When Hans Von Baer Wrote Der Heilige Geist in Den Lukasschriften

The Spirit in Luke-Acts: A Case Study

By Allan Loder 2

Introduction

During the latter part of nineteenth century and early twentieth century most discussions on the Spirit in the Third Gospel centered on identifying Hellenistic cultic influences on Lucan Pneumatology.1 Devotees of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule [―school of the history of religion‖] sought to explain an apparent difference between Luke‘s view of the Spirit as ‗the power of miracle and revelation‘ and Paul‘s concept of the Spirit as ‗the inner principle of new-creation life‘ by suggesting that each author developed a distinctive Pneumatology that was shaped by the traditions and religious experience of his respective community of faith.2 It was thought that Paul—the first to describe the Spirit in terms of conveying salvation—developed his Pneumatology as a result of observing the ―effect‖ that the Spirit had on the lives of individual Christians.3 Luke‘s Pneumatology was regarded as the primitive Church‘s understanding of the Spirit that was based on a ―thoroughly Hellenistic encounter with πνεῦμα [pneuma = Spirit]‖4 Accordingly, the majority of material in the Gospels pertaining to the Spirit would be Hellenistic in origin, not Jewish.5 By the mid-1920s the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule‘s methods of investigation

1 For example, B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des Neun Testaments, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Hertz, 1873); O. Pfleidrer, Der Paulinismus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1873). 2 This was understood in the context of a view of early Church history that was based on Hegelian philosophy (i.e., thesis= Lucan Pneumatology; antithesis= Paul‘s Pneumatology). 3 See Hermann Gunkel, Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und der Lehre des Apostels Paulus, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1888); English translation, The Influence of the Holy Spirit: The Popular View of the Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the Apostle Paul, trans. Roy A. Harrisville and Philip A. Quanbeck (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979), 76. 4 Hans Leisegang, Der Heilege Geist; Das Wesen und Werden der Mystisch-Intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen, (Unveränderter reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausg. Leipzig u. Berlin 1919, Reprint, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1967), 4. cf. Pneuma Hagion: der Ursprung des Geistesbegrifts der Synoptischen Evangelien aus der griechischen mystik. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922. 5 Laisegang develops this idea in his second work, Pneuma Hagion, which was a reaction to E. Norden and A. Harnack who saw the gospel traditions as entirely Jewish in origin. For more on this see Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel‘s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. JPT Sup9. (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996), 26-29. 3 were deemed inadequate by those seeking to understand Luke within the context of his Jewish-Christian religious environment. Their point of contention was the religio-historical school‘s failure to take into account the developments in Jewish thought during the Second Temple period that most likely would have helped shape the Pneumatology of the early Church. In 1926 two books were published— Friedrich Büchsel‘s Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament6 and Hans von Baer‘s Der Heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften7—that challenged the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule‘s conclusions concerning the nature of the gift of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. Büchsel and von Baer attempted to explain the apparent difference between Luke‘s view of the Spirit as ‗the power of miracle and revelation‘ and Paul‘s concept of the Spirit as ‗the inner principle of new-creation life‘ by suggesting that Luke and Paul differed only in what they chose to emphasize about the Spirit‘s work. Both NT writers shared a common ―Jewish‖ Pneumatology that can only be understood against the backdrop of Jewish expectations of the Spirit—particularly those based on Jewish interpretations of relevant OT texts. Hence, any attempt to understand Luke‘s concept of the Spirit by examining possible influences from foreign (i.e., Hellenistic) cults would be misdirected.8 Büchsel and von Baer essentially set the agenda for nearly all subsequent major scholarly investigations of Lucan Pneumatology. Although few have agreed fully with their conclusions, their methodology has been widely accepted. Consequently, nearly all scholarly discussions on the Spirit in Luke-Acts since 1926 approach the subject by examining the Jewish traditions and sources that would have informed Luke‘s concept of the Spirit. Büchsel‘s and von Baer‘s contributions also raised a fundamental question concerning Lucan Pneumatology that continues to be the subject of considerable scholarly debate. Does Luke view the Spirit essentially as the Spirit of ‗new-

6 Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1926. 7 Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926. 8 von Baer, Der Heilige Geist, 4. 4 creation life‘ (i.e., conversion-initiation, ethical renewal, etc.), or essentially as an empowering for mission, or both? A survey of published materials from all sides of the debate shows that a key passage for understanding the nature of the gift of the Spirit in Luke-Acts is Luke‘s account of Jesus‘ experience of the Spirit at Jordan (Luke 3:21-22). James D. G. Dunn9 believes that this passage is about Jesus‘ initiation into ‗new covenant life‘ and ‗sonship‘—which Dunn sees as paradigmatic for the Disciples‘ conversion-initiation into the Christian faith. The OT background for Luke, says Dunn, is the Jewish expectation of the Spirit based on interpretations of Ezekiel 36. The major weakness with this view, however, is that Luke neither quotes nor alludes to Ezekiel 36.10 Conversely, Robert Menzies11 and Roger Stronstad12 see Jesus‘ Jordan experience as a Messianic anointing with power for mission—which they view as paradigmatic for the Disciples‘ experience of the Spirit as an empowering for mission (e.g., Acts 2). They cite Luke‘s use of Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:18- 19) and LXX Joel 3:1-5 ([MT Joel 2:28-32] Acts 2:17-21) as evidence that the Spirit for Luke is the ‗Spirit of Prophecy‘ referred to in early Jewish writings. However, Menzies and Stronstad fail to explain Luke‘s statements pertaining to the effect of the Spirit on the life of the Christian community itself (Acts 5:1-11; 6:3-5; 11:24; 13:52), as well as Luke‘s concern that all believers should receive the gift of the Spirit. Therefore, a solution is needed that does justice to both aspects of Lucan Pneumatology—i.e., the Spirit as the source of ‗new-creation life‘ and as an empowering for mission. The purpose of this paper is to examine Luke‘s account of Jesus‘ ―sermon‖ in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30)—which seems to be a Lucan explanation of Jesus‘ experience of the Spirit at Jordan—in order to determine what

