Index

Back

Next

There is a growing interest among scholars nowadays to consider both the NT books ascribed to 'Luke', as one long literary work. As such it is referred to as 'Ad Theophilum', all that was addressed 'to Theophilus'. It is a long story, starting in Jerusalem, and ending in Rome. The results are yielding many new and fascinating insights which enhance our appreciation of the text, and our admiration for the anonymous author whom we call 'Luke'. There is little external evidence of him. Tradition says he was a native of Syrian Antioch, and legend describes him as a doctor, an artist, who knew Mary, and painted her portrait.

It is possible to learn more of him from his writings. He was without doubt, a very well-educated Gentile, with a wide knowledge of Greek rhetoric, Greek poetry, literature, history and religion. He was possibly a Godfearer in a synagogue, where he also became very familiar with all the Jewish writings, in their Greek, Septuagint, translation, and possibly one of Paul's converts, somewhere in Greece or Macedonia. Paul was undoubtedly his major hero, - even if he did not fully understand Paul's deepest theology! Luke was indeed an artist in his elegant style of writing Greek. His very first sentence, (Lk 1.1-4), is one of the most beautifully constructed sentences in all of Greek literature.

Luke also had a great interest in writing 'History'. He was very familiar with the Greek method of historiography, which is still what we would recognise as 'History' in our Western, post-Enlightenment world. It is mainly political history, with an emphasis on the causes and effects of past events, which can be verified by evidence from other texts, or artefacts, from Archaeologists, Geographers, and other experts in their own fields.

Luke, however, was also thoroughly conversant with the very different style of history-writing, developed by the Jews. They wrote history in which God, the Creator, was the prime Mover, directing events to suit His own plan for His chosen people, and whose intentions were announced through the words of the prophets, called, and commissioned by Him, to disseminate His Word to His people, (ie. the style of the OT). So Greek-style History-writing today, speaks of a Big Bang, and the course of Evolution, while Jewish style History-writing still speaks of God, a Garden, and Adam and Eve. Many people, even today, confuse the two!

Luke's contemporary, Josephus, wrote Jewish history in the Greek style, very differently from Scripture, but Luke wrote Christian history, using Greek techniques, but in the Jewish style, as a believer. A faith style!

Luke's is known as 'Salvation History', and has been described by the German scholar, Hans Conzelmann, as dividing into three phases.

• The first covers all time before Jesus;
• the second is the pivotal time of Jesus;
• and the third is all the time since Jesus.

In 'Ad Theophilum', the Gospel fills the second phase; the story of the Church, in The Acts, moves into the third; but both are thoroughly infused in style, in vocabulary, and in thought, from the first phase, the Jewish background and Hope, which would be truly realised, only when all the nations were included, - (at some future time in phase three).

By the time that Luke was writing, probably in the late 80s, two developments were dominating the life of the Church communities.

First, the separation between synagogue and church had become more entrenched, and secondly, more and more new Christians had no Jewish background at all.

Surprisingly, there is much less anti-Jewish polemic than might have been expected, (cp Mtth.23), even when Luke's hero, Paul, so often suffered at the hands of his fellow-Jews, and especially so, when he was striving to present Christianity as a separate religion to the Romans. The reason appears to be in his overall AIM, to hold the door of the Church open, - in the hope, one day, that it would include both Jews and Gentiles.

Secondly, Luke used much subtlety to incorporate the newcomers, without insisting that they become 'cut off' from their Gentile roots, for as all historians know, awareness of roots enable people to understand themselves in the present, and only then see their way forward into the future. The future, for Luke, would be the fulfilment of all God's promises to the Jews, which would shine out to the nations, and incorporate all of them with the Jews. Remember Simeon's 'song' in the Temple, in Lk.2, at the very beginning of 'Ad Theophilum'.

Luke's subtlety in doing this, is described by literary critics as 'amphibology', and has been described very well in a recently published book by Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian, (CUP, 2002).

Amphibology can appear to be ambiguity, or vagueness, but it is a skilful means to enable different people to read the same text, and understand it differently, in whatever way is most appropriate to themselves. It is not unique to Luke, and is found in other 1^st cent. writings, eg from Qumran, and in Jewish Midrash. The following examples are highlighted by Marguerat:

1. The use of the word 'saviour', in Lk.1, would conjure up messianic ideas to Jewish readers, but Gentiles would immediately think of Caesar Augustus, who brought peace to the world after 200 years of political turmoil, and piracy on the high seas.
2. Luke's birth narrative of a virgin conception, is a familiar Gentile motif, but found nowhere at all in Jewish background. However, Luke wrote it in literary terms so full of familiar Jewish motifs, with the Angel Gabriel, the shepherds, and songs infused with OT themes, that it does not seem 'Gentile' at all.
3. Luke's genealogy of Jesus would have been expected by Gentiles, as well as fulfilling Jewish expectations.
4. The Ascension of Jesus from a mountain, would have been understood easily by Jews familiar with all the apocalyptic writings, and at the same time would have been 'obvious' to Gentiles familiar with stories of 'the Hero' ascending to a new home on Mount Olympus. And remember, dead Emperors were now deified!
5. Luke used the Greek word, 'kurios', for Jesus, 'Lord and Christ'. A Jew would instinctively connect that with the Hebrew, YHWH, translated LORD in English, but to a Gentile, (like the Canaanites of old), the word meant the landlord, or Master of the slaves.
6. In Acts 18.13, Luke wrote, 'to worship God in ways that are contrary to the law'. Jews would have thought of the Torah, and Gentiles of Roman Law.
7. Luke had more difficulty in describing the common sharing of possessions in Jerusalem, in ch 4. He wrote it twice: v 34 for the Jews, picking up the phraseology of Deut.15.4, and v 32 for the Gentiles, quoting a slogan of Greek friendship.
8. Luke's story of Pentecost, in Acts 2, is told as a typical Jewish theophany, but spelt out with a long list of all the Gentile nations to whom it applied.

