Luke-Acts. Scandinavian Perspectives

Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 54

LUKE-ACTS Scandinavian Perspectives Edited by Petri Luomanen

The Finnish Exegetical Society in Helsinki Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen

1991

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

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

Preface

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

Helsinki , March 199 1

Petri Luomanen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waller Ubelacker

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

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

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

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

Kristjrut Buason

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

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

As an example of this type of analysis I have chosen a work by Gerhard Sellin, "Lukas als Gleiehniserzähler: Die Erzählung vom bannhärtigen Samariter (Lk 1O:25-37). A. Allgemeine Voruberlegun gen."J "8. Die Erzählung von bannhärtigen Samariter als Beispiel einer lukani schen &v9pom;- aorist in principal action s, > hist. praes. stengthening further and > finally a direct speech representing the greatest strength. The participles are connected to the aorists. Sellin finds it striking that the point in v. 33 does not coincide with the direct speech at the end. He interprets thi s in such a way that the direct speech is the poetie means which create a bridge over a too great reduction of the tension between the point on the leve l of action (v. 33) and the point in the sense of definition of the fun ction of the whole story (vv. 36-37a).21 The syntaclic structure is a teslimony of a original composition in Greek. 22 Sellin ascribes vocabulary and style 10 tbe evangeli st.2) As 10 the fonn the story in Luke 1O:30ff is an example.24 When Sellin tries 10 eSlablish 19 Sellin, 1975: 32f. Seil in, 1974: 183 and note 24 below. 21 SeUin, 1975: 33-34. 22 Sellin, 1975: 59. 1 3 SelHn, 1975: 35-37 . 14 An example is a story which wholly belongs 10 the rcalm of the subjcci under discus· sion. See Sellin, 1974: 177f, following A. JilIicher. Infonnation on the subjcct is given by the CQntext and it serves as a rhetorical paradigm within the contexI, see Sellin, 1974: 178 and 184. Luke 1O:30ff is o ne of the live dramatic and non-parabolic &~-n~ · narratives, which are characteristic for St. Luke and nOI without parallels in He lle nistic 1ewish Iheology, see Sellin, 1974: 179f. These narratives are Luke 1O:30 ff, 12 : 16ff, 16:19ff, 18:9ff. Th is is based o n M. D. Goulder, "Characteristics of the Parables in Several Gospels". ffhL 19, 1968,51-69, and K. 20

5

Krislj lin Bl1ason

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

u 26 27 28 29

6

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

The Good Samaritan

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

n.

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

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

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

7

Kristjtn Bllason

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

8

The Good Samaritan

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

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

4\

9

Kristjtn Buason

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

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

4)

IO

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

The Good Samaritan

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

An Analysis

0/ tlle Story

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

(0

do Things wir"

11

KristjMt Buason

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

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

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

12

The Oood Samarilan

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

~I

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

13

Kristjan Buason

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

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

14

The Good 5amaritan

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

Kristj4n B6ason

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

16

The Good Samaritan

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

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

17

Kristjan Bliason

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

.51 SI S9 60

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

18

The Good Samaritan

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

19

Kristjan Buason

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

m. A Tex lli ngu islic Analysis of Luke

10:25·37

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

20

The Good SamariWl

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

64 U

66 67 68

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

21

Krisljin Buason

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

69 70 71 72

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

22

The Good Samaritan

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

A Ma crostruclUre

0/ Luke

/0 :25·37

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

v. 25

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

v. 26

v. 27

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

77 See Hellholm, 1980: 135.

23

Krisljan Buason

v. 29

v. 30

v. 31

v. 32

24

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

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

aor,

\I .

33

v . 34

v. 3S

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

(dltl!v M C).

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

v.

36

v. 37

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

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

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

25

Krisljl1n Buason

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

26

,

The Good Samaritan

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

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

27

Krisljin Buason

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

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

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

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

28

The Good 5amaritan

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

33. 1988. 19-39.

29

KriSljM Bl1ason

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

135.

30

The Good Samarilan

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

31

Krisljl1n Buason

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

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

32

The Good 5amaritan

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

Works Consulted Abrams, H. 1963 Berger, K.

Th~

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

1973

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

Frankemölle , 1982: 61f.

33

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

34

The Good Samaritan

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

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

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

35

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

Kari Syrceni, Helsinki

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

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

The Gospel in Paradigms

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

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

37

Kari Syreeni

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

(b) The Text and the Reader: Intellectllol

\lS.

Moral

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

6

38

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

•

The Gospel in Paradigms

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

\15.

Backward

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

39

Knri Syreeni

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

(d) The HermeneulicaJ Space

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

I

M

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

40

The Gospel in Paradigms

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

10

41

Kari Syreeni

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

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

42

The Gospel in Paradigms

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

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

(0 ) Th e Mother

0/ Jesus in Lk 1-2

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

L1J KI

·/\ c r s

43

Kari Syreeni

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

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

44

The Gospel in Pamdigms

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

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

45

Kari Syreeni

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

46

The Gospel in Paradigms

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

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

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

47

Kari Syreeni

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

22

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

2)

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

24

48

867-868.

