The Gospel of Luke

By I. Howard Marshall

The Gospel of Luke was written, says its author, as an historical account of the ministry of Jesus. Not only would it serve as the basis for a sound faith on the part of professing Christians, but it would also claim a place for Christianity in history. Christ's ministry, as Luke shows, is realized prophecy; it is that time during which God's promise of salvation was fulfilled. His teachings, healing, and acts of compassion are all part of the good news. In Luke's Gospel, Christ's message of salvation is directed to the weak, poor, and needy, with an emphasis on the importance of self-denial and of whole-hearted discipleship. Thus, while Luke is the most conscious historian of the Gospel writers, his history is a vehicle of theological interpretation in which the significance of Jesus is expressed.

In this commentary I. Howard Marshall calls attention to the theological message of Luke the Evangelist. His primary purpose is to exegete the text as it was written by Luke, so that the distinctiveness of Luke's Gospel may be seen.

Basing his commentary on the third edition of The Greek New Testament, Dr. Marshall also refers to many variant readings which are significant in this study. He provides fairly full information on the meanings of the Greek words used by Luke and shows which words and constructions occur frequently and are therefore characteristic of his style. It is by this meticulous analysis of the Greek that Luke's theological intentions can be objectively determined.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Nov 14, 1978
• ISBN: 9781467426473

I. Howard Marshall

 I. Howard Marshall (1934–2015) was professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis and honorary research professor at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. His many books include New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel and Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology.

Book preview

INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY

With the notable exception of R. Bultmann’s commentary on the Gospel of John, most biblical commentaries are prefaced by an introduction, sometimes of considerable length, in which general matters relating to the text which is about to be interpreted in detail are discussed. Since the present commentary on the Gospel of Luke lacks such an introduction, some justification for this omission requires to be offered. First, the Gospel of Luke is part of a two-volume work, and it is difficult to write a completely satisfactory or comprehensive introduction to one half of the whole work. Questions of authorship, date and purpose cannot be adequately handled without taking the Acts into detailed consideration, and on some of these points it offers more information than is provided by the Gospel. Second, in so far as an introduction to the Gospel can be written, an excellent piece of work has been done by Ε. E. Ellis in his important commentary, and I am not capable of writing a better one. Third, I have already provided a general interpretation of Luke-Acts in my book Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter, 1970), and this may be regarded as furnishing a separate introduction to the commentary. The further study involved in the completion of the commentary (which was begun before the book) has not led me to alter my basic understanding of Luke in any vital points.

Instead of an introduction to the Gospel of Luke, therefore, what is offered here is a brief introduction to the commentary.

The Text of Luke

The text on which this commentary is based is that of the third edition of The Greek New Testament (which is intended to be identical with that of the twenty-sixth edition of Nestle-Aland). The textual notes are based on the evidence cited in K. Aland’s Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum with supplementation from The Greek New Testament, Β. M. Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, and other sources. I have attempted to discuss briefly most of the significant variants, especially where the text of The Greek New Testament differs from that of the other editions commonly used in the English-speaking world. In particular, I have often referred to the variant readings in A Greek-English Diglot for the use of Translators; the fascicule containing Luke has an eclectic text prepared by G. D. Kilpatrick which differs in many points of detail from texts in the Westcott and Hort tradition, often returning to readings found in the Textus Receptus. While I am not persuaded that an eclectic method always produces the right results and believe that it underestimates the importance of the Egyptian textual tradition, many of the variants adopted by Kilpatrick deserve careful consideration.

Language and Syntax

In his commentary on the Greek text of The Acts of the Apostles F. F. Bruce observed that ‘The elementary character of many of the grammatical notes arises out of experience in the lecture room’ (vii). The linguistic knowledge of students is scarcely any better a quarter of a century later, nor is it easy for students to find help on linguistic matters other than by tediously working through the indices of the standard grammars. I have therefore attempted to provide fairly full information on the meanings of the Greek words used by Luke (with particular in-debtedness to the lexical information provided in the English translation of W. Bauer’s lexicon), and to show which words-and constructions are of frequent occurrence in Lk. and hence may be characteristic of his style. The older works of J. C. Hawkins, B. S. Easton and H. J. Cadbury are still of basic importance in this area, together with the more recent investigations of H. Schurmann, F. Rehkopf and others who have at-tempted source analysis of particular sections in Lk. Considerable reference has also been made to the grammatical and syntactical information in the standard grammars of New Testament Greek; these books remain the best commentaries on problems peculiar to the Greek text of the NT.

The Sources of the Gospel

The commentary took as its point of departure the two-document solution of the synoptic problem, and its detailed preparation has confirmed that solution in broad outline. Although several alternative theories are being canvassed today, it would have been out of place to discuss them in detail throughout the commentary.

The view that Luke used Mk. substantially as we have it seems to me to be beyond reasonable doubt.

The position with regard to the ‘Q’ material is not so clear. The view that Luke drew this material from Mt. (Drury, Tradition, 120–173) comes to grief on those passages where Luke preserves a more primitive form of the common tradition. Various recent investigations of Q (such as those by D. Lührmann and S. Schulz) have claimed that Matthew and Luke used a virtually identical common source for those sections which they both include, differences in wording being entirely due to their redactional activity. But the simplest solution is not necessarily the right one. The existence of passages where it is difficult to account satisfactorily for all the differences between Mt. and Lk. in this way favours the view that the two Evangelists used varying recensions of Q (see pp. 245, 466, 493). This means that we must be cautious in drawing conclusions about Luke’s redactional activity from his use of Q material.

Similar caution is needed with regard to material peculiar to Lk. The passages peculiar to Lk. are clearly not homogeneous. But there is material which has probably been drawn from one or two particular cycles of tradition. This is true of the birth stories, some of the teaching of Jesus and some stories about him, the Last Supper narrative, and possibly some parts of the passion and resurrection narrative. The existence of a connected ‘L’ source, containing most of this material, has not been confirmed by my investigations, although this is a matter that demands a fuller study than is possible on the present occasion. Some scholars, such as H. Schürmann, would attribute some of this material peculiar to Lk. to the Q tradition, and there are places where this is an attractive hypothesis. The view that Q contained only material found in both Mt. and Lk. is quite arbitrary and indeed improbable in view of the way in which the two Evangelists have individually omitted sections from Mk., but attempts to recognise this additional material are inevitably speculative. In some places a number of scholars suspect that the material peculiar to Luke is his own creation, since it displays his particular theological interests. This theory has been advanced particularly in respect of the birth stories, some of the parables, and passages where Luke has divergent accounts of incidents and teaching in Mk. But the general fidelity of Luke to his sources Mk. and Q, where these can be certainly identified, makes one sceptical of suggestions that he created material in the Gospel on any large scale. It is much more plausible that Luke’s own attitudes were in considerable measure formed by the traditions which he inherited; for all his individuality he gives the impression of reflecting the outlook of a particular Christian community. Thus Luke’s universalism and his attitude to wealth and poverty were probably the attitudes of his church. It is possible that we should identify this church as the church in Antioch with which Luke is connected by a respectable tradition; here the gospel was preached to non-Jews, and here there was concern for the poor and needy. At the same time, however, much of Luke’s special material clearly has a Palestinian basis, and we should not narrowly limit the influences upon Luke to those of any one Christian community.

