Table Of Content
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Luke and Paul
- Luke and Mark, Josephus, and other works
- Implied author
- Literary genre
- Date of composition
- Sequential hypertextuality
- Chapter 1. Lk 1:1–9:50 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal 1:1–3:1
- 1.1 Lk 1:1–4 (cf. Gal 1:1–3)
- 1.2 Lk 1:5–12 (cf. Gal 1:4–10)
- 1.3 Lk 1:13–25 (cf. Gal 1:11–15b)
- 1.4 Lk 1:26–38 (cf. Gal 1:15c–16a)
- 1.5 Lk 1:39–80 (cf. Gal 1:16b–17)
- 1.6 Lk 2:1–40 (cf. Gal 1:18–21)
- 1.7 Lk 2:41–52 (cf. Gal 1:22–24)
- 1.8 Lk 3:1–2a (cf. Gal 2:1)
- 1.9 Lk 3:2b (cf. Gal 2:2a)
- 1.10 Lk 3:3–11 (cf. Gal 2:2bc)
- 1.11 Lk 3:12–13 (cf. Gal 2:2d–f)
- 1.12 Lk 3:14 (cf. Gal 2:3)
- 1.13 Lk 3:15 (cf. Gal 2:4)
- 1.14 Lk 3:16–17 (cf. Gal 2:5a)
- 1.15 Lk 3:18 (cf. Gal 2:5b)
- 1.16 Lk 3:19–20 (cf. Gal 2:6)
- 1.17 Lk 3:21–22 (cf. Gal 2:7ab)
- 1.18 Lk 3:23–38 (cf. Gal 2:7c)
- 1.19 Lk 4:1–13 (cf. Gal 2:8a)
- 1.20 Lk 4:14–21 (cf. Gal 2:8b)
- 1.21 Lk 4:22–44 (cf. Gal 2:9a–c)
- 1.22 Lk 5:1–11 (cf. Gal 2:9c–e)
- 1.23 Lk 5:12–6:19 (cf. Gal 2:9fg)
- 1.24 Lk 6:20–26 (cf. Gal 2:10a)
- 1.25 Lk 6:27–38 (cf. Gal 2:10bc)
- 1.26 Lk 6:39–49 (cf. Gal 2:11–12a)
- 1.27 Lk 7:1–17 (cf. Gal 2:12b)
- 1.28 Lk 7:18–30 (cf. Gal 2:12c–f)
- 1.29 Lk 7:31–35 (cf. Gal 2:13–14)
- 1.30 Lk 7:36–50 (cf. Gal 2:15–17c)
- 1.31 Lk 8:1–3 (cf. Gal 2:17de)
- 1.32 Lk 8:4–9:22 132
- 1.33 Lk 9:23–27 (cf. Gal 2:19–20)
- 1.34 Lk 9:28–36 (cf. Gal 2:21–3:1)
- 1.35 Lk 9:37–50
- Chapter 2. Lk 9:51–24:53 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal 1–6
- 2.1 Lk 9:51–56 (cf. Gal 1:1–14)
- 2.2 Lk 9:57–62 (cf. Gal 1:15–16a)
- 2.3 Lk 10:1–16 (cf. Gal 1:16b–17a)
- 2.4 Lk 10:17–22 (cf. Gal 1:17bc)
- 2.5 Lk 10:23–24 (cf. Gal 1:18ab)
- 2.6 Lk 10:25–37 (cf. Gal 1:18c–19a)
- 2.7 Lk 10:38–11:13 (cf. Gal 1:19b–20)
- 2.8 Lk 11:14–26 (cf. Gal 1:21–23)
- 2.9 Lk 11:27–28 (cf. Gal 1:24)
- 2.10 Lk 11:29–32 (cf. Gal 2:1)
- 2.11 Lk 11:33–36 (cf. Gal 2:2a–c)
- 2.12 Lk 11:37–54 (cf. Gal 2:2d–f)
- 2.13 Lk 12:1–12 (cf. Gal 2:3)
- 2.14 Lk 12:13–14 (cf. Gal 2:4–5)
- 2.15 Lk 12:15–21 (cf. Gal 2:6a–e)
- 2.16 Lk 12:22–31 (cf. Gal 2:6fg)
- 2.17 Lk 12:32–34 (cf. Gal 2:7ab)
- 2.18 Lk 12:35–40 (cf. Gal 2:7c)
- 2.19 Lk 12:41–48 (cf. Gal 2:8–9b)
- 2.20 Lk 12:49–53 (cf. Gal 2:9cd)
- 2.21 Lk 12:54–57 (cf. Gal 2:9e)
- 2.22 Lk 12:58–59 (cf. Gal 2:9e)
- 2.23 Lk 13:1–5 (cf. Gal 2:9fg)
- 2.24 Lk 13:6–9 (cf. Gal 2:10a)
- 2.25 Lk 13:10–17 (cf. Gal 2:10b)
- 2.26 Lk 13:18–21 (cf. Gal 2:10c)
- 2.27 Lk 13:22–30 (cf. Gal 2:11–12b)
- 2.28 Lk 13:31–33 (cf. Gal 2:12c–f)
- 2.29 Lk 13:34–35 (cf. Gal 2:12f)
- 2.30 Lk 14:1–6 (cf. Gal 2:13a)
- 2.31 Lk 14:7–11 (cf. Gal 2:13b)
- 2.32 Lk 14:12–14 (cf. Gal 2:14a–c)
- 2.33 Lk 14:15–24 (cf. Gal 2:14d–g)
- 2.34 Lk 14:25–33 (cf. Gal 2:15–3:3)
- 2.35 Lk 14:34–35 (cf. Gal 3:4–5)
- 2.36 Lk 15:1 (cf. Gal 3:6–9)
- 2.37 Lk 15:2 (cf. Gal 3:10–11)
- 2.38 Lk 15:3–10 (cf. Gal 3:12–14)
- 2.39 Lk 15:11–32 (cf. Gal 3:15–18)
- 2.40 Lk 16:1–9 (cf. Gal 3:19–22)
- 2.41 Lk 16:10–15 (cf. Gal 3:23–24)
- 2.42 Lk 16:16 (cf. Gal 3:25–29)
- 2.43 Lk 16:17 (cf. Gal 4:1–11)
- 2.44 Lk 16:18 (cf. Gal 4:12–20)
- 2.45 Lk 16:19–31 (cf. Gal 4:21–31)
- 2.46 Lk 17:1–2 (cf. Gal 5:1–3)
- 2.47 Lk 17:3–4 (cf. Gal 5:4)
- 2.48 Lk 17:5–6 (cf. Gal 5:5a)
- 2.49 Lk 17:7–10 (cf. Gal 5:5b)
- 2.50 Lk 17:11–19 (cf. Gal 5:6)
- 2.51 Lk 17:20–37 (cf. Gal 5:7–21)
- 2.52 Lk 18:1–8 (cf. Gal 5:22–23)
- 2.53 Lk 18:9–14 (cf. Gal 5:24–26)
- 2.54 Lk 18:15–43
- 2.55 Lk 19:1–10 (cf. Gal 6:1–2)
- 2.56 Lk 19:11–28 (cf. Gal 6:3–10)
- 2.57 Lk 19:29–24:12
- 2.58 Lk 24:13–35 (cf. Gal 6:11–15)
- 2.59 Lk 24:36–49 (cf. Gal 6:16–17)
- 2.60 Lk 24:50–53 (cf. Gal 6:18)
- General conclusions
- Primary sources
- Early Christian: New Testament
- Secondary literature
- Index of ancient sources
This commentary greatly differs from other modern commentaries on the Gospel of Luke. The difference results from the particular methodological approach which has been adopted therein. Instead of explaining the Lucan Gospel in historical-critical terms as a result of redactional use of earlier sources or traditions, in narratological terms as a set of narrative-organizing devices, etc., this commentary aims at explaining it as a result of twofold sequential hypertextual reworking of the Pauline Letter to the Galatians.
This methodological approach, unlike many others, does not originate from any particular literary theory. It rather reflects the recent discovery of the phenomenon of the sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in numerous biblical writings. This phenomenon occurs in the writings of both the Old and the New Testament: Gen, Exod-Lev-Num, Deut, Sam-Kgs, Chr; Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Acts, Rom, Gal, Eph, 2 Thes, Hebr, 2 Pet, and Rev.1 These writings, taken together and measured by their extent, constitute almost a half of the Christian Bible.
Accordingly, it is fully justified to perform a thorough analysis of the Lucan Gospel, taking this important literary discovery into consideration.
The problem of the relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline letters cannot be solved only by means of analysing the similarities and the differences between their respective presentations of various theological ideas ← 13 | 14 → (the law, the significance of the cross, the apostles, etc.),2 not least because such ideas were at times presented quite differently in various letters of the Apostle (cf. e.g. Rom and Gal) and Luke’s presentation of them is also not always very consistent (cf. e.g. Lk 16:16.17). Therefore, a literary solution to this problem should finally be found.
Leaving aside the question of the use of Paul’s letters in the Acts of the Apostles,3 modern scholars generally reject the hypothesis of the use of Paul’s letters in the Gospel of Luke, usually without offering any detailed justification of their opinion.4 Nevertheless, in the last few decades some scholars opted for a limited literary use of the Pauline letters in the Lucan Gospel.5
For example, Gilbert Bouwman has tentatively suggested Luke’s dependence on Paul’s letters, especially First Corinthians, on the basis of some thematic and ← 14 | 15 → linguistic correspondences between these works (virginity in Lk 1:27.34 and 1 Cor 7:38; widowhood in Lk 2:37 and 1 Cor 7:40; not being worried in Lk 10:41 and 1 Cor 7:32–34; etc.).6
Morton S. Enslin has noticed some similarities between the Gospel of Luke and the Letter to the Galatians in their respective literary structures. He has suggested that the sequence of some events which are described in the Lucan Gospel (Jesus’ baptism in Judaea, then his return to his hometown Nazareth, and only thereafter his widespread mission in Galilee) corresponds to the sequence of events which are known from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Paul’s first visit in Jerusalem, then his return to Tarsus in Cilicia, and only thereafter his widespread mission among the Gentiles).7 Although these correspondences are rather vague, the very idea that Luke assimilated the narrative story of Jesus to the story of Paul is certainly insightful.
In the opinion of William O. Walker, Jr., some verbal parallels between the Lucan work and Paul’s letters suggest that Luke used Paul’s letters in the Acts of the Apostles and in his Gospel.8 However, Walker has also noted that the usual scholarly approach to these parallels consists in suggesting that Paul knew the Jesus tradition in its Lucan form.9
According to Michael D. Goulder, the presence of several clusters of common matter (comprising words and occasionally also ideas) in 1 Cor and 1 Thes, in which they well suit Paul’s rhetoric, and in the Lucan Gospel, in which they are at times used quite strangely, implies that Luke knew and used 1 Cor and 1 Thes in the composition of his Gospel, and not that Paul used some synoptic traditions.10 Goulder’s rejection of the hypothesis that Luke also used other Pauline letters (e.g. Rom) was based on the widespread theory that Luke used Q, and consequently the scholar looked for traces of the Lucan use of the Pauline letters ← 15 | 16 → only in the postulated Lucan redaction of Q.11 However, Goulder’s criterion for ascertaining the existence and direction of literary dependence between the Lucan Gospel and Paul’s letters on the basis of the presence of some strange features in the Gospel’s fragments which have some parallel in Paul’s letters (e.g. στρατευόμενοι in Lk 3:14 cf. 1 Cor 9:7), together with the absence of such strange features in the linguistically and thematically corresponding fragments of Paul’s letters (e.g. στρατεύεται in 1 Cor 9:7), is certainly valid.
Similarly, in the opinion of Wolfgang Schenk linguistic criteria of literary dependence (the existence of three or more common words within a short space etc.) reveal several cases in which Luke was most probably dependent on Paul’s letters (esp. Lk 6:28 cf. Rom 12:14; Lk 10:8 cf. 1 Cor 10:27; Lk 10:38–42 cf. 1 Cor 7:32–35; Lk 22:19–20 cf. 1 Cor 11:23–25; Lk 24:34 cf. 1 Cor 15:5).12 The German scholar has argued that Luke created his own rhetorical images of both Paul and Jesus, which do not have much in common with the real Paul and Jesus, but which suit Luke’s presentation of the origins of Christianity in terms of harmonic accord and integration.13
According to Anthony J. Blasi, Paul’s authentic letters were evidently known to those who imitated them (in the Deutero-Pauline letters), and consequently they must have been widely circulating. Therefore also Luke, who made Paul the principal character in the Acts of the Apostles, must have known at least some of them. However, Blasi has rightly noticed that literary dependence does not necessarily consist in copying the source, but it may also be expressed in some compatibility with the ideas of the source. Accordingly, in Luke’s Gospel scholars should look for Pauline views, and not only Pauline wording.14 In Blasi’s opinion, a number of such detectable compatibilities, like Paul and Luke’s common presentation of both Abraham and Adam as the background to Jesus (Lk 3:23–38; cf. e.g. Rom 4:13; 5:14), implies that Luke in his redactional composition of the Gospel used most of Paul’s authentic letters, with the surprising exception of Galatians.15 ← 16 | 17 →
In fact, however, Blasi’s argument against Luke’s knowledge of Galatians, namely the different use of the datival phrase concerning the promise ‘to Abraham and to his seed’ (τῷ… Ἀβραὰμ… καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ) in Gal 3:16 and Lk 1:55,16 is rather unconvincing, especially in view of the fact that this datival phrase rather awkwardly follows the preceding pronominal phrase (πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν) in Lk 1:55.
Paul N. Tarazi has noticed and described a great number of linguistic and thematic connections between the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline letters. Consequently, he has at length argued that Luke extensively used the Pauline letters in the composition of his Gospel.17
According to Thomas L. Brodie, in the text concerning Jesus’ last supper (Lk 22:14–30) Luke sequentially used the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 11:16–34. In fact, Brodie’s argument from the common order of correspondences enabled him to discern some thematic, and not only linguistic, correspondences between the two writings.18
Paul Elbert has argued that Luke in his use of pneumatological motifs borrowed from Paul’s letters might have worked quite freely, in the expected tradition of ancient narrative-rhetorical composition, which was described, for example, by Theon of Alexandria.19
Quite recently, Richard I. Pervo has strongly argued for Luke’s use of the First Letter to the Corinthians, having noticed several thematic and linguistic correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and this Pauline letter, as well as disproving other explanations of these correspondences (Lk 3:14 cf. 1 Cor 9:7a; Lk 10:38–42 cf. 1 Cor 7:32–35; Lk 12:41–48 cf. 1 Cor 4:1–2; Lk 18:11 cf. 1 Cor 6:9–10; Lk 22:17–18 cf. 1 Cor 10:16–17; Lk 22:19–20 cf. 1 Cor 11:23–25; Lk 22:24 cf. 1 Cor 11:16; Lk 24:34 cf. 1 Cor 15:4–5).20 Moreover, on similar grounds, he has argued for creative use of Josephus’ Antiquitates in the Lucan Gospel (Lk 2:1–7 ← 17 | 18 → cf. Ant. 18.1–5; Lk 3:1–2 cf. Ant. 18.237; 20.138; Lk 3:10–14 cf. Ant. 18.117; Lk 3:19 cf. Ant. 18.109–119; Lk 19:11–27 cf. Ant. 17.222–342).21
It is worth noting that Pervo’s analyses point to the cases of Luke’s highly creative reworking of earlier texts. Pervo does not use the notion of hypertextuality, but his suggestions concerning Luke’s compositional techniques evidently lead in this direction. For example, according to Pervo the Pauline text 1 Cor 5:3–5 was used in Acts 5:1–11 in such a way that the latter story can be classified as ‘a narrative inspired by 1 Corinthians 5:3–5’.22 Likewise, the use of Josephus’ story of a Jewish magician from Cyprus in the entourage of a Roman governor (Ant. 20.141–143) in Luke’s story of Elymas (Acts 13:6–12) must have been highly creative because there are also numerous significant differences between the two stories (the characters involved, the reasons for the activity of the magician, etc.).23
Somewhat similarly, Simon Butticaz has recently argued that the use of Paul’s letters in the Lucan Gospel and Acts can best be explained in Gérard Genette’s category of hypertextual derivation.24 In the opinion of Butticaz, Luke’s use of the Pauline letters can be classified in terms of (a) narrativizing the Pauline tradition, (b) commenting on some Pauline errors, and (c) negatively reworking Pauline ideas.25 Accordingly, the reception of Paul’s letters in the Lucan work was creative, and not archiving.26
This short presentation of the previous research on the literary dependence of the Lucan Gospel on the Pauline letters reveals that twentieth-century scholars who favoured such dependence (e.g. M. D. Goulder and W. Schenk) mainly concentrated on the linguistic argument from the presence of several Pauline clusters of words in the Lucan Gospel. However, the number of such clusters is ← 18 | 19 → evidently too low to persuade other scholars that Luke knew and used the Pauline letters, especially in view of the fact that there are also more or less evident differences between the Lucan theology and the Pauline ideas.
In line with the development of modern research on intertextuality, especially in the aftermath of Gérard Genette’s introduction of the concept of hypertextuality,27 more recent scholars point to the possibility of Luke’s highly creative use of Paul’s letters, which should not be limited to mere repetition of some particular words, but which could include free reworking of Paul’s (and Josephus’) texts in the Lucan stories.
Modern scholars working on the so-called synoptic problem generally accept the hypothesis of Marcan priority, according to which Luke in his literary activity used the Gospel of Mark. However, the use of the Marcan Gospel by Luke was by no means slavish and uniform.