This strategy of double meanings, and the bringing together of opposites, had an interesting effect on the substance of Luke's story: he had to bring together Peter and Paul, as if they were friends! The row described by Paul in Gal.1&2 has disappeared from Luke's narrative. It was now better to forget bitter arguments of long ago, and promote a theology of inclusion, rather than exclusion!

There are two more important issues in The Acts, to be considered. First is the three different accounts of the Conversion of Paul, and the second, the unexpected, and surprising ending to the whole work, Ad Theophilum.

Paul's Conversion. It was noted, in Session 42, that Luke 'repeated' his descriptions of people, modelling them on previous characters, so Peter did and said similar things to Jesus, and then the same is said of Paul, as the story builds up. Here the same atmosphere is evoked by three tellings of the same very important event in The Acts. It is indeed, the turning point in The Acts, as is Peter's confession of faith, and the theophany of the Transfiguration, in the Gospel, ch.9. It is the end of the 'old', and the unfolding of the 'new'.

It is the story, told by the narrator, of a complete turn-around in the life of Paul, (still called Saul in ch.9), as Saul, the persecutor, set off from Jerusalem to Damascus, and became instead, the persecuted, and hounded out of Damascus and Jerusalem. The story is told as a typical theophany in OT style, with an important role for Ananias, in the full style of a Jewish prophet. Through Ananias, God's plan for Saul is communicated to him, that he is to be God's instrument, chosen to bring the gospel to 'Gentiles, and Kings, and before the people of Israel' (9.15f). It must be noted, that in Luke's Salvation History, God is always taking the initiative, and in charge, but resistance comes from within the community, from Peter and James in Jerusalem. God, however, always aims at universality.

There are two more accounts of this same event, but both written into speeches by Paul. The first in ch.22, is addressed to the Jews outside the Temple, as the doors were emphatically 'shut'. Paul addressed his 'brothers and fathers', and spoke 'in the Hebrew language', spelling out his impressive Jewish credentials and zeal for the God of his ancestral faith. In this telling, Ananias's role is reduced to that of 'interpreter' of Paul's calling, before Paul returned to the Temple, where he heard Jesus telling him to leave quickly. He thus had his call confirmed, in the Temple, - where the Risen Jesus was active. At this point in the narrative, Paul, like Jesus before, was rejected by the Jews, and sent onwards towards death. Paul appealed to Caesar, so eventually was on the way to Rome. (NB there is still no anti-Jewish polemic, even at this point in the narrative).

The third account of the conversion of Paul, in ch 26, is very different in style. It was addressed to two very literate and highly cultured men, Herod Agrippa, the friend of the Emperor, and the Roman Governor, Festus.

It was aimed at Luke's most sophisticated, Gentile audience, and is one of the climaxes in his narrative. There are no Jewish allusions, only a Greek proverb, about 'kicking against the goads'. Paul is totally in centre place, speaking confidently in the first person singular, and with no mention at all here, of Ananias. Even Paul's mandate from Jesus is expanded, 5 verses long, so his mission is now fully integrated with his calling, - to open their eyes that 'they may turn from darkness to light'. At the end of Ad Theophilum, Paul is built up, on the earlier motif of Jesus as the 'light to the gentiles'. . (Again, remember Simeon in the Temple).

In the Author's theological theme, the Risen Jesus is the transforming power in history, the culmination of part-one, and the foundation of part three.

The Puzzling End. The end of Ad Theophilum is surprising. At first it seems to end very weakly, but not so.

After all the fuss of Paul's appeal to Caesar, and the long and hazardous journey to Rome, there is no trial - only ch 28.17-25. In Rome, Paul, in spite of his 'chains', was able to summon the Jewish leaders, who were interested to hear about 'this sect'. Paul preached to them, explaining 'from Moses and the prophets', (just as Jesus had done on the road to Emmaus at the end of the Gospel), only to experience the same reaction which has been building up in chs 13 - 20, 'some were convinced, but others refused to believe'. Like Jesus, Paul was rejected by the 'rebellious' people to whom he had been called, - and like the prophet, Isaiah. (Is. 6.9-11)

It is for Luke's readers in the continuing here and now, to continue the task of part three in Salvation History.

The lack of anti-Jewish polemic, holds the door of the Church open to the future, when all God's promises to His people, the Jews, and all the nations, will finally be fulfilled.