Tradition and Redaction

It is manifestly the task of a commentator on the Gospels in the present scholarly situation to take up two connected issues. One of these is to uncover the theological interests of the author. In a sense this is a return to the pre-critical type of commenting which assumed that the object of interest was the text itself. The rise of critical scholarship and the quest of the historical Jesus led to a shift of emphasis in which attention was directed to the isolation and reconstruction of the sources of the Gospels, and there was a danger of regarding the Evangelist’s own contribution to his Gospel in the shaping and ordering of his material as being like an outer skin which could safely be peeled off the onion. More recently it has been seen that tradition, source and redaction critical methods can lead to an enhanced appreciation of the text as the work of an author with his own theological outlook and purpose. The primary purpose of the present commentary is thus to carry out an exegesis of the text as it was written by Luke so that the message of his Gospel for his readers may stand out clearly and in its distinctiveness over against the other Gospels. This is, therefore, a ‘theological’ commentary, and the fact that it is based on the Greek text and deals at length with linguistic matters should not obscure this intention; on the contrary, it is only by meticulous analysis of the Greek text that the author’s theological intention can be objectively determined.

To comment on the Gospel at this level is a big enough task in itself. But a commentary on one of the Gospels cannot stop at this point. It must also enquire into the character of the tradition handled by the author, and above all it must raise the question of the historical origin of the tradition in the ministry of Jesus. The student wants to know something of the relationship between Jesus and Luke’s portrait of him. To discuss all these questions adequately would turn one fairly large volume into several large volumes and would defeat the purpose of at-tempting to provide a reasonably manageable companion to the study of Lk. Thus, since Luke is so often dependent on Mk., a full treatment of historical and traditional matters would require a detailed consideration of the traditions used by Mark. Since a commentator on Lk. can hardly be expected to incapsulate a commentary on Mk. in his own commentary, it must suffice to summarise, often very inadequately, the present state of research on Marcan problems and to state positions briefly and without detailed justification. Where Luke is dependent on Q and other material, the commentator on Lk. has more scope and can be expected to handle the issues more fully. But here again he enters upon disputed territory, since the problems raised by Q and Luke’s other sources are only beginning to be tackled in detail by scholars and few persons will wish to rush in with definitive conclusions. It may, therefore, seem rash to attempt any kind of historical appraisal of the origins of the traditions recorded in Lk. at the present time, and some readers may well feel that I have by-passed traditio-historical investigation at various points.

Nevertheless, it is important to observe that in many cases the reasons often giving for ascribing the origins of traditions to the early church rather than to Jesus himself are both speculative and unconvincing, and that the case for finding the origins of most of the Gospel tradition in the activity and teaching of Jesus is stronger than is sometimes allowed. I am not persuaded that the nature of the tradition is such that sayings ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels should be regarded as sayings of other Jews or as creations by the early church unless evidence to the contrary is forthcoming; on the contrary, where there is no positive evidence that a saying must have originated in Judaism or in the early church, it is wiser to reckon with its origin in the ministry of Jesus. It is clear that the basic tradition of the sayings of Jesus was modified both in the tradition and by the Evangelists in order to re-express its significance for new situations; it is by no means obvious that this basic tradition was created by the early church. Similarly, it is unlikely that the stories about Jesus and the narrative settings for his teaching are products of the church’s Sitz im Leben. The fact that such material was found to be congenial for use in the church’s situation is no proof that it was created for this purpose. To some scholars this attitude of basic acceptance of the traditions regarding Jesus as having a historical basis may seem to be pure assumption and to fail to reckon with the obvious Tendenz to be found in the traditions. I believe, however, that it is justified by a study of the traditions as a whole. If this approach to the traditions offers a coherent and self-consistent picture of the ministry and teaching of Jesus, as I believe it does, this fact gives strong justification for the method which has been employed.

Authorship and Date

If the Gospel rests on sound tradition faithfully recorded, the name of its author is of secondary importance. The Gospel itself is anonymous and contains no information which would enable us to identify its author, although one may draw some conclusions regarding his milieu and situation. That he wrote for an urban church community in the Hellenistic world is fairly certain. From the latter half of the second century onwards the clear and consistent verdict of early church writers is that he was Luke, the ‘beloved physician’ and the companion of Paul. It is sometimes claimed that this tradition is simply an intelligent deduction from the NT evidence that Acts was written by a companion of Paul, who is most likely to have been Luke; consequently, it is argued, the tradition has no independent value. But the argument is stronger than this. The tradition in question may date back to the first half of the second century (Bruce, 4–8), and it is unequivocal in singling out Luke from among several possible candidates among Paul’s companions during the period covered by the ‘we’ sections in Acts. There is never any suggestion of a rival candidate for the honour of writing the Gospel. At-tempts have been made to strengthen the argument for authorship by a physician by finding examples of medical phraseology in Luke-Acts; these are too few to be made the basis of an argument, but there is perhaps just sufficient evidence to corroborate a view more firmly based on other considerations.