Detailed analyses of the Lucan use of the Marcan material reveal that Luke knew the whole Marcan Gospel (Mk 1:1–16:8, including the so-called ‘Big Omission’: Mk 6:45–8:26) and that he used this material not only in its original order, form, and wording, but also in the form of isolated motifs,28 which were creatively reworked and used by Luke in various other sections of his work (including the so-called ‘Big Interpolation’: Lk 9:51–18:14).29
Accordingly, at times Luke rather faithfully reproduced the Marcan story. However, at times he reworked the Marcan accounts quite freely: ‘Luke repeatedly excises a pericope from its Markan location, strategically advances the pericope to an earlier location in the narrative sequence, and retains only key traces of the original pericope’s basic structure.’30 ← 19 | 20 →
Consequently, it is difficult to prove that in his literary activity Luke used any oral traditions: ‘When one takes seriously the larger patterns of redaction—rather than assessing things one passage at a time—the argument for independent streams of memory simply fails to persuade.’31
Moreover, Barbara Shellard has argued that Luke most likely used Josephus’ Bellum, quite likely used Antiquitates, and possibly used Contra Apionem.32 The hypothesis of Luke’s creative use of the works of Josephus is also strongly supported by Steve Mason33 and Richard I. Pervo.34
Besides, Karl A. Kuhn has recently suggested that Luke knew some texts contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls.35
My own research has suggested that Luke, especially in the composition of the Acts of the Apostles, used not only Paul’s authentic letters, but also post-Pauline letters, including the Pastoral Letters, as well as the ethopoeic letters of James and Peter, Josephus’ writings, some Greek classical writings, and some texts known to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.36
The problem of the relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew, including the hypothesis of the existence of the so-called ‘Q source’, will not be discussed here because the research of myself and other scholars reveals that the Gospel of Luke was used in the Gospel of Matthew, and there was no ‘Q source’.37
The implied author of the Lucan Gospel is rather difficult to identify. The vague ‘me’ in the preface to the Gospel (Lk 1:3) yields no particular clue as to his identity. However, if the hypothesis of the intended unity of the Lucan Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles is accepted, the implied author of the Gospel can be identified indirectly through his identification with the implied author of Acts. ← 20 | 21 →
Traditionally, the third canonical Gospel has been attributed to Luke, one of Paul’s co-workers. This attribution can be explained as resulting from the facts that (a) Phlm 24 mentions Luke together with the imprisoned Paul, (b) Col 4:14 likewise presents Luke as the companion of the imprisoned Paul and refers to him as ‘beloved’ by the Apostle, and (c) 2 Tim 4:11 similarly refers to Luke as the only faithful companion of Paul during his Roman imprisonment. In antiquity, these features came to be regarded as compatible with the features of the narrative ‘we’ in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). Consequently, they led to the assumption that the third canonical Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, which are anonymous in themselves, were written by Luke.38 The first explicit identification of the author of the third canonical Gospel with Luke, the companion of Paul, can be found in Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1 (c. AD 180?).39
In fact, the Acts of the Apostles presents itself as having been written by a close companion of Paul’s missionary activity, especially of Paul’s last journey to Jerusalem and to Rome (Acts 27:1–28:16). This impression is created by means of the literary device of the narrator’s identification with the character of the narrative ‘we’ in Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16.
However, a close analysis of the particular features and movements of this narrative character reveals that they generally correspond to those of the character of Titus in the letters of Paul the Apostle. In particular, according to Gal 2:1.3 Titus (and consequently also the narrative ‘we’ in Acts) was the only person who, apart from Barnabas, accompanied Paul in his second journey to Jerusalem. Moreover, according to 2 Cor 8:6.16.23; Gal 2:1.3 Titus (and consequently also the narrative ‘we’ in Acts) was the only person who, unlike Barnabas, (John) Mark, and Silvanus/Silas, had access to both Paul and Peter in the critical period of Paul’s missionary career, namely during the organization and delivery of the Gentile Christian collection for the Jerusalem ‘saints’. For this reason, in the Acts of the Apostles Titus became a reliable, although anonymous, ethopoeic transmitter of Peter and Paul’s apostolic tradition (Acts 1:1; cf. Lk 1:2–3) and a narrative witness of the important events which took place in Troas, Philippi, Jerusalem, Crete (cf. Tit 1:4–5), and Rome (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16).40
The identification of the implied author of the Acts of the Apostles with the ethopoeic character of Titus also partly explains the phenomenon of the abrupt ending of Acts (Acts 28:30–31). According to 2 Tim 4:10.16, Titus was present ← 21 | 22 → with Paul in Rome, but left Rome before Paul’s trial. Therefore, also the narrative ‘we’ is present in Acts 27:1–28:16, but absent in the concluding section Acts 28:17–31, apparently not knowing what happened to Paul after his two-year-long stay in Rome.
Moreover, since according to Gal 2:2–3 Titus personally knew not only Paul, but also the Jerusalem community, including James the Lord’s brother (hence the presence of the narrative ‘we’ in Acts 21:17–18), thanks to this contact the implied author of Acts could have obtained some family-related information concerning Jesus’ birth and childhood (Lk 1–2; cf. 1:2), as well as that concerning the beginnings of the Jerusalem community (Acts 1–12).
Accordingly, the third canonical Gospel should be called the ‘Gospel of Titus’ or, more adequately, the Gospel of Pseudo-Titus. Nevertheless, in this commentary the traditional terms: ‘Luke’, ‘Lucan’, etc. will be used for the sake of clarity.
The Gospel of Luke cannot be adequately construed as biography because the character of Jesus is presented therein in a highly sophisticated intertextual way, with the use of a lot of allusions to the Septuagint,41 Paul’s letters, Greek literature, etc. Accordingly, the Gospel of Luke should not be interpreted as a simple biography, but rather as a literary work in which complex intertextual references to other works are presented in the well-known form of biography.
In fact, the Lucan work should be categorized, similarly to the Gospel of Mark, as ‘scriptural biography’ because of its authoritative status for the believers, its sequential hypertextual use of earlier theological texts, its apparently biographic form, and its very loose connection with the historical facts.42
However, in comparison to the Marcan Gospel, the Gospel of Luke evidently has much more features of literary biography. To the narrative framework of the Marcan Gospel, which only apparently resembled a Hellenistic biography,43 Luke added several topics and motifs which could be found in Graeco-Roman biographies: preface (Lk 1:1–4), birth (Lk 2:1–39), childhood and education ← 22 | 23 → (Lk 2:40–52), ancestry (Lk 3:23–38), appearances after the death (Lk 24:13–50), and ascension into heaven (Lk 24:51).44 In this way, he created a work which came to be regarded as a true, historically reliable biography of Jesus.
The terminus a quo of the composition of the Lucan Gospel is determined by the date of the composition of the Gospel of Mark, which was in turn written after the writings of Flavius Josephus, so not earlier than c. AD 100–110, maybe even as late as c. AD 130–135.45
On the other hand, the terminus ad quem is constituted by the extensive use of the Lucan Gospel by Marcion, so presumably not later than c. AD 145,46 and in Justin’s Apologia I (cf. e.g. 1 Apol. 33.4–5 and Lk 1:35.26–28.31–32; 1 Apol. 50.12 and Lk 24:25–27.49.51), so presumably not later than c. AD 153.47
Accordingly, the Gospel of Luke was most likely written c. AD 120–140.48 ← 23 | 24 →
The research on the sequential hypertextual relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline letters is difficult mainly due to the lack of universally accepted methods of research on the phenomenon of intertextuality.
The problems already begin with the use of the concept of intertextuality. Some scholars, on the grounds of a particular ideological origin and context of the use of the term ‘intertextuality’ in literary criticism, strongly object to the use of this term for an analysis of the presence of allusions to an earlier text in a later text.49 However, these scholars seem to forget what they are arguing for, namely that the authorial intent in coining a given term is not decisive for its meaning. Accordingly, even if Julia Kristeva’s intent in coining the term ‘intertextuality’ may have been quite particular, it does not preclude using this term in ways which somehow differ from her authorial intent,50 especially if a number of biblical scholars agree to apply this term to a method of analysing literary connections between two texts, and not to a particular ideology in literary criticism.
Such a diachronic concept of intertextuality51 was developed by Gérard Genette, who argued for using the term hypertextuality in the cases of loose intertextual relationships. According to the French scholar, hypertextuality can be defined as any relationship uniting a text B (which is in such a case called hypertext) to an earlier text A (which is called hypotext), upon which it grafts itself in a manner that is not that of commentary.52
In the case of a truly hypertextual relationship between two given texts, a high degree of literary creativity and imagination on the part of the author of the hypertext should be allowed for. For example, the authors of hypertexts frequently make various kinds of thematic, diegetic, and pragmatic transposition,53 especially ← 24 | 25 → by using the sophisticated procedures of transdiegetization,54 interfigurality,55 internymic deviation,56 transsexuation,57 temporal translation,58 spatial translation,59 transpragmatization,60 transmotivation,61 transvalorization,62 elaboration, compression, conflation, substitution of images and ideas, and form-change.63
In fact, numerous examples of very subtle, at times hardly identifiable allusions to earlier texts, as well as highly creative reworkings of them, can be found both in classical literature64 and in biblical writings.65 The ancient metaphor of bees producing honey from various flowers, so that the product clearly differs from its sources, aptly illustrates the ancient hypertextual procedure of rhetorical aemulatio.66 ← 25 | 26 →
The research on hypertextuality is fascinating because ‘in this process, every sign in a text can trigger an intertextual relation. Once a marker is recognized, other texts come into focus and readers can look for further elements proving or supporting their first association.’67 This phenomenon was very well known to the Fathers of the Church, who interpreted biblical texts as closely related to other biblical texts, even if at times the existence of such a relationship was postulated on the basis of just one particular association.68
The second problem with the use of the concept of hypertextuality concerns methodology. In the related project concerning the relationship between the Marcan Gospel and the Pauline letters, its leading scholars maintain that ‘further progress with regard to the question about the Mark/Paul relationship will have to rely, not on scholars’ imaginative powers or on their capacities for reading the texts, but on their achieving the utmost clarity concerning theoretical and methodological framework with which they as scholars approach the issue.’69
However, if biblical scholarship should not rely on scholars’ capacities for reading the texts, then on what should it ultimately rely: on abstract methods, devised in other fields of research, mainly to analyse interpretatively much simpler texts? With all due respect for the quest for scholarly objectivity, methods should be adequate to the object of study, and not vice versa. Therefore, especially in the humanities, obsession with following abstract methods is not always advisable. In this area, the capacity to interpret the objects of study is much more important.
Moreover, in the case of biblical scholarship, the old maxim, already somehow known to the Fathers of the Church, should be taken into due methodological consideration: ‘What was written with imagination must be read with imagination’.70 Again, with all due respect for the quest for methodological clarity, nothing can substitute for the use of imagination in analysing works of culture and art in which earlier motifs were reworked in highly creative ways.
In fact, the way of reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the Lucan Gospel is very creative, resembling a haggadic midrash illustrating legal matters rather ← 26 | 27 → than a simple reproduction of the Pauline letter, with the use of its key words etc. For this reason, it should not be categorized as ‘rewritten Scripture’, ‘parascriptural literature’, etc., but it should rather be analysed within the broader category of ‘hypertextuality’.71 Neither should Luke’s intertextual procedures be limited to those of mimesis and direct citation.72 Rather, Luke’s sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the form of biography of Jesus should be compared with Luke’s literary models, namely the sequentially organized hypertextual-historiographic Scriptures (Gen-Kgs),73 as well as the sequentially organized hypertextual-biographic Gospel of Mark.74 Luke evidently wanted to compose a confessional narrative (cf. Lk 1:4), and therefore he followed the scriptural and Marcan, sequential-hypertextual confessional models, rather than pagan ones.75
Accordingly, the analysis of the use of Paul’s letters in the Lucan Gospel should not be limited to finding intertextual allusions or echoes, regarded as repetitions of some words or phrases,76 or even clusters of words and ideas, as it was done ← 27 | 28 → by previous scholars,77 but it should also include tracing echoes regarded more broadly as ‘structuring an account along the lines of a specific tradition, while not expressly using any common vocabulary’.78
However, it should not be axiomatically assumed that Luke intended his audience to ‘hear’ his echoes and allusions,79 including those to the Pauline letters. As was noticed above, scholars have traced a number of allusions to Paul’s letters in the Lucan work, but given Luke’s evident avoidance of any direct reference to these letters, it is by no means certain that he expected his readers, at least all of them, to recognize such allusions. Rather, it seems that he envisaged two kinds of reading of his narrative: a ‘catechetic’ one, intended to convey Pauline and post-Pauline ideas in a narrative form to more general audience (cf. Lk 1:4b), and an ‘apologetic’ one, offering an edifying interpretative key to Paul’s letters for those who might be unsettled by their highly polemical contents (cf. Lk 1:1–4a).
Accordingly, the task of tracing the literary interplay between the Lucan narrative and Paul’s letters, the Septuagint, Josephus’ writings, other Jewish works, classical literature, etc. was most probably intentionally reserved for the most curious and most educated readers. The same, however, also refers to other biblical writings, with their hidden allusions to the prophetic writings in Deuteronomy, to the Mesopotamian literature in Genesis, etc.80
Therefore, even if the research on intertextual allusions in the Lucan Gospel methodologically resembles skating over thin ice, it is worth undertaking because Luke was evidently fond of making literary allusions to earlier authoritative texts, for example to the Septuagint.81
In any truly scholarly research on hypertextuality in the Gospels, some relatively reliable criteria for detecting intertextual allusions should be applied. ← 28 | 29 → Otherwise, this kind of research would consist in offering merely subjective interpretative proposals.
Among the criteria for detecting a hypertextual relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians, those proposed by Dennis R. MacDonald82 seem to be particularly useful. The criterion of accessibility is met if it is likely that the author of the Lucan Gospel had access to the letters of Paul the Apostle. The criterion of analogy is met if it can be shown that other authors used the Letters to the Galatians in a similar way. The criterion of density is met if it can be demonstrated that the correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians are numerous enough to postulate the existence of a truly literary connection. The criterion of order is met if the correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians in both works appear in the same order. The criterion of distinctive traits is met if some correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and the Letter to the Galatians are peculiar to them both, and not simply generic. The criterion of interpretability is met if the understanding of the Lucan Gospel gains something when this Gospel is viewed against the background of the Letter to the Galatians.
In fact, the most important criterion for detecting hypertextual relationships, at least between biblical writings, is the criterion of order. If two given works reveal thematic or other correspondences which follow a sequential pattern, it is reasonable to suppose that the author of one of these works in a hypertextual way reworked the other work, preserving the basic sequence of its themes, ideas, and at least selected literary motifs.83 In such a case, the relationship between these works may be called sequential hypertextuality.
With the use of this criterion, Christopher F. Evans has suggested that the content of the Lucan ‘central section’ (Lk 9:51–18:14) is modelled on the content of the Book of Deuteronomy (esp. Deut 1–26).84 However, the thematic and verbal ← 29 | 30 → correspondences postulated by him and some other scholars are mostly non-specific and quite vague.85
In other fields of biblical research, Beate Kowalski has argued that the Book of Revelation is a sequentially organized reworking of the Book of Ezekiel.86 Likewise, David P. Wright has argued that the Covenant Code is a sequentially organized revision of the Laws of Hammurabi.87
Quite recently, Annette Steudel has argued that the Damascus Document closely follows the textual organization of 1QS V–VII.88 It is interesting to note that according to her intertextual analysis, the correspondences between the two works may be of a very divergent nature, so that (a) sometimes both texts show a close, even literal relationship; (b) sometimes the later text is largely elaborating the earlier one; (c) at other times, much harder to see, a link through keywords builds a connection between the two texts; and (d) sometimes both texts simply share the same topic.89 Accordingly, the spectrum of sequential literary reworking in Jewish literature of the turn of the era could range from an almost verbatim quotation (as it often also happens in Luke’s reworking of the Gospel of Mark) to a vague thematic correspondence with no verbal link between the two texts (as it often also happens in Luke’s reworking of the Letter to the Galatians and other works).90
In the cases in which the level of verbal agreement between fragments of two given texts (a feature which in biblical scholarship usually functions as a token of literary dependence) is very low, and consequently the relationship between both texts is truly hypertextual, the criterion of order is particularly useful. In such cases, the weakness of purely linguistic signals of literary dependence (quoted ← 30 | 31 → or imitated sentences, reproduced characteristic phrases, etc.) is recompensed by the consistency of strictly sequential reworking of the conceptual elements (ideas, images, arguments, references to time, directions of movement, functions of characters, etc.) of one work in the other one.
The criterion of order is particularly compelling if it refers not only to larger sections or pericopes, but also to individual sentences or even clauses, phrases, and words. In such cases, its argumentative force is very high, even if the level of verbal or formal agreement between the compared texts is very low. It is namely true that the detection of a sequence of several similar elements, something which is at times used in scholarship for postulating the existence of various chiastic, concentric, and parallel patterns in biblical texts, can be regarded as more or less subjective. However, the degree of interpretative subjectivity is much lower if the common sequence of conceptually corresponding elements consists of tens or hundreds of sequentially arranged items.91
Another criterion which is very important for detecting hypertextual relationships, at least between biblical writings, is the criterion of interpretability. In case the literary features of a given writing can be understood better if it is regarded as a reworking of an earlier text, than this type of analysis should not be regarded as purely subjective92 and consisting in merely looking for parallels (‘parallelomania’).
This criterion is particularly convincing if both major, well-known literary problems and small, rarely noticed, not easily perceivable surprising features of a given literary work can be explained by the hypothesis that this work is an imperfect reworking of an earlier text, in which such problems and surprising features are absent.93 In fact, every reworking of something else leaves some traces, and even a gifted and creative reworker, such as Luke, is not always capable of eliminating all of them, especially if they are barely noticeable.94 Paying due ← 31 | 32 → attention to such small, intriguing literary ungrammaticalities, which are usually neglected or only superficially explained by most commentators,95 may give important clues to the discovery of a hypertextual relationship of a given text to a hypotext.96
Therefore, there is no other way for good exegesis than being curious and patient, and not being deceived by merely hypothetical, easily manipulable solutions offered by many scholars (lost sources, numerous redactional strata, widely circulating oral traditions, insufficient knowledge on the part of the author, only later attested customs,97 not adequately proven events,98 complicated narrative strategies, etc.).
In fact, the criterion of interpretability is particularly reliable if it explains not only the presence, but also the function of the allusions to other texts in the hypertext.99 In such cases, the danger of mere ‘parallelomania’ is greatly reduced. Accordingly, in such cases the criterion of interpretability can be regarded as decisive for ascertaining the existence of a hypertextual relationship between two given writings. ← 32 | 33 →
The main aim of this commentary consists in analysing the sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the Gospel of Luke. Therefore, other Lucan allusions will only be analysed here in a selective way, in order not to overload the work with mentioning all possible intertextual references.
It is also evident that this commentary has been written from a particular interpretative perspective. As such, it resembles modern commentaries which are based on a particular interpretative approach: reader-response, reception-historical, social-scientific, feminist, etc.100 Therefore, it significantly differs from ‘traditional’ commentaries, which aim at describing and evaluating various scholarly solutions to all problems that are posed by the commented text.101 Nevertheless, it answers the most basic questions which are discussed in every commentary: the meaning of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, pericopes, and ultimately the meaning of the whole book.102 ← 33 | 34 →
1 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 227–399, 419–430; id., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 83–132; id., The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 39–121; id., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 55–66, 79–86, 99–103, 117–119, 129–163; id., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 25–280; id., Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (EST 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 14–62; id., The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 31–196.
2 See e.g. S. Grindheim, ‘Luke, Paul, and the Law’, NovT 56 (2014) 335–358.
3 It is not sure whether Acts was written together with the Gospel, and consequently it should not be assumed that the possible use of Paul’s letters in Acts was identical with their possible use in the Gospel. Cf. A. Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BHT 58; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1979), 161. However, G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; E. J. Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1992), 333–336 argues that the proleptic conclusion of Lk and the relocations from Mk-Lk to Acts imply that Acts was already in mind when its author wrote Lk.
4 Cf. e.g. C. Schaefer, Die Zukunft Israels bei Lukas: Biblisch-frühjüdische Zukunftsvorstellungen im lukanischen Doppelwerk im Vergleich zu Röm 9–11 (BZNW 190; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012), 11–12, 15.
