord University Press.

1973

" Materialen zur Form und Überliderungsgeschichte neutestamentlicher Gleichnisse." Nov Ttst 15: 1·37. B1ack 11, C. Clifton 1988 "The Quest of Marle the Rednctor: Why has it been pursued and What has it taught Us?")ourlwl/or IM Studi~s o/N~w T~stam~nt 33: 19·39. Chatman, Seymour 1978 Story and Discours~: Narraliv~ Stnu:tw"~ in Ficrion and Film . Ithaca and London: ComelJ University Press. 84

Frankemölle , 1982: 61f.

33

Kristjin Buason Fitzmyer, Joseph, A. 198 1 The Gospel According to l/lu (I . IX) (Tbe Anchor Bible. Volume 23). Garden City, New Yon. : Doubleday & Company. 1985 The Gospel Accoring to LI/te (X • XXIV) : IntrodUClion, Translarion, and Notes [fhe Anchor Bible. Volume 28A). Garden City, New y on.: Doubleday & Company. Fowler, Roben M. 1985 "Who is "The Reader" in Reader Response Criticism." Semeia 31: 6-23. FrankeTnÖlle, Huben "Kommunikalives Handeln in Gleichnissen Jesu: HislOrischkritische 1982 und pragmatische Exegese. Eine kritische Umersuchung." NTS 28: 61 90. Genelle, Gernrd 1980 Narrative DiscolUse. Odord: Basi! Blackwell. Goulder, M. D. 1968 "Characterislics of Ihe Parables in Several Gospels." ffhL 19: 51-69. Grundmann. Waller 1968 Das Evangelium nach MaJthiius (lbeologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testamem I). Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Gülich, Elisabelh. and Raible, Wolfgang 1977 "Überlegungen zu einer makrostrukturellen Textanalyse: J. Thurber. The Lover and His Lass." Pp 132-175 in Grammar and Descriptions (Studies in Text Theory and Text Analysis). Edited by Teun A. van Dijk and Janos S. Petöfi. Berl in - New York : Walter de Gruyter. Linguislische Ta tmodelle: Grundlagen und Möglichkeiten (UTB. 130). 1977a München : Fink. Hellholm. David 1980 Das Visionenbuch des flermlJS als ApokL1lypse. Formgeschichtliche und te:rtteoretische Studien t U einer literarischen GatrUJIg.Vol. I : Methodische Vorüberlegungen und /1/lJh'ostrulwuelle Textanalyse (ConBNT. 13: 1). Lund : CWK Gleerup. Hemadi , Paul 1976 "Literary Theory: A Compass for Critics." Crilical Inquiry 3: 369-386. Johanson, Btuce C. 1987 ToAII Brethren: A Text-linguislic und Rhetorical Approach 10 I Thessa/onians (ConBNT. 16). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell imemational. Kelbc:r. Wemer H. 1988 "Gospel Narrative and Critical Theory." STilB 18: 130·135. Marshall, I. Howard 1978 The GnspeJ ofLuke: A Commentary on the Creek Tut (fhe New International Greek Testament Commentary). Exeter. The Pater Noster Press.

34

The Good Samaritan

Moore. Stephen D. "Doing Gospel Criticism as/wilh a ..Reader..... BThB 19: 85-93. 1989 01500. Birger 1985 "A Oecade ofText-LingwSlic Analyses 0( Biblical TextS al Uppsala." Studia Theologica 39: 107-126. Petersen. Norman R. 1984 'i'he Reader in the Gospel." NeotulllIMnJica 18: 38·53. Rhoads, David, and Michie. Donald 1982 Marle os Story: An llllroductu,n to tlre Narrative 0/ a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fonress Press. Schmithals. w . • 1980 Das Evangelium nach I uMs (Züricher Bibelkommentare: Neues Testament. 3. 1). Zürich: Theologiscer Verlag. Schneider, G . Das Evangelium nach LI/km. Kapitell · JO (Ökumenischer Taschenbuch1977 kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Band 3/1). Gütersloh : Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. ! WUrzburg: Echter Verlag. Sehweiter, E. Das Evangelium nach f uM, (Das Neue Teswnent Deutsch. Teilband 3). 1982 Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sellin, Gerhard 1974 "Lukas als Gleichniserzähler. Die Erzählung vom bannhlittigen Samariter (Lk 1025-37). A. Allgemeine Voriiberlegungen." ZNW 65: 166-1 89.

"B . Die Erzählung von barmhl1rtigen Samariter als Beispiel einer lukanischen &~-n ~- Erz.lIhlung . ZNW 66: 19-60. Tucken, Christopher 1987 Reading the New Testament: Methods of Inurpreratiol1. Philadelphia: Fonress Press. 1975

Wuellner, Wilhelm " Where is Rhetorica1 Oiticism taking us?" CBQ 49: 448-463. 19 89

35

The Gospel in Paradigms A Sludy in the Hermeneulical Space of Luke·Acls

Kari Syrceni, Helsinki

In his doctora! thesis Die MUll er Jesu im Ne uen Testament, Heikki Räisänen pointed out tha i Luke's portrait of the math er of Jesus is slrongly paradigmati c: as a recept ive hea reT [0 the ward of God she is a prototype o f Christians of all limes. L As Räisänen a lso noted. Jesu s' mather is not the only paradigmalic figure in Lukc's story. Ta name a few in the evangelist's gallery, there are Elisabeth and Zechariah as weil as Simeon and Hannah. representati ves of pious l ews . There is Zacchaeus (Lk 19: 1-1 0), who exemplifies the repenting sinne r and the fi ght use of one's fiches , and {hefe is the fearful story of Anan ias and Sapphira (AcIs 5: 1- 11 ) whi ch wams against dishonesty in comm un it y Iife. No less paradigmatically coloured are the main characters of the Lucan saga Peter, Paul and Jesus himself. And besides real actors. Luke employs in his similes and example stones a number of impressive fictional characters 2 10 embody a positive paradigm such as the good Samanlan (Lk 10: 29-36) or a negat ive one like the rich fool (Lk 12: 16-2 1). There is no doubt that these und similar paradi gmati c actors and episodes are sa lient in the Lucan wri lings. In addition. it is only natural that these typical Lucan features should be of redaction-cnlical intercs l as indications of Luke's lilerary and lheologica l aims. Whal may be less evi· dent is the henneneutical impon of the issue. Is there anything so pecul ia r abou t the Lu can parad igms that it woul d motivate a herrneneulica ll y o ri· ented quest with a theoretica l interest and a wider traditio-historica l perspective? I hope 10 show that there iso

I. Theoretical Conside rati ons What is meant by 'paradigmatic'? The above examples should make plain the general idea , bUI an exact defin ition of the concept is much more diffi cult to adv ance. A s imple definition will not be attempted here. ei ther. I Rlis!inen. 1989: 153-155. 2 ACling person s and entities of the text-world are called 'aclo rs' or 'characters'. Here these are used largely synonymously, bUI in principle there is a difference, 'character' being an actor with diSlinctive human chamcleristics (Bai, 1985: 79·80),

The Gospel in Paradigms

lnstead of detennining in one sentence what the paradigmatic is, a larger interpretive area will be identified inside which things are perceived to be parad igmat ic. The parad igmatic will be localized in three hermeneutical dimensions which are divided in two opposite directions (subsections a-c). The three dimensions suffice 10 detennine a fo nn of what will be called the hermeneutical space (subsection d).

(a) The General in the Individual: Deductive vs. Induclive In the firs t dime nsion, we observe that the paradigmalic has to do with what is common or generally valid . In this respect it is ciosely related to the typical. S oth deal with the relationship of indiv iduals within the type , d ass or category of things to which they belong. The term 'parad igm' occurs in several contex ts. 1 One speaks of grammatical paradigms; the infleclion of a paradigmatic verb is given to teach how other simila r verbs are inflec ted. In the structurali st d iscourse , 'paradi gmatic' refers 10 the deep d imension of texts as opposed to their 'syntagmati c' or linear re lalionships. In the philosophy o f science, 'parad igm' is the received eonceplU al framework in a particular b ranch of scienee at a given time . In aJl these cases the concept of paradigm is akin 10 thaI of typicalness. 4 Paradigmatic is not simply typica l, however, bu t involves a ce rtain way of determ ining the relationshi p of ind ividua ls within the general. The deductive way, whi ch is involved in the idea of typicalness, is to start with a genera l idea and then take an individu al example 10 iUuminate that idea. The paradigma tic, on the other hand, imp lies an induetive procedure: one sets off with an ind ividual and leams the typica l by studying that individu al.!! A paradi gmatic verb may have been chosen by the ) For a history-of-philosophy exposition of the ooncept of paradigm. see Rentsch, 1989. The concept (as well as the tenn) is typical cf Plalo's ideaJistic philosophy tO the extent thaI one can speak of his 'paradigmatic oolOlogy'. By contrast, Arislolle's dealing with 'paradigm' was mainly in the conlexl of logics and rhetorics. 4 According 10 Ihe structuralist idea of paradigm, in its Saussurean conceptunlization , a word in the text has an associative relationship with other similar words (a noun with other nouns in general and with its synonyms in panicular) not present in the text. Thus, a word mani fested in Ihe text is paradigmatically the representative of a set of vinual words which might substitute for it withoul making the sentence unaceeptable. See, e.g.. McKnight, 1978 : 98-99. In the ease of a scientific paradigm, Ihe notion of typicalness should be obvious enough (scientific explanations mUSI be of the right type in order 10 be accepwble 10 the scientific community), S In his Prior Allillytics, Aristotle SUHes that the example or parndigm is neimer induction nor deduction: 'Thus it is evident that an example (paradeigma) represents the relation .

37

Kari Syreeni

grammarian deduclively, as a Iypical example of a verb class. but it is meanl 10 se rve as an induclive model and is properly used by the student who leams ils infleclion by heart to be able to use other simil ar verbs correctly , The inductive procedure renders the paradigmati c individ ual irreplaceable - not necessarily in principle and etemally, but practically and initialIy , In fa ct there seems to be a weaker and a stronger kind of the paradigmalic, The weaker kind is initi ally irreplaceable bUI virtu ally replaceable. as il is based on adeduclive procedure; such is a grammatica l paradigm. When the student masters the language. to hirn the model verb has onl y the deductive value that it had (0 the grarnmarian, Tbe stronge r kind is a pennanent and inexhaustive inductive model. 6 Whether or not Luke's paradigmali c figures are of the stronger kind rem ains to be seen; but clearly Ihey are meant to be received as indu ctive models. In the same way as the mother of Jes us "treasured up all these things and pondercd over them " (Lk 2:19), the reader should study her exemplary fi gure in order to leam the model for Chrislian life.

(b) The Text and the Reader: Intellectllol

\lS.

Moral

Another characteri stic of the parad igmati c is thai it deals with mora l va lues and prac li ca J models fo r behav iour, th ings that invoke personal comm itmenl , while the Iypi ca l is connected with premoral, in te llectu al

6

38

not of pan 10 whole or of whole to pan, but of one pan to anot her, where both are subordlnate to the same genera l tenn, and one of them is known.~ (A M/ .pr. 1I,24,68b69a), The logica! StalUS of paradtigmo is problematic, however, since Aristotle repeat· edly affums that Ihe only twO forms ofreasoning are induction and deduction. The ex· ample seemJ to be more at home in rhelorics, where its affinilY with induction is evi· dent; in the Rht!toric Anstolle even called it -a rhelonca! induction" (RhJ!t. 1,2,1356b). See Thompson , 1975: 89-96. The distinction belween 'weak' and 'strong' induclive models points , in pan , 10 the phenomenon of hermcneutical stralification (10 be discusscd below : a 'su ong' paradigm is one coined by Ihe author without deductive rcasoning, and so adequalely received by the reader by way of inunediate recognilion). In pan, it reflects an ofilologkai issue (a 'strong' paradigm would be, paradoxical ly, the ful1 embodimenl of the general in a single individual). Whether there are 'strong' paradigms in (he laller sense is a debatable philosophieal and theological problem, but the hermeneutical fact is that the moSt signilicant religious models (e.g., Jesus for Christians) an: thoughl or expene nced 10 be such paradigms.• The difference betwcen 'weak' and 'strong' paradigms is SOffiCwhat paral1el to Ihe diSlinction made by C.S. Lcwis ( 1962) belween 'master's metaphor' and 'pupil's ffiCtaphor'. The fonner is a tcacher's deduc tive expression and is no longer needed when the pupil understands the realily behind the metaphor; the laller kind cannot be substituted for as it is an induClive descriplion of something nOI fully known.

•

The Gospel in Paradigms

models where a ne's choices should be made on objective grounds . Paradigmatic figures recommend and propagate specifi c ways of life thal are worth imitaling; inslead, typical figures present a model. reguJarity c r law which is there objectively and only needs to be recognized. Henneneutically, the distinction between inteUectual and moral models is based on different relationships between the text and the reader,1 Here, as weil, two opposite directions, oße leading (0 the text and the other to the reader, are possible. Intellectual models involve a passive and objec· live, i.e .• tex t-oriented. attitude on the reader's pan. In moral models the reader is invited to panake as an aCling subject. Being moral rather than intellectual models, paradigmalic figures call for the reader's personal decision. It is not enough 10 understand the text; there is still the question of what to do in light of the text. (e) Diachronie Comparison: Forward

\15.

Backward

The typieal and lhe paradigmatic also ha\le a diachronie dimension. When (WO di stinct rep resentati\les of a type are compared, there are three basic options conceming the direction of the comparison. In a neutral case nei· lher of the two individuals has primacy; both simply represent the type . In this case the diachronie aspect is irrelevant. If, however, onc or the other diachronie end of the camparisan is weightier, the henneneutical direc· ti on is either forward from an urbildlieh entity to its imitation or back· ward tracing the ant icipations and fore runners of someth ing which is considered endgültig. In e ither case the diachroni e dimension givcs thc compared persons and things an irreducible identity, An urbildlieh ind i· viduaI ca n ncvc r be complctely reproduced or represcnted by its imita· to rs, nor can an endgültig figure be wholly present in its predeccssors: thc compared entilies neccssa rily rema in individuats. The recogn it ion of thi s historical uniqueness separates typotogica t in· tcrprctation from atlegorizing. Typological and paradigmatic interpreta· lion are similar in thi s respec1 but diffcr as to the direction of thc comparison. Typolog ical interprctation , as far as it is diachronie in nature, gees back ward from the end· fi gure which is fore shadowed and anli cipaled, 7 The concept of reader in lhis essay is purposefully vague. h oscillates from the reade r cons(üuted by rite rex( - the partner of the text-interna! 'narrator' - to lhe more historical and conerete jmended reader which the author had in mind when producing the texi and towards the a Cflla[ individu:a.1 readers inc1uding. among Qthers, modem exegeles. This undifferentialed concept corresponds 10 the equally osciIJating coneept of 'text' which, for some reason, is often considerc:d less problematie . However, when feh necessary a funher qualification ('intended' reader eie.) is added.

39

Knri Syreeni

whereas parad igmatie interpretation goes fo rward from the initi al figure whieh is imitated, aetuali zed, and to some extent rep rodueed. The difference in direetion eorresponds to a difference in value. In typologieal interpretation the final figure is valued more highly; in a paradigmatic relationship the initial figure has the greater value. When the Old Testament is interpreted typologically with regard 10 Christ, this is often done by means of a "more than" eomparison: what is here is greater than Solomon or Ionah (Lk 11 : 29-32 par Mt), here is the son of David who is also the Lord of David (Mk 12:35-37 par Mt. Lk).'

(d) The HermeneulicaJ Space

We have now loca li zed the concept of paradigm in three hermeneut ical dimensions. In each dimension it is c10sely related 10 typiealness hut tends to take the opposite direction: it is indu ctive rathe r than deductive, moral ralher than intellectual, and orientcd forward rather than backward . Paradi gmati c is one of seve ral forms of the hermeneuricaJ space of a text. Every tex t has a henneneutical space within whi ch its interpretation ean take plaee, but the width and fa rm s of the interpretive spaee vary. The interpretive space is not really the property a f the text, but an intermediary realm belween the text-wo rld and the eonerete world . It is the place where the author basically meets the reader. The loeation of the henneneutical spaee, thu s, eoincides with the symboJic world of the text and its author. The symboli c world and the hermeneutical spaee are nOI identicaJ, however. If the fo rmer is roughly identified as the "message" explici t or implicit - of the tex t and its maker, the henneneutical spaee with its various forms wou ld supply somcthing likc the "code" fo r undc rstanding that message.9 The forms of thc interprcti vc spaee of a lext, jusl as are literary fonns, are eulturally and hi storiea lly eond iti oned. They cannot be crea ted o r changed freely, but an ind ividual author may use them in variou s ways . The reader also ha s a eertain freedom to form the tex l's henneneuti cal space - e.g., by ereating pa radigmatic and typological relati ons not presenl in the text. BUI the more ereative the interpretation is, the more it wi ll have 10 be treatcd as a new tex t with a he rmeneutiea l space of its OW Il .

I

M

Kieffer. 1979. For the nature of typological interpretation as a "more than compan· son, see also Berger. 1984: 27. 9 My tennino1ogy is mther loose here, too; 'message' and 'code' are not used in a striCt struc turnlist sense (such as expounded by Jakobson, 1960).

40

The Gospel in Paradigms

Luke's two-volume evangelieal work is very mueh a narrative text, as is its predecessor lhe Gospel of Mark. The eharaelerislic of narrative as distinet from discourse is the obvious presence of a lext-world. While in a diseourse the speaker is able 10 articulate the message direclly so thai the text itself need not be objectivated as an entity in itself (usually it is taken as nothing more than a rhetorieal objeet), a narrative text neeessarily has· to be interpreted on a literary level, 100. The presenee of an anicifial warld which resembles and imitates eonerete reality enables the reader 10 experienee Ihe narrative almost as if it were eanerete reality.IO So the reader nonnally does not recognize the literary and symbolicalor inlerpretive levels of a narrative as separate, but takes these together as a story . The symbolie world is experieneed as transparent , as a kind of interp retive "colour" of the story. In contrast, the hearer of a diseourse usually experiences the text-world merely as a literary "colour" of the speaker's message; only an extraordinary rhetorieal glare may make the hearer attentive to the artieulation of the message. This difference also refleets the author's purpose. The maker of a narrative text probably hopes that the reader would foeus on the story and receive the message only rhrough it; otherwise the narrative would be a disguise of the message. Thus the narrative lilerary fonn is in prineiple counteraetive 10 the emergence of the symbolic world as aseparate enüty. Moreover, the narrative fonn lends 10 bifureate the author's interpretive activ ity into (1) the interpretation of the story (so as to make it se rve his ideology and message) and (2) the interpretation of the intended reader's situation (so as to make the reader see the contemporary relevanee of the story). We have seen that the paradigmalie often gocs logether wilh lhe typiea l or typologiea!. In pure fonns the paradigmatic and the typ(olog)ieal seern oppositc 10 eaeh other: a paradigmatic interpretation rinds in the text a moral model to be imitated in praetical Iife, whereas a typolog ieal interpretation finds there an incomplete represen tative of a type whieh has later had its fuH expr'ession elsewhere. This is roughly the differenee beIween a Jewi sh and a Christian reading of the "O ld" Testamenl. l l In view of the presen t enthusiasm for narratology, Kelber's ( 1988:130) warning is needed: "Yet narrative, we need reminding, is nnificial. So-called reality never occurs in narrative fonn. It is we who make narrative look like life. or impose narrative patterns upon lived experience. Narrative is an artistic production, both promising and withholding. and not a source of natural revelation. ,. Thus Luke's paradigmatic charac· ters are. as Bai (1985:80) says of characters in general, "imitation, fantasy. fabric3ted creatures: p.1pcr people, without fl esh and blood.·' 11 In this respcci the famou s programme of Gerhard von Rad (1963) for a typological interpretation of the "Old" Testament is ideologically explicit and honest. If something

10

41

Kari Syreeni

However, the paradigmatic and Ihe typ(olog)ical seldom occur as such bUI often intenningle in peculiar ways so as to produce a larger interpretive fo nn . One of the characteristics of this paradigmatic-typica l form is thai it lacks the dimension of causal relatedness. A parad igmati c figure does not predetennine its imitation, nor is the typological end-figure an effect of its anticipation. When Ihe causal dimension is at play, new henneneutical fonn s emerge. The borderline between paradigmatic and other form s is not sharp; a text may be defectively paradigmatic with ooIy one or two of the above three dimensions and directions, or il may have anolhe r predominant form with some additional paradigmatic characteristics. 12 Every form occupies some room, and· a complex hermeneutical fonn or set of forms will understandably occupy a wider room. An important phenomenon which connects form and width is the hermeneutical layer structure of Ihe text (o r of its production and interpretation). Thi s specific layer structure must be carefully distinguished from those of human reality as a whole and of text-internal reality. The human reality, according to the mode l of three worlds, consists of the concrete world, the symbolic world , and the artificial world of cultural objecls. 13 Being a cuhural objecl, a text is one stratum of the human reality. Inside the world of the text, there is secondly the stratification of anificial rea li ty: the prodigal son of Luke 15: 11-32 is an aclor told about by another actor, namely the Jesus of Luke's story. The hermeneutical strat ification, taking place in the symbolic world, is yet another thing . The henneneutical space may be layered so that variou s hermeneutical dimensions and directions are made to fun clion simultaneous ly on different levels of interpretation. Thu s a text may have a moral leve l, which the reader shou ld recogni ze pri marily. and an intellectual level, which is there but should not be immediately recognized . A tex t maya iso be paradigmatic on a ce nain leve l but typo logica l on another. The Christian interpretation of the O ld Testament is often parad igmatic

essentially new wil l come of Ihe Chrislian fait h, one of ilS characlcrislics is obviously a radicallypological interpretation of the New Testament. 12 A familiar Iype in Luke-Acis is the fusion of parndigmatic-typical and ctiological elements. Two characters in AclS illustrate lhe Iype: Ihe Ethiopian eunuch, Ihe firsl fruit of the Hellenistic mission (Acts 8:26-40), and Comelius, Ihe firsl Gentile 10 receive the gifl of the Spirit (Acis 10). Both characters are model Christians. bUI the hisloriciz.ing point is SO stressed Ihallhe paradigmalic lesson is secondary. 13 For an exposition of the three-world model. see Syreeni. 1990: 126- 13 1. A fuller account with more analyses will be provided in a joint anicle by Maui Myllykoski and myself.

42

The Gospel in Paradigms

on the surface but typological on a more basic level: a Chrislian rypos is offered as a poradigm .14 The la st theo ret ical remark concem s the re lati onship be lween henneneutical and literary forms. 11 is often possible for a hermeneutical fonn to develop within the confines of one literary genre. There are limits, howeve r. to the capacity of a genre 10 bear the weight of a henneneutica l fonn . This should be true of narrative genres in particular, if our conclu sion is right that the henneneutical space of a narrative text is normally transparent and is not meant to be laken as a separate entity. lf a literary genre becomes hermeneutically overloaded, it may even tually die and, possibly, be rai sed to a sacred genre.

n. The Paradi gmatic Fonn in the Lu can Writings We will now ex amine four examples (a-d) of the paradigmatic interpretive fonn in the Lucan text. It will be observed how Luke creates the he nneneutical space with a paradi gmatic fonn , how paradigmatic and typical features are interrelated , and how the reader is supposed to deal with the interpreted or symbolic world , which Luke suggests by his paradigmat ic narrative. All these obse rvations, heterogeneous as they may seern , will prepare the way for the thesis in the third part of thi s essay.

(0 ) Th e Mother

0/ Jesus in Lk 1-2

It is difficult to asce rt ain in detail Luke's individual contribulion 10 the firs t two chaplers in his Gospe l, yet there is 0 0 doubt that the portrait of Jesus' mother there owes a good dea l to the evangelist. If the Lucan picture of Maria is compared with Mark's, an increased paradigmatic interest is evident. The narrative fi gure of Maria is coupled with a person in the concrete world . Luke, howeve r, was not primarily ioterested in the 'historical' Mafia, as he might have been, but in the Maria of the symbolic world . The 'symbolic' Maria whom Luke presents through the narrative fi gure is above all the parad igm of how a Chri stian oughl to listen to and believe in God's word . Thi s paradigmati c aspect in the Lucan Maria is as 14 Thus Hebrews 11 : the Qld Testament paradigms are employed to illustrate Christian raith. The seriat presenlation and the prefixed definition in Y. 1 indicate the Iypologicat procedure beh ind the paradigms. J

L1J KI

·/\ c r s

43

Kari Syreeni

such weH known and need not be elaborated on here. But interestingly the portrait of Maria shows striking rypical features. The reader not only leams from her a model for imilation, but may recognize in her a familiar ideal type also represenled by Mafia the sister of Manha (Lk 10:3842) and the keen Ii steners to Paul and SiJas in Berea (Acts 17: 11 ). This seems a deductive rather than inductive type, for Luke can also express it more directly: it is "those who bring a good and honest heart 10 the hearing of the ward, hold it fast, and by their perseverance yie ld a harvest"

(U 8:15). A ciear indication of the primacy of the typical in Maria is Lk 11 :2728: the blessing is not so much for Mana as an individual but as a representative of "those who hear the ward of God and keep i[,' . Another, subtIer, hint of the typical is found in Lk 1:45 when considered together wilh 1:20. There we have an antithetical pair: Zecharias did not believe the ward he received and was punished - Maria did believe and was praised. The antithetical setting underscores the antirypos vs. typos relation rather than the two individual characters. Having traced the typical in the ovenJy paradigmalic figure of Maria , we see how Luke combines Jewish and Chrislian ideas in his portrait of Mana. Mana is depicted as the ideal rece iver of God's word . The word of God appears to be, in part. the gospel (as in the parable of the sower). But in part it is also God's promise 10 Israel through the prophets (as in the MagniJicat). By virtue of this combination, Maria embodies at once the Old Testament type of "the servant of the Lord" (Lk 1:38) and the ideal member of the Christian community. This is a remarkable intellectual weapon for the legitimation of a saHenl feature in the Christian symbolic world. viz. the idea of sa lvation-historical continuity .LS But this is not all. As Luke also combines paradigmatic and Iypical features in Maria. he creates a suggestive character thaI affects the reader both intellectually and morally . The benevolent Christian reader who is ready to accept the moral plea is also given the intellectual combination. In this way a Gentile Christian imitating the mother of Jesus is able 10 recognize hirnself in Maria the representative of Israel and rejoice over the mercy God shows "10 Abraham and his children's children for ever" ( Lk I :53). In so doing, the Christi an reader has s urrendered hirnself, probably quite willingly. 10 Luke's manipulation. Provocalively. one might say that the reade r is involved in a kind of give-and-take. As a paradi gmatic figure Maria demands the reader's mo ral commitment, but 15 Cf. Räisänen's paper in the present voJume. I thank Prof. Räisänen for Ihe opponunity of reading a draft of his inspiring essay before completing my own contribution.

44

The Gospel in Pamdigms

in exchange she offers intellectual security by enhancing the reader's interpretation of reality - which, of course, is Luke's interpretation, too. h is also instruclive 10 observe how Luke has made use of the typical in order (0 depictthe individuality of Jesus' mother. This technique is not so paradoxical as il may sound. An example of the technique is found in the notion thaI Maria and Joseph did not understand their son when they found hirn in the temple (Lk 2:50). This is a typical human reaction to the divine revelation; neither did the disciples understand Jesus when he announced his death (Lk 9:45; 18:34). Another example is Simeon's prophetic utterance to Mary, "You too shall be pierced to the heart" (U 2:35), which gives lhe portrait of Maria a gentle touch of individuality by evoking in the reader's mind the typieal notion of a suffering molher. For would not any mother suffer her son's being brutally killed? Such notions hetp the reader irnagine Maria as an individual. The details seern intimate, but in fa ct they are based on knowledge of what is typica1 in life. Some of the typieal features in Maria are directly at the service of Luke's ideology, as we have seen, but what is the purpose of the additional details? Do these indicate an interest in the 1tistorical' Maria or an attempt at creating a rornance charaeter? Possibly both 10 some extent; but for the greater part even the seemingly surplus features are subservient to the paradigmatie interes!. Not knowing many historical facts about Jesu s' mother and not wi shing to enrich her portrait with too mueh obvious fielion, Luke imagined a few probable and credible, hence typieal, details .t6 Colouring the portrait in this way, Luke suggests 10 his readers thai, in many ways, the mOlher of Jesus was like any of USo She is paradigmatic in her obedienee aod humility. but she was also an ordinary woman . However, by admiuing this, Luke aClually reinforces ralher than reduces the paradigmatie nature of Maria, for a certain amount of individuality and historicalness is in the essence of a paradigmatie character. The technique of reinforcing the paradigmatic by typieal lifelike features is seen in 2:50f: being an ordinary parent, Maria could not understand Jesus, but neverthe less "treasured up a1l these things in her heart" . Luke's interweaving of typical and exemplary features proves hirn 10 be a clever pedagogue. As a typical individual, Maria is one of us; therefore. paradigmatieally. every oße of us can become Iike her.

16 This ptocedure is obvious in lhe idealion and formation of whole pericopes, 100. The "historicaJ" data around which the impressive story aboot the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple (Lk 2:41 -52) was created comprise lhe common Jewish practice of going to JerusaJem for the Passover festival (v. 41) and lhe bar mizvah age of every Jewish boy (v . 42). Cf. also Lk 2:22-24.

45

Kari Syreeni

(b) The Good Sanwriran (Lk 10: 29-37) The story of the good Samaritan belongs to Luke's special material. The redactor's own contribution to the formation of the pericope is again difficult to assess, but it seems rather substantial. As Jarmo Kiilunen has recently argued on compositional grounds, the redactpr's creativity is evident above aU in the paradigmatic figures of the story : the Samaritan, embodiment of the positive paradigm, as weil as the negative characters of the priest and the Levite. Kiilunen thinks. with good reason I believe, that the negative characters were suggested to Luke by the Marcan pericope on the greatest commandment of the law (Mk 12:28-34 par Lk 10:25-28).17 If this interpretation is accepted, the story of the good Samaritan as a whole may have to be credited 10 Luke. It is then no su rpri se that the positive paradigm given by the Samaritan reaehes its climax with a generous use of money (v. 35; cf. Lk 19:8 ete.). The story and its eharaeters are fietional; Luke does not suggest that lesus is telling areal ineidenl. At the same time, the plot is unfolded vividly in great detail. The reader is drawn into the story to follow the wounded and the Samaritan from the way to lericho (v.30) to the inn (v. 34), and until the nex( morning; even the return of the Samaritan is alluded to (v. 35). Ahhough some features are literary eonventions, such as the Samaritan's coming to the scene as the third aetor in aeeordance with the eustomary regel-de-lri lS , or necessary elements of the plot - e.g., the Samaritan's help on the road, v. 34a - the extra detail s create an illusion of reality . The story is fiction. and intelleetually Luke lets the reader be aware of thai; yet the story is told almost os if il were areal incidenl. 19 There is perhaps on ly one mighlier imitation of realily in an overtly fielional story in Luke, Ilame ly the parable of lhe prodigal son (Lk 15: 11 32). The literary genre of the pericope is a much-discussed issue. Bultmann ciass ified the pericope as an example story. a genre wh ich aceording 10 hirn is found only in Luke among the synoptie gospels. 20 The rival interpretation take s the story of the good Samaritan as a parable. The main dif17 Kiilunen, 1989: 51 -77 (cspeeially pp. 72-77). 18 Jeremias, 1984: 202. 19 Again, Luke has invented probable delails 10 make Ihe story lirelike (notably Ihe dangerous way fTom Jerusalem 10 Jerieho, er. Jeremias, 1984 : 201 n. II ). 20 Bultmann , 1970: 192-193. The other e:ttample stories are the rieh rool (U 12: 16-21 ), Ihe rieh man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), the Pharisee and the Publiean (Lk 18: 10-14); as VOrslure of cxample stories Bultmann mcntions IwO additional pericopes, Lk 14:71I and 14: 12-14.

46

The Gospel in Paradigms

ference be tween parable and example story is that the parable has a metaphorical level of meaning. What is literally said has another, deeper meaning through an analogy which the hearer or reader should recognize. By contrast, an exarnple story gives a direct model and has no other than the literal meaning. The hearer or reader need not recognize what is analogical hut what is typical in the given exarnple. As it stands, the pericope offers a direct model for behaviour (v. 37b) and so seerns 10 be an example story. It has been suggested that Luke misinterp re ted o r flattened an original parable of Jesus where the metaphorica l rneaning was the breaking in of God's kingdom . Jesus' Jewish hearers could not believe that a Samaritan might be good. The parable fo rced them to imagine the impossible, so that the ir vi sion of the world was radica lly changed.11 If the story is essenti ally Luke's creation, thi s interpretation is, as such, out of the question. There is something to it , however, when applied to Luke's concems. The right insight is that the narrator aims at something more than giving an example of love for one's nei ghbou r. Thi s "more" is the unnoticed transfer of a new symbolic world. Overtl y an example of how to love one's neighbour, the story propaga tes a certain interpretat ion of reality by presenting two devoul l ews as the villains of the story and a marginal or non-Jew as the posi tive paradigm. As a result . Luke's example story does have a deeper, metaphorical level of meaning which renders the story as a kind of secondary parable. As in the case of Maria, Luke combines an explicit moral lesson with an implicit intellectual message . A Christian reader will experience the story as a confirmat ion and leg itimation for the chosen, or inherited, world view. lt func tions so in Chris tian readings even today: Luke's ficti on is a continuous reminde r of how the priest and the Levite, representat ives of thc Jewish religion, wen t by and a Samari tan, the prototype of Chri stians, had mercy on the suffering neighbour. For a Jewish reader. however, acceptance of the hidden parabolic message would really mean the breaking in of a new symbolic world - though not necessarily God's kingdom .

(c) Jesus and rhe Two Crimiflals arrhe Cross (Lk 23:33-46)

Here we have an opportunity to compare Luke's version with the Marean accoun t of Jesus' death. In Mark. the crucifixion is 100 dreadful an event 11 Crossan, 1974: 66-77. See also o ther contributions 10 the first votume of Semeia. The ralher technical discussion between Crossan and Via (who defended Buhmann's dassification) is conveniendy parnphrased by Greenwood, 1985: 26-29.

47

Kari Syreeni

for a paradigmatie lesson. The reader can take a place among the watchers who either mock (Mk 15 :29-32,35-36) or believe .nd grieve (v. 39-41), but these opposite groups are not really paradigmatic. Elsewhere Mark interprets Jesus' death paradigrnaticaUy (cf. Mk 8:34; 10:45), but within the crucifixion aeeount other. predorninantly intellectual (or rationalizing) modes of interpretation dominate; the death of Jesus was a fulfilrnent of propheeies (v. 28), a typical fate of the righteous (a llu ~ions to Ps. 22), and an announcement of his sonship (v. 39). In Mark's story, the suffering San of God is left alone. The criminals on both si des taunt hirn (v.33); even God above has forsaken hirn (v. 34). Then the reader, too. must withdraw and watch the scene from a distance, asking why a11 this happened. In Luke things are rather different. Details which are too concrele and obscure drop out. Jesus is not offered drugged wine nor reminded of his words against the temple. Instead of crying EIi. Eli, lema sabachthani. the Luean Jesus says trustfu ll y, 'Fathe r, into thy hands I eomm it my spirit'. Only one of the bandits taunts Jes us; the other one repen ls and finds merey at the last hour. All these aherati ons invite the reader 10 slep eloser. In fact there are two paradigrnatic circles waiting for the reader to step in. In the inner cirele, the reader may learn from Jesus, the exemplary martyr who trusted in God and prayed for his enemies (Lk 23 :34).22 In the outer ci rcle, the reader is aequaioted with the negat ive aod positive paradigms fumished by the taunling criminal and his repent. . lOg eompamon. In principle the two ei rc1es might di sturb eaeh other, beeause areader imitating the good sinner cannot simultaneously take Jesus as a paradigmatie eharaeter. In practice the reade r will hardly feel a colli sion of paradigmatie roles, sinee (he two posi tive paradigms have something in common. Indeed. lhe repenling sinne r is in part a reinforeer of the paradigm of Jesus aod is, in thai function , the shadow of the implied reader. 23 What the good sinner recognizes in Jesus is the paradigm which the reader, too, shou ld recognize: one who suffers hav ing done nothing wrong. 24

22

The verse probably belongs 10 Ihe originallcltt. For discussion. see Marshali, 197 8:

2)

By 'shadow' I mean the runction or an actor or character or the story as the teltt·world representative or the author or the intcnded, sometimes even aClUal. readcr. Luke illustrates here, in addition to a mon: general pat:l.digm. a qui tc speciflc paraenetic topos which is a lso behind I Pt 2 :19·23; 3: 17· 18; 4 : 15· 16 and possibly Mt 5 : 10: sur· rering will be proflt:,ble only ror those who suffer ror the righl cause.

24

48

867-868.

The Gospel in Pandigms

The Lucan paradigms are al so coupled here with the typica!. The antitheti cal pair (repentinglunrepenting sinne r) is familiar to Luke's reader in several othe r contexts. The deductive and ficti onal nature of this pair is palpable in the all too serene words of the good sinner. Similarly in Jesus' prayer in v. 34 the reader may sense how the narrative is created on the basis of a preconceived general idea (Jesus naturally follows his own instructions, cf. Lk 6:22). All in aU, the pericope appears to be a thoroughly planned account of how everything ought to have happened in o rde r to provide models for im itation.

(d) Paul's Farewell Speech 10 the Elders/rom Ephesus (Acts 20: /8-35) Paul's speech at Miletus to the elders of the congregation of Ephesus has been prai sed as one of the most touching farewell speeches in literature .25 It is very probable thaI the whole speech is Luke's creation. In his careful and coge nt analysis of the speech, Lars Aejmelaeus ( 1987) shows how the redactor has combined Pauline elements of thought , typica l motifs of farewelJ speeches and some of his own fav ourite ideas in his paradigrnatic portrait of Paul. In thi s speech, Paul is depicted as a hurnble servant of the Lord (v. 19), an honest worker who eamed his own living (v .33-35) and an untiring pastoral counse llor of the community (v. 31). Evidently Luke did not create the speech j ust for the sake of its paradigmatic value. The main purpose of Paul's farewel1 speech is to further the narrative plot by anticipating Paul's destiny and to foreshadow indirectly his death, which could nol be lold within the narrative itse lf. Nevertheless the farewell discourse teslifies in favour of Luke's orientation towa rds paradigms. What Luk e saw as characteristic of Paul was at the same time cxe mplary for Christi ans of Luke's day. The most int'eresting feature in the farewell speech is lhe references 10 Jesus. In the beginning of the speech, Paul says he has "served the Lord in all humility" (v. 19), and a Iittle Inter he notes that he only wants to "complete the task which the Lord Jesus assigned" to hirn (v. 24). At the elose of lhe speech Paul recalls "the words of Jesus", which the audience should keep in the same way as he, Paul, had done (v. 35). Hereby the paradigmatic in Paul appears to be something derivative . We mighl say thai the Paul of the farewell speech is a Christian in a new hermcneutical sense: as one whose life is to be modelIed after Jesus. This does not lessen the paradigmalic va lue of Paul. On the contrary, as a servant of the Lord 2S

Cadbury. 1958: 238.

49

Kari Syreeni

Jesus, Paul is the exernplary Christian par excellence. By following Paul's example, Christians become true foUowers of Jesus. This basic idea is found in Paul's letter to the Thes sa lonians (1 :6), which Luke seerns to have used in the rnaking of the farewell speech.26 Thus we have observed a hermeneutically eomplex paradigm-inparadigm strueture similar to the erucifixion scene. As there , the paradigmatie is even intertwined with the typieal. The words of Jesus quoted at the end of the speech (v. 35) are not found in the Gospel of Luke nor in any other Gospel hut have a rather elose parallel in I Clern 2: 1. It seerns quite possible that , as Aejrnelaeus suggests27 • the "words of the Lord Jesus" quoted by the Paul of the farew ell speech were in fact eoined by Luke on the basis of 1 Clern. Should this tradition-historieal hypothesis be eorreet, il would reneet rernarkably the hcrmeneutical deep slrueture of the speech. The reader is supposed to imitate Paul and thus follow the words of Jesus hirnself, but in aetual fact the double paradigm is Luke's deduction of what Paul mUSI have said in order to provide a paradigm for the reader and what Jes us mUSI have said in order to be quoted by Paul as the source for that paradigrn. The paradigrnatie in Lukc's work is becoming not only hermeneutically multilayered, but in literary tenn s fietional.

TII . Hermencutieal and Tradition-Hi storiea) Conclus ions In summary, our analyses eonfinn that "Ihere are spaee, li ght, and long perspeetive in Lukc's Gospel"2! and Aets - not only in a lilcrary sense, but henneneutieally as weil. The henneneulieal spaee is eomplex in struelU re. oflen displaying a paradigmatie-typieal fonn . In thi s last seelion of my paper a few henneneu ti eal eonsiderations will be added to suggest a wider traditio-historiea l eontext for understanding Luke's redaetion .

(a) Mark and Luke: the Gospel as Metaphor and Paradigm Ta a eertain degree . the development of the paradigrnatie interpretive spaee seerns a natura l eonsequenee of the gospel genre. Luke's literary model, Mark's Gospel, was a narrative text with a number of more or less Thus Aejme1aeus ( 1987: 196-210) with very suggestive argumems. 27 Aejmelaeus, 1987: 175· 176, with reference 10 an unpublished work by Rainer Reuter. 26

28 Drury, 1987: 418 .

50

The Gospel in Paradigms

vividly characterized actors, which then could be enriched with paradigmatic features. The erueifix ion pericope evidenees thai Luke was sharpeyed in recognizing the unused paradigmatie potentiality of Mark's story. But many paradigmatic actors in Luke were not there in Mark; in addition, many of them are nOI introduced in the main narrative but in enclaves such as the parables and example stories of Jesus . Luke's interest in paradigmatic characters thus seems more than artistie and deeorative. It is indicative of Luke's understanding of the gospel. For him, the Christian message appears henneneutieally much in the fonn of a paradigm. A paradigmalic understanding of the gospel is not alien to Mark, either. But as a whole the henneneutical spaee of Mark's Gospel is less advanced , Ihus having a less differentiated interpretive fonn . Some reeen! interpreters have desc ribed Mark as a 'parabolie' goSpel29; then the Lucan work might be said to be an example story. Since, however, Uterary designations may not be adequate for detennining a lext's henneneutical fonn, a more general lenninology seems preferable. If Luke's two-volume gospel ha s largely a paradigmatie interpretive fonn, the tenn me/aphoric might be used for Mark's work. Even though this tenn, too, seems a literary one, it basically refers to a mode of interpretation. According to Philip Wheelwright, metaphor is the fusion of two concrete mental images between which there is semantic tension.lO If the message of a text is regarded as the mediation between the tex t-world and the reade r's concrele world, the he rmeneutical form of a lext is metaphoric when the text -world and the reader's world are two empirical images in tension. The metaphoric form is a kind of hermeneuti ca l copula that brings the reade r and the text together intimately yet without fuHy predetennining the outcome of their meeting. The copula itself is transparent ; its fun ction is on ly to juxtapose the world of the story and the world of the reader. This transparency and subordinal e fun clion give s thc melaphoric interprelive fonn a brand of ideo logical innoeence. In Mark's Gospel , the relation between the text and the reader is by and large metaphoric. Tbe interpretive space is transparent enough to allow 29 Thus most emphatically Donahue. 1978: 375-386; Kelber, 1983: 211 -220. Insofar as parable is taken as an instance of metaphor, there is linie difference whether Mark is de fined in tenns of parable or metaphor, the former designation o nly focu sing more on the narrative form. 30 Wheelwright. 1954: 101 -122. I find Wheelwright's discussion o f metaphor sounder than many more feeen! expositions of the matter. lt may be o bjected that metaphors need not be concrete images (cf. John 11 :25 elc.). However, Ihe "concreteness" o f the images basieally refers 10 the empirical nalure of metaphors as concise. intensified expressions of human experience (Berge r, 1984: 34: ' Metaphern sind " Brennpunkle" von Erfahrungen').

51

Kali Syreeni

for the reader an immediate confrontation with the text-world. To be sure, the metaphoric form is not so innocent as it may appear to be, fo r metaphor is always an interpretation of reality . More precisely, it is an interpretation of two realities : those of the text and the reader. As a metaphor, Mark's story nOt on ly introduces a text-world 10 the reader but also, by leuing the connection or tenor be known to the reader, suggests the kind of intercourse these should have . Even though not dictating the interpretation resuhing from the reader's encounter with the textual reality, the metaphoric form provides decisive elements for that interpretation. The innocence or irresponsibility of the metaphoric form is due to its openness to the reader's imagination. A metaphoric narrative is a plea 10 the reader to interpret his or her situation in such a way that il corresponds to the narrated situation in some respects. It is a whisper in the reader's ear: This story has to do with Jour life. too, hasn'l il? ln Luke's work, the hermeneutical space is beginn ing to make itse lf feit. Though not necessarily experiencing the hermeneutical space as an intervening reality or as separate from the text-world , the reader does recognize that the text-world is "loaded" with ideological elements. The reader is more aware that the text - or uhimately its author - is trying to "do" something quite specific. The story does not call for an interpretation; a sens itive reader may have the feeling that i1 has already ooen interpreted. An ill -disposed reader is more likely to recognize the manipulation of the text , but areader disposed to accept the message will also sense the text's legitimating impact. Luke, of course, reckons with a benevolent reader who is willing to be persuaded (cf. the prologue of the work Lk I: 1-4). But even so, the au thor must be careful in not pu shing the manipu lation too far lest the reader's good will be ri sked . In the paradigmatic fonn, the reader is alerted by the recogniti on of the author's deductive method, o r of the typ ical behind the exemplary. The reader shou ld nOI feel 100 s1 rongly that what is offered as an inductive model is actually the author's deduclion. The situation is most critical if the reader suspects that the supposedly real characlers are fictional and on ly se rve purposes of manipulation. Recogn ition of the fiction makes it difficuh 10 genuinely leam from the characters. The more consciously the author has created the fiction that he offers as non-fiction, the more carefully he will hide the procedu re. In Luke's work there are signs of Ihis kind of hide-and-seek between the author and the reader. The game is played mostly subconsciou sl y in the text-world and in the henneneutical space. Neither the author nor the reader needs to pay attention to the game, yet the rules exist and have an impact on the processes of making and reading the text. Luke seems to be 52

The Gospel in Paradigms

aware that some details of the story that should be real are fielional, and therefore he avo ids exeess ive means of fietion. Maria is individualized by imagining the typical. not by fabricating fanciful details. But when Luke is describing ovenly ficti onal characters, as in his example storie s and parables, he is free r to add colourful details. A phenomenon in modem literature defined by Roland Barthes as the reality effect may clarify the point. Barthes observed in modem fietion a fondness for "futil e" and non· pred ietable detai ls with no structural or functional significance for lhe narrative. This narrative luxury only aims at produeing the illusion of concrete reality.)\ Not a modem writer, Luke was able 10 describe vividly his various eharaelers, 10 colo ur his narrative with seerningly superfluous details. and so to enhance the reader's percep· tion of the "rea lity" of the narrated things. In tenns of cJass ical rhetorics, Luke is to be cred ited with the virtue of credibilitas. 12 BUI the reality ef· feet is a dangerou s weapon when used to persuade lhe reader of the reality of unreal things. If Luke was not a modem author, neither were his in· tended readers modem (let alone postmodern) readers who could appre· eiate the story u as literature". There fore Luke had to be eautious about being too realistic in his deliberative fiel ion.))

(b) Luke's Work in the History

0/ Early Christian

Literature

Luke's game with the reader indicates that he has pushed the paradigmatic interpre tive fonn almost to its literary limits. The paradigms are growing too explicit and complex, their seeondary deductive nature is becoming visible, and literary fiction is taking over. A glance at the Gospe l of John shows that it was possible to go just a bit further, for inslanee. by having )\ Banhes, 1986: 141 -148. II In dealing with the principles ofrhetorics expounded in Quintilian's InsrirUlio oratoria, Rau (1990: 89) aptly fonnulate s the parndox inherent in the idea of cr~djbjfj,as: "Je grösser die Glaubwürdigkeit ist, deSIO ausgeprägter ist die Filctionalitäl. ~ This is so becaust an author wishing to persuade his readers must image probab/~ and lypical things rather than tell what actually has laken place. )) To be sure, much ofthe fi ctional material is there in Luke-Acts withoul Luke's knowing it. In discussing Luke's account of the raising of the widow of Nain's son, Helms ( 1986: 137) remarks that the gate of the cil)' (U 7: 12) comes from the SeplUagint Slory about E1ijah's raising of Ihe dead son of Ihe widow of Smpta: MNain's fictional gate is Ihere for literary reasons, Sarepta's gate transferred." BUI Luke would hardly have "transferred" the cil)' gale if he had known that no such thing existed in Nain. It is another thing that the Old Testament typos may have guided Luke in imagining how Ihe healing at Nain musr have laken place.

53

Kari Syreeni

Jesus himse lf interpret his paradigmatic deed. This technique is found in John 13: the washing of the disciples' feet is followed by Je sus' words "I have sei you an example: you are to do as 1 have done for you" (v. 15). Here the author, or the narrator as his spokesman, ha s taken Jesus, the chief ehameter of the story, as his shadow for anieulaling the paradigm. Not much is left to the reader's imagination. The paradigm is certainly made as c1ear as one eou ld wish. In Luke and John the crucia l quest ion leading 10 the death of Ihe narrative gospel genre is already beginning to emerge. Why should an author put in narrative fonn wh al he can easily express more directly in a discourse by Jesus? Why should Jesus do something that needs an interpretation - why not jusl let hirn say it? Not accidenlally, then, Luke's Gospel contains parables and example slories and the Gospel of John lengthy homiletic discourses. 34 At a later stage, a discourse of Jesus - or even Paul (cf. above the analysis of ACls 20) - cannol bear thc complex hcnne neuli cal space. The author can no longer hide hirnself behind shadows but must come to the fore in the fonn of letter, apology, or dialogue. Another way out for those who were less scrupulous about the use of fiction is anlicipated by the Lucan personallegends and example stories. Espeeially in popular literature, the paradigmati c was developed through the literary genres of martyr stories and acts. This, tao, meant Ihe end of the classical gospel genre. It was the time for epigons to illu strate the pamdigmatic value of the Christian message. One can claim, and not without reason, that Luke's portrait of Paul in the Miletus speech anticipates the new stage . On the other hand lhere is al so a c lear differenee bclween the Lu can AC1S and its successors. To take one concluding example, it is well-known that Luke draws a certai n paral lelism between Jesus' joumey to Jerusalem and Paul's way 10 Rome. The parallelism, howcver, is on ly produced as a metaphor. Both journeys have a logic of their own, and the connecting idea - that bolh Jesus and Paul are on their way to death - is expressed very subtly. Paul's death is not disclosed, and in his farewell speech Paul does not refer to Jesus' journey or death. By contrast, in the Acts of Peter the risen Lord appears directly to the apostle in the famou s Quo vadis episode. There Jesus is treated as a guest character coming from another. sacred lilerary genre. Having given Peler a reminder of hi s paradigmatic deaLh, Jesus returns to heavcn - and )4 It is therefore conceivable Ihat lhe discursive gospel fonn of Q and Gnoslic sayings collections, speeches and dialogues lived longer than the narrative gospel. On the OI.her hand. one understand s why the discursive gospel grndually became SUSpeCl in the eyes of mainstream Christendom: not only because o f ils supposedly heretical cOnlenlS but also because its Iilerary fonn began 10 appear too fictional.

54

The Gospel in Paradigms

to lhe sacred world of the gospel story. Peter returns 10 Rome 10 meet his dealh and 10 offer a derivative paradigm for Christians manyrs .l 5 The layered paradigm-in-paradigm stru cture which we see in embryo , as metaphor, in the Lu can gospel work is quite explicit here . But thi s re· markable explicitness was only possible in a new interpretive situation and in the fram ewo rk of a relatively new Iiterary genre: aseparate account of the deeds of the apostles.l 6

Uterature Aejmelaeus. Lars

1987

Die Rezeption der PauJUJbriqe in der MifetTedt! (Apg 10:18·35). AASF B 232 . Helsinki.

Bai . Mieke

1985

Narratofogy: Introduction to the ThI!ory 0/ NarraJive . Trans. Christine van Boheemen. Toronto-Buffalo-London .

Barthes. Roland

1986

The RUJtle 0/ Language. Trans. Richard Howard. Oxford. Cadbury. Henry J. 1958 The MaHng o/ Luke·/t cts. 2nd ed. London. Crossan. John D . 1974 "Parnble and Example in Ihe Teaching of Jesus."' Semeia I: 63- 104 (.NTS 18. 1972. pp. 285-307). [)onahue. John R. 1978 HJesus as Ihe Parnble of God in the Gospel of Marle.. Interpretation 32 : R

369-386. Drury. John 1987

J5 /tc/.

"Luke," Pp. 418439 in The U/erary Guidt! 10 thl! 8lbft. Eds. Roben Aller & Frank Kelillode. Cambridge, Mass.

Verc . 35. Admittedly the episode is narraled with co nsiderable restraint - unlike

the flight o f the magician Simen a few pages earlier. The paradigm-in-paradigm stt'Uclure is expressed Ihrough an elegsnI metaphor. Jesus does not teil Peter what 10 do. bUI says that he himsctr would go 10 Rome and be crucified. In the end, however, the author has little faith in the power of the metaphor. Lesl the reader mi ss the point. Ihe meaning of Jesus' answer is explained: Ihis was 10 happen 10 Peler. 16 The question of the widlh of Ihe text·world o f the narrative gospel genre fall s oUlside the present paper, bUI cenainly Luke's double work puts the text-world 10 its limits, too. Beyond thai, the narrative gospel becomes church hislClry.