The traditional view of authorship faces two main difficulties. One is based on the evidence of Acts, where, it is claimed, the picture of Paul is too far removed from historical reality to be the work of a companion of the apostle. This point lies beyond the scope of a commentary on the Gospel, but reference may be made to Luke: Historian and Theologian where reasons are given for disputing the point (see further Ellis, 42–52). The other point is that Luke is said to give the impression of writing at a time when the early church had settled down into its ‘early catholic’ period; consequently he belonged to the post-Pauline period. But again the argument fails to convince. The two characteristics of the ‘early catholic’ period are held to be the decline of hope in the imminence of the parousia and the consequent development of an institutional Christianity. But, so far as the first is concerned, the postulate that the first Christians expected the parousia almost hourly and that only at a later date did they adjust to its delay is unwarranted. On the most probable reading of the evidence Jesus himself allowed for an interval before the parousia. If the first Christians did expect it to happen very soon (another assumption which requires to be tested), the evidence is quite clear that at an early point they recognised that it would not necessarily happen immediately. This is obviously the case with Paul who reckoned at first that he might belong to the company of those caught up to be with the Lord at the parousia but increasingly came to recognise that his own death might well precede the parousia. This means that, if there was any crisis caused by the ‘delay’ of the parousia, it had already taken place in the Pauline period. Luke himself clearly allows for the possibility of an imminent parousia (12:35–40; 17:20–37; 18:8; 21:5–36). It is not possible to date the Gospel by this criterion. As for the suggestion that Luke represents an institutionalised form of Christianity in which the church has become a Heilsanstalt, mistress of the word and sacraments and the distributor of salvation, it is sufficient to compare Luke with other, genuinely early catholic writings, to see that this characterisation is completely inapt (see further I. H. Marshall, ‘ Early Catholicism in the New Testament’, in R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney, (ed.), New Dimensions in New Testament Study, Grand Rapids, 1974, 217–231). In short, the best hypothesis is still that the Gospel was composed by Luke.

As for the date of composition, this is closely bound up with the dates of Mk. and Acts. There are two serious possibilities, a date in the early sixties or a date in the later decades of the first century. The latter is the view most commonly held, with AD 80 being suggested as a round figure. This date presupposes that Luke was not dependent on the writings of Josephus (c. AD 93) but that he did write after the fall of Jerusalem. While the possibility of vaticinia ante eventum is not to be ruled out, it may well be the case that the comparatively frequent and more precise references to the fall of Jerusalem in Lk., although based on genuine prophecy by Jesus, reflect a knowledge of and an interest in a re-cent event. On the other hand, the complete lack of interest in the fall of Jerusalem in Acts and the way in which that book ends its story before the death of Paul are strong indications of a date before AD 70. On the whole a date not far off AD 70 appears to satisfy all requirements.

The place of composition is uncertain. Early tradition connected Luke with Achaia, but has nothing positive in its favour. Luke’s use of Mk. may indicate a connection with Rome, but his use of Q possibly brings him into a Syrian environment. Some slight evidence in favour of Antioch was noted earlier. Another possibility is Caesarea (H. Klein, ‘Zur Frage nach dem Abfassungsort der Lukasschriften’, Ev.T 32, 1972, 467–477). If we knew who Theophilus was, the situation might be much clearer, but his whereabouts are as obscure as those of Luke himself.

The Purpose of the Gospel

We are fortunate in that Luke has given us his own statement of intention at the beginning of the Gospel. He was concerned to write a Gospel, i.e. a presentation of the ministry of Jesus in its saving significance, but to do so in the context of a two-part work which would go on to present the story of the early church, thus demonstrating how the message of the gospel spread, in accordance with prophecy and God’s command, to the ends of the earth. He wrote for people at some remove from the ministry of Jesus, both in geography and in time, and his task was to provide them with such an account of the story of Jesus as would enable them to see that the story with which they had already become partially acquainted was a reliable basis for their faith. Thus his work was probably intended for members of the church, but it could at the same time be used evangelistically, and its outward form (in the manner of a historical and literary work) strongly suggests that such a wider audience was in view.

Luke has therefore written the story of Jesus in a connected form, covering his life from his birth to his ascension. Of all the Evangelists he is the most conscious of writing as a historian, yet throughout his work the history is the vehicle of theological interpretation in which the significance of Jesus is expressed. He presents the story of Jesus as being the fulfilment of prophecy and indeed as being determined throughout by the will of God revealed in prophecy. The ministry is the period of fulfilment in which God’s promises of salvation are realised. The keynotes sounded at the outset are the ideas of salvation and good news. The teaching, healings and acts of compassion shown by Jesus are all parts of the proclamation of good news, and the message of Jesus is finely summed up in the saying, The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost’. Luke particularly stresses how this salvation is for all who are poor and needy and the total impact of the Gospel is to show the ‘wideness in God’s mercy’. Those who respond to the message of Jesus receive the blessings of the kingdom of God, and they are called to a strenuous life of self-denial and perseverance as they wait for the parousia of the Son of man. Luke underlines the call of Jesus to whole-hearted discipleship, especially over against the temptation to acquire riches and to settle down into the life of the world.

The message of Jesus is directed to Israel, especially to the needy people despised by official Judaism, and Jesus’ task is to call the people of God back to him and to enlarge that people (although there are only faint adumbrations of the Gentile mission in the Gospel). But it was his lot from the very beginning to be rejected by many in Israel, particularly among the rulers, while the common people on the whole heard him gladly. The note of conflict sounds throughout the Gospel and reaches its climax in the passion of Jesus. But already before this Jesus had uttered his condemnation of the hypocritical religion found among many of the Pharisees and of the worship at the temple. So in the end he was condemned by the Jews, but God raised him from the dead to be a Prince and a Saviour.

Such, in briefest compass, is the story. So short a summary cannot do justice to the wealth of detail, nor can it note the individual marks of Luke’s distinctiveness over against his sources and what his companion Evangelists made of them. Only the detailed study of the Gospel itself can reveal the scope of Luke’s achievement in retelling the story of Jesus, and this the reader is now invited to undertake.

COMMENTARY

I

PREFACE

1:1–4

UNLIKE the other Evangelists, Luke begins his Gospel with a brief preface such as one would find in the work of a contemporary secular writer. For Jewish and Hellenistic parallels see H. J. Cadbury, BC II, 489–510. The Prologue to Ecclesiasticus is noteworthy for the way in which, like Luke, it justifies the authors writing of a fresh book alongside existing works on the same topic. More striking is Josephus, Contra Apionem, a work written in two parts (‘books’) with a preface to the whole work at the beginning of Book 1 and a brief recapitulation at the beginning of Book 2: ‘In my history of our Antiquities, most excellent Epaphroditus, I have, I think, made sufficiently clear … the extreme antiquity of our Jewish race … Since, however, I observe that a considerable number of persons … discredit the statements in my history … , I consider it my duty to devote a brief treatise to all these points … to instruct all who desire to know the truth concerning the antiquity of our race. As witnesses to my statements I propose to call the writers who, in the estimation of the Greeks, are the most trustworthy authorities on antiquity as a whole’ (Jos. Ap. 1:1–4). ‘In the first volume of this work, my esteemed Epaphroditus, I demonstrated the antiquity of our race … I shall now proceed to refute the rest of the authors who have attacked us’ (Jos. Ap. 2:1f.). These quotations, which offer significant parallels in other respects, suggest that Luke’s prologue is meant to cover both parts of his two-volume work (Zahn, 50; contra Schürmann, I, 4, who is, however, correct in claiming that the content of the prologue refers primarily to the Gospel).