5 For recent suggestions concerning some use of the Pauline letters in the Acts of the Apostles, see e.g. H. S. Kim, Die Geisttaufe des Messias: Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu einem Leitmotiv des lukanischen Doppelwerks: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie und Intention des Lukas (SKP 81; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1993), 193–194, 198; P. N. Tarazi, Galatians: A Commentary (OBS; St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1994), 5–7; D. Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel (JSNTSup 119; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1995), 175–179; P. Elbert, ‘Paul of the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians: Critique and Considerations’, ZNW 95 (2004) 258–268 (esp. 264–265); M. C. Parsons, Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2007), 129–139; W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources’, NTS 54 (2008) 479–495; R. I. Pervo, ‘The Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Letters: Aspects of Luke as an Interpreter of the Corpus Paulinum’, in D. Marguerat (ed.), Reception of Paulinism in Acts / Réception du Paulinisme dans les Actes des Apôtres (BETL 229; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 141–155 (esp. 147–155); R. S. Schellenberg, ‘The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul’s Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts’, JBL 134 (2015) 193–213.
6 Cf. G. Bouwman, Das dritte Evangelium: Einübung in die formgeschichtliche Methode, trans. H. Zulauf (Patmos: Düsseldorf 1968), 98–112.
7 Cf. M. S. Enslin, ‘Luke, the Literary Physician’, in D. E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Festschrift A. P. Wikgren (NovTSup 33; E. J. Brill: Leiden 1972), 135–143 (esp. 140–141).
8 Cf. W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered’, JSNT 24 (1985) 3–23 (esp. 13).
9 Cf. ibid. 22 n. 53.
10 Cf. M. D. Goulder, ‘Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline Letters?’, PRSt 13 (1986) 97–112 (esp. 98–109); id., Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989), [vol. 1] 132–143.
11 Cf. id., Luke, [vol. 1] 143.
12 Cf. W. Schenk, ‘Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on his Reception’, in S. Draisma (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, Festschrift B. van Iersel (Kok: Kampen 1989), 127–139 (esp. 132–138).
13 Cf. ibid. 139.
14 Cf. A. J. Blasi, Making Charisma: The Social Construction of Paul’s Public Image (Transaction: New Brunswick · London 1991), 40–41.
15 Cf. ibid. 50–61, 63–65, 67.
16 Cf. ibid. 60–61.
17 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001), 6–8, 25–184.
18 Cf. T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (NTM 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 139–143.
19 Cf. P. Elbert, ‘Possible Literary Links between Luke-Acts and Pauline Letters Regarding Spirit-Language’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 226–254 (esp. 232–243).
20 Cf. R. I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge: Santa Rosa, Calif. 2006), 64–70, 139, 225–227.
21 Cf. ibid. 158–161, 178–179, 183–185, 197.
22 Ibid. 73.
23 Cf. ibid. 186–187.
24 Cf. S. Butticaz, ‘“Has God Rejected His People?” (Romans 11.1): The Salvation of Israel in Acts: Narrative Claim of a Pauline Legacy’, in D. P. Moessner [et al.] (eds.), Luke the Interpreter of Israel, vol. 2, Paul and the Heritage of Israel: Paul’s Claim upon Israel’s Legacy in Luke and Acts in the Light of the Pauline Letters (LNTS 452; T&T Clark: London 2012), 148–164 (esp. 163); id., ‘La relecture des lapsi pauliniens chez Luc: Esquisse d’une typologie’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10–12 juin 2010 (BETL 248; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 319–330 (esp. 319).
25 Cf. id., ‘Relecture’, 320–329.
26 Cf. ibid. 329.
27 Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982).
28 For a discussion concerning the intertextual use of earlier literary motifs in the Lucan work, cf. J. M. Morgan, ‘How Do Motifs Endure and Perform? Motif Theory for the Study of Biblical Narratives’, RB 122 (2015) 194–216 (esp. 204–206, 210).
29 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ und ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ: Eine exegetische Untersuchung der Texte des sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium (BZNW 101; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2001), 51–55.
30 G. Carey, ‘Moving Things Ahead: A Lukan Redactional Technique and Its Implications for Gospel Origins’, BibInt 21 (2013) 302–319 (here: 318). Cf. also M. J. Kok, ‘The Flawed Evangelist (John) Mark: A Neglected Clue to the Reception of Mark’s Gospel in Luke-Acts?’, Neot 46 (2012) 244–259 (esp. 246–249).
31 G. Carey, ‘Moving’, 318.
32 Cf. B. Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (JSNTSup 215; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002), 31–34.
33 Cf. S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (2nd edn., Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2003), 251–295.
34 Cf. R. I. Pervo, Dating, 158–161, 178–179, 183–185, 197.
35 Cf. K. A. Kuhn, Luke: The Elite Evangelist (Paul’s Social Network: Brothers and Sisters in Faith; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 2010), 11.
36 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 79, 87, 91, 95, 105, 112, 142–145, 148–152.
37 Cf. ibid. 153–155; id., Hypertextuality, 80–85.
38 Cf. U. Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830; 8th edn., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2013), 312, 315.
39 Cf. ibid. 311.
40 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 121–124; id., Constructing, 147.
41 Cf. D. P. Moessner, ‘How Luke writes’, in M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge University: Cambridge · New York 2005), 149–170 (esp. 161).
42 Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel (OACB: St Paul, Minn. 2012), 201–220, who argues for the genre of ‘scriptural historiography’ in the similar case of the Gospel of Mark.
43 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 17, 33–34.
44 Cf. R. A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (SNTSMS 70; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1992), 133–134, 146, 161–162, 178–180; id., ‘Biography’, in S. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400 (Brill: Boston · Leiden 2001), 371–391 (esp. 379–381, 383); M. W. Martin, ‘Progymnastic Topic Lists: A Compositional Template for Luke and Other Bioi?’, NTS 54 (2008) 18–41 (esp. 36–38); S. A. Adams, The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography (SNTSMS 156; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2013), 257–260, 264–278.
45 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Mark, 110 n. 12, 158–159 n. 140, 202 n. 17.
46 The fact that Marcion seems to have protested against the pro-Jewish ‘falsification’ of the Pauline gospel in the Gospel of Luke, with its theological combination of the gospel with the Law and the Prophets, especially in Lk 1:1–4:30 (cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27.2; Tertullian, Marc. 4.5.4–4.7.1), suggests that the Lucan Gospel appeared not long before AD 144, when Marcion left the Christian community and ‘censured’ the Lucan work. On the relative priority of the canonical Gospel of Luke against Marcion’s Gospel, see recently D. T. Roth, The Text of Marcion’s Gospel (NTTSD 49; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015), 437–438.
47 Cf. Justin, Apologie pour les chrétiens, ed. C. Munier (SC 507; Cerf: Paris 2006), 28.
48 Cf. C. Mount, Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (NovTSup 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 168: ‘sometime before about AD 130’. For a similar dating of Acts, see recently W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘Portrayal’, 495: in the middle of the second century AD; R. I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 2009), 5, 20: c. AD 115; id., ‘Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists’, in T. E. Phillips (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Acts (Mercer University: [s.l.] 2009), 29–46 (esp. 46: c. AD 110–130).
49 See e.g. D. I. Yoon, ‘The Ideological Inception of Intertextuality and its Dissonance in Current Biblical Studies’, CBR 12 (2012) 58–76.
50 Cf. L. A. Huizenga, ‘The Old Testament in the New, Intertextuality and Allegory’, JSNT 38.1 (2005) 17–35 (esp. 25).
51 Cf. J. Barton, ‘Déjà lu: Intertextuality, Method or Theory?’, in K. J. Dell and W. Kynes (eds.), Reading Job Intertextually (LHBOTS 574; Bloomsbury: New York [et al.] 2013), 1–16 (esp. 7–9, 12, 14–15); W. Kynes, ‘Intertextuality: Method and Theory in Job and Psalm 119’, in K. J. Dell and P. M. Joyce (eds.), Biblical Interpretation and Method, Festschrift J. Barton (Oxford University: Oxford 2013), 201–213 (esp. 202–206).
52 Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 13: ‘Hypertextualité [:] J’entends par là toute relation unissant un texte B (que j’appellerai hypertexte) à un texte antérieur A (que j’appellerai, bien sûr, hypotexte) sur lequel il se greffe d’une manière qui n’est pas celle du commentaire.’
53 Cf. ibid. 418.
54 Cf. ibid. 419–421.
55 Cf. W. G. Müller, ‘Interfigurality: A Study on the Interdependence of Literary Figures’, in H. F. Plett (ed.), Intertextuality (RTT 15; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1991), 101–121; K. Schiffner, Lukas liest Exodus: Eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme ersttestamentlicher Befreiungsgeschichte im lukanischen Werk als Schrift-Lektüre (BWANT 9.12; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2008), 40–42.
56 Cf. W. G. Müller, ‘Interfigurality’, 104–105.
57 Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 423–424.
58 Cf. ibid. 431.
59 Cf. ibid.
60 Cf. ibid. 442.
61 Cf. ibid. 457.
62 Cf. ibid. 483.
63 Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 10–13. Cf. also T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter, ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method—Suggested Guidelines’, in eid. (eds.), Intertextuality, 284–296 (esp. 288–290), who list 39 techniques of literary adaptation and group them into the categories of basis adaptation techniques, combinations and rearrangements, focus techniques, transformation, and substitution.
64 Cf. S. Hinds, Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry (RLIC; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1998), esp. 17–47, 99–122; E. Finkelpearl, ‘Pagan Traditions of Intertextuality in the Roman World’, in D. R. MacDonald (ed.), Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (SAC; Trinity International: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 78–90 (esp. 82–90); T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 8–17.
65 Cf. M. -É. Kiessel, ‘Intertextualité et hypertextualité en Jn 11,1–12,11’, ETL 81 (2005) 29–56; D. Ziegler, Dionysos in der Apostelgeschichte – eine intertextuelle Lektüre (Religion und Biographie 18; Lit: Berlin 2008), passim; S. Butticaz, ‘Has God’, 148–164; J. Descreux, ‘Apocalypse 12 ou de l’art d’accommoder les mythes’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures, 345–359 (esp. 355–356).
66 Cf. K. O. Sandnes, The Gospel ‘According to Homer and Virgil’: Cento and Canon (NovTSup 138; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 39–41.
67 S. Gillmayr-Bucher, ‘Intertextuality: Between Literary Theory and Text Analysis’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), Intertextuality, 13–23 (here: 19).
68 Cf. J. Barton, ‘Déjà lu’, 1–2.
69 E. -M. Becker, T. Engberg-Pedersen, and M. Müller, ‘Mark and Paul – Introductory Remarks’, in eid. (eds.), Mark and Paul: Comparative Essays Part II: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 1–10 (here: 10).
70 L. Alonso Schökel with J. M. Bravo, A Manual of Hermeneutics, trans. L. M. Rosa, ed. B. W. R. Pearson (BibSem 54; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998), 170.
71 For recent discussions concerning the definitions and application of these terms, see e.g. A. Lange, ‘In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature’, in P. S. Alexander, A. Lange, and R. J. Pillinger (eds.), In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 3–40 (esp. 13–19); A. K. Petersen, ‘Textual Fidelity, Elaboration, Supersession or Encroachment? Typological Reflections on the Phenomenon of Rewritten Scripture’, in J. Zsengellér (ed.), Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes (JSJSup 166; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 13–48 (esp. 19–31); J. G. Campbell, ‘Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment’, in J. Zsengellér (ed.), Rewritten, 49–81 (esp. 51–69).
72 Pace A. W. Pitts, ‘Source Citation in Greek Historiography and in Luke(-Acts)’, in S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (TENT 9; Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context 1; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 349–388 (esp. 378–388).
73 Cf. G. E. Sterling, Historiography, 357–363. For an analysis of the sequentially organized, hypertextual features of these Scriptures, see B. Adamczewski, Retelling, passim.
74 Cf. G. E. Sterling, Historiography, 350–352. For an analysis of the sequentially organized, hypertextual features of the Marcan Gospel, see B. Adamczewski, Mark, passim.
75 Pace U. Luz, ‘Die Geburtsgeschichten Jesu und die Geschichte’, in P. von Gemünden [et al.] (eds.), Jesus – Gestalt und Gestaltungen: Rezeptionen des Galiläers in Wissenschaft, Kirche und Gesellschaft, Festschrift G. Theißen (NTOA 100; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2013), 167–191 (esp. 187).
76 Cf. J. Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (University of California: Berkeley · Los Angeles · London 1981), 62–132.
77 Cf. e.g. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 132–143; W. Schenk, ‘Luke’, 132–138.
78 K. D. Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (JSNTSup 282; T&T Clark: London · New York 2005), 55. Cf. S. Holthuis, Intertextualität: Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption (Stauffenburg Colloquium 28; Stauffenburg: Tübingen 1993), 91–94, 140–147, 214–215; R. Reuter, ‘Clarifying the Issue of Literary Dependence’, in K. Liljeström (ed.), The Early Reception of Paul (SESJ 99; Finnish Exegetical Society: Helsinki 2011), 23–35 (esp. 24–30).
79 Pace K. D. Litwak, Echoes, 61, 64.
80 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Retelling, 25–181.
81 Cf. A. Denaux, ‘Old Testament Models for the Lukan Travel Narrative: A Critical Survey’, in id., Studies in the Gospel of Luke: Structure, Language and Theology (TTS 4; Lit: Münster 2010), 39–70 (esp. 41).
82 Cf. D. R. MacDonald, ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s Imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), Intertextuality, 211–225 (esp. 212).
83 Cf. e.g. ibid.; A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LNTS 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), 21.
84 Cf. C. F. Evans, ‘The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel’, in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift R. H. Lightfoot (Basil Blackwell: Oxford 1955), 37–53 (esp. 42–50).
85 Cf. A. Denaux, ‘Old Testament’, 43–44, 46–48.
86 Cf. B. Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes (SBB 52; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2004), 307–426, 464–472.
87 Cf. D. P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University: New York 2009), passim (esp. 347).
88 Cf. A. Steudel, ‘The Damascus Document (D) as a Rewriting of the Community Rule (S)’, RevQ 25 (2012) 605–620.
89 Cf. ibid. 608.
90 The recognition of this spectrum is important in the context of modern tendencies to restrict scholarly analyses of allusive use of earlier texts to cases in which there is some significant or extensive verbal parallelism: cf. e.g. P. Foster, ‘Echoes without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent Scholarly Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament’, JSNT 38.1 (2005) 96–111 (esp. 109). Understandably, in cases of low verbal agreement other criteria of allusive use of another text (order etc.) should be taken into due consideration.
91 Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 45.
92 On the other hand, it should be noticed that interpretation is always an art, and there are no criteria which would provide absolute objectivity and reliability of a given interpretative proposal.
93 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 201–202. Cf. also the use of this criterion in M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1] 132–143 for ascertaining not only the existence, but also the direction of literary dependence between the Lucan Gospel and Paul’s letters.
94 Pace G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 555, who has argued that the hypertext, being semantically autonomous, does not contain any perceivable internal ‘agrammaticality’. Genette’s general idea does not always refer to all minor details of the hypertext because the inevitable tension between the intratextual and intertextual levels of the meaning of the hypertext often results in some consciously or unconsciously created disruptions to its intratextual logic. On the other hand, the hypertext does not necessarily contain aberrant features, ungrammaticalities, anomalies, inconsequences, non sequiturs, the loss of narrativity, etc. which are so evident that they function as really sylleptic, and consequently compulsory in their impelling the reader to pursue the search for a hypotext, as it has been argued by M. Riffaterre, Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd edn., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993), 90–91.
95 Cf. D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity in the Gospel Parables’, TynBul 62 (2011) 161–172 (esp. 162, 171). However, there is no adequate reason for attributing such intriguing and bizarre details to the historical Jesus, and not to the evangelist.
96 Cf. R. L. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts (ISBL; Indiana University: Bloomington · Indianapolis 1995), 14.
97 It should be noted that, for example, rabbinic traditions which refer to various Jewish customs cannot be regarded as by definition uninfluenced by the New Testament writings.
98 In biblical scholarship, the historical facticity of many events is often postulated on the basis of the biblical writings which somehow refer to them. However, such a procedure is based on the erroneous presupposition concerning the historical value of the biblical works as relatively faithfully reflecting the historical realities. See B. Adamczewski, Constructing, passim; id., Retelling, passim.
99 Cf. A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization, 22. Cf. also T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 46, who uses the criterion of the intelligibility of the differences between both texts.
100 For a discussion on such a way of writing commentaries, see M. Y. MacDonald, ‘The Art of Commentary Writing: Reflections from Experience’, JSNT 29.3 (2007) 313–321 (esp. 317–320).
101 For this type of commentary, see e.g. B. Adamczewski, List do Filemona, List do Kolosan: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz (NKBNT 12; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006).
102 Cf. M. Y. MacDonald, ‘Art’, 320.
The first instance of sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians in the Lucan Gospel can be found in the first great section of the Lucan work, namely Lk 1:1–9:50, which precedes the so-called Lucan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51–19:28). As the detailed intertextual analysis of this great section shows, it is a result of sequential hypertextual reworking of the introductory section of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:1–3:1).
The preface to the Lucan Gospel (Lk 1:1–4) seems to be a self-standing part of the Lucan work. Its literary form and motifs apparently primarily link it with prefaces to Hellenistic and Roman historiographic works.1 However, its thematic structure also closely reflects the sequence of the themes which are contained in the main part of the opening formula of Paul’s letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:1–3): some people from the Jerusalem community, the apostles being witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, Paul’s unnamed co-workers, a datival reference to the Gentile addressees, and the basic teaching about Jesus.
The opening remark concerning many people (πολλοί), presumably closely related to the Jerusalem community, who already before the writing of the Lucan Gospel tried to compose a narrative version of the gospel, a story which was considered unsatisfactory by the author of the writing (Lk 1:1),2 is somewhat strange because it creates the image of many people trying to compose one narrative version of the gospel (διήγησιν), and not many different accounts (diff. e.g. ← 35 | 36 → διηγήματα: Jos. B.J. 1.1; cf. B.J. 1.2, 17). Such a remark by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality thematically reflects Paul’s opening remark concerning some people (pl. ἄνθρωποι) and a human (sing. ἄνθρωπος), who were presumably closely related to Jerusalem and who already before Paul tried to disseminate their interpretation of the gospel, an interpretation which was considered unsatisfactory by the author of the writing (Gal 1:1a; cf. 1:6–7).
Luke’s disparaging remark concerning previous attempts to compose an account of the matters which have been fulfilled, somewhat surprisingly,3 ‘among us’ (Lk 1:1), that is in the realm of life of Luke and his Greek-speaking Christian audience,4 in fact refers to earlier, unsatisfactory attempts to describe the evangelistic activity of Paul the Apostle. This meaning is additionally confirmed by Luke’s surprising use of the verb πληροφορέω (‘fulfil’: Lk 1:1c),5 which in the Pauline and post-Pauline terminology refers not to the ‘happening’ of events (diff. e.g. Jos. B.J. 1.13: γίνομαι), but rather to Paul’s activity of preaching the gospel (2 Tim 4:17; cf. 1 Thes 1:5; 2 Tim 4:5).
