My task next semester is, however, to teach on Luke's Gospel in a non-denominational setting (Laidlaw College) so I need to reserve all such Anglican admirations for Luke, and focus on the real Luke of the ancient and primitive church. Recently I came across this lovely description of a significant shift in Lukan studies in the last century (when Hans Conzelmann published Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas in 1954; English Translation 1961 as The Theology of St. Luke):
"Before this, Luke was thought of as a homely old Hellenist: doctor, author, friend of Paul. He was seen as a man of wide sympathies but no great theological depth ... [after Conzelmann] Luke is a man with a theological axe to grind. He is picture as one who has systematically manipulated and recast his sources down to the smallest detail, in order to squeeze them into his overall theological framework."*The first part sounds like Anglicans of the older days when none of our number produced anything like the works of Calvin or Barth. The second sounds like blogging Anglicans of today!
*Wilson, S. G., 'Lukan Eschatology', New Testament Studies 16 (1969-70), 330, cited in Thiselton, Anthony C., " 'Reading Luke ' as Interpretation, Reflection, and Formation', 3, in Bartholomew, Craig G., Green, Joel B., & Thiselton, Anthony C. (eds.), Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation, Milton Keynes: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, (2005).