The preface is written in excellent Greek with a most carefully wrought sentence structure, and stands in contrast to the style adopted in the following narrative. It claims a place for the Gospel as a work of literature, worthy of an educated audience. Although the book is addressed to one reader, Theophilus, he is evidently Luke’s literary patron,and although it must remain doubtful whether the Gospel was in fact meant ‘for the book market’ (Dibelius, Studies, 135; but see the cautious study of Vögtle, 31–42), it was meant to circulate widely. Luke has adopted the literary conventions of the time, but the resulting work is an expression of his own personality and purpose. We should not, therefore, interpret his statements in too conventional a manner, as if what he said was dictated purely by the style and vocabulary of his literary models. He was concerned to hand on tradition rather than to be a littérateur.

By writing in this fashion, then, Luke was claiming a place for Christianity on the stage of world history. How far his predecessors had made such claims we do not know, but the likelihood is that earlier Christian literature was produced for church purposes. Luke also had in mind the non-Christian world.

He justified his work by reference to the precedent of earlier, similar writings, to the trustworthy nature of his sources, and to his own qualifications to produce an orderly narrative based on careful research. He shows no disparagement of his predecessors; rather he felt that their example justified his own attempt to write a Gospel intended for the particular situation which he addressed. He does not question their accuracy, for they, like he, had received the tradition handed down by eye-witnesses of the events.

Luke’s purpose was to give an historical account which would form the basis for a sound Christian faith on the part of those who had already been instructed, perhaps imperfectly and incompletely, in the story of Jesus. Throughout the preface there is a stress on the historical accuracy of the material presented. It has been argued that the preface is concerned to show that the career of Jesus was a series of divine acts rather than to affirm the factual certainty of those acts (U. Luck, ‘Kerygma, Tradition und Geschichte bei Lukas’, ZTK 57, 1960, 51–66). This thesis is correct in what it affirms, but wrong in what it denies. It is clear from Lk. 7:21 and Acts 1:3 that Luke was concerned with the historical reliability of his material (cf. H. Strathmann, TDNT IV, 492). It may be that the existence of gnosticizing or docetic teaching which minimized the importance of the historical Jesus played a part in shaping his aim.

Luke does not name himself in the preface; he is content to be seen as a member of the church which he serves, like the servants of the Word before him.

See further H. J. Cadbury, BC II, 489–510; Stonehouse, 24–45; G. Klein, ‘Lukas i. 1–4 als theologisches Programm’, in Dinkier, 193–216; Schürmann, Untersuchungen, 251–271; Vögtle, 31–42; I. I. du Plessis, ‘Once more: the purpose of Luke’s prologue (Lk I 1–4)’, Nov.T 16, 1974, 259–271; W. C. van Unnik, ‘Remarks on the Purpose of Luke’s Historical Writing (Luke 1, 1–4)’, in van Unnik, I, 6–15; id. ‘Once More St Luke’s Prologue’, Neotestamentica 7, 1973, 7–26; G. Schneider, ‘Zur Bedeutung von Καθεξῆς im lukanischen Doppelwerk’, ZNW 68, 1977, 128–131.

(1) The preface is composed of one long, periodic sentence, each of whose two parts contains three matching phrases (cf. Acts 15:24f.): The stately opening conjunction έπειδήπερ** (here only in the Greek Bible; Jos. Bel. 1:17) is a Classical word meaning ‘ inasmuch as with reference to a fact already well known’ (BD 456³). It is causal rather than concessive: Luke is using the work of previous writers positively to justify his own venture rather than stating that he is writing despite their efforts which were, after all, the indispensable sources for his own work. His predecessors were ‘many’ (πολλοί). This word was used frequently at the beginning of speeches and documents in a formal manner and need not be taken too literally (Acts 24:2; Heb. 1:1; in Acts 24:10 it refers to a few years). Luke’s stress was not on the number of his predecessors but on the legitimacy of his claims to be associated with them (J. B. Bauer, ‘ΠΟΛΛΟΙ Luke 1:1’, Nov.T 4, 1960, 263–266). They will have included Mark and the compilers of collections of sayings of Jesus and other material. To describe their work as an ‘attempt’ is no disparagement of it. ἐπιχειρέω (Acts 9:29; 19:13**) does not indicate success or failure (MM 250f.), but points to the difficulty of the task, which was also felt by Luke (κἀμοί, 1:3). ἀνατάσσομαι** is ‘to draw up, compile’, perhaps to draw up an orderly account in writing in contrast to oral tradition (G. Delling, TDNT VIII, 32f.). In the use of διήγησις** (‘narrative’) Schürmann, I, 7f., sees a possible echo of Hab. 1:5 LXX: ‘For I am working a work in your days that you will not believe unless someone tells (ἐκδιηγῆται) it’; thus the prophetic promise of a narrative of God’s mighty deeds is being fulfilled. But would Luke’s readers have been able to appreciate such an allusion? The meaning of the verb πληροϕορέω*, used to describe the events (πρᾶγμα*; Acts 5:4*) recorded by Luke and his predecessors is ‘to bring to full measure’ (Col. 4:12; 2 Tim. 4:5, 17) or ‘to convince fully (Rom. 4:21; 14:5;**; cf. πληροφορία, Col. 2:2; 1 Thes. 1:5; Heb. 6:11; 10:22**). The latter meaning is seen in the rendering ‘things most surely believed’ (AV; RV mg), but is inappropriate here. The thought is of events brought to completion, namely the events leading to salvation; the passive form suggests that these are divine acts which God himself promised and has now fully brought to pass, and the use of the perfect indicates that they are seen as a finished series in past time (G. Klein, 198). ἐν ἡμῖν will then refer to the members of the church in whose midst these events took place and among whom they retain their lasting, saving significance and power. (This means that ἡμῖν in 1:2 has a narrower reference to Luke and his contemporaries who were dependent on eyewitnesses for their knowledge of the earthly life of Jesus, but, pace Klein, there is no difficulty about such a shift in meaning.)