The subsequent, thematically positive remark concerning those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, and who handed on to us the tradition concerning Jesus’ activity, so presumably the gospel-preaching apostles (Lk 1:2), is somewhat surprisingly inserted into the negative assessment of Luke’s story-making predecessors (Lk 1:1; diff. e.g. Jos. B.J. 1.2). This positive remark by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent positive presentation of himself as someone who became an apostle through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Jesus Christ from the dead (Gal 1:1b).
The thematic link between Lk 1:2 and Gal 1:1b is strengthened by a linguistic connection. Although Luke’s remark concerning ‘those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word’ (Lk 1:2b) apparently refers to the ← 36 | 37 → Twelve,6 in Luke’s terminology it was Paul (and not, for example, Peter or John Mark) who fulfilled all the conditions of (a) spending his life from the beginning (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς + γενομεν*) among his people in Jerusalem (Acts 26:4), (b) being an eyewitness who saw (ὁράω) Jesus Christ (Acts 9:17.27; 26:16; cf. 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8), and (c) becoming a preaching servant (ὑπηρέτης) of the things which he saw (Acts 26:16; cf. 1 Cor 4:1).7 Moreover, the Lucan terminology of having seen Jesus and becoming a servant (ὑπηρέτης) of the gospel (Acts 26:16) applies not to being with Jesus during his earthly life, but to being sent by the risen Jesus Christ, whom God raised from the dead (Acts 26:8.13–16.23).
The evangelist also linguistically alluded to the apostolic tradition ‘just as’ it was ‘handed on to’ his audience (καθὼς παρέδ* *μῖν) by Paul, and not by the Twelve (Lk 1:2a; cf. 1 Cor 11:2).8 This apostolic tradition, which was handed on to the Lucan audience by Paul (παρέδ* + *μῖν), particularly concerned Jesus’ resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:3–11). Precisely for these reasons, the terminology which was used in Lk 1:2b illustrates Paul’s idea of his being an apostle of Jesus Christ, whom God raised from the dead (Gal 1:1b).
The subsequent appearance of the unnamed narrative ‘me’ (*μοί: Lk 1:3a; cf. Acts 1:1), which later becomes the narrative ‘we’ (Acts 16:10 etc.), finally travelling with Paul to Rome (Acts 27:1–28:16), so apparently thence recounting and writing the whole biographic story about Jesus and Paul (Lk 1:3bc; cf. Acts 1:1; 28:30–31), creates the image of Paul’s close co-worker, who was present with the Apostle and his other co-workers at the latest stage of Paul’s life, namely during his imprisonment in Rome.9 In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, it alludes to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning his unnamed co-workers, who were present with ‘me’ (ἐμοί) during his writing the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:2a), presumably from Rome (cf. οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί elsewhere ← 37 | 38 → used by Paul only in Phlp 4:21),10 and participating in the recounting and writing of Paul’s biographic story about his life with Jesus Christ (Gal 1:2a; cf. 1:13–21; 4:13–15; 6:11).
The subsequent datival (σοι: ‘to you’) reference to Theophilus, the presumably Gentile addressee of the narrative, whose name conveys the idea of being beloved by God (Θεό-φιλος: Lk 1:3c; cf. Acts 1:1),11 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to Paul’s subsequent datival (ὑμῖν: ‘to you’) reference to the Gentile addressees of his letter, who should enjoy grace and peace from God (θεός: Gal 1:2b-3).
The subsequent remark concerning knowing the certainty of the basic teaching about Jesus (Lk 1:4), which in Luke’s terminology (*γινώσκω + ἀσφαλ*) points to Jesus as the Lord (κύριος) and the Messiah/Christ (χριστός: Acts 2:36), alludes to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning Jesus as the Lord and the Messiah/Christ (Gal 1:3).
This basic pattern of sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal 1:1–3 in Lk 1:1–4 was enriched with the use of the motifs which were borrowed from prefaces to Hellenistic writings, especially the writings of Flavius Josephus.12 The use of Josephus’ writings in the Lucan Gospel13 was fully justified because Josephus was a well-known imperial propagandist ‘expert’ on Jewish matters in Hellenistic-Roman historiography around AD 80–120.14
The opening conjunction ἐπειδήπερ (‘since’: Lk 1:1a) is a more formal version of Josephus’ opening conjunction ἐπειδή (B.J. 1.1; cf. ἐπειδήπερ in a similar function in B.J. 1.17).
The verb ἐπιχειρέω (‘attempt’), disparagingly used (cf. Acts 9:29; 19:13) to describe the author’s literary predecessors or rivals (Lk 1:1a; cf. Gal 1:1a),15 was ← 38 | 39 → probably borrowed from Josephus’ similarly formulated apologetic statements (C.Ap. 1.53, 56).
The rare verb ἀνατάσσομαι (‘compose’), surprisingly used to refer to composing a previous, unsatisfactory narrative (Lk 1:1b; diff. Plutarch, Mor. 968c),16 seems to originate from a conflation of Josephus’ similarly used verbs ἀναγράφω (‘write down’: B.J. 1.1) and συντάσσω (‘compose’: B.J. 1.3, 17).
The syntactically related noun διήγησις (‘account’: Lk 1:1b) seems to have likewise been borrowed from Jos. B.J. 1.1 (διήγημα: ‘story’).
The use of the noun πράγματα (‘matters’) as referring to contested matters from the past, in which the author was also somehow involved (‘among us’: Lk 1:1c; cf. Gal 1:1a), is likewise typical of Josephus’ apologetic prefaces to his works (B.J. 1.1–2, 6, 9, 12–14, 16; Ant. 1.3–4; cf. also Vita 40; C.Ap. 1.6, 15, 47, 56).
The apologetic statement αὐτόπται… γενόμενοι (‘having been eyewitnesses’: Lk 1:2b; cf. Gal 1:1b; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) almost verbatim reflects the similar, apologetic statement of Josephus (αὐτόπτης γενόμενος: ‘having been an eyewitness’: C.Ap. 1.55).17
The compound pronoun κἀμοί (‘also to me’: Lk 1:3a), used in a comparison with previous authors (cf. Lk 1:1), was most probably borrowed from Jos. Ant. 1.4 (cf. 1.3). This literary borrowing caused the not easily perceivable confusion in the internal (in fact censuring-commending) logic of the Lucan preface (‘Since many have attempted to compose… I also resolved to write accurately’: Lk 1:1.3),18 especially if it is compared with the rhetorically straightforward, black-and-white (censuring-correcting) logic of Josephus’ preface to his Bellum (‘Many have written, but not accurately… therefore I resolved’: B.J. 1.1–3) and to the likewise straightforward logic of the Lucan preface to the ethopoeic letter of the Jerusalem leaders (‘Many have troubled you… therefore we resolved’: Acts 15:24–25).
The rather rare perfect participle active masculine singular verb form παρηκολουθηκότι (‘having followed’), as referring to following again past events, in which the author of the writing was somehow personally involved ← 39 | 40 → (Lk 1:3b; cf. Gal 1:2a), reflects Josephus’ similar use of this verb in C.Ap. 1.53 (παρηκολουθηκότα).19
The syntactically related adverb ἀκριβῶς (‘accurately’: Lk 1:3b) was likewise borrowed from Jos. C.Ap. 1.53 (cf. also B.J. 1.2, 6, 9, 17; Ant. 1.17).20
The vocative address form κράτιστε Θεόφιλε (‘most excellent Theophilus’), used in the preface to refer to the person to whom the writing is dedicated (Lk 1:3c), closely resembles Josephus’ similarly used vocative address form κράτιστε ἀνδρῶν Ἐπαφρόδιτε (‘most excellent among men Epaphroditus’: C.Ap. 1.1; cf. Vita 430). A similar vocative address form (without κράτιστε) was used again in the preface to the second volume of Luke’s work (Acts 1:1), just as a similar form was used again in the second volume of the work of Josephus (C.Ap. 2.1; cf. 2.196). Therefore, Luke’s address to the otherwise unknown, most excellent (κράτιστος) Theophilus, with no other specific reference to him as a particular person (Lk 1:3c; cf. Acts 1:1), most likely emulates Josephus’ address to his benefactor, most excellent (κράτιστος) Epaphroditus (C.Ap. 1.1; cf. 2.1).
Luke’s particular reworking of Josephus’ dedication consisted in the use of the hypertextual procedure of internymic deviation, by substituting the entirely pagan name of Ep-aphroditus (‘named after [the goddess] Aphrodite’: C.Ap. 1.1; 2.1) with the semantically related name Theo-philus (‘beloved by God’: Lk 1:3c; Acts 1:1), which much better suited Luke’s intended audience, consisting of people believing in the graceful and peace-giving God (cf. Gal 1:3). Since Josephus repeatedly stated that the name Theophilus was used in the families of Jewish high priests (Jos. Ant. 17.78; 18.123; 19.297; 20.223),21 Luke could in this way present his writing as addressed not only to post-Pauline Gentile Christians, but also to noble Jews, who were somehow sympathetic towards Christianity (cf. Acts 5:34–39; 6:7; 23:9; 26:26–32 etc.).
The section Lk 1:5–12, with its main themes of sacrificial worship, being blameless in the time of evil, Jewish permanent worship of God, God’s grace and calling, and an angel from the Lord suddenly terrifying the believer, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:4–10. ← 40 | 41 →
The opening statement concerning the identity of John the Baptist’s parents surprisingly presents his father as a priest and his mother as a member of the priestly clan of Aaron (Lk 1:5),22 although Josephus knew nothing about any priestly connections of John, who was active somewhere in Transjordan, in the south-eastern part of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, most probably in the region of Machaerus (Jos. Ant. 18.116–119).23 Such a presentation, by means of the rhetorical procedure of personification of an abstract idea, evokes the priestly image of sacrificial worship of God, which alludes to the idea of Jesus’ sacrifice for the sake of the believers (Gal 1:4a). The names and narrative functions of John’s priestly-prophetic parents,24 namely Zacharias as the penultimate scriptural prophet and Elizabeth as the Aaronite wife (Lk 1:5; cf. 1:67), are evidently scriptural (cf. Zech 1:1; Exod 6:23 LXX).25
The subsequent idealistic image of John’s parents as living in the evil days of Herod,26 the king of Judaea,27 and nevertheless being righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and regulations of the Lord, and being blameless (Lk 1:6; cf. 1:5a),28 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent image of the believers as being freed from sins and ← 41 | 42 → delivered from the present evil age, so that they might live according to the will of God (Gal 1:4b).
The particular idea of the believers walking as blameless (ἄμεμπτοι) before God (ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ: Lk 1:6) is based on the scriptural image of Abram, who was called to walk as blameless before God (θεός + ἐναντίον + ἄμεμπτος: Gen 17:1 LXX).29 The description of John’s parents as having no child (τέκνον) because Elisabeth was barren (ἦν + στεῖρα), and their both being advanced in their days (προβεβηκότες + ἡμέραι: Lk 1:7; cf. 1:18) likewise reflects the scriptural image of Abram and his wife (Gen 11:30; 17:16; 18:11 LXX).30
The subsequent image of Jewish permanent worship of God, which was performed every day (ἐφημερία) according to the order of levitical and priestly divisions (Lk 1:8; cf. 1 Chr 23:6–24:19; 28:13.21 LXX etc.), and which primarily consisted in praising and confessing to the Lord (cf. 1 Chr 23:30 LXX), by means of the hypertextual procedure of narrativization illustrates Paul’s subsequent praiseful confession of glory to God as offered permanently, forever and ever (Gal 1:5).
The subsequent remark concerning the otherwise unknown custom of choosing a particular priest by lot, that he might be granted the privilege of entering the sanctuary of the Lord, in difference to all other people (Lk 1:9–10; diff. 1 Chr 24:5–19: only choosing the order of priestly divisions), by means of the hypertextual procedure of narrativization illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of God’s calling the believers in grace (Gal 1:6c).31
The subsequent image of a suddenly appearing angel (ἄγγελος) of the Lord (ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος κυρίου: cf. Exod 3:2 LXX),32 standing, as Luke redundantly remarks, not in the direction of worship, but at the right side of the altar of incense, thus diverting Zacharias’ attention sideward from his calling to enter the sanctuary (Lk 1:11; diff. Lev 16:12), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that the believers were ← 42 | 43 → quickly diverted from God and his calling in grace by someone who could even resemble an angel from heaven (Gal 1:7–10).
The related idea that Zacharias was terrified (ταράσσω) by the angel (Lk 1:12) linguistically alludes to Paul’s related thought that the diverters terrify the believers (Gal 1:7).
The particular motif of a particular priest (ἱερ*) offering incense (θυμιάω) in the temple (ναός) and receiving there an audible divine revelation, while the whole multitude (πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος) was outside the temple (Lk 1:9–13), was borrowed from Jos. Ant. 13.282–283.
The section Lk 1:13–25, with its main themes of revealing good news to the believer, surpassing many in Judaism, being exceedingly zealous for Jewish traditions, being separated from one’s mother’s womb, and the fathers lacking faith, in an almost consistently sequential way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:11–15b.
The opening description of the angel as talking to Zacharias and revealing him good news (Lk 1:13–14; cf. εὐαγγελίζομαι: Lk 1:19)33 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of making known to the believers that the good news which he preached to them (εὐαγγελίζομαι) did not originate from humans, but through a revelation (Gal 1:11–12). The particular thought that the name of John was revealed in a special way (Lk 1:13e; cf. 1:59–63), resembling that of revealing the name of Jesus (Lk 1:31), likewise illustrates Paul’s idea of receiving a revelation through Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12c). In general, the fact that the angel Gabriel’s annunciation to Zacharias (Lk 1:11–20) is later narratively paralleled to his annunciation to Mary (Lk 1:26–38) by means of the hypertextual procedure of narrativization illustrates Paul’s idea that there is no other true gospel than that revealed through Jesus Christ (Gal 1:7.11–12).
The subsequent thought that John will be great in the sight of the Lord (Lk 1:15a), predominantly in a Jewish-style way (cf. Lk 1:15b), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of his surpassing others in Judaism (Gal 1:13). Luke evidently did not want to develop here the theme of persecuting the Church (Gal 1:13bc), but rather stressed the continuity between John and Jesus (Lk 1:5–80). ← 43 | 44 →
The subsequent instruction that John should not drink wine or other alcoholic drink (οἶνον καὶ σίκερα + μὴ + πίνω: Lk 1:15b), which is an evident reworking of the scriptural motif of being a religiously zealous Nazirite (Judg 13:14 LXX; cf. Num 6:2–4; Judg 13:4.7),34 by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that he advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his nation, being more exceedingly zealous for Jewish traditions (Gal 1:14).
The subsequent promise that John will be filled with the Holy Spirit (cf. Judg 13:25; Sir 48:12 LXX)35 even from his mother’s womb (ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ: Lk 1:15c; diff. Judg 13:5 LXX: ἀπὸ τῆς κοιλίας) linguistically, in an almost verbatim way, alludes to Paul’s statement that God set him apart from his mother’s womb (ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου: Gal 1:15b).
The image of John as turning many (πολλούς) Israelites, presumably weaker than him in faith, to God (Lk 1:16) again illustrates Paul’s statement that he advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his nation (Gal 1:14a).
The subsequent image of John as resembling the scriptural, zealous, powerful prophet Elijah, together with the scriptural motif of his turning the heart of the father to the children (ἐπιστρέψαι + καρδία + πατήρ: Lk 1:17ab; cf. Sir 48:10 LXX; cf. also Mal 3:24 LXX),36 which was somewhat surprisingly reworked by Luke to use the plural form ‘fathers’ (πατέρες: Lk 1:17b; diff. Sir 48:10; Mal 3:24 LXX), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that he was exceedingly zealous, apparently like the prophet Elijah (ζηλ*: cf. 1 Kgs 19:10.14; Sir 48:2 LXX), for the traditions of his fathers (pl. πατρικῶν: Gal 1:14b).
The non-scriptural, added thought that in his Elijah-like zeal John will turn the disobedient to the mind of the righteous (Lk 1:17c) seems to allude to Paul’s thought that in his zeal for Judaism he was persecuting the Church (Gal 1:13). ← 44 | 45 →
The scriptural name of Gabriel (Lk 1:19c) was borrowed from Dan 8:16; 9:21 LXX,37 but his self-presentation (ἄγγελος + ἐγώ εἰμι + proper name + παρίστημι + ἐνώπιον + God + ἀποστέλλω: Lk 1:19cd) reflects the self-presentation of Raphael (Tob 12:14–15 S).38 Luke’s choice of the scriptural character of Gabriel rather than that of Raphael was most probably motivated by Gabriel’s role as announcing the future of the whole people of Israel (Dan 8:15–26; 9:20–27),39 and not just helping a few people.
The announcement that John’s father will be mute (σιωπάω) and will not be able to speak (δύναμαι + λαλῆσαι) because he did not believe (Lk 1:20; cf. Dan 10:15–17 LXX),40 although he was a righteous and blameless man (cf. Lk 1:6), seems to allude to Paul’s idea that the Jewish traditions of his fathers did not lead him to true faith (Gal 1:14b; cf. 1:15–16). The related thought that Zacharias saw a vision (ὁράω + ὀπτασία: Lk 1:22) was probably borrowed from Dan 10:7–8 θ’. The concluding thought that the wife conceived (συλλαμβάνω) a son and that the Lord took away her disgrace (ἀφαιρέω + ὄνειδος: Lk 1:25) is likewise scriptural (cf. Gen 30:23 LXX).41
The story about Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary (Lk 1:26–38), with its main themes of a city in the north, being called by grace, and revealing God’s Son in a human person, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:15c-16a.
The sophisticated literary technique of biographic juxtaposition of two correlated scenes of Gabriel’s annunciation to Zacharias (Lk 1:5–25) and to Mary (Lk 1:26–38), with the addition of a shorter scene comparing (syncrisis) the two characters of John and Jesus (Lk 1:39–45),42 seems to have been borrowed by ← 45 | 46 → Luke from Plutarch’s Βίοι παράλλελοι (Vitae parallelae). Since the Gospel of Luke was evidently written later than the Gospel of Mark, which was in turn composed after the works of Josephus, so c. AD 100–110 or even later, c. AD 130–135,43 then it is quite plausible that Luke, who must have written his Gospel c. AD 120–140,44 knew the works of Plutarch, who was active c. AD 60–120.
The opening remark concerning Nazareth, which was surprisingly presented as a city (πόλις: diff. Mk 1:9) in the northern country of Galilee (Lk 1:26; cf. 2:4.39; 4:29),45 notwithstanding the fact that such a toponym was not even mentioned by Josephus, who very well knew all towns of Galilee,46 by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation alludes to Paul’s remark concerning his calling (Gal 1:15c), which took place in the well-known northern city of Damascus (cf. Gal 1:17c; Acts 9:3.6). The Lucan version of the name of Nazareth (Ναζαρέθ: Lk 1:26; 2:4.39.51; Acts 10:38) seems to be a Hebraizing correction of the Marcan name Ναζαρέτ (Mk 1:9).