9 Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today. Naperville, Illinois: Alec R. Allenson, 1970. 10 Surprisingly, Dunn ignores Luke‘s use of Isa 61 and LXX Joel 3. 11 Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Sheffeld: JSOT Press, 1994. 12 The Charismatic Theology of Saint Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984. 5 this passage reveals about the essential nature of the gift of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. That Luke intentionally makes a connection between the baptism narrative and the Nazareth pericope is evident from his redactional references to the Spirit in 4:1 (πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου[plērēs pneumatos agiou = ―full of the Holy Spirit‖) and

4:14 (ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος [en tē dunamei tou pneumatos = ―in the power of the Spirit‖]).13 Furthermore, Luke‘s departure from the regular sequence of events in the gospel tradition (cf. Mark 6:1-6; Matt 13:53-58),14along with the addition of Jesus‘ claim to fulfill Isa 61:1-2, suggests that this pericope serves a special

―programmatic‖ function in Luke-Acts.15

Luke 4:16-30: Luke’s Source(s) and the Redaction of Isa 61:1-2 (58:6d)

So far, no consensus has been reached among scholars concerning how much of Luke‘s Nazareth pericope is directly dependent on his source(s) and how much of it is a Lucan construction.16 Yet there is little doubt that Luke used a source or sources besides Mark and ―Q‖ when he composed his account of Jesus‘ ―sermon‖ in the synagogue at Nazareth.17 According to Luke, Jesus begins his public ministry in the same town where he grew up (4:16). He is handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah and reads from it what seems to be Isa 61:1-2. However, what Jesus actually ―reads‖ is a conflation of Isa 61:1a, b, d; 58:6d and 61:2a. Two phrases are omitted from the Isaianic text

13 For more on this, as well as the ‗programmatic‘ significance of the Nazareth pericope see Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts (London: SCM Press, 1987), 65-72. 14 Although apparently aware of Jesus‘ earlier ministry in Capernaum (cf. 4:23), Luke makes this the first event in Jesus‘ public ministry. 15 For more on this see Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: I-IX, The Anchor Bible Commentary, vol. 28 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 529; R. L. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology and Conciliation (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1987), ch. 2 passim; H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (London: SPCK Press, 1968), 187-189. 16 For more on this see J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 526-528; Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 35a, 273-274. 17 Contra E. Haenchen who sees no evidence of any source besides Mark. See ―Historie und Verkündigung bei Markus und Lukas.‖ In Das Lukas-Evangelium, ed. Georg Braumann (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974), 287–316. 6 cited in Luke chapter four: Isa 61:1c (―to heal the broken-hearted‖18) and Isa 61:2b (―the day of recompense‖ LXX ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως [hēmeran antapodoseōs], yom naqam l‘elohinu]). A] יום נקם לאלהינו or―the day of vengeance of our God‖ MT phrase from Isa 58:6, (―to set free those who are oppressed‖ τεθραυσμένους ἐν

ἀφέσει [tethrausmenous en aphesei]) is inserted at the end of v. 18. Otherwise, the citation of Isaiah is essentially in verbal agreement with the text of LXX19—except for the change from καλέσαι (kalesai = ―to call out, call for‖) in 61:2a to κηρύξαι

(keruxai = ―to proclaim, preach‖) in v.19a. It has been suggested that Luke‘s conflated text is due to a ―slip of memory‖ on his part as he attempted to cite Isa 61:1-2 without the aid of a written copy in front of him.20 However, this is improbable for the following reasons: (1) Given that healing occupies much of Luke‘s attention in the pericopae that follow (e.g., 4:23-27; 38-40; 5:12-26), it is unlikely that he would have ―forgotten‖ the reference to healing in Isa 61. It is ―difficult to see why an author who introduces Septuagintal diction into a narrative would then depart from the text of the LXX when he comes to the words which are at the heart of the story;‖21 (2) The phrase εὗρεν τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον [euren ton topon ou en gegraphemmenon = ―he found the place where it was written‖] in v.17 suggests that Luke had a specific passage in mind that would ensure the validity of Jesus ministry as the fulfillment of OT prophecy; (3) As Adolf Schlatter points out, the syntax resulting from the

18 A 0102 f1 Φ f vgcl syp.h bomss; irlat has ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ [iasasthai B D L W א tous suntetrimmenous tē kardia = ―to bind up the brokenhearted‖]. It does not appear in f1 33 579 700 892 pc lat sys co; or Eus Did. Given the importance and wide geographical distribution of those witnesses in favour of the absence of this phrase, it was probably added to the textual tradition—perhaps in an attempt to harmonize Luke 4:18-19 and Isa 61:1-2. Adonai) אדני יהוה i.e., against the Hebrew MT. e.g., κυρίου (kuriou =―Lord‖) instead of 19 ve·la·'a·su·rim) ולאסורים YHWH = ―of the Lord Yahweh‖), and τυφλοῖςtuphlois = ―blind‖) instead of = ―to those bound,‖ ―prisoners‖). 20 Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke, ICC 4th ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901), 121. 21 Bruce Chilton, ―Announcement in Nazara: An Analysis of Luke 4:16-21,‖ In Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, vol. 2. ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 164. 7 position of ἐν [en = ―in‖] in the inserted phrase in v. 18 is uncharacteristic of Luke‘s literary style;22 (4) The Aramaic form Ναζαρά [Nazara] in 4:16 reflects a traditional source—probably Palestinian in origin.23 Luke consistently uses the form Ναζαρὲθ [Nazareth] elsewhere; and (5) The embedding of one OT quotation within another is found nowhere else in the NT, and such embedded citations are rare in Judaism.24 This unusual feature suggests that the version of the Isaianic text in Luke 4:18 must have come from one of the Evangelist‘s distinctive sources—i.e., not shared by the other Gospel writers.25 Therefore, ―one can say not only probably but with a degree of certainty that this passage is a product of neither Luke‘s memory nor of his theology, but the voice of his tradition.‖26