(2) Luke now provides the basis (καθώς, ‘according as’; Lk. 17x; Mt. 3x; Mk. 8x) for the reliability of the information on which the narrative about Jesus rests. It has been ‘handed down’ as tradition (παραδíδωμι; the use of the Classical second aorist form, παρέδοσαν, in-stead of the more common first aorist, παρέδωκαν, adds to the literary refinement of the sentence). The verb is a technical term for the handing down of material, whether orally or in writing, as authoritative teaching (Mk. 7:13; Acts 6:14; 1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:3; 2 Pet. 2:21; Jude 3; F. Büchsel, TDNT II, 169–173; O. Cullmann, The Early Church, 1956, 59–99; B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, Uppsala, 1961; K. Wegenast, Das Verständnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen, Neukirchen, 1962). Those who handed this tradition down had been acquainted with the facts from the beginning of the ministry of Jesus (cf. Acts 1:22; 10:37). They were ‘eyewitnesses’ (αὐτόπτης**) who could not but speak of what they had seen and heard (Acts 4:20). They thus became ‘servants of the word’, a striking phrase conveying the thought of the centrality of the gospel message and of the way in which men are its servants; the use of ὑπηρέτης (4:20*; cf. Acts 26:16; 1 Cor. 4:1; ἡ διακονία τοῦ λόγου, Acts 6:4) emphasises that they ‘were not propagandists for their own views of what happened with Jesus but had unreservedly put their persons and work in the service of Jesus’ cause’ (Κ. H. Rengstorf, TDNT VIII, 543; cf. 530–544). λόγος thus signifies the Christian message, unchanging in its central emphasis, but variable in its form and detailed exposition; here the record of the acts and teaching of Jesus is meant (cf. Acts 10:36–43), but Luke also uses the word for Jesus’ own message (5:1; 8:11–21; 11:28). A. Feuillet suggests that ‘word’ is almost hypostatized here so that it can be seen and that the usage here is related to that in 1 Jn. 1 :1f. (‘Témoins oculaires et serviteurs de la parole (Lc i 2b)’, Nov.T 15, 1973, 241–259). The syntax demands that the eyewitnesses and servants are one group of people (G. Kittel, TDNT IV, 115; W. Michaelis, TDNT V, 348). They are to be identified with the apostles, although not exclusively with the Twelve (pace Schurmann, I, 9). Since Luke distinguishes himself and his contemporaries from them, it follows that the content of their testimony was primarily the story of Jesus rather than of the early church, and also that Luke distinguishes between the writers of the Gospels and the apostolic eyewitnesses on whose testimony they were dependent.

(3) Having described the situation before he commenced his work, Luke now joins himself (κἀμοí) to the ‘many’ of 1:1 and records his own decision (δοκέω; in this sense: Acts 15:22, 25, 28) to record what had happened in view of his own qualifications to do so (cf. Lagrange, 5). παρακολουθέω literally means ‘to follow, accompany’ (Mk. 16:17). H. J. Cadbury (BC II, 501f.) has argued that the verb must mean ‘to observe’ here (cf. 1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:10**), and hence that Luke is here (falsely) claiming eyewitness authority for his work. But his claim that the word cannot mean ‘to investigate’ is not compelling, and this is the better meaning here (cf. AG s.v.). Luke means that he has thoroughly investigated all the facts (πᾶσιν) in the light of the available evidence. This claim is qualified by two adverbs, ἄνωθεν* (Acts 26:5*) can mean ‘from the beginning’ or simply ‘for a long time’. It may refer, therefore, to the scope of Luke’s investigation (stretching back beyond the ‘beginning’ of Jesus’ ministry (1:2) to the birth stories: Schürmann, I, 11), but more probably it refers to Luke’s lengthy researches (Lagrange, 5f). ἀκριβῶς* (Acts 18:25f.; 23:15, 20; 24:22*) should certainly also be taken with παρηκολουθηκότι (and not with γράψαι); it refers to the care with which the research was undertaken. Luke was then ready to write his book, describing the events καθεξῆς, i.e. ‘in order, one thing after another’ (Acts 11:4; 18:23) or ‘as follows’, ‘the following’ (8:1; Acts 3:24**). The latter meaning is inappropriate here (pace Cadbury, BC II, 504f.). With the former meaning the adverb may be taken to imply chronological exactitude or simply an orderly and lucid narrative. Luke’s actual procedure may seem to rule out the idea of chronological exactitude, but although he is not interested in assigning precise dates and places to the events he records he is broadly chronological in his treatment (cf. Schürmann, I, 12f.; and earlier commentators). F. Mussner (‘Καθεξῆς im Lukasprolog’, in Ellis, Jesus, 253–255) adopts the meaning ‘in order, i.e. without omitting anything’. M. Völkel (‘Exegetische Erwägungen zum Verständnis des Begriffs καθεξῆς im Lukanischen Prolog’, NTS 20, 1973–74, 289–299) argues that the word implies the continuity of items within a logical whole, so that Luke’s aim is to show that the story of Jesus, taken as a whole, makes sense and is therefore worthy of belief. G. Schneider* suggests that the continuity of events in a salvation-historical scheme of promise and fulfilment is meant, κράτιστος is used simply as a polite form of address (Jos., Vita 430; Ap. 1:1), such as might be used in addressing some highly placed person (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25**). Although older commentators deduced that Theophilus was a Roman provincial governor, since the adjective was the appropriate courtesy title for a Roman eques (Geldenhuys, 53), nothing can be deduced from it as to his precise standing. Nevertheless, his position as Luke’s literary patron, who would perhaps assist in the ‘publication’ of the Gospel (Hauck, 17), may indicate his superior social position. Theophilus cannot be identified with any other known person (see the intriguing historical romance in Streeter, 535–539). The tradition that he came from Antioch (Ps.-Clem. Recog. 10:71; see Zahn 57 n. 41) is as strong or weak as Luke’s own link with that city. Despite the symbolical possibilities of Θεόφιλος, it remains probable that it is the name of a real, but unknown, person.

(4) Whether Theophilus was already a Christian depends partly on the meaning of κατηχέω; it may mean ‘to report, inform’ or ‘to instruct’ (cf. Acts 18:25; 21:21, 24; Rom. 2:18; 1 Cor. 14:19; Gal. 6:6**). It is possible that Theophilus had learned about Jesus by hearsay (Zahn, 58f.; H. W. Beyer, TDNT III, 638–640), but more probable that he had received formal Christian instruction. Although the rigorous catechumenate of a later age is unlikely in the early church, new converts were doubtless given careful training in the faith, and this Gospel itself contains material for such training (cf. especially Schürmann, I, 13, 15). At the same time Luke will have included in his intended audience those who had a minimal or defective knowledge of Christianity; he had an apologetic and evangelistic purpose, to present Jesus in such a way that any reader might accept him as Messiah, Lord and Saviour.

