The Lukan Passion Narrative The Markan Material In Luke 22 54 23 25

This study traces the debate surrounding Luke's use of the Gospel of Mark and special sources, such as Proto-Luke, in a section of the passion narrative (Lk 22,54-23,25). The survey covers roughly the period from the 1880's to 1997. Part I details the development from P. Feine to the 1960's. Part II begins with G. Schneider continuing up through 1997. In treating each scholar's position, the author reviews their underlying Synoptic theory, their source theory in the passion in general, then the trial of Pilate, and finally the trial before Herod. Part III is devoted to an interpretation of Lk 23,6 - 16. Part IV contains the list of abbreviations, the bibliography, and three appendices: (1) Special LQ vocabulary and constructions according to J. Weiss; (2) Lukan priority theories; and (3) the Gospel of Peter and its relation to the Herod pericope. Part IV concludes with the name index. The Lukan Passion Narrative will be particularly useful to those concerned with Luke's redactional technique, Source theories, Minor Agreements, and the history of exegesis.

The goal of this redaction-critical investigation is to determine what in Luke 22 is special to Luke, to assess its origin, and to uncover Luke's purpose in using this material. Unlike earlier studies, Soards concentrates on lines of thought that link the chapter with the Gospel as a whole. The author's conclusion is that though Luke did not use a single coherent source other than Mark for this chapter, his diverse material was chosen in order to advance Luke's distinctive interests in Christology, eschatology and ecclesiology. Christologically, Jesus is shown as in charge of the Passion events and as the realization of a divine plan; eschatologically, the Passion is portrayed as inaugurating the era of the Last Days; ecclesiologically, Jesus's attitude to his disciples functions as instruction for Luke's readers about their role in God's plan.

Even a brief comparison with its canonical counterparts demonstrates that the Gospel of Luke is preoccupied with the power of spoken words; still, words alone do not make a language. Just as music without silence collapses into cacophony, so speech without silence signifies nothing: silences are the invisible, inaudible cement that hold the entire edifice together. Though scholars across diverse disciplines have analyzed silence in terms of its contexts, sources, and functions, these insights have barely begun to make inroads in biblical studies. Utilizing conceptual tools from narratology and reader-response criticism, this study is an initial exploration of largely uncharted territory – the various ways that narrative intersections of speech and silences function together rhetorically in Luke’s Gospel. Considering speech and silence to be mutually constituted in intricate and inextricable ways, Dinkler demonstrates that attention to both characters’ silences and the narrator’s silences helps to illuminate plot, characterization, theme, and readerly experience in Luke’s Gospel. Focusing on both speech and silence reveals that the Lukan narrator seeks to shape readers into ideal witnesses who use speech and silence in particular ways; Luke can be read as an early Christian proclamation – not only of the gospel message – but also of the proper ways to use speech and silence in light of that message. Thus, we find that speech and silence are significant matters of concern within the Lukan story and that speech and silence are significant tools used in its telling.

For a long time mainstream gospel scholarship has assumed that the so-called Q material (the "double tradition") in Matthew and Luke represents a document or tradition that was almost exclusively orientated towards the sayings of Jesus of Nazareth, with little interest in a narrative about him. This book argues, on the contrary, that the narrative material in the double tradition existed from the very beginning within a coherent Jesus narrative that ran from his baptism to his passion. Far from being inserted by Matthew and Luke into the framework of Mark, the double tradition is structured on the very same narrative framework as the Gospel of Mark (a framework that predates Mark). Conventional dichotomies in gospel origins, the historical Jesus, and the history of early Christianity are thus drawn into question.

What Old Testament texts are quoted in the New Testament, how are they used and what might such analysis mean for the (contemporary) reader? Focusing in particular on the passion narratives in the Synoptic Gospels, According to the Scriptures seeks to engage with these questions.

This book explores the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH), a largely neglected solution to the Synoptic Problem which holds that the author of the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source, and that the author of the Gospel of Matthew used both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke as sources. MacEwen begins with a survey of the scholars who have defended various forms of the MPH. Chapter 2 discusses two key lines of evidence which support the MPH. The first line of evidence is textual - demonstrating that Matthew could have known the contents of Luke's Gospel beyond merely the double tradition material. The second line of evidence, involving a study of strings of verbatim agreements in the Gospels, supports the view that Matthew depended directly on Luke. Chapter 3 explores evidence and arguments which can be seen as problematic for the MPH. MacEwen concludes that the MPH has been neither definitely proved nor disproved, and deserves further scholarly scrutiny.

Revision of the author's thesis (doctoral)--University of Aberdeen, 2005.

In this study Heather Gorman analyses Luke's portrayal of Jesus' death in light of the ancient rhetorical tradition, particularly the progymnasmata and the rhetorical handbooks. In addition to providing a detailed, up-to-date exegetical study of Luke 22:66-23:49, she argues three things. First, through the strategic placement of rhetorical figures and the use of common topics associated with refutation and confi rmation, Luke structures his passion narrative as a debate about Jesus' innocence, which suggests that one of Luke's primary concerns is to portray Jesus as politically innocent. Second, ancient examples of synkrisis suggest that part of the purpose of Luke's characterisation of Jesus in the passion narrative, especially when set in parallel to Paul and Stephen in Acts, was to set up Jesus as a model for his followers lest they face similar persecution or death. Finally, Luke's special material and his variations from Mark are explicable in terms of ancient compositional techniques, especially paraphrase and narration, and thus recourse to a special Passion Source is unnecessary.