List of Appendices
1.6. Research Ethical Clearance
2.3.4 Luke: The Historian and Theologian
46
community and Tiede’s argument would imply this view, others argue that Luke’s Gospel is written for a group of churches, a number of different communities or for an
“open market”( Trompf 2000: 106). Luke Timothy Johnson (1991) argues that “given the length, complexity and literary sophistication of his work, it is likely that Luke intentionally addressed a more general readership”. Irrespective of whether Luke’s work was addressed to a particular community, a group of churches or a wider general readership, his narrative has been developed for a Christian community containing both Jews and Gentile God-fearers who were struggling with their response to the social, political and religious situation of the late first century
47
theologized history. Perrin (1969:29) writes “With Conzelmann’s accomplishment all this changes; Luke the historian becomes a self-conscious theologian, and the details of his composition can be shown convincingly to have been theologically motivated”
There have been countless reactions and criticisms of Conzelmann work on Luke (Bock 1994:7-14; Fitzmyer 1981:63-106; Marshall 1978:30-33; Nolland 1989: xxx; Green, 1997:11-20). Attempts have been made to compare Luke’s writings with ancient historians to verify these claims about Luke (see Marshall 1970: 1 – 219, Abogunrin, 1997: 15-33) and who, after due consideration of archaeological findings and examination of Conzelmann’s works, concluded that Luke was a reliable historian.
Others like Bultmann (1963:366) and Morris (1977:28-35) under-state his being a theologian but argue that he is a bad historian whose records are not accurate. Barrett (1961:7-9) is of the opinion that Luke was a reliable historian who could be compared with historians of the Hellenistic age which cannot be compared to that of the modern scientific kind. Barrett’s view is conceivable as Luke or any other ancient writer could only be compared with writers of his time rather than the standard of later times.
Thompson (1972:16), in supporting Barrett, points out that Luke does conform to the accepted canons for writing history in his contemporary world. Luke’s accuracy and credibility was being questioned mainly because there were historical inaccuracies and a distortion of some facts in Lukes work when compared to Mark’s Gospel. These are exemplified in the birth narratives – the question of Quirinius and the census in Luke 2:1 and the differences between the picture of Paul in Acts and Paul’s letters. The major problem about the reign of Quirinius was that he did not become the governor until 6 CE, and Jesus was born 4 BCE, therefore he could not have been governor before the birth of Jesus. Part of the suggested solution was that Luke may be referring to a census, which started under Herod but completed during the reign of Quirinius. Or that Quirinius was a textual error in the manuscripts for Saturninus who was Governor of Syria between 9-6 BCE (Akintunde 2000:71). In the opinion of some scholars the fact that the reference to the census and Roman leadership at the time of nativity confirms the credibility of Luke as an historian as he relates the narratives to dates of world history (Barclays 1974:xiv – xv). On the various portraits of Paul, Marshall argued that the theology of a companion of Paul could not be an exact replica of Paul’s thought and theology (Marshall 1970:75).
48
Evidences of an accurate historian could also be deduced from the writings itself.
For example in his prologue, Luke employed the language similar to classical Greek by starting with a formal preface common to other historical works of the time (Barker, 1985:1522-1590). Sharon Ringe (1995:16) reinforces this argument as she notes that, “It was common for writers of historical and scientific works at the time when this Gospel was written to use such statement of purpose and method……even the grammar, vocabulary and style resemble their secular parallels”. Hence, the fact that Luke followed this rhetorical practice of his days puts him in the same category of history writers of the time. He uses time markers freely, but these have more of a theological reference than the kind of accuracy demanded by modern historiography. His narratives begin “in the days of Herod, the king of Judea” (Luke1:5). It mentions the imperial decree that brought Joseph and Mary from Galilee to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1). Hence Abogunrin (1997:25) observes that “it was not by accident that three times, the names of Gentile rulers were mentioned. This is because as far as Luke was concerned, he was writing ….. the most important history in the world”. Luke in the course of the narrative pays specific attention to dates and marks of time (Luke 1:26, 2:21, 42). For instance, when he begins the account of Jesus’ public ministry he noted the years of the reigning Caesar and the age of Jesus. He also made a survey of the civil and religious rulers of Palestine, with accurate titles for the Roman officials (McNicol 1962:840-863). All these are exemplified in Acts 13:7 – the proconsul of Cyprus and of Achaia in Acts 18:12, the town clerk of Ephesus:
Asiarch (Hargreaves 1995:57). While acknowledging the submission of these scholars that Luke was an accurate historian we should read him in the light of the standard practice of the day.
Marshall (1970:13-217) makes three suggestions about Luke the historian and theologian: that Luke’s faith rested on the events associated with the work of Jesus and the apostles, hence his concern to tie the Jesus events to the historical details found in his writings. Secondly that the key concept in Luke’s theology is salvation, understood as both present possession and a foretaste of future blessings. And thirdly, that Luke was concerned to lead people to Christian belief on the basis of a reliable record of the historical facts.
49 2.3.5 Luke and Salvation
Luke in his gospel laid much emphasis on the concept of salvation and it constitutes its main theme. Marshall (1970:94) argued that Luke’s interest is not so much in a theological idea as in the person of Jesus Christ. For Luke, Jesus is the saviour and he is the giver of salvation. Luke in his gospel brought connections between the healings performed by Jesus and the spiritual salvation which he brought to men (Luke 8:48, 17:19, 18:42). Conzelmann (1960:233) drew attention to the prominence in Luke of the idea of salvation history. Tuckett (1996:63) puts it that for Luke, Jesus’ healing brings the sinner into the kingdom of God as a present, not a future reality (Luke 19:9). Salvation according to Fitzmyer (1981:223) is often deliverance from sickness or sin and other social diseases. The universality of salvation is a major concern to Luke, the Christ event was to open the true Israel to all believers, both Jew and Gentiles. Howard Marshall (1970: 84) said it is clear that something like a consensus of opinion exists with reference to the theology of Luke expressed by the term “salvation history”. This school of thought is of the opinion that the writings of Luke present the Christian message in the form of history, one which enfolds both the ministry of Jesus and the activity of the early Church.