The motif of a virgin betrothed to a man (παρθένος ἐμνηστευμένη ἀνδρί), a virgin who was supposed not to have sexual relationships with men yet (Lk 1:27; cf. 1:34), was borrowed from Deut 22:23–24 LXX (cf. Deut 20:7).47
The motif of Jesus’ origin from the house of David (Lk 1:27; cf. 1:32; 2:4; 3:31; Acts 13:32–33) is evidently post-Pauline (cf. Rom 1:3; Mk 10:47–48).48 Accordingly, the scriptural, but on the other hand typically Israelite (northern) name ← 46 | 47 → of Joseph (Lk 1:27; cf. 2:4.16; 3:23) reflects the idea of Jesus’ scriptural origin (Rom 1:3 etc.), but also that of his being the deliverer of all Israel (Rom 11:26; cf. Mk 6:3; Lk 3:30 etc.). Likewise, the Lucan version of the name of Mary (Μαριάμ: Lk 1:22.214.171.124–39.46.56; 2:126.96.36.199; Acts 1:14; cf. Lk 10:39.42), which evokes the name of Miriam, the sister of Moses (Exod 6:20; 15:20–21 LXX etc.),49 is a scripturalized correction of the Marcan name Μαρία (Mk 6:3; cf. 15:40.47; 16:1).
The subsequent image of the angel as surprisingly calling Mary by the word ‘favoured with grace’ (χαριτόω: Lk 1:28; cf. 1:29),50 which is later explained as referring to her having found favour/grace (χάρις) with God (Lk 1:30; cf. Gen 18:3 LXX etc.: εὑρίσκω + χάριν),51 in a post-Pauline way (cf. εὐδοκία + χάρις + χαριτόω: Eph 1:5–6)52 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that it pleased God (εὐδοκέω) to call him through his grace (χάρις: Gal 1:15c). The angel’s greeting formula: ‘The Lord is with you’ (κύριος μετὰ σου: Lk 1:28) is scriptural (cf. Judg 6:12 LXX).53
The subsequent revelation concerning Mary’s conceiving in her womb and bearing God’s Son (υἱός: Lk 1:31–32.35) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transsexuation (in this case, feminization) illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that God revealed his Son in Paul’s human person (Gal 1:16a). This statement was further elaborated by Luke according to the scheme of the double identity of Jesus as God’s Son (υἱός: Rom 1:3), as it was explained by Paul in Rom 1:3–4.54 ← 47 | 48 →
The scriptural thought that behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb and bear a son, ‘and you will call his name N.’ (ἰδού + ἐν γαστρί + καί + τίκτω + υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ: Lk 1:31; cf. Is 7:14 LXX; cf. also Gen 16:11; 17:19; Judg 13:3.5 LXX),55 a thought which originally referred to the Davidic dynasty, together with the scriptural promises that Jesus will be great (μέγας), son (υἱός) of the Most High, to whom the Lord (κύριος) God will give the throne (θρόνος) of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας), so that of his kingdom (βασιλεία) there will be no end (Lk 1:32–33; cf. 2 Sam 7:8–16 LXX etc.)56 reflect Paul’s statement concerning the identity of Jesus as born of the royal seed of David according to the flesh (Rom 1:3).57 The idea of Jesus’ being born of a virgin, without the participation of her husband (Lk 1:34; cf. 1:27.31), is a reworking of the Pauline idea of Jesus’ being born of a woman, with no mention of a fleshly father (Gal 4:4).
On the other hand, the subsequent declaration concerning Jesus as the supernatural (cf. Lk 1:34), holy (ἅγιον) Son of God (υἱὸς θεοῦ), thanks to the activity of the holy Spirit (πνεῦμα ἅγιον) and of God’s power (δύναμις: Lk 1:35; cf. 1:37),58 reflect Paul’s subsequent reference to the identity of Jesus as declared to be Son of God (υἱὸς θεοῦ) with power (δύναμις) according to the Spirit of holiness (πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης) by the supernatural resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4).59 ← 48 | 49 →
The presentation of the Levitical character of Elisabeth (cf. Lk 1:5) as a relative of the character of Mary (Lk 1:36)60 conveys the Lucan idea of some priestly elements in the predominantly royal messianic identity of Jesus (cf. Lk 3:24.29; cf. also Acts 1:15.26; 4:35 etc.). The statement that nothing will be impossible with God (ἀδυνατέω + παρά + θεός + ῥῆμα), which refers to God’s causing a miraculous conception of a son by an elderly woman (Lk 1:37), is a reworking of the thematically and linguistically similar rhetorical question Gen 18:14 LXX.61
The concluding self-presentation of Mary as a slave (δούλη) of the Lord (Lk 1:38) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transsexuation alludes to the self-presentations of Paul as a slave (δοῦλος) of Christ Jesus (Rom 1:1; Gal 1:10; Phlp 1:1).
The section Lk 1:39–80, with its main themes of going to the mountain country in the south, but not to Jerusalem, to preach there good news in a way understandable to the Gentiles, and then returning to the home city in the north, in an almost consistently sequential way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:16b-17.
The opening, pleonastic remark that Mary arose (ἀνίστημι: Lk 1:39a),62 which evokes the idea of supernatural resurrection (ἀνίστημι: cf. 1 Thes 4:14.16; Lk 8:55; 9:8.19; 16:31; 18:33; 24:7.46 etc.), in a graphic way illustrates Paul’s statement that he did not confer with flesh and blood (Gal 1:16b), that is with the perishable human realm which cannot take part in the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:50).
The related, narratively redundant chronological remark that Mary’s rising happened ‘in those days’ (ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις: Lk 1:39a),63 as though she had been waiting for several days before rising, which is quite strange in the context of her later acting with haste (Lk 1:39b), probably also alludes to the three days ← 49 | 50 → between Jesus’ death and resurrection (cf. Lk 24:18), and consequently to the Pauline idea of not conferring with flesh and blood (Gal 1:16b).
The likewise superfluous remark that after the annunciation Mary went with haste (μετὰ σπουδῆς: Lk 1:39b), which conveys the idea of acting immediately (cf. εὐθὺς μετὰ σπουδῆς: Mk 6:25), illustrates Paul’s related thought that after the revelation which he had received, he acted immediately (εὐθέως: Gal 1:16b).
The subsequent statement that Mary went from Galilee (cf. Lk 1:26) southward to a city of Judah, which was evidently not the city of Jerusalem (Lk 1:39b; diff. 2:22.25.41–45 etc.), by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that he departed from Damascus southward (Gal 1:17b; cf. 1:17c), but he did not go up to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17a). For the same reason, the surprising topographical remark concerning a city of Judah (πόλις + Ἰούδα: Lk 1:39b),64 and not, as was typical of Luke, Judaea (Ἰουδαία: Lk 1:5.65; 2:4 etc.), alludes to the scriptural lists of the cities of Judah (πόλις + Ιουδα: Josh 15:21–62; 21:9–16; cf. Judg 17:8 LXX), in which Jerusalem was not included (Josh 15:63; cf. Judg 1:8.21 LXX). Thus, it additionally illustrates Paul’s thought concerning his going south, but not to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17a).
The related, narratively superfluous, geographical remark that Mary went to the mountain country (ὀρεινή: Lk 1:39b) by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his going to the mountain country of Arabia (Gal 1:17b). Luke was aware of the fact that for Paul Arabia was mainly known not as the location of a wilderness (diff. Ezek 47:8 LXX etc.), but as the location of the mountain (ὄρος) of Sinai (Gal 4:25). Therefore, Luke could illustrate Paul’s statement concerning going to Arabia with the use of the idea of going to the mountain country (ὀρεινή: Lk 1:39b; cf. Josh 11:21; 15:48–60 LXX etc.).
On the other hand, Luke clearly avoided presenting Jesus and the Twelve as travelling outside the land of Israel (cf. the correction of the location of the Gerasene episode in Lk 8:26.39; the omission of Mk 6:45–8:26; the avoidance of mentioning Antioch in Acts 12:17 etc.). Therefore, Luke kept the extent of Mary’s journey southward within the confines of the land of Israel. Consequently, he presented Mary as travelling not to Arabia, but to the southern territory of Judah (Lk 1:39b).
The image of greeting Elisabeth, with the effect of her being filled with the Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα ἅγιον), crying out with a loud voice, confessing Jesus as her Lord (κύριος), and joyfully blessing Mary as the one who believed (πιστεύσ*): ← 50 | 51 → all these things doing in response, as it is repeatedly stressed in the text, only to the sound of the orally pronounced words audibly reaching both Elisabeth and the baby in her womb (Lk 1:40–45),65 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of orally preaching good news (Gal 1:16b), presumably concerning Jesus as the Lord (cf. 1 Thes 1:3 etc.), believed and confessed as such on the basis of oral preaching (cf. Rom 10:8–9) with the assistance of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 12:3).
The related statement that Mary entered the house of Zacharias, but surprisingly greeted the woman Elisabeth, and not the male host, the Jewish priest Zacharias (Lk 1:40),66 by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transsexuation illustrates Paul’s related idea that he preached good news to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16b), presumably living in Arabia (Gal 1:17b), and not to the Jews (Gal 1:16c–17a). The particular motif of a female hero being blessed among women (εὐλογέω + ἐν γυναιξίν: Lk 1:42c) was borrowed from Judg 5:24 LXX (cf. Jdt 13:18).67
Mary’s hymn of praise (Lk 1:46–55), in its thematic flow, which starts from God’s grace to the person of Mary (Lk 1:46–49), then passes through God’s dealing with other humble people in the world (Lk 1:50–53), and only thereafter comes to God’s dealing with Israel (Lk 1:54–55),68 illustrates Paul’s thought that after the revelation given to him (cf. Gal 1:16a) he preached good news to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16b.17b), and not to the Jews (Gal 1:16c–17a). The particular motif of status reversal,69 which concerns hungry people as opposed to mighty kings (Lk 1:50–53), additionally illustrates Paul’s idea of preaching good news to the poor Arabians, living in the wilderness (cf. Deut 2:4–8), and not to the Jews with their royal city of Jerusalem, who were hitherto favoured by God (Gal 1:16b–17b). The idea of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles was additionally elaborated by ← 51 | 52 → Luke with the use of his favourite motif of the Gentiles who fear God (θεός + φοβέομαι: Lk 1:47.50; cf. Acts 10:2.22; 13:16.26 LXX).70
Extensive use of scriptural motifs in Lk 1:46–55 (cf. Ps 69:31; Deut 10:21; Ps 89:2; Gen 42:18; Jdt 13:18; Deut 26:8; Ps 89:11; Jdt 9:3; Ezek 21:31; Ps 107:9; Gen 31:42; Is 41:8–9; Ps 98:3; Gen 17:3.7–8.22–23; 13:15 LXX etc.),71 especially those of feminine prayer and praise (cf. 1 Sam 1:11; 2:1–10; Gen 30:13 LXX),72 is fairly evident.
The narratively superfluous statement concerning Mary’s remaining about (!) three (τρεῖς) months in the south (Lk 1:56a), in Judaea (cf. Lk 1:39), with the result that she surprisingly did not help Elisabeth at her giving birth (γεννάω: Lk 1:57; cf. 1:56b),73 by means of the hypertextual procedure of temporal translation illustrates Paul’s idea of his remaining apparently three years (cf. Gal 1:18a) in the south, in Arabia (Gal 1:17b), presumably with no great evangelistic success, that is no ‘giving birth’ (cf. 1 Cor 4:15; Phlm 10) there.
The subsequent statement concerning Mary’s returning to (καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς) her home (Lk 1:56b), which was located in the northern ‘city’ of Nazareth (cf. Lk 1:26), by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of his returning to (καὶ… ὑπέστρεψα εἰς) his home city in the north, namely to the city of Damascus (Gal 1:17c).74
The remark concerning Elisabeth’s Jewish joyful, believing neighbours and relatives (συγγενής: Lk 1:58; cf. Rom 9:3; 16:7.11.21) introduces the allusive, idealistic presentation of the life of the Jewish Christian believers in Judaea, ← 52 | 53 → especially Cephas (cf. Gal 1:18b), between Paul’s return to Damascus (Gal 1:17c) and his going up to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18a).
The scriptural phrase ‘the Lord magnified his mercy’ (μεγαλύνω + κύριος + ἔλεος: Lk 1:58b; cf. Ps 57:10–11 LXX) illustrates the scriptural way of praising God by the Jewish Christian community, especially by Cephas (cf. Gal 1:18b), in a way which was idealized by Luke, namely as being open to the idea of the evangelization of the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:18c; Ps 57:10 LXX). The related idea of hearing (ἀκούω) and rejoicing (συγχαίρω) with the formerly barren woman at what the Lord (κύριος) made to her (Lk 1:58) was borrowed from Gen 21:6 LXX.75
The scriptural idea of circumcising (περιτέμνω) the child on the eighth day (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ: Lk 1:59a-c; cf. Gen 17:14; Lev 12:3 LXX)76 illustrates the importance of the Mosaic law for the Jewish Christian community.
On the other hand, the repeatedly stressed thought that the newborn son should be differing from his cognates and be prophetically called (καλέω) John (Lk 1:60–63; cf. 1:13e.76),77 which means ‘Yahweh has been gracious’, alludes to Paul’s idea of being prophetically separated from his mother’s womb and being called by God’s grace (Gal 1:15bc; cf. Jer 1:5 LXX). In this way, it balances the idea of strict adherence to the Mosaic law and its stress on being circumcised (Lk 1:59a-c; cf. Gal 5:2–4b etc.) with the typically Pauline idea of the importance of grace (Lk 1:59d-63; cf. Gal 5:4c etc.). Thus, it again alludes to the positive attitude of Peter to Paul (cf. Gal 1:18bc; cf. later Acts 15:11).
It should be noted that Josephus knew nothing about any particular significance of John’s name. For the Jewish historian, it was interesting that John was surnamed ‘immerser’ (Jos. Ant. 18.116). Against this background, Luke’s stress on calling the boy by a special name is particularly striking, and consequently it requires an adequate explanation.78
The presentation of Zacharias as passing from writing (γράφω) to blessing (εὐλογ*) God (Lk 1:63–64; cf. 1:68) illustrates the Pauline idea of the passage from the written law to spiritual faith and blessing in the manner of Abraham (Gal 3:1–14 etc.), and consequently it can also allude to the favourable attitude of Peter towards Paul and his theology (Gal 1:18bc). The related idea of people ← 53 | 54 → placing in their hearts the things (τὰ ῥήματα + ἔθεντο + ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν) which were commonly said about a future Jewish hero (Lk 1:65–66) is scriptural (cf. 1 Sam 21:13 LXX).79 On the other hand, the evidently abbreviated (zeugmatic) statement that the man’s mouth and, surprisingly, tongue were opened, so that he spoke (ἀνοίγω + καί + γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐλάλει: Lk 1:64),80 was borrowed from Mk 7:35.
Zacharias’ hymn of praise (Lk 1:68–79), clearly differing from that of Mary (cf. Lk 1:46–55) in its reversed thematic flow, which starts from blessing the scriptural God of Israel and proclaiming the fulfilment of the oath which God swore to Abraham (Lk 1:68–75) and concludes with the idea of God’s mercy to Israel and also to the Gentiles (Lk 1:76–79),81 illustrates Paul’s idea of the spiritual blessing promised to Abraham and concerning also the Gentiles (Gal 3:8–9.14 etc.). Accordingly, by means of the rhetorical technique of ethopoeia, it creates an idealized image of the Jewish Christian community, especially of Peter (cf. Gal 1:18b), as stressing the importance of the scriptural prophets (and not of the law; cf. Rom 1:2) and as being open to the idea of the evangelization of the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:18c).
Zacharias’ hymn of praise (Lk 1:68–79) was evidently composed with the use of numerous scriptural motifs (cf. 1 Kgs 1:48; Exod 4:31; Ps 18:3; 1 Chr 17:24; Ps 106:10; Lev 26:42; Gen 26:3; Ps 18:1; Wis 9:3; Josh 6:13; Is 40:3; Ps 102:20; 107:10; 40:3 LXX etc.).82
The concluding motif of a child (παιδίον) growing (αὐξάνω) and living in the wilderness (ἔρημος: Lk 1:80) is also scriptural (cf. Gen 21:20 LXX).83
The section Lk 2:1–40, with its main themes of going up from the city in the north to Judaea and to Jerusalem, unwelcome reception in Judaea, lodging with positively presented shepherds related to flocks, completing a certain number of days in Judaea, briefly seeing a righteous messianic slave related to Israel’s tribes ← 54 | 55 → in the diaspora, and returning to the northern country with its ‘city’, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:18–21.
The opening remark concerning the reason for going up to Judaea, namely being compelled by Gentile political authorities (Lk 2:1–3),84 alludes to Paul’s reason for going up to Judaea (Gal 1:18a), namely being compelled by Gentile political authorities (2 Cor 11:32–33).85 The particular, in fact historically implausible remark concerning a ruler of Syria as involved in compelling people to go up from the northern country of Galilee (which was under the rule of Herod the Great and then of Herod Antipas) to Judaea (Lk 2:2–3.5)86 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s remark concerning a ruler in the Syrian city of Damascus as involved in compelling Paul to go up from the northern country of Syria to Judaea (2 Cor 11:32–33; Gal 1:18a).
This narrative Lucan reworking of the Pauline reason to go up to Judaea (2 Cor 11:32–33; Gal 1:18a) caused the well-known chronological problem of the time of the rule of Quirinius in Syria (Lk 2:2), who according to Josephus was sent there after the deposition of Herod’s son Archelaus, so in AD 6/7 (Jos. Ant. 17.355; 18.1–2.26; 20.102; cf. B.J. 2.433; 7.253), but according to Luke he officiated there during the reign of King Herod, so before 4 BC (cf. Lk 1:5a).87
As was already noticed, Luke’s presentation of the birth of Jesus as taking place in the time of Herod (Lk 1:5a) had a purely intertextual function, illustrating the idea of living blamelessly in an evil time (cf. Gal 1:4b). The same refers to the Lucan remark concerning the census under Augustus and Quirinius (Lk 2:1–3), ← 55 | 56 → which in fact illustrates the reason for Paul’s going from the country in the north to Judaea, as caused by Gentile political authorities (Gal 1:18a).
