ABSTRACT Interweaving Innocence: A Rhetorical Analysis of Luke’s Passion Narrative Heather M. Gorman, Ph.D. Mentor: Mikeal C. Parsons, Ph.D. At least three issues remain unsettled with regard to the interpretation of Luke’s passion narrative: (1) the sources that Luke employed when composing his narrative; (2) how best to translate δίκαιος in 23:47 and how this confession contributes to Luke’s characterization of Jesus; and (3) the function of the parallels between Jesus in his passion narrative and characters in Acts. Past and current approaches to these issues— source, redaction, and literary criticism—have left the conversation at somewhat of an impasse. This dissertation approaches Luke’s passion narrative (Luke 22:66–23:49) and the issues associated with it with a compositional-rhetorical method. It explores Luke’s use of Mark as well as Luke’s final product with insights gained through the ancient rhetorical tradition. Several techniques and exercises described in the rhetorical handbooks and progymnasmata—refutation and confirmation, rhetorical figures, synkrisis, narration, and paraphrase—help elucidate Luke’s compositional techniques, characterization of Jesus, and the function of the parallels between Luke and Acts. Thus, this study entails a new approach to old problems. This dissertation works toward solutions to the interpretive questions by first describing the interpretive questions and the various solutions proposed in recent years. It then describes and justifies the compositional-rhetorical methodology employed in the study. Next, it discusses the tools needed for a compositional-rhetorical analysis, including an understanding of ancient education and the relevant exercises described in the rhetorical tradition. That understanding provides the necessary foundation for the analysis of Luke 22:66–23:49, which the dissertation treats in two smaller units: 22:66– 23:25 (the formal trial) and 23:26-49 (the informal trial). These sections follow the argument of Luke’s passion narrative, noting how Luke’s structure, style, and use of sources relate to the techniques previously described. The dissertation concludes by synthesizing the material in the previous chapters and ultimately argues that (1) Luke did not use a non-canonical written source when composing his passion narrative; (2) a translation and interpretation of the centurion’s confession must acknowledge the political implications of δίκαιος; and (3) through the parallels between Jesus, Stephen, and Paul, Luke sets up these characters as models for his audience to imitate. Copyright © 2013 by Heather M. Gorman All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables viii Acknowledgements ix Chapter One: Introduction 1 The Problem 1 Interpretive Issues in Luke’s Passion Narrative: The State of the Question 2 The Sources of Luke’s Passion Narrative 2 The Translation of δίκαιος 11 Luke’s Passion Narrative, Parallels, and the Purpose of Luke-Acts 16 Observations 23 Rhetorical Criticism of Luke’s Passion Narrative: A Proposal 24 Methodology 24 Argument and Framework 33 Chapter Two: Tools for a Rhetorical Analysis 36 Introduction 36 Ancient Education: A Brief Synopsis 36 Focusing on the Sources: Extant Progymnasmata and Rhetorical Handbooks 43 The Progymnasmata 43 The Rhetorical Handbooks 54 The Exercises 57 Refutation and Confirmation 58 Rhetorical Figures 67 v Synkrisis 69 Narration 74 Paraphrase 78 Relationship between the Exercises 87 Chapter Summary 89 Chapter Three: Scene 1: The Pre-Trial Hearing (22:66-71) and the Formal Trial (23:1-25) 91 Introduction 91 The Big Picture: A Comparison of the Arrangements of Mark and Luke 96 Setting the Stage: The Pre-Trial Hearing (22:66-71) 102 The Formal Trial—The Pilate Scene (23:1-25) 112 The Accusations (23:1-3) 112 Refutation 1: Pilate (23:4) 118 Confirmation 1: The Jewish Leaders (23:5) 120 Refutation 2: Herod and Pilate (23:6-16) 121 Confirmation 2: The Chief Priests, Rulers, and People (23:18-21) 136 Refutation 3: Pilate (23:22-25) 138 Chapter Four: Scene 2: The Transition to the Cross (23:26-32) and the Informal Trial (23:33-49) 143 Transition: From the Trial to the Cross (23:26-32) 143 The Information Trial—The Crucifixion Scene (23:33-49) 159 Confirmations 3, 4, 5: Rulers, Soldiers, and First Criminal (23:33-39) 159 Refutation 4: Second Criminal (23:40-43) 169 Refutation 5: Darkness and Rending of the Veil (23:44-46) 174 vi Refutation 6: The Centurion (23:47-49) 184 The Big Picture 194 Chapter Five: Synthesis and Conclusion 196 A Return to the Rhetorical Techniques 196 Refutation and Confirmation 196 Rhetorical Figures 199 Synkrisis 202 Narration 209 Paraphrase 213 Summary 216 Implications for Interpreting Luke 216 The Sources of Luke’s Passion Narrative 217 The Translation of δίκαιος 218 Luke’s Passion Narrative, Parallels, and the Purpose of Luke-Acts 219 Conclusion 222 Bibliography 224 Primary Sources 224 Secondary Sources 225 