55

Kari S)'!'ttni

Greenwood. David C. 1985 Srructuralism and rite Biblical Texl. Religion and Reason 32. BeflinNew York-Amstcrdam. Helms, Rande! \986 ~Fic tion in the Gospels." pp. 135-142 in Jtsus in History and My/h. Eds. R. Joseph Hoffmann & Gerald A. Larue. Buffalo. Jakobson, Roman 1960 "Conc1uding S[3tement Linguistics and Poetics." pp. 350-377 in Style and Language. Ed. 'IlIomas A. Sebeok. Cambridge. Jeremias, Joachim 1984 Die Gleichnisse Jtsu. 10. Aufl. GÖltingen. Kelber, Wemer H. 1983 The Oral and the Wrilten Gospel: TIte He~neU1ics o/SpeaJdng aNi Wn'ting in tlte Synoptic Tr(J(/jtion, Mark, Pau/, and Q. Philadelphia. 1988 "Gospel Narrative and CriticaJ Theory." BTB 18: 130-136. Kieffer, Rent \979 ''' Mer-än'-Icristologin hos synopükema." SEA 44: 134- 147 . Kiilunen, Jarmo \989 Das Dopptlgtbot dtr Litbt in synoptischer Sicht: Ein mlottionskritischer Versuch. AASF B 250. Helsinki. Lewis. C.S. 1962 "Bluspels and Aalanspheres : A Semantic Nightma.re." pp. 36-50 in The Importanct o/Languagt. Ed. Max Black. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Marshali, I. Howard 1978 TIte Gospel 0/ LI/u. The New International Greek Testament Commenlary. Exeter. McKnighl. Edgar 1978 Mtaning in Tats : The Historicai Shaping 0/ a Narrarivt Htnneneutics. Philadelph ia. Rad, Gerhard von 1963 "Typologicallnlerpretation oftlle Old Testament." pp. 17-39 in Essays on OldTtstamtnt Henneneutics. Ed. Oaus Westennann. Trans. James Luther Mays. Richmond. Rau, Eckhard \990 Reden in VollmJJCht: Hintergrund, Fonn und Anlitgtn der Gltichnisst Jtsu. Göuingen. Rentsch, Thomas 1989 "An. Paradigma." HiswriSCMS Worterbuch der Philosophie 7: 74-81. Räisänen, Heikki 1989 Dit Mutter Jesu im NttUn Testamelll. AASF B 247. I-Ielsinki. 2nd cd.

56

The Gospel in Paradigms Syn:eni, Kari "Mauhew, Luke, and lhe Law: A study in henneneUlicai exegesis." pp. 126- 155 in Tht Law in IM Biblt anti in iu E,.viro~nl. Ed. TImo Vei· jola. Publications of the Finrush Exegetical Society 51 . Helsinki. Thompson , Wayne N. 1975 ArUI01lt's Dtduction aM Induction: IlIlro@clbryAnalysistJN1 Symhtsis. Amslerdam. Wheelwright, Ph.ilip 1954 Tht Burning Fountain. Bloomington.

1990

57

Social Relations and Economic Interaction in Luke's Gospel A Research Report Halvor Moxnes. Oslo

I

The goal of Ihis paper is 10 describe the process of work and same of the results in my book Th e Economy 0/ the Kingdom : Social Conflicl and Economic Relations in Luke's Gospel (I989) in such a way that decisions about mcthod and procedure become visible and can be di scussed in light of criticism of the book. 1 This book stands within the growing number of studies that attempt 10 combine theological aod social perspectives in an interpretation of the New Testamen t,2 using models and methods from the sodal sciences, in Ihis case, especially social 3mhropology. This particular study arose from a specific queslion: Why did Luke accuse the Pharisees of being "lovers of money " (t/>I.ldpYUPOI) (Luke 16:14), aod what did he imply by that accu· sation?l The unsati sfactory answers in exegetical literature and commen· taries made me enlarge the search for a con lext of interprelation. This in turn lead to the study under discussion, in which systems of social rela· lions and economic exchange are drawn upon 10 provide a more salisfac· tory answer. Mosl commentaries treal this accusalion againsl the Phari secs as a straight forward historica l statement, referring 10 the Phari sees as a his· torieal group. Consequently , they discuss whether Luke was eorrecl in mak ing th is aUegalion or nOI,"· s inee it appears to be diffieult 10 reconeile wilh the eommonly aecepted view of the Pharisees and their socia l posi · tion . A more promising approach was offered by Luke T. Johnson in his study The Lirerary Funclion 0/ Possessions in Luke·ACls ( 1977). He sug· gesls that in his description of the Pharisees. Luke makes use of a literary

In addition (0 Esler, 1990: Kloppenborg. 1990; and (he letter from Meeks. cf. briefer reviews in ExposifOry Timts 101 (1990): 99- 100, and Rtligious Studies Rt\'i~ 16 ( 1990), 153. 2 For an overview and evaluation o f this new ttend. see Holmberg. 1990. 3 I am gratefullO professor Jacob Jervell who pointed thi s problem outto ITlC . 4 For an overview of this discussion. see MOltnes. 1989: 2·6. t

Social Rdations &nd Econornic Interaction

topos, weil known from philosophical polemics against false teachers, that they soughl va inglory and weaIth, proffering their teaching for money.' FoUowing up on thi s line of inquiry, the next question, was therefore whether Ihi s description of the Pharisees as avaricious moneylovers fonned an integral part of a broader presentation of this group within Luke's Gospel. A comparison with the material in the Synoptie Gospels shows th at the Pharisees in Luke are presented not ooly in their function as opponenlS of Jesus, but also in a broader role within the social eontext of Palestine .6 In Luke's Gospel the contrast between the rich and poor has a structural function, in that the poer are described as accepting Jesus, whereas the rieh as a rule rejecl hirn. It follows that the Phari sees, being the main group of opponents of Jesus, belong on the side of the rich . Thus, lhe pon rayal of the Pharisees as "lovers of money" should be studied as part of the literary construct of Luke's , and not as an historical "facI" . However, thi s raises the quest ion of the larger social contex t, since Luke's picture of the Phari sees serves a function within his deseription of the social relations of Palestine at the time of Jesus. Thus, an historical question: "Were the Pharisees avaricious?" tumed into a quest ion of the literary and sodal meaning of tbis statement: How did Luke construe tbe broader system of socia l and economic interaction of which the Phari sees formed apa rt? This is a que st ion of the social re lations of the narrative wo rld of Luke's Gospel. What is meant by this term . "narrative world", and how does it differ from other ways of seeing the question under discussion? In the book it is introd uced in Ihis way: 'The goal of this study is to offer a pi cture of Paleslinian soc iety at the time of Jesus as it is portrayed in Luke's Gospel. Neithe r the hi storieal Jesus nor the historical situation of Luke but the soeial world of the Gospe l narrative is OUT focus of attention" (Moxnes, 1989: xv ). This brief statement may be in need of eIaboralion, and I wi ll do that by the hetp of Norman R. Petersen's use of literary criticism for tbe interpretation of the New Testament.' We may distingui sh between th ree elements of importance for the interpretation of the Gospels: narrative world, "real world" and con textual world. First. lhere is the text itself and the world which it describes. the ,

See c.g. D io Chrysostom, Djscours~s 32: 10- 11 ; 35: I; 54: 1-3; Philo, Praem. 127; Gjg.

37. 6 For historical studics o f the Pharisees in Palesti ne. see especially Neusner. t 979, and Rivki n, 1978. 1 Peterse n. 1985: 1-42, and "Narrative World a nd Real World in Luke-Ac ts" in Petersen , 1978 : 8 1-92. ~

I U KE-ACT S

S9

Halvor Moxnes narrat ive world , or, in terms of Iiterary criticism, refe rential history. Th is is how the text teils its story with its vari ous actors and acti ons, by means of wh ich it draws its readers into its world. From th is narrati ve world two different hi stori es may be reconstru cted. First, the "real world" which the tex t refers to, i.e. the hi storical Jesus, hi s relations to hi s disciples and hi s opponents ete. Form critieal studies have been concemed with a reconstruction of th is world. Next , there is the contextual world of the text, thaI is, the eireumstances at the time of wriling. Redaclion crilieism has focused on thi s lauer question in its attempt 10 relate the theology of the author to its social and hislorical conlext. A reeonstruction of social relations and patterns of exchange of the narrative world differs from the approach of redaction criticism in that it is based on the lilerary leve l of the text, not on the conlext of the author. Thus, it is based on the fuH text of the Gospel, rather than restricting it· self to the conscious aclivity of the redactor. In this way it corresponds 10 a literary approach in the study of Luke, exemplified by the commentaries by C. H. Talben ( 1982) and R. C. TannehilI ( 1986). Ph. F. Esler (1 990) has criticized this approach for nol employi ng

redaction criti cism. Thu s, it is unable to fulfil whal he regards as the cen· tral lask of Lu can exegesis, viz. "the isolation and analysis of the uniq ue themes of the aUlhor's theology and the motivati on behind those Ihcmes." Esler's emph asis upon "un ique Ihemes" and "moti va tions behind th ose themes" points to the main interests of that form of exegesis whi ch redac· tion crit icism undert akes, and wh ich it. of course, is best equipped 10 deal with . But to concentrate upon the author and his/her intentions and moti · vations is not the onl y way to approach a tex t, as the vivid discussion of literary criticism proves. Thus. 10 sludy the narrative world of a tcx t and the meanings implied in that world is in itse lf a worthwhile task. J-Iowever, I share an interes t for the conlex lUal hi slory and the cffort at reconstructi on of Luke's position and of the social silU ation of hi s communit y.8 BUI even so I consider the type of sludy thaI I have undertaken of the narrative worl d to be a necessary fi rst slep. from two reasons. First. a desc ripli on aod c1a ri fica tioo of the narrative worl d is necessary in order 10 base a Iheology of Luke on his narrati ves, and nOI 10 "conde nse" his narratives to theo log ical ideas or concepts. Furthemlore, we need a general pi cture of the world of the first Christians. and of the many ways

8 Esler (1 987) is a successful example of such a reconstnJclion.

60

Social Relations and Economic Intemction

it differs from ou r own worlds of today, before focusing on a speci fic world, e.g. that of Luke and his community.9 My primary interest has heen to try and find out in what ways this nar· rative world of Luke's Gospel is different from worlds that we know. Thus, "in order to grasp Luke's meaning, we have to approach his narra· tive in much the same way as we enter a foreign count.ry ... we start ask· ing questions: "What are the norms and values of this society? What are the rules for social relations and human interaction?"(Moxnes, 1989: xv) . That is, how did this world work? Hermeneutica l discussions within an historical·critical interpretation of biblical texts have heen much concerned with the historical distance be· tween biblicaltimes and the present. But unto this difference in time must be added a difference in culture, socia l and symbolic systems, cognitive and psychological structures . An interpretation that wants to integrale religious and soc ial aspeets must be concemed with a total picture of our own world as weil. We share with other scholarly communities the expe· rience that an interpretation of another culture demands and necessitate s an interpretati on of our own culture . The present discussion among social and cultural anthropologists of Ihi s issue may prove to be particularly useful for biblieal scholars as weiL 10 The methods and models used 10 reconstruct the social and symbolic patterns of the world described in Luke's Gospel are drawn from sludies of an eie nt economy and social amhropology ( Moxnes, 1989: 22.47). Social sciences like sociology and social anthropology are to a large de· gree based on observations and empirical studies of actual societies. It is more dirticult, but not impossible to apply methods from these disciplines in sludies of histori eal socielies. 1I But Ph. F. Esler (1990) has objected that this method cannot properly be applied 10 a literary construct, such as the social world of Luke's Gospel. However, Ihis Is not s uch a great problem as it may seem. Any descriplion of a society, be it areport of facts or mere fjction is based on the authors knowledge of existing soci· eties, and thus is related positively or negatively, to structures and rela· tions of "the real world". E.g. the soeial stru ctures and interpersonal re· lalions found in Gulliver's TraveJs can be analysed and described by the help of soeiology and social anthropology. 9 The difficuhies in drawing conclusion about a particular community situation rrom literary SUUCtures and narrative patterns are elaborated by Johnson, 1979. tO See Dumont, 1986; Gulleslad , 1989; and, applied 10 New Testament inlerprelalion. Malina. 1986. tl One example of this is Veyne. 1990. cf. Ihe remarks by Q . Murray in his introduction. xv. as weil as Ihe sublitle or lhe study: "Hislorical Sociology and Political Pluralism H

61

Halvor Moxnes

When Luke's Gospel is read at the level of the narrative world, the task of reconstructing its system of soc ial relations may be compared to that undertaken by Moses I. Finley in The World o/Odysseus. It was his goal to create a picture of society, based on a elose reading of the rtiad and Odyssey , supported by study of other societies to help elucidate obseure points in the poems. The soeial in stitut ion s and values make up a eoherent system, and from our present oudook, a very alien one, but neither an improbable nor an unfamiliar one in the experience of modem anthropology. (Finley, 1965 : 9) Social anthropology and sociology are modem diseiplines. To use their eoneepts and models, therefore, does not imply that Luke employed or was thinking in such eategories, bot they aee models that help us, his mod em readers, to understand what he is talking about. The result of the approach that I have outlined, therefore. is to identify the basic patterns of social relations and eeonomie st.ruetures found in Luke's Gospel , more than speeifie ones. 12 One the basis of a knowledge of these general pattern s, one may proeeed 10 identify alterations and modifieations of Ihese patterns and thus maybe eome e10ser 10 mo re speeifie eharaeteristies of the Luean eommunity.

II

We would think of a quest ion Iike the Phari sees' attitude to money and the wider eontext of that attitude as a matter of eeonomy. 1n antiquity, however, "economy" had not yet been separated as a distinetive sector of 50eiety. Rather, it was embedded in the total strueture of soeiety and was govemed by social rules. This posit ion represe nts the viewpoinls of i.a. Karl Polanyi ( 1957) and Mo,e, I. Finley ( 1973) (MOlU1es, 1989: 27-32). Consequently, the eeonomy was part of the total soeia! system and its workings were determined by the powers of that sys tem . Therefore, in order to understand eeonomie interaction, it is neeessary to know the systems of power, statu s and soeia! eonstraints that were in ope ration in soeiety allarge. The fam ous essay The Gift: Forms and Functions 01 Excha"ge ill Archoic Socieljes by Marcel Mau ss (1925) is an importanl starting point to understand a soeiety that does not function according 10 our type of ra · 12 This is also recognited by some of (he crilics of the book , Esler (1990: 161 ); Cope. RS R 1990.

62

Soda! Relations and Economic lnteraction

tional economy. It was his thesis that in many archaic soc ieties the gift replaced economic exchange, and that it had a rati onale that was funda ~ mentally different. In a more recent work, Marshall SahIins (1972) de ~ scribes the various fonns of gift exchange and how they are situated within the context of social relations. In BTead and Ci,.cus~s Paul Veyne (1990) has undertaken a major study of gift~giving and its various forms in elassical antiquity, Le. in old Greece, Hellenistic Greece and Roman society. I have taken the models for an analysis of the various fonns of ex ~ change described in Luke's Gospel from SahIins SLOne Age Economics (1972: 41~148). The general term is "reciprocal exchange", because it in ~ dicates a relation between two parties that have dislinctive socio-economic interests. The specific fonn that thi s exchange finds in a particular in~ stance depends upon variou s facto rs, above all upon the c10seness or the distance between the parties involved. SahIins presents the following scheme of reciprocities: I) General reciprocity. This form for exchange covers altruistic Iransactions that are expressions of a high degree of solidarity, its ideal form is "!.he pure gift" . 2) Balanced rec iprocity, on the other hand, attempts to reach a neaT equivalence in terms of exchange. It has a low degree of tolerance if reciprocations are delayed. 3) Negative reciprocity is "the unsocial extreme". It designates attempts 10 get something for nothing, Ihrough power, force, even violence . These various types of exchange are conditi oned by several factars. Most important is kinship di stance, but also signifi cant are di stance in rank o r wealth and the type o f goods invo lved in the exchange. A social group can be divided into various sectors according to socia l di stance : house, extended famil y, village, tribe. intertribaI sector. S y elose kinship reciproc ity is inclined towards general reciprocity, "the solidarity extreme". As one moves further away the type of exchange moves towards balanced and eventually towards the negative pole. Rank and wealth imposes special constraints, the high ranking and wealthy is expected to show generosity .1l Finally, among goods that are exchanged. food holds a special position. Since it is necessary for the upkeep of life, it is more readily give n as "a pure gift ", i.e. in generalized reciprocity. Within a group, be it small or large as for instance a nation. anather process is at work , namely redi stribution. In a small group we may speak I)

For c1assical amiquilYVeyne (1990. passim) provides broad documemation.

63

Ha.lvor Moxnes

of "pooling of resources", in a large group like a nation, it may be de· scribed as "central redistribution". Wealth and goods are colJected to a centre, e.g. through taxes, and there a central authority, be it a king. a temple leadership ete., determines the use of these resource s, for the common good in some way or other (Moxnes, 1989: 70·72). After this outline of various types of exchange that may occur in a "primitive" society, il is necessary 10 ask a further question relaling 10 socia) slructures: What, or who governed this exchange, what were the social forces at work? Ta answer thi s que slion, a study of patron·client relations is use ful. 14 It is the more needed since il is a system of social re· lations that in most modem, Western cuhures are regarded as being out· side of the institutional centre of a society and looked upon with a great deal of sceplicism. Although patron·client relations ex ist, they are not generally accepted and recognized. In e1assical antiquity, however, patron·client relations were a central part of the in stitutions of a society, and an understanding of how they worked are therefore essential. Some characteristics of such relations are of special interest: I) lnteracti on between patron and e1ient is based on an exchange of resources of different types. A patron has m:uerial, socia l and political resources. whereas a e1ient in return may contribute express ions of loyahy and support . 2) There is a strong element of solidarity in these relations, linked to personal honour and obligation. 3) Patron·e1ient relations seem to be long range and binding, but they are entered into voluntarily, and may be abandoned volun · tarily . 4) There is a strong element of inequality and differenee in power in such relationships. The result is a type of relationship with a paradoxiea l combination of el· ements, where inequality and asymmetry in power are combined with ex· pressions of mutual solidarity. A particular form of patronage is that of brokerage or mediation (Slok, 1969). In segmcnted societies there may exist a need for a mediator between loeal groups or eommunilics and the central power. ßrokeragc therefore is a relationship which has Ihree groups of actors: first, the cen· lral patron , nex l the middleman , who is hirnself a clicnt of the eentral pa·

14 A broad, general sludy is EisenSladl and Roniger, 1984; for a discussion of patron· client relations in Luke. see Moxnes. 1991 .

64

Social Relations and Economic lnleraclion

tron, hut who acts as a patron vis-a-vis lhe third group, a community or a person in the periphery.

JIl What do we see if we study Luke's narratives lhrough these lenses of reciprocal exchange and patron-dient relations? There is a striking example of the institution o f hrokerage in the story of the Roman centurion who asks Jesus to heal his slave (Luke 7:2- 1O).u Luke's version of this story differs in significanl ways from thaI of Mallhew (Mau 8:5-13) and shows thal he knows the palronage system weil. In Mauhew there is a direct dialogue between the centurion and Jesus. In Luke, however, the pattern of sodal relations is more complex, and we recognize important elements of the patron-dient system: The centurion does nOl hirnself speak 10 Jesus directly, but he sends de legations, first of the e lders of the city. and lhen of "fr iends"16 10 intercede for hirn. To support thei r intercession, the elders recount that the centurion ha s paid for a synagogue in the lown (Luke 7:5). This signifies that the centuri on, him se lf representing the central Roman power, had taken upon hirnse lf the ro le of a patron to the town, and thus, probabl y acted as a broker vis-a-vis the central power. In return for his favours the elders of the town act as his c1ients and establishes contact with Jesus. Jesus, howeve r, is recognized by Ihe centurion as the ultimate patron. with the power to grant healing (Luke 7:6-8).17 Another narrative. directly related to reciproca l exchange. shows the same familiari ty with Helle nistic att itudes and values. Within the setting of a meal at the house of a rich Pharisee (14:1 - 14) Jesus addresses thi s exhortation to his host: "When you give a dinner or a banquct. do not invite you r friend s or your brothers or your kinsmen o r your rich ne ighbou rs, lest thcy invite you in return, and you be repaid" (14: 12). Luke is the only New Testament author to use the techni cal terminology of reciprocal exchange, here in the foml of halanced reciprocity. He speaks of being illvited in relllrn (avnKaUU(001v) and of repayment ( d'V'raJt~a) . As we l!j See Moxnes, 199 1. 16 "Friendship" designates an alliance of mUlual inleresl, most often between pannen who were mo re equal Ihan in the patron·client relalionship, Eisenstadt and Roniger, 1984: 6 1-62. The institution of fri endship plays an imponant role in Luke, cf. 14: 10, 12; 15:6,9,29. 17 For Luke's piclure of Jesus as benefaclor and patron, and panicular1y a broker who aels on behalf ofGod, see Danker, 1982.

65

Halvor Moxnes

shaU see in more detail late r. this practice is severely criticized. It is interesting to study the guest list in light of this fonn of balanced reciprociry. In tenns of kinship distance. rank and wealth the guests either come from the e10se kinship cirele. or are wealthy and associated with the host in fnendship. Thi s portrays the dinner as a gathering of the upper "elass" of the village. By emphasizing their same status position and the expeetalion of areturn. the Pharisees are portrayed as indivipuals who use hospi tality for in-group and self-serving purposes. Luke here squarely opposes a eommon Hellenistic pattern of reciprocity, within which the sharing of hospitality within a group of equals with the expectati on of reciprocity was accepled as a mauer of fa cl. Proceeding from these examples, can the models of patronage and reciprocal exchange be used to analyse Luke's narratives on a broader scale? [n many of the parables the aCIOrs may be divided into three main ealegones: landlords, middlemen of various types (agents, stewards in charge of a household), and peasants or servanrs. ln some instanees we fmd only two groups: a lord or master and hi s servants (e.g. Luke 14:17-24; 15: 1732; 17:7-10; 20:9-19). The parables with amiddieman are especiaJJy interesting to us. Some narratives merely dese ribe the nonnal pattern of an unequal relationship ( 17:7-10); while more interest accrue to those which show a variety of forms for patron-dient relati ons and, furthermore, ap-

ply thern '0 ,he role of ,he disciples of Jesus (Luke 12:41-48; 16:1-9). Thus. elemenls of a patron-dient relations hip. especially the role of the broker. serve as illustrations of the reJationship belween Jesus, his di scipies and the large r group of followers, 18 and, by extension , also of the relationship within the community of Luke's readers. The general pi etu re that emerges frorn Luke's descript ion of patrondienl relati ons is one of down ward pressure. E.g. Luke spcaks frequently of loans and of the diffi eulty 10 pay Ihern back (6:3 4; 7:4 1-42; 12:58-59, par. Mau 5:25-26: 16: 1-9). The role of the Pharisees within this pielure is of special interest 10 US. 19 In Luke's Gospel the Pharisees are nol based in Jeru sa lem only, they figure as resident community leaders even in Galilean towns and village s. In line with the view held in common by the synoplic gospels. one of their main functions is to uphold purit y rules . Sabbalh laws and the boundaries of the Jewish commun ity . But in Luke's narrative they also be long 10 the local elile. A Ph arisee who is a rieh ruler behaves in a manner eonsistent with Luke's image of a rieh man: he is self 11 Sec Moxnes, 1991 . 19 See Moxnes ( 1989: 11-14) for a di scussion with other studies of Ihe Pharisees in Luke, esp. Sanders, 1987.

66

Social Relations and Economic InlefilCuon

serving, elite ori ented and does not share with Lhe poor (14: 1-14). Moreover, whereas the Pharisees claim 10 be teaehers of the Torah and mode ls of purity obse rvance, Ihey are actually fuH of exhortation and wickedness (lI :37-44). These aceusations against community leaders on the local level is followed up by criticism of the central authorities in the weH known story of Lhe c1eansing of the temple and Jesus' claim that the temple authorities have tumed the temple into "a den of robbers" ( 19:45-46). The leaders of the people are aceused of exploiting poor widows (20:45-46), and they are shamed by the generous gift of the widow' s mite into the temple chest (21 :1-4). Throughoul his narrative Luke represents the leaders of the Temple and of the Torah as part of the rieh elite. To Luke, "rich" most of the time is a negative term, it signals an attitude of spending on oneself and of non-sharing. It follows that the accusation againsl the Pharisees as "lovers of money" in Luke 16: 14 is direeted, not against the possess ion of money per se , but againsl a set of social relations. In Luke's view to love money meant to exploit people, to engage in negative reciprocity and to withhold from people the ir ri ght. Sut thi s was not just a crilicism of soc ial relations, it went mu ch deepe r to the very eore of their identity, viz. their relation to God . Sy juxtaposing his criticisrn of the Pharisees as "lovers of money" (16:14) with the statement that it is impossible 10 serve two lords, God and Mammon (16:13), Luke has idenlified the power inherent in money: it is "Mammon". The Pharisees serve Mammon, not God . This is the fmal and devaslating indictrnenl upon them, similar in its severity to Jesus ' words 10 the Jews in Joh 8:44 : "You are of your father the devil. " Mammon becomes visible as an oppressive pattern in the soeial relations within Palestini an soc iety, upheld 3nd supported even by the representatives of the Torah and the Temple . Consequenlly, this system stands in absolute contrast to Jesus' proclamati on of God and the Kingdom . Sut also life in Ihe Kingdom must have a fonn , it mu st be visible in social relations and structures. The final part of the study, therefore, is made up of an altempt to sketch Ihis "economy o f the Kingdom."

IV What fonn does Luke's criticism of Mammon lake? He lells his story not fro m the poinl of view of a "system" or a "slructure", but rather as narratives about individuals or about groups and thei r relations. Thu s we

67

HalVOT

Moxnes

cannot expect Luke to criticize a system as such. His criticism is directed against individual s, and his alternatives likewise take the fonn of narra· tives about persons. Therefore, in the same manner as we have auernpted to decode his narrati ves of patron·client relations, we must try to find the structures and relat ions expressed through those narratives which repre· sent Luke's alternative. Here, too, it is important to raise questions that are relevant. A much discussed theme has been that of "communism" in Luke.2o However. this seems to be more due to a modem ioterest in the issue. caused by the rise of communism as an ideology and politicaJ and economi c power, [han to material found in Luke. It is weH known that Luke does not give a consis· tent answer to lhe question of whethe r individual possession of property is all owed or nQt (cf. Luke 19: 1·10 with 18: 18·23). Rather than to the possession of money in itse lf, moral significance appears to be attributed to the way in whi ch weahh is acquired or spent. Many traditional societies today show a similar attitude: "If it is gotten at the expense of others, il is iU·gotten . If it is guarded avaricious ly, if it is spent in self·indulgence, it is evil" (Pill·Rivers, 1971 : 62). Here we eOler ioto a different "mora l universe" . It is the hypothes is of this study that the alternatives presen led by Luke cao be illuminated by values fro m traditional peasanl societies, representing counier strategies in the face of oppression or exploitation from outside powers. In the study of such groups the tenn "moral economy" is used to indicale the moral basis for thei r refle clioos upon economy.2 1 The basis for thei r economy was need, nOI profil, since the mOSI important factor in the ir da ily lives was su rviva l and what they needed in order to subsist. Thi s perspeclive helps us 10 see how Luke pUl S emphasize on need (xJXfa) as a moral fa clor. 1I is importanl in the exhortation not to have anx ieties about food, c1 0thes eie. (Luke 12:22-32, Malt 6:25·34). Anxiety is the attitude of the nonbelievers, while those who trust in God. may rest assu red because "your Father knows that you need (xPfKEfc) Ih em" (I2:30). Thi s emphasis upon "need" also plays an irnportan( role in Luke's descnptio n of the Jerusalem community in the summaries in Acts 2:42·47 and 4:32·35. The goal that is set up for the selling of goods and the red is· tribut ion by the apos lies was that the need of all members of the communit y should be met, in fulfilment of the idea l situ ation descri bed by Deuteronorny: "there was not a needy person among them" (Acts 4:34; Deut 15:4). The rneans to feach (hi s goal does not seern to be an ul opian 20 FOT an

overview of the discussion see Countryman, 1980: 1- 18. 21 A usdu1 study is Scott, 1976.

68

Social Relations and Economic Interaction

eommunism, at least not in the Gospel , but almsgiving and hospitality. In eonclu sion , we shall look in more detail at these fonns of social interae· tion and their function as stru ctural elements in Luke's "eeonomy of the Kingdom ". Almsg iving is not an original idea or theme to Luke . As it is used by hirn, it has various origins: in a Jewish tradition, in popular morality at the time, as an upward pressure from the "liltle people", as weil as being part of an ascetic attit ude.l l Characteri stic of Luke, however, is that almsgiving has a stru etural signifieanee. As a fonn of "economic ex· change" it is indicative of the new social system of interpersonal relations that is typical of the Kingdom. The tenn "almsgiving" (t.l.cJ]jlocruvJ]) itself is introduced as a Lucan element in Q·passages (11 :41; 12:33), and it plays a s ignificant role in the desc ription of the pious God· fearer Comelius in Acts ( 10:2,4,31) . Moreover, the idea of giving to the poor and needy is prevalent in many in stances where the tenn "almsgiving" is not used. Almsgiving, giftgiving and hospitalily belang tagether as related types of social interaeti on, and should be studied together in Luke (Maxnes. 1989: 109·38). As other types of exchange they can be analyzed accarding ta three inte rrelated aspects: social distance. types of recip rocity and mo ral value.23 If we start by looking at the negative attitude, we find thaI non -giving is associa led with distance, both spalial and sociat. For in stance, while the rieh man is fea sting in the ha use , the poor bcggar Lazarus lies outside the gate (Luke 16:19-21). And by inviting hi s family and rieh friend s, the rich Phari see maintains a distance to the non-invited poor (Luke 14: 12- 14). There is a correspondence between this soc ial distance and the type of rec iproei ty that is desc ribcd. The rieh prese rve a sacial distance by thcir refu sal to en ler ill lo a reciproca l relati on ship . Of a similar kind is the nega tive reciproc ity wh ich the Pharisees and the scribes resort to: instead of giving alms (ll :4 1), they are full of ex tortion and wi ckedlless (11 :39), cf. also the accusalion that they are "devauring widows' hauses" (20:47). The balanced reciprocity between the Pharisee and his family and friend s appears to be a negative picture, corresponding to the scene of competition fo r the best seal S at the banquet (14 :7-11). The tenninology of baianced recip rocity with an expectation of direct recompense is more t)'pi ca l of social relations with little trust between the participants. like "the

11 See the discussion o f the rela tions and differences between euergelism and Christian c hant)' in Veyne. 1990: 19-)4. 23 Other aspecls of alrnsgiving are discussed in Moxnes, 1989 : 11 3- 114 .

69

Halvor Moxnes sinners" who will lend each other money in the hope of areturn (6:3234). There fore, both balanced and negative reciproc ity are criticized, none of them are regarded as sufficient or acceplable for relations in lhe Kingdom . The alternative that Luke sets up is di stinctively different, wilh regard to sodal di stance, type of exchange and moral value . Most signifi cant of the change that occurs in tenns of social distance and type o f exchange is the admonition in 14: 14 to invite "the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind". Thi s meant to pUl these groups in the place of close family and friends, in Jesus' admonition !hey actually substituted the inner circle. lnstead of being distant . "far out". nOI only in social categories put also in tenns of purity , they bccome very e1ose, intimate. We see here a parallel 10 Jesus' tablefelJowship with sinners and tax -eo Uectors (5:27-32; 15:1-2). Thi s new social fell owship affected the character of exchange as weil . With this group of the poo r and the destitute balanced reeiprocity is impossible "because they cannot repay you" ( 14:14). Thi s fact. which in Greco-Roman soc iety was a liability,14 becomes aasset, even a necessity for lhe troe character of this type of exchange 10 become visible: "you will be repaid at lhe resurrection of lhe just" (14 :14). With the giving of ainu one enlers into a new relationship, not only with other people, but also with God. This last perspective is a key to lhe socia l o r rarner symbolic transformation of relati onships that are associated with almsg iving. Parallel 10 this idea of a recompense at the resurrection, are exp ress ions Iike "have a treasure in heaven " (12:33) or "inherit eternal life" by se lling one's property 10 give it to the poor ( 18:18-23). This aet of almsgiving is both a precondition in o rder to have a treasure in heaven, and a re nection of heaven, that is, of the way in which God aets. We find this expressed through the language of God as "falhe r" and the bel ieve rs as "c hil dren". Those who love their enemies and lend without expecling a return wi ll bccome "children of the Highesl" (6:35 ): they shall be merciful as their "father" is mereifu l (6:36). Likewi se , the exhortation to seil one's property and give alm s (12:33) is preceded by a reassurance that those who do this do not have to fear for thc ir material support: !hey have a Fa!her who knows what they need ( 12:30) , and Ihis Falber has even granted them the Kingdom (12:32). Consequently, the alternative which Luke presents has Iwo major components. First, almsg iv ing and hospitality to the poor signal a soc ial Tela2" Cf, Veyne ( 1990: 63 n. 38): "Society being an exchange of 'benefils', Ihe poor He: outside the circuil, because they can provide none. R

70

Social Relations and Economic lnteraction

tionship that is family like, it is eharacterized by the sharing typical of the dose group, a redistribution more than a reciproeal exchange with expee· tations of areturn. Moreover, this change of soeial relations and interac· tions is put within a symbolic context in which the panieipants are "children" of God "the Falher." Thus, a recompense among children is not necessary. since God will see to that. A giving without expecting a return corresponds to God's own behaviour, it represents an imitation of one's father. Other statements are related to this group of passages . e.g. exhortations 10 trust in God that he will give what is needed (ll :9- 11 ; 12:29-31; 18 :29-30) and in this way acl as a father. In what way does this fonn of almsgiving change the eoneep! of social relations, espeeially of patron-dient relations? A central faet or here is the non-expectanee of a return , an idea that is absolutely foreign to patrondient relations. Areturn, for instanee in the fonn of praise and loyalty was an essential part of the patronage system . Also in a more general form for patronage towards a larger eommunity like a eity, generosity was transfonned into prestige and power. An almsgiving without expecting a return will appear to undercut this soeial mechani sm, it means to interaet in such a way as to free the recipients from their obligations as clients. But how are we 10 understand Ihis? Wayne A. Meeksl l has questioned Ihis interpretation: I wonder if Luke's pi cture of Jesus' new moral economy is as radical as you have seen il -- if he has. for example. really recognized (a r if any of his readers would have recognized) that to make God the ultimate benefaetor really underm ined the whole patron -cl ient system? Certainly the later church did nOI see this: patronage in the old fashion was simply adapled into Ihe new instilutional structures of the chureh (Hennas: the rieh support the poor, and in return the poor pray for the rich, assuring their salvation; Cyprian: the bishop beeomes the palron par excellenee, and the reciprocity is clearly obedienee, and so on). In light of Meek's criticism il may be necessary to distinguish more dearly between soe ial struetures and symbolic universe. When the language of family is inlroduced into the patron-dient relationship or to patterns of balaneed reciprocily, thi s affecls the concepts of these relationships. The aClers in these relations are no longer only patrons and clients. donors and reeipienls, but also children e f the same falher. who is God.

2.5

In a leiter of June 28. 1990.

71

Hnlvor Moxnes

A similar instance is that of Paul's letter to Ph ilemon and his descripti on of the new relationship between Philemon and his slave Onesimus, who, after having fled from his master, had become a Christian . Paul urges that thus he is not any longer merely the slave of his master, but also his brother "in the Lord" (Ph ilemon: 16). In a fascinating study of the terrn inology and the narrative world of thi s le tt er, Norrnan R. Pelersen (1985 : esp. 88- 199) has pointcd out how IWO worlds are competing in Paul's exhonations. One is the socia l world of contem porary soc iety with masters and slaves, another is the world of the church with "brothers" who are sons of the one Father. In the soc ial world slavery was a given fact, and Paul appears to have accepted that, but in the world of the Christian communily the social distinctions between master and slave were irrelevant. In the case of Philemon and his relations to One simu s upon his retu rn , the values of these worlds were in radical conflict. and Philcmon mu st choose whether hc would belong 10 the one or the other (Petersen, 1985: 265-70). Luke's juxtapos iti on of patron-elient relations and fa mily terrninology need not impl y a socia) protest against patron-client relations as such. But the language of "father" and "chUdren" and socia) relati ons understood as sharing within a elose group, changes the spirit of !.he relationship. Thu s. patron-client re lations continued to exist, as Meeks has pointed out , bu t the old system was not merely adapted into a new institutional structure. it was also a new symbolic structure in wh ich patrons or el icnts in the socia! world were chi ldren of the one Father. 26 A similar case appears 10 be the di scuss ion about structures of leadershi p at the last supper (Luke 22:24 27). The meanin g of leadership is symboli call y reversed when "service" becomes the model for a leader. These and other passages appea r to reflect a real tension between the structures "of Ihi s world" and the ideals of the new community. a tension wh ich see rns 10 be mo re hannoni ous ly resolved in later writings . This element of tension between two types of auitude s and va lues within the narrati ve world points towards the question rai sed by redaction criticism: what is the contexlual wo rl d of !.his narrative in temlS of the 10calion of the autho r, Luke , and his comrnunity? Possibly a closer slUdy of hi s use of pa tron-elie nt relations aod pan icularly of aLmsg iving wi ll pro26 Vc)'nc (1990: 19) find s that "eucrgetism and pious and charitab[e works differ in ideo[og)" in bendiciaries and in agents. in the moüvations of agen ts and their behaviour. " But see also his examples of tit1es like foster-father. founder. even father. mother, son or daughter used in honorary inscriptions for a benefactor: "The adopt ion of these terms shows how 'he affcctive vocabulary of the family rubs off on tO the civic vocaou[ary in and after the tater Hellenistic period·' (Ve)'ne, 1990: 125-26).

72

Social Relations and Economic lnteraction

vide a elue. His descriptions of patron-elient relations (7: I-I 0) and of the "natural " practice of baJanced reciprocity suggests that thi s may be an Hellenistic overlay on his picture of Palestinian society. Thus, it is against the morals and values of an urban Hellenistic culture that he is arguing. And it is in the conflict wiLh this system the dilemmas and tensions of the identity of hi s readers may be fouod, alLhough we should not automati caUy presuppose that there is a close correspondence between a text and Lhe situation of its readers.

Works Consulted Blok, A.

1969

"Variations in Patronage." Sosiofogische Gids 16: 365·78. Countryman, L. W. 1980 The Rich Chri.uians in/he Cluuch olthe Earl)' Empire. New York : Meilen Press. Danker, F. W. 1982 BeneJactor : EpigraplUc Srudy ola Graeco·RomtJn arad New Tes~nt Semantic Field. SI. Louis: ClaylOn Publishing House. Dumont. Louis 1986 Essays on IndividualiJm: Mochrn ldeology in Antlvopological Pers,uc· tive. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Eisenstadt, S. N. and L. Roniger 1984 Patrons, Clients and Friends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Esler, Philip Francis 1987 Communiry arad Gos,ul in Ude-Act.s: The Socinl arad PofiticaJ Motiva tions in ~can Thtofogy. SNTSMS 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990 Review : H. Moxnes. Tht Economy 01 thL Kingdom. ThLolog)' 93: 16062. Finley. Moses I. 1965 The World olOdysStus. New York : Viking. 1973 The Ancienl Economy. BerkeJey: University or Caliromia Press. Gullesl3.d. Marianne 1989 Kuftw og hverdogsfi'll: Pd sporet av det modUM Norge. Oslo: Universitetsrorlaget. Holmberg, Bengl \990 Sociofog)' anti the New Testament. Minneapo1is: Foruess.

73

Halvor Moxnes Johnson, Luke T . 1977 The Lilerary Funcll'on 0/ Possessions in Luke-AclS. SBLDS 39. Missoula: Scholm. 1979 "On Finding the Lucan Community: A Cautious Cautionary Essay,"

SBLSP, 87- 100. Kloppenborg, John S. 1990 Review: H. Moxnes, TM Ecorwmy 0/ tM Kingdom: Toronto Journal 0/ TMology 6: 123-25. Malina, Bruce J. 1986 Christian Origins anti CulturaJ Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox. Mauss, Marcel 1954 The Gift: Fonns anti Functions 0/ Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Cohen and WeSI. Fr. orig. Essai sur le don . Paris, 1925. Moxnes, Halvor 1989 The Ecorwmy o/ the Kingdom. SociaJ Con/Iict anti Economic RelOlions in Luke's Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1991 "Patron-Cliem Relations and lhe New Community in Luke-AclS, " in The World 0/ Luke-Aus. Ed. Jerome H. Neyrey. Fonhcoming (rom Hendrickson. Boslon. Neusner, Jacob 1979 From Politics t() Piery: The Emugence 0/ Phorisaic Judaism. Englewood Cliffs: Premice-Hall. Pelersen, Norman R. 1978 Literary Criticism/or New TestOll1ent Critics. Philadelphia: Fonress. 1985 Rediscovering Paul: Philemon anti rhe Sociology 0/ PauJ's Narrative World. Philadelphia: Fortress. Polanyi. Karl el al. 1957 Trade anti Marker in Early Empires. Repr. 1971 . Chicago: Regnery. Pitt-Ri vers. J. A. 197 1 The People o/rhe Sierra. 2.ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rivkin. E. 1978 A Hidden Revolution. Nashville: Abingdo n Press. Sahlins. Marshall 1972 StOne Age Ecorwmics. Chieago: Aldine Publi shing. Sanders. J. T . 1987 The Jews in Lllke-Aus. Philadelphia : Fortress. Seolt, James C. 1976 The Moral Economy O/Ihe Peosanl: Rebellion anti Subsisence in Southeost Asia. New Haven: Yale Universily Press.

74

,

Sodal Relations and Economic Interaction Talbcn, Charles H. 1982

Rtoding 1 !lU: A littrary anti Theological C~nlllry on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad.

TannehilI, R. C. Tht Narrative Uniry 0/ Luu-ACIJ. 1986 Luke. Philadelphia: Fonress. Veyne, Paul

1990

von The Gospel According (0

Bread and Circuses: Historical Socwlogy and Polirical Pluralism. Trans.

B. Pearce. Landon : Allan Lane. Penguin.

75

The Purpose of Ihe Lucan Writings with Particular Reference 10 Eschatology' Anders Eyvind Nielsen, Aarhus Professo r Dr.theol. Hejne Simonsen in

pi~ •

memoriam

1. The queslion of the relationship between the purpose of Luke and eschatoJogy may se rve as an example of an increasing lack of consensus in method and interpretation, which unfortunately seerns to charac lerize much of New Testament research loday.2 Yet regardless of lhe definition of apocalypse and eschatology wirh respect to genre, content and runetion,l the end time perspeclive has - since the days of Weiss and Schweitzer - mainly been identified with "Naherwanung" in teose opposition [0 "Paru sieverzögerung" as a dominant problem in much New Testament tradition. This applies especiaHy [0 Luean research. Whether

Luke was inspired 10 write by some sort of eschatological question is nev ertheless open to interpretation. In this very in stance, the above -mentioned lack of consensus becomes acute. 1.1. I am thinking of two incompatible interpretations of lhe written fonn of lhe Apostolic tradition, when examining the process of writing as seen in relation to the Parousiamotif. The first and leading aspect is given in the forrn-critica l contradicti on between lhe wrinen tradition of the primitive church and "Naherwartung". It is assumed apriori that the process of writing excludes eschatological hope." In opposition 10 lhi s. a minority of form critica l scholars would claim thaI as a second aspect I This paper is to some extent a revised version of my original presentatio n at the NT Conference in Helsinki in 1990. I am indebted tO the starf of the loca! library on the Island of Mors for their excellent assistance in obtaining the consuhed literature from other libraries and for special study hcilities placed at my disposal, whilst I was working as a vicar in Nykobing Mors. My gratitude also goes to Mn. Birgit Svenningsen. who trnnshncd the paper (apan from the n()(es) into English. and Pastor Tony Butenko, who did the proof·reading. 2 See foe instance the observation by Kümmel, 1982: 81 ·96, espccially 93. ) Hanman . 1966: 12 . Here with special reference tO the discussion of the inter-relationship between "... on the one hand Jewish apocalyptic and . on the olher. Je sus' preaching and leaching and the fa.ith ofthe early Church ". See also Dunn, 21981 : 308340 and the relevant contributions edited by Hellholm, 1983, especially the works o f Hanman C Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre". pp. 329· 343), Hengel CMessianische Ho ffnung und politischer ' Radikali smus' in der 'jUdischhellenistischen Diaspora'''. Pp. 655· 686) and Rudolph ("Apokalyptik in der Diskussion". pp.771 -790) .. To pUl it in the words of Käsemann , 1960. Vol. I: 198 , "Man schreibt nicht die Geschichte der Kirche. wenn man töglich das Wehende erwanet".

The Purpose of the Lucan Writings

"Nahe rwartung" plays a positive, theolog ieal part in the wrillen fonn of tradition .s In a similar way the redaction critical school embodies two widely differing viewpoints as regards Luke's relationship to "Naherwanung". Luke is either given the benefit of leuing his work eonsciously underemphasize eschatological hope6 or Luke is considered to be wriling precisely to slir up eschatologieal expeetation among his first readers. In the lauer perspeclive, Acts is seen as an aeeount of the end time. The Parousia is immediately approaehing. ' 1.2. As indieated by the problem with "Naherwartung " - "Parusieverzögerung" , diseussions in this area have shown cenain circular tendencies .' It would therefore be appropriate 10 approach the relationship between Luke's intent and esehatoJogy from quite a different angle. Before attempting such an approach I shall briefly explain in what sense I use the term esehatology. J follow Simonsen's and Noack's broad definition, since I interpret es chatological fulfilmenl as virtually included in the correlation between the life of Jesus and the evenlS of Easter and Pentecost. 9 In the present study I shall confine myself mainly 10 dealing with lhe future and fmal aspect of eschatoJogy, of which the Parousia is an apocalyptic picture. Bearing in mind that Luke's gospelaccount clearly depends on much inherited material,l O so that Luke may have had a freer hand in writing the Book of Acts, the present analysis will primarily be based on the second writing of Luke. Consequently, J shall pay attention to the funetion, assumed by the Parousiamotif in Acts 1: 11, in the prologues in Luk I: lff. and Acts 1:lff., respectively . The resuh s obtained are then to be seen in a wider perspective. as I shall take a quick look at some of the writings of Eusebius and of the composition of the farewell discourse in AclS 20. s Simonsen. 1955: 451-464; Bartsch, 1963; Henge1, 1913: 202-210, 341 -456. 6 Conzelmann, 61911; GrlIsser, 1951; 1979: 99-121. 1 See Mauill, 1972: 216-293 and Canoll, 1988. - I leave aside the discussion conceming other purposes tnd "Nebenriele" with resptC110 the Lucan writings. For 1his See Kürrunel. 21 1983 : 114((, 127ff. 8 See. for inS1ance, the criticism against the position of Grässer made by Cullmann . 1958: 1- 11 . Kümmel, 1982: 93, "... daß das Zurücktreten der Naherwanung, auf alle FäHe bei LukaS/Apostelgeschichte und im Johannesevangelium. aber auch in anderen splU-neuleslamendichen schrif1en, zu Abwandlungen der ursprünglichen Erwanung, zu einem slärkeren Betonen der gegenwan als Heilszeit-Endzeil, aber nicht zu einem den glauben gefährdenden ParusieveI'ZÖgerungsproblem gefdhn hal~. Cf. Baarlink 1986; Giesen, 1987: 151-164 and Simonsen. 1989: 50, 19, 89·90. 93,114. 116. 9 Noack. 1948: 41; Simonsen, 1955: 463. Cf. e.g. Kümmel , 1965: 351 -363; 1982: 93. 10 Concem ing Ihe discussion o f eschatological mlofs as seen in a balanced way between tradition and rcdaction. see for instance Zmijewski, 1973: 30-40, and Baarlink , 1986.

77

Anders E. Nielsen

2. Mussner's artide of 1982 is a suitable example of the inereasing exeget· ical interest in the prologues 10 the Lucan writings. t t The prologue to the Gospel is rightfully eonsidered to be of decisive significanee for the underslanding of the ultimate purpose of the Lucan twin writings. Mussner bases his exegelieal considerations on a formal criterion of a comrnunica· tion-theorelical method. Ln the formal part. Mussner incorporates in par· tieular Herrlitz's theory of code language or "Zielsprache" from sender to receiver. t2 Thereby the prologue in Lk 1: 1-4 aehieves a group language funelion beeause the prologue gives a superior signal as regards the pur· pose of communicalion which Luke through his writings intends 10 channel into the everyday life of thc receivers. 2. 1. The formal part of the analysis leads Mu ssner 10 a e10ser exegetical determination of the prologue's pronominal seclion in 1:1c (1rCpi nilv lrE1C).1'/po~prudv(J)v ev t),uiv K'fA.) and J :2a (Ka~ TCapt80aav I'f,uiv oi eilr' apzfJ~ K'fA.), respeetively. Mu ssner characterizes the first pronominal seelion as "ein esehalOlogisehes Wir", and he ealls the lauer section "die ekklesiale Wir" .!) Through this extremely relevant dislinction Mussner focu ses on the integrity, in a dogmatic sense, of the traditional process. Yet in my opinion that part of Mussner's analysis which louches on thc temporal tension between past and present, deserves doser eonsideration as regards Luke's purpose and hi s notion of eschatology. In thi s re speel,the fact thai the Gospel writer moves on two levels in the prologue needs attention. The two leve ls may be eharaeterized as the Jesus level and the eongre· gational level, respeelive ly,I4 because the eonsummated Jesus event (aTC' apzf1~) is transmilled 10, conseq uently interpreled for , the situati on of Luke's own eongregalion. The Theophilu s group is to be further anehored and strengthened in Christian teaching. whieh has al ready been prescnted onee before (iva bnyvtiX; Jl'cpi c.Ov Kaf'1'/z"'9'1~ .Myrov n)v aa4>tiJ..clav, 1:4). In specifie terms, the preceding perfect [ense (trVrAT/POq,opf1J.lCvrov, 1:Ic) emphasizes the lasting effeet which the pasl Je sus event (Jl'apt800av t)/JIV oi eilr' cipxf1~. 1:2a) has on Luke and his eongregation. The pa re-

Mussner, 1981·82: 113·130. Cr. Schürmann, 1969: 1-17; Pesch, 1986: 7-35; Schneider, 1971 : 45·66; 1980: 188· 194: Dillon, 1981 : 205 -227 and Schnackenburg, 1985: 249·266. 12 Mussner. 1981 -82: 119- 120. 13 Ibid. , 121. 14 I have borrowed these terms from Pedersen, 1990: 570. 11

78

The Purpose ofthe Lucan Writings

netie purpose in Luke has thus aehieved its speeifie pastoral determination. l ' 2.1.1. Retuming to the esehatologieal aspeet of the prologue, the perfeet tense used in Lk 1:1c (1tE1rA.f1po~prudVOVI6) deserves attention. It may not merely be a matter of literary style. The time of fulfilment does not exaetly confine itse lf to the time of Jesus and the age of Luke . Grammatieally and theo logieaU y, the perfeet tense may prove to be a fitting indication o f the lasting effeet of the proclamation of the gospel event whi ch ha s a future - a fin al and ultimate future of its own. In Lk 17:2024, for example, the Kingdom effeet appears only partly in the effectual proclamation of the gospel event as a valid sign among 17 the audience of Jesus eoneeming the future Parousia (cf. the metaphor of the lightning, 17:24). Funhermore. the speech o f Peter in the house of Comelius (Acts 10:34-43) indicates a development in the proclamation of Lhe gospel whieh began with Jesus (~dpe vo~. 10:37) and may eulminate in the final judgment of Jesus over the living and dead (10:42). Now as far as the beginning of the gospel event is eoneemed, there seems to be a clear relali onship between the a~djJEv~ in Aets 10:37, the "'~aro in Acts I : 1 and the clPlif; in Lk 1:2. With referenee to the esehatologieal eulmination as expl ieitly menlioned in Aets 10:42 Lhi s brings us 10 the above-mentioned point of considering the prologue of Aets as related to the Parousia outlook in I : 11. Perhaps the scope of the introductory verses in Acts may be viewcd wilh same juslificalion as an elaboralion of the implied esehatological motif in the prologue of the Gospel of Luke. 2.2. Before re lating ACls 1:lff. 10 Lk I : 1-4 the seope o f the introducti on 10 Acts is 10 be discussed and if poss ible more close ly delermined. It is 10 be q ueslioned whether the prologue in Acls consists merely of the 2 firsl verses , or if it eXlend s as rar as 10 verse 11 . The quest ion links up with the exegetical problem mentioned below, 2.2. 1, The IWO centrally located Ascension perieopes and their fun eti on in Lucan eomposition have aroused mueh diseuss ion. In our contex I, the erueial matter is 10 determine whether the Ascension motif in Acls replaces the Parousia. 1I Is the Ascension scene 10 be interpreted as a radiea l re-evaluation of thc hope of the seeond advent o f Jesus? I find it important 15 I here follo w Schilnnann, 1969: 2-5 and Fitunyer, 198 1: 6·7 conceming Ihe dynamic interplay between history and proclamauon ofthe gospel . I believe with Hemer (1989: 2~247) that by appealing tO the historical perspecuve ofthe namtives (Conz..elmann) one may go too far in emphasizing a speci fic and diverse thc:ology to be found in Luke. 16 Cf. U 1:20; 4:21; 9: 31; 24:44; A ClS 1: 16; 3: 18; 13:27 etc. 17 Noack. 1948: 39·45; er. Fitzmy~r, 198 1. Vol.I : 1159. 11 Loh fi nk, 1971 and Grlisscr. 1979.

