With a historian's precision, Luke's Gospel shows painstaking care both in detail and in expression. Of equal distinction is the universal appeal of the Gospel. Barclay's insightful comments help each of us to see the infinitude of God's love through Luke's eyes. Luke by Sharon H. Ringe Call Number: online. Series: Westminster Bible Companion. Ringe offers readers a thorough introduction to and a critical reading of Luke. K56 J64 Series: Sacra Pagina, 3. What makes this commentary on Luke stand apart from others is that, from beginning to end, this is a literary analysis.
- Luke's Gospel (New Testament Readings).
- Lifted From Darkness.
- SLOPPY SECONDS GUIDE TO SUPER BOWL PREDICTIONS 2013.
- New Testament - Wikipedia;
- The Gospel of Luke.
- Ron Els Comic Book Trivia (Volume 5) (Ron Els Comic Book Trivia Series).
- The genre of the gospels.
Because it focuses solely on the gospel as it appears and not on its source or origin, this commentary richly and thoroughly explores just what Luke is saying and how he says it. Luke by Fred B. Craddock Call Number: online. Using Luke's own prologue as the guideline for his commentary, Fred B. Craddock calls attention to the continuities between Jesus and his heritage in Judaism and the church after him.
S45 Series: Passion Series, 3. Father Senior's exegesis yields a strong sense of what Luke intended to communicate to his readers and, to some degree, what may have been the circumstances that shaped his message. He reveals the Luke who presents Jesus as a champion of the poor and marginalized, whose message of justice is proclaimed with a sharp prophetic edge.
Bailey Call Number: BT B23 Bailey begins by surveying the development of allegorical, historical-eschatological, aesthetic, and existential methods of interpretation. In addition to illuminating the cultural framework of the parables, Bailey offers an analysis of their literary structure, treating the parabolic section as a whole as well as its individual components.
Talbert Call Number: BS T34 Fitzmyer Call Number: BS A1 Series: The Anchor Bible, Introduction and notes by Keith Cushman.
The Gospel of Luke by E. E4 Series: New Century Bible Commentary. Cassidy Call Number: BS Karris Call Number: BS Luke by Frederick W.
Danker; Gerhard A. Series: Proclamation Commentaries. Series: Novum Testamentum. Supplements, 7. V35 Series: Verbum Salutis, 3. In French.
ISBN 13: 9780824506681
Alexandru Neagoe sets out to examine Luke's writings as an apologetic work by focusing on the trial narratives. Foskett Call Number: online. Examines the portrayal of Mary as a virgin in two important early Christian narratives: the canonical Luke-Acts and the second-century Protevangelium of James. Foskett explores the multiple meanings and images that parthenos and virginity display in two sources and describes how they exploit this range of possible meanings in their representations of Mary. Schreiter Call Number: BT S34 In a world of conflict in which religious differences play a significant role, reconciliation grows increasingly important.
The Ministry of Reconciliation shows how with a spirituality of reconciliation we can create the spaces in which reconciliation can happen, and with human strategies, how the process of reconciliation can move forward. Maynard-Reid Call Number: online. Reveals a wholistic, prophetic evangelism where personal and social concerns are equally significant.
The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference
Brawley Call Number: online. Makes a contribution to the study of intertextuality in biblical studies. S Examines pairings of men and women in Luke and Acts, drawing arresting conclusions. S63 Garrett Call Number: BS M25 G37 E85 Esler makes extensive use of sociology and anthropology to examine the author of Luke Acts' theology as a response to social and political pressures upon the Christian community for whom he was writing.
V Series: Message of Biblical Spirituality, The distinction between Paul and "us" discredits the idea that the first person perspective in these passages is some kind of literary device, which would take the perspective of Paul for example increasing the drama of Paul's adventure or increasing the connection of Paul to the group , and for which there is no precedent in ancient literature.
The alternative is that the author of Acts was making a false affectation to being a companion of Paul. This prompts the question of why the author made this claim in such a subtle way, instead of ensuring that the reader could not miss it by emphasizing the point, as apocryphal writers often did. It also leaves us wondering as to why the false claim to participation is restricted to a few passages, leaving Paul alone for most of the narrative--though this is understandable if the author's participation was in fact sporadic.
The most probable conclusion is that Luke had travelled with Paul at times, a fact of which Luke's patron Theophilus was already aware. Other arguments are made concerning the authorship of Acts, but none of them are conclusive. The thesis that the vocabulary of Luke-Acts is special to a physician was deflated by H. Cadbury in his dissertation The Style and Literary Method of Luke the saying goes that Cadbury earned his doctorate by depriving Luke of his!
The argument that the final voyage to Rome is an especially accurate depiction of sea travel can be met with the reply that the author not Luke had sailed that way at a later time or appropriated a sailor's account of the same. The cleavage between the theology of Luke and Paul is simply a consequence of the student going off in his own direction, a venerable tradition.
Mark and Work | Bible Commentary | Theology of Work
The disagreements noted between the narrative of Acts and the letters mainly Galatians may frequently be reconciled, but in any case are explained if the author of Luke-Acts didn't own any copies of Paul's letters to which he could refer. It is, after all, improbable that Paul would dispatch a letter both to a church and then to all his sometime companions. The ignorance of the letters of Paul on the part of the author of Luke-Acts actually speaks for a date before ca.