The Gospel in Pandigms

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

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

Cadbury. 1958: 238.

49

Kari Syreeni

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

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

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

28 Drury, 1987: 418 .

50

The Gospel in Paradigms

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

51

Kali Syreeni

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

The Gospel in Paradigms

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

(b) Luke's Work in the History

0/ Early Christian

Literature

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

53

Kari Syreeni

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

54

The Gospel in Paradigms

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

Uterature Aejmelaeus. Lars

1987

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

Bai . Mieke

1985

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

Barthes. Roland

1986

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

369-386. Drury. John 1987

J5 /tc/.

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

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

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

55

Kari S)'!'ttni

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

56

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

1990

57

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

I

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

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

Social Rdations &nd Econornic Interaction

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

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

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

I U KE-ACT S

S9

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

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

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

60

Social Relations and Economic Intemction

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

61

Halvor Moxnes

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

II

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

62

Soda! Relations and Economic lnteraction

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

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

63

Ha.lvor Moxnes

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

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

64

Social Relations and Economic lnleraclion

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

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

65

Halvor Moxnes

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

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

66

Social Relations and Economic InlefilCuon

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

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

67

HalVOT

Moxnes

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

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

68

Social Relations and Economic Interaction

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

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

69

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

70

Social Relations and Economic lnteraction

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

2.5

In a leiter of June 28. 1990.

71

Hnlvor Moxnes

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

72

Social Relations and Economic lnteraction

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

Works Consulted Blok, A.

1969

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

73

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

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

74

,

Sodal Relations and Economic Interaction Talbcn, Charles H. 1982

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

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

1990

von The Gospel According (0

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

B. Pearce. Landon : Allan Lane. Penguin.

75

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

pi~ •

memoriam

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

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

The Purpose of the Lucan Writings

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

77

Anders E. Nielsen

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

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

78

The Purpose ofthe Lucan Writings

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

79

Anders E. Nielsen

not to confuse the spec ific eschatological view of Luke with his general distance from apocalyptic. As with the other New Testament narratives Luke deviates markedly from the existing Ascension tradition in the books of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Elijah and the Ascension of Moses.19 In Luke the ascending Jesus does not send down any detailed revelations of an apoealyptic nature about the destruction of the world powers and the restoration of Israel. Such questions are expressly rejeeted by Jesus prior 10 his Ascension (Acts 1:6-7). This is seen in the deeisive point that the disciples left behind are not to oecupy themselves with apocalyptic speculations, but 10 devote themselves to sprea 81

Anders E. Nielsen

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

Emphasis on the appearance or the risen Jesus. berore the disciples (pcta TO xa8civ) during "the ron y days", 3b-11 Final events belonging to "the rony days", 3b Meta phrase (ltrcuv ni IU'pC 11),.- {k1.l7Ilda:; roO /kov) 4-8 Fellowship meal related tO a specific teaching given by Jesus. Relative episode marker in 4a (ctuva.ll'~) 4b-5 Instruction : -not to Jeave Jerusalem, uusting the prom.ises o r the Father, 4b -becaust or (6n) coming baptism in the Spirit. 5 Dialogue pan intro
103

Heikki Rttisänen

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

5. Th e Slatemems

Oll

rh e Rejeclion 01 llte l ews i" ACIs

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

104

The Redemption of Israel

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

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

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

105

Heikki Räisänen

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

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

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

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

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

106

7

1lle Rc:demption of Israel

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

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

LUKF.. A(TS

107

Heikki Räisänen

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

108

The Redemption of Israel

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

:

H .. .

109

Hcikki Räisänen

•

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

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

•

H

110

The Redemption of Israel

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

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

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

III

•

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

11 2

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

113

HeikJd Räisänen

1986 1988

1989

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

Tiede, David L

1986

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

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

114

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

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

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

Matti Myllykoski

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

116

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

117

Matti Myllykoski

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

The Material Common to Luke and John

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

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

119

Mruti M)'Il)'koski

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

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

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

M

120

The Material Common 10 Luke and John

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

121

Matti Myllykoski

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

122

The Material Common 10 Luke and John

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

123

Matti Myllykoski

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

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

124

The Material Common to Luke and John

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

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

125

Mlltti M)'Il)'koski

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

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

126

The Material Common to Luke and John

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

Entry into Jerusalem In their accounts of the entry into Jerusalem Lk and Jn also have two minor agreements opposed to Mk. Firstly, they both let "the whole multitude of disciples" (Lk)/ "a great crowd" (Jn) greet Jesus as 6 ßa"1Ä