79

Anders E. Nielsen

not to confuse the spec ific eschatological view of Luke with his general distance from apocalyptic. As with the other New Testament narratives Luke deviates markedly from the existing Ascension tradition in the books of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Elijah and the Ascension of Moses.19 In Luke the ascending Jesus does not send down any detailed revelations of an apoealyptic nature about the destruction of the world powers and the restoration of Israel. Such questions are expressly rejeeted by Jesus prior 10 his Ascension (Acts 1:6-7). This is seen in the deeisive point that the disciples left behind are not to oecupy themselves with apocalyptic speculations, but 10 devote themselves to sprea<;ling the Gospel (lax; eo:taTou fiT; yrl;. 1:8). As has been pointed out by others, the queslion that is pUl to Jesus about tbe future of Is rael may not al all be related 10 tbe eschatologieal view of the Parousia , but 10 apoealyptic conceptions, perhaps of a national Jewish nature.20 The view of the Parou sia goes in a different direet ion , since the Parousia in Acts I : 11 may be interpreted as the supe rior perspective of the enti re series of missionary events in AClS. Formal reasons are in favour of such an interpretation. 2.2.2. In connection with the formal considerations of the prologue to the Gospel of Luke, its communicative value for understanding the work was characterized as code language or "Zielsprache". In principle, similar circumstances apply to Acts I: I fL , since the actua l opening signal of this book serves to thematize the communication present in the book of Acts. As a too l for laying this funct ion ope n. I shaU pay attention to the most important markers on the surface of the text. 21 Such markers in the text distinguish the sm aller units from each other and group them into larger blocks. Thus, meta-textual refe rences such as the introduction of topics or situati ons, references of location and lime, are text-organizing markers which play an important role as organizing fea tures in Acts 1:1-1 1. Otber markers, such as references to (new) parlicipanls/speakers and syntactic phrases such as oi pi:v ovv (1 :6) mayaiso be mentioned . Significant references dcaJing with parts of the text have a c1early text-organizing fun clion, e.g. Kai 1'atJ-ra eiJrcJv (1 :9). Here ratJra refers to what Jes us has told hi s disc iples. Howeve r, the question is whether -ratJra on ly refers 10 the answer in 1:7-8 given by Jesus to the quest ion put to hirn by his disciples, (1 :6), or whether ratJm also includes the words of Jesus, pardy alluded to and partly quoted in I :4b-5? 19 See the relevant material by Charlesworth. 1983. 20 See the anicle by Hengel mentioned in n()(e 3 and Schnackenburg 1985: 249-253. 21 I am indebled 10 Prof. Lars Hanman, Uppsala, for direcling my anention tO the synchronie approach. For a more extensive presenlation of this and Olher synchronie approaches see Hellholm, 1980. especially pp.75-95.

80

The Purpose of the Lucan Writings

An ans wer to thi s question depends on our underslanding the somewhat vague borderline in 1:6, "as they now were galhered" (ai pR.v auv
81

Anders E. Nielsen

It is true that I : 1-3 represen ls an impol1ant meta-textual reference which summarizes the preced ing Gospel writing (I: la, IrptiJrov ,l6yov) in a general statement about the minislry of Jesus from the beginning (I: I b, "~afO) to his Ascension (l :2a, QvüJ1l,J96'1). However, this summary may nol only refer back to lhe Gospel account. Some sort of grad ual transition from a backward-looking 10 a forwa rd-look ing, perspeclive is taking place as implied in I :3a , J-IE.fti ro lra9E.Tv, with respet:t 10 "the foIty days" . In I :3b the reference to the instruction of the Kingdom is then thematized by the relative marker in 1:4a as leading up 10 the final events of "lhe forty days" . Since 1:3b- ll is closely attached to the superior meta-statements of 1: 1-2, 3a, we may conclude that 1: 1-11 suggests 3 coherent introductory passage to the enti re Book of ACls . The impl ied structure based on the organizingldelimiting features in the opening verses in Acts may be illu strated by the following display. 1: 1-11 Introductory or background remarks on the events reponed in 1: 12-28:3 1. 1-3a Metu-textual comments aboutthe activities o r Jesus. 1-2 Anaphoric rererence perhaps with some cataphoric connotations (!Sv !fp{mo... O.lPL.&vc..1. ~Jl~)

Emphasis on the appearance or the risen Jesus. berore the disciples (pcta TO xa8civ) during "the ron y days", 3b-11 Final events belonging to "the rony days", 3b Meta phrase (ltrcuv ni IU'pC 11),.- {k1.l7Ilda:; roO /kov) 4-8 Fellowship meal related tO a specific teaching given by Jesus. Relative episode marker in 4a (ctuva.ll'~) 4b-5 Instruction : -not to Jeave Jerusalem, uusting the prom.ises o r the Father, 4b -becaust or (6n) coming baptism in the Spirit. 5 Dialogue pan intro
Ja

I ; 12-14 Shirt of location as a background description tO the election or Matthias as a

substitute ror Judas ( 1: 15-26).

Consequently. lhe exegetical and lheoJogicaJ implication s of lhe above description of the most important markers on the text surface ought to be

82

The Purpose of lhe Lucan Writings

evident. We reach the following conclusion: what commenced with Jesus and continued with the apostles is ultimately delimited by the Parousia. Thi s hardly means that the course of events in the book of Acts is to be interpreted as the last stage irrunediately before the time of the Parousia.21 According to the prologue (1:1·11), the nanative aspect of Acts is thema· ti zed and put into perspective wirh a rounded view of the Parou sia. Emphasis is not on an imminent and acute event but on a specific and ce rtain event. The two angels did not assure the apostles that they would live long enough to see Jesus retuming from heaven in glory. Neither the apostles themselves nor the specific time they were living in are related by the angels to the return of Jesus. To be sure , the Parousia is only related to the Ascension. That is to say, the certainty of the Parousia is described from the viewpoint of the Ascension and implied enthronement of Jesus. 2.3. With these fonnal and content · related considerations of Acts 1:1· 11 the relationship to the prologue in Lk 1: 1-4 has been isolated. As has been pointed out, the prologue in Acts refers back not only to the "ekklesiolog isches Wir" of the Jesus·sphere (1UlpE.&x1av ~J1iv, Lk 1:2a) but also elaborates in a continuing direction on the "eschatologisches Wir" of the communit y·sphere (1fC1r).T/~prudvov /;v ~J1iv, Lk I : I c). Towards thi s honzon Luke unfolds the Spirit·powered mi ssion time of the Chri stian community as the time for keeping vi gil and prayer, for interna! unity and extemal open ness. Luke's writings will further establish the Theophilus group, in retrospect 10 the beginning of the ongoing Gospel rcality witnessed in the time of Jesus and the apostles and reaching into the time of the Lu can church. The prologue, as we have seen, indicates that Luke wants to see hi s own time in continuity with the time of Jesus and the apostles (I: 1c). 111e eschatoJogica l consequcilce to be rightfully in· 1)

Carroll , 1988. In Carroll's point of view, as mentioned in the introduction (see 1.1 . above), Luke has in fact mnde the delay of the Parousia serve a new "eltpectation of an imminent End in Luke's own situation" p. I66. To be more specific. this thesis makes Carroll's appealto cenain variations on the semantic text level in the applied quotation from Jod (Acts 2:17-21) as 10 the point that ~ Luke's use of the Jod prophecy is cer· tainly consiSlent with Iiving imminent hope, however" p.133 cf. 128 and 137. BUI even the Lucan insenion. tv rai~ tazarar, rUd'pc.n~ (2: 17a) would have tO be viewed in the light of the way the entire eschatological quotation is introduced in 2: l6a, d.UO: TOOro tanv TO dpruuvov... , wh ich Cmoll takes a note of only in passing (cf. "The immediate purpose of the Jod citation within the story is to explain the ecstatic speech of the day of Pemecosl" p.129). his, of course. not the Joel prophecy as such thai offers an explanation. but the christological ftarne indicated in 2: 16a and 2:22ff. (Peter's speech). That is 10 say. the eschatological Jod citation is serving a specific clarified purpose. which for the same reason is not preoccupied with apocalyptic End-time speculalions. Carroll fails 10 consider whether Acts 1:6. the quest Ion abou t the "when?" (cf. Luke 24:21; 21 :7; 19: I1 and 17:20), refers to a christo logically based Parousia hope or 10 a mere Jewish apocalyptic speculation, p.124.

83

Anders E. Nielsen

ferred from Lk I: ) c, as elucidated from Acts ): )· 11, may weil be thai Luke leis the Parousia stand as the culmination of the era of proc1amation of the gospel, wh ich has put its own slamp on Luke, his writing and his church. 2.3.1. We are therefore strengthened in our not ion that the Parousia aspect may weil be incorporated as a clarified part of the basic catechcti· cal teaching, assumed by Luke to be familiar in the circle of Theophilus. What is dogmatically known and recognized thus surfaces naturally, as far as the Parous ia is concemed, in the tex tual connections referred to in cases of tOialtheological perspective. . 2.3. 1.1. At this point. drawing a parallel with Eu sebius wi ll place in furthe r relief relations already established in Luke. 24 80th Luke and the even later Eusebius may be looked upon as old men, deeply rooled in the Christi an tradition, writing in the assurance of the final triumph of the Christian faith. In Eusebius. this theme seerns to be contained panly in ce rtain parts of [he prologue substance and partly to be an ass imilated cl· ernenl in narrative passages of a certain calechetical slamp. A comparison between Luke -Acts and Eu s. Eccl. makes it clear Ihat there are considerable differences, contentwise and Iheologica l, besides the purely quantitative difference of the writings. Eusebius' christological reading of the Old Testament iSt for instance, govemed by a theory of in spiration, which is not found in Luke. Likewise, Eusebius does not use an eschatological transposi tion motif as we have seen with Luke (Acts 1:6-7), but such differences should not overshadow lhe fact th at Eusebius tao opens his writing by drawing a line from the foretold Jesus time of the Old Testament - "and on to ou r own elapsed times" (cino 'wo aClYrif~ r)J.JciJv Kai ci<; ~Jld<; ÖHIvtJC1pCVOI<; ,lpOVOI<;.:Z's 1.1 : 1·2) In Ih is con tinu ilY Eusebi us, like Luke. anchors his readers in the Christian faith and tradi· ti on. This iSt among OIhcr things , evidcnt by the waming words of the prologue on false teachers of a gnos tic type (!pE1J&JJVVpOU rvWa~) desc ribed as ravenou s wolves , relcntless ly attacking Chrisl's grazi ng herd. The main pastoral motif is furthennore supported by the important prelude to the fifth volume on the martyrs, who are worthy examples of the certain spread of Ihe Chrislian failh, il s superiority and final triumph . I-Iere il must be nOled Ihat Eu sebius docs not rule out an occasional parallel with the Parousia or the resurreclion in the eschatologica l fulrilment even though he may express his optimislic view on the course of hi story H

:z.s

84

Prof. Manin Hengel deserves my besl thanks for encouraging me during the summer of 1987 in Tübingen 10 look for some possible similarities between Luke and Eusebius. The Greek tex t is from Schwanz, 1908.

The Purpose of the Lucan Writings

by means of lhe main features of a neo-Platonic world-view - and even though he may be said to come e10se to being anli-apocalyptic (cf. particularly the cont.mst in the fiflh book between the martyrs and the Montanist movement). An eschatological motif appea rs, for example, in the moving temple scene with James, doomed to martyrdom, placed by Eusebius towards the end of tbe second volume (11.23: 1-19). Ralher than submiuing to the Jewish demand of renunciation of belief in lhe Passion of Jesus, he manages immediately before being thrown down from the pinnaele of the temple to remind the bloodthirsty mob of the Day of Judgmem, when Jesus Chri st "shall appear with great power on the e10uds o f the sky" (11.23: 13). The Parousia motif may hardl y be interpreted as a mere Judeo-Christian idea. 26 The concept of the Parousia belongs 10 the Christian tradition, which Eusebius supports. Eusebius does not hesitate in criticizing both the chiliasm of Papius and the prophesy ing o f the Montanist. Yet Eusebius makes the following acknowledgement o f the eschatological witness of James: "James was, for Jews as weil as for heathens, a trustworthy witness that Jesus is Christ" (11 .23 : 18).21 Such is the context of the Parou sia motif, which therefore appears on a level with Ihe resurrection hope of the martyrs (V.2:62-63), which opponents attempt to break down throu gh cremation of Chrislian victims. 28 3. In the reciproca l relationship between the afore menti oned prologues and between these prologues and subordinate text correlat ions, respectively, Luke and Eusebius seern to share a basic common feature. Under the bou ndary-crossing continuity of the spread of the gospel both writers intend 10 establi sh the ir readers in the Christian faith, according 10 their ma in prologues. Cenainly, Euscbius has not inserted any Parousia outlook '26

cr. Shoeps,

1949: 79. Kraft (1984: 22 :25, 35 and 37) does nO(, as far as I can see, pa)' proper anention tO the Parousia language of 11 .23: 13 and the resumction language of, say V. I:I. 34, 56 cf. 2:7; VI.4:4. Furthermore. Eusebius makes use of different pictures. which ntay include both an individual and a cO$mic type of eschalOlogy. The notion of immonalit)' of the soul is u~d logether wilh lhe resurreclion (e.g. V.26:4). This synlhetic conceplion of eschatological ideas ma)' weil be related to a similar phenomenon 10 be found even in Judaea. see Hengel, 1989: 46-56 27 Thus Eu~bius also seems to agJee to the eschato10gical COOlem of Polycrates' leiter, though quoted as an indication of the location of the tomb of lhe apostle JOOn. The eSChatological part puts it this wa)': ~ For indeed in Asia great Iuminaries have fallen asleep, such as shall rise agai n at the lasl day, the day of the Lord's appearing, when He comes wilh glor")' from heaven tO seek out all His sainlS... ~ , 111.3 1:3 (Lawlor's and Oulton's translation, London S.P.C.K, 1954). 28 V.l :62-63.

85

Anders E. Nielsen

in his prologues, as Luke is seen to have done in the prologue of Acts. The eschatological motif may, howeve r, appear in the shape of the resu rrection pi etu re or, as is seen in one instance, in the shape of a Parousia out look in Eusebius. These eschatolog ical outlooks occur in connection with scenes of martyrdom. The same tendency is to be traced in Luke's presentation of Stephen's martyrdom. though the characte r of the eschatologica! outlook (Ac ts 7:56) is di sputed. In Eusebiu~ James' martyrdom paves the way for ade finite ou tlook on the Parousia (11 .23: 13). Furthennore, scenes of martyrdom may with some justificat ion be said to make use of adeparture motif. In Ihi s connection, one may consider whether departure-marked literary scenes in a Christian contex t are sen· sitive 10 eschatologica! aspects of the transmilted catechesis. which would not otherwise have appeared in the text. In a conventional sense, departure situations cause an overall perspeclive, compri sing aspects about the past, the present and the future.29 The Parousia oU ll ook in Acts I: 11 fonns part of a departure scene in the leading prologue (I: I-l i ).30 In relat ion to Ihis I sha ll briefly look al the farewell speech in Acts 20 from an eschatological angle . 3.1. Paul's farewell speech in Miletus (Acts 20:18-35) may be divided up in many ways,31 yet in my opinion a true picture of the composition of the speech is accomplis hed through app li ca tion of Grosse's thematic markers . 32 Tbc first Ihemati c marker is indicated in 20: 18, 6jul<; 29 Munck. 1950: 159, appeals 10 the genre of biblicaJ fareweU speeches in order 10 main· wn an apocalyptic interpreL:ltion of the relevant texts. That the fUluristi c aspect consli· IUles Ihe entire speeches in queslion as "un lableau apocaJyplique", p.l59. is perhaps 10 go 100 far. On Ihe other hand Nordheim, 1980, may represenllhe directly opposilc extreme. That is tO say thai any reference 10 Ihe future al all is tO be laken in the sense of vaticinja u eventu • as a literary device serving a parenetic end . See Ihe criticism of Ihis posilion by Mllnchow, 1981 : 51 -53, 116, 149·178 passim. The eschalological aspecis do playa minor, bUI relevant role. cf. Noac k. 1971 : 47 ·48. 51 and Charleswonh , 1983: 773 and 779. Hence. a lotal rejcclion of Munck's observalion meotioned above with respect to the perspeclives of Ihe future in AClS 20:21 ·31 Sterns 10 be an over·haslY concJusion. versus Aejmclaeus. 1987: 243· 244, note I. 30 Munck, 1950: 165, does mention ACls 1:2ff. togelher with the following Farewell dis· courses 10 be found in Ihe NT: AClS 20: 17·35; John 13· 17; 21 : 15·23 and on p. 155 he fTlCotions I Tim 4: lff. and 2 Tim 3: lff. See F.Keck. Die O/fentliche Abschiedsreck Jesu in U: 20,45 -2/ .36: Eine redaktions· und mofjvgeschichlliche Untersuchung. Slullgan : Katholische Bibelverk. 1976. The same motifmay be seen in Lk 22 :18· 38 and Lk 24 :3 3-53. 31 See for instance Schünnann, 1968: 110. and Lövestram . 1987: 8. who divides the speech ioto IWO sections; Prast. 1978: 49-50 and Zeilinger, 1981: 168 into three sec· lions: Dibelius. 1951 : 126 and Conzelmann, 1972: 126 into four sections: and for even more divisions see Aejmelaeus. 1987: 84. 32 For fonnal reasons of which I cannot go into here. Ihematic markers consist of 1) an opcning signal, "Metaproposilionale Basis". and 2) what is the actual following con · tem of that signal. "Proposition". cf. Grosse, 1976. See also Hellholm. 1980: 60-61 .

86

The Purpose of the Luean Wrirings

hria'taa9c, unfolding an introductory retrospect of Paul's activity with the gospel. The seeond marker, in Acts 20:25, k'"ai vtJv iöov tyru ollia,

levels with the marker in 20: 18. The third and last marker is given in 20:28, trpO<Jf:xE're bruTOl;, thematizing the distinet parenetie final part of the speech up to and including 20:35. The reciprocal connection of the afore mentioned trisection of the farewell speech implies the following: the middle part of the speech, 20:25·27, epitomizes the mainly retrospective perspective in the first part of the speech. Consequently, 20:18-24 may be epitomized in 20:26-27 in the concluding remark from Paul that he is not guilty of the blood of anyone. God's entire plan of salvation (1l"daav n)v ßau.tJ)v TOÜ 9coü) has been proclaimed. If the las t part of the middle section refers TO the preceding, the first part of the middle section, on the outlook towards the irrevocable farewell (k'"ai vtJv i&n5 tyru olöa c5n oOKEn, 20:25), points to the parenetie final part, 20:28-35. Thus the middle section seerns to have a transfonnative funetion, beeau se the anaphoric section (20:26-27) and the cataphoric seetion (20:25), respec· tively apparently cross each other. In this formal interaction, eschatological motifs are drawn into the presentation, gaining exegetieal and theolog· ical significance. In speeifie tenn s, 1 trace an eschatological indication in Paul's motive in pleading innocence so as not to be held responsible for the "blond" or perdition of others. The inherent eoneept of judgment is motivated as a theme of acquiual on the basis that "God's entire plan of salvation" has been proclaimed. Futhermore, we have a clear eschatologieal reference in tenns of "heritage" (Acts 20:32). This soteriological all ·embracing signifieance is to be seen in relation to the overall theological perspective of the gospel prologue, enhanced with the eschatological future parallel to the Parousia (Acts I : 1-11). Thi s interaction between a pastoral motif and an eschatological outlook is evident from the summary in Acts 14:21 ff. Upon remarking about the spreading of the gospel, Luke, very eharaeteristically, inserts his pastoral-parenetie main purpose, referring to the fact that the congregations were strengthened to remain in the faith . In this correlation there foll ows an eschatological outlook: k'"ai c5n 1l"o.u..cav 8.tilpctl.lv &:1 n/Jd; dac.tth:1v ci; n)v ßacnA.E:iav mü 8EoiJ(14 :22b}. 4. In conclusi on, Acts 14 :21-23 may be seen as a condensed and compressed edition of two main features, unfolded in a major literary and compositional connection in Acts 20:18-35. The texts mutually illuminate eaeh other on these two points. The first lies in the gospel proclarnation (14:21 cf. 20:18·24, 26-27) and the second is consequently the edification of the eongregation (14 :22-23 cf. 20:25, 28-35). On this interaction be·

87

Anders E. Nielsen

tween proclamation of the final gospel and the consequent strengthenrng in the parenetic section there is a futuro-eschatological perspective, explicit in 14:21ff., yet implicit in 20: 18ff. ln both cases the eschatological perspective is kept open. Nothing indicates any underlying eschatological problems, be they of an existential or dogmatic nature. The eschatological part of the presupposed Christian catechesis rests as a non-accentuated moti f in an occasional outlook towards the hope of fulfilment, virtually asserting itself in "the things that have heen fulfill ed among us " (Lk l:lc). Included is the all-embracing perspective of the Christian message of salvation and hi story with its tenninal high point , explicitly unfolded with the concluding Parousia outlook in the prologue to the book of Acts (1:1-11). ln addition, this may also apply to the speech of Peter with regard to the eschatological outlook conceming the final judgment (Acts 10:42, cf. 10:34-43). Moreover, this overall perspective mayaiso include the eschatologica! wordings to be found in the Judeo-ori ented section of Acts - especially 3:20 about "the time of universal restoration" and 2: 17 about the pouring out of the Spirit "in the last days". It is, of course, not the apocalyptic terms as such but the specific relevant context in quest ion that maUers as far as a proper understanding of Luke's intended message is concemed. To this end, I think ta eschata as related to the Parousia pieture of the few texts we have examined indicates that the eschatological aspecls are included in a c1arified way in the Lucan perspective.3J lJ

88

Luke seems, in other words, tO belong 10 the same main stream of tradition, as far u the interaction belween eschatology and admonitions is coocemed, far instance to be seen in 1 Tim 4: 1-6:19; 2 Tim 3: 1-4:18; TiI2: 11 · 13; 1 Pel 1:1-9: 2 Pet 2-3: 1 Clern 22:8; 24: I; 34:3; 35:4: 36:5: 51 : I; 2 Oem I: I: 7: 1-9:7; 11 :5; 16: 1-20: IgnEph 11 :1-2; IgnPhil 5:2; 2: 1-3; 11 : 2; Did 4: 10; 10:6; 16: 1-7; Bar 1:3,4-8; 7:2; 19: 10. Notice also Ihe expression "strangers" (to this world), I Clern I: I: 2 Clern 5: I; PoIPhii I : I, cf. IgnRom 2: 2. It is true the argumenuuive inlerptay between an eschatological outlook and admonition seems to be more restrained by the historical perspective in Luke-Acts generally and in the writings of Eusebius in particular, as cornpared to the texts mentioned above. Nevenheless, the implied difference may pethaps be beuer explained on the ground of genre, Le., letter writing versus narrative leXl , than as seen in terms of a radieal shift in theology, for exarnple, a suggested development frorn "Naherwanung" towards "Pllf'Usievel"%Ögerung". - On the other hand, the gospel story ilself, whc:n read or told. seerns tO suggest a uni verse with a narrative time, lhal may be in line with the Iiturgieal seuing, also tO be found in the early church as an eschatological rellowship, which was nOI grounded in apocalyptic speculations. Conceming the eschatological implication or the narrative lime, see S.Bjerg. Den kristM GrJUtdfort«Jljng. Slutljer oller /ort«lJjng og l~ologj. Ärhus: Aras. 1981 : 205212, German summary 359-362, and A.Pilgaard. "The Gospel of John as Gospel Writing". pp. 44-55 in Asp~cts on 1M JohanniM Ul~ralur~ . Ed. by LHartman and B.OIsson. Papers presented at a Conference of Scandinavian New Testament exegeles at Uppsala June 16-19, 1987. Stockholm: Alrnquist & Wik sell , 1988.

The Purpose or the Lucan Writings

lf thi s concept hold s true, we may have gained a basis fo r the most probable understanding of the compositional aim in the condensed contexts in Lk 21:5-36 and 22:14-38 in respect of the relationship between congregational parenesis and eschatologieal outlook. I hope to return to this on a later occasion.

Works Consulted Aejmelaeus. L.

1987

Die Rezeption der Pcwlusbrkle in derMiletrede (Apg 20: / 8-35). Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennica SeroB 232. Helsinki: Academia Sei-

entiarum Fennica. Baarlink., H.

1986

Die Eschatologie der synoptischen Evangelien. Stuttgart, Berlin. Köln and Main%.: W.Kohlhammer.

Bansch. H.-W.

1963

Wachet aber zu jtder üit: EflIWw[ ei~r Auslegung des t ukartvangttiums. Hamburg-Bergstedt: Htlben Reich Evangelischer Verlag.

Carroll. J.T. RtspotUt to the End 01 flistory: EscluJtology tJN1 Situation in / lIu-Acu. SBL 92. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Charleswonh. l .H. Tht Otd TestantLlIl PseutkpigrapluJ: Vol.l . ApocaJyptic Literattut and 1983 TesttlJUnlS. Ed. J.H. Charleswonh. London : Danon. Longman & Tod,1. Conttlmann . H.. 1972 Die Apostt lgtschichte trkldrt. HNT NF 7.2. TUbingen: 1. C. B. Mohr. 1977 Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur TMologie des l I/kar. TUbingen: J.C.B.

1983

Mohr. Cullmann. Q.

1958 Dibelius. M . 1951

"Patusieverzögerung und Urchristentum. ~ TU 83: 1-11 . Aufsätze zur Apostdgeschichtt. Ed. H. Greeven. FRLANT NF 1.

Göuingen. Dillon. RJ.

198 1 Dunn. J.G. 21981

"Previewing Luke's Project rrom His Prologue (Luk 1:1-4)." CBQ 43: 205-227 . Uniryand Diversity i" lhe New Tes~nl: Anlnquiry infO tM Charocrer olEarlitsl Chmlianiry. London: SeM.

89

Anders E. Nielsen Fitzmyer, J.A.

\98\

TIIL Gospel According to LI/u: Vol. 1, Introduction, Translation and Notes. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, New York.: Doubleday.

FrankIin, E.

1970

"The Ascension and the Eschatology of Luke· AclS".

s.rr 23 : 191 -200.

Giesen, H.

\987

"Naherwartung im Neuen Testament?" Theologie der Gegenwart 30: 151-164.

Grosse, E.U. 1976

Text und KommunikaJion: EiM IinguistiscM Ein/uhrWlg in die FunJcti· onen der Texte. Stungart: W.Kohlhammar.

Grässer, E. 1957

1979

Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in der SYl1()ptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte. Supp!. mw 22. Berlin. "Die Parusieerwanung in der Apostelgeschichte." pp. 99- 127 in Les Actes des Ap6tres. TradItions, rldaction. Ed. 1. Kremer. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 48. Gembloux: Leuven Univa-sity Press.

Hartman , L. \966

Prophecy Interpreted: The Formarion ofsome lewish Apocalyptic Tms and ofthe Eschatological Discourse. Mark /3 Par CBNT 1. Lund; Gleerup.

Hellholm, D.

\980

\983

Das Visionenbuch des Hermas als Apokalypse: Fonngeschichtliclle und ttXuheoretische Studien zu einer literarischen GattUJIg. Voll. Metlwdologische VorUberlegWlgen und makrosrruJ:turelle TextafllJlyse. CBNT 13. 1. Lund: Gleerup. Apoca/ypticism in t/~ MeditemJIIl!an Wor/d and the Near &.st: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism. Uppsala, Au gust 12- 17 , 1979. Ed. D.Hellholm. Tübingen: J.C. B. Mohr.

Hemer, c.J.

\989 Hengel, M. 21973

\989

90

The Boole of Acts in the Seuing 0/ Hellenistic lIisrory. WUNT 49. Tübingen; J.C. B. Mohr. ludl!ntum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Beru.clcsiclltigUJIg PalästirlllS bis zur Mitte des 2 Jh. S .\! . Chr. WUNT 10. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. The 'Hellenization' ofl/V/OPa in the First CenJury after Christ. In Collaboration with C. Markschies. Landon: SCM. Philadel phia: TrinilY Press International.

The Purpose of the Lucan Writings Kraft, H. 31984

Eusebius von Caesart:a, KircMngeschichu. Herausgegeben und emge. leitet München: Kosel.

Kümmel, W.G. "Futurische und präsentische Eschatologie im IItesten Urchristentum. ~ 1965 pp. 351 -363 in lIejlsgescheMn und Geschichte: Ges~/te AufsdJze /9]]-64 . Ed. E.Grässer, O.Merk, A.Fritz. Marburger Theologische Studien 16. Tübingen: N. G. Elwert Marburg. "Lukas in der Ank.lage der Heutigen Thoologie." pp. 87-100 in HeUsge1978 SCMMn und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze /965-77. Ed. E.Grässer, Q.Merk. MarburgerTheologische Studien 16. Tübingen : N.G. Elwe" Marburg. "Ein Jahrhundert Erforschung der Eschatologie des Neuen Testaments." 1982 TU 2: 81 -96. 21 1983 Einleitung in das Neue. Testament. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Käsemann, E. 1970 "Das Problem des historischen Jesus. " pp.I87-213 in ExegetiscM VerSUCM und Besjnnungen. Band I. Göttmgen: Vaodenhoeck. & Ruprecht. Lohfink, G. 1971 Die Hi~lfohrt Jesu: Unlersuchungen zu den Hi~lfaJarts- und Erhöhungste.xten Mi Lukas. SANT 26. München: Kösel. Löveslnlm, E. "PauJ's Address at Miletus." ST41 : 1-10. 1987 ManilI, A.J. "'Naherwanung, Femerwanung' and the Purpose of Luke-Acts." CBQ 1912 34, 276-293. Mussner, F. 1961 "In den Lezten Tagen (Apg. 2:17a)." BZ S: 263-265. 1981-82 "Die Gemeinde des Lukasprologs." SNTU 6-7: 113- 130. Munck, J. "Discours d'adieu dans le NT el dans la litterature biblique." pp. 155-170 1950 in AU!" sources de 10 tradition chrit~nM. Ed. M. Goguel. Neuchilel : Oelachaux & Niestlc. Münchov, C. 1981 Ethik und Escharologje: Ein Beitrag zum Verstdndni.s der früJJjüdischen Apokalyptik mit ei/1bn Ausblick auf das Neue. Testament. Göttingen: Vandcnhoeck & Ruprecht. Noaek, B. 1948 Das Gouesreich ~j I "kos: Eine Studie zu Luk 17.10-24. Uppsala, Lund : Symbolae Biblicac Upsalienses 10 (Suppt sEA 10). 1971 Spdtjudentum und Heilsgtschichrt. Stullgan (etc.): W. Kohlhanuner. 7 LUK E·ACTS

91

Anders E. Nielsen Nordheim, E. von 1980-85 Die Lelve der Alter... Vol. J. Das Testanu!nl als üteratwgattung im Judentum der helfenistischrÖTnischen Zeit. Leiden: E. 1. 8ri11. Pedersen, S. 1990 "Fra den internationale NT -forskning." Praeste/oreflingens Blad 27: 569574. Pesch, R. 1986 Die ApostelgeschichJe. EKK 5. Zürich: Benziger. Prast, F. 1979 Presbyter und Evangelium in nachDpostoliJcher Zeit: Die Abschiedsrede des PauJus in Milet (Apg 20,17-38) im Rahmen der lukanischen Konzeption der Evangeliumsverkii.ndigung. Forschung zur Bibel 29. Stungart: Katholisches Bibelverk . Schnackenburg, R. 1985 "Die lukanische Eschatologie im Lichte von Aussagen der Apostelgeschichte." Pp.249-266 in Glaube und Eschatologie. Festschrift rur w. G. Kümmel zum 80. Geburtstag. Ed. E. Grässer. O.Merk. TUbingen : J.C B. Mohr. Schneider, G. 1971 "Der Zweck des Lukanischen Dobbelwerks." BZ 71; 45-66. 1980 Die Apostelgeschichte: Einleitung. Kommentar zu Kap 1,1 -8,40. Freiburg, Basel. Wien : Herder. Schoeps, H.-J. 1949 Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchr'isteIllUl7lS. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Schwanz, E. 1908 Eusebius KirchengtschicJlle. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs' Buchhandlung. Schünnann, H. 1968 "Das Tesmment des Paulus fUrdie Kirche. Apg. 20, 18-35." pp. 310-322 in Traditionsgeschichtliche Un tersuchungen zu den !yrwptiJchen Evangelien. Beilriige. Düsseldorf; Pannos. 1969 Das Lukasevangeliwn. Vol. I . Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herrier. Simonsen, H. 1955 "Oe nYlestamentlige skrifter og deI urkristne kerygma." Praesle!oreningens Blad25 : 457-464. 1989 Pastoralbrevene /ortolket. Kpbenhavn : Oel danske Bibelselskab. Zeilinger, F. 1981 "Lukas, Anwalt des Paulus: Überlegungen zur Abschiedsrede von Milet Apg. 20.18-35." BiLl 54;' 167-172.

92

The Purpose oflhe Lucan Wrilings Zmijewski , J. 1973

"Die Eschalologiereden Lk 2 1 und Lk 17." Bibltb 14: 30-40.

93

The Redemption of Israel A Salvation-Historical Problem in Luke-AclS Heikki Räisänen, Helsinki

I. The Problem

The author of Luke-Acts strongly emphasizes the continuity between Israel and the church. Nonetheless, he also depicts a fatal cris is within Israel. Many Jews have accepted Christ. They constitute the nucleus of God's true people into which believing Gentiles have been included. For these Jews and Gentiles God's promises 10 Israel have been fulfilied. BUI "the unbelieving portion of the people (of Israel) is rejected for all times",1 This common view has been challenged by some. 2 Franz Mu ssner reads Luke-Acls in lhe light of Romans 11 and finds the idea of Israel' s endtime restoration spe lt out in Acts 1:6 and 3 :20. The establishing' of Israel belongs together with "God's continuing covenant with Israel". "lesus is and continues to be the previously described Messiah " who is "for the lews, even if Israel in its majority is still not ahle to see that.") The most sophi st icated auempt to overthrow the scholarly consensus stems from Robert C . Tannehill's literary analysis of Luke's narrative. In the birth stories "we find very strong emphasis on the view that l esus

means redemption for ... the Jewish people" (Luke 1:32-33,54-55,68-69, 7 1, 74). The salvati on in view is specified as "the redemp ti on of lerusalem ". Yet such expectations are not fulfiLled in Luke's narrative: it ends by stating that the l ews are blind and deaf and will remain so , while Gentiles wiJl hear and receive salvation (Acts 28:26-28). Readers aware of

I

2

)

Jervell, 1972: 64. For a similar view see George, 1968:521 ; Conzelmnnn, 1962: 152; Eltester, 1972: 129. These scholars differ among themselves on Luke's view of the law and on the issue of whether the ehurch has separated itself from the Jewish people or whether Israel is restored in the shape of the ehurch. But they share the view that all unrepentant Jews have forfeited therr membership in the people of 000. Leaney ( 1966: 69-72) attributes tO Luke a coherent eschatologieal scheme: the Parousia will be preceded by the restoration of Israel, whieh is the establishing ofGod's kingdom 00 eanh and is "but one step towards the final consummalion"(263). Wainwright ( 1977-78) leIS the restoratio n of Israel follow the Parousia rather than precede it Mussner, 1984: 38. Tiede ( 1986,1988) argues for a rather similar view on the basis of Lucan texts.

The Redempcioo cf Israel

the outcorne of the Jewish-Rornan war would sense strongly the di sappointment (Tannehill . 1985: 72).' TannehilI correctly rejects Iwo poss ible explanations for this discrepancy. First, Luke 1-2 cannot be excluded frorn consideration as a piece of ev idence not fuUy integrated into Luke-Acts as a whole. Second, it cannot be assumed that any of the characters who voice the hope of lsrael's redernption in "po litical" tenns in the binh narratives are unreliable witnesses who do not represent the narrator's real point of view. J After all, these wiLnesses include nOI only the mOlher of the Lord who is, for Luke, the paradigm of a believer bU I al so an angel of God. Furthermore, 10 attribute a mistaken point of view to Zechariah in hi s Benedictu s is to disregard the explicit remark that he was fiUed with the holy Spirit. TannehiU (1985: 75) thinks that Luke views the recent history of the Jewish people as tragic, dominated as it is through Jewish rejection of Christ. The promise of a kingdom free of oppressors is as valid as ever if only Israel would accept its Messiah (1986: 34). Toward the end of Acts, Pau l insists that he is on tri al "for the hope of Israel" (26:6-7). In rejecling Paul , hi s opponents "are rejecling the fu lfillmen t of their own hope" ( 1985 : 78). For TannehilI , the sombre statements at the end of Acts (28 :25-28) cannot be Luke's last word on the Jewi sh people. "It is hard to imagine" that Luke "for whom the fulfillment of sc riptural prophecy is a central article of faith, would ever admillhat a prirnary aspect o f prophecy , ernphasized in hi s own work, is finaUy vo id ." (1985: 83) A complete di sappearance of the hope for the restoralion of the people of Israe l "would leave hirn wi lh an unresolvable lheological problem. Salvation for Israel ha s been presented as a major aspect of God's purpose, certifi ed by Scriplure, but the final outcome wou ld be the opposite." (1985: 84) Therefore, AC1S 3: 19-2 1. supported by Luke 13:34-3 5. mu st refer to "a Jingerin g hope " fo r "sal vation Ihrough conversion" which Luke still hold, ( 1985: 85). I think that TannehilI has put his fin ger on a real problem, although hi s so lution is unviable. The remarks that follow (Il ) are an attempt 10 show why. and !hey pave the way for a different explanation (LlI ).

Tiede (1988: 25·26) concurs. 5 Thus now Moessner. 1988: 3846. 4

95

Heikki Rllisänen

II . Luke's Treatment of the Issue

I . Th e Birlh Narralive In lhe bi rth narrati ve, the "national · political" statement s on the career of Jesus are linked with different statements wh ich tend to obscure the pOliti cal meaning or move the message to a different level. Thus the messianic promi se co nce min g David's throne and an etemal reig n over Jacob's ha use (Lk 1:32-33) is surpassed by lhe statement on lhe manner of lhe conception and lhe divine sonship of J esu~ (I :34·35). The assurance thai "with God nothing is impossible" (v. 37) is not given wilh refe rence to Ihe acquisi tion of David's throne but in view of the manner of lhe conceplion.6 In Zechariah's Benedictu s, the politica l message is unmistakeable. God has prepared rede mption for hi s people (v. 68) th rou gh the "horn of salvation" in the "house of David" (v. 69). Th is fulfil s lhe word s o f the prophets (v. 70) and re inforces God's covenant mercy (v. 72) and hi s oalh to Abraham . This redempti en is specified as "salvation from ou r enemies and from the hand of all who hate us" (v. 71). As a resu h, we may serve God without fea r, being deJivered from the hand of ou r enernies (v. 74). A great nalional accomplishrnent is expecled o f Jesus the Messiah! Verses 76 -77, however, introd uce another rneaning for "salvation". It no longer consists in freed ern frorn oppresso rs but "in Ihe /orgiveness o[ sillS" (v. 77). Two different views o f "sa lvation" are fused. But it is not said in so many words thai the laller vi sion would supersede the poJil ical one. In 2:10- 11 Ihe language is again suggestive of nat ional de li verance: a sav iour. lh e lo rd Chri st, is bom fo r Ihe peoplc in Ihe ci ty of David. Howcver. Ihe ange ls' song (verse 14) introduces a rcst ricti on: the re will

6 In the Magnirical, Ihe aorists in Luke 1:5 1-53 refe r 10 salvation Ihrough Ihedeath and resurreclion of Jesus (Bro wn , 1977 : 363). These verses show Ihal politicallanguage (cf. Caird, 1974: 55: M~ ssn cr, 1988: 4 1) was already being applied 10 the non-political salvation accomplished by Jesus in the group from which the psalm stems. Luke is probably responsible for applying Magnifica l (and Benedictus) to Jesus' conceplion and binh (Brown, 1977: 346-55). God's sending of Jesus is seen as divine help (ovrcldj:lcro) for Israel, God's servan l, due 10 God's mercy and his etemal promise (tJ.tU'lO'cv) tO Abraham and the olher fathe rs of Israel (v. 54-55). God's promises are being fulfilled when, in Jesus, Ihe mighlY will be pUl down from their Ihrones (v. 52), lhe hungry will be mied wilh good things and the rich be sen! away emply (v. 53). But 311 this is vaguer Ihan what we will hear from the moulh of Zechariah.

96

The Redemption of Israel

illdeed be peace on earth . bu t only among those with whom God is pleased (l v &vePOlro l~ eVc50Kia~). This illd icates a divi sion within Israe l. 7 In 2:25 the "consolation" of Israel which evokes passages from Second Isaiah (esp. Isa 40: I ; 49: 13) has c1ear political-messianic overtones, and 2:38 reintroduces the notion of redemption (..tU Tpcoot~) , (hi s time of Je ru salem .8 But su rrounded by the glimpses of the national vision is the camicle of Simeon. It praises the salvation of the Lord whi ch has been prepared not just "for glory to thy people Israel " but also as a "light for reve lation to the Gentiles" (2: 30-32). It is difficuh to conceive of the light to Gentiles simply as the po litical redemption of Israel. Simeon moves on 10 pred ict a division within Israel: many will fall, others will ri se (2:34). The effect s of the wo rk of the Saviour will not be the same for all Israel. 9 This means that the work will not take place in the politi cal sphere. Luke does not state that there is progress in the vision of sa lvation in Lk 1-2. He makes no corrections, say, to the Be nedictu s. The national vision does not simply yield to a more spiritual or more comprehensive conceplion, but both views are juxtaposcd.

2. Th e Vision o[ the Twelve be/ore Pentecost

The po liti cal vis ion recurs on the lips of Jesus' followers later on in the Gospe l. In 19: 11 they, drawing near Jerusalem, suppose that "the kingdom of God was to appear immediately". Luke does nothing 10 deny the justifi cation of such an expectati on, connected with the ci ty of Jeru salem; he is only concerned to show L1mt the kingdom wi ll not appear ve ry soon. In the parab le of the pounds that folIows, lhe "nobleman" goes away 10 re ce ive kingly power. In due ti me, ho wever, he will return ; then hi s citi zens who did not want hirn 10 be king (v. 14) wi ll be crue Uy punished (v. 27). Jerusa lem and the kingdom of God do belong logether, but the kingdom will bring no joy 10 those Jews who have rejected Jes us: they will be

7 C r. Lohfin k. 1975 : 28. 8 Fitzmyer ( 198 1: 432) compares Wadi Murabba'al documents from AD 132- 135 which are dated 10 the years of "the redemption of Isrne1". luke's phrases (though not identi cal) reflcct actual aspiratio ns of contempomry Jews. ') The emphasis rests on the "fall" o f many. as the mention o f a "sign that is spaken against" (v. 34) shows. Cf. Lohfink , 1975: 30. T iede ( 1988: 28) puts grellt we ight on a dubious interpretation of 2:34: the falling has taken place. but the rising lies ahead. wailing 10 be fulfilled .

97

Heikki Räisänen

"slain". Instead of a "lingering hope" for the restoration of Israe l, Luke confronls us with eschatological genoeide. IO The next passage deseribes Jesus' entry into Jerusa lem . Strikingly enough, at the very moment when the eventual nationalistic conlent of his christology could have been c1arified, Luke has carefully stripped the account of political overtones. The cry that "the kirgdom of ou r father David is coming" (Mark 11 : 10) is omitted by Luke who replaces it with a variation of the angels' otherworldly song (Luke 19:38b; cf 2:14).11 The eschato logiea l speech in Luke 2 1:7-28 ends with the promise of "redemp tion" (tin"O.lvfp€OOl') in v. 28. Some interpreters find here the idea of a restorat ion of Israel and Jeru salern. 12 Yet the text speaks of "you r" redemption, and the speech is addressed to Jesu s' ("Christi an") disciples. J3 The prornise of redernplion to the addressees would seern to equal the earlier promise that "by you r enduranee you will gain your lives" (21: 19). So the hope of redemption seerns thoroughly individualized. 14 The faithful can "raise their heads" in hope. As for Jerusa lem, the speech only speaks of preordained vengeance (21 :22) and slaughte r (2 1:24). Not a single wo rd indieates th at, after the sack of the city, Jerusalem would experience areversal of its fortune with the Parousia. Nevertheless, the poJitieal hope of Jesus' followers sulfaees again in Luke 24:21. Obviou sly, what Jesus aceomplished in his lifetime did not meet the hope that he would be "the one to redeern Israel". In his answer the risen Jesus refers 10 Scripture: all that the prophets have spoken is aetually being fulfilled . Yet Jesus does 110/ eorreet the followers' politieal understanding of his task. The lcsson is repeated in 24:44ff. Thc predictions thai mu st be fulfilled include thc suffering and resurrection of Christ and the preaehing of repentance and forgiveness to all nations. All this seerns to fuse with the "redemption of Israel" . At least no hint is given to •

10 Sanders. 1987: 61 : Hthe well -merited destruction of lhe lews at the Second Coming TannehilI (1985 : 84 n. 29) has problems with Lk 19:27 : Hin lhe light of the callto repenlance and offer of forgiveness in Acts. this judgmem mu St be undefStood as an indiC3tion of what will happen if those who reject their king do not finally repen t. But 19:27 agrees with the end of Acts which suggesls th:u Ihe mission tO Ihe Jews has come to an end. Cf. Sanders, 1987: 81 -2. 19:27 cannor refer to Ihe destruction of Jerusalem by Ihe Romans. for Ihe puni shmenl is tO lake place in conneclion with lhe Parousia. Sanders. 1987: 61 -62. 11 Cf. Conzelmann. 1962: 68 with n. 5. t2 Leaney. 1966: 70-72; Wainwright. 1977 -78 : 76-77. I) This is a necessary inference from the cOnlenlS of 21:12- 19 which ou tweigh the fact that the cin:le of listeners is not defined in 21 :5.7. 14 In 21 :3 1. lhe "kingdom of G<XI " seems 10 be idenlified with this "redemption" of lhe faithful ; cf. ZmijGwski , 1972: 260. Verse 28 refers tO Christians: Zmijewski, 1972: 254 . 257 . H

•

H

98

1be Redemption of Israel

the effect that the two notions of salvation are contradictory. The same is true for Luke's passion predictions as weil as the commands to silence concem ing Jesus' Messiahship.U The disciples do nol understand the talk of the pass ion of the Messiah, but neither does Luke suggest that this is because they stick to the biblical idea of the Messiah. lndeed, after this exegetical lecture by the ri sen Christ, and even after additional week s of instruction conceming the Kingdom (Acts 1:3), the disciples still regard the nOlion of a "kingdom for Israel" as something se lf·evident! "Lo rd, will you at this time reSlore the kingdom to Is rael? " (Acis 1:6). Even more startling is the fact that Jesus does nOI blame the stupidity of the quest ion at all. The only mi stake is the timing, which is corrected (I :7): it is not for the di sc iples to know times fixed by the Father. Jesus does not touch the issue of the "kingdom for Israel". Yet, on the face of it, verse 8 suggests that the kingdom will be restored when God so wills; in the meantime the disciples are to devote themselves to miSSion. Once more, then, the two horizons are fused. The restorati on of the kingdom LO Israe l is assimi lated with the spread of the worldwide Christian mi ssion . But there is no oUlri ght correction of the political view l6 , nor will Luke ever state, say, that at last the disciples realized what Jesus' message was all about. Soon enough they wiU simply go about procla im ing it. But no moment of awakening from national dreams is singled out. lt is rrue that here Luke mainly wishes to account for the delay of the Parousia. He lets the disciples fonnulate a quest ion wh ich can be so an· swered that lhat problem is solved . The destiny of Israel is not the main issue . 17 Thu s it is striking how self·evidently Luke's "Is rael language" crops up. The beginn ing of Jesus' ans wer (v. 7) sterns from the eschalO· logical discourse (Mark 13:32, orni tted in Lk 2 1) and thus suggests that U Contra Caird, 1914: 129. 16 Several interpreters point OUt that Jesus does not correct the question aboul Israel: Conzelmann, 1962: 152; Wainwright, 1977-78: 76; Mussner. 19&4: 38; Tiede. 1986: 278: .... .Jesus' final words respond posilively tO the question of restoration by revealing the dcploymem of theocratic dominion ... " Differently Maddox, 1982: 106: Jesus' answer includes an indirect denial that it is Israel tO whom the Kingdom will be given." But it is anificial tO apply verse 7 10 Israel ("God has detennined 'limes and seasons' ror dealing with Israel") ralher Ihan to the final consummation; in this verse, standard Parousia language is used. 17 Some interprelers assume that twO quest ions are simu1taneously pUl : the stage is set for Jesus 10 give instruction ( I) about the delay of lhe UCMIOII and (2) aboul the widening of the vision of salvation. Thus e.g. Haenchen, 1977: 149. Dut whereas the first question (and answer) is quite dear in the text. both the second queslion and the seoond answer must be read into il. M

99

Heikki Räisänen

the resto ration of Israe l be longs with the Parousia. The quest ion of Israel's kingdom is not rejected • it will just gradually drop out of sight as the narrative proceeds. Here Luke had a splendid chance to remove all mi sconcept ions and make c1ear the apolit ical character of sa lvation. He fail s to lake the oppor. tunit y. leaving it open to the reader to imag ine that Jesus' return (v. 11 ) will bring about the restoration.

3. Th e Speeches in ACis

In his Pentecost address. Peter menti ons God's oath to David: one of his descendants wi ll be set on hi s throne (Acts 2:30). The reader recalls the angel's word in Lk 1:32·33. Yet instead of depi cting a political res tora· tion. Peter claims that the oalh applies to the resurrection of Jesus (v. 31). But aga in Luke feels no need to pronou nce that a fa1 se interpretation is being correctcd. The predi ction and its Chri slian applical ion fu se as if such an ass imilation we rc the most natural thing in the world. In 2:39 Peter confirms that "this promi se" is "to yeu and to your chi I· dren". Thi s statement serves as an argument for the exhortation to repent and be baptized.l' As in the Bened ictu s, the fulfilment of Is rael's political hopes narrows down 10 the forgiveness of the sins of individuals who are ex horted to be saved from the ir "crooked gene rati on" (40). Thus a division wi ll occur within Israel. On the othe r hand , v. 39 also env isages Gentiles as fellow panicipants in the promise, so that nothing is le ft of a promise 10 Israe l alone. In Peter's second speech (Acis 3: 12-26) the addressees are defined as Aa~. avÖ(X~ 'IUfXl1111ml (v . 12). Ged has fulfill ed whal all thc prophets proclaimcd : Ch ri st had to suffer (v. 18). The hearcrs arc ex honed 10 re· peot (v . 19). Thi s is a cond iti on for the coming of "limes of refreshmcnt" and the se nding of the Chri st appointed "fo r you" (v. 20) - events which seem 10 coincide with the Xp6VO I (i;fOm-rauniru:~. This is not the re· storati on of "all ", but the establi shing of alllhal God spoke Lhrough the prophets. In the light of such passages as Luke 24:44ff or Acts 2:30-3 1, it ca nnot be taken for granted that Luke is Ihinkiog here of a "kingdom for Israel" .19 18 T:mnehill ( 1985: 77) takes Luke's repe~lIed "to you " statements at face value as demonslJ1uing that especially tO the people Israel the promise has meaning. "for it is the ful fillment o f their hope and history" . 19 TannehilI (1985: 84) presupposes it without fur1her ado "as the similarities in wording betwcen Acts 3:20-21 and 1:6-7 make cJear Iikewise Mussner, 1984: 38. H

;

100

The Redemplion of Israel

To be sure , verse 20 seerns 10 indicale !.hai God has preordained the sending of Christ to Israel (VJllV) in the Parou sia . Yelthe goal of Ihe predictions is soon after (v. 22) regarded to be the hisrorical appearance of Jesus ,20 the "first" corning. Verse 23 goes on to stale that whoever does not listen to Jesus "shall be destroyed from the people". A Jew who is not convened to Jesus ceases to belong to the people of God! 21 All prophets have predicted the time at hand (v. 24). The promise concerning Abraham 's seed is fulfill ed in God's rai sing up Jesus and sending hirn to the men of Israel (v. 26). The promi sed blessing will be realised when the listene rs turn away from Iheir wickedness. It is c1ear from Peter's speech that the covenanlal promise to Abraham and al1 the predictions of the prophets have come lrue in the sending and resurrection of Jesus. God has alrcady sent Jesus to the l ews once (v. 26). Verse 20 suggests that he is intent on doing it a second time, in "times of refre shment" , if only the men of Israel will repent for their sins (v. 19. cf. v. 26b). That repentance is identical with accep tin g Jesus as the Messiah (220. The blessing wi ll only reach that part of Israel which accepis Jesus and is not "cut off' (v. 23). But then it is quite unlikely that an actual "kingdom for Israel" , which is liberated from its nati onal enemies. is in view .22 Peter is saying no more Ihall thai Ihe fa ithful will enjoy blessi ngs - both now and in the Parousia. That is, the faithful in Israel along with those who will hear the message "Iater" (an impli c3 tion of lfpciJrov in v. 26). No national privilege is held out for Israel. Paul's speech in Pi sidian Antioch (Acts 13: 16-4 1) is addressed to "men of Israel", "sons of the family of Abraham", and 10 the God-fearers (v. 16. 26). After an account of God's mighlY works among his eleel peop le. Paul mentions Dav id , of whose sced God brought l cs us as a sav iour for 20 Haenchen, 1977: 207. 21 Cf. Jervell, 1972: 58: Haenchen, 1977: 208: "der Jude, der sich nicht zu Christus bekehn, hön nuf, ein Mitgl ied des Gouesvolkes zu sein!" The Chrislians are the true Israel. See also Haenchen, 1977: 210. Mussner ( 1984: 259·60 n. 49) claims Ihat neilher here nor anywhere else in ACls is Ihere a single syllable (!) about God excluding his people Israel fTOm eschatological salvation, even though il rejccled Jesus as Messiah; sueh juridicallhreats as this also belong in the Old Testament simply to lhe prophetic style of teaching! 22 Mussner (1984: 38) thinks thaI an actual kingdom for Israel is in view "on (he basis of the enti re context wh ich refcrs 10 the salvific rate of Israel (prediclion of thi s 'establishing' by the prophets of Israel!)". The partnthelical clause - and nOI least (he exclamation mark - shows how efficiently Luke did his work. He misled Mussner 10 (hink of the actual contents of Ihe prophetie prtdictions in Ihe Old Testament, whereas Luke is thinking of the prophets as reinterpreted Ihrough his Christi an lenscs. The same applies 10 TannehilI, 1988: 87-88: verses 3:2-26 "show that the narrator still undcrstands Ihe scriplural promiscs quite concretely 3S promises 10 the Jewish people".