Intertextual Signifiers: The Citation of Isa 61:1-2 (58:6d) in Its Lucan Context

While extensive literary-critical analyses of Luke 4:16-30 is outside the scope of this study, some of the methodology is used in the present investigation to determine what evidence there is for a ‗link‘ between the Third Gospel and some of the Jewish writings composed during the Second Temple period. The term ‗link‘ does not imply that Luke was dependent on those texts for literary source material. Rather, in the context of this study two or more texts are said to be ‗linked‘ when

22 ―Anti-Judaism and New Testament Scholarship,‖ In Joseph B. Tyson, Luke, Judaism, and the Scholars: Critical Approaches to Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999), 226-227. 23 J. Fitzmyer suggests that Ναζαρά [Nazara] reflects a more ancient Semitic form of the name, Anchor Bible Commentary, vol. 28, 530. See also C. J. Schreck, ‗The Nazareth Pericope: Luke 4.16-30 in Recent study,‖ in The Gospel of Luke, ed. F. Neirynck (Leuven: University Press, 1989), 399- 471. 24 Max Turner, Power From On High: The Spirit in Israel‘s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. JPT Sup 9 (Sheffeld: Academic Press, 1996), 216. 25 For more on this see G. N. Stanton, ―On the Christology of Q,‖ In Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley (Cambridge: University Press, 1973), 33-34. The hypothesis that Luke himself added Isa 58:6d to Isa 61:1-2 in order to make the connection between Jesus‘ preaching and the ―forgiveness of sins‖ cannot be sustained. See Turner, Power From On High, 222-223. 26 Chilton, ―Announcement in Nazara,‖ 164. 8 they share a common interpretative tradition.27 It is assumed that most scripture is ―used by individuals and their communities as mediated to them by their contemporaries and immediate forebears.‖28 The Lucan community would have inherited certain exegetical traditions associated with a number of OT texts. The aim here is to identify intertextual signifiers 29 in Luke 4:16-30 and its near context that indicate Luke‘s use of these interpretative traditions in the writing of his Gospel. Luke explicitly states that his purpose for writing is to offer an ―orderly account‖ (διήγησις[diēgēsis]) of what was already known by his intended audience, in order to verify the faithfulness of the testimony given in the tradition handed down to them (cf. Luke 1:1-4). Since the Evangelist‘s first readers were familiar with much of the material presented, it stands to reason that the Third

Gospel reflects a pre-Lucan tradition. Although there is no known example in Jewish writings where Isa 61:1-2 and 58:6d are brought together, there are instances where Isa 61 is related to other texts pertaining to Jubilee ‗release‘ (Lev 25; Deut 15).30 Within the Qumran corpus,

27 The term used in the field of literary theory to signify such a relationship among texts is ‗intertextuality.‘ It was first applied to literary theory by Julia Kristeva in her essay "Word, Dialogue and Novel," first published in French in Séméiotiké: recherches pour une sémanalyse (Paris: Seuil, 1969) and available in English in The Kristeva Reader ed. Toril Moi (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986) 35-61. For more on ‗intertextuality‘ see Michael Worton and Judith Still, eds, Intertextuality: Theories and Practices (Manchester: University Press, 1990). With respect to Jewish exegetical traditions, see Sipke Draisma, ed. Intertextuality in Biblical Writings; essays in Honour of Bas van Israel. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989. 28 George J. Brooke, Shared Intertextual Interpretations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature , Hebrew University, 1996), 1 29 The term signifier is used in the field of literary theory to refer to any linguistic form that is used by an author to construct and/or convey meaning. A group of signifiers constitutes a sign- system. In intertextuality theory, the method of determining meaning from a text is to take a work of literature and evaluate that text by other texts. As one (or several) sign-system(s) is transposed from one ‗setting‘ into another, it is believed that some of its ‗meaning‘ is carried with it—even though the author of text in question may ‗transform‘ older signifiers into something new. See Kristeva, The Kristeva Reader, 102-111. cf. Revolution in Poetic Language, trans. Margaret Waller (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 59-60. 30 For more on Isa 61 in Judaism see J. A. Sanders, ‗From Isa 61 to Luke 4,‖ in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. Jacob Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 75-106. 9 one document that stands out as having parallels to Luke 4 is 11Q13 (11QMelchizedek). This is a pesher-exegesis with references to Lev 25:9, 13, Deut 15:2, Ps 82:1-2; Ps 7:8-9, Dan 9:26, Isa 52:7 and Isa 61:1-3. In 11Q13 the text of Isa 61:1-3 serves as the ―organizing framework‖ for the author‘s discussion concerning a coming messianic eschatological Jubilee.31 According to 11Q13, Israel‘s ultimate Jubilee is to be inaugurated by an exalted figure (Melchizedek?) who arrives at the end of the tenth Jubilee period (lines 7-9) to ―proclaim liberty‖ (lines 4-6), and to release the captives from the power of Belial (lines 15, 25). This exalted figure is ―the anointed of the Spirit‖ who will both announce and bring salvation to Zion (lines 18-19). A survey of Jewish literature from the Second Temple period shows that there was a distinct tradition in Judaism of using the language of Jubilee release to depict salvation (cf. Pss. Sol. 11; Shemeneh ‗Esreh 10; Jubilees 23:11-32).32 That Jubilee imagery is being picked up by Luke is signified in part by the word ἄφεσις [aphesis] in the phrase inserted from Isa 58:6—which seems to have a different sense in Luke 4:18 than elsewhere in Luke-Acts.33 The ordinary meaning of ἄφεσις [aphesis] in Greek is ―release,‖ ―liberty,‖ ―freedom,‖ et cetera.34 When a different meaning is intended, some indication is usually given by the author. In Luke-Acts