ἀσϕάλεια signifies ‘firmness’ (Acts 5:23); ‘safety, security’ (1 Thes. 5:3**); ‘certainty, reliability’ (cf. Acts 2:36; 21:34; 22:30; 25:26; also 2 Pet. 1:16, 19). λόγοι refers to the various pieces of instruction which Theophilus has already received. The compressed construction with relative attraction and inclusion of the antecedent in the relative clause can be expanded as ἐπιγνῷς περί τῶν λόγων οὓς κατηχήθης τήν ἀσϕάλειαν or ἐπιγνῷς τῶν λόγων περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης τὴν ἀσϕάλειαν. The former expansion is perhaps the more likely (BD 294⁵). By his method of presentation Luke wishes to show to Theophilus that reliable information was contained in the accounts which he had already received (van Unnik*). There may be a polemical reference to heretics who disputed the truth of the message, as it had been told to them. If many accounts of Jesus were circulating, Luke may have wished to enable his readers to sift out what was reliable from what was doubtful.

II

THE BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS

1:5 – 2:52

As a prologue to the ministry of Jesus Luke relates the story of his birth, showing how he was born as the Son of God and destined to bring salvation to the people. The narrative is interwoven with that of the birth of his forerunner who was to prepare the people for the coming of the Lord. The parallelism in structure between the two accounts (Laurentin, 32f.; Wink, 59) shows that John and Jesus were not regarded as rivals, but each had his proper place in the unfolding of the divine scheme of salvation. They are placed side by side but in such a way that the superior place of Jesus is evident. John is the ‘type’ who finds fulfilment in the ‘antitype’ Jesus and is surpassed by him. It is unlikely that he is regarded as a priestly Messiah alongside the royal Messiah; his role is rather that of a prophet (Laurentin, 110–116).

Throughout the narrative there is a wealth of allusion to OT parallels and prophecies which demonstrates both that God’s acts then were entirely consonant with his earlier dealings with his people and also that they fulfilled his earlier promises regarding the coming of the Messiah. The story itself is filled with the signs of God’s intervention to accomplish his purposes through the activity of angelic messengers, the wonderful conceptions of both John and Jesus, and other supernatural phenomena.

This combination of features raises in an acute form at the very outset the nature of the ‘reliability’ to which Luke referred in 1:4. Can stories so laden with interpretation be historical, and can the miraculous events be taken literally? Moreover, while mythological parallels can be adduced for several elements in the stories, they have no independent historical attestation in other early Christian literature (the independent account in Mt. 1–2 is very different in detail).

The problems raised by these considerations are difficult, even for those who are unwilling to rule out the possibility of the supernatural from the outset. It must be granted that the narratives in their present form are the work of a mind (or minds) steeped in the OT and consciously making use of that knowledge, so that some of the details in them are due to the desire to mould the story in the light of the OT. Moreover, the hymns attributed to some of the principal actors are unlikely to have been spontaneous compositions, but serve, like the speeches in ancient histories, to express the significance of the moment in appropriate language. The narrative as a whole has been moulded into a unitary composition and has a careful dramatic form. It is not surprising that it has been characterised as ‘legend’, in the sense that it is not based on history, and does not purport to convey it, but rather has the edifying purpose of indicating the religious status of John and Jesus (Hauck, 25f.). Again, it has been described as ‘midrash’ a term used to describe a literature based on exposition of the OT. In an attempt to bring some precision into an area bedevilled by loose terminology, Schurmann (I, 21–24) has characterised the style as akin to that of Jewish haggadic literature: the narrative presents the divine origin of Jesus by means of a typological understanding of the OT and the use of apocalyptic imagery. But Schürmann is careful to insist that Luke was making use of traditions and not writing off the cuff. Similarly, Ellis, 9, speaks of ‘interpretative alterations’ rather than the creation of events.

Such interpretation of the basic events may have been carried out by Luke or by the authors of the sources which he may have used. But did he have any sources?

Certainly the vocabulary and style of the narrative show considerable traces of his hand, and the theology is closely integrated with that of the rest of his work (Η. H. Oliver*; P. S. Minear*; Conzelmann’s claims to the contrary (9 n. 2, 160) are unconvincing). One could argue that Luke’s literary ability was equal to the composition of these narratives.

However, the narratives betray a Semitic background to a degree unparalleled elsewhere in Lk.-Acts. The whole atmosphere of the story is Palestinian. The language too is strongly Semitic, although the significance of this is disputed (R. Laurentin, Bib. 35, 1956, 449–456). 1. It may be explained as the result of the conscious adoption of Septuagintal style by Luke himself (Dalman, 39f.; N. Turner*; P. Benoit*; M. D. Goulder and M. C. Sanderson*). 2. The narrative may reflect an Aramaic source (Plummer, 7; Black, 151–156). 3. It may rest on a Hebrew source (Sahlin; P. Winter*; Scobie, 50–52; Laurentin, 12f.).

We can probably dismiss the second of these views, since there is little if any material that demands a specifically Aramaic background. With regard to the first, it must be admitted that the style of the whole section is Lucan, and that he often adopts a Septuagintal style (E. Plümacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller, Göttingen, 1972). The question is whether this is a sufficient explanation, a. There is a greater degree of Hebraic style in Lk. 1–2 than elsewhere in his writings. It is not obvious why Luke should have regarded it as especially ap-propriate in this section, b. P. Winter has argued that some of the linguistic phenomena are not explicable in terms of use of the LXX by a practised Greek writer (cf. 1:17, 37; 2:34). c. It should be recognised that different parts of the narrative may show different linguistic characteristics. Thus the case for postulating Hebrew originals for the canticles is very strong (R. A. Aytoun*; J. Wragg*). The situation with regard to the narrative is not so clear; certainly Sahlin found that most of it could be turned into Hebrew without undue difficulty, although his case for a full-scale Hebrew source (whose original wording can be restored by textual emendation) is not convincing.

These considerations suggest that Luke has made use of some material, especially the canticles, which was originally composed in Hebrew, although it may well have reached him in a Greek form. But the problem of unravelling the history of the tradition may well defy solution. The following appear to be the main types of solution.

1. The view that Luke himself created the narrative without documentary sources, but in dependence on oral material, still finds supporters, despite the linguistic and other evidence adduced above (Klostermann, ad loc; P. Benoit* (at least for the story of John); M. D. Goulder and M. C. Sanderson*).

2. Sahlin argues that there was a proto-Lucan document extending from 1:5 to 3:7a in Hebrew, and from 3:7b to Acts 1:15 in Aramaic; it contained the birth narrative as a continuous story, but various additions and alterations in order were made by Luke.