Nevertheless, Luke seems to have been aware of the ensuing chronological discrepancy in his narrative. Therefore, in order to conceal it, he changed the Roman name of Quirinius (Κυρίνιος), as it was attested in Josephus’ writings (Jos. B.J. 2.433; 7.253; Ant. 17.355; 18.1–2.26.29; 20.102), to the artificial one of Cyrenius (Κυρήνιος: Lk 2:2), which resembles the toponymic form Cyrenian (Κυρηναῖος: Lk 23:26; Acts 6:9; 11:20; 13:1; cf. Mk 15:21).88
The surprisingly used motif of the first one among several Augustan censuses in the whole Roman Empire (Lk 2:1–2a) was most probably borrowed by Luke from the writings of Suetonius. If Luke in his story relied on the official presentation of Augustus’ life,89 he would have known that the first Augustan census took place in 28 BC (cf. Res gest. divi Aug. 8), so much earlier than the narrated time of the Lucan account.90 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Luke in his story relied on the writings of Suetonius, who only stated that Augustus had conducted three censuses of Roman citizens in the whole empire, without giving any precise dates for them (censum tamen populi ter egit, primum ac tertium cum collega, medium solus: Suetonius, Aug. 27.5).91
On the other hand, the motif of the census (ἀπογραφή) taken by Quirinius in Judaea (Lk 2:2; cf. Acts 5:37) was borrowed by Luke from the writings of Josephus (Jos. B.J. 7.253; Ant. 18.3; cf. B.J. 2.433; Ant. 17.355; 18.1–2.26; 20.102). From the works of this Jewish historian, Luke knew about the only one Roman census which took place in Judaea, namely ‘the census’ (ἡ ἀπογραφή), which was conducted by Quirinius and which triggered the revolt of Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37; cf. Jos. B.J. 2.433; Ant. 20.102).92
Accordingly, the allusions to the Pauline ideas contained in Gal 1:4b and Gal 1:18a adequately explain the well-known chronological problem of the Lucan dating of the first Augustan census (Lk 2:1–2a [28 BC]) and the census ← 56 | 57 → under Quirinius (Lk 2:2 [AD 6/7]) to the time of Herod, the king of Judaea (Lk 1:5 [before 4 BC]).
The idea of going up (ἀναβαίνω) from the alleged ‘city’ in the north to a city in Judaea (Lk 2:4), and then to Jerusalem (εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα: Lk 2:22), by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and spatial translation illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his going up (ἀνέρχομαι) from the city in the north, namely Damascus, to Jerusalem (εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα: Gal 1:18a).
The motif of Jesus’ origin from the house of David (Lk 2:4; cf. 1:27.32; 3:31; Acts 13:32–33) is evidently post-Pauline (cf. Rom 1:3; Mk 10:47–48).93 Luke narratively elaborated this motif (Lk 2:4–7a.11.15) with the use of the scriptural motifs of Bethlehem (Βηθλέεμ) as the city of David (πόλις + Δαυίδ: 1 Sam 16:1–13; 20:6.28 LXX)94 and the originating ‘house’ (οἶκος) of the messianic ruler of Israel, who was predicted to be born (τίκτω) of a heavily pregnant woman at her appointed time (Mic 5:1–2 LXX).95
The motif of a woman giving birth to her firstborn son (υἱός + πρωτότοκος: Lk 2:7a) was borrowed from Gen 25:24–25 LXX,96 most probably in order to allude to the Pauline motifs of Christ as the Son and as the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29; cf. Col 1:15.18). Otherwise, the Lucan stress on the fact that Jesus was Mary’s firstborn son (Lk 2:7a) would be redundant against the background of the previous use of the motif of a virgin giving birth to a son (Lk 1:27.31; cf. Is 7:14 LXX).
The narratively superfluous, surprisingly repeated motif of the mother having wrapped the newborn son in swaddling clothes (σπαργανόω: Lk 2:7), so that he would subsequently be recognized by others (cf. Lk 2:12), was borrowed from Euripides’ Ion, in which it is likewise repeated as the key motif of unexpected recognition in the course of the tragedy (Ion 955; cf. 32, 918, 1351, 1490, 1598). By means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality Luke reworked the classical set of characters: god’s son Ion, his mother Creusa, and his apparent human father Xuthus into his own set of characters: God’s Son Jesus, his mother ← 57 | 58 → Mary, and his apparent human father Joseph. In this way, Luke explained the idea of God’s Son being born as a messianic child of a virgin (Lk 1:27.31.34–35; cf. Rom 1:3; Is 7:14 LXX) in a way which was understandable to the Greeks,97 thus alluding to the arrival of the Apostle to the Nations, bearing God’s Son in himself (cf. Gal 1:16ab), from the realm of the Gentiles (Gal 1:18a; cf. 1:17c).
The surprising idea that Jesus was laid in a manger (cf. Lk 2:12.16), because there was no place for them in the guest room (κατάλυμα: Lk 2:7cd; cf. Mk 14:14),98 in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s idea that he was generally not welcomed by the apostles in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 1:19a).
In contrast to this general lack of hospitality, the subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced characters of shepherds (ποιμήν: Lk 2:8–20), who were keeping watch over their flock (ποίμνη) at night (Lk 2:8),99 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality allude to the subsequently mentioned character of Cephas/Peter (Gal 1:18b), who in the ethopoeic letter attributed to him was presented as an elder who encouraged other elders to shepherd (ποιμαίνω) the flock (ποίμνιον) willingly and eagerly, as good shepherds (*ποίμην) do (1 Pet 5:2–4). Likewise, the somewhat surprising, repeatedly highlighted link between the shepherds and the newborn babe (βρέφος: Lk 2:12.16; diff. Lk 2:17.27.40: παιδίον) alludes to the epistolary, ethopoeic character of Peter as referring to newborn babes (1 Pet 2:2). Similarly, the repeatedly highlighted link between the shepherds and the saying (ῥῆμα: Lk 2:15.17; cf. 2:19) of the Lord (κύριος: Lk 2:15), which was announced to them as good news (εὐαγγελίζομαι: Lk 2:10), reflects the similar link in the ethopoeic letter attributed to Peter (1 Pet 1:25).
Accordingly, the positively presented characters of shepherds, who received a biblical-style revelation (Lk 2:9; cf. Exod 3:1–2 LXX etc.), which contained the gospel (εὐαγγελ*) for the people of Israel (Lk 2:10) and concerned the Davidic ← 58 | 59 → Messiah (Lk 2:11),100 but which was also open to the Gentiles (Lk 2:12–14) of goodwill (εὐδοκία: Lk 2:14; cf. Phlp 1:15; 2:13; 2 Thes 1:11),101 allude to the positively presented character of Cephas (Gal 1:18b), who was keen for the scriptural tradition (cf. Gal 2:12c-f) and for preaching the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) to the circumcised (cf. Gal 2:7–8), but who also accepted the Pauline idea of the evangelization of the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:8–9.12b.14de).
The narrative presentation of the shepherds as the only ones in Bethlehem who resolved to get to know Jesus (Lk 2:15–19) illustrates the Pauline presentation of Cephas as the only one in Jerusalem who resolved to get to know Paul (Gal 1:18b).
The subsequent, repeatedly used, chronological motif of a certain number of days, namely eight (ἡμέραι ὀκτώ: Lk 2:21; diff. Lk 1:59; Lev 12:3 LXX: τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ) and forty, as completed in Judaea (Lk 2:21–22; cf. Lev 12:2–4),102 by means of the hypertextual procedure of temporal translation alludes to Paul’s subsequent chronological remark concerning fifteen days (ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε) as spent by him in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18c). Moreover, these and the following references to the law (νόμος) of Moses and of the Lord (Lk 2:22–24.27.39; cf. Exod 13:2; Lev 5:11; 12:8 LXX)103 illustrate the Pauline thought that Christ was born under the law (Gal 4:4).
The subsequent account of seeing (ὁράω: Lk 2:26.30),104 although only briefly (Lk 2:26.29), a righteous and devout man in Jerusalem (Lk 2:25–35; cf. 2:22–24) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent remark concerning briefly seeing James, the righteous Jewish Christian in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19b).
Luke depicted the features of James by means of the rhetorical procedure of ethopoeia. The scriptural name of Simeon (Συμεών: Lk 2:25.34; cf. Gen 29:33 LXX etc.),105 which was related to one of the twelve tribes of Israel that were dispersed during its history (cf. Gen 49:7 LXX etc.), as well as the remarks that ← 59 | 60 → Simeon was righteous (δίκαιος) and that he looked forward for a consolation of Israel (Lk 2:25; cf. 2:32),106 illustrate the main features of James, as they were presented in the ethopoeic letter attributed to him, namely as interested in the fate of the twelve tribes of Israel in dispersion (Jas 1:1; cf. Συμεών: Acts 15:14) and in righteousness (δικαιο*: Jas 1:20; 2:21–25; 3:18; 5:6.16).
Likewise, the fact that the character of Simeon was interested in seeing the Messiah of the Lord (Χριστός + κύριος: Lk 2:26)107 and that he referred to himself somewhat vaguely as a slave (δοῦλος) of the Master (Lk 2:29) alludes to James’ ethopoeic self-presentation as a slave of both God and the Lord Jesus, the Messiah (Jas 1:1).108
The statement that Jesus is destined (κεῖμαι + εἰς) to cause an internal soteriological division in Israel (Lk 2:34c) alludes to Paul’s similar description of the divisive effects of his evangelistic activity among Roman Christians, who were largely influenced by Jewish Christianity (Phlp 1:15–17). Likewise, the understanding of the evangelistic activity as meeting opposition (ἀντιλέγω: Lk 2:34d) in Luke’s post-Pauline terminology (cf. Rom 10:21) mainly refers to Jewish opposition against the proclamation of the gospel, especially the gospel which was preached by Paul (Lk 20:27; Acts 4:14; 13:45; 28:19.22).109 Similarly, the idea of the thoughts of the hearts (διαλογισμός + καρδία: Lk 2:35b) in the Lucan Gospel mainly refers to Jewish Christian leaders (Lk 9:46–47; 24:38; cf. 3:15). Therefore, Simeon’s predictions (Lk 2:34–35) narratively depict the ambivalent attitude of Jewish Christians towards Paul’s evangelistic activity (cf. Acts 21:20–25).
The related character of Anna (Lk 2:36–38) with the use of the Lucan preferred male-female gendered pattern110 complements the Lucan image of Israelite believers briefly meeting Jesus in the Jerusalem temple, thus again, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, alluding to some members of the ← 60 | 61 → Jerusalem community, but not the apostles, as briefly meeting Paul somewhere in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19b).
The ethopoeic features of Anna, namely bearing an Israelite name (Ἅννα: cf. 1 Sam 1:2–25 LXX);111 being a female prophet; being associated with Penuel, the place of Jacob-Israel’s meeting God (cf. Gen 32:29.31–32);112 representing Israel’s northern lost tribe of Asher (cf. 2 Chr 30:11;113 cf. also the southern lost tribe of Simeon in Lk 2:25–35);114 living 7 years with the husband since her virginity, thereafter being a widow, now being 12 times 7 years old,115 so symbolically embodying the main periods of Israel’s initially glorious and then tragic history up to the ‘fullness of time’ (cf. Gal 4:4);116 Israelite-style worshipping God with fastings and prayers night and day (cf. Acts 26:7);117 and looking for the redemption of Jerusalem (Lk 2:36–38; cf. 2:25)118 illustrate the prophetic idea of Israel’s ‘remnant’ (Rom 11:1–5), which was regarded by Paul as a sign of hope for salvation of all Israel, brought by the Deliverer who would come out of Zion to Jacob (Rom 11:26).
The Lucan image of Anna as a believing widow (χήρα: cf. Lk 7:12; 18:3.5; Acts 6:1; 9:39.41), who was really a widow, who had been the wife of one man (ἀνδρός), who was more than sixty years old (ἐτῶν + *ήκοντα), and who continued in prayers (δεήσεις) night and day (νύξ + καί + ἡμέρα: Lk 2:36–37), is likewise post-Pauline (cf. 1 Tim 5:3.5.9;119 cf. also 1 Cor 7:8.34). ← 61 | 62 →
The subsequent idea of returning, after finishing the matters in Judaea, to the northern region of Galilee and to the home ‘city’ of Nazareth (Lk 2:39) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and spatial translation illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of his returning, afterward, to the northern region of Syria, so presumably to his home city of Damascus, and to Cilicia (Gal 1:21; cf. 1:17c), which in Luke’s presentation was the location of the home city of the Apostle (cf. Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3; 23:34).
The related, pedagogic image of the child (παιδίον) as growing, becoming strong, and being filled with wisdom (σοφία: Lk 2:40; diff. Lk 1:80)120 likewise illustrates the period of the Apostle’s remaining for some time in Cilicia (Gal 1:21), so according to Luke’s description of Paul’s life in the city of Tarsus (Acts 9:30–11:25), which was well known in antiquity as a place of good education (παιδεία), especially studying philosophy (φιλοσοφία: cf. Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.13–15).
The section Lk 2:41–52, with its main themes of the main hero disappearing from the sight of the believers in Judaea, his having caused great pain to the believers in Judaea, and the Jews hearing the matters related to faith in Jesus’ resurrection after three days, in a partly sequential way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 1:22–24. The fact that the Pauline sequence of themes in Gal 1:22–24 was only partly preserved in Lk 2:41–52 mainly results from the presence of temporal retrospections in Gal 1:23.
The opening remark concerning Jesus’ parents as going every year to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover (Lk 2:41; cf. 2:42b) seems to present them as obedient to the Mosaic law (cf. Gal 4:4; Lk 2:22–24.27.39). However, if Luke really wanted to present them as fulfilling the precepts of the law, he would have described them as going to Jerusalem three times a year, for the three main festivals described in the Pentateuch (cf. Deut 16:1–17 etc.).121 Therefore, the remark concerning the particular festival of the Passover (ἡ ἑορτή + πάσχα) has yet another narrative and intertextual function. It proleptically points to the similar Lucan remark concerning the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Lk 22:1). Thus, it narratively introduces the motif of being unseen for three days (Lk 2:46), which likewise alludes to Jesus’ death and resurrection (cf. Mk 8:31; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:3–7.21.46; Acts 9:9 etc.). Consequently, this remark (Lk 2:41), ← 62 | 63 → by pointing to the main contents of the Pauline preaching (cf. 2 Cor 5:15; Rom 8:34 etc.), allusively refers to the Apostle’s statement concerning the faith which was preached by him (Gal 1:23c).
The narratively superfluous remark concerning Jesus’ being twelve years old (Lk 2:42a) is in fact quite strange. In Judaism of Jesus’ times, the age of twenty was considered a threshold to adult life: in social, marital, and religious terms (cf. 1QSa 1:8–11). Josephus tells a similar story about himself being praised by high priests because of his exact knowledge of the laws when he was only around fourteen years old (Vita 9).122 Moreover, before the time of the composition of the Lucan Gospel there is no attestation of the Jewish religious initiation ceremony of bar mitzvah for boys at the age of thirteen.123
Therefore, the Lucan remark concerning Jesus’ being twelve years old (ἐτῶν δώδεκα: Lk 2:42a) evidently has a symbolic meaning. Similarly to Mk 5:42 (cf. Lk 8:42), which illustrates the idea of Jesus’ resurrection, as it was preached by Paul to the Gentiles and reported to the believers and leaders in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 2:2b-d),124 this remark points to the main contents of the faith which was preached by Paul in Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:23c; cf. 1:21), as it was reported in Israelite terms to the Judaean believers (Gal 1:23a).
The statement concerning Jesus’ staying behind in Jerusalem, away from his parents, in such a way that Jesus’ parents did not know (negation + ἔγνωσαν: Lk 2:43) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and spatial translation illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his being unknown (ἀγνοούμενος) by sight to Christ’s believers in Judaea (Gal 1:22). The repeatedly stressed fleshly relationship between Jesus and his Jewish relatives (Lk 2:41.43–44.48) alludes to Paul’s remark concerning the churches of Judaea which are in Christ, that is in the fleshly, Jewish Messiah (Gal 1:22; cf. Rom 1:3).
The subsequent account of Jesus’ Jewish relatives searching for him (ἀναζητέω: Lk 2:44–45) in the Lucan terminology alludes to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning the Jewish believers somehow searching for news concerning him in Syria ← 63 | 64 → and Cilicia (Gal 1:23a; cf. Acts 11:25). The narrative description of this searching as consisting, somewhat surprisingly, in going first northward from Jerusalem among Jewish travellers (Lk 2:44; cf. 2:51) and then returning southward to Jerusalem (Lk 2:45) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the thought that the Jews, who must have travelled from Judaea northward to Syria and Cilicia, brought news concerning Paul from Syria and Cilicia back to Jerusalem (Gal 1:23a).
The presentation of the searching for Jesus as for some time causing great pain to his parents (Lk 2:44–45; cf. 2:48) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s subsequent remark that he was formerly persecuting the believers in Judaea (Gal 1:23b).
The subsequent idea of Jesus’ being found after three days (μετὰ ἡμέρας τρεῖς) of being unseen (Lk 2:46ab; cf. 24:3–7.10) evidently alludes to Jesus’ rising after three days (cf. μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας: Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).125 Consequently, by pointing to the main contents of the Pauline preaching (cf. 1 Thes 4:14; 1 Cor 15:4), this idea allusively refers to Paul’s subsequent statement concerning the faith which was preached by him (Gal 1:23c).
The story about the twelve-year-old child (παῖς) Jesus’ (cf. Lk 2:43) meeting in the Jerusalem temple with the teachers, presumably of the law (cf. Lk 5:17; Acts 5:34), so that all (πάντες) were amazed at his understanding (σύνεσις) and answers (Lk 2:46c–47), is an emulating reworking of Josephus’ story about himself as a fourteen-year-old child (ἀντίπαις) who was praised by all (πάντες) understanding (συνίημι) high priests and Jerusalem leaders, when he was questioned by them, because of his exact knowledge of the laws (Jos. Vita 9).
However, in difference to that didactic story, Luke surprisingly highlighted the fact that Jesus was listening (ἀκούω) and asking (Lk 2:46de), and the Judaeans were hearing (ἀκούοντες) Jesus (Lk 2:47b),126 presumably for three days (cf. Lk 2:46a). This thought, which was not borrowed from Josephus, illustrates Paul’s statement that the Judaeans were hearing the matters concerning Paul’s preaching of the gospel (Gal 1:23a.c), presumably especially those related to Jesus’ resurrection on the third day (cf. 1 Cor 15:4). For this reason, the remark that people were astonished (ἐξίστημι: Lk 2:47a) linguistically points to the idea of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. Mk 2:12; Mk 5:42 par. Lk 8:56; Lk 6:48–51; Lk 24:22; Acts 12:7–16). ← 64 | 65 →
The retrospective reproach of Christ’s Jewish believers, namely that he was formerly causing them great pain (Lk 2:48c-f; cf. 2:44–45), in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s similarly retrospective remark that he was formerly persecuting the believers in Judaea (Gal 1:23b.d).
The motif of necessity (δεῖ) to be in the matters of Jesus’ Father (Lk 2:49) originates from the Gospel of Mark (Mk 8:31; cf. Lk 9:22; 17:25; 24:7.26.44–46). The motif of the Jewish disciples’ incomprehension, pointing to the fact that they did not understand (οὐ + συνῆκαν) what Jesus spoke to them (Lk 2:50; cf. 18:34; Acts 7:25), is also Marcan (Mk 6:52; cf. 8:17.21). On the other hand, the motif of being subject to the superior authority of the parents (Lk 2:51c) is post-Pauline (Rom 13:1.5; cf. 1 Pet 5:5).
The subsequent motif of the main hero’s (αὐτοῦ) parent as keeping (διατηρέω) in the heart (ἐν + καρδίᾳ) the matters (ῥῆμα) concerning the son’s greatness (Lk 2:51d; cf. 2:19; cf. also 24:8) is scriptural (cf. Gen 37:11; Dan 7:28 LXX).127 Thus, it illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that in him the Jewish believers glorified God, presumably in a scriptural way (δοξάζω + θεός: Gal 1:24; cf. Exod 15:1–2.11 LXX etc.), which was also presumably hesitant and concealed (cf. Gal 2:4.12; Acts 21:20–21).