31 Turner, Power From On High, 226. 32 This tradition goes back at least to the time of Deutero-Isaiah. It is already evident in Isa 61:1-2 (cf. Lev 25; Deut 15). See John D. W. Watts , Isaiah 34–66. Word Biblical Commentary, vol.25. eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1987), 299-305; M. Miller, ―The Function of Isa. 61:1–2 in 11Q Melchizedek,‖ JBL 88 (1969): 467–469. 33 Contra Robert Menzies who proposes that Luke would have read the word in Isa 58:6d to mean ―forgiveness of sins,‖ in keeping with the regular meaning of the term in Luke- Acts. See The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology With Special Reference to Luke-Acts (Sheffeld: JSOT Press, 1991), 171-173. cf. C. M. Tucket, ―Luke 4,16-30, Isaiah and Q,‖ in Joël Delobel, ed. Logia: Les paroles de Jesus—The Sayings of Jésus (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1982), 248. For more on why this hypothesis cannot be sustained see Turner, Power From on High, 222-226. 34 In 40 of the 45 occurrences of ἄφεσις [aphesis] in LXX the reference is to literal release from debt or oppression of some kind. The exceptions are Exo 18:2 (Moses ‗released‘ Zipporah into her father‘s care); 23:11 (laws that fields should be left unfarmed [i.e., ‗released‘ from being farmed]); Lev 16:26 (the Scapegoat ‗released‘ into the wilderness); Eze 47:3 (water ‗released‘ [i.e., flowing out] from the temple) and Judith 11:14 (‗permission‘ granted by elders). There is no example in LXX where ἄφεσις [aphesis] refers to ‗forgiveness‘ of sins. 10

ἄφεσις [aphesis] is nearly always used in the sense of ―forgiveness,‖ and Luke indicates this by collocating ἄφεσις [aphesis] and ἁμαρτιῶν [hamartiōn = ―of sins‖] (cf. Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18). The one exception is in Luke 4:18—which is clearly part of the Evangelist‘s source material and not a Lucan composition—where ἄφεσις [aphesis] is collocated with αἰχμαλώτοις (aichmalotios = ―captives‖). Hence, the kind of ‗release‘ depicted in Luke 4 seems to be the same as that envisaged in Isaiah. Luke‘s use of Jubilee imagery is also signified by the content of the genealogy in Luke 3:23-38—which serves to prepare the reader for interpreting the account of Jesus‘ ―reading‖ of Isa 61:1-2 (58:6d) in terms of Jubilee. Luke places the genealogy of Jesus between the Baptism account (3:21-22) and the Temptation narrative (4:1-13). This is followed by a summary statement concerning the beginning of Jesus‘ Galilean ministry (4:14-15), and the Nazareth pericope (4:16-30). Luke‘s version of Jesus‘ genealogy is especially relevant to the debate that follows Jesus‘ ―reading‖ and interpretation of Isa 61:1-2 (58:6d). The crowd‘s refusal to hear the message announced to them is indicated by their (rhetorical?) question, ―Isn‘t this Joseph‘s son?‖ (4:22).35 ―But the reader who has followed Jesus through his virginal conception and childhood, anointing in baptism, and testing by the devil knows that this ‗son of Joseph‘ is truly the ‗son of God‘ (cf. 2:48-50), appointed to inaugurate God‘s reign.‖36 From the reader‘s perspective, the question about Jesus‘ ancestry immediately draws attention to the genealogy in Luke 3:23-38. Unlike Matthew, who is concerned primarily with Jewish origin, Luke traces Jesus‘ genealogy all the way back to Adam, ―[the son] of God‖(τοῦ θεοῦ[tou theou]). Luke‘s division of world history into seventy-seven generations is significant because it reflects a chronological scheme found in some ‗Intertestamental‘ Jewish apocalyptic