3. In various forms many scholars posit that the birth narratives have been composed on the basis of material from more than one in-dependent source. Particularly influential has been the view of D. Völter* that 1:5–80 is based on a source emanating from followers of John the Baptist; originally it recounted two announcements of John’s birth, one to his father and one to his mother, the latter having been replaced in the Gospel by the story of the annunciation which was modelled upon it. On this view, the Magnificat was originally placed on the lips of Elizabeth. The rest of the story is Christian legend.

Bultmann, 320–328, similarly held that 1:5–25, 57–66, was a Baptist legend, to which the originally independent hymns were added. The legend of the annunciation was independent, 1:34–37 being an addition by Luke himself. But 1:39–45 (which ignores 1:34–37) is a device to link together the two stories, and appears to be pre-Lucan, thus suggesting that the combination of the two stories antedated Luke. The narratives in 2:1–20, 22–40 and 41–52 were originally independent of one another and of the annunciation story; the link of the birth of Jesus with the census was made by Luke himself.

A very similar analysis was offered by M. Dibelius* (summarised in Dibelius, 120–124): 1:5–25, 57–66 is a Baptist legend. The story of the annunciation forms a second legend, which originally contained the motif of the virgin birth (contra Bultmann), but omitted any reference to Joseph. A third legend is that of the shepherds in 2:1–19. These were joined together by Luke who added the two hymns and the linking scene in 1:39–56. A fourth legend is contained in 2:22–38, which contains older elements, but has been heavily worked over.

4. In a number of publications, which the author was unable to synthesise in book form before his death, P. Winter* made an elaborate analysis of the birth narrative. Following Völter he argued for a Baptist source (B), originally in Hebrew, containing most of 1:5–80 and including an angelic announcement of John’s birth to Elizabeth. This has been most heavily edited in 1:26–38, 39–46a, 56. Second, a source close to Jesus’ family and strongly attached to the temple produced a Temple source (T), probably in Hebrew (possibly Aramaic), which contained the material in 2:22–39, 41–51a. Third, a so-called Nazarene adapter (N) combined these two sources, making the annunciation to Elizabeth refer to Mary and Jesus, and composing 2:4–21 as a counterpart to the story of John’s birth. The adapter was a Palestinian Jew who probably worked in Hebrew or ‘a sort of Hebrew-Aramaic mixture’. As for the hymnic material, the Magnificat and Benedictus were Maccabean war hymns used by the author of Β (who himself composed 1:76–79). Lk. 2:14 is a fragment from a Hebrew messianic psalm, while 2:29–32 and 34b–35 are fragments of Christian hymns used by N. Luke’s modifications were minor, except for the inclusion of 2:1–3.

5. A somewhat different analysis is offered by Leaney, 20–27, who finds two sources. The first, centred on Mary and the virginal conception, and possibly containing no reference to Nazareth or Joseph, comprised 1:5–45, 57–66, 80, 56; 2:21; ? 1:46–55. The second, centred on Jesus, knows nothing of signs before his birth but attests his messiahship to Mary and Joseph after his birth; it comprised 2:1–20; ? 1:46–55; 2:22–38; 1:68–79 (i.e. the Benedictus is attributed, with Sahlin, to Anna); 2:39–40; ? 2:41–52. This second source is probably earlier.

6. Schurmann, I, 140–145, holds that there was a unified Jewish-Christian Baptist narrative (1:5–25, 57–67, (68–75), 76–79, (80)), to which were added the parallel construction 1:26–38 and the linking narrative 1:39–56. But the stories about Jesus (1:26–38, 39–56; 2:1–20 (21); 2:22–38 (39f.) and 2:41–51 (52)) do not seem to have had any original connection with one another. The annunciation story in its present form was modelled on the Baptist story and linked with it; if an earlier form lay behind it, it can no longer be reconstructed. There may be a traditional link between 2:1–7 and 2:22–39. These stories come from Jewish Christian circles, and it is hard to date them, although the annunication story appears to be later than the Baptist story. The stories were probably put together in Palestine, and show little Hellenistic influence.

At the end of his investigation Schurmann has to confess that the tradition history of Lk. 1–2 is still wrapped in darkness. It appears most probable that Luke had sources at his disposal, and that these came from Palestinian Jewish Christian circles which had links with the family of Jesus. The view that these sources were independent of one another is not entirely convincing. But beyond this it is difficult to go, and we must be content to keep an open mind on the problem of Luke’s sources and hence on the historicity of the events recorded in them.

See A. Harnack, Luke the Physician, London, 1907; D. Völter, Die evangelische Erzählung von der Geburt und Kindheit Jesu kritisch untersucht, Strassbourg, 1911; R. A. Aytoun, ‘The Ten Lucan Hymns of the Nativity in their Original Language’, JTS 18, 1917, 274–288; V. Taylor, The Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth, Oxford, 1920; E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes, Berlin, 1924; K. Bornhäuser, Die Geburts- und Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu, Gütersloh, 1930; Machen; M. Dibelius, ‘Jungfrauensohn und Krippenkind’ (Heidelberg, 1932), cited from Botschaft, I, 1–78; Bultmann, 320–328; G. Erdmann, Die Vorgeschichte des Lukas- und Matthäusevangeliums und Vergils vierte Ekloge, Göttingen, 1932; M. S. Enslin, ‘The Christian Stories of the Nativity’, JBL 59, 1940, 317–338; Sahlin; P. Winter, ‘Some Observations on the Language in the Birth and Infancy Stories of the Third Gospel’, NTS 1, 1954–55, 111–121; id. ‘On Luke and Lucan Sources’, ZNW 47, 1956, 217–242; id. ‘The Proto-Source of Luke 1’ Nov.T 1, 1956, 184–199; N. Turner, ‘The Relation of Luke 1 and 2 to Hebraic Sources and to the Rest of Luke-Acts’, NTS 2, 1955–56, 100–109; P. Benoit, ‘L’enfance de Jean-Baptiste selon Luc 1’ (NTS 3, 1956–57, 169–194), cited from Exégèse, III, 165–196; R. Laurentin, ‘Traces d’allusions étymologiques en Luc I–II’, Bib. 37, 1956, 435–456; 38, 1957, 1–23; Laurentin (with bibliography); M. D. Goulder and M. C. Sanderson, ‘St Luke’s Genesis’, JTS ns 8, 1957, 12–30; R. M. Wilson, ‘Some Recent Studies in the Lucan Infancy Narratives’, TU, 73, 1959, 235–253; Η. H. Oliver, ‘The Lucan Birth Stories and the Purpose of Luke-Acts’, NTS 10, 1963–64, 202–226; P. S. Minear, ‘Luke’s Use of the Birth Stories’, SLA 111–130; W. B. Tatum, ‘The Epoch of Israel: Luke I–II and the Theological Plan of Luke-Acts’, NTS 13, 1966–67, 184–195; J. Wragg, ‘St Luke’s Nativity Narrative with Special Reference to the Canticles in the Light of the Jewish and Early Christian Background’, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Manchester, 1965; J. McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, London, 1975; R. E. Brown, ‘Luke’s Method in the Annunciation Narratives’, in J. W. Flanagan and A. W. Robinson (ed.), No Famine in the Land, Missoula, 1975, 179–194.