10 1

HeiKki Rliisänen

Israel (v. 23). The fulfilment of the promise given to the falhers (v . 32· 33) has ('aken place in the resurreclion of lesus. In it. God's "holy and sure blessings of David", prornised to Israel (~ iv) have corne (rue (v. 34).13 To receive this blessing equals the forgiveness of sins and justifica· tion (v. 38·39). The resurrection of Jesus grants such forgiveness as cou ld not be provided by the law. Adherence to the new message is called stay· ing "in the grace of God" (v. 43). The implication iS: thai grace is absent among non·Christian l ews. Once more, the radt reirllerpretation of the promise could hardly be more drastic. Evocative old words are used in the serv ice of a novel rnes· sage. 24 The covenant with the fathers may be etema l and the prornise to David holy and sure, but whoever does not accept the new message is threatened with a menacing deed of God • the rejection of Israe l under ac· ceptance of Gentiles (v. 41). The ou tcorne is that Paul and Samabas so lemoly leave the rnen of Israel who have judged themselves unworthy of elemaJ Iife (v. 46) and turn to the Gentiles in order to "brin g salvation to the ultermost parts of the earth" (v . 47). Salvation in Christ (arotT/p{a, v. 26. 47) is cquated with "etemall ife" (v. 48) • an eschatological goal which has 00 national Jewish ring aboul il. Ta this etemal life the men of Israel are invited. but they thru st it away (v. 46). Sy contrast, a number of Gentiles have been "ordained" 10 this very same life (v. 48). So there is no difference, as re· gards the eschalo logical goal, between Jews and Genti les. Whoever be· lieves in Christ goes on to etemal life; everyone who be lieves is justified (v . 39). Whoever does not beJieve is excluded. In Acts 15:14 James affinns Peter's account: in the hause of Comelius God "first visited the Gentiles. 10 take out of them a people for his name" . Here Gentiles (i.e. , those chosen among them) are called ..tad,· a name which has so far in Luke's narrative always denOled Israel. Israel and the church of lews and Gentiles rnelt together. 2S tra:aKtlflaro recalls Zechariah's psalm : "Prai sed be the Lo rd God of Israel, for he has visired (bu:clIdytaro) .nd redeemed his people (J.a6<;)" (Luke I :68: cf. I :78). JuS! as Zecha ri ah went on to praise the rai sing of the horn of salvation from 23 Luke is drawing on Isa 55:3 where Ta &na ooui5 Ta II1crra stands in parallel to "an elernal coven3nl " (an expression omined by Luke). Hnenchen ( 1977: 396 n. I) notes that it would nOI fit here. 24 TannehilI is Ie
102

The Redemption of Israel

the "house of David" (Luke 1:69), James proceeds to speak of the rebuilding of David's dwelling (Acts 15 :16). Both refer to the fulfilmen t of the words spoken through the prophets in the events to which they testify (Luke 1:70; Acts 15:15). Acts 15:14- 18 has indeed the appearance of a tacit reinterpretation of the Benedic tu s. Tbe prophecies conce ming David's dwelling apply to the events Peter has just spoken of (v . 15). On the other hand. its rebuilding is aprerequisite for the Gentiles to seek the Lord (v . 17). The rebuilding thus denotes the gathering of the faithful in Israel around Jesus.16 A concrete restoration of Israel's kingdom cannot be meant, for the "rest of men" would hardly start seeking the Lord after the Parousia. On the same occasion, Peter st3tes that Jews and Gentiles will be saved in the very same malUler (v . 11 ), by having their hearts cleansed by God through faith (v. 9). There is no difference whatsoever. Tbis has been plalUled by God from of old (v. 18).27 The passage thus does not fav our the view that the end of the days might bring with it some special blessing for the nation of Israel. Towards the end of Acts Paul insists that he is on trial for the hope of Israel (AC1S 26:6-7).18 By now it is 0 0 surprise that the Jewish hope of (general) resu rrectioo29 and the Christian claim that the resurrection (of an individua l) has occurred fuse together;l O Jesus' raising comes to be seen as the fulfilment of God's promi se to the fathers (v . 6). Luke adds the nuance that it is what the "twelve tribes" have been hoping for "as they eamestly worship night and day" (v . 7). The last phrase recalls Anna and her speech to those who waited for the "redemption of Je ru salem" (Luke 2:38). "Israe l language" is evoc3tively used. but there is no hint of a "kingdom for Israel" beyond participation in the same "light" that is reaching the Gentiles (Acts 26:23) in the resurrection of Chri st) 1 Correctl y Jervell , 1972: 52-53; Lohfink, 1975: 59. The view o f Haenchen ( 1977: 431) that the rebuilding means "the story of Jesus that culminates in the resurTeCtion" fits other Lucan statements (Acts 2:3Off; 13:32ff) but does not do full justice 10 this par· ticular cootext. 11 Cf. Lohfink, 1975: 88-89. 2. TannehilI (1 985: 78) nOles that "this is peculiar": "Paul is insisring that the issue ofthe trial is something quile different from what everyone else thinks it is". 29 TannehilI (1985: 78) does not deny that this hope is "connected in the author's mind with the resurrc:crion of Jesus" (v. 23). Out he conlends thai this coonection is leu em· phasized Ihan ~ Paul's authenlic Jewishness in mainlaining this Jewish belier and the fftragic ironyff in that Paul's oppooents are rejecting the fulfilmenl of their own bope. )0 Sanders (1988: 51) rightly speaks of "fairly unconvincing apologetic". ) 1 TannehilI ( 1989: 12- 13) interprets Acts 26 in the light of Luke t :331 "If we assume that resurrection of the dead simply means life after death (or individuals we will miss the point." Paul speaks of "a ho pe for the Messiah's rule wilh all its benefits for the 26

103

Heikki Rttisänen

4. Jesus' /naugural Sermon In the programmatie seetion Luke 4 :16·30, the salvat ion broughl by Jesus (v. 18), deseribed in healing and soeial terms, is somelhing thai concems individuals. Otherwise il could not be fulfilled "Io-day" when Jesus speaks in Nazareth (nor even when Luke wriles aboul the scene). Lafer Jesus uses the same sort of language with reference 10 his pre~e nt activity (7 :22). The Nazarelh story also prefigures the Jewish rejection of Jesus' message and its orientalion 10wards the Gentiles. And it is l esus hirnse lf who pro· vokes the anger of hi s kinsmen by starting 10 blame Ihern and their ancestors (although Ihey have said only niee things about hi s se nnon! ) and settin g up the Gentiles as a positive example, so that the Nazarenes finally try to kill hirn (v. 23-30). l esus' first publie confrontation with his people does not antic ipate a glori ous future for Israel. That thi s fits with Luke's view is confi rmed by his account o f the rejection o f the l ews in Acts.3 2

5. Th e Slatemems

Oll

rh e Rejeclion 01 llte l ews i" ACIs

TannehilI is forced to expl ain away the signi ficance of those passages in Acts where the rejeclion o f the l ews is m ade clear. He slates ( 1988: 83 ) that Acts 13:46 cannot mean !hat "Paul will neve r again preach to lews, for as soon as he reaches the next town , he beg ins his mi ssion by preach· ing in the synagogue to l ews" ( 14 :1). On the other hand, the preaching to Gentiles cannOl be a consequencc of thc l ewish rejection of the message in Antioeh. for it has been announecd in Scriptu re long ago (TannehilI , 1988: 84). 111ercfore , Paul's lum ing 10 Gentiles mea ns no more !han the end of his preaching to a l ewish assembl y j,I fh e Am ioch sy"agogue (1988: 89). BUI Ih is is 100 trinin g an interpretation o f a scene to wh ich "the narrator has givc n a great dea l of space" ( 1988 : 89); quite c1carly it has a prog rammatic s ignificance. Paul's repeated visits 10 synagogues even after the Antioch scene are needed for literary rea sons: the l ews get more 1ewish people". "established through rcsurrection and characterized by resurrection life corporately shared. That is why it is so important tO Israel." )2 Cf. Frcdriksen. 1988: 194 (on Luke 4): 'Th is ab rupt and inexplicable reaction of murde rous rage scarcely suits the immediate context of the pericope (cf. 4; 14, 22), much less the generally ircnic tone o f this gospel. But it establishes the paradigm rcpea ted continuo usly in Acts. once the church's mission goes tO Ihe Diaspom: initial openness, despite Chrisl010gical igno rance: mi ld con tention; Gentile response; jealousy, wrath . attempted murde r; moving on tO the next to wn." Fredr1ksen no tes that the Jews of (he Diaspora. acting "from malice and jealousy" against !he chu rch. are "!he uue villains of Lui.:e's piece" ( 1988: 194. 193).

104

The Redemption of Israel

oppo rtußltles to reject God's word (wh ich they repeatedly do). Luke's message must be sought in what Pau! says ralber than in what he does.l) Nor is it possible to evade the hard message of the c10sing scene of ACls. It is a counsel of despair to claim that "nothing prevents us from understanding the announcemenl in 28:28 as applying 10 Rome, !eaving ope n the possibility of preaching to Jews elsewhere" .J.4

6. Jesus on Jerusalem TannehilI then stakes everything on Luke 13:34-35. There he finds "a possible time limit " to God's judgment on Jerusalem due to the possibility of the Je ws finally accepting their messianic king.)j It is true that "b1essed" in verse 35b sounds joyful. Yet any hopes seem to be extinguished at the latest in Luke 19:41 -44. There Jesus has only words o f judgment left fo r Jerusa lem which did nOI know the time of its "vi silation". The wording reca lls Luke 7: 16. God visited Israel in the hi slo ri cal career of Jesus; Jerusatem failed to reali se thi s and will be judged. "Visitation" also rcminds olle of the Benedictus (Luke 1:68 , 78). God "vi sited and redeemed hi s people" when Jesus was fulfilling his mi ssion in Israel - or rather God would have done it, had Jerusalem realised thaI the day of visitation was at hand . It makes se nse to interpret Luke 13:34-35, with T .W. Manson, as fo lIows: "The time will corne when you will be ready 10 caU me 'Blessed',

)) See Coole.. 1988: 104- 109. ) 4 TannehiU . 1988 : 98 . He states that the rcmarle. in verse 30 that Paul welcomed ~aW those coming tO him "should not be dismissed as an idle rcmarle. ~: verse 24 stated that some l ews were pcrsuaded, and verse 30 indicates that they were welcome tO talk tO Paullater. Ho wever, the converse point can be made : although the response 10 Paul's message is, according tO verse 24, dividcd (not juSt negative), Luke lets Paul subsequently focu s only on the negative pan of the response. Even TannehilI ( 1988 : 98-99) must admit that the emphatic place of 28:28 at the end of the narrative "grants the finaJ situation a cenain pennanence"; at the very least the narrator is aware that ~the possibility of Christians preaching 10 a lewish assembly ... has become very remote". In the light of v. 28 , the closing words of the Isai ah quotation J(al iooOlJ(lI avfO~ (v. 27) can hardly be intended tO convey a glimpse ofhope (pace Dovon, 1988 : 349. 350 n. I . 359). Dovon refers tO the use of the future. rather than the subjunctive, but the future is used in the same quotation in Matthew 13: 15 as weil - in a context where no hope is held out for Israel. 3j He thinks that the same idea may be found in the refercnce tO the "times of the Gentiles" in Luke 21 :24: TannehilI, 1985: 84 -85; 1986: 155-56. Cf. also Mussner, 1984: 263 n. 116. Dut the rcfercnce to Genliles need no t mean more than that the Parousia will put an end to lhe Roman rule in Jerusalern. Altematively, it may indicate that the present time is aperiod of mission tO Gentiles. Nothi ng suggests that it would be followed by a time ofsal vation for Israel qua Israel. See Zmijewski, 1972: 2 16-20.

105

Heikki Räisänen

but then it will be too late."36 The verse would then paralJel Luke 13:25: "I do not know where you come from ."31

m. Evaluation Dur fmdings can be summarized as folIows . Time and again, statements wh ich at first seem 10 suggest a special hope of redemplion fo r the Jewish people. for Israel qua Israel, tacitly fu se with or yield 10 a more individualized and spiriruali zed view of sa lvation (cf. Luke 1:77; 4: 16ff; 19:38; 24:21 ; 44ff; AClS 1:6ff; 2:39; 3:24ff; 13 :32ff; 15: 14ff; AclS 26)."

Encounter with the Mess iah will divide Israel in {WO (Luke 2: lOf; 2:34). "Israel language" is used to communicate that the Messiah will bring salvation to Gentiles as weil (Lk 2:30ff; 4 :16ff; AclS 2:39; 15:14fl). l ews who do not accept Jesus will be excluded from God's people and damned (Luke 19:27; 2 1:22ff; AClS 3:23; 13 :41 ; 28:28).

The striking thing in all this is that Luke presents nothing that comes close 10 an analysis or a critique of the "Jew ish expectation" of the Messiah.39 He never sets out to discuss the relation between the old and the new. apart from sweeping statements about the promises being fulfilled. He never once states that the old expectation was somehow fal se - e.g. that it was tao narro wly conceived in nati onal or political terms. Ta be sure, such a critique of the Jewish view is sometimes attributed to hirn by mode m exposilors, but then they must read a great deal in to the text and overlook passages where Luke produces massive assimilations of the old expectation and of the new conception of the reign of Jesus. Yet anather place where Luke could have openly canfronted di fferent views of the work of the Messiah, had he wi shed tO da so, is the temptati on story (Luke 4: 1- 13). Some interpreters think that such a confront3-

36 Manson, 1949: 128; cf. Fimnyer. 1985: 1035f. 31 Ehester, 1972: 130. Note that according tO 13:28 the patriarchs and lhe prophets (as weil as many Genti les. as v. 29 implies) will dine in the kingdom of God, whereas "you" will be excluded. The context thus does not suggest an interpretation of Luke 13:34-35 in the vein of Romans 11. 38 The question whether Luke cnvisaged Christian salvation as a wholly trarlsccndent, otherwordly experience or whether he expected a time of corporeal bliss on this earth can be Jeft open here. Even if Luke should have had the laltcr alrernative in mind, rhis does nOl email that Israel qua Israel is in a privileged position. 39 Contrast Marcion : The Jewish Messiah was ro be distinguished from Jesus Christ. The former would be a military hero and bring an ean hly kingdom involving Jews and proselytes. and the Jews had every righr ro hold thar hc is still tO comc. See Harnack, 1985: 117.290· .

106

7

1lle Rc:demption of Israel

lion does lake place at thi s point.40 • Such may once have been the point of the story when it circulated in the tradition,4t but Luke does nothing to make that point clear. To hirn lesus' second temptation (Luke 4:5·8) cannot mean a differentiation of his task from the political task of the Davidic Mess iah . For to criticize a political view o f the Mess iah's task would amount to criticizing the messianology of Zechariah - and he spoke in the Holy Spirit. If Luke let the devil propose a similar view, he would in effeet imply thai the Benedictus contains "Satanic verses"! TannehilI , then, has a poinl , although his overall interpretation fail s to be convincing. He does justice 10 one of Luke's conce rns: Luke's need to creat'e the impression that full continuity ex.ists between the old biblical religion and his Christianity. But TannehilI reads Luke's narrative with the eyes of a modern critic. So it does not escape h irn that Luke's case for the fulfilrnent of the promi ses given 10 the falh ers actually amounts to admitling that "a primary aspect of prophecy ... is finally void".41 TannehilI is quite correct in stating that Luke would never admit thi s. Such a concession would indeed "leave hirn with an unresolvable theologi· ca l problem".4) But it does not follow that Luke therefore holds out a specia l hope for Israel. Too many indications point in a different direction: he simply evades the issue, fusing the expectation of national salvation with lhe salvation in Christ of the individual or of the community which consists of l ews and Gentiles. He indulges in hi s soteriology in assimilation procedures analogous to those wh ich Kari Syreeni has isolated in Mallhew's treatment of the law: "the implicit, non-analyti cal placing 10gcther of dive rgent things".44 The unreso lvable theological problem re• mams. 40 "The temptations ... are unequivocal (!) in rejecting a way for the anointed Son as out1ined in Mary's and Zechariah's expectntions and hopes.. :' Moessner, 1988: 43. 41 It may weil be that !hose who composed the story of the temptation on the mountain wished to decline a political vision o f the role of the Messiah. Jesus had not been such a Messiah. so il was imponant 10 show that he was not meant tO be such a Messiah either. Cf Hahn , 1964: 175-76. The messianic nature of the temptation is denied by many interpreters who think Ihat Luke 4:5 al1udes tO the Roman empire. Yet Filzmyer, 1981 : 516 find s such an allusion possible but "not clear" • and this is cenainly the case. If political (messianic) power is nol offered 10 Jesus by thc devil, it is very hard 10 sec what the temptation consists in in the first place. Cf. Bovon (1989: 194. 200): the debate with Judaism is (he likely

Sitz im uben. 41 TannehilI , 1985: 83; cf. above under I. 4) TannehilI. 1985: 84. 44 Syreeni, 1987: 219. Cf. Syrceni , 1987: 119 on the rc1ationship betwetn MI 1:23 and 28:20: "In the fonner context, the name 'ImmanueI' or 'God with uso is clearly taken for 'God with Israer . At the elose of the Gospel, Jesus promi ses tO be 'with' his dis· ciples, i.e. the Church. A purposeful relatedness probably exists between these 'with' i!

LUKF.. A(TS

107

Heikki Räisänen

TannehilI finds in Luke a "passionate conce rn ... that God's salvation be realized comprehensively . for bolh Jews and Gentiles" .45 But he fai ls to reaIize Luke's deep need of legitimation. Luke has a pass ionate concern fo r showing that his Chri stian views are the true interpretation of the Bible.46 Luke's "conservative bibl ica l" imagery in the birth narrative is part of his legitimating strategy. He creates a sugges ti ve "bib li cal" almosphere and lures the reade r into thinking that prec isely such promi ses as are uttered by the angel and such expectations as are voiced by the pious "biblical " characters have indeed corne true in Jesus. I am not suggesting that he follow s a consciolls strategy. But it is revealing that he does not introduce the topic of Jesus' resurrection in open speech in the birth narrative. Had lte done so, say, in 1:32-33, readers rnight have feit lhe hiatus between lhe expectation and its actual "fu lfiLment" . II is very important for Luke's "fulfilment theology" that the expectalion is fi rst described in classical biblical language, even though he time and again "s lips" into assimilations already in the birth narrative itself. For a proper evaluation of Luke's achievement in his soc io-hi storical se uing it ought to be compared to other reinterpretati ons of Jewish Messianic traditions. One think s first of a11 of Philo. A proper compari son cannot be auempted here, but a few hints are apposite. Accordin g to Richard D , Hecht's acute analy sis, the iss ue of the Messiah is quite complex in Philo. There are texts where Philo describes pol itical processes th aI seem to culminate in the Messianic era. They are, however, contradicted by others where Philo "seemingly aUegorizes the process, making it into a spiritualized experience within the individuaL " (Hecht , 1987 : 148). Orten enough. he turns "the mess ianic designators into symbols for the Logos or how virtue is s timulated in the human soul. "41 Sl.atements. Hereby Israel and the Church are tacitly assimilated: in one way or another. the Church is Israel ... the evangelist sincerely connotmeß Isic J 'l mmanuel' as 'God with Israel'; and equally sincerely recorded Ih at the exalted Jesus will be 'with' the Christian community; and bel ieved thai the lalter pronouncemem is Ihe adequole realization of Ihe promise of God's presence among Israel." All this, Ilhink, applies mu· tatis mutaTwis 10 Luke's handling of "salvation" for Israel and for the Christian community. A relaled assimilalion is his use of .l.ad.; both for Israel and for lhe ehurch, 45 TannehilI, 1988: 101. 46 Rather Ihan being really "comprehensive", lhis concern might be lenned sectariQn. his a1ways imponant for a new seello legilimate ils ideology by claiming lhat it is iu message Ihat really stands in continuity wilh lhe old values of lhe community. "Quilt oflen in a secl the lheological or ideoJogical claim 10 be the legitimale people of God contradicIS lhe aCIUa! situation of Ihis sect." "Luke's manner of viewing the Christian congregations is thai of a secl member ..... Dovon, 1983: 408, 41 Hechl , 1987: 149, lisling the following lexls: Conf. U ng. 62-63; Vin , 75; Vita Mos. 2.44; 2.288; Op. Mundi 79-81,

108

The Redemption of Israel

One text where thi s happens is De Confusione Linguarum 62-63; there Philo argues that 'Rising' (Zech 6: 12) would be astrange title for a (messianic) human being and must therefore refer to the Logos .d But there is one lenglhy tex t (De Praemiis el Poenis 79- 172) where a messianic "scenario is descriplive of events that take place in the world" (Hecht , 1987: 149). Still, even here Phi10 "presems a thoroughly dehistoricized description of the mess ianic drama when compared to other contemporary visions .... 9 The battle fought is bloodless; the enemies conquered unnamed abstractions. The unexpected liberation of the exiles ari ses because of their mass convers ion to virtue . Philo presenls an individualistic sOleriology; hi s view that only those Jews who maintain their "nobility" (Praem .Poen 171) will participate in the future salvationso recaUs the division within Israel envisaged by Luke. Hecht argues that the messianic imagery, pale as it is, reflects the ideas of "popular messianists" in Philo's environment. Through his "ever-present spiritualization of history", Philo "neutralizes" the messianism of the community. His real message , intended for those who understand, is the identification of the Messianic figure with the Logos (Hecht, 1986: 161-62). Philo's treatment of the expectation of the Messiah and the Mess ianic age is reminiscent, on several points, of Luke. Philo, too, uses messianic words and images in an abstract and spiritualized sense, without making il elear that areinterpretation is taking place. The same cau ld be said of another. much laler Jew ish current: modem Hasidism.'1 How elose the resemblance 10 Luke aClually is in these cases remains to be studied. Philo, ho wever, does not try 10 impose his elitist view on those less enlightened. He does not make the masses culpable far not adopting a spiri tualized view of the messianic expectation. (They will farfeit salvation, lhough , if they do not walk in the way of "nobility" ,) His non-confonnisl thinking has not had much effect on Jewish hi story cither. Philo showed himself to be a loyal (prominent) member of his Jewish commu nity in the tunnoils of first century Alexandria. Things were different with Luke. d On the passage see Hecht, 1987: 149-50. Unlike Luke, here at least Phil0 ciearly differenli ales betwee n a "corporeal" and a "spiritual" interpretatio n. letting the reader kno w why he chooses the latter. "9 Hecht, 1987: 155; see his wholediscussion of the passage (1986: 152- 158), as weil as Fischer. 1978: 187 -210, Here Philo also co mes dose 10 Paul, who presents "a Chrislian interpretation of the messianic fu nction in the direction of transcendence MacRae. 1987: 173. so Philo (hat) von seiner individualistisch geprägten Soteriologie her zu den nationalen eschatologischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit keinen rechten Zugang gefunden und (konnte) deshalb auch die Hoffnung auf endzeitliche Sammlung aller Juden nicht vorbehaltlos teilen", Fischer. 1978: 209. S I Cf. Hecht. 1986: 161, quoting Gershom Scholem. H

:

H .. .

109

Hcikki Räisänen

•

who was active in a quite different social context. In his view. such l ews as da not acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah are indeed culpable. Luke's view has had a tremendous impact on Christi an thought and. consequently. on the life of lews in Christendom .S2 Therefore. h is view deserves di scu ssion from the viewpoim of "coolent criticism" more urgently than does Philo's. Ta such an evaluation we finally turn. Luke's language suggests a very positive attitude to Judai sm. In reality , however, his attitude is quite ambiguous. In his "exaggeraled continuity"SJ he is anti·lewish in driving a wedge between the Old Testament religion and comemporary lews .S4 He is not trying to win sympalhy for the allegedly tragic fate of the lews. The real tragic victims are lesus, Stephen and Paul; the lews get only what they deserve.SS What a disqualification of the lewi sh religion Luke actually presents! Many tirnes over he lets the salvati on prornised to Israel in the Bible blend logelher with the new gift of f orgiveness. Was forgiveness , then, some· Ihing new that cou ld not be provided by ludaism? I-Iow cou ld mere for· givencss of si ns really be thc fulfilment of the promise to David? I-Iad David nOI been forgiven for hi s sins? Was grace a novelty that only carne along with the gospel? lndeed, Luke expects that Jews should CO flverl to Jesus. Writes lervell , "Coflvers jo fl means a share in the rnessianic salvation and a share in the covenanl of Abraham ... To be sure, the Ii steners, as Jews, are al ready the sons of the covenanl of Abraham ... and thus salvation means a ralification of thi s covenant for those who have beeil con verted and have no t been excJllded frorn the people . " ~6 Note the anomaly from a Jewi sh point of view: 10 gel Ihe age -old covenan l ralified you need tO convert to some thing nove!! Your l ewishness as such, then, is good for nothing. Luke docs have a salvation-historical problem whi ch is not solvable in "objeclifying" tenns . If God's old promi ses are fulfill ed in lesus, their content has been changed 10 such an eXlent as to be in effeci nullified. Luke's vague use of the old language is an indirect indi cati on of Ihis ~2

Gaston ( 1986: 152) no tes Ihat the consequences o f Luke's solution for the relationship between Christians and Jews are "deplorable Cf. Cook. 1988: 123. S3 Gaston, 1986: 152. ~ 4 "Quite different from his prcsentation of the past, Luke's present is characterized by an implacable enmity between the church and 'the Jews' ... Luke is unable to defend the legitimacy o f the (Gentile) Christian movement without declaring the Jews as suc h to be enemies of the church of GOO." GasIon , 1986: 140. " ... the paradox remains that Luke·AcIs is on~ 0/ the moSt pro-Jewish and on~ 0/ the moSt ant;·Jewish writings in the New Testament. Gaston, 1986: 153. Cf. Cook. 1988: 11 6. 55 Cook, 1988: 122. S6 Jervell (1972: 58), exegeting Acts 3: 12· 26 (my ilaJics). H

•

H

110

The Redemption of Israel

dilemma. In this, Luke shares the problems of all Christian theologies of "fulfilment" in which the old vocabulary is made to serve a novel cause. 51 Paul was eaught in the same dilemma (though not so much in his christology as in his discussions about the law), and Luke inherited the problem from his tradition.!i8

Seleet Bibliography ßovon, Fran~ois 1983 "Israel, die Kirche und die Völker im lukanischen Doppelwerk. "ThlZ 108: 403-414. 1988 Lu.c le Theologien: Vingt-cinfj ans de recherehes ( 1950·1975). Le Monde de la Bible, 2d cd. Genhe: Labor et Fides. 1989 Das Evangelium noch Lllws (LJc 1.l - 9~O) . EKK ILUJ . Zürich: Benringer Verlag & Neukirchen· Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Brown , Raymond E. 1977 TIte Binh olt/Ii! Messiah: A Commemary on tlte Injancy Narra tives in Matthew and Luke. New Yoric : Doublcday. Caird, George B., 1974 Saint Luke. PNTC. London : Pc:nguin Books. Conz.elmann , Hans 1962 Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des lukar. BI-fTh 17. 4th cd. Tilbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (paul Siebeck).

n This "profound dilemma of the developmem of christology" is fin ely analysed by Ruether, 1979: (he Standard Christian view of redemption is "a non·messianic solenology that insists on calling itself a 'chri stology', thereby laying claim to fulfill the 1ewish messianic tradition" (243). -,ne spiritualizing of the messianic is basically the denial of the rnessianic, while claiming tO fulfil il." (2450. Thai this critique hits not only Christians but also Philo or modem Hasidism is another mauer. Cf. Scholem, 1971 : 201-02: in Hasidism, "all the myslical talk of a sphere of Messiah in one's own Iife ... becomes bUI an allegorical figure of speech"; "the Messianism as an 8Ctual his· torical force is liquidated". Mussner's an swer to Ruether (1984: 231) is naive. To Ruether's claim thai the world remains unrcdeemcd he replies: ..... two things now exist which were not there previously: The gospe l and Ihe Church . Their effective hi story in Ihe world was much, much greater than one commonly assumes. Without the gospel would one have known, for example, that history really should be the hislory of frecdom?" 51 Assuming Ihat he neither composed Ihe Benedictus hirnself nor was the first 10 apply its political language to the victory wrought by Jesus on Easter. Cf. above, n. 6. On the devclopment of "the issut of Jesus as Messiah" which gains in prominence "the funher Olle gets away in time from the earliest preaching" see MacRae, 1987.

III

•

Heikki Räislinen Cook, Michael J., 1988 ''The Mission to the Jews in AcIS: Unmve1ing Luke's 'Myth of the Myr· iads'." pp. 102- 123 in Luke·Acts and the lewish People: Eight CriricaJ Perspectives. Ed. JB.Tyson. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Ehester, Walter 1972 "lsmel im lukanischen Werk und d ie Naz.arethperikope." pp. 76-147 in E.Grässer, A.Strobel, R.C. TannehilI, W .Ehester, lesus in Nazareth. BZNW 40. Berlin : Walter de Gruyler. Fischer, Umch 1978 Eschatologie und l enseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajuden· Iwn . BZNW 44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyler. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 198 1,85 The Gospel According to Luke. Anchor Bible 28 A. New York: Doubleday. Fredrik sen, Paula 1988 From lesus 10 Christ: The Origins ofthe New Teslamenr Images of ltms. New Haven: Yale University Press. GasIOn, Lloyd 1986 "Anti-Jud::lism and Ihe Passion Narrative in Luke and Acts." pp. 127- 153 in Anti·Judaism in Early Chrisrianiry I : Paul anti tlre Gospels. Ed. Peter Richardson wilh David G ranskou. Studies in Christianity and ludaism 2. Walerloo: Wilfrid Laurier Universily Press. George, Augustin 1968 "Ismel dans I'oeuvre de Luc ." RB 75 : 481 -525. Haenchen, ErnSt 1977 Die Apostelgeschichte. KEK . 7th cd. Göltingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup recht. Hahn, Ferdinand 1966 Clvist()logisclll! floheitstiltl: Ihre Geschichte imfrühen Christentwn. FRLANT 83 . 3d ed. Göuingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hamack. Adolf von 1985 Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine Moncgraphie zur G rundlegung der ka tholischen Kirche. NeUl! Studien zu Marcion. Repr. DamlSmdt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesel lschaft. Hecht, Richard H. 1987 "Philo and Messiah." pp. 139- 168 in ludaisms and Their Messiahs al tlte Turn ofthe Clvistian Era. Ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green and Emesl S. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jervell, Jacob 1972 Luke (lJI(i the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts. Minneapolis: Augsburg.

11 2

The Redemption of Israel Leaney, A.R.C. 1966 A Commemary on lhe Gospel occording 10 LI/te. BNTe. 2nd cd. London: Black. Lohfink. Gerhard 1975 Die Sammlung Jsr(Jl!!s: Eine Umersuchung zur lukanischen EWesiologie. StANT 39. Münc hen: Kösel. MacRae. George 1987 "Messiah and Gospel." pp. 169- 185 in Jlldnisms anti Thi!ir Musialu al lhe Turn O/Ihe Chrislian Era. Ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green and Emest S. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maddox, Roben 1982 The Purpose 0/ IlIte-Acts. FRLANT 126. Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Manson, Thomas Walter 1949 The Sayings 0/ Jesus as Recorded in zhe Gospels According to 5t. Matlhi!w and SI. Luke. London: SCM. Moessner, David P. 1988 "The Ironie Fulfillment of Israel's Glory." pp. 35-50 in LI/u-Acts anti zhe Jewish Peop!e: Eighl Critical Perspeclives. Ed. lB.Tyson . Min· neapolis: Augsburg. Mussner, Franz 1984 Traclate on the lews: The Significance 0/ JudtJism/or Christian Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress. Ruether, Rosemary Radfor-d 1979 Ihe Failh and Frazricide Discussion: Old Problems and New Dimensions." pp. 230-255 in A.Davies (ed.). Anlisemitism and Ihe Founda· tions 0/ Chrisrianiry. New Vork: Paulist. Sanders, Jack T . 1987 The lews in Luke-Acts. l..ondon : SeM . 1988 'The Jewish People in Luke-Acts." pp. 51 -75 in Luke-Aclsand lhe Jewish People: Eighz Crirical Perspeczives. Ed. J. B. Tyson. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Scholem. Gershom 1971 The Messianie ldeo in Judaism and Olher Essays on Jewish Spirifuoliry. New Vork: Schocken Books. Syreeni, Kari 1987 The MaJcil1g of rhe Sermon 0 11 rite Maunz: A Procedural Analysis 0/ Manhew's Redactorol Aczivjry. Part I : MelJwdology &: Compositional Analysis. AASF Diss.hum. 44. Helsinki : Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. TannehilI, Roben C. 1985 "Israel in Luke-Am: A Tragic Story." JßL 104: 69-85.

113

HeikJd Räisänen

1986 1988

1989

TM Narrative Uniryoj Luke·Aas: A Lirerary Imerpretation. Volurne I: TM Gospel According 10 Luk.e. Philadelphia: Fortress. "Rejection by the l ews aod Tuming to Gentiles: the Patlern of Paul's Mission in Acts." pp. 83-101 in Luke-Aces and t/Je Jewish People: EigJu Critical Perspectives. Ed. J. 8. Tyson. Minneapolis: Augsburg. 'The Narrator's Strategy in ehe Scenes of Paul's Defense (Acts 21 :27 26:32)." Address to the Luke-Acts Seminar of SNTS (manuscript).

Tiede, David L

1986

'The Exaltation of lesus and the Restoralion of Israel in Acts I ." frrhR

79, 278-286. "'Glory toThy People Israel'." pp. 21 -34 in Luke-AclS and tM Jewish People: Eig/II CriticaJ Perspecrives. Ed. 1. B. Tyson. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Wa.inwrighl, Anhur W. 1977-78 "Luke and the Restoration oflhe Kingdom 10 Israel." ET89: 76-79. Zmijewski, losef 1972 Die Eschalologiereden des lI/kM-Evangeliums: Eine lradilOns ulld redaktionsgeschiduliche Umersuchung zu Uc 2 J.5 ·36 und Uc 17,20·37. BBß 40. Bonn: Peler Hanstein Verlag. 1988

114

The Material Common to Luke and John A Sketch Maui Myllykoski, Helsinki

1. John and the Synoptics - John and Luke The greal majo rily of scholars think thai Matthew and Luke used Mk . Q and their spec ial material in the crealion of their Gospels. The SOUTee basis of Ja hots Gospel is much more disputed. An important hypothesis, represented especially on Gennan sail, is thai for the first part of hi s exposition John used one main lilerary Vorlage, the so-called Semeia SOUTee (SQ ). FOT the latte r part of the Gospel he had a l his disposal a lilerary passion narrative wh ich - ou t of necess ity - has bolh general and partieular similarities with the synoptic accounts of Jesus' suffering, death and resurreclion . Afler John comp lclcd hi s work theTe followed yet another redaclional phase, whieh is eonsidered to be "eecJesiastieal" in charaeter (die kirchliche Redaktion ). This overall theory has by no means found unan imous aeceplance, but it still fonns the main challenge in the souree c riticism of the fourth gospel. I Whe n the relation of l ohn to the synoplics is considered. the quest ions of the existence of SQ o r the ehamete r of the eo rresponding materia l and Lhe extcn Lof the eeelesiasti eal redaction are noL ncarly as importanl as the problems of thc sources of l ohn's pass ion and resurreetion narratives. Thc re levant parallels are to be found in thi s part of the Gospe l. and it is easy to offer a li st of the notable exeeptions - the last two are , however, exeepli ons only in a limi ted scnse: John the Baptist ( Mk 1:2-8: Lk 3: 15: Jn 1:19-27) 111e cCl1lurioll of Capemaulll (Mt 8:5-13: Lk 7: I - I 0: ln 4:46-54) The fecding eyc le (Mk 6:30-8:21: Jn 6: 1-71 ) The anointing of Jesus (Mk 14 :3-9: Lk 7 :36-50: Jn 12: 1-8) The miraeu lou s ealeh of fish (Lk 5: 1-11 ; ln 21: 1-14) The passion narrative and Ihe feeding eyele of Jn are more or less ev idenlly parallel 10 the co rresponding texts in Mk . They can be explained either by the assumplion that John made use of Mark or by theories about

I For the discussion see Smilh . 1984: 39-61 and Becker. 1979: 33-36.

Matti Myllykoski

common or simila r sources. 1 In the latter case there is, of course, the quest ion whether the presumed sources are written documents o r juSt common oral traditions. lohn has only a few spec ial agreements with MI , and it is not likely thai he had used this gospel al all when wriling his own wo rk.] The paralleis in the passion narralives are also dominant in the material common to Luke and l ohn which differs from the Marcan and Matthean paralleis. Despite the fact thai Luke al so used Mk 14·16 as his main source when writing Lk 22·24, he offers a great deal of independent malerial. Some scholars trace a special pre· Lucan passion narrative that the third evangelist would have used besides his Marcan source.4 The accounts and episode s peculiar 10 this material· and not 10 the Marcan passion narra· live· overlap very slighlly with the agreements between Lk and ln, and excepl for the rcsurrection narratives the lasl chapters of Lk and 1n con· tain no parallel pericopes at all. It is accordingly not eonvincing to assurne lhat Luke and John used a common traditional pass ion source;5 only 10hn's agreemen ts wilh Mk are imponant from the viewpoinl of souree· criticisffi. Jn does not contain mueh of Lhe specia l passion material of Luke, but a review of other special material gives even more discouraging results. If John knew Lk and used it, it is surprising indeed that he totally overlooked sections 1: 1·2:52 and 9:51·18: 14, which are eXlremely impor· lant for the understanding of the third gospel.6 The hi slory of the study of thc paralleis between ln and the synoptic gospe ls can at least roughly be described as a process of two (or three?) phases. The firsl of them is quite long: already in the early Church the differences belween the canonical gospels were explained in favour of the most theological of thern, and many teachers of the Church thoughl that John supplemcn led Mt, Mk and Lk. Some thought that John inlcrpre tcd thc Synoptics, and same went as far as 10 think that hc wanted 10 di splacc Ihem. Very few scholars incJined 10 the view that l ohn wrote indcpen· dently of them. Thus the herilage of the basic theory that l ohn knew all the synoplic gospels and used them in Olle way or anothe r was dominant up until our century and the Second World War.' 1 For the former assumption. see Barrett . 1978: 43·45 and Glassweil, 1985: 108· 11 3. ) See Duse, 1960/61 : 66-68. The agreements between Mt and Jn are emphasized by Borgen (1958/59: 259) who. however, does not assume any direct literary relationship between John and fie Synoptics. Cf. also the observations of Neirynck, 1977: g 1·82. 4 Fo r the scholars and sources reconstrueted by them see e.g. the list in So:trds, 1981 : 15· 16. 5 Thus Klein, 1976: 182·186. Cr. also the theories presented in flOte 16. 6 Cribbs, 1971 : 425. 7 For the hislory ofthese theo ries, see Windisch, 1926: 1·40.

116

n.e Material Common to Luke and John The short book of P. Gardner-Smith (Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels, Cambridge 1938) changed the situation in favour of the hypothesis that John merely shared common traditions with the synoptists; he neither knew their gospels nor used them .8 Two important reasons for his rejection of the old theory are obvious: besides the agreements there are innumerable disagreements, and the small number of agreements can be found in passages whi ch belong to the basic elements of the common apostolic preaching. 9 Togelher with the modem source-critical theories wi th regard to Jn , Gardner-Smith's study influenced - direcdy or indirectly - the majority of scholars. They began to assume that John wrote his Gospel totally independently of Mt, Mk and Lk .tO In recent years, however, there has been a remarkable tendency to return to the old theory . A number of prominent scholars assume or even regard as certain thal John knew at least two of the synoptic Gospels and utilized them when he wrote hi s work, especially in the passion narrative but also elsewhere. From the melhodological poi nt of view, they base their assumption strongly on word statistics and redaction critical observations. 11 Soth the language and conlent of different paralleis can be over or underestimated in preference for any favoured solution. There are, however, some general observations - besides the problems mentioned above thai speak against the Iheory that John used the synoptic gospels as his lit8 Gardner-Smilh (1938: 9Q.91) describes John's situation thus: "Cenain facts may prove that the Fourth Evangelist was famili ar with some of the traditions used by the Synoptists, but il does not necessarily follow that he had read the Synoplic Gospels. Whoever he was and whenever he wrole the evangelist certainly lived in a Christian environment. and he was familiar with Christian practices, Christian beliers. and a Christ ian vocabulary. Probably he adapled accepted translations to suit his own purpose. but he did not invent the slories which he teils. and if in relaling incidents also recorded in one or more of the Gospels he sometimes used a word or a phrase which appears also in them. il proves no more than that all the evangelists drew upon the common store of Christian tradition . h may be surprising that the common Store was so limited. but thai it existed can hardly be denied." 9 Gardner-Smith, 1938: 88-89; cf. Cribbs, 1971 : 425. 10 For the positive reception of Gardner-Smith's book see Barrelt. 1973n4: 229 and Dauer, 1984: 22-27. There are a number of prominent commentators on 11\ who contest the statement Ihal 10hn.was dependent on the synoptic gospels. e.g. Bultmann , 1978: passim; Schnackenburg 1967: 15-32; Brown, 1966: XLIV-XLVII ; Lindars. 1972: 25-28 and Becker. 1981 : 36-38 - irrespective of the fact that these scholars disagree considembly in their concrete source-critical analyses. Cribbs (1971 : 426-427 ) assumes Ihal Luk~ was familillr "with some rorm of the developing 10h3ilnine tradition" or that he was acquainted Mwith an early dmft of the original Gospel of John M . 1I For the modem adherents of Ihe theory that John - or a laler or earlier redactor of the gospel · used the Synoptics. see the survey by Dauer 1984: 31-34. The works of Sabbe on Jn 18: 1- 11 (1977 : 203-234) and Neirynck on Jn 20:1-18 (1984: 161. 187; see also 1977: 95-1(6) can be considered mcthodologically the most imponant contributions based on this hypothesis. Cf. also Borse. 1987 : 39 (nOle 11 ).

117

Matti Myllykoski

erary sources or at least make ils claims more ambivalent Ihan they seem at first. To begin wüh, it is nOI al aU curious Ihat the Gospels have paralleis besides those demonstrated by the Two Source theory. Thcre are the socalled minor agreements between Matthew and Luke which do not shalter the hypothesis , precisely because they are "minor" ,agreements and nOI "major" agreements . However the traditions and redactions in the Gospels are explained, it mus! be clear that the fonnation of accidental agreements is not just poss ible but also unavoidable. Furthennore, the Gospel of John, cxcluding laler redactional additions, is, both as a literary achievement and as a theologica l document, undoubtedly and in its very details a controlled work of Ihe Evangeli st hirn se lf. According 10 John , Jesus maintained his majesty in alJ respects, even in his low liness. He is the Son who is sent to the world by hi s Father in order to be the light of the world , bear witness to the truth and reveal who God reaHy iso In his suffering he fulfills his Father's will, to whom he returns after his resurrection. In spi te of the redactional inlegrily of the fourth Gospe l, there are many modifications that can be made in one's view of the concrete writing proce ss. At one extreme of the spec trum of hypothesis can be placed a theory according to wh ich John had the synoptic Gospels on his desk and used all of them in a varicty of ways whcn writing hi s own work. 12 This kind of assumption, however. is not only curious from the practical point of view,l ) but also fits in very badly with the deep and sovereign theologica! imprint of the fourth Gospel. Could John really have drawn up thi s kind of text without a single basic sourcc which would much more easily explain his success in handling thc traditional material ? It is obvious that ncithcr Mk nor Lk can have fonned thc main souree of John ; if John used Mk as his basic Vorlage,I4 why docs hi s work lack with sorne poss ibl c excep ti o ns l~ - the redacti onal material of Mk, the 12 EspeciaJ ly Ihe word-statistieal and redaetion eritieal ano.1ysis of Sabbe ntentioned above in note 11 slrOngly presupposes this kind of procedure for lhe redaelion of John. I) This is also emphasized by Becker, 1981 : 536. 14 Barren (1978 : 45) acknowledges Ihal ~John did not 'use' Mark as Matthew did", bUI in spite of lhis assumes thai John uscd Mk as his basic literary source because inSlead of any hypolhelical sources "we do have Mark, and in Mark are the stories thaI John repems. SOmetinlCs al Jeasl with similar or even identical words. solnetimes al leasl in subst3n1ially the same order - which is not in every case as inevitable as is suggesled". I S Cribbs. 197 1: 425-426 Ihinks Ihal verses such as Jo 1:34; 11 :2,37 and 12:34 "would seem to be incompatible with the hypolhesis Ihal Jolm knew one or more of lhe synoptie gospels". This is, however, not necess:uily convincing because it is possible th(ll John reacted there 10 or againsllhe synoplie gospels or one of lhem. The wriler of Ihis anicle is inclined t:> Ihink thaI this can bc seen al leaSI in Jn 12:23. whic h reacis strongly 10 the saying crealed by Mark in Mk 14:41 bc; Myllykoski, 199 1a: 156. 118

The Material Common to Luke and John

presenee of which can be traced throughout Mt and Lk? The various fundamental differences between John and the Synopties conceming the plot of the pa ssion narrative make it clear that John has either had anQlher lradilional plot whi eh he followed or that he has ereated the basic plot hirnself and only decorated it here and there with synoptic material. Both of these necessary additional assumptions make the radi eal hypothes is about the use of the Synopti es eompletely futile. Coneeming the use of both Mk and Lk (and Mt) it is hard to imagine John, in a hi ghly creative work, composing both the plot and the Iheology of hi s passion narrative, and interrupting it now and then in order to add details and ideas fram two or three scrolls Iying on his desk - or whieh are a1l the time in his mind . The theory about the use of the synoptic Gospel s as literary sources al so contain s the diffieulty of findin g the literary seams of the Johannine narrative exact1y at those places where synoptie paralleis are found. But because the most dee isive of them are to be found elsewhere, th is kind of theory ean no lange r provide a reasonable basis for a souree eritica l study. It is therefore much easier to assurne that John used a single traditianal passion narrative as his basic literary souree and utilized other literary sources sporadica1ly and/or cited them freely from memory. This by no means exc1udes the possibi lity that John knew Mk , Mk and Lk or all the synoptie Gospels and used them sporadieally in same passages. In spite of this the assu mpti on that John used them as his basic or sole literary sources has too many weaknesses to be taken seriously. At the other end of the spectrum of the hypotheses there is the assumplion that all the synopti e paralleis in Jn ean be explained simpl y on the grounds of common oral traditions and that John did not even know Mk , Mt and Lk . It is impossible to excl ude slraightaway the possibility that John knew the synoptic Gospe ls. Jn contains some notable paralJels which are exactl y o r almost identi eaUy worded, so that the use of oral tradition is at least in some ca ses mueh more unlikely than the use of literary sources. Only detailed literary analysis can show whether they are to be identifted with the synoptic Gospels or not.

1I. Vague and General Similarities between Lk and Jn It is not at all easy to present a critica l selection of relevant, signifieant paralleis between Luke and John . It is certainly not wrang to colleet all

119

Mruti M)'Il)'koski

the possible similarilies and points they have in common,I 6 but quantitative evidence is not enough for a fair evaluation of the relationship between Lk and ln. In order to be able 10 analyse the concrete agreements and paral/e1s one must first decide which similarit ies are too vague to be selected for indusion in this group. It is convenient to sta rt with similarities thaI can most easily be explained on the basis of independent redaclional rnotifs used by the evangelists. In many cases one can speculate as to the possibility that l ohn tnew Lk or a specific Lucan tradition and that he was directly or indireclly influenced by it. In principle this is possible, but we do not have adequate methods to discover whelher this really was the ca se. We must therefore discuss instances in which it is possible 10 show that l ohn used either Luke or a tradition shared with hirn . I lhink it is meaningful to sort out sirnilarities in which there is no queslion of the same account, an altered account or the same conlext. 80th Luke and lohn, for example, transmit a salutation of peace but present it in quite dissirnilar rnanners and in lotally different cantexts. The Q lagion Lk 10:5, which Luke inlroduced inta the story of the sending of the sev e nty-two, is very difficult 10 conside r as a parallel to the salutation of peace with which the risen Lord greets his disciples in 1n 20:19. Such texts can be excluded from this study without further explanation. 17 Useless similarities of this kind can be dassified into four basic types : a. b. c. d.

theological simi larities shared motif circJes or similar thcme constructi on similari ties in the order of pcricopcs shared missing details that do nOI appear in Mk

See the lisl b)' Grundmann (1984: 17-22), which is 10 be examined in Ihe following presentalion. Grundmann draws lhe following conclusion from his surve)': ~ Alle diese Beziehungen und Zusarnmenh~ge sind nichlliterarisch erklärbar. in keinem Fall wird eine gemeinsame schriftliche Uberlieferung, von der beide abhängig wären, sichtbar. Zugrunde liegt vielmehr eine Jesus-Tradilion, die sich von der markinisch-lllJllhäi schen unlerscheidet und eine bestimmte fe Sle Ge stall gehabi haben und sich verschieden verbreitet haben muß.~ The views of Grundmann are basicall)' shared b)' Wierel, 1988: passim. As a closer anal)'sis shows, also this overall theory, 100, lacks a solid foundation . See also the erilique of Emsl 197.1 : 33-34. His own conclusion is also somewhat difficuh to accepl : ~ Die Vielzahl der Obereinslimmungen deutel darauf hin, daß die IkljOO Passionstradition eine fe sle sprach liche Gestali besaß, die sich freilich unterschiedlich \\.'eiterentwickelt hat. t 1 This must also be said of the atlempl of Williams (1967: 312-316) 10 eltplain 1n 2: 1- 11 as lOOn's dramatization of Lk 5:33-39. Similar difficulties are provided b)' Ihe anicle of Goulder (1983: 561-567) who claims thaI lohn was dependenl on Lk 9- 10 when he wrote the lasl discourse in the first half of his gospel (12:20-50). 16

M

120

The Material Common 10 Luke and John

a. Theologica l si milarities between Lk and Jn are very general and am ~ biguous. It is possible 10 emphasize Ihal bolh evangelis ts underline the present aspect of the eschatological salvation which is bound to the person of Jesus Christ. Both of them, however, speak c1early in their own ways about Jesus' exaltation. Luke teil s concretely how Jesus "was carried up into heaven" (24:51), while John often puts into his mouth a saying to the effect that he will be "glorified" (e.g. 12:23). Both Luke aod John use the words re.U:toüvand tdEiv in the context of the necessity of Jesus' suffering (Lk 12:50; 13:32; 18:3 1; 22:37 .nd .Iso AclS 13:29; In 19:28-29). Both evangelists give a uni ve rsal significance 10 Jesus' activity . These similarities are, however, all 100 general and vague to play any role in the queslion of the relationship between Luke and John . The same theological concepts which they use and the similar generaloutlooks which they share belong to contrasling Iheological systems, and their sources also have quite different o rigins in the hislory of early Christian theology. b. Lk and Jn also have common moHf circles and similar theme conslrucli ans. They are bolh interested in Jesus' movements and activities in Samaria aod his contacts with the Samaritans (Lk 9:51-56; 10:30-37; 17: 11 - 19 aod Jn 4:1-42). They both lransmit the accounts about Mary, Martha and Lazaru s, although Luke does not know Mary, Marlha aod Lazarus from the same tradition circle as John seerns to do (10:38-42; 16: 19-31 ; In 11 :1-44; 12:1-8,9-11,16-19). These a", nOl, however, real points of contact between Lk and 1n, because these Gospels do not share any common tradition about the Samaritans aod about Martha, Mary and Lazarus. One can only assurne thaI bolh Luke and 10hn had access to a vague ly similar tradition circle." The same must be said about the traditions conceming the mother of Jesus. Luke points 10 the passion narrative in 2:35. but thi s verse can oeither through redaction nor through tradition be connected 10 Jn 19:25-27. in wh ich the dying Jesus unites his mother and the beloved di sciple. This ep isode is not so much connected wilh Jesus' mother as with the beloved disciple. 111ere is a literary seam between vv . 25 and 26, and it is very likely thai Jesus' mather and her sister were added late r 10 the list of warnen in v. 25. 19 There is an additiona l detai l that can be examined in this context. As v. 25 shows. John knew Clopas as the husband (o r the fa11 Bailey ( 1963: 5) and Barrelt ( 1978: 411 ) assume thaI John took (he idea that Manha served at tahle On 12 :2) from Lk 10 :38·42 . For a critique o f Bailey's theory. see Dauer. 1984: 155· 156. 19 Wilh Becker (1984: 589· 591 ) who shows Ihallhe mention of these women derives with v. 26-27 from ehe ecclesiastical redactor.