35 Contra Fitzmyer, who sees the query as an expression of ―pleasant surprise or admiration.‖ (The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 353). 36 David Tiede, Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980), 38. 11 writings, such as 4Q202 (4QEnochb, Col. IV = Ethiopian 1 Enoch 10:8-12). In 4Q202 the heavenly figure Michael37 is told to bind the Watchers for ―seventy ge[nerations in the valleys of] the earth until the great day [of their judgment].‖38 In the Lucan genealogy Enoch is the representative of the seventh generation from Adam— which is a common Jewish tradition (cf. Gen 5; 1 Chr 1:1-3; Jude 14). By placing Jesus in the seventieth generation after Enoch, Luke has a total of seventy-seven generations leading up to the time of Christ. ―For a mind concerned with the symbolic significance of sevens special significance also attaches to seven times seven—the jubilee figure of forty-nine. It cannot be accidental that in the Lukan genealogy the name Jesus occurs not only in seventy-seventh place, but also in forty-ninth place—where the only namesake of Jesus among his ancestors appears (Luke 3:29).‖39 While it cannot be proven that Luke (or the composer of his source material) knew 1 Enoch, or that Jubilee chronology was common to Judaism in general, at the very least it can be said that there is something ―Enochic‖ behind the composition of the Lucan genealogy.40 In 4Q202 the great Day of Judgment comes at the end of seventy generations (i.e., ten periods of seven generations each). In 11QMelchizedek the Day of Atonement comes at the end of the tenth jubilee period (cf. lines 7-9). In the Third Gospel ―the year of the Lord‘s favour‖ is inaugurated by Jesus, who is the representative of the seventy-seventh generation. A common theme in 4Q202 (=Ethiopian 1 Enoch), 11QMelchizedek and Luke is that an

37It is widely agreed that the names ―Michael‖ and ―Melchizedek‖ often refer to the same eschatological figure in apocalyptic literature. See A. S. Van der Woude, "Melchisedek als Himmlische Erlosergestalt in den Neugefundenen Eschatalogischen Midraschim aus Qumran Hohle XI" (Melchizedek as Heavenly Savior Figure in the Newly Found Eschatological Midrash From Qumran Cave 11) Oudtestamentische Studien 14 (1965): 354-373; James R. Davila, ―Melchizedek, Michael, and War in Heaven,‖ SBL 1996 Seminar Papers (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996): 259-72; Gareth Lee Cockerill, "Melchizedek or King of Righteousness," EQ 63 (1991): 305-312; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Now This Melchizedek..." (Heb 7:1)," CBQ 25 (1963): 305-321; "Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11," JBL 86 (1967): 25-41. 38 Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (New York: Brill, 1999), 407. 39 Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990), 319. 40 For more on this see Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, 315-373. 12

―anointed‖ eschatological figure arrives at the end of world history to free people from the power of evil (Belial, Watchers, Satan/evil spirits. cf. Luke 4:31-37; 4Q201 Col. I, 15-16 = Ethiopian 1 Enoch 1:9-12;41 11QMelchizedek Col. II, lines 13-25). It seems that the best explanation for these thematic and schematic parallels is that all three authors shared a similar interpretative tradition. According to Luke 4:21, when Jesus had finished ―reading‖ Isa 61:1-2 (58:6d) he proclaimed to the crowd, ―Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.‖ In the original context of Isa 61:1-2, the one speaking is the prophet (Isaiah?). Yet, Jesus cites this text as a prophecy about himself. He was not the first to interpret such OT texts eschatologically or messianically, for this type of pesher- exegesis was common in Second Temple Judaism—at least at Qumran (cf. 11Q13, 4Q521, 11Q19, 4Q174, 4Q385, 4Q500). The only other time that Luke alludes to Isa 61:1-2 is in chapter 7, where there is a question concerning Jesus‘ messianic identity. In Luke 7:18-23 the story is told about some disciples of John the Baptist who were sent by their master to inquire whether Jesus is the ―coming one‖ or if they should ―look for another‖(7:18-20). Jesus responds to their question by listing six ‗signs‘ that confirm his identity: (1) ―the blind receive sight‖ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν [tuphlois abablepsin]), (2) ―the lame walk,‖ (3) ―the lepers are cleansed,‖ (4) ―the deaf hear,‖ (5) ―the dead are raised,‖ and (6) ―the poor have good news preached to them‖ (7:22). Apparently, no other explanation was needed because Jesus was doing the very things expected of the Messiah (cf. 7:21). This list of ‗signs‘ for recognizing the Messiah—which

41 In Ethopian 1 Enoch 48:10, this eschatological figure is callad the ―Anointed‖ of the ―Lord of Spirits.‖ 42 This seems to be a reference to LXX Isa 61:1. There is no counterpart to τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν [tuphlois abablepsin] in the MT (i.e. Hebrew Bible), the Qumran MSS of Isaiah, or the Targum of Isaiah. 13 was part of the Q source of the Gospels (cf. Matt 11:5//Luke 7:22)—seems to belong to a very early tradition shared by the followers of John the Baptist and the

Christian community.43

A document from Qumran that is particularly helpful for understanding some of the interpretative tradition(s) behind Luke‘s Gospel is 4Q521 (4QMessianic Apocalypse). In 4Q521 (Frags. 2 col. II, lines 8 and 12-13) there are two lists of ‗signs of the Messiah‘ that combine elements from Isa 61:1, Deut 32:39, Ps 146:7-8, and Isa 35:5.44 That these ‗lists‘ are similar to the one in Luke 7:22 is immediately apparent. But what is especially significant about 4Q521 is that it contains a statement about ‗raising the dead‘ as one of the expectations of the messianic age. It reads, ―[for] he will heal the badly wounded and will make the dead live, he will ,Frags. 2, col. II) ]כי[ ירפא חללים ומתים יחיה ענוים יבשר ‖proclaim good news to the poor line 12). The last phrase is a quote from Isa 61:1, but there is nothing in the Hebrew Bible about a messianic figure raising the dead. Actually, 4Q521 is the only known example besides Q (= Luke 7:22//Matt 11:5) where ‗raising of the dead‘ is said to be a ‗sign‘ of the Messiah.45 ―Through this Dead Sea Scroll fragment, coupled with the early Q source of the Gospels, we are taken back to a very early common tradition within Palestinian Judaism regarding the ‗signs of the Messiah.‘‖46 A comparative analysis of portions of Luke and certain documents from Qumran reveals that there is a definite a ‗link‘ between the Third Gospel and some of the Jewish writings composed during the Second Temple period. Of course, care should be taken not to minimize the fundamental differences between the religious

