Pages

Friday, June 22, 2012

Who was Luke?

In some ways Luke was a proto-Anglican. Cultured, learned, keen on breaking bread, upholding the authority of the apostles and their episcopal authority centralised in Jerusalem, Luke developed a nice line through Acts which saw the faith enter the capital of the empire, thus opening up the close connection between state and ecclesial power that Anglicans have never eschewed. Even in the US, Episcopalians have never been embarrassed by the number of Presidents who have come from their ranks.

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).

7 comments:

  1. Just wait until you have to get into Luke's rhetorical antics! Well;what some claim to be "antics", that is - without rhetoric themselves?!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The tics of ants, Bryden, are a source of never-ending amusement!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Peter,

    How would you describe the nature of Luke's theological axe?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "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." - Hans Conzelman -

    But are not all systematic theologians (or would-be theologians) the same? There would be very few, I would think, who didn't have the own particular axe to grind. That's probably why the Canon of scripture contains four different Gospel accounts.

    Luke, to me, sound closest to those who actually knew something of the child Jesus - from His Blessed Mother, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Indeed, Ron, I think Luke could be called the Father of Marian theology.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Scott,
    Like his grandfather's axe?

    Different folks see different strokes of the axe. Is Luke grinding away against Pauline theology, especially Pauline soteiology? Has Luke re-carved Matthew's ecclesiology (i.e. if it turns out that Matthew is a source for Luke)? Is Luke chafing against certain views of women and of the Holy Spirit? Has he taken the blade to certain 'sectarian' approaches to being Christian, putting in some telling blows instead for Christianity standing tall in the public forums of the empire?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Have a look at John Nolland's work - 3 volumes in the Word series. Also fellow Australian David Seccombe. Luke is especially interesting for what he has to say on poverty and property - surely one of the most pressing spiritual questions of today!
    I've learnt a lot from both these scholars from Moore.
    Martin

    ReplyDelete