121

Matti Myllykoski

ther) of the otherwi se unknown Mary. Luke , for hi s part , mentions Cleopas as one of the Iwo disc iples who met the risen Lord on Ihei r way to Ernmaus (24: 18). Because both persons appear at the end of the pass ion narrative, it is poss ible that the name of Clopas/Cleopas sterns from the traditi ons used by Luke and John . Because the mother of Jesus and her sister are secondary in lhe li st in Jn 19:25 and because lhere are no signs of other additions, it is hardly convincing to assurne tliat John took C lopas from Lk 24: 18.20 It is much more likely that the traditiona l cruc ifi xion scene already convenienlly rnentioned two wornen as witnesses 10 the event. c. Lk and Jn have only a few similarities in their order of pericopes. Mark and Matthew describe in their description of Jesus' lasl supper how he points out the betrayer. Both Luke and John have this occur only later, and even so Judas can first experience Jesus' self- sacrificing love. Thi s parallelisrn is. however, very abstracl. It is clear that Luke foll ows Mk when he narrates the story of lhe institution of Ihe Eucharist. while John teUs about the washing of the disciples' feet and Jesus' explanation of this symbolic work of love. ThernaticaUy, both evangelists present Jesus as the disc iples' servant, but there are no concrete points of cantacI al alP I Unlike Luke (22:26), John does not even use the verb 6lalCOvctv. The sirnilarities which are 10 be found in Lk 23 :25 and Jll 19:16 are more important than those in the meal scene . Pilate de livers Jesus 10 the crowd (Lk )/ 10 the "Jews" (Jn) so that il/lhey - and not the Roman sold iers - should crucify hirn. Because lhe sa ldiers are not yet introduced, Jesus is neither scou rged nor rnocked in thi s conlext. Thi s sirnilarity is curious , but onl y so formally that it has no connectian with the conient of the quite differcnlly composed plots. The absence of the soldiers can be explained in bOlh Lk and Jn Ihrou gh independent redactional activity on the part of the evangelisls. Luke leaves out the mockery and rough handl ing and because of this forgel s to name the soldiers as the subject in 23:26.22 On the 20 Thus. however. Borse , 1987: 38-39. Some scholm lend to think thaI rhe re is nOCOnnection ar all bcrween Clopas and Cleopas: see, for example, Bultmann, 1978: 520 (n. 5). 21 Barren (J 97 8: 436) thi nks thaI "Ihe feelwashi ng is probably to be regarded as a 10hannine construction based on Ihe synoplic tradition that Jesus was in Ihe m idSI of his disciples as d &orovcJv (Luke 22 :27)"; cf. al so Williams, 1967: 3 11. Bailey (1963: 37) supposes Ihal Luke knew (he feetwashing tradition in oral fonn bUI Hwas unwilling 10 use il in its full form because il mighl appear 10 compete w ith, and so deo H uaCI from, the institution of lhe eucharisl . 22 Cf. MarshalI , 1978: 862. Filunyer ( 1985: 1496) suggeSls Ihal "(heyHin Ihis verse "has to refer 10 those who 'asked for' Ihe release of Barabbas" and Ihal "Ihis musl include H 'Ihe chief priem, the leaders, and the people' o fv . 13 .

122

The Material Common 10 Luke and John

olher hand. he lets Herod and his sold iers mock Jesus in 23: 11 in the same way as lhe Roman soldiers mock him in Mk 15:16·20 . The Roman sol· diers in turn are introduced in 23:36. where lhey mock the crucified Jesus with the Je wish leaders. This kind of problem has nothing 10 do with the plot of Jn , whe re the evangeli st cJearly wishes to avoid unmotivaled mockery and scourging of the Son of God. As always. Jesus must maintain his majesty in his lowliness. Therefore John presents thi s scene in quite another context: according to 19: 1·5 PiIate has Je sus scourged in order to show to the "Jews", so that they might see Jesus' innocence (v. 4). Because of this John also forgets to mention the soldiers at the beg inning of his crucifixion scene (v. 16; cf. V. 23).13 These similarities in lhe order of the pericopes thus neither show signs of traditions common 10 Lk and Jn nor testify to the hypothesis that John might have used Lk as his source.lA d. It is not convincing to use the shared silence of Lk and Jn against Mk and Mt in favour of any Iheory that tries to define a closer relationship fo r Lk an d Jn . An interesting example of th is can be offered by a closer examination of the fact that both Luke and John keep silence abaut the death of John the Baptist. Luke teil s abaut the irnprisonment of John be· fore the baptism of Jesus so that he can finish the history of the Baptist be· fo re commencing that of Jesus (3 :19·22). John, on the contrary. uses John the Baptist only as a witness to Jesus and has therefore no interest in men· tioni ng hi s death ( I: 19·34; 3:22·36). To give anOlhe r example: bath John and Luke lack the name of Gethsemane which Mark mentions in 14:32. but aga in for different reasons. For Luke. who follows Mk, it is enough merely to mention the Mount of Olives in gene ral tenns (22: 39). He has seen that Mark has somewhat slrangely let Jesus and the disciples fi rst go up to thc Mount of Olives and Jesus predicl Peter's denia l on the way there (Mk 14:26·31). Luke does not wish to see them leave for the Mount before the table discourse is over. and so the name Gethsemane becomes superfluous . John . on the contrary. follows hi s own geog raphical tradi· lion, according to wh ich Jesus was arrested in a ga rde n on the other side of the Kidron valley (18 : ) ).2.1 23 For John's redactional arrangements. see Becker, 198 1: 57 1-572. 24 Bailey (1963: 76) suggests that "John is probably echoing Lk 23:25b" in 19:16. "produc ing a statement which even more than Luke's points to the lews as res ponsible ror Jesus' d ea th ~. 2.1 Bailey ( 1963: 53) and Sabbe (1977 : 207) assume that Jo hn avoided the name Gethsemane because it belonged together with Jesus' ago ny which was quite unsuitable ror his presentalion or Jesus' majesty. There must also be, however, positive reaSOll S ror introducing lhe garden as the place o f the arrest; ror an alternative analysis. see Myllykoski, 199 1a : 167- 168. 9 l UKE·ACTS

123

Matti Myllykoski

Unlike Mark, neilher John nor Luke te ll of a tria l of Jesus held at night. Their accounts do not mention any wiblesses and no r do they inc1ude the death sentence which according to Mark was passed on Jesus. These sim il ari ties are, howeve r, nOI compell ing enough 10 speak in favour of areal parallelism between Lk and Jn in these passages. John does nOI unlike Luke (22:66-7 1) - tell of a hearing by the Sanhedrin in the moming. but of a hearing by the high priesl during thc ni gh l (18:12-14. 1924). Wiblesses and the death sentence are mi ssing from these pericopes neilher because of John's dependence on Lk nor on the grounds of a special common tra dition. 8 0th evangeli sts simply used their own tradi tions, which differ both from each other and from the trad it ion which Mark used in Mk 14:55-65. It is quite another matte r how the obviou s parallelism of Lk 22:66-71 and Jn 10:24-25 should be explained.26 The Marcan crucifixion account also includes detai ls miss ing from bolh Jn and Lk. The fi rst of them can be seen in Lk 23:33 and Jn 19: 17. Tnese verses do not mention "wine mingled with myrrh " which according to Mk 15:23 Jesus refuses to take. It is understandable that Luke omits this deta il , because he sees it merely as an unnecessary doublelto Mk 15:36, which he uses in Lk 23:36. John , who also composed his crucifixio n scene in harmony with hi s sublime theological ideas , either did not know the tradition expressed in Mk 15:23 or passed it by in order to present a corresponding item of tradi tion in a much worth ier contex t, namely in connection with the death of Jesus in Jn 19:28-30.27 In Mk 15:25 the th ird hour is mentioned as the moment of crucifixion. Thi s verse is aseparate ent ity that c1ashes with v. 24, whi ch had already ment ioned the act of crucifi xion. Luke, qui te understandably. left it without mention after 23:34. Because Mk 15:25 is secondary, it is not problematic to assume that it simp ly did not belong to the pre-Johannine passion tradit ion ei ther. John's narrative procccds without any li te rary problems from 19: 18 to the quest ion about the title on thc cross (v. 19-22). Correspondingly, the sixth and the sevcnth hours menti oncd by Ma rk are not found in Jn, and the fourth evange list offers quite another temporal reference (19: 14), whi ch differs considerab ly from the infomlati on provided by Mark. Lk and Jn also remain silent abou t the mockery of those "who passed by" (Mk 15:29-32). Luke takes from Mk the mockery of the Jewish leaders in 23:35 , but mentions the people ( ).a~) in the same verse as mere 26 27

See belo w p. 141 - 142. Bailey (1963: 80-83) admits that l ohn had his own reasons for these arrangements of the text. but insists that he was ··considerably influenced·· (p. 81) by the Lucan account.

124

The Material Common to Luke and John

bystanders. He clearly does not wantto let the people mock Jesus, because he has already emphasized their pos itive attitude towards him .la John , for his part, teils nothing about the mockery, as one might expect from hirn. Both evangelists keep silent aboul Jesus' loud cry and its misinterpretation in Mk 15 :34b-35. It is once again easy to understand John's motifs, and the Lucan description of the events becomes qu ite understandable through hi s redactional treatment of the Marcan Vorlage. As menti oned above, Luke lets the soldiers offer vinegar to Jesus in the context of the mockery in 23 :35-36. Because of this concentralion of literary elements he omits the loud cry and its misinterpretation. They would only have been di sturbing in the redactional passage Lk 23:32-43, in wh ich Luke first presents different groups of mockers and the people as bystanders. After thi s he moves on to the two cru cified robbers, who show in a paradigmatic way two attitudes towards Jesus. Luke emphasizes the faith of one of the robbers and the salvation that Jesus proclaims to hirn as the climax of this ep isode.29 There are also other episodes where both Lk and Jn lack something that Mark has written down. When they do not belong in such contexts in which the Gospels have other, clearer sirnilarities, they can be explained quite independently of each other.

111. Concrete Minor Agreements Conflicting with Mk and Mt that Derive from Independent Redactions or Common Oral Traditions After the vague simil arities of Lk and Jn have been dealt with , it is good to have a look at their concrele agreements and paralleis. Thc concrcle agreements o f Lk and Jn not found in Mk and Mt can be limited to the texts which tell about the same incident and have one important expression or idea in common. These agreements can be treated as points of contact between Jn and Lk, but not in the same way as parallel pericopes. because they are too separate and diffu se. They, like the vague similarilies. are most easily explained either by independent redactional activities on the part of the evan gelists or by items of oral tradition which have found their way into Lk and Jn independently of each other. In these cases it is 21 For Luke's positive use o f the word.ta6c'. sec e.g. 7: 16.29; 18:43; 19:48; cf. also 20:6.9.16.26 eie. 29 This nalurally does not call the chrislO<entric character of the Lucan crucirlXion scene in question but, on the contrary. affinns il. The paradigmatic role of the minor figures isoho wever. easily overlooked when o ne concentrates exclusivcly on abstract christological and nunyrological idcas as does. far example, Talbcn ( 1982: 221 -224).

125

Mlltti M)'Il)'koski

nOI reasonable [0 assume that the evangelislS had known a wider common traditi on or that John had used Lk as his source.

Jolm the Baptist In their accounts of John the Baptist Lk 3 and Jn t: have special agreements on two points. Firstly. bolh evangelists have in this context documented speculations about John the Baptist being the Chri st. There are no verbal agreements between thern. and the difference in the formulation of the passages calUlOt be traced back to a common literary source. In Lk the questio n "whether perhaps he is the Christ" is presented as speculation by the people. expressing their deepest hopes and expeclations. It belongs 10 the redactional introduction (v . 15) of a passage taken over from Q and Mk (v. 16-17). which is prese nted as John's answer to thc people's inner thoughts.3° In Jn, on the other hand, the Baptist himself, when simply asked who he iso explicitly denies being the Christ (1 : 19-20). The passage Jn t : 19-28 has clear redactional frami ng in vv. 19a and 28, and there is a very spec ial and obvious manner in which the IwO trad itional testimonies of the Baptist in vv. 23 and 26-27 are introduced. The quest ions in vv. 19-22 and 25 are produced by using a threefold scheme: the Christ - Elijah - the prophet. 8 0th the tradili ona1 testimony o f John and h is other answers make it c1ear thai he cannot be identi fie d w ith any of these fi gures , and that h is bapt is m has no independent signifi cance. Both in hi s preaching and in hi s baplism he merely gives the testimony that he has received from thc Falher: Jesus is thc Son of GOd.31 Thus thc form ul ation o f the 30 Unlike moSt scholars. SchUnnann (1984: 171) argues that the essence ofv. 15 was already tO be fou nd in Q. 31 Sec. for example. KOIila. 1988: 24-25. In spile of the clear outlines of the passage. its source-cri tical problems arc 00( easy to solve. Buhmann (1985: 57-58) and Schub. ( 1983: 35) assume that w . 22-24 and 27 fOl m editorial additions to the text of John. This theory is, however, probJematic because v. 25 does nOi deal wilh the basic question posed in w. 19-2 1 ("Who are you?'·), bUi Jeaves it unanswered and leads instead tO another question (HThen wh)' are you baptizing... ?"). Accordingl)', v. 22-24 are 100 heterogenous 10 have a clear redactional point. Becker (1984 : 90-9 1) suggests thaI there were IWO separate tradi tions - vv . 19· ,22-24 and 20, 26-27 · , 28a - that were bound together with vv . 2 1 and 25. and u aces this procedure bac k to SQ. John c hanged vv. 26-27 into Iheir present fonn and added v. 28b. This assumption is attractive. but it is also possible that the evangelist himsclf used the threefold scheme (the Christ - Elijah - the prophet) and built the dialogue around the trnditions of v. 23 and 26-27. He had good reason to tell directly afler the prologue about questions put by the 1ewish authorities tO the Baptist. because it prepares their unbelieving reaction to Jesus' actions in thc temple (2:13·22). He might have addcd the somewhat problematic

126

The Material Common to Luke and John

Johannine passage has a different background from the basically redactional verse Lk 3: 15.)2 The idea that lohn the Baptist denied being the Christ is probably traditional, but thai is quite another matter. Secondly, there is the similarity between Lk 3:22 and Jn 1:32-34. Both verses presuppose that Jolm the Baptist sees the Spirit descending on Jesus as a dove from heaven . Luke only does this indirectly when he emphasizes that the Spirit came on Jesus "in bodily form, as a dove", while John speaks direcdy about the Baptist seeing the Spirit as a dove. For 10lm this motif of seeing is essential, because he wants 10 treat it as a sign given 10 the Baptist by the one who sent hirn. Luke, for his pan , crealed the corresponding description simply by presenting Mk 1,10 (" like a dove") in a more concrete form))

Entry into Jerusalem In their accounts of the entry into Jerusalem Lk and Jn also have two minor agreements opposed to Mk. Firstly, they both let "the whole multitude of disciples" (Lk)/ "a great crowd" (Jn) greet Jesus as 6 ßa"1Ä<1l<; (Lk 19:38/ Jn 12: 13). But again this similarity can and must be explained on redactional grounds. Luke follows Mk 11,1-10 throughout the whole pericope, clarifying the Marcan presentation at several points. Also in Lk 19:38 he c1arifies Mk 11 :9- 10 by substituting the double Hosanna cry with anothe r acclamation that is more understandable 10 his readers (cf. Lk 2: 14): "Peace in heaven and gtory in the highest!" Correspondingly he substitutes the blessing of thc Davidic kingdom (Mk 11 : I Oa) that sounded 100 national and polilical sirnply by adding "thc King" 10 the sc riptural

comment Ihal thc questioners were Pharisees (v. 24), because v. 23 prcsupposes a scribal debate. his. morcover, an all too striking coincidence Ihal Ihe plol already compiled for SQ serves so weil the imentions of John, which reach their goal in v. 34. Also Williams (1967: 319) thinks mal John can be seen as the aulhor of Ihe dia.logue in 1: 19-27, bUI assumes that he drew upon synoptic traditions, especially Lk 7: 18~30 par. MI 11 :2-11 ; Lk 9: 19-20 and Lk 3:16 (pp. 317-319). 32 Williams (1967: 317) suggesls thai "Lk 3:15-16 would provide a framework which Jn 1: 19-28 has filled in". Cf. Wellhausen, 1904: 5: ~Der molivierende Eiflgang 3,15 erin· nen an Joo 1,19ss. Dies iSI nicht die einzige Spur davon, daß Lc den Übergang zu Joa bildet " Cribbs (1971 : 432). on the contrary, assumes that "Luke 3: 16 could possibly represem a conflauon of Mall 3: 11, Marle 1:7-8, and John 1:26-2r - or of the tradition IYlng behind lhem. )3 Luke describes in a similar COfICTCle manner and in even more drastical tenns the resur· rection body of Jesus in Lk 24:28-3 1, 39, 5 t and AclS 1:3-11 . Jesus. however, also "vanishes" as easily as he has appeared.

127

Mani Myllykoski

quotation (Mk 11 :9bl Lk 19:38a) as an additiona l epithet of l esus. 34 There is good reason to assume that also in In this ep ithet form s a later addition to the text. The original salutation of the erowd is • as in the synoptic Gospels· based on Ps 11 8:25·26, while lhe additional wo rds 0 ßacrtÄl:Ut; 1'011 '/crparjÄ.. refer to Zeph 3: 15 . This reference prepares the reader for the explanation of the people's cry in I n 12: 14·15, wh ich interrupt s lhe plot, in which v. 13 was clearly and simply followed tiy v. 16. Beeause v. 16 is formed by lhe evangel ist hirnse lf, it is likely that the reference to Zeph 3: 15 in v. 13 and vv. 14· 15 stern only from the ecclesiastical redaetor of the Gospel .3 S The another minor agreement of In and Lk in the entry perieope ean be found in Lk 19:39·40 and In 12:19. In lhese verses the Phari sees reaet against the enthu sia sm about l esus. but in totally different ways. Independent redactional activity by Luke and l ohn mayai so explain this incidental similarilY. For Luke it is natural 10 add the reaetion of the un· believing Pharisees. whom . of all other groups of l ewish leaders · he has treated in a particularly critical manner throughout the whole Gospel, last of all in 18:9·14. Al so John has hi s grounds for add ing the Phari sees to the entry pericope . He has just before let them jo in with the hi gh priesls and the Sanhedrin in taking the decision to kill lesus ( 11 :45·53) and issue a warrant for hi s arrest (11 :57). The Pharisees are also among the "lews" who also want 10 kill Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead (12:9· 11 ).36

The Betrayal, the lAst Meal alld the Arrest The Luean and Johannine texts abaut Jesus' betrayal and the last meal wi th hi s disciples cOl1tain two minor agreeme nt s not found in Mk or Mt. It is highl y improbable that Luke and John ind epe n ~ent1y created the idea of 34 Burger, t 970: 11 2- 11 4. Cribbs (197 1: 442) misses the point when he argues thaI "Ihe kingship of Jesus was nOI an imponanl emphasis in Luke" and thaI Luke look the eorresponding reference from Ihe lohannine tradition . Bailey ( 1963: 25) bases his work on Ihe theory thai Luke followed in vv. 37-38 a non-Man::an souree. 35 Bulmlann (1985: 319) suggeSIS Ihal vv. 12-13 stern from a source and vv . 16- 18 from the evangelist who might also have addcd vv. 14- 15. He emphasizes thaI lohn did nOI use the synoptic gospels as his source. Schnackenburg ( 197 1: 468) assumes that vv. 12/1 3-15 belonged 10 a souree, while John added vv. 16 and 17- 18. Barren (1978: 415-416) supposes Ihat John used Mx as his source ilnd "modificd it in the lighl of his theological interests". Bailey (1963: 28) assurnes thaI both Luke and John "had a wrj{len non-Ma.rcan source ill this point". 36 Cr. Bultmann, 1978: 320..321; Schnackenburg, 1971 : 464, 474 and Becker, 1981 : 37ä-379.

128

The Material Common 10 Luke and John

the devil's work through Judas in Lk 22:3 and Jo 13:2,27. Although there must be some kind of connection between these verses, the idea is expressed in different contexts. Luke teHs that Satan "entered into Judas" before he went to the Jewish leaders and conferred with them about Jesus' betrayal, while John (or a redactor) mentions for the first time in the introductioo to the Last Supper that "the devil had ... put it into the heart of Ju das .. .to betray" Jesus. Later he stales about Judas that "Satan eotered into him " after he received amorsei from Jesus. It is of course possible that John found this idea in Lk and modified it for his own use . The basic difficuhy in th is theory lies in the different contexts of the statements. The idea in Jo 13:27 that Satan entered into Judas afler he look lhe morsel hardly derives from the same tradition as Lk 22:3, which presupposes an earlier moment for the incidenl. It is thus easier to assurne that both addi tions stern from a broader oral tradition about the devil entering into Judas in connection w ith the betrayal of Jesus. As thei r contextual dissimilarity shows, the idea was not fi xed to any precise episode in the passion tradition and could thu s be expressed in at least two concreie forms. 37 Another agreement occurring io the context of Jesus' last meal can be foun d in Lk 22:34 and Jn 13:38, where both Gospe ls express Jesus' prediction of Petcr's denial with a slrikingly similar sentence: Lk 22:34

In 13:38b

).J:yW ('JOI, n t.-rpE.

a"Jjv a"Jjv

ou

rpwV~('Jf: 1 ('J~J.l.cpov cUt.,,·rcl.)j)

c~ -rp[~ J.I.C cin'apv~CJU d&val.

Ur.,

UOI .

OU Jl ~ ,Ubr-rrop rpwv~CJU ~

00

t!pv~"1l ~c
In Lk 22:33-34 Luke rewrites Mk 14:29-3 1. He not ooly shoTlens the Ma rcan narrati ve, but also dilutes some negative element s conccm ing Peter and the Olher di sciples. Luke omits theiT stubbom objections 10 37

Same scholars assume Ihat Luke and Joh n derived the detail from an independent souru (e .g. Duse. 1960161: 68; and Klein. 1976: 164- 165)or a rradilion (e.g. Drown. 1966: x.lvii and Soards. 1987: 49). There remains the queslion. what is basieally meanl by a "souree" or a "tradition ". Jn 13:27 is indeed often considered a part of the source thai John used because vv . 28-29 seem 10 fonn a later addition: Buhmann (1985 : 366); Schnackenburg (1976: 14) and Becker (1984: 431). But also in Ihis case iI is obvious that lhe reference 10 Salan rorms only I somewhat independent element of the pericope. whie h basically intends to show how Jesus knew and pointed out his betrayer. This suppons the hYP:lIhesis thallhe altribulion or Judas' action to Satanic influence was an ideo that cou ld be used quite freely in different narrative contexts. The non-Marcan material behind Lk 22:3 does not reveal any special rradilion that could have linked this attribution to itself. Luke simply knew it as an independent. non-oontextual idea. Some scholars. however. slillthink Ihal John used Lk - e.g. Bailey. 1963: 30.

129

Matli Myllykoski

Jesus' prediction and thus reserves the last word for Jesus. Accordingly, in the Lucan version Peter and the other disciples do not make such a self· sufficient impression as in Mk 14:3 1. Peter is there merely a speaker who does not understand what he is saying. At least partly for this reason , Luke does not wish to preserve the fatal and ominous wording of Jesus' prediction in Mk 14:30. Above aU he omi ts the word dJ.It1v and changes the emphasis of the predi ction by stressing th at Peter denies knowing Jesus. The vocative nÜPE also dilutes the ominous words to some extent. It is understandable that Luke has fu rther omitted the unnecessary ex· pression "in this night " . the word cnbJepov is enough • and the unneces· sary two cock·crows. However, these observations cannot explain the choice of the ou... €~ -constructi on, which is not necessa rily redactional. It is possible that this kind of apt expression had al ready been used in the ora l tradition, and thaI Luke took it from there.3 8 Jn 13:36·38 is clearly based on written tradition, but the evangelist has moulded it considerably. Peter's dialogue with Jesus in v. 36·38a connects hi s post·Easter activities and his martyrdom with his pre· Easter self·confidence and Jesus' fulfilled predi ct ion. Thus there is a traditional kernel similar to the synoptic paralleis behind v. 37b-38.39 There are therefore no distinctive or notable similarities with Lk , excepting the acrual prediclion in v. 38b. But there are also differences between v. 38b and Lk 22:34. Analogous with Mk and in contrast (0 Lk. the l ohannine prediction contains the word &iJ~v but does not use the verb clötval. UnJike both Mk and U John does not give any additional time reference for the denial apart from the cock-crow itself. John transmits the traditional prediction by using the ou JI~... €~ -construction. It is probable that he uses the same apt and traditional formulation as Luke, and possible that he found i1 in his literary source. Because there are no other significant sim ilari ties between Lk and Jn, it is an artificial assumplion that l ohn would have needed Lk to formulate 13:38b.'"'

The Lucan c haracter of Ihe whole passage in vv. 3 1-34 is emphasized by Soards. 1987: 52-53. Winler (1954: 159) and Taylor (1972: 65-66) assume Ihal vv. 31-33 are of non-Marcan origin. Taylor additionally regards v. 34 as "a Inler Marcan addition 10 the narrative". According to Grundmann (1984: 405) and Wiefel (1988 : 373) vv. 31 32 eome from Luke's special sourte. 39 Becker (1984: 450) supposes mat eontael with Ihe synoptic paralleis was only loose; cf. also Schulz. 1983: 181 - 182 . • 0 Cf. Brown, 1970: 616: "Probably a saying of lesus has betn passed down in slightly variant fonns." Schnackenburg (1976: 63) minks that lohn and Luke used a similar sourte. Most scholm rejcci the idea Ihal John was dependenion Luke. Barren (1978: 453), however, minks Ihal "Ihis may be a sign that John knew Luke", and Bailey (1963: 39) suggesls Ihal John used Lk 22:34 because he was "struck by the dramatie ]I

130

'The Material Common to Luke and John

The arrest of Jesus shows two important points of eontaet between Jn and the Synoptics,'" and il has been assumed that especially here Jolm used all of them when constructing his own aeeount."l The similarities with Mk and Mt cannot be considered here. The hypothesis that John used Lk can be ehallenged only by showing in detai l that Jolm used one basic souree which is not identical with any of the synoptic Gospels. but added similar details from oral tradition. The present writer is incJ ined to this view; nothing more than a survey of the minor agreements of Lk and Jn can be offered here . Both Lk 22:39 and Jn 18: 1-2 transmit the idea that Jesus often visited the Mount of Olives. Luke has edited Mk by telling that Jesus went there "as was his custom" . Thi s idea is troly Lucan, but il is not connected with the presenee of the di seiples, but with Jesus' regular practice of solitary

prayer (see e.g. 5:16; 6:12; 9:28-29; 11 :1; cf. also 18:1). lohn, for his part, does not menti on lhi s, but des ires to assure hi s readers that Judas knew the place, and also gives a doser description of it (v. I). In the garden, which John mentions. Judas cou ld easily betray his Lord, "for Jesus often met there with his disc iples". John has thus quite different reasons for telling o f Jesus' frequent visilS to the Mount of Olives. The references in Lk and Jn derive from quite separate traditions.o The reference in Lk 22:50 and Jn 18:10 to the hi gh priest's slave's losiog hi s righ l ear at the arrest, forms a notably dearer parallel. But it is again difficult to assurne that John took this detail from Lk . Luke has obviou sly complemented his account by adding it - as v. 51 - from an oral tradition. Joho's use of an o ral tradition is also obv ious when one consid ers how many othe r details he adds to the accoullt in v. 10-11 : Simon Peter as the pcrpetrator of the violent act, Malchus as the name of the wounded slave, and Jesus' command to Peler (v. 1 la), which is interpretcd in a di stinctl y Johannine way (v. Ilb). The use of Luke or the Synoplics cannot explain the greal variety of additions . In the light of this fa ct the whole hypothesis lhat John had two or three Gospel scrolls on his way in which Jesus' prophccy fonns the concJusion of Luke's pericopc. and by the wOrding of that prophccy. ,. "I For a rull list of common details. sec Bailey, 1963: 47. The agreements that are nOI handled here are vague and unimportant. Cr., however. Klein, 1976: 162- 164. Also, Grundmann (1984: 413) and Wiefel ( 1988: 380) suggest that Luke and John have uscd a common non-Marcan tradition about Jesus' arrest. 4'2 Sabbe, 1977 : 203·234. I regret that his extensive argumentation cannot be dealt with in this anicle, As mentioned above, the gre8test difficulty in Sabbe's approach lies in the worlcing mc:thod that he presupposes ror me author or the founh gospel. "l Klein (1976: 173-174) suggests that Luke and John utilized similar sources; he in addition assumes that Luke's source mentioncd the garden as the place of the arrest . Bailey (1963: 52) and Sabbe (1977: 209-2 11 ) think that John took the detail from U ,

I31

Matti Myllykoski

desk when writing down his arrest account is not on ly unnecessa ry but also very artificial. 11 is more conceivable that John used the oral tradition of hi s own congregation, which had one point in common with the oral tradition used by Luke and one point in common with that used by Matthew (v. 11.; cf. Mt 27 :52-53)."

Peter's Denial and the Condemnation 01 Jesus In the account of Peter's denial Jn and Lk also have two interesling minor

agreements as opposed to Mk and MI. Both Gospels include the detail that the servants "had kindled a fire" (Lk 22:54) or "had made a charcoa l fire, because it was cold" (Jn 18: 18). The wording of the verses iso however, strikingly different, and because the narrative context reveals no other signs of John's dependence on Lk, it is easier to assume that the feature derives from a common oral tradition. It is quite natural that independent o ral narrative traditi ons tend to complement wriuen tex ts with these kind of details. 405 Moreover, the Johannine description of the epi sode differs from all the synopt ic accounts in lelling that the serv ants and Peter were standing by the fire. There is also a minor agreement between Lk and Jn in the second of the three identifications of Peter: Lk 22:58 and Jn 18: 25 use the words "you... are" and - in Peter's answcr - "I am nOl", while according to Lheir parallel Mk 14:69 the statements are quite different. This agreement is not particularly striking becau se independent redactions of th is pericope could perfeclly naturally use these words in the scene. In the traditi onal episode of the hea ring the question of the high priest and the an swc r of Jesus whi ch John mu st also have known 46 - are based on thern , and it is probable thai lhis as we il inOuenced thc fonnulati on of the dialogue in thc de44 See also Gardner-Smith. 1938: 58-59 and Becker, 1981: 540-541 . The dependence on the Synoptics in Jn 18: 10-11 is seen in various ways. Ba.rren ( 1978: 521-522) aso sumes tha.t John drew upon Mk and Lk, but thaI he did nOI even know MI. BaBey (1963: 5 1-52) Ihinks thaI he uscd Lk , bUI found Mark's accounl unacceptable. Sabbc (1977 : 222-231) suggests that John used aillhe synoplic gospels. According to Borgen (1958/59: 251) "elements o f the scveral synoptic 3.ccounts were fused together orally and assimilated in the Johannine tradition as a unit". 405 Becker (1984 : 561) supposes th ai John's source was elose 10 the ronn of the Lucan accounl. Barren (1978: 527) argues thai in 18: 18 "John seerns 10 show dependence on Mark". 46 According 10 Grundmann (1984: 416) and Wiefel (1988: 382), in vv. 54-62 Luke edited a non-Marcan passion source. They fu nher assurne Ihat this kind of tradition was also used by John. Againsl this assurn plion see, for example, Soards, 1987: 7678.10 1-102.

132

n.e Malerial Common 10 Luke and l ohn nial scene, wh ich is supposed 10 take place al the same time. But the striking differences between the Lucan and 10hannine verses, tao, lead 10 the conclusion that their sirnilarity is best understood on the basis of independent redactional fonnulations. l ohn presenls the "you ... are" -construction in the question of the rnen standing by the fire with Peler, while Luke uses it in the statement of an unidentified man ("someone else" than the maid rnentioned in v. 56). It would be very artificial to assume that l ohn used as his source Lk or a special pre-Lucan tradition in such a complicated way as these differences requ ire us to presume:" Luke's and 10hn's descriplion of the Roman trial of lesus. hi s hearing and condemnation by Pilate in Lk 23: 1-25 and ln 18:28- 19: 16a have one di stinctive and important similarity.48 Both evangelists tell how three times Pilate expressed to the crowd hi s assurance that he "find s no crime" in le,u, (Lk 23:4, 14, 22 and ln 18:38; 19:4,6). Although Pilate', word, are in both accounts fonnulated in a simi lar manner, the contexts of their appearance are remarkably different. Luke foll owed Mk 15 :1-5 as his basic source for 23: 1-5, but he also added material of his own to the simple messianie quest ion and Jesus' answe r aU A.tyE1~. He has given a speeific content for the aeeusations presented by the l ewish leaders against l esus by IClling them present hirn to Pilate as a demagogue and rebel (23:2 and 5). In the light of thi s emphasis il is astoni shing that Pilate is convi need of Jesus' innocence. The descriplion is not exactly convincing: Pilate can draw his concl usion merely on the grounds of Jesus' brief and enigmatie answer to the mess ianic question and overlook lhe serious aecusati ons wilhout furth er questions. It is obvi ous that Luke wan ts to emphasize Pilate's statement about l esus' innoeence o f any crime against Rome. Although il is problemalic 10 assume that he uscd a wriuen souree bcsides Mk, one mu st ask whence Luke obtained Pilate's statement , wh ich he gees on to repeat twiee. The evangelist porlrays it as Pilale's concl usion of Herod's lreaunent of Jes us ('Iv. 6- 16) and as hi s answe r to the crowd's demand for Jesus' erueifixion and the release of Barabbas (v v. 17-22). Thi s th reefo ld ulterance plays a central role in Luke's prese ntation before the crowd's vielory (v. 23) and l es us' final conde mn alion (vv. 24 -25). It is qui te possible that Luke invented the scheme him self and used his traditional materia l and his own narra tive ideas to elaborate Pilate's statement s. 49 But the threefold utteranee can also be explained as a theme 41 See also Myllykoski. 1991a: 69·71. 48 For lhe fullii sl of agreements. also unimportant ones. see Bailey. 1963: 64-65. 49 Bailey. 1963: 70.

I33

Mtuu Myllykoslci

of oral tradition which was created to underline Pilate's definite reaction to accusations against Jesus. There are no compelling arguments for this assumption but the mechanical repetition of a fixed, threefold scheme, which appears in Lk in contexts which are problematic from the point of view of the narrative, suppons it.50 John lets lhe first statement of Pilate (l8:36b) come after a redactional dialogue in which Jesus teils Pilate that his kingdom is "not of this world" (vv. 33-38a). The second follow s not after the Barabbas episode as in Lk, but after Pilate has scourged Jesus . He assures the "Jews" of Jesus' innocence by preseming hirn in front of lhem as a harmless and powerless man (19:4). His third statement of Jesus' innocence follows immediately after the "Jews'" reaclion to this (v. 6). At least these lauer instances make iI obvious that John follows a similar threefold scheme to thaI of Luke. The scheme does not belong to his source, but is pan of the redactional materiaPI The possibility that he knew it from Lk52 cannot be excluded, but the strong mutual independence of their vers ions make this assumption anificial rather than convincing. There is also a similarity between Lk 23: 18 and Jn 18:40. They both let the crowd - and not Pilate - bring up the case of Barabbas and demand to release hirn . Luke and John, however, used quite different redactional techniques that lead Ihem to this simi larity, which is easy to explain in redactional terms. Luke has ahered the preseotatioo of Mark, but also the curiously brief reference 10 Barabbas in Jo 18:40 makes it plausible thai this popular rebel was inlroduced more conspicuously in the traditi onal narrative that John used. 11 is obvious thai both Luke and John pu shed the prcscntalion of Barabbas to one side in order to present Jesus' trial in a more nowing manner and without unnecessary inlcrruplions.53

50 Gran! (1937: 299) is aware of the problems of the thrcefold schemc in the Lucan rcdaction. However, he inclines to the complicatc:d and unconvincing conclusion that the founh evangelist "was familiar wilh Luke's special traditio n, or with the (pcrhaps still oral) trndilion which lay behind it" and thai "the !Cxt o f Luke has been rcvised under the influence ofthe namuive in John". 51 See Myllykoski, 1991b. Cr. Borgen. 1958/59: 255 : ·"1be agreements can be en tirely understood as a common lendency 10 stress the innocence of Jesus and Ihe guih of Ihe Jews. " 52 So Baile)', 1963: 70-71. 53 John musl have shonened the account ofhis source, as Borgen (1958/59: 255); Becker (1984: 570-571) and othe~ rightly assumc. Luke also utilius here the Marcan account as his source; see Schneider, 1988: 120. Taylor (1972: 88-89) draws quite another conclusion: "Luke·s modification oe Mark or of his special source are equally plssiblc. and thc agreement of Luke with John makes the use of a non-Marcan source the more probable alternative."

134

The Material Common 10 Luke and lohn

The Burial The Lucan and Johannine accounts of Jesus' bunal contain an interesting minor agreement againsl Mk. and Mt. 80th evangelisls tell their readers that Jesus was buned in a tomb "where no one had ever been laid". The exaCI wording of the express ions is, however, different : Lk 23:53b: 00 our f}v ovliEi~ oVJrw KtiJ1CvCX; Jn 18:41 b: tv '" oUöbw o!l&:i, ~v ",o.:,ptvO> AdditionaUy - unlike Mark and Matthew - both Luke and John mention immediately after this that it was the day of Preparation (Lk 23:54a/Jn 18:42a). In hi s version of Jesus' bunal (Lk 23:50-56) Luke also follows Mk . However, he does nOI wish to call Joseph of Arimathea merely "a respected member of the counci l" (Mk 15:43) which had just found Jesus guilty and delivered hirn inlo Pilate's hands. He adds thai Ihis pious man who buried Jesus "had nol consented to Iheir purpose and deed" (23:51). Luke al so omits the (unnecessary) cenlurion episode reported by Mark in 15:44A5. With vv . 54-56 he desires 10 remove some obvious difficulties in the Marcan account. He om its Ihc problematic women's names mentioned in Mk 15:40,47 and 16:1 and the buying of the spices and oint ments (cf. Mk 16: 1). For him the day of Preparation does not end before all Ihis has happened - as Mark presupposes in Mk 15:42 - bUI only after the women have prepared everything for their visit 10 the 10mb (v . 54 ); they can rest on the sabbath "according to the commandment" (v. 56). It is thus not convincing to assume that Luke has used a special passion narrative beside the Marcan account.s, nor in v. 53, whcre he expands his description with the short reference to the rock·hewn 10mb not having been used before. As many other details elsewhere in the Passion narratives show. the oral tradition tended 10 embellish Jesus' passion wilh this kind of detail in order 10 underline its unique character.S5 The Johannine account lacks the centurion episode, but il is important 10 see that nOI on ly Luke but Mallhew as weil omits it. John solves the problem conceming the end of the day of Preparation in quite a different way from Luke (Jn 19:31 -37). His description of the 10mb is indeed paral54 Grundmann ( 1984: 436) argues Ihat v. 50, 51a, 53b and 54-56derive fro m Lukc's special source. ss Cf. Taylor, 1972: 101 nnd Mnrshnll , 1978: 880.

135

Malti Myllykoski

lei to that of Luke. but it is important to see that it belongs together with the tradition about the garden mentioned in the same verse. This tradition is typically 10hannine. The literary-cri ti cal problems in 18: 1-2. 10, 26 and 20: 11 -15 - where Mary Magdalene firs t of all takes l esus for a gardener show that these gardens belonged to the specia l oral tradition of the 10hannine community. l ohn also used it here as an embe Ui shment of the traditional pass ion narrati ve and as motivation for his own thcology. ~6

rv. Parallel Pericopes in .Luke and lohn There are five or six non-Marcan parallel pc ricopes in Lk and l n. They are not aB equally important for the theme of thi s study; some of them show only a few common features. It is, however, convenient to deal with all cf them here.

Peter's Draught 01 Fish The common material of Lk 5:1-1 I/Jn 21:1-14 cannot reveal much of Lk's relalionship 10 the Gospel of l ohn, because the 10hannine pericope sterns from an ecelesiastical redaclor.S7 The evangelist hirnself could not have used Lk at this point. Luke and the ecclesiastical redactor of ln have obvious ly used a similar tradition about Peter's miracu lous draught of fish. Luke has fonned it into his story about Peter's ca lling, wh ile the pcst-lohanlline redactor has uti lized it for his accou nt cf Peter and the beloved d iscip le.58

The Nealing at Capernaum The story about the healing of the centurion's son ( Mt 8:5- 13) e r the slave (Lk 7: J -10) belongs 10 the latest stratum of Q. 11 is part of the scanty nar· rative material added to the saying orientated source. Thi s pericope has a more c r less elose parallel in ln 4:46-54. Ahhough the 10hannine account

'6 Myllykoski, 1991b. Schnackenburg (1976: 35 1); Becker (1984 : 603) and Hnenchen that v. 41 already belonged to the traditional passion narrative H .si

(1983 : 557) assume used by John. Barren (1978 : 560) hints at "the ugly collocation of sounds in bOlh gospels" and suggests that "John was dependent on luke". The express ions ure indeed awkward and strikingly si milar, bUI they can also be understood as signs of an idea that was doeply rooted in lhe oral tradition. See, ror example, Barret!, 1978: 576-577 und Becker, 1981 : 634-635 . Pesch, 1969: 113-125.

136

1ne Material Common to Luke and John

teil s of the hea ling o f a royal offi eial's son, it has lhree important agree· ments with the Lucan narrative absent from the Matthean version. 8 0lh Luke and John tell thai the influential man "heard" "about Jesus" (Lk 7:3 ) or that Jesus "had eome from Judea 10 Galilee" (Jn 4 :46 -47 ). Luke menlions lhat he sent elders to Jesus, and John teUs that he went hirnself to teU Jesus about the dangerous situation. They bolh , howe ver, teB how Jesus was asked to corne and heallhe siek boy. Aeeording to Lk 7:2 and Jn 4:47 the boy "was about to die", while Matthew describes hirn as "Iying paratysed in horne, in lerrible distress" (8:6). After these details that belong to the introductions 10 the stories, Luke and l ohn eontinue the ir narratives difrerently . Luke transmits the tradition that he ho lds in common with with MI , excepting vv . 4- 6. John for his part provides motivation for a renewed request by lhe offi ciaJ with an add itional, crit ical comment o f Jesus (vv. 48-49). After this, the man trusts in Jes us' words, accord ing 10 which his son will live (v. 50). John additionally prov ides motivation for the healing of the son and the fa ith of the offi eial's whole household with the exaet time of the healing, which the offieial 1earns after returning horne ( w . 5 1-5 3).

There are good reasons 10 assume that Mt 8: 5-1 3 (excluding vv. 11-1 2) is considerably cl oser to the Q pericope than is Lk 7: 1- 10. In the Luean version even the material that is lackin g in Mt belongs together thematiea ll y and ean be most easil y exp laincd as redactional e xpansions of the lext. The idea th at the centurion hears about Jesus and sends the elders 10 hirn to make the request (v. 3a) - instead of meeting hirn personally (Mt 8:5-7) - rnoti va les the e lders' persuasion of Jesus w ith Ihei r ex tremely positive testi mony about the cenluriol1 in vv. 4-5 as we il as the new setting fo r the trad it iona l dia logue between the eenturion's fri ends and Jesus (v . 6a). Thi s emolionall y loaded epi sode obv iously be longs logethe r wi th some other alterati ons to the original Q version that Matthe w followed mueh more closely. The eenturion who loves the Jewi sh people and has bu ilt a synagogue fo r them (v. 5) is not worried about hi s son - as in Mt and Q - but about hi s slave who was dear to hirn (v. 2). The elder's deep and urgent concern fo r the cen lurion's request also suits wellthe dramatic idea thai the slave was not paralysed - as in MI and Q - but about to die. It is hardl y convincing 10 assume that this kind of narrati ve motive woul d have deve loped in the Q eommunil ies, wh ich were greatly di sappo inted in thei r mission to the l ews, as their hard words of judgernent aga inst Israel show. 59 l esus' last words in lhe ori ginal pericope even have ~9

$chilnnann (1984 : 396); Grundmann (1984: 155); Marshall (1978: 277-278; hesitanlly) and Wiefel (1988: 141- 142) consider vv. 3-5 as a pan of Q. Grundmann and Wiefel suppose Ihal Luke used an ediled version of Q.

137

Matti Myllykoski

this emphasis (MI 8: 10): "Truly I say 10 you. with no one in Israel have I found such faith ." On the othe r hand. the additions are very easy to ex· plain as redactional extensions of Luke. who wanted to relate the people's hopes with regard 10 Jesus as weil as describe an ideal Gentile believer in the person of the centurion· as in the case of Comelius in Acts 10.60 80th of these motives were naturaUy subordinated 10 the presentation of Jesus' marvellous words and deeds. Thu s a1l three similarities in Lk 7: 1·10 and Jn 4:46·54 mentioned above belong in the Lucan version only to the last redactional phase of the text. The ori ginal form of the Johannine account is not simple to reeon· struct; the foll owing analysis points out the most irnportant problems of the lext and offers one possible solution. Because Jesus' return from Jerusalem to Galilee is a redactional motif of John. v. 46a and al least apart of v. 47a stern from hirn.6 1 The redae· tional use of the village of Cana. whieh the reader of the Gospel al ready knows, motivales the subsequen l actions. It is not al all sure whelher the motif of hearing about Jesus in v. 47a belongs to the addition ; that the of· ficial wen! to Jesus might have been motivated by such a reference already in the traditional account. which contained at least an original form of vv. 46b and 47b.61 But v. 48 provides a further difficulty : it emphasizes the problem of unconditional faith . wh ich was hardly mentioned in the tradi· tional narrative but was of the ulmost importance to John. The repetition of the official's request in v. 49 belongs logether with il and fonns apart of the redactional insertion.63 Vv . 50a and 51 are essential for the pl ol of the original account and must be Irad itional, either in Ihi s or in another fonn, but the emphasis of tbe afficials faith in v. SOb seerns to bc an addi· lion by the evangelist.6A Vv. 52·53a interrupt tbe dramatic plot. Instead of praising God or being amazed by the miraculous healing. the official speculales as to thc time of the evenl in order to find ou t whether it really wa s Jesus' ward thai healed his son. The verses fonn a somewhat cJumsy redactional addi tion 60 Simi1ar arguments are provided by Fitzmyer, 1981 : 649; Schmithals. 1980: 91-92 and Schnider and Stenger, 1971 : 61 ·63. According to Schweizer ( 1982: 87) Luke created vv. 3-63 flOm oral tradition or fonned them as an assimilation to Acts 10:2.5.22. 61 With Bultmann. 1978: 151 ; Schnider and Stenger. 1971 : 66-68; Dauer, 1984: 51 53.55-56 and others. Becker (1979: 185· 186) sees in v. 46 a pan of the itinerary o f

SQ. 62 Dauer (1984: 55-56) assurnes on lingui stic grounds that the motif of hearing is Johannine. 61 So most commentators. see e.g. Schnider and Stenger. 1971 : 69: Becker, 1979: 186 and Dauer, 1984: 59-63. 6-4 For the redactional c.haracter of v. 50b see Schnider and Ste nger, 1971 : 70 and Daue r. 1984: 65-66.

138

The Material Common to Luke and John

umderlining the miraculous effect of Jesus' word in v. 50. The timing of thte healing takes into account the redactional motif of the official's journey from Cana to Capemaum and speaks for the Johannine character of vw. 52-53a. Many scholm, however, find a strong tension between v. 48 aßld 51-53, and therefore assume that the latter verses are traditional. 65 BUlt the contradiction is only apparent: the point of vv. 52-53a is not at a1l th:at the official needs proof to enable him to believe but that as a firm believer he in addition leams the immediate, divine effect of Jesus' word. Vv. 52-53a thus form a christologica11y oriented addition: Jesus has perf()nned indisputable miraculous deeds, which over and over aga in confirm his claims 10 be Ihe Son of God (cf. e.g. 10:37-38; 20:29. 30-31). There is tension between the referenee to the official's and his household's faith in v. 53b and v. 50, which presupposes that the official had al ready put his trust in Jesus' word. There is thus no doubt that v. 53b belongs to the traditional account. lf this analysis is correct, the lraditional material thal John used can be seen only in vv. 46b, 47a*(?)b, 50a, 51, 53b. These verses, however, da no t form a convincing plot; the text is void of dramatic elements. It is conceivable that John moulded a traditional account that was based on the motif of healing at a distance. It is possible thai the original account was similar LO the one we find in Q, because its emphasis must have laid on the encounter with Jesus and nOI on the act of heal ing and its consequences. It is possible that the mOlifs held in conunon with the Lucan account are a11 redactional . although v. 47 may have originally contained a11 these elements. That the official's son was about to die might be a redaetional molir that underlines the wondrous nature of Jesus' power over sickness and death. but there is nothing especially redaclional in the use of the expressions "he hcard" and "he went and begged". Is this enough to draw the conclusion that John uscd Lk as his source166 This solution is theorctically possible. but highly unconvincing. The idea of hearing about Jesus , the reque st thai he might corne and heal, and the mortal danger in wh ich the siek person lies do not belong to the actual redactional ideas of Luke and John. All these ideas can be quite naturally auribuled to resources in the oral tradition and the redacti on of the Gospels. Both the story-tellers and the Evangelists tended to dramatize the miracle stories with this kind of detail. The differences between the ac" Bultmann. 1978: 153- 154: Becker, 1979: 187- 188; Dauer. 1984: 66-71 and others. Lindars (1972 : 2(4) considers vv. 51 -53 as John's addition but assumes that they derive from another source. 66 Barren (1978 : 246) supposes that John knew Lk 7: 1·10 and used it as one o f his sources . 10 LU KE·A(TS

139

Maltl Myllykoslci

counts of Luke and John at their dec isive points speak against the assumplion of a e10se literary relationship between them . Tbe possibility cannot be totaUy exel uded that John memorized some details from Mt and Lk , but this kind of theory is not very convincing when narrative details rather than larger issues - are discussed.

Jesw' Al10iming

In spite of the countless basic differences between Lk 7:36-50 and Jn 12: I11, they contaln Olle strikingly similar feature: the woman who was a sinner CLk) and Mary (Jn) both anoint Jesus' feet and wipe them with their halr CLk 7:38/Jn 12:3). One must, howeve r, see the obvious differences between the accounts even in thi s similar verse: in Lk the repentant woman first wets Jesus' feet with her tears and only then with the alabaster ointment, while John leHs merely of Mary's anointing them with lhe costly oinbTlent. In the Lucan account Jesus is invited by one of the Pharisees 10 eat with him . A woman who is known as a sinner leams about this and enters the house of the Pharisee. She goes to Jesus while he is at table. Weeping, she begins to wet his feet with her tears IOd wipes them with her hair. At last she kisses them and anoints them with the ointment. The point of the account lies e1early in the repentance of the woman and her love for Jesus. The molif of anointing is s uperfluous because her other actions fonn a comprehensible whole, and curious because neither the narrator nor his characters pay any auenlion to the costly ointment. Funher, the anoißling does not fit in with the sponlaneous act of repentance. In V . 46 Jesus compares tbe Pharisee's hospitality 10 the love thaI the sinful woman showed him and sees the anoinling merely in the ligh t of this attitude, not as a special let. The motif of anointing has been inse ned into the account, but obviously already prio r 10 Luke, who does not pay any atten ti on 10 it. 67 Instead he wishes to emphasize thaI Jesus forgave the woman's sins (vv. 48-50)." . John obviously knew the pre-Lucan story and added Ibis specific aspect from it 10 his narrative about anointing in Bethany. Ln Jn 12:3 it is strange and incomprehensible that Mary anoints Jesus' feet aod wipes thern with 67 Similarly MarshalI, 1978: 306: Schneider. 1977a: 176; Schweizer, 1982: 91 and Dauer, 1984: 201 -203. Dauer also gives a fuller list of the adherenlS ofthis theory (and othc:r hypotheses; p. 169-201). U With Buhmann, 1979: 19; Schweizer, 1982 : 91 ; Ernst. 1977: 255: WiefeI. 1988: 154 and othen.

140

The Material Common 10 Luke and lohn

h er hair , instead of using a linen cloth. There is also a reason why lohn substituted the original aet of anointing described by his main source, which was similar to the pre-Marcan account (cf. Mk. 14 :3). He wanted to emphas ize Mary's thankfulness to lesus for raising her brother Lazarus from the dead, and the highly emotional description of the pre-Lucan account suited his purposes very weU .69 It is natural that he omits the tears and the ki ss which can only hint at the repentance of the sinful woman . lohn does not teU of the extremely humble anoinling just for Mary's sake; he also uses the raising of Lazarus elsewhere in this conlext (11 :45-47; 12:9-11, 17-19) (0 stress the majesty of lesus, the Son of God. It is again unnecessary (0 assume that lohn used U .10 Ir is a possibility that cannot be totaUy excluded; in the case of one single detail it is, however, much easier to assurne the use of a traditionsl pericope than of the Gospel text.