43 See Fitzmeyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 662-665. heal the wounded‖) seems to echo Isa 61:1. But it is― ירפא חללים) The first item in line 12 44 the form probably found in the Vorlage of LXX Isa 61:1, not the form found in MT. For an extensive discussion on the text of 4Q521 see Emile Peuch, La Croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? (Paris: Libr. Lecoffre : J. Gabalda, 1993), 627-692. 45 Although resurrection of the dead is associated with Israel‘s ‗restoration‘ in Isa 26:19 and Dan 12:1-3. 46 James D. Tabor and Michael Wise, ―4Q521 ‗On Resurrection‘ and the Synoptic Gospel Tradition: A Preliminary Study,‖ in Qumran Questions, ed. James Charlesworth (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1995), 162. 14 movement(s) at Qumran and the early followers of Jesus Christ. Christianity is not a product of Qumran. Still, the evidence suggests that some of the Jewish interpretative traditions reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls also played a part in shaping the theological perspective of the earliest Church. Given the similarities among them, it is hard to imagine how these religious communities could have belonged to a substantially different conceptual world. Therefore, Luke‘s Jewish- Christian background must be considered when interpreting Luke-Acts.

Luke 4:16-30 in Light of First-Century Jewish Expectation(s) of the Spirit

Luke‘s ‗explanation‘ of the effect of the Spirit on Jesus in Luke 4:16-30 is decisive for understanding the essential nature of the gift of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. The presence of intertextual signifiers in Luke 4:16-30 and its near context confirms that the Evangelist‘s ―orderly account‖ (διήγησιν [diēngēsin]) of the tradition ―handed down‖ to the earliest Christians (Luke 1:1-4) reflects first-century Jewish- Christian thought. Consequently, Luke‘s concept of the Spirit must be understood against the backdrop of first-century Jewish expectation(s) of the Spirit—especially those expectations based on eschatological messianic interpretations of Isa 61:1-2. A survey of literature from Qumran, as well as other Jewish apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic writings, shows evidence of a variety of Pneumatologies within Judaism during the Second Temple period.47 Therefore, it would be inappropriate to think of any one concept of the Spirit as though it represented the view of first- century Jews. Nevertheless, the tradition used by Luke in his account of Jesus‘ ―sermon‖ in the synagogue at Nazareth held a view of the Spirit that is fairly common among groups within Second Temple Judaism. In the opening chapters of his Gospel Luke highlights the central role of the

47 See Matthias Wenk, Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke- Acts JPT Sup19 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000), chaps. 3-5. 15

Holy Spirit as the ―driving force of salvation-history‖48 (e.g., the Spirit is responsible for Jesus‘ conception [1:35]; Elizabeth and her baby are filled with the Spirit [1:15, 41]; Zechariah is filled with the Spirit [1:67]; the Spirit comes on Simeon with a revelation and guides him to visit the Temple as Jesus is brought to be circumcised [1:25-27]). As the story unfolds, the reader is frequently reminded that the Holy Spirit is at work behind the scenes to bring about Israel‘s restoration and ruch] pneuma]) is generally] רוח) witness (cf. Acts 2:15-39). God‘s Spirit represented in two ways in Judaism: (1) as the invisible activity of God in power and (2) as God‘s presence in revelation and wisdom.49 In Luke-Acts the Spirit‘s presence and action is ultimately that of God,50 so that what is accomplished in and through the Messiah (Jesus) and his followers is clearly God‘s work in salvation- history (e.g., Luke 1:68; 7:16; 8:39; 11:20; 19:37; Acts 2:22-36; 14:27; 15:4,12; 19:11). The question of whether Luke‘s account of the Spirit‘s effect on Jesus should be understood in prophetic or messianic terms is the subject of much scholarly debate.51 However, the distinction between ‗prophetic‘ and ‗messianic‘ references to Jesus in Luke-Acts cannot be drawn easily. The evident connection between 4:18 and 7:22 shows that even though the immediate context of Luke 4:16-30 suggests that Jesus‘ ―anointing‖ (cf. 3:22) should be understood primarily as prophetic, the