So we come upon the third question of higher criticism, the date of Luke-Acts. It is sometimes put forward that the Gospel of Luke may be as early as 62 CE because Acts does not narrate the martyrdom of Paul. The ending of Acts is an old problem that has prompted many theories. As early as the Muratorian Canon late second century , an explanation for Luke's incompleteness at this part of the story seemed caled for, and the compiler of that canonical list explained that Luke did not tell of the martyrdom of Peter or Paul's subsequent journey to the West, because he wanted to relate only those things that had occurred in his presence!
Other "explanations" of greater or lesser probability have not been lacking: that Luke finished this volume before Paul's case came to its conclusion--and necessarily, if it was intended to present his case! Alternatively, that Luke died before he could finish this volume, or before he could undertake still a third volume that he contemplated. This last theory has recently taken on new life in the proposal that the Pastoral Letters are written by Luke as the third volume of Luke-Acts.
Such theories are demanded only if Luke is regarded as the sort of historian whose main purpose is factual completeness and accuracy.
In fact, however, we have seen that everywhere Luke's account is selected and shaped to suit his apologetic interests, not in defiance of but in conformity to ancient standards of historiography. The questions are generated as well by the presumption that it is Paul's fate which most concerns Luke, and a failure to clearly indicate his end demands an explanation.
But in fact, we have seen that Luke's argument involves far more than Paul's personal destiny. As important as Paul is to Luke and as dominant as he has been in the second half of Acts, he remains for Luke ultimately only another in a series of prophetic figures through whom God's message of salvation is brought to the people.
It is through attention to Luke's overall narrative interests that we are best able to appreciate this ending not as the result of historical happenstance or editorial ineptitude, but as a deliberately and effectively crafted conclusion to a substantial apologetic argument. Even concerning Paul's fate, Luke has left us with no mystery.
By this time, the reader must appreciate that all prophecies spoken in the narrative will reach fulfillment--even if their fulfillment is not recounted in the narrative itself! Thus, the reader knows on the basis of authoritative prophecy that Paul made his defense before Caesar , and knows further that Paul died as a witness to "the good news of the gift of God" because of the prophecies the narrative itself contains to that effect , 29, 38; But the fact that Luke does not find it necessary to tell us these events is a most important clue as to how we should read the conclusion of his work: the point is not the fate of Paul, but the fidelity of God.
So when Paul arrives in Rome his first step is to invite the Jewish leaders to his presence. In his initial meeting with them, Paul makes clear not only his innocence of any charges worthy of death, but more importantly, his complete lack of animus against Judaism. He has not come as one bearing "a charge against my nation" Indeed, his desire to speak at length with them has nothing to do with his own fate but with his message, which concerns "the hope of Israel" Even after his repeated rejections by his fellow Jews which caused him to turn to the Gentiles ; , even after their seeking to kill him in Jerusalem by treachery , and cooptation of the Roman system , Paul still seeks out his own people.
The reason is not his personal heroism but God's fidelity to the promises. They have still another chance to respond.
The initial reaction to the Jewish leaders is carefully neutral. They have heard bad things about "this sect" but have had no instructions concerning Paul himself.
Follow the author
They are therefore willing to hold a second and more formal meeting. The effort Paul expends in that second conference is extraordinary: from morning to evening he argues the case for Jesus. As we would expect, he bases his appeal on "the Law and the Prophets" The response is mixed. Some of the Jewish leaders are positively inclined, some are disbelieving It is difficult to assess accurately what Luke intends the reader to understand by this: do we have another instance of the "divided people of God," so that even among the Jewish leaders there is a realization of the restored people?
Perhaps, but the fact that they all leave while "disagreeing with each other" holds out only minimal hope. The final word spoken to the Jewish leaders is therefore one of rejection, but it is a rejection that they have taken upon themselves. Luke now has Paul stand truly as a prophet, speaking against the people of Israel as the prophets of old had done. Luke had not made full use of the Isaiah passage in his Gospel, for that was the time of the first visitation of the prophet, and the rejection of that prophet was mitigated by the "ignorance" of the people.
It has been the argument of the narrative of Acts that God did not stop making the offer of salvation to Israel through the proclamation of the raised Prophet Jesus. Only now, after so many attempts at persuading this people, is it time to employ this most chilling prophecy, spoken first of the ancient people but now "fulfilled" in the events of Luke's story.
Paul has "gone to this people" and spoken the Word. And they have neither heard, nor seen, nor understood. But as the LXX version of the text makes clear, the blame is not God's nor is it the prophet's. The message itself does not deafen, or blind, or stun. It is because the people have grown obtuse that they do not perceive in the message about Jesus the realization of their own most authentic "hope. For the final time, therefore, Paul announces a turn to the Gentiles with a ringing affirmation: the salvation from God has been sent to them, and they will listen!
Luke's readers recognize this as the prophecy that has indeed taken place "among us" Luke , and which has generated the question that made the writing of this narrative necessary in the first place: how did the good news reach the Gentiles, and did the rejection of it by the Jews mean that God failed in his fidelity to them? Luke's answer is contained in the entire narrative up to this point. In every way, God has proven faithful; not his prophetic word and power, but the blindness of the people has lead to their self-willed exclusion from the messianic blessings.