"'/ You Are the Christ, Tell Us" In his own report Luke used the Marcan account of the noctumal trial of lesus (MX 14:55-65) only in part. He altered the time of lhe hearing and placed it on the following moming. He also changed its character as a trial by omiuing the witnesses, the evaluation of their testimonies, and the condelTUlation of lesus as a blasphemer (cf. Mk 14:55 -61a, 638, 64-). Traces of these elements may still be seen in U 22:71, which hinlS both al witnesses and the condemnation. In vv . 69-70 Luke uses MX 14:6Ib-62. but vv . 67 -68 are based on non -Marcan materiaJ.11 The dialogue created through these verses takes place between lesus and the members of the Sanhedrin and not between Jesu s and the high priest. as in MX. 'The tradition behind vv . 67-68 contains a dialogue between Jesus and some Jewish leaders . lohn transmits a strikingly similar dialogue in 10:24b-25. where he lets the "lews" pose the question . The parallelism of these passages is obvious: 69 For a closer examination, see Myllykoski, 1991 a: 187-189. 70 Depende nce on the Lucan account is assumed, for example, by BaHey, 1963: 2-3; Williams, 1967: 311 and Barrett, 1978: 46,409. For funher literature, see Dauer, 1984: 132-140. 71 Soards. 1987: 103· 103 and Schneider, 1988: 114-115. v. 68 is obviously Lucan, because it ~fers back to 20:1-8. Soards (p. 78·79) also points OUt that Luke's and 10hn's shared silence with regard 10 severa1 aspects of the Marcan mal scene do not convincingly support the assumption thai there existed a sourte common 10 Luke and lohn. Winter (1954: 163), for his pan, considered v. 66-71 as "a post·editorial insertion intO the work of the evangelist".

141

Mato Myllykoslci

Lk 22:67-68

Jn IO:24b-25a

ci oU d 0 xplCn~ Ei1tOV ~IJiv. d1tev &: ati-roi~" Mv wiv Ei1tCtl,

ei aU 0 XPIU-r&;. EiJtt ~IJiv 1tappl1ui~ Wu:KpiO" auroir; 0' l"uotH;· elJrov vIJiv Kai 1ttuu:Ue1l:.

ou

IJ1) 1tlU~l11l:' Mv /iI; tpomjC1ru, IJ1) WrOKPI8rT1l:.

er

ou

ou

John uses dtis tradition in order to let Jesus and the "Jews" continue their debate in terms of hi s own theology (vv. 25b, 30). He also modifies Jesus' words in v. 25a ioto a form suitable for the plot of his Gospel: Jesus has already "lold" thai he is the Christ and the "Jews" "do not believe". It is poss ible that the expression 1tapp"ai(jl also sterns frorn John , who wishes 10 stress that the Jewish leaders are rnerely looking for a cause to stone Jesus (v. 3 1). On the other hand , they cannot reaHy understand what Jesus has been saying during hi s whole public rnini slry because they do not want to believe hirn . Wherever John found the itern of trad it ion in vv. 24b-25a, he uses it as a starting-point - once again - for a debate conceming Jesus' true identity.72 The Lucan version is el oser to the ori ginal tradition whi ch John may also have used as hi s source. However, Luke hardly took vv. 67-68 from a tradit ion about Jesus' trial. 73 He had already himse lf obscured the tri al character of the Marcan description, which he, however, wishes to use as his basic source. But it is also cJear that vv . 67-68 refe r to a pronouncement story rather than to a tri al scene. Tbe same al so ho lds for the tradition behind Jn 10:24b-25a; it is not conv incing to assume thai l ohn wou ld have taken il from a traditional trial scene, which he had replaced with the hearing episode 18: 19-24.14 It is conce ivable thai Luke and John used a similar tradition each in hi s o wn way. John's use of Lk cannot be excJ ud ed, but it may onee again be eonsidered an unnecessary hypothes is.

12 See a150 Becker, 1979: 337-338. 1) This is suggested, ror example, by Taylor ( 1972: 80-84) and Schweizer (1982: 224226) who think that Luke used a no n· Marcan source. Fitzmyer ( 1985: 1458) assumes that VV . 66-68 and maybe also w. 69-7 1 come from a special traditio n; cf. also Klein, 1976: 166. 74 Thus e.g. Kotila, 1988: 123; cf. also Barren, 1978: 380.

142

The Material Common tO Luke and John

•

The Empty Tomb and l esus' Appearance 10 Ehe Disciples

The two pericopes in the resurreclion narratives - Lk 24: 12/Jn 20:3-10 and Lk 24:36-43/1n 20: 19-23 - are remarkably closer to each other than the paralle is treated above . Lk 24: 12 is missing from some manu scripts (0 it), and it has surprisingly oflen been regarded as a secondary addition to the text. 75 It can al so be easily removed from its context without damagi ng the plot. In spile of these problems, it is not convincing to assume that Ihis verse is a gloss. Paryrus 75, which includes it, has strengthened the case for ilS authenticity in the Lucan text. 76 Moreover, the verse has a clear literary relation 10 Luke's desc ription of the events around the tomb in v. 24. The two disciples who meet Jesus on the way 10 Emmaus say there that "some of those" who were with them "went to the 10mb". V. 12 mentions only Peter, and some scholars have therefore assumed thaI Luke poin ts in v. 24 10 the tradition that stands behind Jn 20:3- 10, which also talks aboul "the other disc iple",1 1 Against this hypothesis one must ask why Luke did not prese rve this text bUI mere ly teils about Peter, thu s crealing a clash wilh v. 24. It is easiest 10 assurne that Luke knew v. 12 as apart of resurreclion traditions and used it as the starting point for his redactiona l idea thaI other male disciples too went 10 the tomb and found it empty. In v. 22 he lets the IwO tell of "some women" in their company who "were at the tomb earl y in the moming" and poinls here 10 the unnamed wornen whom he made visit the tomb instead of "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James. and Salome" who are menlioned by Mark (16: I). In v. 24 Luke wi shes 10 create a parallel for thi s redactional idea and poinls vaguely 10 a large r group of men who were also at tbe tomb. This is not aJl . In Jn 20:3-10 the other disciple makes a strikingly arti ficial impression. He is presenled as a superior wi lness who must reach the tomb first and so have the opportunity of seeing it before Peter. After Peter has seen alt , the other disciple comes and not only sees but - unlike Peter - also believes. As in Jn 18:15-18 he was added 10 an account thai 15 This text-critical view was once quite common ; see e.g . Wellhausc: n, 1904: 137; Klostennann. 1926: 233: G rant. 1937 : 300-301 and Winter. 1954: 167. Cf. also Smith 1984: 152- 153. 16 Aland ( 1965/66: 205-206) and after him most modem commentators: Schneider, 1977b: 494; MarshalI, 1978: 888; Wiefel. 1988: 404 and others. Neirynck. (1977: 98103: 1984: 172-175) and Schmithais (1980: 212) accept v. 12 in the Lucan text but consider il a redactiona1 addition. 17 Schniewind. 1958: 88; Grant. 1937: 301 ("clear1y a harmonistic echo o f Jo hn 20"); Bailey . 1963: 91 ; Lindars, 1972: 596-597: Schnackenburg. 1976: 364 ("wenigstens eine schwache Spur"); Becker, 1981 : 609-610 and others. Against th is assumption argues especia1ly Neirynck. 1984: 172- 174. who is rollowed by Zeller, 1988: 148.

143

Matti Myllykoski

had originally told only about Peter, in comparison ( 0 wbom be was considered a special and superior witness. 78 The redac(or did not, bowever, wish to split the original traditions and was content to add him somewhat clumsily to their plot. In tbc case of 20:3-10 this has the effect thaI the other disciple must in v. 4 move curiously back and fonh at the door of the 10mb. The addition of this figure hardly sterns from the evangelist himself79, who handJes the question of faith in a remarkably different way in 20:19-28. There the other disciple who already believed does not play any role at all. It is much easier to assume that an ecclesiastical redactor has added hirn to 20:3-10.80 When he is removed from the scene, a tradition strikingly similar to Lk 24:12 remains.8 1 ll1e similarity of Lk 24:36-43 and ln 20: 19-23 is also obvious. One can hardly avoid the conclusion that either lohn knew the Lucan pericope and used it as his source or that both evangelists used a common tradition . Soth vers ions of lesus' appearance to his disciples contain sorne striking literary peculiarities. In Lk 24:36 the connection with the Emmaus pericope ("as they were saying this") is clearly redactional. The spontaneous and frightened reaction of the disciples in v. 37 reveals that the tradition behind v. 36-43 did not presuppose any other account of lesus' appearance to his disciples . It presumably began with a phrase which is still discernible behind the phrase in v. 33: "When the eleven/the twelve were gathered together ... "82 The ending of the gospel in v. 44-52 can be regarded as a Lucan construction. 1l lesus' appearance 10 his disciples in w. 36-43 may thus be considered a traditional unit. It contains. however, two text-critica l problems. The salutation of peace in v. 36b is omitted by D it. Although the textual evidence for this reading is meagre. many scholars think that it is original. 18 For Jn 18: 15- 16, see Myllykoski, 1991 a: 105- 106. Cf. also Neirynck, 1975: 136-140. 79 Thus suppose, for example. Buhmann. 1978: 528; Schnackenburg, 1976: 364-365 and ZelJer, 1988: 154-155. 80 Wilh Becker, 1981: fI:fl. See also Myllykoski, 1991b. 81 Neirynck 0984: 175-177) who attributes lhe insertion of lhe other disciple 10 John und Lk 24: 12 to Ihe Lucan redaclion, uses (his result as evidence for the theory thaI John usecl Lk as his source. 82 For the assumption that Luke look lhe reference to lhe eleven (24:9,33) from his resurrection traditions. see below p. 15 J. 8) Buhmann, 1979: 310; Finegan, 1934: 9 1; Schubert, 1954: 176-177; Bailey, 1963: 90 (n. 2); Wanke, 1973: 117, 121-122 and olhers; for the Iinguistic evidence cf. Jeremias. 1980: 321-323. Dauer 1984: 282-283 assumes that the uaditional narrative (v. 36-43·) ended wilh a missionary command in v. 47; this presupposes, however, a notably clumsy and unmolivaled transition from v. 43. Winter (1954: 169- 170); Gcorge (1969: 100); Taylor (1972: 114) and Marshali (1978: 904; wilh reference 10 MI 28: 16-20 and Jn 20:21 -23) suppose Ihal the tradition behind w. 44-49 was even more extensive.

144

The Material Common 10 Luke and John

because v. 36b seems to be a supplement from Jn 20: 19b. 14 There is, howeve r, a good reason for the omission of the salutation of peace. It was removed in D because il seemed to contradicl the fri ghlened reacti on of the disciples that is an essential part of the account.8$ There is a similar problem with v. 40, which is mi ssing from 0 it sys.c. Some scholars have argued that this verse has bce n added from Jn 20:20a. 86 In spite of the l ohannine parallel, it is in thi s case, 100, reasonable to assurne that the verse was delibe ratel y omitted, because it onl y offers a clumsy concretization of v. 39. 81 As it stands, the pericope clearly lransmi lS one strong basic idea: as the risen Lord, 100, Jesus has a real physical body. Thi s idea dominates the whole account. M OSI scho lars take it fo r gran ted that vv. 36-43 fonn in spite of some Lucan expressions a traditional whoJe, which has merely been slightly edited by the third evangelist. U There are , however, same general signs that cast a shadow of doubl over Ih is assumplion. For the first apppearance of Jesus 10 hi s di sciples the pericope lacks freshness and spontaneit y; it foc uses not on the identifi cation of Jesus but on demonstration of the special character of his resurrection body. Correspondingly , the reaction of the disc iples remai ns obscure, and the account ends abruptly with v. 43. Limiling the pericope to vv. 36-40, as has been sugges led by some scholars 89 , offe rs an cqu ally clumsy and unbclievabJe ending. The clumsiness of v. 40 that has been noled above also hints in the direction thai vv. 36-43 fonn a slrongly edited text that was created on the basis of another kind of appearance tradi lion. The salutation of peace in v. 36b and the d isciples' reaclion in v. 37a clearly belonged 10 thc tradition thai Luke used because they prepare the aClual message of the scene. The frig hlened reaction of the disciples is quite understandable because they have not yet identified Jesus. The reason given in v. 37b is specific and points 10 the further development of 14 E.g. Schniewind, 1958: 91 ; Grant, 1937: 301 ; Grundmann, 1984: 450·451 ; Bailey, 86 (n. 2); Schnacken burg, 1976: 383 (n. 73) and Taylor, 1972: 113 (n. 2). Cf. Smith . 1984: 153· 154. IS The authenticity ofv. 36 is defended by Aland, 1965/66: 206-208; Wanke, 1973: 79; Schneider, 1977b: 501 ; Schweizer, 1982: 242; Jeremias. 1980: 320 (n. 14); Wiefe1, 1988: 413; Dauer, 1984 : 212-2 14 and others. 1 6 E.g. Schniewind, 1958: 91; Finegan, 1934: 91 ; Gram, 1937 : 301; Grundmann, 1984 : 451 ; Bailey, 1963: 86 (n . 2); Taylor, 1972: 113 (n. 2). Cf. Smith, 1984: 153- 154. n Thus also Aland, 1965166: 206-208; Wanke. 1973: 79; Schneider, 1977b: 50 1; Jeremias. 1980: 321 (n. 18); Schweizer, 1982: 242; Dauer. 1984: 214·216 andothen. BI See. for example, Schuben, 1954: 172 Ca complete, fai rly popular and fai rly late tra dition"); George, 1969: 96; Wanke, 1973: 117; Schneider, 1977b: 501; MarshalI , 1978: 901 ; Schmithals, 1980: 236 and Dauer, 1984: 262·263. B9 For the discussion, see the survey of Dauer. 1984: 270-271.

145

Matti Myllykoski

the plot. Although Luke seems to have fonnulated the whole verse,90 the disciples' reaction in v. 37 has a traditional kernet. Jesus' reaction in v. 38 contains two motifs that hardly belonged together in the traditional account. Jesus asks a double question: firsl. why the di sciples are frighten ed (v. 38a) and then, why "quest ions rise" in their hearts (v . 38b). In v. 37 the disciples' fri ghtencd reaction was motivated by their assumption that they had seen a ghosl. 1I may bc interpreted as the traditional motivation for both questions that Jesus poses. but it is too real and whole-hearted 10 have had any original connection with the doubt dealt with by Je sus in v. 38b. It is also strange that only the latter theme is dealt with in the rest of the account. Jesus says that he shows his hands and his feet, not only so that the disciples could identify hirn (v. 39a), but especially in order to show that he is not a ghost (v. 39b). After Jesus' wo rds v. 40, wh ich te Us how Jesus showed his hands and his feet, foll ows c1um sily. This obse rvation al so speak s for the theory that the theme of doubt fonn s a redactional addition 10 the original appearance traditi on. When il is removed. one is able to work out a coherent and well -motivated account: Jesus appears and salutes his disc iples (v. 36*) who become "startled and frighlened" (v. 37a). Jes us ca lms Ihem and shows them hi s hands and his feet (v. 40).91 The rest of the Lucan account is correspondingly prob lematical. The mOlif of do ubt is also prominent Ihere, but one ca n still see the natural ending of the origina l scene. It is a very curious thought that the di sciples "still disbelieved for joy" (v. 4 1a). because the joy quite natu rally pres up· poses thaI (hey had already ident ified the ir Lord . !-Io w could Ihey doubt any more? The traditi on behind v. 41 quite simply told of the di sc iples' joy as their spontaneous reacli on upon identifying Jesus; v. 40 was quite naturall y fo llowed by v. 41 a*.92 Luke , who added the moti f of do ubt illto the account , tried to combi ne the joy and the doubt wilh the mOlif of "wondering", wh ich he mentions as part of the di sciples' reaction in v. 41. In the rest of the narrative there are no furth er signs of the traditional account. In v. 41b Luke provi des furth er proof of Jesus' bodily resurrection: Jesus eats a piece of broiled fi sh in front of hi s disciples (v. 42·43).

90 Jeremias. 1980 : 320 and Dauer. 1984 : 262-263. 9 1 Da uer, 1984: 266-270 considers - agains t Jeremias. 1980: 321 • even v. 40 and nOi v. 39 as Lucan. 91 The nlQtifof jay is often considered a Lucan addition; see Finegan. 1934: 91 ; Bai1ey. 1963 : 93 (n. 3); Wanke. 1973: 36: Sc hmithais, 1980: 236: Gnmdmann. 1984 : 451 : Dauer, 1984 : 272: cf. Klostermann. 1926: 24 1 and Marshall . 1978: 902-903. Schweizer. 1982: 242. on the contrary. emphasizes that (he description of fear 3.nd disbelief shows the Lucan style; cf. also Jeremias. 1980: 321 .

146

1lle Material Common to Luke and John

The idea of "seeing" and "handling" Jesu s' body and the meal motif have their place in other resurreclion traditions as weil: the forme r idea stands behiod Jo 20:24-29, and the latter is present in Lk 24:28-31 and Jn 2 1:9-13. It is plau sible that Luke knew these basic ideas from oral tradition and used them in a way that was suitable for hi s purposes. It is not necessary 10 assurne that he fought again st a particular docetic christology . But he ce rtainly wanled to asse rt 10 hi s readers that the ri sen Lord had as real a phys ical body as had the earthly Jesus. He empha sizes thi s al so in Peter's se nnon in Acts 10:39-41 , and the wording of Acts 1:3 points in the same direcLion: "To them he prese nted himse lf alive after hi s passion by many proojs, appearing (0 them du ring forty days ... ". The meal motif is espec ially important because it underlines the continuity of the fell owship in Luke- Acts (Acts 2:43-47). Luke is al so notably interested in the manner in which Jesus can (appear and) vanish in spite of the physical concreteness of his resu rrection body (Lk 24:28-31; 24:51 and Acts 1:9-

Il ; er. also Am 7:55-56).

As the extension o f the appearance account to form the end of hi s gospel Luke lets Jesus explain to his disciples everything that he hirnself had told Ihem earlier and how all Ihis fulfil s what is wrinen about hirn "in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms" (v. 44). After this he moves on to prepare the disc iples for the ir future task and exhort s them to slay in Jerusalem unt il they "are clothed with power from on high" (vv. 45-49). Accord ing to Luke Jesus hirnse lf does not give the Sp irit 10 his disc iples. It is , howeve r, improbable that the tradition he used in vv . 3643 woul d have ended merely with a reference to the disc iples' joy. Because Luke ends hi s Gospel with a redactional line of thought. it is best tO look for the end ing o f the account in the parallel tex t JI1 20: 19-23. John begins his account in 20: 19 with the same situ ati on as Luke. The d iscip les are galhered tagether. Jesus comes 10 lhem and says: "Peace be with you. " In the midst of these verses there iso however, a parenthetic reference: "... the doors bei ng shut whe re the di sciples we re, fo r fear of the Jews ... " John habitu all y calls the Je wish leade rs quite simply "the l ews" (e.g. 18: 12, 14,3 1,36,38; 19:7, 12, 14,20,2 1,3 1,38), . nd it is .t least obvious that the expl anation for the closed doors derives from him .93 V. 20a makes an unmotivated impression. It is not clear why Jesus shows hi s hands and hi s side to the d isciples. The half verse iso howeve r, lradi lional, because it belongs together with the disc iples' reaction in v. 20b.94 93 Wilh Barren, 1978: 568 and Lindars. 1972: 572. According to Schnackenburg ( 1976: 382): Becker (1981 : 622) and Dauer ( 1984: 221 -222) the motir is traditional. 94 Hanmann (1964: 210) regards v. 203 asa redaClional addition.

147

Matti Myllykoski

Although Jesus repeats his salutation of peace in v. 21 a, v. 20 causes difficu lties if considered a gloss,9S because it is hard to see any reason why someone would have made such an abrupt addition between v. 19 and 21. It is more plausible to assurne thaI sornething has been dropped out between v. 19 and 20, namely the disciples' reaction to Jesus' salutation, which seerns to have motivated his further action in v. 20. The disciples' joy hardly presupposes that they di sbelieved or doubted what they saw. It is aga in plausible to assurne that the traditional account included a similar motif that is original in the Lucan account. Whatever it was in concrete terms, in v. 20 the disciples identify Jesus ;md rejoice at seeing hirn. John has obviously excluded their first reaction in order to let Jesus uner hi s message in v. 21-23 in a sovereign way and without unnecessary interruption. In 'I. 20 only the mention of Jesus' side derives from rum (cf. Jn 19:34).96

l ohn treats the motif of doubt in vv. 24-29, where he lets Thomas play the role of a disbelieving disciple. It is not a coinc idence that he chooses precisely hirn for this scene, as can be seen from Thomas' appearance as a negative example in an earlier episode (1 1:16; cf. also 14:6). The pericope in vv. 24-29 is tOlaUy dependent on vv. 19-23: v. 25 is formed on the basis of v. 20 and v. 26 in accordance with v. 19. The end of the account is throughly Johannine, and many scholars consider the whole passage as the creation of the evangelist. 91 The repetition of the salutation of peace in v. 2la is redactional and indicates thai John added at least something to w. 2 Ib·23. The new intro· duction in v. 22a shows further that either v. 21b or VV. 22-23 is secondary. It is obvious that John wishes 10 emphasize Jesus' message in all these verses. If oße considers them merely from a litcrary-crit ical point of view, v. 21b is more likely to be an addition. This half-verse dominates. the wholc saying of Jesus and seeks 10 dcfine how VV. 22-23 shou ld be understood . Correspondingly, without vv. 22-23 v. 21 hangs in the balance; therefore vv. 22-23 can hardly be considered redaClional and v. 21 alone traditional. Nor is it convincing to combine v. 21 and 23 in order 10 drop v. 22 from the traditional account, because v. 21 presupposes an aCI of sending.98 Redaction-critical arguments also support the conclusion thaI v.

9S Thus Wellhausen. 1908: 94 and Haenchen. 1983: 572. 96 Finegan, 1934: 95; Bu1(mann, 1978: 535 (n. 8) and Hanmann, 1964: 212-2 13. 91 Finegan, 1934: 95; Brown, 1970: 1031; Schnackenburg, 1976: 390-39 1; Becker, 1981 : 627-628; Dauer, 1984: 248-259 and others. 98 According 10 Brown ( 1970: 1031) (he sayings in v. 21 and 23 come from pre· 10hannine tradition, and v. 22 is the evangelist's addition.

148

'The MaleriaJ Common 10 Luke and l ohn

21 is totally secondary.99 The second half of the verse presupposes the Johann ine christo logy of sending: Jes us sends his di sciples just as his Father has sent hirn. John does not conceive this in term s of the "breathing" of the Spirit on the disciples and the authorization that follows it in vv. 22·23, but in tenns of the elose relationship which the Father has with the Son and the Son has with his own disciples. In this way he earlier on allowed Jesus to speak aoout the Spirit whom the disciples are about to receive (14:16·31).100 On these grounds it is convincing to assurne that vv. 22-23 coneluded the appearance account. If we now compare the pre·Lucan and pre· Johannine traditions reconstructed above, one may see that they once had a similar fonn and conlent: ln 20

Lk 24

36.*=33b* 36b 37. 40 41*

-

The disciples are gathered together Jesus stands in their midsl and says to them: "Peace be with you." The disciples' reaction Jesus shows his hands and his feet The disciples rejoice Jesus gives them the Spirit and authorizes them to forgive and retain sins

19a 19c

20a 20b 22-23

This reconstruction presupposes that Luke knew the tradition about the breathing of the Spirit in Jn 20:22-23. He substituted for it another tradition that he hints at in Lk 24:49, but uses this first in ACls 2. If the theory presented here is on the right lines, it is naturally elea r that th is tradition has been adapled much better for Luke's thco logically motivated presen· talion than the appearance tradition recon strucled above. Peter's visit to the tomb (Lk 24:12 and a similar tradition behind Jn 20:2- 10) and Jesus' appearance 10 hi s disciples (as reconstructed above) both belong 10 the resurrecti on traditions common to Luke and lohn. If the analysis in this aniele is correCl, these accounts already belonged to· gelher in thcir traditional forms . Peter's visit to the tomb hardly formed an independent tradition; as such it would give a far too enigmati c impression, because it does not tell what happened to Jesus' body. It presup99 Thus aJso Finegan, 1934: 95; Schu1z, 1983: 245; Drown , 1970: 1022 ("probably"); Schnackenburg, 1976: 38 ) -382; Decker. 198 ): 623 and Dauer, 1984: 233-237 . HXlS ee Schnackenburg, 1976: 384-385 and Decker, 1981: 623·624.

149

-

Matti MyJlykoski

poses the appearance story which only bears witness to his resurrecli on. On the other hand , it presupposes a description of some earlier events al the tomb. The brief tradition itse lf provides no motivation for Pete r's visi l, which quite natu rally raises the question whal made hirn go to the tomb. The only possible an swer is the one given by boLh John and Luke: Mary Magdalene (or a larger group of women) lold hirn that the 10mb was empty. John has obviously also followed his passion sourci in Jn 20, but Luke has drawn upon Mk in hi s presentation, up to the account of the empty tomb. Mk 16 : 1-8 is oft en regarded as Luke's only source in 24: 1- 12 , whose independent elements are pu rely redaclional ideas on the part of the evan gel isLIOI In the case of mosl of the accoun l this is undeni ably true. Even the omi ss ion of Mk 16:3, 4b, which is also mi ss ing in the Johannine paraUel. seerns to refer to Luke's independent redaction. Jn 20: 1, 11 - 18 which cou ld be examined as a distant parallel to Lk 24: 1- 12, is not so distant as it at fi rst seerns to be. It is somewhat curious that Mary Magda lene, who in v. 11 is again alone at the 10mb, suddenl y looks agai n into the tomb chamber and sees two ange ls and talks wi th them (v. 12-13). But it is extremely s trange that she even more suddenly turns back again and sees a man who turns out 10 be Jesus h imself. The tradition in these verses is obviously manipul3ted: either the appearance of the ange ls or that o f Jesus is secondary. There is no good reason for inserting the ange ls into the story, l02 because they do not play any role at all in the rest of the narrative. The alteration of an ange lophany into an account of Jes us' appearance to Mary offe rs a mu ch more conceivable explanation for the difficultie s o f the lexl, not least because the contenl of the dialogue between Jesus and Mary is thoroughly Johannine. I01 If Ihis is correct, John's passion source told first of the appearance of (WO angels to Mary - and to one or ( WO female compan ions, as 20:2 g ives us ( 0 under-

IOI Bultmann, 1979: 31 1; Finegan, 1934: 86-87; Dailey, 1963: 87 ; Wanke, 1973: 73: Schneider, 1977b: 492 and Schmilhals, 1980: 230-232. Cf. Jeremias ( 1980: 310·3 12) who presents many lingui slic fealures o f Ihe passage os redoclion:al. Taylor (1972: 103- 109) suggests Ih:al Luke used a no n-Matcan passion source; cf. also MarshalI. 1978 : 882-883 and Schweizer, 1982: 236-237. I02ThuS . for example. Hartmann. 1964 : 205 -206 and Sc hnac ke nburg, 1976: 360. According to ßrown ( 1970: 998); Barren (1978: 564) John combined two originally separate episodes; cf. also Haenchen. 1983: 569-570. Neirynck (1984: 164- 165.171 172) assumes Ihal Luke knew Ihe synoplic gospels and used lheir accounlS in 20: 1- 18. IOlAl so ß uilm:ann (1985 : 529): Schulz (1983: 242); Decker (1984 : 6 10-611) and Zeller ( 1988: 155) regard the angelophany as traditional and the appearnnce story in v. 14-18 as an addition by Ihe fourth evangelisl. See also Myllykoski. 1991b.

150

The Material Common 10 Luke and lohn

stand . 104 In the traditional account (hey went 10 the disciples (Lk 24 :8b and Jn 20:2); this motivated Peler 10 visit the 10mb. BUI this is not the only link between the Lucan and Johannme accounts. Luke does not quite follow Mk 16:5 when in 24:4 he teUs of two men instead of "a young man" . There is no theological or practical reason for this alteration . but it becomes understandable when one assumes that Luke knew both Mk and Ihe tradition common 10 hirn and John and told of two supematural beings in the tomb. He did not want to relinguish the entire Marcan description, and made a compromise between the "angels" and the "young man": (hu s the women received the resurrection message from "two men" . Luke's use of two men in Acts I : 10 is obviously redactional. and this may provide a hint that Lk 24:4 also is based on a redacti onal idea. But ü is equally possible that Luke there utilized the compromise form that he created in the account of the empty 10mb. lOS As hinted at above, it is possible that the resurrection tradition common to Luke and John spoke of the Iwelve or the eleven as the group of di scipies who met the ri sen Lord. It is true that Luke also had a notable redacti onal reason for talking of the eleven in the resurrection narratives becau se he wanted (0 prepare for the election of a new member to the circle of the twelve (Acts 1:21-26; cf. al so '1 . 13). Thi s, however. does not automatically exclude the poss ibility that the tradition which he used in Lk 24 spoke of the eleven - o r the twelve (cf. I Cor 15 :3b-5). Thi s ass umplion can be strengthened by the reference in Jn 20:24, where Thomas is described as "one of the twelve" . Although 'Iv. 24-29 must be considered John's own creation, this formul ation is striking because John last mentioned the twelve last in 6:66-71. He certainly had no special redactional interest for this characterization, as the additional nickname "the Twin" shows (cf. also 11 : 16: 14:6). It is thus possible that his source spoke of the twelve as those to whom Jesus appeared .106 I04Brown (1970: )(XX); Lindars (1972: 596); Schnackenburg (1976: 358) and Becker (1984: 608-609) assume with a good reason that the passion source of lohn told of at least two women who visiled the 10mb. Cf. Windisch, 1926: 86-87 . IOSSorse (1987: 48-49) thinks thai Luke imroduced the IWO men on the basis of Gen 18:2 (LXX). Thi s verse also lells that Abraham Hbowed himself 10 Ihe eanh", juSt as the women in Lk 24:5 "bowed their faces to the ground" - a detail which is missing from Ihe Marcan account of the emply tomb. Borse's theory sums to be convincing; I am, however, inclined to think that Luke was motivated to draw upon this biblical apo pearance scene precisely because he wished to link together twO different accounts of Ihe emply 10mb. Goulder ( 1989: 774) suggests that Luke created the idea of the two men by taJcing lhe young man from Mk 16:5 and the angel from MI 28:2-3. 106lf the analyses thatl have presenled e1sewhere (Myllykoski 1991a and b) are on the righl Hnes, lohn and Mark used a very similar passion source. which talked of the twelve as Jesus' followers in Jerusalem. The end of this source can only be recon-

151

Maui MyUykoski

V. Conclusion The purpose of this anicJe has been to study the most imponam material common to Lk and Jn and independent of Mk and Mt. The basic problems in these texts and their solutions speak in support of lhe conclusion that John wrote his Gospel wilhout direct literary depentlence on Lk. Their indirect paralleis and most of their minor agreements can be explained through independent redactions. 80th evangelists also use similar oral traditions which moslly arise from the rieh variations in the early Christian passion stories. They knew and used common pericopes in different variations orfand in different manners. Their stories about Peter's visit 10 the empty tomb and Jesus' appearance 10 lhe disciples derive from the same source.

Li te ra tu.re Aland, K.

1965/66

"Neue neutestamentliche Papyri 11." NTS 12: 193·2[0.

Barren, C.K.

1973{14 1918

"John and the Synoptic Gospels." Er 85: 228·233. The Gos~1 according 10 SI l ohn: A.n Introduction with C()fTIrM.ntary and Horts on tht Grtd Tut . 2nd cd. Landon.

Becker. J.

1979 1981

Das Evangtlium nach l ohanflts. ÖTK 4/ 1. Güters[oh . Wül'Zburg. Das Evangtlium nachlohanflts. ÖTK 4n. Gütmloh · Würzburg..

Borgen. P.

1958/59

"John and the Synoptics in the Passion Narrative." NTS 5: 246-259.

Borse, U.

1987 Brown, R. 1966

1970

-Der Evangelist a[s Verfasser der Emmauserüh[ung. - SNTU 12: 35-61.

Gosptl according 10 l ohn I. AncB. Garden City, N. Y. TM Gosptl QCcording 10 l ohn 11. AncB. Garden City. N.Y. T~

Bu[tmann. R.

1978

Das Evangtlium tks I OMnflts. KEK 11. 20th cd. Göningen.

Sb'UCted on the basis of Jn 20 because Marle took 16: [-8 from another narrative. If the paraUe[ism between Lk 24 and Jn 20 is weil foundcd. Luke followed Mk down to 16:8, but after this drew upon the pre-Matean source which told that Jesus appearcd 10 the elevenlthe twc1ve in lerusalem and nol in Galilee.

152

The Material Common tO Luke and John

1979

DiL Geschichte du synoptiscMn Tradition . FRLANT 29. 9th ed.

Göttingen. Bwrger. C. 1970

le.sus als DavidsJohn: Ej~ tTaditionsgLSchichllic~ Unursuchung .

FRLANT 98. Göuingen. Bmse. l.

\960/6\

MS t lohn and the Passion Namtives or SI Malthewand SI Luke." NJS 7: 65-76.

Cnibbs. F.L.

\97\ DalUer. A. \984

ErnSt. J. \977

"St. Luke and the l ohannine Tradition." lBL 90: 422-450. l ohannes wut luhu; Unursuchungca zu ~n.johanneisch -luJ:anisclun Paralldperikopt:n.loh 4.46-54IU 7,1 · /0 - l oh 12,/-8IU 7,36·50.10,38-42 · l oh 20,/9-23IU 24,36-49. FzB SO. Wilnburg.

Das Evangelium nach lukm. RNT. Regensburg.

Finegan. J. \914

Die Ü~rl~ft:rlU!g ~r uilUns· und AU/trsteluutgsgtsc!u'chlt üsu..

Berlin. Fitz.myer. I . 1981 1985

Tlu Gospel according to UdL (I-IX) . AncB. Garden City, N. Y. Tlu GOSfU/ according w I MAz (X-XXN). AncB. Garden City, N.Y.

Gardner·Smith. P. 1938 George. A.

\969

Saint l ohn and tltt: Synoptic Gospels. Cambridge. "Les rtcils d'apparaLions IUlt Onze a panir de Luc 24.36-53." pp. 75104 in La risurrtction. du Christ t t f'algtst modunL . Ed. P. Surgy,

P. Grelot, M. Garrez.. A. George, J. Deillilue, X. Uon-Durour. I.cDiv 50. Pans. GlassweIl, M .E 1985 Ihe Relationship belwten lohn and Mark." lSNT23: 99-115. Goulder, M . "From Ministry 10 Passion in lohn and Luke." NTS 29: 561 -568. \983 \989 Wt - A New Paradigm. Vol~ 11: Pan 11 (COnl.) . C~ntary : lJlu 95/ ·2453 . JSNT.S 20. Shertield. Grant. F.C. "Was the AUlhor or l ohn Dependem upon the Gospel orLuke'!" lBL 56: 1937 285-307. Grundmann. w. Das Evangelium nach f !!Jm. 10th ed. 11INT m. Berlin. 1984

153

Matti Myllykoski Haenchen, E. 1980 Hanmann, G.

1964

Das Johannesevangelium. Tübingen. "Die Vorlage der Osterberichte in loh 20." ZMV 55: 197-220.

Jeremias, J.

1980

Die Sprache des Llljmevange/iums: Redaktion unp Tradition im Niclu• Markwsto/f des dritten Evangeliums. KEK Sonderband. Göningen.

Klein, H. 1976 "Die lukanisch-johanneische Passionstradition." ZMV 67 : 155- 186. Klostennann, E. Das Lrlkmevangefium. 2nd cd. HNT 5. Tübingen. 1926 Kotila. M. 1988 Umstrittener ällge: Studien zur Stellung des Gesetzes in der johanneischen Theologiegeschichfe. AASF Diss. 48. Helsinki. Lindars, B. The Gospel 01 John. NCB. London. 1972 MarshalI , I.H . 1978 The Gospel 01 Luke: A Commentary on fhe Creek Text. 2nd ed. NIGTC. Exeter. Myllykoski, M. Die lemen Tage Jesu: Marlms lind Johannes, ihre Traditionen und die 1991a historische Frage. Band I. AASF Ser B. 256. Helsinki. 1991 b Die letz/en Tage Jesu: Marlms und Johannes, ihre Traditionen und die historische Frage. Band 11. (Fonhcoming.) Neirynck, F. "The "Other Disciple" in lohn 18,15-16. ,. EThL 51 : 113-141 . 1975 "John and the Synoptics." pp. 73- 106 in L 'Evangife de Jean . Sources, 1977 redaction, tMologie. Ed. M. de longe. ßEThL 44. Gembloux - Leuven. 1984 "lohn and the Synoptics. The Empty Tomb Stories." NTS 30: 161 - 187. Pesch, R. Der reiche Fischfang Uc 5, / -//11011 2/ ,/ . /4 : \Vundergescllichre 1967 Berujllngserulh/ung . Erscheinungsbericill. Düsseldorf. Sabbe, M. ''The Arrest of lesus in Jn 18,1 - 11 and its Relation 10 the Synoptic 1977 Gospels. A Critical Evaluation of A. Dauer's Hypothesis. Pp. 203-234 in L'Evangile de Jean . SO/uces, ddaction, tMologie. Ed. M . de Jonge. BEThL 44. Gembloux - Leuven. Schmithals, W. Das Evangelilun ntJch I Jiw s. ZBK: NT 3, 1. Zürich. 1980 H

154

10

1be Material Common to Luke and John Schnacken burg, R. 1967 Das l ohannesevangelium: I Teil. Einleitung und K~nlar zu Kap. 1· 4 . 2nd cd. HThK 4,1. Freiburg • Basel · Wien. 1971 Das Johannuevangelium: JJ Teil. KQmrnLntlU zu Kap . 5· 12. trrhK 4,2. Freiburg . Basel · Wien. 1976 Das 10hanMsevangefium: JJJ Teif. Kommtnlar zu Kap . 13·21. 2nd cd. HThK 4,3. Freiburg . Basel · Wien. Schneider, G . Das Evangelium nach f uka t 1. ÖTK 3,1 . Gütersloh - WUnburg. 1977a Das Evangelium nach I ' jhn 11. ÖTK 3.2. Gütersloh . WUnburg. 1977b "Das Verfahren gegen Jesus in der Sicht des dritten Evangeliums CU 1988 22,54-23,25): Rcdaktionskritik und historische Rückfrage." pp. 111·

130 in Der Prozess gegen Jtsus. HislOrisc~ Rikk/rage und t~ol
1984

Johannine Christianiry: Essays on Irs Setting , SOldCes, and Thtology. Columbia. S.C.

Smrds, M .

1987

TI~

Passion according 10 Luke: The Special Material 01 Luke 22 .

JSNTS 14. Sheffield. Tliben, C. H .

1982

Reading (uu : A Literary and Thi!ological Commentary on ritt Third Gospel. New York.

Tlylor, V.

1972

11

LlJ K~ . i\C""S

Tht Passion Na"ative olStluke: A Cn'tical anti HislOTical Investiga· lion. MSSNTS 19. Cambridge.

155

Matti Myllykoski Wanke, J. 1973

Die Emmauserzählung: Eine redaJctionsgeschicJl1/iche Untersuchung zu Uc. 24,13-35. EThS 31. Leipzig.

Wellhausen, J. 1904 Das Evangelium Lucae. Berlin . 1908 Das Evangelium Johannis . Berlin . Wiefe l, W. 1988 Das Evangelium nach LI/kor. THNT 3. Berlin. Williams, F.E. 1967 "Fourth Gospel and Synoptic Tradition : Two Johannine Passages." JBL 86: 311 -319. Windisch, H. 1926 Johannes und die Synoptiker.:Wol/te der vierte Evangelist die älteren Evangelien ergänzen oder erselZen? Leipzig. Winter, P. 1954 'The Treatment of His Sources by the Third Evangelist in Luke XXIxxrv." Studia Theologica 8.2: 138-172. Zeller, D. "Der Ostennorgen im 4. Evangelium (Joh 20. 1- 18)." pp. 145-161 in 1988 Au/erstehung Jesu - Auferstehung der Christen: Deurungen dl!s Oster· glaubens. &:I. L. Oberlinner. QD 105. Freiburg - Basel - Wien.

156

Das Verhältnis von Lk/Apg zum Markusevangelium * Walter Übelacker, Lund

L Einleitung l

I. Kurze ForschungsübersichI Die lukani schen Schri ften haben in den letzten Jahrzehnten alle rlei Aufmerksamkeit erhalten. Vor allem se it dem Aufkommen der redaktionsgeschichtlichen Methode (H. Conzelrnann, Die Milte der Zeit) am Anfang der fünfzige r Jahre hat das Lk ei ne gro ße Ro lle gespie lL 2 Die Disku ss ionen und Reakti onen sei tdem waren unterschi edli ch. Al s Forschungsresultat dieser Periode läßt sich jedoch festhalten, daß LkJApg als ein einheitliches Werk mit einem übergreifenden Kompos itionsp lan zu betrachten sind.) Die Frage ist allerdings , wie diese Gesamtkonzeption mehr im Detai l aussieht? Immer noch gibt es verschiedene Ansichten über den Anlaß, den primus motor. der hinter dieser lukan ischen Konzeption steckt. Wie verschieden die lukan ische Arbeit mit seinem Material bewertet wo rden ist, faßt W. G. Kümmel treffend in seiner Forschungsübersicht • Semi nar'paper' au f der Nordischen Konferenz über die Lukasschriften vom 18.-21. Juni 1990 in Kai sankoti bei I-Ielsinki , Finnland sowie fü r Prof. B. Gerhardssons Forscherseminar im Neuen Testament , Theol . Fak., Lunds Universität den 26. Oktober 1990. t Wir gehen im fo lgenden von der Prioritlit des Mk aus - 0012 aller Einwände, die in den letzten lahren hiergegen vorgebracht worden sind . V gl. zur diesbezüglichen Debattte die ausgezeichnete Übersicht von Talbert , 1989 :297-320. Ein um gewandtes Verhältnis, wobei Markus entweder nur Mt bzw. Lk oder sowohl Mt als Quch Lk als Vorlage vor sicht halle, erscheint uns paradox. Welche Gemeinde könnte sich mit einem Evangelium begnügen. das so viel Logia-Stoff (den Mt/Lk enthalten) ausläßt oder schließt wie dies Mk tut? Unseres Erachtens sprechen immer noch allzu schwerwiegende Argumente fü r die Zwei-Quellen-Theorie, vor allem für die Priorität des Mk . Die Argumente hat Stein. 1987: 45-88 (Mk), 89- 11 2 (Q) geSChickt zusammengeste llt. Oie Literatur zur Lk/Apg-Frage ist ansonsten uferlos. was sogar von Forschern zugegeben wird. die versuc ht haben, die Literatu r zu Teilprob lemen zusammenzufassen. Kein geringererer Lukasspezialist als H. Conzelmann hat jedoch gesagt: "Besonders die Schweden bemühe n sich um Lk ... Ein Name: 1-1. SahIin" (Conzelmann, 1974: 44, Anm. 4. Dies sagte er 1952. Heute müßte er wohl sagen: "vor allem skandinavische Forscher" - d ie Ko nferenz in Finnland ist e in Ausdruck dieses nordischen Interesses an de n lukanischen Schriften. 2 Radi, 1988: 1-3. J Rese, 1985: 2298: "LkEv und Apg sind als ein einheitliches Werk anzusehen, und man wird keinem der heiden Einzelteile dieses Werkes gerecht. wenn man es je für sich allein betrachtet."

Walter Obclacker

zusammen:' Mit S. NeiU könnte man auch versucht se in, die zugespitzte Frage zu stellen: "Is Luke the great creative theologian of the church, or is he 'this falsifier of the Gospel'?"~ Nach T. Wright , der die Forschung von 196 1· 1986 in der Neuauflage (1986) von S. Ne ill s Forschungs· übersicht deckt, gehören Lk/Apg jedoch nicht zu den Gebieten, auf denen man einen wirklichen Fortschritt (" real progre ss") gemacht hat. 6 Berücksichtigt man Umfang und Bedeutung der luk anischen Schriften ist es nur natürlich, daß die Lk/Apg. Forschung einen zentralen Platz im neutestamentlichen Studium einnimmt.'

J. Tentative Probleminventierung Die Fonnulierung des Themas lädt zu folgenden Fragen ein: I) We lche Beziehung besteht zwi schen U <.> Apg? 2) Welche Beziehung zwischen Mk <.> Lk/Apg (Mk<·>Lk; Mk<·> Apg)?

..

K Ommel, 1970: 4 1f: " ... man hat nicht nur mit gUlen Gründen daran gezweifel t, daß Lukas die Heilsgeschichte in dui Perioden geglieden und damit die Geschic hte Jesu aJs 'Mitte der Zei( in der abgeschlossenen Vergangenheit gesehen habe, man hat auch darauf verwiesen, daß die heilsgeschic hlliche Deutung der Geschichte Jesu und der frlJhen Kirche schon bei Jesus selber und in der Theologie des Paulus ihren Ansatz habe und daß darum die lukanische Theologie gewiß eine Spätfonn der urkirchlichen Verkünd igung. nic ht aber eine theologisch abzuwenende Umdeutung des älteren Kerygmas darstelle . Die redaktion sgeschichtl iche Erforschung des lukanischen Doppelwerks und ihre theologische Bewertung sind darum noch im vollen fl uß:· Einige Jahre später meint jedoch Talben, 1989: 304· 3 10, daß die Möglichke iten der redaktionsgeschichtlichen Methode erschöpft sind. ~ Neill, (196411988: 268. 6 Neill, (1964 ) 1988 : 367ff. Lies t man die Motivierung filr die weite re Forschungsübersicht nac h 1961 auf S. 36M so erstaunt man nicht wenig. Der Verfasser will nlimHch, ~pn:ferable to deal fU"St, brieny, with thast areas where linie o f great significance has occurred, and then to give more concentrnted anenl"ion to five areas whe re significant develo pments have been taking pl ace~. Da LklApg als Forschungsgebiet weder kurz noch ausftlhrlic h erwähnt werden, muß der Leser den Sch lußsatz ziehen, daß innerhalb der Lk/Apg-Forschung in den letzten 25 Jahre nichls von Bedeutung geschrieben worden ist - trotz aller Artikel und BUcher, die produzien worden sind. Eine ganz andere Beuneilung der Sachlage begegnet auf der 4 :e Umschlagseite bei Radi, 1988: '· Nach dem 2 . We ltkrieg ist kein Evangelium so gründlich erforscht worden wie das des Lukas." 1 Was den Umfang betrifft, so ist de r Vergleich, den Radi , 1988: I . an stellt. selbstredend: ~ A ls Verfasse r eines Evangeliums und der Apostelgeschichte hat Lukas mehr zum Neuen Testament beigesteuen als jeder andere Autor. Sein Doppelwerk ist fast so umfangreich wie die echten Paulusbriefe und die johanneischen Schriften · Evangelium und Briefe· zusammen."

158

Das Verh!iltnis von Lk/Apg zum Maricusev.

3) Welche Konsequenzen haben diese Beziehungen für das Verständnis von Lk/Apg1 1m Neuen Testament werden Lk/Apg als zwei durch das Joh voneinander getrennte Schriften eingeordnet. Die Zusammengehörigkeit von Lk und Apg ist daher nicht selbstverständlich. sondern muß zuerst geklärt werden . Eine sich ergebende Frage ist, inwiefern die Bearbeitung des im Lukasevangelium aufgenommenen Mk-Stoffes Licht auf unsere Fragestellung wirft, ob sich h inter Lk/Apg eine einheitliche Konzeption verbirgt (l) oder nicht. Eine andere Möglichke it kann sein, daß Lk von Anfang an als ein Werk gedacht war, das später durch die Apg ergänzt werden sollte (2) oder ob gar die Apg zuerst geschrieben wurde und Apg I : I erst später hinzugefügt worden ist, um diese mit Lk zu verbinden (3)1 1 Die Antwort auf die Frage, ob Lk/Apg von Anfang als ein Werk geplant waren, hängt zum großen Teil davon ab. inwiefern man fe ststellen kann, ob Lk 1: 1-4 eine Einleitung für beide Schriften ist oder nur für Lk .9 Dies ist jedoch schwer, allein aufgrund von Lk 1:1-4 zu entscheiden.1oDie Argumente für und wider hat G. Klein zusammengestellt. 11 Er meint, daß das Hauptproblem für Lukas darin bestand, für seine Gemeinde die Konti nu ität von Lukas' eigener Ze it zurück zur Zeit der Urgemeinde und Jesu nachzuweisen. Der Prolog dürfte sich daher auf heide Werke beziehen. 12 Ziemlich sicher dürfte hingegen sein, daß Apg 1: I ein Verbindungs g lied und eine bewußte Anknüpfung zum Evangelium darstelll. lJ Aber au ch hier läßt sich einwenden , daß es sich um einen Zusatz aus späterer Zeit handeln kann. Hande lt es sich aber um einen Zusatz, um die Auf-

1 Vgl. hierzu die Diskussion der drei hau ptsächlichen Alternaliven bei Maddox, 1982: 4. Vgl. auch KUnunelI 969: 76. 9 Nach Maddox, 1982: 24 . Anm. 14, wollen vor allem H W Bansch, Wackt abu zu jtdu uit, 11 - 14 und G Bouwtnan, Das driut Evangtlium, 62· 67, (im Anschluß an Haenchen) behaupten, daß diese Verse nur als Einleitung zu Lk gedacht sind. 1m Untersc hied hierzu konstatien Lövestam, 1988 : 11 : "U und Apg bilden somit zusammen ein Doppelwerk. Der Prolog zu Beginn des Evangeliums ( I: 1-4) zielt dann billigerwe ise auf das gesamte Werk, also auch auf die Apg" (meine Übersetzung). Siehe auch Dahl ( 1976). 10 Vgl Sc hneide r (1977 : 45-66, 50): "Das Vorwort Lk 1,1 -4 Iä.ßt - so können wir zusammenfassen - nicht sicher erkennen, ob sein Verfasser bereits die Abfassung de r A postelgeschichte geplant hatte. Trotzdem bleibt die Möglichkeit o rfen , daß sich das P:lOö mium von vornherein auch auf die Acta bezieht." 11 Klein, 1974: 170-203. Vgl. Brown ( 1978). 12 Klein. 1974: 195, 196,200, 202. 1) So z. Bsp. Larsson. 1983: 15: "Der Verfasser wendet sich mit seiner Arbeit an Theophilus und weist auf seine rrilhere Schrift (das Evangelium) hin, die diesem auch gewidmet war - Lk 1:3)." Maddox. 1982: 4-6.

159

Walter Übelacker

te ilung des allzu großen Werkes in zwei Teile zu überbrücken . so spricht dies ja eher rur Lk I : 1-4 als Einleitung zu Lk/Apg. Wenn es nun auch nicht möglich ist, Lk 1: 1-4 eindeut ig als Einleitung fü r Lk/Apg festzulegen. so gibt es doch so etliche Faktoren, die auf eine ei nheitliche Grundkonzeption hinweisen,14 ja "daß es eine theolog ische Kontinuität zwischen dem Evangel ium und der Apostelgeschi chte gibt".ls Eine Reihe von lndizien sprechen ganz einfach dafür, daß LkJApg einander ergänzen sollen und in irgendeiner We ise aufeinander zugeordnet sind . 16 ( I) Lk und Apg sind geprägt vom gleichen grundlegenden Verständnis des Heils. 1m Lk beginnt Jesu Auftreten mit einer Szene. in der die negative Haltung der Juden und die pos itive Einstellung der Heiden dem Evangelium gegenüber antizipiert we rden (Lk 4: 16-30; vgl. wie dies in 2:29-32 vorbereitet ist). Mit ei ne r ähnlichen Szene schließt sodann die Apg, wenn Paulu s dies als Faktum verkündigt (Apg 28:17-28).17 (2) Es fä Ut auch auf, daß Lukas an passenden Stellen in der Apg einige Mk-Texte einfügt, die er im Evangelium ausgelassen hatte . Hierher gehört die Eintragung von Jesu Aussage, den Tempel zu zerstören (Mk 14:56-59) in die Stephanusgeschich te (Apg 6: 14). Weitere Stellen sind Mk 5:40 11 Apg 9:40; Mk 14 :2// Apg 12:4. Ob es sich hierbei alle rdings um zwingende Bewe ise dafür hande lt. daß Lukas im Lk von vornherein bewußt gewisse Stellen vom Mk ausgelassen hat, um diese in der Apg nachholen zu können, bleibt unkl ar. G. Schneider meint jedenfalls, daß dies nicht bewiesen werden kann .U

14 Einen schnelle n Einblick in die ßeruhrungspunk1e ermöglicht Schneider ( 1977 : 5054). Maddox, 1982: 9- 12. Kieffer, 1987: 83f: "Beide Werke stammen also von demselben Verfasser, was eine genaue Analyse des Stils auch bestätigen kann ." To1ben. 1974: 337-353, 339 . t S Kieffer, 1987 : 85. Kieffer fügt hinzu : "In beiden Büc hern gibl es ähnliche Entwicklungslinien. Was mit Jesus im Evangelium geschieht, haI eine prophetische Bedeutung und wird in der wachsenden Kirche vollendet. die die Apostelgeschichte beschreibt. " t6 Vgl . die Übersicht de r parallelen Verbindungslinien zwischen Lk und Apg bei Radi. 1975: 39·43, 369f. Koet, 1989. 17 Maddox, 1982: 5: "This looks like adeliberate, structural element." Busse, 1977; 424: "Die heilsgeschichtliche Dimension, die Lukas damit e röffnet. zeigt sich deutlich in Apg 4:23ff und 28;25." 18 ( 1977: S2f): "Doch beweist der 'Nachtrag' von Markussloff innerhalb der Acta nicht. daß Lukas scho n bei dessen Weglassung im 'ers ten Band' d ie Aufnahme in den zweiten beabsichtigt habe ..... Als weitere Mx-Parallelen in der Apg, die sich nicht im Lk finden. nenn! er. Apg 1:7 (Mk 13:22); 6: 1 I (Mk 14:56); 6: 14 (Mk 14:58); 9:40 (Mk 5:40); 12:4 (Mk 14:2); 1:8 (Mk 13: I 0) - unter Hinweis auf Russell. (1955: 167-174). Vgl. auch Maddox. 11,.82: 5.