a. The Prophecy of John’s Birth (1:5–25)

The narrative begins with the announcements of the births of John and Jesus, so that the divine promises (1:5–56) can be seen to come to their fulfilment (1:57 – 2:52). The stories are deliberately parallel in form. Both show how the saving events were initiated by the action of God; in both the divine revelation about the birth and future role of the children is made by Gabriel, and in both a confirmatory sign is given as an earnest of the miracle to follow. The two stories are tied together by the facts that the confirmatory sign for Mary is the birth of her cousin Elizabeth’s child and that the greatness ascribed to John is an indication of the superior greatness that will be ascribed to Jesus.

The story follows familiar OT patterns. The situation of Zechariah and Elizabeth resembles most closely that of the aged Abraham and Sarah, but it also echoes the situations of Jacob and Rachel (1:25), of Samson’s parents, and of Samuel’s parents. John himself is described in a way reminiscent of Samson and Samuel, but his role is specifically that of a second Elijah whose task is to prepare for God’s visitation of his people; there is no direct mention of the coming Messiah, but the term ‘Lord’ (1:15, 17) would convey the thought of ‘Christ the Lord’ (2:11) to Christian readers. The greatness of the herald of this mighty event is foreshadowed by his wondrous birth which indicates that God has a rich destiny for him.

The accurate Palestinian background and the lack of Christian colouring are important features in determining the origin of the story. There is nothing here that demands its composition outside Palestine. The supernatural motifs in the story have their closest parallels in the OT and are related in deliberately reminiscent language. It has, therefore, been suggested that the story arose in a Baptist sect which flourished after John’s death. It produced a story which, in its original form, attributed high rank to John without recognising Jesus as the Messiah or John as his forerunner; it may even have regarded John him-self as the Messiah (cf. 1:17 note; so Bultmann, 320f.; Dibelius, Botschaft I, 8; and other scholars listed by Wink, 60 n. 1). In its developed form this view is very doubtful. It is not possible to uncover with any certainty an original form of the story in which John is given a position independent of Jesus, and certainly not one in which he himself was regarded as the Messiah. The existence of a Baptist sect which made such claims for John is also doubtful. It is more probable that some, possibly the most prominent, members of John’s circle became followers of Jesus and amalgamated their traditions with those of the Christian group which they entered (Wink, 71f.). If, however, there is a historical basis for the kinship of Elizabeth and Mary, the stories of John and Jesus may well have belonged together from the beginning. In any case it seems unlikely that the two annunciation stories, so similar in construction and atmosphere, existed separately in their developed forms.

There is nothing improbable in the view that Zechariah and Elizabeth had a child comparatively late in life, and that this event was seen in the light of similar events in the OT. Nor is it improbable that Zechariah may have suffered a stroke at the time. The historical problem is whether the narrative incorporating these events is meant to be taken literally or as a piece of symbolism indicating the importance of the child to be born. Schürmann’s suggestion (I, 32) that the device of the angel is used to symbolise how the OT cult is broken through from another world is artificial. If, however, the angel is not to be taken literally, the narrative as a whole becomes devoid of historical basis (beyond the birth of John to a previously childless couple).

The problem is, therefore, whether the coming of Jesus from God and his return at the resurrection (together with associated events) were literally surrounded by angelic appearances or had a significance which the Evangelists could not expound without the use of motifs that are symbolical rather than literal. So far as the exposition of the passage is concerned, the outcome of this debate is not important; the meaning of the passage is the same whether it be literal or symbolical. It is a different matter for the historian who is concerned to discover what really happened, and who wants to know whether the significance of John was indicated by a supernatural intervention or by means of the symbolism employed by an inspired narrator. Two extremes must be avoided. There is the extreme which insists on taking literally what was never meant to be taken literally and fails to do justice to the literary character of the Gospels. There is also the extreme which sees so little history in the Gospels that there remain no grounds for ascribing to Jesus (rather than to anybody else or perhaps to nobody) the significance which the Evangelists attached to his historical existence. Despite Lewis Carroll, it is impossible to have the Cheshire cat’s grin without the Cheshire cat as its bearer. The middle ground is adopted by those who insist that the several biblical narratives must be examined on their merits. Nor should the possibility be ignored that in a world which believed in supernatural phenomena it was appropriate for God to act in such a way in order to lead men to belief in him; it is intellectual snobbery for twentieth-century western man to claim that God should reveal himself in every age only in the way that he thinks is proper for his own age. If this point is granted, it still remains the case that the historicity of the present narrative cannot be positively established, since the origin and transmission of the tradition is obscure. Equally, however, the possibility of a historical basis to the narrative cannot be denied, since we have no historical knowledge that contradicts it. We must content ourselves with the cautious conclusion that a narrator, steeped in the OT, has brought out the theological significance of the birth of John; different readers will vary in their judgment to what extent supernatural elements were present in the events surrounding his birth.

See the bibliography to 1:5 – 2:52; Machen, 210–223; Wink, 58–82.

(5) Luke’s style changes abruptly from that of the preface to one strongly reminiscent of the LXX; for the form of the present verse cf. Jdg. 13:2. ἐγένετο means ‘there was’ (4:36; Jn. 1:6). ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις is a favourite phrase in Lk. (1:7, 18; 4:25; 17:26, 28; Acts 5:37; 13:41; see also 1:39 and note). ‘Ηρῴδης is here ‘Herod the Great’, ruler of Judaea 40–5/4 BC, and correctly described as ‘king’ (cf. 9:7 note; the omission of the article before a genitive is frequent in Lk.).’Ιουδαία is used in its wide sense (4:44; 6:17; 7:17; 23:5; Acts 1:8; et al.) and not in the narrow sense of the southern part of the country around Jerusalem as distinct from Samaria and Galilee (so 1:65; 2:4; 3:1; 5:17; 21:21; Acts 9:31; Zahn, 61 n. 50).

The name ‘Zechariah’ is frequent in the OT and means ‘Yahweh remembers’. On the assumption that the story originally existed in a