The concluding, didactic motif of Jesus’ coming back to (ἔρχομαι + εἰς) the northern ‘city’ of Nazareth (Lk 2:51b) and increasing there in wisdom (σοφία: diff. Lk 1:80) and in years, and in grace with God and humans (Lk 2:52; cf. 2:40) again alludes to Paul’s statement concerning his coming back for a presumably lengthy stay to the northern regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21), that is, according to Luke’s presentation of Paul’s life, back to the city of Tarsus (Acts 9:30–11:25), which was well known in antiquity as a place of good education, especially studying philosophy (φιλοσοφία: cf. Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.13–15).
The section Lk 3:1–2a, with its main themes of things happening in the fifteenth year, as well as mentally passing from the whole world to Jerusalem rulers, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:1.
The opening chronological remark concerning things which happened in the fifteenth year (ἔτος: Lk 3:1a) by means of the hypertextual procedure of temporal translation illustrates Paul’s opening chronological remark concerning things which happened after fourteen years (Gal 2:1a), that is presumably in the fifteenth year. ← 65 | 66 →
In fact, the apparently historically reliable Lucan remark that the activity of John the Baptist began ‘in the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius’ (Lk 3:1a) is in fact almost certainly unhistorical. As can be deduced from Jos. Ant. 18.116–119, the execution of John the Baptist in the Transjordanian fort of Machaerus took place by the time of Herod Antipas’ war against Aretas in that region, so c. AD 36.128 Since according to the Jewish historian some Jews saw a connection between the destruction of Herod Antipas’ army and the death of John the Baptist (Jos. Ant. 18.116), not only the place, but also the time of John’s activity and imprisonment must have been close to that of Antipas’ war against Aretas. People would hardly have interpreted Antipas’ defeat as a divine punishment for killing John the Baptist if John had been killed more than five years before that war.129 Likewise, since the Baptist’s activity was regarded by the ruler as politically very dangerous (Jos. Ant. 18.118), it almost certainly could not last for 7–8 years, and therefore it could not start as early as in AD 28–29. Accordingly, the Lucan chronological remark ‘in the fifteenth year’ (Lk 3:1a) should be explained not in historical, but in intertextual terms, as a reworking of the semantically corresponding Pauline chronological remark ‘after fourteen years’ (Gal 2:1a).130
The subsequent list of rulers, which starts with Emperor Tiberius, the Gentile ruler of the whole Roman world (Lk 3:1a; cf. 2:1), and ends with Annas and Caiaphas, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (Lk 3:2a),131 by means of the hypertextual procedure of form-change illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement concerning his coming from the mission among the Gentiles, which was carried out in the whole Roman world, symbolized by Titus with his Roman and Emperor-related name, to Jerusalem, with its Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:1; cf. 2:2d–f).
Most probably in order to illustrate the idea of the plurality of Jewish Christian leaders (cf. Gal 2:2d), Luke introduced the surprising idea of two Jewish ← 66 | 67 → high priests, Annas and Caiaphas, apparently officiating at the same time as one high priest (Lk 3:2a; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.34–35).132 Most probably in order to conceal the difference between his remark (Lk 3:2a) and Jos. Ant. 18.34–35, Luke by means of the hypertextual procedure of internymic deviation changed the name of the high priest Ananos (Ἄνανος: Jos. Ant. 18.26, 34, 95 etc.) to Annas (Ἅννας: Lk 3:2a).133 However, the surprising idea of two Jewish high priests officiating at the same time (Lk 3:2a) was later artificially justified by Luke in Acts 4:6,134 and thereafter also artificially explained in Jn 18:13.
The full title ‘Pontius Pilate’ (Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος: cf. Acts 4:27; diff. Mk 15:1–15.43–44), as well as the name of his office of the governor of Judaea (ἡγεμ* + τῆς Ἰουδαίας: Lk 3:1b) were most probably borrowed from Jos. Ant. 18.35, 55 (cf. also 1 Tim 6:13).
Likewise, the very rare verb ‘be tetrarch’ (τετρααρχέω: Lk 3:1c-e) was borrowed from Jos. B.J. 2.178 as referring to Herod in Galilee (Lk 3:1c) and from Jos. B.J. 3.512 as referring to Philip in Trachonitis (Lk 3:1d). Similarly, the name of Trachonitis (Τραχωνῖτις) as that of the tetrarchy of Philip (Lk 3:1d) was most probably borrowed from Jos. Ant. 17.189; 18.237; 20.138.
For the same reason, the statement concerning Lysanias (Λυσανίας) as the tetrarch of Abilene (Ἀβιληνή: Lk 3:1e) originates from Josephus’ remarks concerning Lysanias as the ruler of Abila (Ἄβιλα: Jos. Ant. 19.275)135 and Lysanias as the tetrarch of Abella (Ἀβέλλα: Jos. Ant. 20.138). Luke surprisingly placed the tetrarchs Philip and Lysanias together (Lk 3:1de; diff. Jos. Ant. 15.92: Lysanias was killed by Mark Antony) because they were also mentioned together in Jos. Ant. 18.237; 20.138.136
The section Lk 3:2b, with its main theme of receiving a private revelation, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:2a.
The non-Marcan presentation of the activity of John the Baptist as resulting from his having received a particular private revelation (ἐγένετο ῥῆμα θεοῦ ἐπὶ ← 67 | 68 → Ἰωάννην: Lk 3:2b; diff. Mk 1:4a: ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of his having received a particular private revelation (Gal 2:2a).
Luke stylistically elaborated this Pauline idea with the use of the well-known Septuagintal model referring to the prophet Jeremiah (ἐγένετο + ῥῆμα + θεοῦ + ἐπί + the name of the prophet + τὸν + the name of the prophet’s father: cf. Jer 1:1 LXX;137 cf. also Gen 15:1; 1 Sam 15:10; 2 Sam 7:4; 1 Kgs 17:2.8 LXX etc.). This particular scriptural model could have been suggested to the evangelist by Paul’s autobiographical presentation of his calling (Gal 1:15.16b) in scriptural terms alluding to the autobiographical presentation of the calling of the prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5 LXX).138
Moreover, because of the linguistic use of the model of the private revelation given to Jeremiah, who dwelt in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin (ἐν Αναθωθ ἐν γῇ Βενιαμιν: Jer 1:1 LXX), the Marcan phrase ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (‘in the wilderness’), which originally solely referred to the place of John’s activity (Mk 1:4b), was surprisingly used by Luke as referring to the place of the prophet’s permanent dwelling (Lk 3:2b),139 as though John for 30 years, during his whole childhood, youth, and adulthood, dwelt in the wilderness (cf. Lk 1:80).
The section Lk 3:3–11, which presents that which was preached to all flesh as also preached to the Jewish crowds, in a reversed, but chronologically corresponding way illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:2bc.
The first part of this section, which describes John’s preaching (κηρύσσω) salvation to all flesh (Lk 3:3–6), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of his preaching the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2c), which in fact occurred before his communicating the gospel to the Jewish Christians (cf. Gal 2:2b).
In difference to Mark, who presented John as baptizing and preaching in the wilderness (Mk 1:4), so that the Jews came to him to the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Luke presented John as coming from the wilderness, in which he had formerly received a private revelation (cf. Lk 3:2b), to all the region around the Jordan ← 68 | 69 → (Lk 3:3a).140 The non-Marcan phrase ‘all the region around the Jordan’ (πᾶσαν [τὴν] περίχωρον τοῦ Ἰορδάνου: Lk 3:3a; diff. Mk 1:4ab) was borrowed by Luke from the scriptural text describing the region of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 13:10–11 LXX).141 In this way, by means of the allusion to the scriptural motif of evil and sinful people who lived as Gentiles (cf. Gen 13:12–13 LXX), Luke illustrated Paul’s idea of his activity among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2c).
The related post-Marcan statement concerning John’s preaching (κηρύσσω) a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: Lk 3:3b; cf. Mk 1:4c)142 illustrates Paul’s idea of his preaching the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2c). In the Lucan theology, the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Lk 3:3b) was addressed to all nations, but beginning from Jerusalem, so in continuity with the spiritual heritage of Israel (cf. Lk 24:47; Acts 5:37).
The Lucan quotation from Is 40:3–5 LXX differs from the similar quotation in Mk 1:2–3 not only in the corrective elimination of its non-Isaian part (Mk 1:2bc) and in the change of its narrative location to that clearly illustrating the preceding statement concerning John’s preaching (Lk 3:4–6; diff. Mk 1:2–3),143 but also in the addition of the fragment concerning ‘all flesh’ as seeing the salvation of God (Lk 3:5–6; cf. Is 40:4.5b LXX).144 In this way, it further illustrates Paul’s idea of his preaching the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2c),145 which in Luke’s theology always begins from preaching to the Jews (Lk 3:4–5). ← 69 | 70 →
The second part of the section, which presents John’s preaching as directed to the Jewish crowds (Lk 3:7–11), illustrates Paul’s idea of his communicating the gospel to the Jewish Christians (Gal 2:2b), which in fact occurred after his preaching the gospel among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:2c).
The surprising, narratively unprepared thought that crowds came out (ἐκπορεύομαι) to John, with no clue as to their place of origin (Lk 3:7b),146 is of course post-Marcan (cf. Mk 1:5a),147 just as is the statement that the crowds were baptized by John (βαπτίζω + ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ: Lk 3:7c; cf. Mk 1:5b).148
John’s speech to the crowds (Lk 3:7d-11) is evidently directed mainly to the Jews (esp. Lk 3:8).149 On the other hand, it contains typically Pauline ideas, which were in an almost consistently sequential way borrowed from the Letter to the Romans: (a) the Jews trying to escape (*φεύγω) God’s judgment (Lk 3:7e; cf. Rom 2:3);150 (b) God’s future wrath (ὀργή) coming upon the Jews (Lk 3:7e; cf. Rom 2:5.8;151 3:5; 4:15; cf. also 1 Thes 2:16); (c) the Jews being called to repentance (μετάνοια), which should be demonstrated in doing (ποι*) good deeds (Lk 3:8a; cf. Rom 2:4.7.13); (d) the Jews in vain appealing to their Abrahamic circumcision and to Abraham (Ἀβραάμ) as their father (πάτ*: Lk 3:8b-d; cf. Rom 2:25.27–28; 4:1–2.9–10); (e) new children (τέκνα) of the father (πατήρ) Abraham (Ἀβραάμ), brought into being from dead stones through faith in God’s power (δυνα*) to raise (ἐγείρω) from the dead (Lk 3:8e-g; cf. Rom 4:11–12.16–25; 9:7–8);152 (f) all unfruitful trees, ← 70 | 71 → presumably with their branches, both Jewish and Gentile, threatened to be cut off (ἐκκόπτω) from their Israelite root (ῥίζα [surprisingly used in singular]:153 Lk 3:9; cf. Rom 11:16–22);154 and (g) doing (ποιέω) good by sharing (μεταδίδωμι) material things, including food, with those who are poor (Lk 3:10–11; cf. Rom 12:8.20; 15:26), in this way bearing material fruits (καρπός) of spiritual conversion (cf. Lk 3:8; Rom 15:27–28).
In fact, the Letter to the Romans as a whole presents Paul’s Gentile gospel in Jewish terms in the prospect of his journey to Jerusalem. Therefore, Luke sequentially used its main ideas in Lk 3:7d–11 to illustrate the content of Paul’s gospel which was preached among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:2c), just as it was communicated by the Apostle, presumably in terms used in that letter, to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2b).
The section Lk 3:12–13, with its main theme of declaring the gospel to the Jewish social elite, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:2d–f.
The account of John’s preaching to tax collectors, who came to be baptized (βαπτισθῆναι) and asked what they should do (τί ποιήσωμεν: Lk 3:12–13), is evidently related to the preceding account of John’s preaching to the crowds, who also came to be baptized and asked what they should do (Lk 3:7–11). However, in difference to that preceding account, Lk 3:12–13 depicts John as preaching no more widely to the Jewish crowds, but in a more particular way to the social elite, namely to tax collectors. In this way, Lk 3:12–13 illustrates Paul’s idea of his communicating the gospel no more in public to all Jerusalemites (cf. Gal 2:2bc), but in private to the Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:2d–f).
The allusive presentation of the Jewish Christian leaders, especially Cephas, as ‘tax collectors’ (τελῶναι: Lk 3:12) was borrowed by Luke from the Gospel of Mark (Mk 2:14–16; cf. 12:14–17), which in this way alluded to the demand of Cephas and the Jerusalem leaders concerning their receiving financial support from Gentile believers (Gal 2:10a), a request that could be regarded as collecting an imposed Church ‘tax’.155
The thematically corresponding exhortation not to request unjustified taxes (Lk 3:13) in a negative way further alludes to the financial request of the Jerusalem leaders, which resembled an unjustified tax imposed upon Gentile believers ← 71 | 72 → (Gal 2:10a). Luke reinterpreted Paul’s negative presentation of this request (Gal 2:10bc)156 by noting that, in agreement with Paul’s teaching, the Jewish Christian leaders were entitled to receive that what the Lord had ordered (διέταξεν) for their sustenance (1 Cor 9:14). For this reason, Luke described the tax collectors as likewise entitled to collect that what had been ordered (διατεταγμένον) for them (Lk 3:13). The Lucan statement that the tax collectors should request nothing more (μηδὲν πλέον) than that which was necessary (Lk 3:13) evidently corresponds to his later presentation of the idealized behaviour of the Jerusalem leaders during their meeting with Paul (Acts 15:28). This thematic and linguistic correspondence between Lk 3:13 and Acts 15:28 additionally confirms the hypothesis that Lk 3:13 allusively refers to Paul’s meeting with the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:2d–f).
The section Lk 3:14, with its main themes of acting as soldiers, as well as not shaking violently, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:3.
The account of John’s preaching to soldiers, who asked what they should do (τί ποιήσωμεν: Lk 3:14), is evidently related to the preceding accounts of John’s preaching to the crowds and to tax collectors, who also asked what they should do (Lk 3:10–11.12–13). Accordingly, it further illustrates Paul’s description of his meeting with the Jerusalem community and its leaders (cf. Gal 2:2b–f), now referring to the attitude of the Jerusalem believers towards Titus (Gal 2:3).
The remark concerning those who acted as soldiers (στρατευόμενοι: Lk 3:14a) is quite strange because they are not simply identified as soldiers (στρατιῶται), as Luke used to call such people (Lk 7:8; 23:36; Acts 10:7; 12:4.6.18; 21:32.35; 23:23.31; 27:31–32.42; 28:16).157 The particular image of people acting as soldiers, although they were not regular soldiers (Lk 3:14a), alludes to Jewish militant messianism (cf. Jos. B.J. 2.521, 582 etc.), which provoked the Jewish war against the Romans, who were led by Titus. Accordingly, this image illustrates the opposition of James, the brother of the Jewish Messiah (cf. Gal 2:4), against ← 72 | 73 → Titus, who came to Jerusalem (Gal 2:3a), and whose name after AD 70 evoked the memory of the Roman military commander who entered Jerusalem.
The subsequent exhortation directed to those who acted as soldiers, namely to shake no one violently (διασείω: Lk 3:14e),158 by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that the Jews who opposed him, especially the followers of James (cf. Gal 2:4), did not violently force Titus to be circumcised (Gal 2:3b).
The thematically corresponding idea of doing (ποιέω) good by not requesting money in an unjust way (Lk 3:14; cf. 3:12) again alludes to the unjust financial request of the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:10a) and to Paul’s response that he had already done good to the poor (Gal 2:10bc). The particular motif of those acting as soldiers (στρατεύομαι) as being paid with their wages (ὀψωνίοις: Lk 3:14) was borrowed from 1 Cor 9:7.159
Accordingly, the two particular exhortations given no more to the Jewish crowds in general, but to tax collectors and to those who acted as soldiers (Lk 3:12–14), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrate Paul’s idea of his communicating the gospel no more to the Jerusalem community as a whole, but to the Jerusalem leaders, especially Cephas and James (Gal 2:2d–3).
The section Lk 3:15, with its main theme of John apparently prevailing over Jesus as the Messiah/Christ, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:4.
The non-Marcan narrative introduction (Lk 3:15) to the statement of John (Lk 3:16; cf. Mk 1:7–8)160 conveys the idea of Jewish expectations and considerations regarding possible identification of John as the Messiah/Christ (Χριστός), and consequently the Jews’ temptation to follow Jesus’ apparent cousin John (cf. Lk 1:36) rather than Christ Jesus. In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, Luke illustrated Paul’s statement concerning the Jewish Christians’ temptation to follow Jewish ‘false brothers’, presumably with their fleshly claims to Jewish messianism, rather than Christ Jesus (Gal 2:4).
Luke described these Jewish considerations with the use of the verb διαλογίζομαι (Lk 3:15), which in his Gospel usually has the negative meaning of ← 73 | 74 → doubting in Christ’s message and salvific activity (Lk 1:29; 2:35; 5:21–22; 20:14; cf. also 6:8; 9:46–47; 24:38). In this way, the evangelist also illustrated the Pauline thought that siding with the ideas of ‘false brothers’ was tantamount to restricting the freedom which is in Christ Jesus (Gal 2:4).
The section Lk 3:16–17, with its main theme of being powerful towards the Jews, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:5a.
The Lucan version of the statement of John (Lk 3:16) was generally borrowed from Mk 1:7–8, but it was reformulated by means of the addition of the contrasting particle μέν (Lk 3:16c; diff. Mk 1:8a), the change of the distancing aorist form ἐβάπτισα (Mk 1:8a) to the correlating present form βαπτίζω (Lk 3:16c), the omission of the spatially distancing phrase ὀπίσω μου (Lk 3:16d; diff. Mk 1:7c), the omission of the chronologically distancing aorist participle κύψας (Lk 3:16f; diff. Mk 1:7e), and the surprising addition of the image of Jesus’ fire as contrasted with John’s water (Lk 3:16g; diff. Mk 1:8b; Acts 1:5; 11:16).161 In this way, it depicts John and Jesus as simultaneously acting, but strongly contrasted persons.162
Likewise, the Lucan addition of the non-Marcan images of a winnowing shovel and burning fire as symbolizing the power of Jesus (Lk 3:17) conveys the idea of the superiority of the universally judging power of Jesus in comparison to the slavish weakness of his apparent cousin John (Lk 3:16).
Therefore, the whole statement Lk 3:16–17 by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization illustrates Paul’s idea of his powerfully, fiercely not yielding submission to the secretly introduced Jewish false brothers and their attempt to enslave him (Gal 2:5a; cf. 2:4).
The image of judging the opponents’ works and burning (κατακαίω) them with fire (πῦρ: Lk 3:17d) was borrowed from 1 Cor 3:13.15. The phrase ‘unquenchable fire’ (πῦρ + ἄσβεστος: Lk 3:17d; diff. Exod 12:10; 29:14.34 LXX etc.: κατακαίω + πυρί), which in Lk 3:17d surprisingly refers to burning mere chaff, was borrowed from Mk 9:43, where it understandably referred to the eternal destruction of sinful humans. ← 74 | 75 →
The section Lk 3:18, with its main themes of encouraging and preaching the gospel to the people, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:5b.