160

Das Verh!lltnis von Lk/Apg zum Markusev.

(3) Lukas scheint im Evangelium bere its die spätere Entwicklung mit im Blick zu haben. Die J ünger werden derart auf ihre Verkündigung und ihr Geschick vorbereitet. daß das Evangelium ohne Apg - mit der Fort· setzung der Verbre itung des Evangeliums durch die Jünger - unvol1 stän· dig erscheinen würde. Dies wird besonders deutlich in Lk 24:47·49. wo der Verfasser die Apg antiz ipiert. insbesondere Apg 1· 2 . Wäre Lk 24 ohne Weiterführung in der Apg. könnte der Schluß des Evangeliums wie ei n Antiklimax wirken .19 (4) Man kann aber auch feststellen. daß die Apg mehrm als auf die Evangelientradition. besonde rs in der lukanischen Form . zurückblickt. Es gibt so etliche Texte. die in Lk eine bedeutende Rolle spielen und dennoch ein e vollständigere Erklä rung d urch die Darstell ung in der Apg erhalten. So eri nnert z. Bsp. die Erwählung der Apostel in Apg 1:2 an die Beru · fung der Zwölf in Lk 6: 12f.20 Apg I : 1·3 erinnert insgesamt an das Vor· wo rt in Lk 1: 1·4 • mit einer Rekapitulation des Inhalts im Lk: Jesu Wirken in Ta te'l und Worten .21 Auch in Apg 10:37· 43 scheint Luk as Jesu gesamtes Wirken zusammenfa ssen und besonders das Wi chtigste im Auftreten Jesu kommentieren zu wo llen.22 Ein ausfü hrlicher Rückbli ck fin det sich in ähnliche r We ise in

Apg 13:26-31. Dera rtige Rückblicke erklären sich ziemlich natürli ch. wenn man an· nimmt. daß die Apg von Anfang an mit I: I als Anknüpfungspunkt und als Fort setzung von Lk verfaßt worden ist.D Daß Lk/Apg ein einheitli ches Werk bilden . wird heute meistens d irekt ode r in direkt vo rausgesetzt. 24 Wer dennoch nur übe r e inen Teil des 19 Maddox, 1982: 6.

20 V gL Ro loff. 198 1: 19 : "Für ihn sind die zwölf Apostel deshalb wichtig, weil sie das KOnlinuum zwischen der Zei t des Tuns und Wirkens Jesu und de r Zeit der Kirche darstellen," Vgl. Apg. 1:22. 21 Vgl. Roloff. 198 1: 19: -N icht umsonSt wird das Tun Jesu vor seinem Lehren erwähnt, filr Lukas löst das Kommen Jesu einen in der Geschichte einmalig dastehe nden Geschehennusammenhang aus, der in erster Linie durc h Taten und Ereignisse (vgl. Lk 1:1) sein Gepriige erhält." VgL auch Apg 2:22 mit Lk 5: 17 und die Diskussion bei Busse, 1977 : 357. 22 Vgl. hierzu Busse, 1977: 337f: "Das ist zugleich eine Frage an den Redaktor, ob er die syno ptische T radition redaktionell so Uberfom'\en ko nnte, wie er es selbst durch den M und Jesu in Lk 4. 18ff ankUndigte ... Aus der Retrospektive des Apostcls gewinnt man voraussichtlich eincn Eindruck von der Interpretation der Wundennten Jesu du rc h Lukas selbst." 23 Für eine Lk/Apg erfassende Gesamtsicht siehe Maddox, 1982 : 9 : "Luke is the only writer in the New Testament tO discuss in similar form and at similar length, both the Story of the eanhly Jesus and the activity o fth e risen Lord Jesus in his disciples." 24 Z ur Entwickl ung dieser Beun eilung vgl. die Forschungsübersichten. So z. Bsp. Rese. 1985: 2298 - vgl. oben Anm. 3. Dies wiederholt Rese sogar als e ines der wichtigsten

161

WaJter Übelacker

Doppelwerkes schreibi, markiert daher des öfteren auch die übergreifen· den Aspekte, die heide Teile herilhren oder gibt sonst irgendwie zu erkennen, daß er sich der zwei Teile bewußt ist, die eigentlich als ein opus be· handelt werden sollten. 2S Wir versuchen nun , in e inem ersten Teil eine grobe übersicht zur fak:· tischen Materialveneilung (vor allem zwischen Mk. und Lk) zu geben, um dann in einem zweiten Teil einige charakteristische theologische Züge herauszugreifen, die Lukas' Arbeit mit seinem Material kennzeichnen und die bei einem Vergleich mit Mk und ganz allgemein im Verhältni s Lk/Apg <.> Mk in den Vordergrund treten .

l1. Die Verteilung des Materials· eine grobe übersicht I . Was hat Lukas vom Markusevangelium übernommen? Man hat ausgerechnet, daß Lukas etwa 2/3 des Mk übernommen bzw. aus · genützt hat und daß das Mk damit das Gerippe des Lk. bildel. 26 Die Gesam tkonzep lion Iä.ßt das Wirken Jesu in Galiläa beginnen, um dann Blick und Wirken nach Jerusalem auszurichten. Lukas hat auch den vom Mk übernommenen Stoff in der gleichen Reihenfolge wie das Mk . Man kann sogar feststellen, daß Lukas die markinische Reihenfolge im Grunde genommen nur einige Mal e in Mk I: 1·6:6 ändert. Außerdem gi lt, daß er auch im Wortlaut ziemli ch genau se iner Vorlage folgt . vor allem wenn es sich um Jesusworte hande lt. Erzählende Berichte behandelt er doch freier.

Resultate innerhaJb der Lk-Forschung. ibid_. 23 t3 (unter Hinweis auf die Voricämpfer in dieser Hinsicht H Cadbury und E Meyer). ] j Vgl. z. Bsp. Kierrer, 1987: 84: ~Zuerst hat jedoch das Gemeinsame in der Planierung zum Ausdruck zu kommen ." Radi . 1988:3: "Vor aJlem aber geht es hier nur um einen Teilbereich des lukanischen Werkes, um das Evangelium, während die lukanische Theologie doch erst in der Apostelgeschichte voll zur Geltung kommt." Vgl. auch die Kritik, die Rese ( 1985: 2298, Anm. 162), formuliene , weil nur ein Band rur Lk in der Reihe 'Wege der Forschung' geplant und publiziert worden ist. 26 Dies stellt auch Hanman, 1989: 40, fest . Kümmel. 1969:78, spricht von 7/10. Gast, ( 1968: [40:6]2), sagt: "Lk contains more than haJf of Mk's material and substitutes for half of what remains by parallel material." Reich, 1986: 183: "Out of totally 11 5 pericopes in Marie: and 186 in Luke , 95·96 Mt common tO both Gospels, aod 72-73 are contextuaJ paralleis including the 56-57 parallels additiona1ly supponed by Mallhew. Thus almost 83 percent of Mark's 115 pericopes correspond to similar units of Luke, and 63 percent of the same pericopes even appeal in contextual parallelism with their counterpartS in Luke."

162

Das VerhWtnis von Lk/Apg zwn Maricusev.

Änderungen lassen sich vor allem in den einleitenden und abschließenden Rahmennotizen feststelJen. 21 Betrachtet man die Verteilung des Stoffes, fällt auf, daß Lukas den vom Mk Ubemomrnenen Stoff blockweise redigiert hat - er wechselte sozusagen Mk-Stoff mit Nicht-Mk-Stoff. Diese Blocktechnik bezeichnet J. Jeremias als grundlegend für das Verständnis der lukanischen Komposition. Seine übersicht veranschaulicht dies eindTÜcklich. 23

I.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

A. Neuer Stoff U 1:1-4:30

B. Markusstoff U4:31 -44

'" Mk 1:21 -39

Ll< 5:12-6:19

• MI< 1:40-3,19

Ll< 8:4-9:50

- Mk 4:1-25: 3:31-35; 4:35-6:44; 8:27-9:40

U 18:15-43

- Mk 10:13-52

Ll< 19:29-38

=Mk 11 :1-10

U 19:45-22:13

- Mk 11 :15-14:16

U 5:1-11 Ll< 6:20-8:3

U 9:51-18:14 U 19:1-28 Ll< 19:39-44

U 22:14-24:53

27 Vgl . die kurze Charakteristik bei Jeremias, 1979: 48f. 21 Jeremias, 1979: 48f. Die Frage, ob Lukas den Mk-Stoff blockweise in sein früheres " Material ~ (Slreeter. Jeremias) eingefügt hat oder umgekehn, ist in diesem Zusammenhang von untergeordneter Bedeutung. Von Interesse ist allein die TatsChache. daß Lukas verschiedene Materialvorlagen abwechselnd aufgreift. Busse, 1977: 53 , nennt (im Anschluß an Conulmann und Lohfink) diese besondere lulcanische Kompositionstechnik ~ Mosai.kteChniJIt . Für eine detaillierte Übusicht siehe Schramm. 1971 : 5. Zur Kritik an J l eremias' vier Blöcken vgl. Kümmel, 1969:80. Ibid., 78, spricht Kümmel von den drt:i großen Mk-Blöcken, mit denen Lukas seinen kleinen und großen Einschub abwechselt. Um dies zu veranschaul-chen, kann man folgendennaßen schreiben : Lk 3:1·6:19 (6:20-8:3) 8:4-9:50 ((9 :5 1-18:14]] 18:1524:11. Kümmel gibljedoch zu, daß auch im Rahmen des übernommenen Mk-Stoffes Nicht-Mk-Stoff vorkommt. Ungere Abschnine sind nach ihm: Lk 3:23-4: 13; 4: 16-30; 5: 1-11: 19: 1-27; 22: 14- 18.24-38; 23 :6-16.27-31.3943. Vorgeschichte und Epilog Lk 1-2 bzw. 24:12-53 enthalten hingegen nur Sondersloff. Ein erwas anderes bild gibl Stuhlmueller. (1968(44: 161: 118): "The main parallels between Lk and Mk occur thus: U 4:31 -6: 19 follows Mk 1:21 -3:12; Lk 8:4-9:.50 follows Mk 4:1-9:41 ; U 18: 1521 :38 follows Mk 10: 13-13:37." Reicke, 1986: 32, teih Lk in zwölf Blöcke, die eine gewisse topographische und thematische Übereinstimmung aufweisen. Diese Blöcke dUrfen jedoch nicht als 'Textquellen' mißverstanden werden.

163

Waller Übelacker

2. Lukas' redakrionelle Änderungen des Mk·Slo!fes a. Die Reihenfolge im großen und ganzen Da weder Matthäus noch Lukas von der Reihenfolge des Mk nach Mk 6:7 abwe ichen (mit Au snahme von Lk 22:2 1-23,45-66), sind eigenll ich nur die parallelen Abschniue dieses Mk·Teils und ihre Entsprechungen im Lk von größerem lnteresse.29 Die auffallendste Änderung, die auch theologisch von größter Bedeu· tu ng ist - gegen Conzelmann/M ar:x.senJ O-, besteht darin, daß Lukas Jesu öffentliches Wirken in Nazareth , Jesu Vaterstadt , beginnen läßt (Lk 4: 16· 30). e in Ereigni s. das Marku s erst nach ei ner längeren Wirksamkeits· periode in Mk 6:1-6 re feriert . Indem Lukas die Reaktion de r Vaterstadt auf die Predigt Jesu nach vorne zieht, erhält die abweisende Haltung eine: programmatische Bedeutung. Ober dieses Vorziehen des Nazarelhereignisses nimmt Lukas drei Um· stellungen von zwei aufeinander folgenden Abschnitten vor: Mk 1:14-20 Mk 1:2 1-39

X

Lk 4:3 1-44 Lk 5: 1- 11

Mk 3:7- 12 ___ A LIr: 6: 12·16

Jesus in Kapamaum. D ie Schwiegermutter des Petrus wird geheilt. An einem einsamen Platz. Der Fischzug des Petrus. Die ersten Jünger.

Mk 3:13- 19""""-";'Lk 6: 17- 19

Die Berufung der Zwölf. Jesus verkü ndigt und heilt.

Mir: 4:1-34

Das G leichnis vom S!imann (vierfache n Acker). Vom Sinn der G leichni$Se. Deutung des G leichnisses vom S!imann. Vom Licht und vom rec hten Hören. Jesu wahre nVerwand te.

29 Kümme l, 1969: 28: "Da von MIr: _ 6 :7 an MI. und Lk. von der Mk.- Reihenfo1ge

prak tisch nich t abwe ic hen, obwoh l sie an völlig verschiedenen Stellen der Mk.Reihenfolge erhebliche Übersc hüsse gegenüber Mk. aufweisen (Ausnahme Lk. 22:2123:56-66). is t nur die Reihenfolge der mit Mk . I: 1-6:6 parallelen Abschni tte des Mt. und Lk. zu prüfen." 30 Marxsen, 1959: 64 f: "Das historisierende Moment beim dri tten Evangelisten zeigt sich als bald wieder daran , daß er Jesus eine 'Antrittspredigt' in Nazaret hahen !!ißt, indem er Mk 6:l ff. vorzieht und nac h 4:15 ei nschaltet. Man hat sich über diese Verschiebung m ancherlei Gedanken gemach t. We nn es sich hier um einen 'typischen' Vorgang handelte, dann wären die Schwierigkeiten nicht so groß. Aber eben das ist ja nicht der Fall. Die Bedeutung liegt vielmehr gerade in der Einmaligkeit. Von dieser Beobacht ung her ist der Sinn der lukanische n Umstellung zu erfragen, den Conzelmann, sicher zutreffend, so darstellt : Lukas 'ke nnt nic ht die Scheidung zwischen chronologischer und heilsmäßiger Bcdeutsamkeit. "

164

Das Verhältnis von Lk/Apg zum Markusev.

Darüber hinaus hat er zwei aufeinander folgende Abschnitte später als das Mk , nämlich Mk 3:22-27.28-30 in Lk 11:(14)15-23 bzw. 12:6. Dies bedeutet, daß Lukas die markini sche Reihenfolge eigentlich nur im Abschnitt Mk 3:7·35 (event. einschI. Mk 4:1-34) ändert. An größeren Eingriffen in der Reihenfolge der Perikopen, nimmt Lukas im Grunde genommen nur einen einzigen vor: indem er Mk 6: 1-6 aus seinem markinischen Zusammenhang entfernt und stattdessen zu e inem programmatischen Anfang von Jesu öffentlichem Wirken verwen· deI. In allen anderen Fällen handelt es sich lediglich um das Umstellen von zwei aufeinander folgenden Perikopen. Lukas folgt Markus jedoch nur bis Mk 14 :52. Nach Mk 14 :53-15:4 1 hat Lukas in 22:54-23:49 seine Abschnitte in einer so vom Mk divergierenden Ordnung, daß man allgemein der Ansicht ist, daß er hier in der Reihenfolge des Stoffes seiner Sonderquelle (-stoff) folgt. b. Änderungen des Mk-S toffes mit Hilfe der Schrifr Lukas führt einige Redaktionen des Mk-Stoffes durch indem er die mark in ische Darstellung entweder mit Hilfe von Schriftzitaten ändert oder ergänzt. Einige Beispiele veranschaulichen seine Arbeitsweise: Lk 4: 14a - Lukas hat hier über Mk I : 14a hinaus, daß Jesus nach GaIiläa zurückkehrt . den Zusatz t.v 'fÜ 5vvciW1 'fOU lt~a'f~. Dies scheint nur eine geringe Änderung zu sein, ist aber - unter Berü cksichtigung der Be· deutung, die der Gei st sowohl für Jesus und die Jünger als auch für das Wirken der späteren Gemeinde in der Zukunft spielt - eine typische Redaktion, wodurch Lukas mit kleinen Änderungen am Mk ·Text neue Akzente setzt. Gleich wichtig und charakteristisch ist Lk 4 : 16-30 11 Mk 6: 1· 6. Außer de r Reihenfolge, die Lukas ändert - wie oben schon erwähnt· fügt Lukas hier die Kombination von zwei at.ii chen Texten hinzu, nämlich Jes 6 1: If und Jes 58:6.)\ Man muß sich hier bewußt se in, in welcher Wei se Lukas die Reihenfolge und damit den Kontext dieses Abschnittes ändert . Im Mk findet sich der entsprechende Abschnitt 'die Verwerfung Jesu in Nazareth' in Mk 6: 1-6, demnach als Abschluß des galiläischen Wirkens. Nach dieser Episode begibt sich Jesus auf Wanderung. Er ist info lgedessen auf dem Weg weg von Galiläa. Lukas hingegen plaziert dieses Ereignis an den Anfang des Wirkens Jesu. Durch die Veränderung des Kontextes wird diese Episode ein integrierter Bestandteil des lukanisch erweiterten program· matischen Anfangs. Zusammen mit den unmittelbar vorau sgehenden Ver1I Siehe näher Koel , 1989: 31 -35. Vgl. auch Kvalbein, 1981 : 320-32 6: "JeslJ programlate i Nas.ll'et, Lk 4:18·22."

165

Walter Übelacker

sen Lk 4:(I4b)-15 entspricht Lk 4: 15-30 der markini schen Programrterklärung in Mk 1:14b- 15 (par. Mt 4:17 'A m:) t-oa: rJ~aro 0 ' /TJO"ODt; K11POOO"€l v).12

Im Lk sind 4:14b-15 (gemäß unseren Synopsen) Sonderstoff. 4:16.2ld

sind eine Parallele zu Mk 6:1-2a mit der Nennung der Situation, der Vaterstadt, wo die Episode stattfindet. Lk 4:17-21 sind wiederum 'Sonderstoff, gefolgt von 22-24, die im großen und ganzen Mk 6:2b-4 (Lk 4:23 S) entsprechen. Lukas läßt sodann Mk 6:5-6 aus und ersetzt diese Verse mit Lk 4:25-30. Da Lukas sowohl 4: 14f als auch 4: 16-30 an die gleiche Stelle transponien, an der Markus se in Thema oder seine Zusammenfassung der Verkündigung Jesu hat, dürfte Lk. 4:21 eigentlich Mk 1: 15 entsprechen, was aus unseren Synopsen nicht hervorgeht. Beachtung verdienen hierbei folgende Parallelen: Mt 4 :14 Iva 1rÄfJpcu9Ij 10 PTl9tv &0 'uaa1ov 10ü ~lj'rotI u,oVfO(. Mt 4 : 17 '.4,)1"0 ron: tP:aro o 'It1<1~ rFlPUao'tlv Kai Urnv. Metavotitt. Lk 4 :21 ~aro /it Urnv ~ aVro~ dn ~v ud.Jfpwf'O'l ~ waflf aOnj Mk 1: 14b- 15: KTjpOOotrW ... Kai J./:y(JJv dn nwlj'ponO'l 0 KQ1~ nA. JJC1avociu:

In diesem Zusammenhang ist nicht nur die Streichung des markini schen Kai rfryzav 1) ßaC1lM:la 'fOU &:oü (par. Mt) interessant - was bisher vor

allem von den Forschern Aufmerksamkeit erhalten hat - , sondern auch das Faktum, daß Lukas nach unserer Meinung bewußt das markinische 0 Kalpd~ mit 1) r~r1 ersetzt. Lukas ersetzt somit den Begriff der Zeit mit dem der Schrift. Daß sich dies vor den Ohren der Zuhörer erfüllt hat , schärft den Gegenwartsaspekt der ErfüIJung. Hier handelt es sich nicht um etwas, was in der Zukunft liegt oder nur nahe gekommen ist, sondern um etwa s, das gegenwärtig ist und sich hier und jeut 'vor euren Augen' (wie man besser idiomatisch überselZen könnte) 'erfüllt haI'. Eine andere redaktionelle Änderung, die Lukas vorn immt, betrifft die Anderung von anJi~ in Mk zu &K"f'6~. Bevor er in 4:28-30 jedoch buchstäblich "beweist". daß Jesus in seiner Vaterstadt nicht &:k'1'6~wa r, veranschaulicht er an zwei at.lichen Beispielen die Weise Goues. Propheten zu senden, um zu helfen (hri1J~TJ und tK:a8apia8TJ müssen als passiva divina aufgefaßt werden): obwohl es viele Witwen in Israel gab, schi ckte GOll 12 Kvalbein. 1981 : 326: "Der gesamte Abschn itt Lk 4 . 14-30 ersetzt die Zusammenfassung der Verk ündigung Jesu in Mk 1:15: 'Oas Reich Gones ist nahe gekommen'. Die Nähe des Reiches Gones zeigt sich nach Lukas demnach in der Erfl1llung der Verheißung von Jes 61 : I, daß 'das Evangelium ruf' die Armen verkündigt wird·... (meine Uberselzung). Koet. 1989: 54f.

166

Das Verhältnis von UlApg zum Markusev.

Eli a allein zu einer Witwe in Sarepta nahe Sidon (also in heidnisches Gebiet) und obwohl es viele Aussätzige zur Zeit des Propheten Elisa in Israe l gab, wurde nur der Syrer Naaman geheih.:n Was Lukas mit diesen zwei Beispielen zeigt, ist, daß GOIt sich bereits zur Ze it des AT.s über NichtJuden, d.h. Heiden erbannt hat. Die Mission unter den Heiden erweist sich somit als in Übereinstimmung mit dem göttliChen Willen. Die Reaktion unter den unmittelbar Berührten, den Juden, läßt nicht auf sich wanen. Alle Anwesenden werden von Zorn ergriffen als sie dieses hören, treiben Jesus aus der Stadt hinaus und wollen ihn unschädli ch machen. Jesus widerfährt somit dasselbe Los, das allen Propheten und Diene rn Gotte s widerfahren ist - ein Los, dem auch seine JUnger bereit sein sollten, zu begegnen (Lk 4:25-27). Der Abschnitt Lk 4: 16-30 wird auch ganz allgemein als eine Art Programm oder als "a programmatic summary of Luke's enlire Gospel" aufgefaßt. 14 In Lk 3:4-6 zitiert Johannes der Täufer Jes 40:3 -5. Das Zitat ist bei Lukas länger als in Mt 3:3 11 Mk 1:2f und Joh I :23. Lukas verlängert mit den charakteristi schen Worten, die vom He il der Heiden reden: "ai 6yteral

1t(lua

c~ (1'0 CamjpiOv

roii

8cOV) .H

Jesus selbst misioniel1 nur unter Juden und ers t als Jes u Mi ss ion in Israel abgeschlossen ist, wird die Heidenmiss ion akuteIl (Lk 24:47; Apg

1:8)." [n der dritten Leidensverkündigung, die Lukas in 18:3 1-34 hai, fügt er das ErfUlI ungsmotiv hinzu, das sich nicht in Mk 10:32-34/1 Mt 20:17- 19 findet Y Lukas wiederholt auch das Zilat von Jes 6:9- 10, das von der Verstockung Israels (der Zuhörer) handelt, am Ende der Apg - in einem Zusammenhang, der vom Heil sangebot an die Heiden handelt, um hierdurch

Siehe Koct. 1989: 46: "'The relationship between Jews and Gentiles is an important theme in the stories aboot Elijah in 1-2 Kgs and in lhe texi of which Isa 61 :1-3 is an interpretation (Isa 42:6; Isa 49:6). In Isa 49:61he re5tor3lion of Israel is accompanied by the salvation far the Gentiles"; ibid .• 52: "The Gentiles are saved with Israel (cf. Luke 2:32; this will become an imponam lheme in Acts, see 2:2 1; 10:34-36)." ). Koct. 1989: 24 (mit weiteren Lilcraturhinweisen in seinen Anm. I und 3); vgl. ibid .• 54: "Luke 4: 16-30 is QUtJined as aprefiguration of the enure Gospel". Kümmel. 1969: 28: "Die Verwerfung Jesu in Na.zarelh Mk. 6: 1·6 ist zu einer programmatischen Szene am Anfang der Wirksamkeit Jesu gemacht." Am ausfUhrLichsten: Busse. 1978. )$ Kotl. 1989: 143. )6 Koct. 1989: 145. )7 Kott. 1989: 154. "Luke insens the motif of fulfilmem of the Prophets in his sourte and this is peculiar 10 Luke (cf. Mark I0:32-34/Matt 20: 17-19)." Vgl. unten Anm. 60.

J)

167

Walter Übclacker

die Bedeu tung dieses Motivs für die Gesamtkonzeption von LkJApg zu unterstreichen.

3. Welches Mat erial hat Lukas von unserem Mk ausgelassen ?J8

a. Lukas läßt bekalUlterweise eine Partie aus, die man "die große Lücke" zu nennen pnegl (Mk 6:(44 )45-8:26(27).39 Bei dieser Auslassung geht Lukas so zuwege, daß er Mk 6:45-8:26 insgesamt überspringt nachdem er die Bespeisung der 5000 in Lk 9:IOb-17 ~rwähnt hat. Von diesem Ereignis streicht er den letzten Vers des markinischen Berichts, Vers 44 , da er be reits in V. 14 die Anzahl "5000" erwähnt hatte. Er streicht auch die Einleitung des Petrusbekenntnisses von Mk 8:27ff, näher bestimmt so stre icht er ganz einfach die Angabe, daß dieses in der Nähe von Caesarea Filippi (V. 27) stattgefunden hat, mit der Konsequenz, daß Jesus den geographischen Angaben des Lk gemäß nie so weit vom Weg nach Jerusalem abgekommen ist, wie dies nach Mk der Fall ist: nach Luk as begibt sich Jesus auf dem gerades ten Wege von Galiläa über Samarien nach Jerusalem. Von dieser Textparti, "der großen Auslassung", hat Lukas jedoch eine Parallele zu Mk 8: 11-15 bewahrt. Zu den Versen 11 -13 findet sich eine Entsprechung in Lk 11 :16.29 und zu (14 -) 15 in Lk 12:1. b. Lukas läßt weiterhin Ste llen aus , die er als unwichtig oder au s irgendeinem Grund als irrelevant betrachtet, wie z. Bsp. Jesu Belehrung über rein und unrein, Mk 7: 1-23 (= ein Teil der großen Auslassung); die Perikope übe r die Ehescheidung Mk 10,2- 12 (er hat aber Lk 16,1 8):

Vgl. Conzelmann (1974: 42-63, 47): ''Was scha m er'! Was in seine eigene Konteption gla tt eingehl. Nurdies! Er übernimmt einen großen Teil des Markusstoffes wörtlichund zerSlön die markinische Redaktion, die Disposilion des Evangeliums, de ran grilndlich, daß kaum ein Stein auf dem andem bleibt. Das ist eine qUllmiuu iv geringe. qualitativ entscheidende Veränderung. An die Stelle der Markus-Gliederung setzt er eine vollkommen originale, aus seinen typischen An schauungen erwaehsene." Die Absicht Contelmanns iSI, an hand von einzelnen Proble me n d ie lukanische Redaktionsarbeit insgesamt aufzuzeigen· vor allem durch den Vergleich mil Mk. 39 Die Au slassung dieses Abschnittes wird ofl als rätselhaft bezeichnet und hat tu den verschiedensten H ypolhesen geruhT!, um zu erkl tt.ren, daß Lukas z. Bsp. diesen A bschnitt nichl gekannt Mue, da er einen kürzeren Ur-Mk vo r sich halte (B W Bussmann), oder daß das Mk, das Lukas gebrauchte, de fekt war (Streeter, Hirsch). Die mei sten meinen jedoch, daß die Auslassung seinem redaklionellen Streben zuzuschreiben iSl, Dublenen von Stoff tu venneiden, den er mit äh nlichem Inhal t aus anderen Quellen erhalten halle (Q oder Sonderstoff). Radi, 1988 : 31: "Die Gründe ft.I r seine Auslassung können darin liegen, daß Lukas die Berichte über spezifisch jüdische Auseinandersetzungen sowie über Jesu Wirken im heidnischen Gebiet und darüber hinaus einfach Dubletten yennciden will." ]I

168

Das Verhälmis von Lk/Apg zum Markusev.

we iler: Mk 3:20 f.; 7:24.30; 11 : 12-1 4.20-25; 6:45-52; event. 7:3 1-37; 8:22 -26. c. Andere Mk -Abschnitte läßt e r aus, weil e r die Ereignisse ode r betreffe nden Reden gemäß eine r ande ren Quelle in einem ande ren Zusam menhang berichte t und Dubletten ve nneiden will (die e r sonst nur fü r kurze Jesusworte hat?) - vielle icht um sta u dessen anderen Stoff prioritieren zu können, Mk 1:16-20 (staudessen : Lk 5: 1-1 1): die JÜflgerberu fung. Mk 3:22-30 (staudessen: Lk 11 : 14-23): Austreiben der Dämonen mit dem Geist Gou es. Mk 13:33-37 (staudessen Lk 2 1:34-36): Mahnung zum Wachen. Lukas läßt auch Mk 14:3-9 aus, weil e r bereits eine ähnliche Erzählung in Lk 7:36-50 hatte. 4o Auch das Ve rhör vor dem Hohen Rat fehlt im Lk , wi rd jedoch in Apg 6: 13f nachgeholt.41 d. Lukas läßt auch den Abschnitt 'Die Soldate n verhöhnen Jesus' in Mk 15: 16-20 aus. In ähn licher Weise streicht e r die Be me rkung über d ie He rodiane r in Lk 6:6- 11 , da die Sabbatfrage aufgrund ihres religiösen Charakters die Gegenwa rt eine r politi sche n Gruppe unnöti g macht. Die He rod ianer waren für die Lese r des Lk wahrscheinl ich ke ine klar de fi nierte Gruppe und de r Ausdruck konnte daher als nichtssagend aufgefaß t werden. In Lk 20:20-26 handelt er in ähnlicher We ise, obwohl es s ich hie rbei um eine pOlitische Sache handelt. e. Lukas läßt erstaunlicherweise auch Stellen aus , die von der sühne nden Kraft des Todes Jesu ha ndeln: vgl. Mk 10:45; 14:24 (7) sowie die Zitate aus Jes 53 (Lk 22:37; Apg 8:321)." Lk 22: 19f wird ni cht näher e ntwickelt . Au ch Jesu Klage am Kreuz, daß Gott ihn verlassen hat, Mk 15 :34, streicht e r.

4. Welches Mmerial ist Nicht-Mk·Sroff im Lk? Zu beachten ist hie r, auf we lche Weise Lu kas im Evanglium "fa st den gesamten nich t aus Mk kommenden Sto ff in zwei großen zusammenhängenden Abschnillcn oder Blöcken ... dem Mk- Rahmen eingefügt" haL 43 a. Lk I :1-4 und Apg I :1-4.8 sowie die Apg im großen und ganzen.

40 Maddox . 1982: 5f. 4 1 Maddox, 1982: 5. Vgl . Schneide r (1977: 52). 42 Siehe die nt.lichen Einleilungen. Neulich wiederum feslgesleU, von Lührmann (1 989: 51-71 .57). Vgl. Büchele. 1978. 43 Wikenhauser/Schmid , 1973 : 258.

169

Walter Übelacker

b. Die KindheilSgeschichten.44 Die Berichte. die sich in Lk 1-2 find en, gehen eindeutig auf die redaktionelle Arbeit von Lukas zurück.4~ Obwohl sowohl Lk als auch Mt Kindheitsgeschichten enthalten, unterscheiden sich diese entscheidend voneinander. Ob Lukas schriftl ichen oder mündlichen Quellen fOlgt . ist in diesem Zusammenhang von untergeordneter Bedeutung. c. "Der kleine Einschub" (6:20-8:3), den Lukas nach Mk 3:12 bzw. vor 3: 19 hat und der "grolle Einschub" (9:51-18 :14), den Lukas statt MI< 9:4210:12 hat. 46 Ein eigenes Kapitel ist. in welchem Ausmaß Lukas selbst bei seiner redaktionellen Arbeit Q-Stoff mit Sonderstoff kombinierte oder ob er von einer bereits vorliegenden Quelle ausging. in der Q-Stoff und sein Sonderstoff bereits miteinander verbunden vorlagen (S treeters Proto- Luke. Jeremias).47 d. Die Sonderstellung der Passionsgeschichte (vgl. Jeremias, Abendmahlsworte Jesu) e_ Andere Einschübe erklären sich durch ihren Platz im Zusammen hang : 3:7- 14,23-38; 4:1 - 13 (= MI< 1: 121); 5:1-11 statt MI< 1:16-20; 19: 127,39-44 sowie einige Einschübe in der Leidensgeschichte 22: 15-20.2438; 23:6- 16,17-32,34,39-43_ Beispiele für kleinere, jedoch für Lukas' redaktionelle Bearbeitung typi sche lheolog ische Zusätze sind: Lk 5:32: ei~ ,ue-rdvotav, Lk 8: 12: iva,ur, mQU'ooav1E~ aw6romv, Lk 8: 15: l.v uJtWJOVU. Lk 8:21 : oi fOV .t6yov -roü Beoü ,hcooov~ /(ai 1tOI OVV~. Lk 11 :30 enthält eine Änderung zu

111

)'E've~ -ravfU·

Die Übersicht auf der folgenden Seite veranschaulicht graphi sch die bJockweise red ak tionelle Arbe it de s Lukas. wo entweder e ine ei nzige 44 Zur Fu nktion der Kin heilserzlihlungen rur LkJApg siehe Minear, 1966: 111 - 130, deutsch: 1974: 204-235. Tatum (1967: 184- 195); deutsch: 1974: 3 17-336. 45 Vgl. SChünnann, 1970: 140. Zusammenfassend sagt er, 141 : "Offensichtlich hat Luk seiner &7frrlOl~ nachrrliglich Kap. 1-2 vorgeklebt und diese dan n so redigien, daß schon manche Züge des Evangeliums vorweg aufblinkten ... Luk ... hat sie mehr in Einklang mit der Tradition Mk 1,1ff und dem Verttindigungszeugnis der Apostel (vgl. Lk I: 1f; 24:46f; Apg 1:21f: 10:37) als ein 'Präludium' gewenet, das diesen 'Anfang' vom 'Ursprung' in Gott her erhellte." SchUnnann , 1970: 14 8, spricht auch von einem ~ Vor- Kerygma " des Täufe rs - vgl. Apg 13:24: 1rpOl"l1P~~ 'lAlt'iwou ... 46 KUmmei, 1969: 80, meint. daß ein MX-Abschnitt an den Stellen fehlt, an denen Lukas den kleinen bzw. großen Einschub vornimmt. Man sollte vielleicht näher untersuchen, inwiefern Lukas die berührten Abschnitte bewußt ersetzen will. Mk 3:20-21 ist MkSondergut und 3:22-30 handelt von Beelzebul und de r Vergebung, von denen Lukas eine ähnliche Version in Lk 11: 15-23 bzw. 12:6 hat. 41 Jeremias, 1979: 47-49.

170

"

Das Verh!iltnis von Lk/Apg zum Markusev.

Quelle ganz dominiert oder wo eine der drei hauptsächlichen 'Quellen' ( Mk, Q, Ls) fehlt . Block 1 (1 -2) e nthält nur Ls (l ukanische n So ndersto ff; wir unterscheiden hier nicht zwischen dahinter liegenden ve rschiede nen Schichten cx:Ier Traditionen. Block 2 (3: 1-6 : 19) enthält überwiegend Mk- und lukanisches Sondergut (Ls). Block 3 (6:20·8:3) besteht aus dem 'kleinen Einschub' (0. och Ls). Block 4 (8:4-9:50) besteht aus Markusstoff. Block 5 (9:51 - 18: 14) beste ht aus dem 'gro ßen Einschub', der überwiegend aus Ls und Q sowie einzelne n Te xten des Mk besteht, die Lukas früher ausgelassen hat, weil er Parallelstoff aus Q hatte. Block 6 (18: 15-24:12 besteht vor allem aus Marku sstoff (Ls '" Lk 19: 1- 10 rn.m.; Q '" 19: 11 -27), Block 7 (24: 13-53) beste ht wie Block 1 aus Ls.

Der Schlußsatz, der sich mehr oder weniger deutlich einfindet, ist, daß Lukas bei seiner 'Redaktion' den ihm zugänglichen Stoff in Blöcken bearbeitet hat , wie z. Bsp. Ls, Mk oder Q. Er scheint auch geneigt zu sein , jeweils nur zwei Quellen gleichzeitig miteinander zu verbinden, bzw. nur den Stoff, der meistens al s sein Sondergut (= Ls) bezeichnet wird . letzteres feHlt vor allem in Lk 1-2 und 24: 13-53 auf, d.h. am Anfang und Ende des Lk .

12

LU KE·,\ CTS

171

Das Verhältnis von Lk/Apg:tum Marlc:usev.

10. Konsequenzen der lukanischen Redaktionsarbeit am Mk. J. Die geographische Bearbeilung und die Bedeulung Jerusa[em~

Die für das Mk typische geographische Eintei lung des Wirkens Jesu in e ine einleitende Periode in Galiläa mit darauf folgenden Wanderungen in Galiläa und seinen Grenzgebieten sowie dem Weg nach und der Wirksamkeit in Jerusalem ändert Lukas. Charakteristi sch hierfür ist - wie wir bereits feststellten - die Tilgung der Ortsangabe von Cäsarea Filippi im nordöstlichen Teil des Ostjordanlandes (Mk 8:27 I! Lk 9: 18). Hierdurch werden die Ereignisse. die in Mk 6:6- 10:52 geschildert werden, nach Galiläa verlegt. Jesus ist so nach Lukas von Anfang an viel deutlicher auf dem Weg von Galiläa über Samarien nach Jerusalem, dem Ziel des Evangeliums und dem Ausgangspunkt der Apg. Jeru salem ist der geographische Knotenpunkt, der Lukas' beide Schriften vereint. (vgl. hiennit Apg 10:37 <-> U 23:5). Lukas' Fonnulierung am Anfang der Apg (1:8 " ... ihr werdet meine Zeugen sein in Jerusalem und in ganz Judäa und Samarien und bis ans Ende der Erde") ist typisch für die geographische Achse, um die sich sein Werk dreht. Eine entsprechende Aussage fmdet sich am Schluß des Lk: 24:46f: "Es steht geschrieben, daß der Christus auf diese Weise leiden und am dritten Tage von den Toten auferstehen werde und daß auf seinen Namen hin Buße zur Vergebung der Sünden gepredigt werden solle unter allen Völkern, beginnend mit Jau salem. Ihr seid Zeugen dafür ... "A9 Damit aber diese VerkUndigung für alle Völker beginnen kann, muß der Messias zuerst in Jerusalem leiden und am dritten Tage von den Toden auferstehen - was Lukas im Lk schildert. Durch diese Sicht wird das Lk zum ersten Teil eines Werkes, das die universelle Verkündigung gemäß der Schrill schildert . Lukas hat sowohl im Evangelium als auch in der Apg den Stoff nach einem gewissen geographischen und chronologischen Schema geordnet. Ist die Disposition des Mk geprägt von der Zweiteilung des Wirkens Jesu in Galiläa (und seinen Grenzgebieten) und Judäa50 - so ist nach C.C. "8 Vgl. l...ohmeyer (1914: 7- 12). McCown (1974: 13-42). 49 Vg!. Wikenhauser/Schmid. 1973 : 369. der auf l...ohfink, Paulus vor Damaskus. 47. hinweist, wonach in allen Reden von Peuus und Paulus der Gedanke auftaucht, daß die Apostel Zeugen sind · vgl. 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39-41; 13:31. Vgl. auch Burchard.

1970. 50 l...ohmeyer ( 1914: 7f), sagt drastisch: "Der geographische Rahmen des Mk ist schon hier gesprengt ... Das weite Ga.liläa des MIt ist verkleinen; aber diÜUr ist ein neuer Rahmen gewonnen: Sam3ria.- McCown (1974 : 13-42,33), vgl. unten Anm. 51.

173

Walter Übelacker

McCown die Einteilung in drei geographische Teile - GaJiläa, Sam arien, Jerusalem - charakteristisch. Jeder die ser Teile ist nach McCown gekenn zeichnet durch die Abweisung des Evangeliums: "Dieser Entwurf ist für sein zweites Werk anerkannt worden, aber für sein Evangelium haben die mei sten neueren Forscher den Entwurf dadurch verdunkelt, daß sie versuchten, Lukas mit Markus und Matthäus in Einklang zu bringen."~ l Einige Forscher meinen, daß Lukas Samanen bewußt getilgt hat. ~2 Andere rechnen wieder mit einer gewissen Tätigkeit dort oder in Transjordanien .~3

Lk hat zwar eine Reihe geographischer Angaben, legt aber in sgesamt weniger Gewicht auf Situalionsangaben. Des öfteren streicht er, wenn Mk derlei hat. Lukas ändert auch öfters die geographi schen Angaben des Mk , daß sich etwas in einem Dorf zutrug zu der Au ssage, daß es in e iner 'Stadt' geschah. ~4 Zusammenfassend läßt sich feststellen, daß Lukas die Bedeutung Ga liläas weniger betont. Galiläa behält jedoch seine Bedeutung als die Landschaft, in welcher die Schrift (Propheten) begann, in Erfüllung zu gehen, wo Jesus programmatisch - außerhalb Judäas - begann wie auch Elia und Elisa gemäß Lk 4:16ff. Wesentlich wird der Blick nach Jerusalem . Der deutlichste Ausdru ck hierfür ist mögli che rwei se die Tilgung von Mk 14 :28: "Aber wenn ich auferweckt worden bin, werde ich euch nach Gali läa vorausgehen". In Übereinstimmung hiermit streicht Lukas Mk 16:7. Durch einen redaktione ll en Eingriff wird die Prophezeiung, daß er in Galiläa erscheinen werde zu einer bloßen Aussage in Galiläa geändert. ~l McCown ( 1974: 28f).

~2 Siehe Conzelmann , (1974 : 54). Marx sen, 1964: 142: "Die Wirksamkeit Jesu wird d urch Lukas auf Galiläa und Judä.a begrenzt. Wirken außerhalb Palästinas streicht e r (vgl. M.k 8:27 mit Lk 9: 18)." Radi, 1988: 101 : "Die Landsc haft Samaria spie lt im Gegensatz zu Apg 8 im Evangelium nur eine geringe Rolle. Sein zentraler Abschnitt 9:51 - 19:28 . der sogenannte Reiseberic ht . ist trotz 9 :52-56 d urchaus nicht die Darstellung von 'Jesu Wirke n in Samaria' (gegen McCown , Geographie, 29)." ~3 Vgl. Jesu Wirken in Samarien Lk 9:52; 17: 11 (Lk 9:51 - 19:27. der sogenannte lukanische Reisebericht). McCo wn (I974 :28f): "Der zweite Abschnitt umfaßt Jesu Wirken in Samarien. das wieder mit einer Ablehnung beginnt (9:51 - 19:27)." Reicke, 1986: 39f,Iokalisien den ganzen großen Einschub nach Transjordanien; 54: Lk 10:2528 Transjordanien. $ 4 Vgl. Lk 4: 43. McCown (1974: 29): "Das Evangelium hat Hir geographische Angaben die gleiche Vorliebe wie die Apostelgeschichte, wenn auch nicht die gleiche Fülle. In beiden Werken wird die Frohbotschaft hauptsächlich in Städten gepredigl. Fast alle Dörfer Galiläas sind zu Städten beförden . Zum Beispiel erwähnt Lk Jerusalem 75 % öfter als Markus und dreimal so oft wie MauM us." Vg l. Busse, 1977: 57f, Anm. 3: "Jesus beg in nt sein öffentliches Wirken in Städten und demnach nicht 'in einem Winkel' der Welt (Apg 26:26)." Vgl. auch ibid ., 73 : "Lukas sieht Jesus als Stadtmissionar und Prediger der GOHesherrschaft" und 91 : "2. Die Errettungstaten Jesu in der jüdischen Stadtmission Lk 4:44-7:50."

174

Das Verhältnis von Lk/Apg zum Marlcusev.

Dem gemäß erscheint der Auferstandene auch nur in l erusalem. Galiläa ble ibt jedoch de r wichtige Ausgangspunkt fur das Wirken l esu und die Berufung der Junger, die nach Jeru salem folgen sollten, um dort an· ge fangen, Zeugen zu sein bi s ans Ende der Erde (Apg 1:8).55

2. Die Bearbeitung des Passionsberichtes

Das Verhältnis de s lukani schen Pass ionsberichtes und se ine Beziehung zum Mk werden verschieden beu rteilt. Die Frage ist, ob Lukas vom Mk ausgegangen ist und radikale Eingriffe vorgenommen hat oder ob er einer anderen Quelle folgt. Für J. l eremias ist entscheidend, daß Lukas in der Passionsgeschichle die mark in ische Reihenfolge in radikaler Wei se verläßt. 56 Das Lk weist hier grössere Übereinstimmung mir Pau lu s und dem Ih auf als mit Mk ..5' Dies muß aber nicht bedeuten, daß Lukas Paulu sschüler war oder dessen Briefe kennen mußte; wahrscheinlicher ist, daß beide mit derselben Tradition vertrau t waren.58 Lukas läßt hier mehrere Abschnitte aus , wie z. Bsp. die Flucht de r Jünger bei der Gefan ge nnahme l esu (Mk 14:50) oder die Episode mit dem nackt fliehende n Jüngling (Mk 14:51f). Gleichzeitig finden sich wesent· Iiche Zusätze . Lukas all ein berichtet. daß Pilatus l esus zu Herodes Antipas fü hren ließ (Lk 23:6-16) und daß Jesus auf dem Weg zur Kreuzigun g 55 Klimmel, 1969: 87, hebt sowohl die theologische Bedeutung des Beginns des Wirkens Jesu in GaliHia hervor als auch d ie redaktionelle Erweiterung des Lukas der relativ kurzen An gaben des Mk , daß Jesus sich nach seiner Wirksamkeit in Galiläa und dessen Umgebung nach Jerusalem begab. Mk 1O: 1ff wird so zu Lk 9 :5 1- 19:27 ausgedehnt, wo Jesus vor allem im gro ßen Einschub (Lk 9 :5 1- 18: 14) immer wieder als auf dem Weg nach Jerusalem dargestellt wird: "Der Umfang und die Stellung dieser Komposition vor de r eigentlichen Leidensgeschic hte verleihen diesem Abschnitt des Wirkens Jesu ein besonderes Gewicht, und so wird schon a n dieser formal en Änderung des Mk.-Aufrisses deutlich , daß Lukas die Geschichte Jesu als Vorbereitung der Wirksamkei t der Jünger nach Ostern beschreiben will." V gl. auch Robinson ( 1974: 115, 122, 128, 132) . .56 Jeremias, 1979: 49: "Mit der Feststellung. daß Lukas in der Akol uthie unentwegt Markus fol gt, ist auch das Un eil übe r die Passionsgeschichte Lk 22 : 14-24:53 gefällt. Sie weicht so stark in de r Re ihenfo lge der Perikopen von Markus ab, daß sie dem neuen Stoff zugerechnet werden muß." 51 Vgl. Rese, (1985: 2314), wo Rese kurz auf Grundmanns Kommentar (KNT) eingeht: Grundmann fin de in der Passionsgeschichte..des Lk ei ne lukanisch-johanneische 'Sondertradition hellenistischer Prägung' vor. AhnIich charakterisiert Rese, 23 15. den Kommentar von Ernst (RNT), wonach dieser im An schluß an T aylo r "e inen eigen stä. ndigen Passionsbericht " zuslandebringe (Ern st, Lukas , 573), der viele Berührungspu nkte mit der johanneischen Passionsgeschichte aufwe ise (Ernst, Lukas, 34). 58 Siehe z. Bsp. WikenhauserlSchmid, 1973: 256.

175

Walter Übelacker

öffentli ch von den Frauen in Jerusalem beweint wird (23:27-31). Anzunehmen ist auch, daß der ilberaus ausführliche Bericht vom letzten Mahl (Lk 22: 14-38) von einer besonderen Quellen stammt..59 Insgesamt weist die Änderung des Passionsberichtes des Mk eine deutliche theologische Tendenz auf. nämlich nachzuweisen, daß Jesu Leiden in Übereinstimmung steht mit dem Willen Gottes. daß damit die Schrift in Erfüllung geht (vgl. Lk 22:37). Typisch hierfür ist auch die Änderung der dritten Leidensverkündigung.60 Das Leiden wird als unverschuldetes Leiden gezeichnet. Jesus hat (ähnlich wie die Christen in der Situation. die in der Apg vorliegt) nichts gegen das Gesetz getan, wofür man ihn anklagen könnte. Charakteristisch ist. daß Pilatus ihn gerade deshalb freigeben wil1. 61 Diese politische Tendenz scheint Lukas in verschiedener Weise vorbereitet zu haben.61 So läßt er z. Bsp. in Lk 20:20 andere Personen auftreten al s Markus an der entsprechenden Stelle in Mk 12: 13. Die Absicht der Änderung ergibt sich aus 23:2. Möglicherweise venneidet Lukas aufgrund dieser politisch (-apologeti schen) Tendenz, die Verhöhnung Jesu durch die römi schen Soldaten (Mk 15:16-20) zu erwähnen. Es kann aber auch sein, daß er diesen Abschnitt ganz einfach ausgelassen hat , weil er gewöhnlich Perikopen tilgt, in denen er eine Dublette für einen anderen Abschnitt erblickt.63 Betont Lukas die "Unschuld" der Römer so findet sich in gleichem Au smaß eine Tendenz. die Juden - sowohl Führer als auch das Volk - für Jesu Leiden und Tod zu belasten.

3. Die Bearbeitung der martinisehen Parusie-Aussagen Seit langem hat man diskutiert . inwiefern das Lk eine andere Eschatologie vertritt als Mk . Auffallend sind einige Änderungen im markinischen 59 Wikenhauser/Schmid. 1973: 260. Jeremias. 1967: 91 und 93.

60 Vgl. Koct. 1989: 154. Vgl. oben Anm. 37. 61 V gl. Mk 15: 15 "Pila!us ... überließ ihn zur Krcuzigung Mmi! Lk 23:25 MJesus aber ilbergab er ihrem Willen ". Marxsen. 1964: 141 : "Lukas verfolg! a lso nich! die Tendenz. die Juden zu beschuldigen. sondern die. die Römer zu endastenM. Vgl. Conzelmann (1974: 60): "Sämtliche Beziehungen auf die Römer als Vollstrecker sind sorgfältig ausgemerzt (Mlc 15: 16 ff) ." 61 Con:zelmann (1974: 57): "Die politische Tt!ntkru seines Berichts iSI vorberei!et.M 61 SchUtz. 1969: 130: MOas Tradi!iooSSlück Mk IS : I6-20 fehl! bei Lukas. der daftir in seinem Sondergut23:6-11 eine zweite jUdische Verspottung bring! .. . Er e:rset"Zl die römische Verspollung nich! durch eine jüdische. sondern läßt jene einfach fort. Die Streichung der VerspollUng durch die Römer braucht also nicht unbedingt mit antijüdischen Tendenun erk.län zu werden."

176

Das Verhältnis von Lk/A pg zum Markusev.

Stoff, deren Auslegung weitgehende Konsequenzen für das Gesamtverständnis der theologischen KonzeptiQn und Eigenart des Lk erhalten hat. M Nach H. Conzelmann hat Lukas Jesu Leben und Werk al s einen Teil der Heilsgeschichte Gottes betrachtet. Lukas scheint nach Conzelmann das Handeln Gottes in drei heilsgeschichtJiche Epochen einzuteilen: (1 ) Die erste erstreckt sich bis auf Johannes den Täufer - die Zeit des Gesetzes und der Propheten, (2) die zweite umfaßt l esu irdisches Leben, (3) die drine umfaßt die Zeit nach der Himmelfahrt Jesu und ist die Zeit der Kirche unter der Leitung des Heiligen Geistes (anstelle von Jesus).6S Diese heilsgeschichtliche Einte ilung erfaßt Lk und Apg in einem e inzigen Plan, der das Doppelwerk des Lukas in übergreifender Weise disponiert. Wenn diese Disposition irgendwie zu Recht besteht, ist es logisch , anzunehmen , daß dieser Plan Lukas bei der Bearbeitung des Mk beeinflußt haben dürfte, indem er den markinischen Stoff dieser Konzeption anpaßte. Die Dreiteilung Conzelmanns ist in Frage gestellt worden. W. Radi meint, daß Lukas alles grundSätzlich im Lichte von Verheißung (Pro· phetie) und Erfüllung sieht. Aufgrund dieser Sicht kann man die "Zeit der Erfüllung" ni cht in eine Jesusepoche und eine Epoche für die Zeit der Kirche aufteilen." Dies bestätigt auch eine der wenigen größeren Änderungen in der Reihenfolge des Mk, die Lukas vornimmt. Im Mk tritt Jesus gleichzeitig mit Johannes dem Täufer auf - erst in Mk 6 berichtet Marku s retrospekitv, daß Johannes ins Gefängnis geworfen worden ist. Lukas ändert den Gedankengang. Da Johannes zur Zeit der Verheißung gehört • er ist ja Vorläufer (jedenfalls e ine Art Verbindungsglied) - tritt Jesus erst auf (Lk 3:23), nachdem jener im Gefängni s ist (Lk 3: 19f och 21). Den e igentlichen Anfang nimmt Jesu Verkündi gung daher erst mit der ProgrammerkJ ärung in Lk 4:2 1 - im Unterschied zu Mk 1:1. 61

Vgl. die ausftlhrliche Diskussio n des Verhältnisses zwischen Mk und Lk 21:5-36 und 17:20-37 bei Zmijewski, 1972. 6~ Conze1mann, 1964. Eine frühe kritische Sichtung finde t sich bei Rohde, 1966: 124144, 143: "Zumindesl müßle man von Conzelmann eine klare Auskunfl darü ber erwanen, o b er die ausgebliebene Parusie als den grundlegend bestimmenden Faktor im lukanischen Geschichtswerk oder nur als einen unter anderen betrachlet. 66 Radi , 1975: 390: M Jesuszeil und Zeil der Kirche bilden zusammen d ie Zeil der ErfUUung. Als solche slehen sie beide der Zeil der Verheißung, also der Zeil Israels. gegenüber ... 'Lukas denkt grundlegend im Zweier-Schema Verheißung - Erfüllung' (Schürmann)". Zur Krilik von Conzelmanns Einteilung vgl. u. a.: Minear ( 1974: 2 19227). Kümmel ( 1974a: 398·415; idem ( 1974b: 41 6-436). Vgl. auch Hiers (1973n4). 61 RadI, 1975: 392. Vgl. Koel, 1989: 37 , 54f.