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Contents of the progymnasmata organized by author 51 Table 2. Order of events in the passion narratives of Mark and Luke 97 Table 3. Luke’s reorganization of Mark 15:1-5 116 Table 4. Markan material in Luke 23:6-16 125 Table 5. Responses to Jesus on the cross in Luke and Mark 164 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is humbling to think of all the people who have contributed to my educational journey, which reaches its formal culmination in this dissertation. My Bible professors at Cincinnati Christianity University introduced me to academic study of the Bible and were among the first to encourage me to minister to the church through teaching. It was a joy to study under them, as it is now a joy to call them friends and colleagues. This dissertation is somewhat of a tribute to Drs. Kenneth Cukrowski and James Thompson, two of my beloved professors at Abilene Christian University, who kindled in me a love for both the Gospel of Luke and ancient rhetoric—two of my research interests that come together in this project. I am especially grateful to the New Testament professors at Baylor who have guided me academically and professionally over the last four years. They set high expectations for their students and equipped us to meet those expectations. I hope this dissertation is a reflection of the excellence expected of Baylor’s New Testament doctoral students. I offer my foremost thanks to Dr. Parsons who has been a mentor to me in every sense of the word over the last four years. I cannot overestimate the value of his willingness to help me develop this project, his expertise in Luke-Acts and ancient rhetoric, and his commitment to helping me finish this dissertation as I began my first full-time teaching position. Dr. Iverson provided invaluable guidance throughout my writing process. This dissertation is better because of his insights into the Gospel of Mark and his insistence on careful writing. Drs. Longenecker and Novakovic served as final readers for this project, which is fitting in light of the feedback and encouragement they ix willingly provided for me during my time at Baylor. Finally, Dr. Medhurst introduced me to the larger field of rhetorical criticism and graciously served as my third reader. I was truly blessed with wonderful colleagues at Baylor—Nick, Brian, David, Peter, Lindsey, Mike, Justin, and Scott, to name only a few. Their encouragement academically, professionally, and spiritually made me a better scholar, teacher, and person. It was a joy to share this leg of my academic journey with them. My parents and sister have supported my education from the very beginning through their prayers, visits, and ceaseless encouragement. Their commitment to the Lord inspires my work. Finally, words cannot adequately express my gratitude toward my husband, Jamey, who supported me on good days and bad with his patience, faith, constancy, optimism, and love. x CHAPTER ONE Introduction The Problem Luke’s passion narrative is distinct from those of Matthew, Mark, and John in several ways: it includes content that the others do not, it strongly emphasizes Jesus’ innocence, and it has parallels with the trials and deaths of main characters in Acts. These differences, along with other facets of Luke’s passion narrative, have resulted in Luke’s passion narrative being one of the most studied sections of Luke’s Gospel. Despite this attention, at least three issues remain unsettled with regard to the interpretation of Luke’s passion narrative. First, scholars debate what sources Luke used in composing his narrative—did he use only Mark, additional written sources, oral traditions, or some combination of these three? Second, scholars debate the best translation of δίκαιος in the centurion’s confession in 23:47, along with how this relates to Luke’s larger characterization of Jesus. Third, scholars debate the function of the parallels between Jesus in Luke and Paul and Stephen in Acts. How do these parallels contribute to Luke’s larger purpose? I begin this study by exploring how scholars have approached these interpretive issues along with their various solutions. Since these approaches have left the conversation in somewhat of a stalemate, I then propose to approach these interpretive issues in Luke’s passion narrative anew with the aid of rhetorical criticism. 1 Interpretive Issues in Luke’s Passion Narrative: The State of the Question The Sources of Luke’s Passion Narrative The presence of several unique features in Luke’s passion narrative and an order somewhat distinct from Mark’s have led to a mass of speculation on the sources behind Luke’s passion narrative. While the question over the sources of Luke’s passion narrative cannot be divorced from the larger question of the sources of Luke’s Gospel,1 Luke’s account of Jesus’ death has its own set of problems that has led the source-critical discussion in its own direction.