The Lucan remark concerning John’s encouraging or comforting others (Lk 3:18a), which is really surprising in the context of John’s preceding, gravely threatening utterance (Lk 3:17), illustrates Paul’s idea of the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:5b). This truth was earlier presented by the Apostle as tantamount to freedom, and not to slavery (Gal 2:4). Therefore, the evangelist also described John as encouraging and comforting his audience (Lk 3:18a), and not as threatening them (cf. Lk 3:17).
The subsequent, likewise non-Marcan remark concerning John’s constantly preaching the gospel (imperf. εὐηγγελίζετο: Lk 3:18b) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of constantly preserving the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον: Gal 2:5b).
The subsequent Lucan reference to the people, that is to John’s audience (Lk 3:18b), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent reference to his audience (Gal 2:5b).
The section Lk 3:19–20, with its main themes of rebuking the Jewish ruler for his past evil deeds, as well as the Jewish ruler adding a restriction to John’s freedom, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:6.
The Lucan surprising, thematically negative, but on the other hand only allusive statement concerning John’s rebukes to the Jewish ruler Herod for his not precisely stated past faults, namely ‘because of Herodias, his brother’s wife’, as though the reader should know what was wrong with her (cf. Mk 6:17–18),163 and ‘because of all the evil things that Herod did’, as though the reader should know what all these evil things consisted in (Lk 3:19),164 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s allusive rebuke to the Jewish Christian leaders, especially Cephas, for their not precisely stated past faults: ‘What sort of people they once were makes no difference to me, God does not show partiality for any human person’ (Gal 2:6a–e). ← 75 | 76 →
The idea of allusively rebuking Cephas for his marriage-related concerns (Lk 3:19a) is post-Marcan (Mk 1:30–31 cf. 1 Cor 9:5; Mk 6:17–18 cf. Gal 2:11bc).165
On the other hand, the description of Herod as a tetrarch (Ἡρῴδης ὁ τετραάρχης: Lk 3:19a), and not as a king (diff. Mk 6:14.22.24–27), is a Lucan correction of the corresponding Marcan remark. This correction could be based on the data given by Josephus (Ant. 18.109 etc.).166
The subsequent statement concerning shutting John up in prison (Lk 3:20) evidently destroys the internal logic of the narrative, which was borrowed from the Gospel of Mark, because it almost absurdly describes John as having already been imprisoned when Jesus was baptized (Lk 3:20–21; diff. Mk 1:9.14; 6:17).167 In fact, this statement, which is preceded by the remark concerning the Jewish ruler as adding (προστίθημι) a restriction to John’s freedom (Lk 3:20a; cf. 3:18), in a negative way alludes to Paul’s subsequent, similarly formulated remark concerning the Jewish Christian leaders as adding (προσανατίθημι) nothing restrictive to his gospel (Gal 2:6fg).168 Luke narratively reworked this Pauline remark with the use the Apostle’s earlier thought that Jewish Christian additions to his gospel were tantamount to restricting the freedom of the believers and of the proclaimed gospel (cf. Gal 2:4–5). Therefore, by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization, the evangelist described Herod as restricting the freedom of John and of his proclamation (Lk 3:19–20).
The motif of shutting John up in prison (ἐν φυλακῇ: Lk 3:20; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.119) is of course post-Marcan (cf. Mk 6:17).169 ← 76 | 77 →
The section Lk 3:21–22, with its main themes of numerous Jews joining Jesus in his baptism, seeing a particular apparition of the Spirit, and witnessing the revelation of God’s Son in Jesus, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:7ab.
The Lucan account of the baptism of Jesus (Lk 3:21–22) is evidently based on the thematically corresponding Marcan account (Mk 1:9–11),170 but on the other hand it significantly differs from it in at least three important details.
The first important difference consists in the Lucan presentation of Jesus’ baptism not as a private event which involved only Jesus and John (diff. Mk 1:9), but as a public event which was witnessed by the whole Jewish people,171 who behaved similarly to Jesus (Lk 3:21a–c), and not according to the expectations of the evil Jewish ruler Herod (cf. Lk 3:20). In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality Luke illustrated Paul’s idea that his evangelistic activity was positively evaluated by several Jews (Gal 2:7a), notwithstanding evil Jewish suggestions to add some restrictions to it (cf. Gal 2:6).
The second important difference consists in the subsequent Lucan presentation of the aftermath of Jesus’ baptism not in terms of a private revelation given to Jesus (diff. Mk 1:10; cf. Gal 1:15a.16a), but in terms of a public, visual apparition, which was seen by numerous Jews, namely of their seeing the Holy Spirit descending in a bodily ‘sight’ (εἶδος) upon Jesus, thus pointing to Jesus in a particular way (Lk 3:22a; diff. 10:18).172 This surprising Lucan reformulation of the Marcan text narratively illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that several Jews saw (ἰδόντες) his spiritual features, namely that he had been particularly entrusted with the gospel (Gal 2:7ab).
The third important difference consists in the subsequent Lucan presentation of the intimate words of the divine entrustment and election of Jesus, consisting in the revelation of God’s Son in him (cf. Mk 1:11), as heard by numerous Jews ← 77 | 78 → (Lk 3:22b–d; diff. 10:21–22).173 In this way, Luke illustrated Paul’s subsequent idea that several Jews noticed that he had been particularly entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7b). Luke conflated here Paul’s idea of entrusting to him the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7b) with the thematically related one, namely that of revealing God’s Son in the Apostle in order that he might preach him among the Gentiles (Gal 1:16ab). Accordingly, Luke could use in Lk 3:22b–d the Marcan image of revealing God’s Son in Jesus (Mk 1:11; cf. Gal 1:15a.16a) as illustrating the idea of the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7b).
Additionally, Luke conformed the striking Marcan image of the heavens as being torn apart (Mk 1:10c) to the standard Septuagintal model of the heaven as having been opened (ἀνοίγω: Lk 3:21d; cf. Ezek 1:1 LXX).174 Thus, with the use of the typically Jewish, scriptural motif, Luke could better illustrate the idea of the Jews evaluating the Pauline gospel in their Jewish, presumably scriptural terms (Gal 2:7ab).
The section Lk 3:23–38, with its main theme of a Davidic, Abrahamic, and Adamic genealogy of Jesus, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:7c.
After the presentation of Jesus in highly spiritual terms of his being God’s Son according to the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:21–22; cf. Rom 1:4), the insertion of the fleshly genealogy of Jesus as being born of the seed of David (cf. Rom 1:3)175 and of Adam, and consequently being God’s Son in a fleshly way (Lk 3:23–38), is really surprising. Such a patrilineal genealogy could be understandable at the beginning of the narrative (cf. 1 Chr 1–9; Jos. Vita 1–8; etc.), and not after the description of Jesus as an adult man (Lk 3:23a),176 who was born of a virgin without the participation of Joseph, his apparent fleshly father (cf. Lk 1:27.34–35). ← 78 | 79 →
In fact, the Lucan sequential correlation of two different presentations of Jesus as God’s Son, namely according to the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:21–22) and according to the flesh (Lk 3:23–38), reflects the Pauline sequential correlation of two different versions of the gospel, namely that directed to the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7b) and that directed to the circumcised (Gal 2:7c).
The rather untypical of the scriptural tradition, ascending genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:23–38), which highlights the importance of the characters of Salathiel, David, Abraham, and Adam by placing them at numerically important positions in its heptadic scheme,177 in a particular Lucan way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of form-change, illustrates the Pauline remark concerning the gospel which was entrusted to Peter and directed to the circumcised (Gal 2:7c).
According to Luke, the gospel which was entrusted to the Jerusalem community (cf. Gal 2:7c) was directed stepwise to Jerusalem, the whole Judaea, the whole Israel, and the whole world (Acts 1:8). In particular, it was Peter who was primarily responsible for the passage of the gospel from Jerusalem and Judaea (Acts 1:12–5:42) to the whole Israel (Acts 8:14–25) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 9:32–11:18; 15:7–11). The genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:23–38) in its internal structure, including Salathiel representing Jerusalem and Judaea (Lk 3:27), then David representing the whole Judaea and Israel (Lk 3:31), then Abraham representing the whole Israel and all circumcised people (Lk 3:34), and then Adam representing the whole humankind (Lk 3:38),178 reflects this Lucan understanding of the gospel which was entrusted to Peter (Gal 2:7c) as gradually broadening from Jerusalem and the Jews to the whole Israel and then to the Gentiles.
The Lucan genealogy (Lk 3:23–38) also conveys the Pauline idea of a ‘fleshly’, messianic gospel for the circumcised (Gal 2:7c), that is for the whole Israel. Luke illustrated this idea by means of reworking of the Jewish ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’,179 which calculated the elapse of time from the beginning of the world to the messianic era as comprising 7 ‘weeks’ (4Q212; 1 En. 93:3–10; 91:10–11).180 Luke reworked the Jewish 7 ‘weeks’ to 11×7 generations (by ‘inflating’ the last 2 weeks from the ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’ into 3+3 weeks), most probably in order ← 79 | 80 → to make the idea of the ‘fullness of time’ at the time of Jesus (cf. Gal 4:4) more easily perceivable.181
Moreover, Luke illustrated the idea of the gospel for the circumcised (Gal 2:7c), that is for the whole Israel, by means of (a) introducing ‘northern’ names as those of Jesus’ direct predecessors (Joseph, Heli: Lk 3:23; diff. Mk 6:3: no patronymic);182 (b) introducing the names of the prophets of both Israel and Judah (Amos, Nahum: Lk 3:25); (c) introducing the names of the peripheral and central, northern and southern, priestly and royal tribes of the whole Israel (Semein, Josech, Joda:183 Lk 3:26; Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph: Lk 3:29–30); and (d) introducing the general symbolic name of Melchi (Lk 3:28) in place of those of the pre-exilic Judaean kings, who were at least partly responsible for the division of the whole Israel (Lk 3:27–31).184 Besides, the Hebraizing change of names in comparison to the genealogies of the Septuagint (esp. in Lk 3:32–33)185 may additionally illustrate the idea of the gospel for the circumcised (Gal 2:7c).
Additionally, Luke seems to have borrowed the idea of the main hero being about thirty (τριακο*) years (ἔτος) old at the beginning of his public activity in Israel (Lk 3:23) from Jos. Vita 80.186 ← 80 | 81 →
The section Lk 4:1–13, with its main themes of God’s working effectively in Jesus, as well as his acting on behalf of Israel, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:8a.
The fact that the elaborated Lucan account of the temptations of Jesus (Lk 4:1–13) illustrates the Pauline idea of God’s working effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised (Gal 2:8a) is especially visible in the differences between this account and its Marcan prototype (Mk 1:12–13).
The introduction to the Lucan account (Lk 4:1–2) evidently highlights the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit in Jesus. Whereas Mark described the Spirit as an external force driving Jesus out to (εἰς) the wilderness, where he was thereupon tempted by Satan, and where he was only externally assisted by the angels and not by the Spirit (Mk 1:12–13), Luke described the Holy Spirit as being active in the person of Jesus by filling him and leading him in (ἐν) the wilderness all the time when he was tempted by the devil (Lk 4:1–2a).187 Moreover, Luke reworked the scriptural motif of Moses’ eating nothing for forty days (ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα + οὐκ ἔφαγεν: cf. Exod 34:28 LXX)188 by describing Jesus as being spiritually very powerful: the Lucan Jesus surprisingly became hungry only when the scriptural time of fasting was over (Lk 4:2b–d). In this way, with the use of scriptural motifs and of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transpragmatization, Luke illustrated the Pauline idea of God’s acting effectively in the person of the Jewish apostle Peter (Gal 2:8a).
The subsequent non-Marcan scriptural discussion, which presents Jesus as a pious Jew who overcomes the temptations of Israel throughout its history (Lk 4:3–12), illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of Peter’s acting effectively on behalf of the circumcised (Gal 2:8a), that is of Israel. Specific allusions to the Jewish apostle Peter (Πέτρος: Gal 2:8a), whose name means ‘stone’ (πέτρος), can be found in all three parts of the dialogue: (a) in the non-scriptural reference to a stone (λίθος: Lk 4:3; diff. Deut 8:3 LXX);189 (b) in the likewise non-scriptural reference to suddenly exercising authority over the Gentile world (Lk 4:5–7; ← 81 | 82 → diff. Deut 6:13;190 10:20 LXX; cf. Lk 2:1);191 and (c) in the narratively absurd,192 repeated reference to a stone (λίθος: Lk 4:11; cf. Ps 91:11–12 LXX).
The scriptural content of the dialogue, which depicts overcoming in a scriptural way the temptations which Israel had throughout its history (Lk 4:3–12; cf. Deut 8:3; 6:13; 10:20; Ezek 8:3; Ps 91:11–12; Deut 6:16 LXX),193 likewise illustrates the Pauline idea of Peter’s acting effectively, presumably in a scriptural way, on behalf of the circumcised (Gal 2:8a), that is of Israel.
Luke again allusively presented the history of Israel (Lk 4:3–12; cf. 3:23–38) according to the periodization of time taken from the ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’, namely as comprising three main scriptural epochs (cf. 1 En. 93:6–10): the journey through the wilderness (Lk 4:3–4), the pre-exilic monarchy (Lk 4:5–8), and the postexilic temple (Lk 4:9–12).
The concluding image of the tempting devil departing from (ἀφίστημι ἀπ᾽) the main hero (Lk 4:13) was borrowed from 2 Cor 12:7–8.
The section Lk 4:14–21, with its main theme of God’s working effectively in the power of the same Spirit for the Gentiles, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Gal 2:8b. ← 82 | 83 →
The account of Jesus’ powerful activity in Galilee (Lk 4:14–21) illustrates Paul’s idea of God’s working effectively in him for the apostleship to the uncircumcised (Gal 2:8b).
The motif of Galilee as the symbolic region of the Gentiles (Lk 4:14; cf. Gal 2:8b) is evidently post-Marcan (Mk 1:14 cf. Gal 1:16a etc.).194 Against this background, the non-Marcan remarks that Jesus was filled with the power of the Spirit (πνεῦμα: Lk 4:14.18; diff. Mk 1:14), which evidently correlates this episode with the preceding one (cf. Lk 4:1–2),195 in a narrative way illustrates the Pauline correlative idea that God was effectively operating in Paul for the apostleship to the Gentiles (Gal 2:8b), just as he was effectively operating in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised (cf. Gal 2:8a). However, the Lucan correlation also points to the fact that whereas the activity in the wilderness of Judaea, which alluded to the apostolic activity of Peter among the circumcised (Gal 2:8a), had no visible outcome (Lk 4:1–13), the activity in Galilee, which alludes to the apostolic activity of Paul among the Gentiles (Gal 2:8b), was very successful (Lk 4:14–15; cf. Mk 1:28).
In line with the post-Pauline principles of Luke’s theology (cf. Rom 1:16), Luke described Jesus’ activity in the Gentile region of Galilee as starting with visits in synagogues (Lk 4:15–16; cf. Mk 1:21.27).
Contrary to the opinion of some scholars,196 the strange name form Ναζαρά (Lk 4:16) should not be regarded as a traditional or Lucan version of a Semitic name of the type of Γάζα because in prepositional phrases Luke inflected such names (cf. εἰς Γάζαν: Acts 8:26), and consequently in Lk 4:16 he would also have used the accusative form Ναζαράν. Therefore, in the context of the hypertextual reworking of Gal 2:8b-9c in Lk 4:16–30, in which the ‘city’ of Nazareth represents Jerusalem (cf. Lk 4:29), and not Damascus (cf. Lk 2:39.51), the phrase εἰς Ναζαρά (Lk 4:16a) formally alludes to the Pauline phrase εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (Gal 2:1). In subsequent parts of his work, Luke developed the adjective form Ναζωραῖος (Lk 18:37; Acts 2:22 etc.; diff. Ναζαρηνός: Mk 1:24 etc.), most probably regarding it as related to the substantival form Ναζαρά (Lk 4:16a).
The long scriptural quotation from Is 61:1–2 LXX, which describes the Lord as sending (ἀποστέλλω) the main hero to proclaim the gospel (εὐαγγελίζω) to ← 83 | 84 → the marginalized, blind, and indebted ones (Lk 4:18–19),197 illustrates not only the Marcan general idea of Jesus’ preaching the gospel in Galilee (Mk 1:14), but also, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, Paul’s particular thought that God operated in him in his being sent (ἀποστολή) with the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) to the Gentiles (Gal 2:8b; cf. 2:7b).
Moreover, Luke not only quoted the text of Is 61:1–2 LXX, but also significantly reworked it (Lk 4:18–19) in order to illustrate the content of the hypotext Gal 2:8b. In particular, Luke omitted the idea of healing the broken in heart (Lk 4:18; diff. Is 61:1 LXX),198 which had no allusive meaning related to the Gentiles.199 On the other hand, into the quotation from Is 61:1 LXX the evangelist surprisingly inserted a fragment borrowed from Is 58:6 LXX, which refers to sending (ἀποστέλλω) the oppressed in release (Lk 4:18),200 and thus linguistically alludes to the Pauline idea of being sent (ἀποστολή) to the Gentiles (Gal 2:8b). Moreover, the evangelist changed the scriptural idea of calling the favourable year of the Lord (Is 61:2 LXX) to that of preaching (κηρύσσω) such a year (Lk 4:19),201 thus again alluding to the Pauline idea of being sent to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Gal 2:8b; cf. 2:2c).
The thought that the scriptural prophecy has been fulfilled (πεπλήρωται) at the narrated time in the ears of the audience (Lk 4:21) was borrowed by Luke from Mk 1:15 (cf. Mk 14:49).202
The section Lk 4:22–44, with its main themes of Jewish initial recognition, but later rejection, of the grace given to Jesus, with the use of a sequential pattern illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Gal 2:9a–c. ← 84 | 85 →
The story about the rejection of Jesus as a prophet in his hometown (Lk 4:22–30) is evidently based on the similar Marcan account Mk 6:2–6.203 In Luke’s narrative theology, the idea of the rejection of the gospel by the Jews (Lk 4:23–30; cf. Mk 6:3–6) justifies the passage to unclean people, who symbolize the Gentiles (Lk 4:31–44).204 However, the use of the Marcan account about the rejection of Jesus in his hometown (Mk 6:2–6) already at this point of the gospel narrative (and not after Lk 8:56), as well as several non-Marcan details of the Lucan story about Jewish initial recognition, but later rejection of Jesus in the place where he was brought up, presumably with his siblings (Lk 4:22–30; cf. 4:16),205 imply that Luke, by means of the hypertextual procedure of conflation, also illustrated here the ideas of initial recognition and later rejection of Paul and his gospel by the Jewish Christian leaders, especially James, the Lord’s brother (Gal 2:9a–c; cf. 2:12).
- ISBN (PDF)
- ISBN (ePUB)
- ISBN (MOBI)
- ISBN (Book)
- Publication date
- 2015 (December)
- Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2016. 256 pp.