64

M

177

Walter Übelacker

Lukas steUt auch die Zeit der Kirche deutlich als eine Fortsetzung von Jesu Wirksamkeit in der Apg dar.68 So wie Jesu Wirken im Lk unter der Leitung des Heiligen Geistes steht , so auch das der Jünger nach Jesu Weg· gang. Was Lukas in seinen Tagen erlebt, ist die immer weitere Verbreitung des Evangeliums und damit das Bedü rfn is, die nahe Paru sie· erwartung des Mk neu verständlich zu machen , um diese der neuen Situ ati on anzupassen. Eine Inventierung der grundlegenden Traditionen, um den Bedürfni ssen der wachsenden Kirche nach Klarhei t und Gewißhe it (&a!fxi.tao) zu entsprechen, ist daher vonnöten . Dies um so mehr als die meisten Augenzeugen dabei sind. einer nach dem anderen auszusterben (vgl. 1 Kor 15:6). Es gilt , den Grund (Evangelium) siche rzustellen, auf dem die Exi stenz der Kirche letzten Endes beruht (vgl. 1 Kor 15:1 och Lk 1:1-4). Die nahe Parusieerwartung tritt dahe r im Laufe der Zeit ganz natürlich in den Hintergrund . Tag und Stunde sind ungewiß geworden - und man muß daher notgezwungen von einer Umfonnulierung des eschatolog ischen Denkens in Bezug zu Mk sprechen.69 Am deutl ichsten kommt dies vielleicht in Jesu Abschiedswort an die Jünger in Apg 1:7f zum Au sdruck: "Es gebührt euch ni cht , Zeit oder Stunde zu wissen, die der Vater in seiner Macht bestimmt hat. "70 In Übe rei nstimmun g mit dieser Sic ht streicht Luka s in de r Zusammenfassung der Verkündigung Jesu die Nähe der Gottesherrschaft , daß die Ze it erfü llt ist (6'0 JreJrArjpw'tm 0 K"OtpCx; K"ai rJrrtK"€V t) ßoO"!kla 'too 8eoV) in Mk I :15. Symptomatisch und programmat isch ändert Lukas Jesu Programmerkl ärung (Lk 4: 16-30) dahingehend , daß sich die Schrift heute e rfüllt hat (Lk 4:21 6n
178

"

Das Verhältnis von Lk/Apg zum Markusev.

denn dazu bin ich ausgesandr." 10 ähnlicher Weise streicht Lukas andere Worte Jesu, die vom nahen Ende reden. Dementsprechend tilgt er auch den futuri schen Ausdruck in Mk 14:62: "ihr we rdet ... kommen sehen" (6y.rea9at ... Kai tPZ6}.JEVOV K"t"A. vgl. Lk 22:69). Nach Lukas kann Jesus das Gleichni s von den anvertrauten Pfun· den ausgesprochen haben , um der fal schen Meinung vorzubeugen , daß die Ankunft der Gottesherrschaft unmittelbar bevorstehe (vgl. Lk 19:11 ).72

4. Änderungen in der apoklllyprischen Rede Auf dem Hintergrund des soeben Festgestellten muß auch die Bearbeitung gesehen werden, die Lukas in der apokalypti schen Rede von Mk 13 vor· nimmt. Zu Mk 13:6 füg t Lukas in 21 :8 eine Warnung für die Menschen hinzu, die sagen "die Zeit ist nahe herbeigekommen", nämlich: "Seht zu, laßt eu ch ni cht verführen .... Folgt ihnen nicht ". Die Frage nach dem Zeitpunkt wird somit als unpassend und irreführend abgewiesen. Anstelle des nahe bevorstehenden Endes setzt Lukas die unerwartete, plötzliche und unberechenbare Parusie. Der Schluß von Mk 13:33·37, der vom Wachen vo r dem nahen Ende handelt , wird von Lukas durch einen Text ersetzt , der von irdischem Kummer und religöser Ennüdung handelt (Lk 2 1:34 -36). Die vo rkommende Tenn ino log ie spielt in der späteren Brie flite ratu r des NT eine große Rolle. Mahnungen zu Geduld U1fo}.JovrJ (vgl. den Zusatz in Lk 9: 15 gegenüber Mk 4:20) , Standhaftigkeit und Ausdauer (Lk 2 1: 19; vgl. 8: 15) haben dort gesteigerte Bedeutung erhalten. Verfolgungen werden im Unterschied zu Marku s ni cht mehr als ein eschatologisches Geschehen dargestellt, sondern als etwas Aktuelles im all täglichen Leben. (vgl. vor allem die Apg). Der gle iche Aspekt find et sich in den lukanischen Seligpreisun gen, was zeigt, daß Lukas in d ie Situation seiner Zeit hinein sprechen w ill , in die ak tu ell e Situation der damaligen Kirche . Es ist daher nich t ganz in Übe rei nsti mmung mit dem Material, wenn Conze lm ann, Grässe r und ande re sagen, daß Lukas die nahe Parusie· erwartung mit der Idee der Heil sgeschichte ersetzt haLB Neben Texten, wo die Paru sie nicht einmal in weiter Feme aufblinkt , gibt es ja immer noch Aussagen, die vom bevorstehenden Ende sprechen· vgl. das Zeugnis 72 Vgl. die Zusammenstellung derartiger Texte in Kümmel, 1969: 88: "Die Naherwanung wird au s ihrer beherrschenden Stellung verdrängt". Vgl. ibid.:112, in bezug aur die Apg. 73 WikenhauserlSchmid, 1973: 270. 13

L U K E·,\(TS

179

Walter Obelacker

Johannes des Täufers in 3:9.17; im Munde Jesu: 18 :7 och 10:9.11 , wo Lukas von Mk abweichend hinzufü gt: "Das aber sol 11 ihr wissen: Das Reich Gottes ist bald hier [bei euch, V. 9]". Die Frage ist, ob man ni cht sagen könnte, daß für Lukas die Zeit Jesu und die Zeit der Kirche zu einer einheitlichen eschatologien Epoche zu~ sammenschmel zen.,74 nämlich als Zeit der Erfüllung.1 s Zwischen dem apokalyptischen Material des Mk und des Lk liegen somil große Unter~ schiede VOr. 76 Lukas hat hier allem Anschein nach eine stärkere Bearbei ~ tung vorgenommen. Um stritten ist jedoch, ob Lukas in der Anordnung des Stoffes Mk folgt oder ob er insgesamt :von eine r anderen Quellen ~ vorlage ausgeht. Die Unterschiede hat man - im Anschluß an C. H. Dodd - oft auf die LXX-Vorlage in Lk 12:20-44 zurückführen wollen . Die Frage muß je ~ doch gestellt werden, warum Lukas gerade an diesem Punkt die marki nische Darstell ung verläßt und den Mk-Stoff mit anderem Material er~ setzt. In Verbindung hiermit so llte vielleicht auch die Aussage nach Lk 19:41 -44 gesehen werden, daß Jesus das Geschick Jerusalems beweint. Der Fall Jeru sa lems scheint außerdem vorausgese tzt zu sein in Lk 23 :27-31 und 13: 1-5(6-9)," Ein entscheidendes Argument dagegen, daß Lukas in Kap. 2 1 einer anderen Quelle folgt, ist die Feststellung. daß er nicht nur wönliche Obereinstimmungen aufweist . sondern - auch wenn er voll und ganz oder nur teilweise von Mk Formulierungen abweicht - insgesamt dem Gedanken ~ gang des Mk sehr genau folgt. 78 J Zmijewski ist in seiner großen Untersuchung der eschatologischen Reden in Kap. 17 und 21 zu dem Ergebnis gekommen, daß Lukas in Kap. 21 voll und ganz der Mk-Vorlage folgt, während er in in Kap. 17 nur Materi al zusammensteHt, das er von anderswoher erha lten hat , besonders von Q.19 74 WikenhauserlSchmid, 1973: 362. 7S Zmijewsk i, 1972: 315: ~ Die 'Zei t der Kirche' (da s besondere Thema der

76

77 78 19

Apostelgeschichte) ist gegenüber der (idealen) 'Jesuzeil' keine Epoche suj gelluis. sondern in ihr setzt sich der eschatologische Heilsplan Gottes mit der Geradlinigkeit eines 'Weges' fon. Das, was Jesus selbst verheißen hai, geht jelzt in ErfLillung. Die Apostelgeschichte schildert die geschichtliche Entfaltung dieser ErfLillung. " Ibid., 314: Lk 21: 12· 19 hat "deutliche Bezüge zur Darstellung in der Apostelgeschichte," WikenhauserlSchmid, 1973: 260, unter Hinweis auf Kümmel, 1969: 81. Zmijewski. 1972: 3 19: "Lukas hat nun die drei 'apokalyptischen' Abschnitte de s Mark us (l3:7f. 12: 13: 14·22; 13:24-27) zwar grundsätzlich übernommen . hat dabei aber gerade die apokalyptischen Züge der Darstellung vennieden oder zumindest reduzien ," Maddox, 1982: 8. WikenhauserlSchmid, 1973: 260. 1972: 553: "Während Lukas in Kap 21 ganz der Markusvorlage (Mk 13) folgt (was ihm, wie festgestellt wurde, zu größeren redakl"ionellen Änderungen veranlaßte) stellt

180

Das Verhällnis von Lk/Apg zwn Markusev.

Am größten sind die Abweichungen gegen Ende der Rede, wo Lukas

Mk 13 :33-37 mit einem Abschnitt ersetzt, der Lukas' eigene Redaktion wiederspiegeln dürfte (Lk 21 :34-36). Dies muß mit der Zeit und der Situati on zusammenhänge n, in der das Lk zusrandegekomrnen ist. Lukas kann im Unterschied zu Markus auf die Zerstörung Jeru salems zurückblicken , was durch mehrere redakitonelle Verdeullichungen zum Ausdruck kommt. Die Abhängigkeit von Mk in irgendeiner Form wird je doch durch die Verwendung gew isser Wörter wahrscheinlich. So verwendet Lukas ayptm'velv (V. 36), ein Wort, das er sonst nie verwendet - und den Ausdruck navrl k'aIW. 80

5. Der Zweck der luknnischen Änderungen? Die Frage nach dem Zweck ist nahe verbunden mit der Frage, inwiefern Lukas Evangelium und Apgostelgeschichte von Anfang an als eine Enheit geplant hatte oder ni cht. Dementsprechend fallen auch die Antworten verschieden aus, je nachdem, ob man Lk bzw. Apg allein untersucht oder als Doppe lwerk mit einem übergreifenden Anliegen. Die Änderungen, die Lukas im Mk vorgenommen hat, sprechen für die Annahme. daß das Lk bewußt dem Zweck angepaßt worden ist. einen passenden Grund für das Wirken der Kirche nach der Himmelfahrt Jesu zu bilden. Die Jesu (Lk) und Paulus' Wirken (Apg) vergleichende Studie von W. Radi weist eine strukturelle Ähnlichkeit auf, die es schwer macht , zu verneinen, daß das Lk geschrieben worden ist mit dem Blick auf die Fortsetzung in der Apg.81 er in Kap 17 Redestoff verschiedenster Herkunft zusammen." Vgl. ibid. 3'11: für Lk 2 1 hat Lukas allein Mk 13 als literare Vorlage: "Sämtliche Abweichungen vom Markuslext erweisen sich als lukanische Redaklio nsarbei t, 'in welchcr sich ein fester Plan zeigt'." Vgl. Aejmelaeus. 1985: 99f. 80 Wikenhauser/Schmid, 1973: 260f. Vgl. Aejmelaeus, 1985: 101 f; "Die Markusperikope steht also im Hintergrund. Lukas hai sie gekannt und benutzt, hat sie aber nicht so, wie sie ist, in sein Evangelium aufgenommen. Der Grund hierfür kann darin liegen, daß Lukas die Q-ParaJlele zu Mark 13:33-37 schon in Luk 12:35-38 dargestellt hat. Hier muß er auf andere Weise ein Resümee: seiner eschatologischen Themen bilden ... nicht nur durch den Gebrauch derselben Wörter und Ausdrücke .... daß das tragende Thema in diesem Resümee, wie auch in Mark 13:33-37 , das Wachen ist." So !ihnlich Lövestam, 1963: 122- 132 (Lk 21:34·36). 81 Radi, 1975: 362: "Jesus erfähn das Schicksal der Kirche und umgekehn"; 363: Jesu Leiden - das Martyrium der Kirche; "Auch den schmerz.lichen Weg der Kirche von den Jude n zu den Heiden, das große Thema de r Apg, nimmt Jesus selbst schon vorweg. Seine Erfahrung in Na~eth (4:16· 30) ist keine andere als die der urchristl ichen Missionare (vgl. Apg 13: 14-52 u. ö.). Lukas zeichnet hier bereits im Evangelium. sogar an seinem programmatischen Anfang, ein Bild der christlichen Mission, wie er

181

Walter Obclacker

Auch die Untersuchungen der Schriftauslegung in ent scheidenden Partien in LkJApg durch B. J. Koet weisen in die gleiche Richtung. Eine zentrale RaUe bei dem Versuch, Lukas' Zweck in den Griff zu bekom men, spielt nach unserer Ansicht die Auslegung der ProgrammerkJärung Jesu in Lk 4:14b-30: 82 Hier werden Jes us und se ine Verkündigung in Israel als Modell und Vorbild für die Situation und Verkündigung der Kirche in den Tagen des Lukas dargestellt. 83 Die Aufgabe Jesu, auch in den anderen Städten predigen zu müssen, wird in direkter Kontinuität von Pau lus weitergeführt (via den Kronzeugen Petru s und die ande ren Apostel, mit denen Paulu s in Kontakt war). Lukas verankert som it die christliche Verkündigung für alle Menschen (und damit auch flir die Heiden) in der Heiligen Schrift Israels. An diesem Punkt ist Lukas (mit Paulus) bahnbrechend . Jesus und seine Jünger führen nur das aus, was der Schrift gemäß Israels eigentliche Aufgabe war. Dies geht deutli ch aus wenigen redaktionellen Änderungen gegenüber dem Mk-Stoff hervor. Die Ähnli ch keiten zwischen der Rede Jesu an die Jünger auf dem Weg nach Emmaus (Lk 24:27. 44f: "... 'a Ues muß erfüllt werden, was im Gesetz Mose, und in den Propheten und Psalmen über mich geschrieben steht'. Da öffnete er ihnen den Sinn, damit sie die Schriften verständen") und der letzten Rede Paulus' in Rom sind offenbar (vg l. Apg 28:23: "Und er legte ihnen das Reich Gottes dar, indem er dafür Zeugni s gab und sie so wohJ aus dem Gesetz des Mose als aus den Propheten in bezug au f Jesus zu überzeugen suchte vom Morgen bis zum Abend"). Erst als Pau lu s in Rom seine letzte Rede hält , schließt sich der Kreis. 84 sie sieht (... )"; 364: "Ein anderes Beispiel fUr eine solche implizi t durchgeflihne Gleichsetzung von Jesus und Kirche bietet das Mk im Aussendungsbericht 6:7- 13 ... 'nur das ist ilberliefen , was auch fü r die splitere Zeit der urchristlichen Mission noch gilt' ILohmeyer. Mk 1141. Indem so die Sendung der ApoStel mit der der sp!iteren Missionare verknilpft wird. erscheint die Ki rche auf dem Himergrund der Wirksamkeit Jesu und umgekehn." 82 Zu diesem wichtigen Abschnitt gibt es zahlreiche Arbeiten. Zwei der letzten sind: teils Busse, 1978. teils Kott, 1989: 22-55: "Luke 4. 16-30 as a programme." Vgl. auch oben Anm. 33 und 34. 83 Vgl . auch Berger, 1984: 346-357.352, der Mk 6 : 1-6 und Lk 4 : 16·30 als eine 'paradigmatisch· biographische Erzählung' charakterisiert: " Das Ergehen in der Vaterstadt wird zum Paradigma rur alles Geschick Jesu. die Vaterstadt wird zum Bild rur jede Polis. Der abgewiesene Lehrer wird nach Lukas gereltet aus der Bedrohung (christologisches Interesse), nach Markus wendet er sich ab." 84 Koet, 1989: 121: "Paul testifies about the kingdom of God and persuades them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the prophets (28:23). This proclamation causes division among the listeners (28:24). An imponant element of this second encounter is Paul's quotation of Isa 6:9- 10 (28:26-27) and his declaration about the Gentiles (28: 28). In 28:30-32the pericope comes to an end." Vgl. Kümmel, 1969: 86: "Die Reise Jesu nach Jerusalem hat ihr eigentliches Ziel erreicht, als Paulus in Rom ra II'cpi rot; ...-vpiov 'fJjGOU verkündigt (Apg 28:31)."

182

Das Verhältnis von Lk/Apg zwn Markusev.

Die Alternative, die oft als Lukas' Zweck mit Lk/Apg dargestellt wird , nämlich, daß er auf die eine odere Weise die Heidenmiss ion rechtfertigen wollte, hängt damit nahe mit diesem Gedankengang zusammen. Das Ziel ist danach, zu zeigen, daß Israel zuerst das Heil angeboten wurde - und erst als Israel nein gesagt hatte (oder wie Jervell lieber formuli ern will: als einige ja gesagt hatten) - ging das Angebot auch an die Heiden (NichtJuden) tiber.8.S Nach dieser Sicht repräsentieren die Christen ganz einfach das neue Israel und sind daher auch Erben der Verheißungen. 86 Einen anderen wichtigen Gedanken, der mit Lukas' Zweck eng verbunden ist und den wir oben bereits angedeutet haben, drückt G. Schneider mehr prägnant aus: die Absicht des Lukas ist, seinen Lesern die Kontinuität von der apostolischen Jesustraditon zur Predigt. der Kirche aufzuweisen, so wie Theofilos diese zu seiner Zeit vernahm. 87 In die gleiche Richtung - obwohl einen Schritt weiler - weisen Lukas' Zusätze am Anfang und dem Ende des Mk, die eine Rolle spielen müssen bei dem Versuch, sein Ziel und se ine Intentionen zu fixi eren. Einige interessante Beobachtungen hat M. Tolbert (und andere) gemacht, die hier kurz erwähnt werden sollen. Tolbert will Lk und Apg als ein einziges 8S Siehe hierzu die Umersuchung des Begriffes "arm", der in l esu Programmrede (Lk 4: 16-30) vorkommt, von Kvalbein, 1981 : 427 : ~ lm Gleichnis von der Einladung zum großen Mahl, Lk 14: 15ff, bildet "ann" die grenzensprengende Kategorie, die uns ein neues Volk Gottes ahnen läßt, wo offene Tore wichtiger sind als hohe Zäune. Dies entspricht dem Bestreben lesu, die Silnder, die 'verlorenen Schafe', mit der Einladung zum Reich Gottes zu erreic hen. In dieser Weise wird lesu Programmerklärung in Nazareth über les 61 : I f auch eine äußerst treffende Einleitung zum lukanischen Doppelwerk, das den Weg der ..Heilsbotschaft von lerusalem 'bis an die Enden der Erde' beschreiben will " (meine Ubersetzung). 86 Siehe näher l ervell (1972: 41-74) und idem (1984 : 122- 137). Vgl. die treffende Zusammenfassung von Koct, 1989: 20f, wo er die übliche Ansicht aufgreift, daß Lk/Apg ein "adjeu" für die l uden impliziere : "as the l ews reject Jesus and his proclamation, they are in turn rejected themsclves and therefore the salvation is now for the Gentiles. This view was recently challenged by J. lervell ... He thinks that the salvation of the Gentiles is nOt the result of the rejection of the Gospel by the lews, but of the acceptance of some lews. The promises must first be fulfilled to Israel before Gentiles can have a share in the salvation. ~ 87 Schneider, (1977: 541). Vgl. Robinson (1974: 128. 132). Ähnlich RadI, 1988: 54f: "Der Leser soll sich von der 'Zuverlässigkeit' (&o~o:) der Lehre, in der er unterwiesen worden ist, Ilberzeugen können ... , die bisherige Erfüllung von Verheißungen nachzuweisen und diese VerheißungstTeue GOlles zur Gewähr ftir die Erftillung der christlichen Hoffnung in Gegenwan und Zukunft zu machen." Vgl. auch Lövestam, 1988: 14: "Die Grundintention des Lukas mit der Apg kann somit folgendennaßen au sgedruckt werden: Lukas will zeigen, wie das Erlösungshandeln Goues in lesus Christus - das er im Evangelium schilden - nach Jesu Erhöhung in der Gemeinde vollzogen wird, mit der Kraft des Heiligen Geistes und unter der Leitung des Geistes ... Dies ist ein wichtiges Moment des Zweckes der Apg, zu zeigen, wie es sich mit der Beziehung der christlichen Gemeinde zu Israel verhält und inwiefem die Mission unter den Heiden dem Willen Gottes entspriCht" (meine Übersetzung).

183

Waller Übelacker

Werk betrachten88 und er meint, daß die Apg als des Lukas' ureigenstes Werk in erster Linie Licht auf die Frage wirft. in we lcher Richtung Luka s das Mk bearbeitet hat. Aufgrund der Programmerklärung in Lk 4: 16·30 (e ine Änderung von Mk 6: 1-5) und der Parallelität der Pro grammerklärung in Apg 13:14-52 kommt er zu dem Schlußsatz, daß Lukas zeigen will, wie die Christen an das AT glauben, während die Juden se lbst dieses verwerfen (Apg 7:2_53).89 Das gleiche Schema, das sich in Lukas' einleitendem Programm findet, durchSäuert sodann fast alle Reden be ider Bände. Tolbert meint, daß hier ein grund legendes Muster fü r andere zentrale Texte im Doppelwerk vorliegt, ja daß dieses Programm im Grunde genommen die Grundkonzeption des ganzen We rkes wiede rspiegell. 90 Aufgrund diese r Sicht meint Tolbe rt auch. daß Lk 1-2 ei ne bewußte Brücke ' vom AT zur Geburt Jesu bilden. Auch die Berichte von Jes u Kindheit und Jugend dienen dem Zweck, den Zusammenhang mil dem Ju dentum nachzuweisen. Daß es sich hierbei um eine bewußte Änderung des Lukas gegenüber Mk handelt, bestätigt die Parallelität in der Apg. Au ch dort wird ständig die Kopplung zum Judentum und den Wurzeln in demse lben herv orgehoben.91 Dies erklärt auch, warum Lukas so sehr darum bemüht ist, zu zeigen, daß weder Jesus noch seine Jünger die Ju den zurückgewiesen haben.92 88 Tolbert (1974: 337-353.339): "Entscheidende Bedeutung fUr das Verständnis der maßgeblichen Interessen des Lukasevangeliums hat schließlich die Apostelgeschichte. Nichl nur stammen Lukasevangelium und Apostelgeschichte vom gleichen Autor: sondern dieser hat sie von Anfang an als zwei Teile eines in sich geschlossenen Gesamtwerkes konzipiert Apostelgeschichte und Lukasevangelium bilden eine Einheit mit grundlegendem gedanklichen Zusammenhang." 89 Tolben (1974: 339-341). Vgl . Jervell, 1984: 128 zu Apg 13:16-41: "This speech of Paul has programmatlc significancc for Luke. 90 Tolben (1974: 340). Vgl. Koel, 1989: 46 - unsere Anm. 33 und 34. Vgl. auch Maddox, 1982: 1I - aufgrund der Hinzufügu ng der Kindheitsgeschichten in Lk 1-2: MS O right from the oUlsel a hint is given of the theme later to be represented by 'Jerusalem' and 'Rome', that the relationship of 'Israel' and 'Gentiles' may be a major concem of Luke's book." 91 Tolben (1974 : 342f, vgl. ibid., 344): "Die Anwendung der so gekennzeichneten Darstellungsmittel diente Lukas im wesentlichen fU r den Nachweis der Kontinuität zwischen dem Heidenchristentum seiner eigenen Zeil und dessen einstigen Anfängen im Judentum." 92 Tolben (1974: 344). Vgl. ibid., 345: "Lukas stellt als einziger Evangelist Jesu Weinen über Jerusalem dar (Lk 19:41-44). Die Wane Jesu in dieser Siruation sind zugleich ein e rgreifendes Zeugnis sei nes Verlangens nach Annahme durch sein Volk. Auf diese Weise wird Jesu Zuneigung zum jüdischen Volk jener Ablehnung gegenübergeslelh, die ihm von diesem widerfuhr. Dieser Gesichtspunkt spielt auch in der Apostelgeschichte eine außerordentlich große Rolle: dort wird beschrieben, wie Paulus alles ihm nur Mögliche unternimmt, um seine jüdischen Volksgenossen zu gewinnen , M

184

Das Verhältnis von Lk/Apg zum Marlmstv.

IV . Rückblick und Abschluß

Wir zeichnen sicherlich kein korrektes Bild von Lukas' Arbeit mit dem Mk und dem übrigen Stoff, wenn wir abschließend einige übergreifende Punkte von Lukas' Art und Weise, Stoff vom Mk zu übernehmen , auszulassen oder in andere r Weise zu redigieren, skizzieren . Bere its zu Beginn dieses Jahrhunderts stellte A. Jülicher eine Frage. die nach G. Braumann bis heute noch keine defmiti ve Antwort erhalten hat: 93 "In welcher Wei se, in welchen Richtungen hat man eine Umarbeitung, eine Änderung vorgenommen?" Die auffallendsten Änderungen gegenüber Mk sind deutlich folgende: 1. Lukas hat eine lange Ein leitung von etwa 4 Kapiteln sowie einen Abschluß von etwa einem Kapitel hinzugefügt (24 :13-53). 2. Er hat darüber hinaus einen klein eren und einen größeren "Einschub" jewei ls vor und nach der Mitte des Mk (8: 27 Petrusbekenntnis). 3. Er hat auch Mk 6:45-8:26 ausgelassen, die sogenannte große Lücke. und andere kleinere redaktionelle Änderungen vorgenommen (indem er entweder hinzufügt oder tilgt), um den Gedankengang seinen Zwecken anzupassen. Unseres Erachtens kann Jülichers Frage (vorläufig) vor allem aufgrund des Anfangs und Schlu sses beantwortet werden. Offenbar ist. daß Lukas deutlicher als Markus auf die christlichen Wurzeln in den Schriften und Prophezeiungen des AT zurückgegriffen hat, vor allem auf Jesaja, besonde rs Deuterojesaja (Kap. 40_55).94 Lukas will seinen Lesern Gewißheit (ciatfKUcla) für die Kontinuität vom Ursprung in der Schrift zu se iner eigenen Situation geben. Hierbe i muß die grundlegende Umgestaltung de r Einleitung des Mk , die in seiner lukani schen Fonn Kap. 1-4 umfaßt, nähe r mit dem Zweck des lukanischen Doppelwerkes in Verbindung gebracht werden. insbesondere scheint die Änderung, die Lukas gegenüber Mk in l esu programmatischem Auftreten in Nazareth gemäß Lk 4:14b-30 vorgenommen hat, etwas von dem roten Faden anzudeuten, der das ganze luk anische Doppelwerk durchzieht und zu einem op us aus einem Guß zusammenbindet. Das Heilshandeln Gones durch die Propheten El ia und Elisa erscheint so typologisch und programmatisch für sowohl Jesus als auch Petrus und von diesen aber wegen des universalisrischen Charakters seiner Heilsbotsc haft abgewiesen wurde." 93 Lukas-Evangelium, 1974: Vorwon xxrv (Zitat aus: Jülicher. Gleichnisse I, 183). 94 Radi, 1988: 73. Tolben (1974: 343).

185

Walter ÜbelllCker

Paulus. Lukas' Änderung von "die Zeit ist erfüllt" zu "die Schrift ist erfü Ut" hat Konsequenzen nicht nur für die geographische Disposition des gesamten Werkes, sondern auch für die Darstellung insgesamt: geographisch und theologisch kreist alles um Jerusalem. Es stellt sich schließ lich die Frage, ob nicht die meisten Abweichungen vom Mk in letzter Hinsicht auf eine Neuinterpretati on der Schrift und seiner Prophezeiungen zurückgeführt werden können . Lukas erlebl die Erfüllung dieser in de r universellen Verkündigung Jesu und der der Kirche. Die Heidenmission kann aufgrund des Handeins von Elia, Elisa und Jesu als in Übereinstimmung mil dem eigentlichen Willen Gottes stehend gerechtfertigt werden. Deshalb ist es auch wichtiger, im Jetzt zu leben und Ausdauer im Warten auf die Parusie au fzuzeigen, die kommt , wenn Gott dies will . Der Mensch braucht sich daher auch nicht um Tag und Stunde hierfür zu kümmern . Die nahe Parusieerwartung des Mk wi rd somit dah ingehend neu interpretiert, daß sich die Prophezeiungen der Schrift insofern erfüllt haben als die universelle Heilsbotschaft Gottes nun der ganzen Welt verkündigt wird. Um aber aushalten zu können, geht es darum, den Christen (wahrscheinlich vor allem den 'Heiden') eine Art Garantie, eine absolute Gewißheit geben zu können, daß die alttestamentlichen Verheißungen auch denen gelten, die nicht von Anfang an in diesem 'jüdischen' Reich Gottes (Israel) dabei waren, das Jesus einmal verkiindigt hatte.95 Von großer Bedeutun g, um Lukas' Sicht zu verstehen, erweisen sich hier die Reden, die Schlüsselpcrsonen im Laufe der Darstellung halten: Jesus im Evangeli um und Petrus und Paulus in der Apg. In sbesondere wenn man Apg 10 als eine Art Zusammenfassung des Wirkens Jesu - mit den Augen des Lukas - sehen kann, werden die Brückenpfeiler deutlicher.96 Die zwölf erwählten Apostel (mit Paulus als dem 13. Zeugen) stellen die ncucn Repräsentanten der 12 Stämme Israels da r. Gleichzeitig sind sie die Ausgesandten Gottes in der gleichen Weise wie die Propheten und Jesus. Man kann beinahe sagen, daß Lukas so weit geht, zu sagen: da Israel nicht getan hat , was Galt eigentJi ch wollte (Jes 49:6; vgl. Jes 2 ach Mi 4), nämlich auch die Heide n zu Gott zu führen, tun jetzt Jesus und seine Nachfolger dies. 97 Die letzteren werden im Lk viel deutlicher als im Mk 95 Vgl. KUmmei, 1969: 9Of: Lk bildet den Grund für das Zeugnis der Apostel in der Apg.

96 Vgl . Busse. 1977: 337: "Nach Conzelmann zeichnet Lukas in Apg 1O:37ff(vgl. Apg 2:22) 'das Bild des Wirkens (Jesu), zu dem das Lc-Evangelium den Kommen tar bietet'." 97 Vgl. mit dieser Sicht: Tolben (1974) und Braumann. 1974:XX. der in seiner ?-usammenfassung von Tolberts Artikel folgende Hauptpunkte hervorhebt: "In Ubereinstimmung mit dem Alten Testament und von Jesus intendiert, seien die Heiden in das Hei lsgeschehen eingeschlossen, ohne daß die Juden ausgeschlossen worden

186

Das Verhältnis von U:/Apg zum Markusev.

auf diese Aufgabe vorbereitet und sie erfüllen sodann auch die Auslegung der Schrift und die sonstigen Anweisungen des Meisters konseqent in der Apg. Dies bedeutet, daß für sie die gleichen Voraussetzungen gelten wie für die Propheten und Jesus: Gottes Wort zu verkündigen und wie diese verfolgt zu werden. Hinter Je su Wort steht jedoch die gleiche Kraft (övv<XJ,w;) wie hinter dem, das die von ihm Ausgesandten verkündigen. Der Zusatz l:.v tii öuvcipEI roü .IrVEOJ1a-r~ gegenübe r Mk, wenn Jesus zu Beginn seines Wirkens nach Galiläa zurückkehrt, erweist sich in dieser Sicht nicht nur als sym ptomatisch, sondern als programmatisch. Das Faktum, daß Lukas die Apostelgeschichte als Fortsetzung des Evangeliums dargestellt hat, macht Lk zu einem ersten und einleitenden Teil des ganzen Werkes. Die Bearbeitung des Mk erklärt sich aus der Perspektive des Lukas, daß die Verkündigung von der frohen Botschaft des Heils Gottes für alle Menschen auch nach dem Tode Jesu weitergeht. Das Markusevangelium schließt abrupt und hinterläßt damit eine Ungew ißheit, ob und inwiefern die Jesusgeschichte eigentlich endete oder weiterging. Lukas zeigt nun, daß die Geschichte mit diesem Jesus mit seinem Tod nicht zu Ende war, weil seine Nachfolger zu feige waren, etwas zu jemandem zu sagen (Mk 16:8), sondern daß diese einen neuen Anfang erhielt an dem Wendpunkt in Jerusalem, mit Jesu Auferstehung und seinem Auftrag, das Werk Gottes nach seiner Himmelfahrt mit der Kraft des Geistes weiterzuführen. Nach Lukas war es Jesus selbst, der "ihre Sinnen öffnete, damit sie die Schriften verstehen konnten" (Lk 2 4 :45).98 Eine Konsequenz hiervon war auch der Auftrag, die Vergebung der Sünden durch Buße zu verkündigen "allen Völkern , angefangen in Jerusalem. Ihr seid Zeugen hierfür" (Lk 24:44-49). In dieser Sicht schreibt Lukas das Evangelium - wo alles anfängt - und die Apg. wo alles vollzogen wird. Das steuernde Motiv hinter den Änderungen im Mk finden wir daher darin, die Übereinstimmungen oder die Kontinuität mit dem Willen Gottes der Schrift gemäß nachzuwei sen.99 Das Wirken Jesu in Wort und Tat (Lk) ist ein entscheidender Schritt in der universellen Heilsgeschichte GOlseien. Allerdings seien die Christen die legitimen Nachfolger der Juden, die sich mit ihrem fehlenden Glauben selbst vom Heil ausgeschlossen hätten". 98 Vgl. Jervell (1984: 1291): "Nevenheless, Luke often states that the Scripture must be opened (Acts 17:3; Luke 24:32.45; cf. also Acts 8:31 and 35. Luke alone offers (he concept of 'opening' in conjunclion with his scriprure expos.ition. It appears as early as in Luke 24 : The disciples do not undersland or believe the Scriplures; Jesus himself must interpret them 6IE~'1\fcOO\f, vv. 25-27). The subject is that which is written of lesus himself (fa upt tavwv, v. 27). Thus, lesus 'opened' the Scriptures (6tavolyw). The expression is a bit different in Luke 24:45: He opened their minds (volil;") to understand the Scriptures." 99 Zu Lukas' Schriftverstlindnis: lervell (l984); Daube (1985: 2329-2356); Holt%.. 1968.

187

Walter Obelocker

les, die seine Jünger in der Apg zur Erfüllung bringen und die sowohl Ju· den als auch Nichl·Juden umfaßt. Einige Fragen und Überlegungen (I ) ISI die Vorgeschichte im Lk (Knp. 1-2) bisher bei der Analyse von U/Apg und

Lukas' Ziel mil seinem Doppelwerk genUgend beachtet worden? (vgl. Tolbens Auslegung von Lk 1-2 nls eine bewußte Brücke zwischen dem AT und der Jesusgeschichle (oben S. 23). (2) Enlhllli die lukanische Änderung von Markus' Fonnulierung. daß ~die Zeit erftilh iS I ~ zu ~ heute ist die Schrift erfulh" im Rahmen der Programmerklärung von 4: 14b-JOd den Schlüssel zur Gesamtkonzeption von LIcIApg? (3) Kann Lukas' Redalctionsarbeit des Markussloffes auf die Bearbeilung des lukanischen SonderguteS übelUagen werden? (4) MUßte nicht eine nähere Untersuchung der Stellen, wo Lukas den kleinen bzw. großen Einschub vornimmt (Mk 3:20-30 bzw. Mk 9:42-10:12) wenvolle Hinweise rur das Ziel des Lukas liefern? vgl. oben Anm. 46 und Kümmel. 1969: 80. (5) Überblickt man die Änderungen. die Lukas in der Reihenfolge der einzelnen Abschnille des Mk vornimmt - von der Passionsgeschichte abgesehen ., so eTSlaunt, daß diese Änderungen vor allem in den frühen Kapiteln vorkommen und vor allem innerhalb einer relaliv kurzen M\c.-Panie, nämlich Mk 3:7· 35 (und Mk 4: 1-34). Kann dies näher erldän werden? (6) Können die neuen Untersuchungen 'tur Gattung "Evangelium" einen Schnu weiterhelfen? Vgl. Dautzenberg (1977: 89): &rf1"/(11." ~ein brauchbarer Tenninus zur aUgemeinen Charakterisierung des M\c-Ev ... Nach Luk. handelt es sich genauer um die Leh ren und Taten Jesu (Apgl: I) ... lUSlins vielzitiene Charaktcrisierung dcr Evangclien als Ta dIrotJV1JPO\-'f~OITOI TtiN Iixoord.li..w (Apoll 67:3) ist so unzutrcffend nicht, ... ~ Vgl. auch losef Kürzinger, Die Aussage des Pnpias von Hierapolis zur litemrischen Fonn des Markusevangeliums, 82 N.F. 21 ( 1977) 245-264. und die ForschungsUbersicht von Talbc.rt (1989: 310): "If Ihe verdict can be reached. the genre of Luke-Acis might provide lhe clue for the relative ordering of the vanous themes isolated by redaclion-cnticism and for Ihe primary occasion that prompted the documem. This melhodology, moreover, oeed prcsupposc no souree theories for Luke-Acis. M

Referenzliteratur 1. ÜbersichJSarbeten Bovon.

Fran~ois

1987

Luke tlte T~alog jan : Thirry-thfu Yeafs o/Research / 1950- 1983/. Princclon Ihcol . MS 12. Allison Park, Penns. Pickwick.

188

Das Verhältnis \Ion Lk/Apg zum Markuse\l. Braumann. G. (Hrsg.) 1974 Das ulkas-evangeliwn:Die redakn'ons- und Mmpositionsgeschichrliche Forschung . Wdf280. Dannstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft. RadI. Waher 1988 Das Lukas-Evangeliwn. Edf261 . Dannstadt : Wiss. Buehgesellschaft. Rese. Martin 1985 "Das Lukas-Evangelium - Ein Forschungsberieht."At(sn·eg und Niedergang der römischen Welf. II. Prinzipat 25.3, 5,2259-2328 Hrsg. W. Haase. Berlin - New York: de Gruyter. Talben , Charles 1-1 . (Hrsg) 1978 Perspectives on Luke-Ac/s. Assoc. of Baptist Professors of Religion. Spec. Stud. Sero5. Danville, VA. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

2. Artikel und Monographien Aejmelaeus, Lars 1985 Wachen vor dem Ende: Die traditionsgeschichtlichen Wurzeln von I. Thess 5:1·/ J und Luk 21 :34-36. Sehr. d. finn. Exeg. Ges. 44. I-Ielsinki. 1987 Die Rezeption der Paulusbriefe in der Milerrede {Apg 20:18-35J. Annales Academiae Seientiarum Fennicae B 232. Htlsinki. Berger, Klaus 1984 FormgeschicJlle des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Brown, Schuylcr 1978 "The Role of the Prologues in Octermining Ihc Purpose of Luke-Acts." Perspec/ives on Luke-ActS, S. 99-11 1. Büchele, A. 1978 Der Tod Jesu im IJlkasevangeJiwn: Eine redaktiorugeschichrliche Untersuchung zu Lukas 23 FTS 26. Frankfun a. M.: Knecht. ß urchard, Chrisloph 1970 Der dreizehl1le Zeuge: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichrliche Untersuchungen zu luka s' Darstellung der Fruh zeit des Paulus. FRLANT 103. GÖltingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Busse. Ulrieh 1977 Die Wunder des Propheten Jesus: Die Rezeption, Komposition und In· terpretation der Wundertradition im Evangelium des ll/kas. Forschung zur Bibel 24. Stuttgan: Katholisches Bibelwerk. 1978 Das Nazarelh-Manifest üsu: Eine Einfiihrung in das fuktmjsch~ Jesusbild nach U 4,16·30. SBS 91. Stuttgart: Kalholisches Bibelwerk.

189

Walter Übelacker Cadbury, Henry 1. 1961 Tlle Making 0/ We-Acts. l...ondon. Conzelmann, Hans 51964 Die Mille der Zeit. BeiUäge zur hisl. Theol., !7. Tübingen. 1974 "Zur Lukasanalyse." Das Lulcas-EvQngelium , S. 43-63. Hrsg. G. Braumann. WdF 280. Dannslndl: Wissensch. Buchges. Dahl, Nils Astrup 1976 "The Purpose of Luke-Acts." Jesus jn file Memory 0/ the Early Clmrch: Essays, S. 87-98. Minneapolis. MinneSOla. Daube, David 1985 "Neglecled Nuances of Exposition in Luke-AcIS. "Au/stieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. 11. Prinzipal 25.3. S. 2329-2356. Hrsg. W. Haase. Berlin - New York: de Gruyter. Dautzenberg. Gerhard 1977 "Die Zeit des Evangeliums: Mk 1,1-15 und die Konzeption des Markusevangeliums." BZ NF 21 : 219-234. ElIis, E. Earl 1969 "Die Funktion der Eschatologie im Lukas-Evangelium." ZfhJ( 66: 387402. Gast. Frederick 1968 Synoplic Problem, in Jerome Biblical Commemory. [40:61. Goppeh. Leonhard 1969 Typos: Die r)'pologische Deumng des Alten TestamentS im Neuer!. Darmsl.rot: Wissensch. Buchges. [reprogr. Nachdruck der Ausgabe

19391. Grässer, Erich 31977 Dm Problem der Paru..rievenögerung in den synopti:'ichen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte. ßZNW. Berlin - New York. Hartman. Lars ' 1989 "Nytestamentlig isagogik." En Bok om Nya Testamente!, S. 14· 132. Hrsg. B. Gerhardsson. Malmö: Liber. !-liers. RJ . 1973(J4 "The Problem of the Delay of lhe Parousia in Luke-AclS." NTS 20: 145155. Holtz, Traugott 1968 Untersuchungen über die alttestamemlichen Zitate bei Lukas. TuU 104. Berlin. Jeremias. Joochim 31979 Neutestamemliche Theologie J: Die Verkündigung Jesu. Gütersloh: Mohn. 41967 Die Abendmahlsworre Jesu. Göuingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

190

Das Verhällflis von LkJApg zum Markusev. Jlervell,lacob 1972 1984

Rieffer, Rene 1987 Rlein. Günter 1974

LuJce and the People 0/ God: A new look at Luke-Acts. Minneapolis. "The Center of Scripture in Luke." The Unknown Paul: Essays on LukeActs anti Early Chrisfian History, S. 122-137. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House. Die Bibel dewen . das Leben dewen: Eine Eirifuhrung in die Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Regensburg: Pustet. "Lukas 1,1·4 als theologisches Programm." Das LIIJm-Evangefillm, S. 170-203. I-lrsg. G.Braumann. WdF 280. Dannstadt: Wissensch. Buchges.

Koet, Ban 1. 1989

Five Studies on Interpretation 0/ Scripture in Luke·ACIS. Studiorum Novi Testamenti Auxilia XIV. Leuven. Kilnunel. Werner Georg (Feine·Behnt) 16 1969 Einleitung in das Neue Tesramenl . Heidelberg: Quelle& Meyer. 1970 Das Neue Testament im 20. Jahrhundert: Ein Forschungsberichl. StuUganer Bibelstudien 50. Stuugan: Katholisches Bibelwerk. 1974a "Das Gesetz und die Propheten gehen bis Johannes." Das LukasEvangelium, S. 388-415. I-lrsg. G. Braumann . WdF 280. Dannstadt: Wissensch. Buchges. "Lukas in der Anklage der heutigen Theologie." Das lJ4kas-Evangefium, 1974b S. 416-436 Hrsg. G. Braumann. WdF 280. Darmstlldt: Wissensch. Buchges. Kvalbein, Hans Jesus og de/auige: Jesu syn pd de/attige og Irans brut av ord/or 1981 'fouig'. Oslo: Luther Forlag. Larsson, &lvin AposllagiirningarlUl. Kommentar till NT. 5a. Stockholm: EFS. 1983 Lohmeyer. Ernst 1974 "Galiltia und Jerusalem bei Lukas." Das Lld-ar-Evangeliwn, S. 7-20. Hrsg. G. Braumann . WdF 280. Dannstadt: Wissensch. Buchges. Lühnnann. Dieler 1989 "The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q. " JßL 108: 51-71. Lövestam, Evald 1963 Spiritual Wake/ulness in fhe New Testament. LuA 1.55:3. Lund. 1988 Apostlagiirningarna. Tolkning av NT, V. Slockholm: Verbum

19 1

Waller Übclacker McCown, C. C . t 974 "Geographie der Evangelien: Fiktion, Tatsache und Wahrheit." Das Lukar-Evangeliwn, S. 13-42. Hrsg. G . Braumann WdF 280. Darm· stadt : Wissensch . Buchges. Maddox, Roben 1982 The Purpose 0/ Luk.e·Acts. FRLANT 126. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Marxsen. Willi 21959 Der Evangelist Markus: Snlllien zur RedaJaiDnsgeschichte des EVflIzge· liums. FRLANT 67. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 21964 EinJeilUJIg in das Ne~ Testament: EiM EinjührUJIg in ihre Probleme. Gütersloh. Minear, P. S. 1974 "Luke' Use of the Binh Stones." Studies in Luke-Acts. S. 111 - 130. Nashville - New York 119661. Deutsch: "Die Funktion der Kindhei tsgeschichten im Werk des Lukas." Das Lulws-Evangelium. S. 204-235. Hrsg. G. Braumann WdF 280. Dannstadt: Wissensch. Buchges. (1974). Neill, Stephen 21988 T~ Interpreuuion o/tlze Nr:w Testament 1861 · / 96 1-1986 . Oxford New York; Oxford Universii}' Press. Plümacher, Eckhard 1978 MAn. Apostelgeschichte." TRE 3. S. 4483·528. (m it ausruhrlichen Li tcraturangaben). RadJ. Walter 1975 Paulus und Jesus im luJ.:anischen Doppe/werk: Umersuchungen ZII Parallelmotiven im lllkarevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte. Europ. Hcx::hschulschr. 23/49. Sem · Frankfun a. M. Reicke. Uo 1984 "Die Emstehungsverhlillnisse der synoptischen Evangelien." Au/stieg und Niedergang der rom. Welt. 11 ; Prinzipal , Ud . 25.2. S. 1758·91 . Berlin - New York. The Roots 0/ the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Fo nress Press. 1986 Robinson, William C. 1974 "Der theologische Intelllretationszusammenhang des lukanischen Reise· berichts." Das Lukas·Evangelium. S. 115-34. Hrsg. G . Braumann WdF 280. DarmSladt: Wissensch. Buchges. Rohde, Joachim 1966 Die redaktiDnsgeschichJliclze Methode : Einjülvung Imd Siclzumg des ForschUJzgsstandes. Hamburg. Ses. 124- 18 3.

192

Das Verhältnis von Lk/Apg zum Markusev. Roloff, Jürgen Die Apostelgeschichte. NTD 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1981 Russe U, H. G. "Which was wr1t1en tim, Lukeor AClsi" HarvTR 48 : 167-174. 1955 Sahlin, Harald 1945 Der Messias wuJ das Gottesvollc: Studien zur protolukanischen Theologie. Acta Sem. Neotest. Ups. , XII. Uppsala. Sanders, Ed P. "The Overlaps of Q and Mark and lhe Synoptic Problem." NTS 19: 4531973

465. Schnackenburg, Rudolf

1965

Gottes Herrschaft und Reich. Freiburg i Br.

Schneider, Gerhard "Der Zweck des lukanischen Doppelwerks." BZ N .F. 21 : 45-66. 1977 Schramm, Tim Der Markus-SwJ! bei Lldxu : Eine literarische und redaJaionsgeschicht1971 liehe Untersuchung. EV.-theol . Diss. Hamburg 1966. SNTS MS 14. Cambridge. Schünnann, Heinz 1970 Das Lukas-Evangelium: Bd I. Kommentar zu Kap . 1,1-9,50. Leipzig: Benno. Schütz, Frieder

1969

Der leidende Christus: Die angefochtene Gemeinde und das Christuskuygmo. der lukanischen Schriften. BWANT V /9. Stuttgart.

Stein, Roben H. 1987 The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, Mi .: Baker. Sluhimueller, Carroll 1968 "The Gospel According 10 Luke." in Jerome Biblical Commentary.

144,161. Talben , Charles H.

1974 1984

1989

U terary Parlerns, Theological Themes and the Genre of LWce-Act5. Missoula. "Promise and Fulfillment in Lukan Theology." LWce-Acts: New Perspectives / rom (he Sociery 0/ Biblical Literature Seminar. S. 91- 103. Hrsg. C. H. Talben . New York : Crossroad . "Luke-AcIS." in TIte New Testament and It5 Modern Interpreters. HIsg. E. 1. Epp - G. W . MacRae. A tlanla: Scholars Press; Philadelphia: Fonress.

193

Walter Übelacker Tntum, W. Barnes 1974 "Die Zeit Israels: Lukas 1-2 und die theologische Intention der 1ukanisehen Schriften:' Da5 LuJuu-Evangelium. S. 317-36. Hrsg. G. Braumann. WdF 280. Dannstadt : Wissensch. Buchges. Tolbert, Malcolm 1974 "Die Hauptinteressen des Evangelisten Lukas." Das Luws-EvangeliIl1l1, S. 337-53. Hrsg.G . Braumann. WdF 280. Dannstadt: Wissensch. Buc hges. van Unnik, W. C. 1973 "The 'Book of Acts' the Confrrmation of the Gospel." Sparsa Colltcto. I, S. 340-373. Leiden [NovT 4 (1960) 26--59]. "Luke-Acts, a S10nn Cenue in Contemporary Scholarship." SLA 1968 (Studies in Luke-Act!, FS P. Schuben), S. 15-32. Hrsg. L. E. KeckJ. L. Manyn. Oxford. Wilson , S. G . The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in I uu-Acts. SNTS MS 23. 1973 Cambridge. Zmijewski, Josef

1972

1973

194

Die Eschatologiereden des Lukar-Evangeliums: Eint traditions- wtd redaktionsgeschichtJiche Unttrsuchung zu Uc 2/ :5 -36 wut U: /7:20-37. BBB 40. Bonn. "Die Eschatologiereden Lk 21 und Lk 17: Überlegungen zum Verständnis und zur Einordnu ng der lukanisc hen Eschatologie." Bibel und Leben 14: 30-40.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE FINNISH EXEGETICAL SOCIETY

25. HeiJckj Räisänen, The ldea of Divine Hardening. 1976. Vergriffen 26. Heikki Räisänen, Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium. 1973. 28. Heikld Räisäncn, Das "Messiasgeheimnis" im Markusevangelium. 1976.

33. Keijo Nissilä, Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebräerbrief. 1979. 34. Eino Wilhelms, Die Tempelsteuerperikope Mauhäus 17,24-27 in der Exegese der griechischen Väter der Alten Kirche.1980. 38. Glaube und Gerechtigkeit. In Memoriam Rafael Gyllenberg. 1983. 42. Gunnar af HäIJslröm, Charismatic Succession. A Study of Origen's Concept of Prophecy. 1985. 44. Lars Acjmclaeus. Wachen vor dem Ende. Die traditionsgeschichtlichen Wurzeln von 1. Thess 5:1-11 und Luk 21 :34-36.1985. 45. Heikki Räisäflcn, The Tarah and Christ.1986. 46. Lars Acjmelaeus, Streit und Versöhnung. Das Problem der Zu-

sammensetzung des 2. Korintherbriefes. 1987. 51. Timo Veijola (Ed.), The Law in the Bible and in its Environment. 1990. 52. Timo Veijola, David. 1990. 54. Pelri Luomanen (Ed.),Luke-Acts.Scandinavian Perspectives.1991.