48 Hans von Baer, Der heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften. BWANT 39 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926), 191. 49 See Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament Church and Today. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 3-16. 50William Shepherd, Jr. The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke-Acts, SBL Dissertation Series 147 (Atlanta: Georgia, Scholars Press, 1994), 101. 51 In his commentary on Luke, John Nolland offers a solution by suggesting that the Evangelist probably has a prophet-like-Moses/royal-Davidic/Messianic figure in view (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 25). The crux of Nolland‘s argument is that Luke‘s free use of christological titles allowed him to refer to Jesus in both prophetic and messianic terms. For those favouring a ‗prophetic‘ interpretation see I. de la Potterie, ―L‘onction du Christ.‖ NRT 80 (1958) 225–52; Ferdinand Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology; Their History in Early Christianity trans. Harold Knight and George Ogg (London, Lutterworth Press, 1969), 381–82; Peter Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 1: 225-234:142–146, 225–230; C. E. Freire, ―Jesus profeta, libertador del hombre: Vision lucana de su ministerio terrestre.‖ EE 51 (1976) 463–95. For those favouring a ‗messianic‘ interpretation see Robert Tannehill, ―The Mission of Jesus According to Luke iv 16–30,‖ in Jesus in Nazareth, ed. W. Eltester. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), 51–75; and Michael Dömer, Das Heil Gottes (Köln; Bonn: Hanstein, 1978), 61. 16 messianic implication is never far from view. In some Jewish circles the speaker in Isa 61:1-2 was clearly thought of as a prophetic figure. The Targum of Isaiah reads, ―The prophet said, ‗The spirit of prophecy from before the Lord Elohim is upon me.‘‖52 Yet the Jubilee language in 4:16-30 and its near context—along with the Jewish messianic interpretations attached to Isa 61:1-2—shows that by the first century the prophet-liberator motif had been taken up in ―a new eschatological and messianic garb.‖53 Luke, therefore, can refer to Jesus in both prophetic and messianic terms. God is said to have made Jesus ―both Lord and Christ‖ (Acts 2:36), and to have raised him up as a Prophet-like-Moses (Acts 3:22 cf. Luke 2:11, 26; 4:41; 9:20; 1:76; 24:19; Acts 2:22; 7:37). ―It is also noteworthy that, in the redaction of Lk. 7.11-35, the one who fulfills Isa. 61.1 (v.22) is identified with the one earlier designated as ‗a mighty prophet‘ (v. 16).‖54 In 11Q13 and 4Q521 the Spirit-anointed figure is said to be enabled not only to proclaim release to the captives, but also to liberate them. A similar tradition is found in other messianic interpretations of Isa 61:1-2 (e.g., Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs). The ‗Anointed One‘ (T. Dan. 5:10-11; T. Levi 18:11-12) releases Israel from spiritual powers (T. Zeb. 8:8) and liberates every captive (T. Levi 3:2-3; T.Sim 6:6). In Luke 4:16-30 Jesus ‗anointing‘ is said to be an empowering both to declare and to effect ―liberation.‖ Jesus is portrayed in Luke as preaching the Kingdom of God and performing miraculous deeds (healings, exorcisms, etc.). In Acts 10:38 Jesus‘ ‗anointing‘ is explicitly mentioned in relation to his ―doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil.‖ 4Q521 (Frags. 2 col. II, lines 5-6) explicitly states, ―For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name. Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.‖55 Here the actions of the Messiah are clearly connected to the Spirit‘s work among the poor and the renewal of the faithful.

52Stenning, J. F., ed. The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953. 53 Turner, Power From On High, 226. 54 Ibid., 237. 55כי אדני חסידים יבקר וצדיקים בשם יקרא יעל ענוים רוחו תרחף ואמונים יחליף בכחו 55 17

The theme of Jubilee release--evident in Isa 58:6 and 61:1-2—is actually part of a larger ‗New Exodus‘ motif. The Jubilee year was originally intended to ensure relative social and economic equality within the Israelite community (Lev 25:1-54). In the OT prophetic writings the ―call to repentance was linked to a call to re- establish the social order [that] originated with the Exodus event (cf. the ‗Exodus society‘ in Lev. 25.35-42 and the ‗monarchic society‘ in 1 Kgs 5.13-18).‖56 Israel‘s repentance meant undoing the injustices that resulted from not following God‘s instructions for living (i.e., Torah cf. Amos 1-4). By the Second Temple period, the ‗New Exodus‘ motif had taken on an eschatological dimension. Consequently, Jubilee release was understood as deliverance from various forms of oppression. The ‗poor‘ meant all those who had been disenfranchised in any way, not just socially or economically. The passages in Luke-Acts that describe the effect of the Spirit on the lives of those who hear and respond positively the ‗good news‘ confirm that the expectations pertaining to the messianic age are being realized by God‘s people (cf. Luke 5:27-31; 7:36-50; 19:1-10; 24:13-53; Acts 5:1-11; 6:3-5; 11:24; 13:52). A new community of faith (a new Israel[?]) has emerged having been created and empowered for mission by the Spirit (Acts 2:38)—i.e., the source of ‗new-creation life.‘

Conclusion

When the Jewish interpretative traditions behind Luke‘s Gospel are taken into account, it seems that Luke would have been rather surprised to learn that some interpret his emphasis on the presence of the Spirit in missionary activity as somehow downplaying the Spirit‘s work as the source of ‗new-creation life.‘ An examination of Luke 4:16-30 in light of first-century Jewish expectation(s) of the Spirit shows that Luke would have inherited from his Jewish background a tradition that included a view of the Spirit as both an ‗empowering for mission‘ and

56 Matthias Wenk, Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Academic press, 2000), 204. 18 as the source of eschatological ‗life‘ and ‗sonship.‘ Behind Luke‘s presentation of the Spirit as the ―driving force of salvation history‖57 lies a Pneumatology that is built on Jewish interpretative traditions associated with certain OT texts that viewed the Spirit as God‘s invisible presence at work bringing about the restoration of Israel. ―The direct self-characterization of Jesus provides indirect characterization of the Spirit as well—the Spirit which anointed Jesus is the kind of Spirit who enables proclamation and deliverance.‖58 The Spirit empowers Jesus and his followers for missionary service, and shapes the entire existence of the Christian community itself.

57 Hans von Baer, Der heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften. BWANT 39 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926), 191. 58 Shepherd, Narrative Function, 136.

Bibliography

Baer, H. von. Der heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften. BWANT 39, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926.

Bauckham, Richard. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990.

Braumann, Gerog, ed. Das Lukas-Evangelium. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974.

Brawley, R. L. Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology and Conciliation. Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1987.

Brooke, George J. Shared Intertextual Interpretations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature , Hebrew University, 1996.

Cadbury, H. J. The Making of Luke-Acts. London: SPCK Press, 1968.

Charlesworth, James. ed. Qumran Questions. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1995.

Cockerill, Gareth Lee. "Melchizedek or King of Righteousness," EQ 63 (1991): 305- 312.

Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

Davila, James R. ―Melchizedek, Michael, and War in Heaven,‖ SBL 1996 Seminar Papers. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996.

De la Potterie, I. ―L‘onction du Christ.‖ NRT 80 (1958): 225–252.

Delobel, Joël. ed. Logia: Les paroles de Jesus—The Sayings of Jésus. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1982.

Dömer, Michael. Das Heil Gottes. Köln; Bonn: Hanstein, 1978.

Draisma, Sipke, ed. Intertextuality in Biblical Writings; Essays in Honour of Bas van Israel. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989.

Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today. Naperville, Illinois: Alec R. Allenson, 1970.

______. "Birth of a Metaphor: Baptized in the Spirit, Part One," Expository Times 89 (February, 1978): 134-138.

______. "Birth of a Metaphor: Baptized in the Spirit, Part Two," Expository Times 89 (March, 1978): 173-175.

Eltester, Walter. ed. Jesus in Nazareth. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972.

Ervin, H. M. Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit: An Engaging Critique of James Dunn‘s ―Baptism in the Holy Spirit‖. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984.

Evans, Craig A. and James A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: the Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Theology. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.

______. The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

______. The Gospel According to Luke, Anchor Bible 28-28A, 2 vol. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.

______. "Now This Melchizedek..." (Heb 7:1)," CBQ 25 (1963): 305-321.

______. "Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11," JBL 86 (1967): 25- 41.

France, R. T. and David Wenham Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. vol. 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.

Freire, C. E. ―Jesus profeta, libertador del hombre: Vision lucana de su ministerio terrestre.‖ EE 51 (1976): 463–95.

Gunkel, Hermann. The Influence of the Holy Spirit: The Popular View of the Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the Apostle Paul. trans. Roy A. Harrisville and Philip A. Quanbeck. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979.

Hahn, Ferdinand. The Titles of Jesus in Christology; Their History in Early Christianity. trans. Harold Knight and George Ogg. London: Lutterworth Press, 1969.

Hull, J. H. E. The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles. London: Lutterworth Press, 1967.

Jervell, Jacob. The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Johnson, Luke T. Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.

Kristeva, Julia. Revolution in Poetic Language, trans. Margaret Waller. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.

______. The Kristeva Reader trans. Toril Moi. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Leisegang, Hans. Der Heilege Geist; Das Wesen und Werden der Mystisch-Intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen, (Unveränderter reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausg. Leipzig u. Berlin 1919, Reprint, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1967)

______. Pneuma Hagion: der Ursprung des Geistesbegrifts der Synoptischen Evangelien aus der griechischen mystik. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922.

Lindars, Barnabas and Stephen S. Smalley, eds. Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Cambridge: University Press, 1973.

Martínez, Florentino García and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. New York: Brill, 1999.

Menzies, Robert P. ―The Distinctive Character of Luke‘s Pneumatology,‖ Paraclete 25 91991): 17-30.

______. The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology With Special Reference to Luke-Acts. Sheffeld: JSOT Press, 1991.

______. Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Sheffeld: JSOT Press, 1994.

Miller, M. ―The Function of Isa. 61:1–2 in 11Q Melchizedek,‖ JBL 88 (1969): 467– 469.

Neirynck, F., ed. The Gospel of Luke. Leuven: University Press, 1989.

Neusner, Jacob. ed. Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Peuch, Emile. La Croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? Paris: Libr. Lecoffre : J. Gabalda, 1993.

Pfleidrer, O. Der Paulinismus. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1873.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke, ICC 4th ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901.

Ravens, David A. S. Luke and the Restoration of Israel. JSNT Sup 119. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Schweizer, Eduard. ―Pneuma...,‖ TDNT 6:332-445.

Shellard, Barbara. New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context JSNT Sup215. Sheffeld: Academic Press, 2002.

Shepherd, William H., Jr. The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luk-Acts. SBL Dissertation Series 147. Atlanta: Georgia, Scholars Press, 1994.

Stenning, J. F. ed. The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.

Stronstad, R. The Charismatic Theology of Saint Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. Das paulinische Evangelium. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968.

Sanders, Jack T. The Jews in Luke-Acts. London: SCM Press, 1987.

Tannehill, Robert C. Luke. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996.

______. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, 2 vols. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1991-1994.

Tuckett, C. M. Luke‘s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement 116. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Talbert, Charles H. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Reading the New Testament Series. New York: Crossroad, 1999.

Tatum, W. B. ―The Epoch of Israel: Luke i-ii and the Theological Plan of Luke- Acts,‖ NTS 13 (1966-1967): 184-195.

Tiede, David Lenz. Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

Turner, Max. The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament Church and Today. rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

______. Power From on High: The Spirit in Israel‘s Restoration and Witness in Luke- Acts. JPT Sup9. Sheffeld: Academic Press, 1996.

Tyson, Joseph B. Luke, Judaism, and the Scholars: Critical Approaches to Luke-Acts. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999.

Van der Woude, A. S. "Melchisedek als Himmlische Erlosergestalt in den Neugefundenen Eschatalogischen Midraschim aus Qumran Hohle XI" (Melchizedek as Heavenly Savior Figure in the Newly Found Eschatalogical Midrash From Qumran Cave 11) Oudtestamentische Studien 14 (1965): 354- 373.

Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34–66. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 25. eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1987.

Weiss, B. Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des Neun Testaments. 2nd ed. Berlin: Hertz, 1873.

Wenk, Matthias. Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Academic press, 2000.

Worton, Michael and Judith Still, eds. Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester: University Press, 1990.